OK, I said evidence, not proof. I recognize that many of you will find this completely unconvincing and easily dismissed. Feel free.
I was watching a nature program a couple of night ago. It was about agressive insects. In one segment they talked about weaver ants. These bugs work together to take down prey many times larger than they are individually. They do this by swarming the prey, biting it repeatedly while injecting it with venom then taking it apart and eating the bits. They showed this happening to a large caterpillar. It was one of the most disturbing things I've seen on TV. The caterpillar was writhing around, clearly in pain. It was covered with ants that were biting, pinching, and chewing all over it. The video segment of this lasted for several seconds. To the caterpillar it must have seemed like eternity in hell.
Here we have two creatures just doing what they do. A caterpillar minding its own business and a group of ants out providing for their young. From these seemingly innocent motives comes a moment of near unimaginable cruelty and pain. How does one reconcile this with the concept of a benevolent creator who keeps tabs on each sparrow? To me it is more evidence of a random uncaring universe self-shaped by brute force and amorality.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
This is largely unrelated since when it comes to me you're preaching to the choir, but I sometimes find it amazing how these kinds of TV segments can convey emotion. For example, the music video for the Philosopher Kings' (You Don't Love Me) Like You Used To shows an extreme close-up of two snails copulating. I swear to you that it is one of the sexiest things I have ever seen on television. I don't know how they made it sexy, but they did. Unbelievable.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
>>How does one reconcile this with the concept of a benevolent creator who keeps tabs on each sparrow? To me it is more evidence of a random uncaring universe self-shaped by brute force and amorality.
In the Christian religion, natural misery and horror on earth are generally explained by the Fall.
But you probably knew that.
Posted by Corwin (Member # 5705) on :
Well, KarlEd, I'm with you on this one: I can't understand a God that would allow so much cruelty. And I'm not talking only about ants towards caterpillars stuff. I don't buy the "greater good" nor the "mysterious ways" interpretations. As Roger Zelazny had one of his characters say in "Lord of the Light", I'd rather have a merciful God than a just one. And I see no mercy in everyday life dramas - no justice either, for that matter.
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
The Problem of Pain is something some of the greatest Christian writers have wrestled with.
I think that if you just can't reconcile it that God would want you to be an Atheist.
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
quote:Originally posted by Scott R:
In the Christian religion, natural misery and horror on earth are generally explained by the Fall.
But you probably knew that.
Well, yes. I guess for me this provides a vivid example of the failing of this particular intellectual justification. How does one man's mistake justify all the random cruelty in the world. Human cruelty can at least be explained by a divine need to preserve free will. Do you believe that weaver ants did not exist in Eden, or that they were not carniverous? Or something else? How do you believe the fall changed that? Do you believe weaver ants choose to inflict pain and suffering rather than eat grass and will be judged accordingly? or were they unwillingly changed by The Fall into amoral inflicters of torture and death?
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
It's not one man's mistake, but the capture of earth by what can loosely and without melodrama be called "the forces of evil". Why an Omnipotent God would choose to lose part of the battle just to give us a chance at freewill and autonomy is the mystery, and a good one.
Posted by Chaz_King (Member # 3184) on :
Good question.. I don't have an answer.
I could ask why my 3 year old dog got a brain tumor and had seizures and had to be put to sleep.
I could ask why my Sister has MS and was diagnosed with it at the age of 22.
I could ask why her father in law has Lou Gherig's Disease and will slowly fade away until he dies.
I could also ask why her Step father in law has prostate cancer, or perhaps why my mother in law has breast cancer.
I could also for that matter ask why my dad who has smoked since he was 14 and is now 50 has the lungs of a 21 year old athlete.
I am still reading through the Bible so I will have to get back to you on what God says.
Posted by Corwin (Member # 5705) on :
Jim-Me: Hmm, but suppose there's a God that wants you to be an Atheist because of these reasons, would you accept his judgment when that day would come? I remember seeing an episode of "The Twilight Zone" where a mother receives God's command to kill her child, and then at the "end of time" she's the only person that refuses God's judgment because she can't understand how such a God would have the moral authority to judge her. That's somewhat my position too; I mean, I'd like to have a *looong* explanation of God's reasons before accepting to be judged by Him. Otherwise I'd feel tricked into accepting a judgement without knowing all the circumstances.
Posted by scottneb (Member # 676) on :
*lost his faith*
Thanks Karl! You meanie!
Posted by Kayla (Member # 2403) on :
quote: How does one man's mistake justify all the random cruelty in the world.
Silly KarlEd. It wasn't Adam's mistake. Eve was the one who did it. It's all a woman's fault. Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
You see, it doesn't matter which type of God you want, though. We have what we have, not what we want...
Kwea
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
This only casts doubt on the Christian all-knowing, a-powerful, all-merciful God. Still the possibility of a less-perfect God running things, or one that started everything off and is now watching it go.
Posted by Xavier (Member # 405) on :
I wouldn't think God is deserving of worship just because he exists. Its not like existance is all that hard to pull off. Somehow I managed to exist, after all .
Posted by Clarifier (Member # 8167) on :
to me it seems that if God had wanted us to believe in him, he wouldn't have given us rationalism. if God does exist, and he's this all powerfull, rational being, then even "he" shouldn't believe in "himself" (if only english were more like german.. damn lack of neutral pronoun).
haha i love that
Posted by scottneb (Member # 676) on :
The simplest way to answer this is with the action reaction arguement. That is to say, for every negative thing that happens there is an equally positive thing that happens. Everything on earth has an opposite. For every evil there is good, for every good there is evil. This concept is key to our free-agency.
Posted by Kayla (Member # 2403) on :
quote: For every evil there is good, for every good there is evil.
So, every time something good happens to you, or you pray for something good to happen, do you feel guilty, knowing that it means that something bad is happening to someone else, or that you are basically praying for something bad to happen to someone else?
Posted by scottneb (Member # 676) on :
...and if a bunch of roving, barbarian ants is the best evidence you can uncover for a lack of God, I think your looking in the wrong place.
Posted by Corwin (Member # 5705) on :
So if there is a God I'm supposed to worship Him just like that?! Huh, no thanks. I appreciate certain things in people, things that make them "good" in my eyes. If God isn't an "improved" version of a good person, then I see no reason in worshiping Him. It's like looking up to someone you don't think is better, why the heck would you do that? 'Cause He exists?! Edit: Or because he's more powerful than you?! "The ultimate bully"??
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Yes, because us being helpless to prevent an evil from happening when a good does clearly preserves free agency.
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
Seriously, I don't expect to change anyone's mind by this thread. The episode I mentioned simply drove home to me something I've long suspected. I'm sure it's very similar to someone who sees God's hand in the exquisite construction of every flower and the unnecessary beauty of the rainbow. We're both approaching the evidence with some degree of preconceived verdict. However, unnecessary beauty and seeming design are not really problems in an atheistic view of the universe, but wanton suffering and cruelty are problems in the "Benevolent Creator" view of the universe. To me they are problems only inadequately and tortuously addressed. When applied to my example, "The Fall" comes across to me with the same degree of reality as the story that spiders spin a dull monochromatic tapestry because Arachne offended the Gods with her hubris. YMMV.
Posted by Corwin (Member # 5705) on :
fugu, you were answering scottneb, right? Otherwise I'm really confused. Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Yeah, silly fast moving thread.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
quote:This only casts doubt on the Christian all-knowing, a-powerful, all-merciful God. Still the possibility of a less-perfect God running things, or one that started everything off and is now watching it go.
But who cares, right? Aren't you an apatheist?
quote:The simplest way to answer this is with the action reaction arguement. That is to say, for every negative thing that happens there is an equally positive thing that happens. Everything on earth has an opposite. For every evil there is good, for every good there is evil. This concept is key to our free-agency.
But this isn't true. Even a cursory glance at our world shows that there is far more "evil" than "good." Action-reaction only works for forces in Newtonian mechanics calculations.
Posted by Ramdac99 (Member # 7264) on :
Read Worthing Saga.........without pain we would know no joy, without fear there can be no calm. without death, life is meaningless.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Hang on. The Fall could hardly happen before the human species existed, right? So short of believing in a really literal interpretation of Genesis, how to explain all those dinosaurs and whatnot that died in agony before any creature with free will walked the Earth?
Posted by Chaz_King (Member # 3184) on :
Karl.. the answer is that the catepillar had actually been torturing flowers and other plants by slowly eating them and killing millions of bacteria and other cells slowly through a proccess called "Digestion".
The ants were actually the liberators of a place called "The Lawn", and seeing as the rebelion took place with mob justice, the only thing left to do was to loot the riches that were left behind so they could take some extra food home to their controling wife that they all answer to.
It was a fleeting moment in ant history that will probably be forgotten in the history books behind such things like the great burning of "yesterday" when a giant being managed to focus a sun ray in order to kill off half of the population of one colony, not to mention when the giants decided to use chemical weapons on unsuspecting civilian ants on an nice summer day.
It completely ruined the picnic.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
Bwahahahahahha! Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
quote:Read Worthing Saga.........without pain we would know no joy, without fear there can be no calm. without death, life is meaningless.
While that might be true, it doesn't rebut my argument.
(It also doesn't exactly make me want to rush off to read the Worthing Saga. )
Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
quote:Here we have two creatures just doing what they do. A caterpillar minding its own business and a group of ants out providing for their young. From these seemingly innocent motives comes a moment of near unimaginable cruelty and pain. How does one reconcile this with the concept of a benevolent creator who keeps tabs on each sparrow?
Well, one thing I'd wonder is... Do caterpillars even feel pain? They'd need a consciousness or mind to feel pain, and that's a rather complicated thing, no? Of course, similarly horrible things can happen to more advanced creatures too...
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
quote:Do caterpillars even feel pain? They'd need a consciousness or mind to feel pain, and that's a rather complicated thing, no?
...um, what? A caterpillar certainly has a nervous system.
Posted by scottneb (Member # 676) on :
quote:Action-reaction only works for forces in Newtonian mechanics calculations.
Newton totally stole the idea!
Posted by scottneb (Member # 676) on :
quote:Do caterpillars even feel pain? They'd need a consciousness or mind to feel pain, and that's a rather complicated thing, no?
I'm not convinced this is true.
Posted by scottneb (Member # 676) on :
Wow, I'm getting jaded. I'm losing my energy to fight arguements like this.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote: The episode I mentioned simply drove home to me something I've long suspected.
What bothers me, though, Karl, is that while you've been hanging onto that end of agnosticism for a while, I've been hanging onto the other end, the one that's just shy of full-on atheism. And the problem there is that when you look at nature from a rational and atheist POV, you almost have to be an Objectivist.
But I find Objectivism morally repellent.
So I rationalize -- with as little reason and as much blind faith as any worshipper -- that intelligence and self-awareness make it possible to overcome our biological drives, that in essence those ants could, if possessed of empathy and a sense of their place in the universe, actually choose to kill the caterpillar more humanely, or abstain from caterpillars altogether. There's some evidence that this is true of human society, but not nearly enough for it to be anything more than my version of a religious belief.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:But this isn't true. Even a cursory glance at our world shows that there is far more "evil" than "good." Action-reaction only works for forces in Newtonian mechanics calculations.
Wow. You really believe this?
Posted by StickyWicket (Member # 7926) on :
quote: While that might be true, it doesn't rebut my argument.
(It also doesn't exactly make me want to rush off to read the Worthing Saga. )
I don't care, I was responding to KarlEd
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
I don't know, Karl--the example you give doesn't strike me as evidence for the nonesistance of god so much as it does evidence that god, if it exists, doesn't have the same perspective on suffering as humans do.
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
I think animal suffering is often accepted because of a lack of sentience... but that doesn't answer Karl's question.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
I don't see why you have to be an Objectivist, Tom; could you elucidate?
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Its certainly possible to believe that some things just are in the universe, such as morality, without believing God just is (or is at all); after all, most atheists are willing to believe the universe exists.
Posted by Corwin (Member # 5705) on :
quote:Originally posted by fugu13: after all, most atheists are willing to believe the universe exists.
Neah, it's just a figment of my imagination! Posted by scottneb (Member # 676) on :
quote:I don't see why you have to be an Objectivist, Tom; could you elucidate?
It's no fair if you use a thesarus.
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
oh, Corwin, I saw a movie like that... starred Mimi Rogers. I thought it was very thoughtful and did a great job of explaining why Freewill ultimately necessitates a "hell" (in the sense of a separation from God). Some people will just not be able to accept what God means or wants. Why else would Angels revolt?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote: I don't see why you have to be an Objectivist, Tom; could you elucidate?
Because from a truly Rationalist POV, self-interest is the only form of morality that makes any sense; anything else requires taking at least a few points on faith. Now, you can argue -- as Objectivists usually do -- that the most effective form of self-interest is enlightened self-interest, but it's still an inherently selfish philosophy.
It is impossible to live without doing harm. It's absolutely impossible. And yet many of us -- most of us -- try to live our lives in such a way as to do as little conscious harm as possible. What's our motivation for that? And, moreover, how does one actually rationalize it?
It's not that atheism is inherently amoral. But I think Rationalism is, since the existence of external morality is something that I still haven't seen a completely rational logical argument succeed at proving.
Posted by Avin (Member # 7751) on :
King of Men:
quote:Hang on. The Fall could hardly happen before the human species existed, right? So short of believing in a really literal interpretation of Genesis, how to explain all those dinosaurs and whatnot that died in agony before any creature with free will walked the Earth?
Naturally, I agree with you. I think you get something that many Christians fail to - Christian beliefs without this literal interpretation of Genesis is inconsistent, especially with regard to the idea of the origins of pain, suffering, and sin. Christians who believe that these things are part of what God intended for his creation worship a God that I cannot respect or admire.
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
Avin and KoM,
again, see my post... the Fall is not *just* the result of one man's action, but of a whole world being in captivity. Are y'all familiar with C.S. Lewis's "Space Triology"?
Posted by Ginol_Enam (Member # 7070) on :
Well, maybe God doesn't really care about bringing peace and happiness to caterpillars and other nonsentient beings. I'm fairly certain that those creations were made more to serve man rather than enjoy the paradise of Eden.
So even before and during Adam and Eve were prancing around the garden, everything else was already going through the natural process of life and death.
And then through free will, humans got into it as well...
And as others have already said, it doesn't necessarily disprove that God exists, just a God that vanquishes pain and death from the Earth because wouldn't that just be a grand thing to do...
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee:
quote:But this isn't true. Even a cursory glance at our world shows that there is far more "evil" than "good." Action-reaction only works for forces in Newtonian mechanics calculations.
Wow. You really believe this?
Hm. I would say that I believe it weakly enough to dismiss the idea that "good" and "evil" (as used in this case by scottneb) are in balance either in our world or in the universe writ large. Because the scope of my existence is so limited, though, I don't get too depressed by it. I'll make an analogy to entropy. "Order" and "disorder," used in this sort of context, are not in balance in the world or universe either. However, just as the part within the scope of my existence exhibits more "order" than most of the universe, it also exhibits more "good" than most of the universe.
It also helps (with the not being depressed) that the universe doesn't care about me, or about "order" or "good," but that I pursue these things for my own personal satisfaction.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
>>How does one man's mistake justify all the random cruelty in the world.
Adam's transgression is justified (in Mormonism) by the subsequent capacity of the whole of creation to learn and progress, and come nearer to being what God is. In Mormonism, there is no progression without trial-- that apparently applies to all of reality, not just human-deity relations.
That's the justification.
Like all justifications, for some people it will fall short. It's not an explanation, and not a really comforting idea when it's examined closely.
quote: Do you believe that weaver ants did not exist in Eden, or that they were not carniverous? Or something else? How do you believe the fall changed that? Do you believe weaver ants choose to inflict pain and suffering rather than eat grass and will be judged accordingly? or were they unwillingly changed by The Fall into amoral inflicters of torture and death?
I believe that Eden is largely metaphorical.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Twinky, I was specifically referring to 'Even a cursory glance at our world shows that there is far more "evil" than "good."' I should have cropped out the Newton stuff.
I believe there's far more good than evil. Maybe I'll make a thread about it - it sounds like an interesting discussion, but probably takes this far off track.
Posted by Xavier (Member # 405) on :
Well, some of us believe that "evil" is largely a myth.
Perhaps for those of us who believe this way, we could say that "more unfortunate things happen in the universe than fortunate things". But that would be an impossible statement to prove without getting into degrees.
For example, how long does a person have to be alive before their birth was more fortunate than their death? Does it happen instantly?
How about when one animal eats another one? Does the unfortunate amount of suffering and eventual death get countered by the amount of fortunate eating that the animal does? The eventual birth of the new predator? Do the death's of dozens of prey get canceled out by one predator's survival?
I couldn't begin to even form an opinion.
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
quote:Originally posted by Xavier: For example, how long does a person have to be alive before their birth was more fortunate than their death? Does it happen instantly?
Talk about starting a whole new thread!
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
This is why I put "good" and "evil" in quotes. I don't have clear personal definitions of either term. Posted by scottneb (Member # 676) on :
twinky = evil
scottneb = good
Just thought I'd clarify.
Posted by Corwin (Member # 5705) on :
"Good" is overrated. Posted by Jhai (Member # 5633) on :
derail Tom - have you read Passions Within Reason by Robert Frank? It's a very interesting book looking into the same problem that you see in the Rationalist POV- selfish interests vs. seemingly altrustic behavior. It's on my booklist for my Ethics class, and I couldn't help reading it early. It's that good.
My own spin on the problem: people want to be happy - that's their main goal in life. Through either social conditioning or biological programming, most people display a preference for altrustic behavior - they become happier when engaging in acts they consider good and altrustic (saving the random person from drowning in the river, tipping a waiter they'll never see again). Just like some people display a preference for (and become happier when) watching TV over playing video games. Why this preference has evolved or been conditioned in is what Frank discusses in his book.
/derail
To add my bit to the main conversation: the first time I really started disliking the Christian God was after reading an excerpt from Dostoyevsky's The Brothers Karamazov. While the book in the end triumphs God's design, this section, in which Ivan argues with Alyosha over God and evil, has always stood out in my mind. An innocent child suffering unspeakable cruelties is not worth anything good that might come out of the world. It's basically an argument against the "end harmony" and "God works in mysterious ways" arguments. As Ivan says
quote:Imagine that you are creating a fabric of human destiny with the object of making men happy in the end, giving them peace andrest at last, but it was essential and inevitable to torture to death only one tiny creature - that baby beating its breast with its fist, for instance - and to found that edifice on its unavenged tears, would you consent to be the architect on those conditions?
Like Ivan, I would respectfully return my entrance ticket to Heaven than enter on those terms.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Ursula K. LeGuin also answered this argument in The Ones Who Walk Away From Omelas. Posted by Jacare Sorridente (Member # 1906) on :
quote: The caterpillar was writhing around, clearly in pain. It was covered with ants that were biting, pinching, and chewing all over it. The video segment of this lasted for several seconds. To the caterpillar it must have seemed like eternity in hell.
I don't want to puncture your newfound faith I would just like to point out that insects probably don't have pain receptors. As creatures with exoskeletons it simply doesn't make much sense for them. Also, even when insects experience stimulation of the receptors they do have (mechanoreceptors, thermoreceptors) it is very unlikely that they experience the sensation in the same way we do. Insects have a very distributed nervous system, so stimulation of receptors functions as a simple feedback loop- just like when the doctor knocks the nerve bundle just below your knee capwith a hammer. Likely the caterpillar was writhing because all of those ants were stimulating mechanoreceptorsat different points along the caterpillar's body and thus setting off a muscle contracting feedback at numerous different points.
From a purely practical standpoint, animals which do experience pain do so because it is a survival mechanism- it not only prevents the animal from continuing to expose itself to harmful conditions (imagine how damaging burns would be if we didn't feel the pain and so continued to roast the flesh indefinitely) it also functions as a powerful incentive to learn which actions to avoid. For example, birds which eat monarch butterflies quickly learn to avoid them in the future after the bad experience.
And so we have solved the problem of pain with a simple observation- pain exists because God is a good engineer.
[ July 15, 2005, 11:27 AM: Message edited by: Jacare Sorridente ]
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
I think you may need to expand your viewpoint beyond Karl's specified example, JS.
Posted by Jacare Sorridente (Member # 1906) on :
quote: I think you may need to expand your viewpoint beyond Karl's specified example, JS.
I did already. I explained why creatures which experience pain do so. Good design is good design, whether in humans or sparrows.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
The problem isn't so much the perception of pain, Jacare, but the reason for the suffering itself.
Posted by Corwin (Member # 5705) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jacare Sorridente: And so we have solved the problem of pain with a simple observation- pain exists because God is a good engineer.
Or "nature" is a good engineer, and God doesn't exist. And I'm not worshiping an engineer, no matter how much of a "good engineer" he is.
Edit: Or what Tom said. Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
That works well for me, since I'm a good engineer and get a little freaked out when people worship me.
Posted by Corwin (Member # 5705) on :
All hail twinky!
Posted by Jacare Sorridente (Member # 1906) on :
quote: The problem isn't so much the perception of pain, Jacare, but the reason for the suffering itself.
But I already explained that- pain is unpleasant so the creature can learn not to repeat whatever action caused the pain.
quote: Or "nature" is a good engineer, and God doesn't exist. And I'm not worshiping an engineer, no matter how much of a "good engineer" he is.
The question (at least the one I am addressing) is how God can allow pain and suffering to exist and still be benevolent. Well, designing his creations well with a mechanism which allows them to minimize damage and to avoid it in the future sounds like a fair motive to me.
Posted by Alcon (Member # 6645) on :
Man I can never get very far in any religion thread with out this thought wandering through my mind:
"Jeeze we humans are stuck up, arrogant, self centered, self absorbed pricks."
I mean, we have so much evidense piling up that we are nowhere near the center of the universe (in any aspect of it) and yet we are still completely convinced, for the most part, that we must be the center of the universe.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Tom-- In Omelas, the decision to preserve their happiness by subjecting one being to misery is society-wide and conscious. It is a voluntary, social act.
I would walk away from Omelas, too. But I don't accept Omelas as a good analogy for an existence propagated by God.
Posted by Corwin (Member # 5705) on :
Jacare, I'll give you an example: Bad things happen to a baby. He's in pain, he's suffering. How is this allowing him to minimize damage afterward?! And is there no better way to go about it? It might be necessary to have pain receptors, but is *pain* itself necessary? Especially when it could be easily avoided by a well timed divine intervention, that is.
Posted by Alcon (Member # 6645) on :
Jacare, pain makes perfect sense as a naturally evolved mechanism for what you explained. But when we're talking about an all powerful benevolent creator, why in the hell would he design it like that when there are far far less... well painful ways to acheive the same thing. Such as having us born with all the knowledge we need of what is damaging and what is not. It makes zero sense.
Posted by Corwin (Member # 5705) on :
Now THIS is funny: my winamp decided that I should listen to Muse - Thoughts of a Dying Atheist right now! Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
Alcon: Maybe that approach would do more harm than good.
Posted by Jacare Sorridente (Member # 1906) on :
quote: Bad things happen to a baby. He's in pain, he's suffering. How is this allowing him to minimize damage afterward?! And is there no better way to go about it? It might be necessary to have pain receptors, but is *pain* itself necessary? Especially when it could be easily avoided by a well timed divine intervention, that is.
First, what difference does it make if the subject is a baby?
Second, If the baby is in pain it does whatever is in its power to stop the pain. In a human baby this would generally entail crying so the mother can take action.
Third- pain is the system which is in place. If you think it unnecessary, what would you replace it with?
Finally- whether or not there is any divine intervention speaks much more to the purpose of life than the reason pain exists.
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
By Noemon:
quote:I don't know, Karl--the example you give doesn't strike me as evidence for the nonesistance of god so much as it does evidence that god, if it exists, doesn't have the same perspective on suffering as humans do.
Bingo! Give that man a cookie.
As KarlEd stated, the Bible tells us that God notes the fall of the sparrow. But does it tell us He stops it? I mean, obviously there are plenty of sparrows that fall.
God isn't about stopping pain, but He is aware of it, and exists to balance things out *eventually* rather than right now on our time schedule.
Posted by Jacare Sorridente (Member # 1906) on :
quote: But when we're talking about an all powerful benevolent creator, why in the hell would he design it like that when there are far far less... well painful ways to acheive the same thing. Such as having us born with all the knowledge we need of what is damaging and what is not. It makes zero sense.
Again, propose a different mechanism. We don't like pain because in order for it to be effective we mustn't like it. Likely if there were no pain we would discuss something like why a benevolent God could allow his creatures to destroy themselves so easily. Or maybe how a divine being could possibly design his creatures so that reproductive and waste elimination features are combined.
Your idea about being born with necessary knowledge speaks to the purpose of life. So tell me, why do you think God would create anything at all?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote: But I already explained that- pain is unpleasant so the creature can learn not to repeat whatever action caused the pain.
The fact that pain is caused -- in other words, the fact that actions are bad -- is something also determined by God.
If pain is merely a signal for a bad event, why make bad events in the first place?
Posted by scottneb (Member # 676) on :
*gives Noemon a cookie*
Posted by Jacare Sorridente (Member # 1906) on :
quote: Jacare, pain makes perfect sense as a naturally evolved mechanism for what you explained.
I don't understand why you think this is the case. Once again, good design is good design. If it makes sense for evolution to come up with this mechanism then why doesn't it make sense for God to design us that way?
Posted by Alcon (Member # 6645) on :
quote:Alcon: Maybe that approach would do more harm than good.
Perhaps, but that's just one example.
Don't get me wrong, from an evolutionary sense, pain is an ingenius mechanism for doing the job it does. However, if we're talking benevolent, all powerful creator who cares about his subjects, then screw him. If that's the best he could come up with clearly he's not all he claims to be.
But this is just one problem I personally have with the concept of a being as the creator. There are many more, the reason perhaps I am a fairly solid atheist.
For example: Who created him? How'd he come to be? How'd he end up all powerful? What was before him? And if we come up with something that created him, who created his creator?
Or if your answer is, he just kinda was, he came first. Well what's to say that we, live, molecules come together at random, didn't come first?
Posted by scottneb (Member # 676) on :
"without pain, ye shall not know joy."
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:The fact that pain is caused -- in other words, the fact that actions are bad -- is something also determined by God.
According to some beliefs, you are right.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote: without pain, ye shall not know joy
Pithy, but also meaningless.
Posted by Jacare Sorridente (Member # 1906) on :
quote:The fact that pain is caused -- in other words, the fact that actions are bad -- is something also determined by God.
If pain is merely a signal for a bad event, why make bad events in the first place?
I think you are confusing bad and harmful. But again, this speaks to the purpose of existence. Why make anything at all?
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
>> In a human baby this would generally entail crying so the mother can take action.
Where's his FATHER? Why doesn't HE take action, huh?
Probably sitting around watching 'Die Hard 4,' while the missus cleans the kitchen, fixes him a hoagie, tends the bills.
God should tell that lazy SOB to get off his keister and HELP HIS PROGENY!!!!
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote: But again, this speaks to the purpose of existence. Why make anything at all?
Excellent question. Yet another problem, in fact.
Posted by Alcon (Member # 6645) on :
quote:quote: Jacare, pain makes perfect sense as a naturally evolved mechanism for what you explained. I don't understand why you think this is the case. Once again, good design is good design. If it makes sense for evolution to come up with this mechanism then why doesn't it make sense for God to design us that way?
Precicely becuase it causes pain and suffering. If he's truely omnipotent and all powerful then he could most certainly come up with a better mechanism for the same job. That is if he's truely that benevolent and loving of his subjects.
Posted by Corwin (Member # 5705) on :
Jacare - I picked a baby so he would have "no sins" attached to him. Nothing to be punished for with that pain. If he does whatever he can to stop it, and people try to help him but can't, why does God still allow the pain to go on? I keep asking why is that pain necessary and you keep telling me that we try to avoid it. Somehow we're not talking about the same thing here.
beverly - That "eventually" is what bothers me. I don't understand how am I suppose to believe that "eventually" things even out when I see that "now" - as Murphy put it - if a thing can go bad, it will. Especially when I'm being told this by people who read it in books written by other people who - perhaps - have received that information from God without any (relevant to me) proof.
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
::eats cookie::
::suffers pain from an allergic reaction to something in the cookie::
::learns not to eat those cookies anymore::
Posted by UofUlawguy (Member # 5492) on :
If nothing but God existed in the first place, there would be no reason for God to create anything. However, if some things pre-exist (that is, existed independently of God), then God's creation of things can be explained in terms of his interactions with those pre-existing things.
Posted by Chaz_King (Member # 3184) on :
quote: It also helps (with the not being depressed) that the universe doesn't care about me, or about "order" or "good," but that I pursue these things for my own personal satisfaction.
So for you "Good" is defined by what is personally satisfying? Or is there a desire in your brain that organizes what is good or bad, through responses like guilt or pain?
I know this is one of those long argued statements, but I still feel there is a universal sense of good or evil. Like Tom said, there is a system of morality that everyone throughout time seems to adapt even when those morals go against personal satisfaction
But this is another topic that could take up an entire thread of its own.
Posted by mackillian (Member # 586) on :
quote:We look before and after, And pine for what is not: Our sincerest laughter With some pain is fraught; Our sweetest songs are those that tell of saddest thought.
Yet, if we could scorn Hate and pride and fear, If we were things born Not to shed a tear, I know not how thy joy we ever should come near.
--PB Shelley
Posted by Corwin (Member # 5705) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jacare Sorridente:
quote: Jacare, pain makes perfect sense as a naturally evolved mechanism for what you explained.
I don't understand why you think this is the case. Once again, good design is good design. If it makes sense for evolution to come up with this mechanism then why doesn't it make sense for God to design us that way?
If it makes sense for evolution to come up with this mechanism then why do we need God at all to explain it?
Posted by Alcon (Member # 6645) on :
quote:If nothing but God existed in the first place, there would be no reason for God to create anything. However, if some things pre-exist (that is, existed independently of God), then God's creation of things can be explained in terms of his interactions with those pre-existing things
Yeah, then you run into the problem of who created God and those preexisting things? Now it sounds like God is just some other alien race who just happens to be naturally more powerful than us.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
quote:Why make anything at all?
To be happy.
I realize this is a side note, but other people are saying what I would just fine.
I was thinking about why I do many of the things I do, when I could be watching movies and eating brownies all the time. The answer is that when I don't, I'm not happy. If I'm not making/creating something (painting/writing/movie-making/designing), I'm unhappy. If I don't exercise, I'm unhappy. If I don't make a new friend every other week or so, I get restless. If I don't go to school, I'm unhappy.
All those things are hard and usually painful, but the alternative is to not be happy. A series of passingly-painful activities allows me to live my life on a considerably-happier level than I would otherwise.
I don't know that I would design the world/me this way if I had the choice, but I do know it works this way. I can rail, drop out, and be unhappy, or I can join in the game and wake up in the morning without dread. Go figure.
Fear is a fabulous motivator. I don't mean fear of God, but fear of...I don't know. Desert places?
Posted by scottneb (Member # 676) on :
quote:Pithy, but also meaningless.
How can it be both?
That quote is what keeps me going through life. It helps me understand that all the crap I go through in life sets me up for greater joy later and that there will always be light at the end of the tunnel.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote: I can rail, drop out, and be unhappy, or I can join in the game and be considerably happier.
I think you're attempting to justify the stick with the carrot.
quote: That quote is what keeps me going through life. It helps me understand that all the crap I go through in life sets me up for greater joy later....
You can have light without darkness. You can have joy without sorrow. You can have wisdom without stupidity. That we have come to define these things largely by the absence of negative emotion does not in fact mean that they are dependent upon negative emotion to exist.
All the crap you go through in life is crap you go through. If you have greater joy, great. And perhaps you were able to achieve that greater joy by applying some of the crap you went through -- and perhaps you achieved that greater joy for some other reason. But your greater joy is in no way dependent upon the crap, unless the joy is in fact so inadequate that it only resembles joy in comparison to crap.
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
quote: beverly - That "eventually" is what bothers me. I don't understand how am I suppose to believe that "eventually" things even out when I see that "now" - as Murphy put it - if a thing can go bad, it will. Especially when I'm being told this by people who read it in books written by other people who - perhaps - have received that information from God without any (relevant to me) proof.
It's called faith. And I totally understand someone *not* having it. Having it does give someone hope, though hopefully it does not lead to apathy because "God will take care of it". While I do think that "God will take care of it", I also believe that He holds us responsible when we don't do all we can to make the world around us a better place. Part of "God taking care of it" is that holding us accountable.
I don't think he holds the ants accountable for causing pain to the caterpillar. They don't have free will--not nearly the same way we do, anyway. I'm not sure if I really believe this or not, but it may be that Christ's atonement happened to help balance even the pain of that caterpillar. But that opens a whole 'nother can of worms.
But the scripture that I do have and believe says that Christ's atonement covers the misdeeds of those who do not understand what they are doing. It mentions that children are without sin and are covered automatically by the atonement for any negative effects they bring to the world around them. So I don't find it all that strange to extrapolate that to animals that do not "understand" the effects of their actions.
Posted by Alcon (Member # 6645) on :
quote:quote: Why make anything at all? To be happy.
Funny the more and more God gets explained the more and more human he gets... wonder why that is? Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
quote:So for you "Good" is defined by what is personally satisfying? Or is there a desire in your brain that organizes what is good or bad, through responses like guilt or pain?
Neither, actually.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Probably. However, I don't think God created either the stick or the carrot in that particular scenario.
Posted by Chaz_King (Member # 3184) on :
Ohhhhh here is where it gets fun.
As far as evolution without God, well lets start a thread on irreducibly(sp?) complex systems.
On the topic of who created God... well most inteligent design people will argue the idea that if something has a begining, then it was created, therefore if the universe as we know it had a begining (the big bang), then something created it.
However since time is a function of the universe, anything before the creation of the universe is outside of time, which puts it into an infinite state. Therefore the cause of the big bang has to be timeless (without a begining, and therefore no creator), and capable of abstract causality. Because if you have a timeless infinite environment all states are equal, so if you have the conditions to start the big bang, then those conditions always existed in that state and the universe is actually infinite in existance and thus ruling out the big bang. The only way the big bang works is if the thing that created it was timeles, and capable of creating a universe without any causality....
So something that has always existed and can just make things go POOF! and its there without any real cause.
Does your head hurt yet?
Posted by scottneb (Member # 676) on :
quote:So for you "Good" is defined by what is personally satisfying?
I'll ask my wife.
Posted by Tatiana (Member # 6776) on :
quote:Originally posted by Chaz_King: Karl.. the answer is that the catepillar had actually been torturing flowers and other plants by slowly eating them and killing millions of bacteria and other cells slowly through a proccess called "Digestion".
The ants were actually the liberators of a place called "The Lawn", and seeing as the rebelion took place with mob justice, the only thing left to do was to loot the riches that were left behind so they could take some extra food home to their controling wife that they all answer to.
It was a fleeting moment in ant history that will probably be forgotten in the history books behind such things like the great burning of "yesterday" when a giant being managed to focus a sun ray in order to kill off half of the population of one colony, not to mention when the giants decided to use chemical weapons on unsuspecting civilian ants on an nice summer day.
It completely ruined the picnic.
This is, put jokingly, exactly what I believe. Not that the caterpillar was necesserily bad, but truly, to an advanced superior being like our Heavanly Father, our human sized dramas and sufferings, our wars and pestilences, hopes and dreams must be something like the saga of the caterpillar and the ants, and the interesting and amazing thing is that He cares deeply about our choices and the outcome. So, in emulation of Him, I believe that we should care about the caterpillars, (and about the Sphex Wasp, who lays eggs in her prey who hatch and eat it alive from the inside out -- this is the prototype for the horror-of-nature story).
Even in evolution, the world changes by personal choice. Evolution proceeds by choices of individuals. A creature has to adopt a lifestyle before it can evolve to become adapted to it. This is the metaphor of the fall. Some time millions of years ago, our first ancestor decided to eat meat, to pick one example. Because of that choice, and the choices of those who came afterward, we are now adapted to eat meat (there are essential amino acids which we have to get from eating protein) and thus are the sins of the fathers visited upon the sons for umpteen generations.
Human technology has advanced now to the point where we don't have to eat meat anymore. We have a choice again. (I'm sure that it's not true in many times and cultures. I'm sure that it's very hard to get enough protein under the circumstances in which most humans have lived (for instance, during the ice ages) for most of our history.)
At one point in history, taking slaves was a mercy. It was a way to make the slaughter of vanquished enemies unnecessary. At any stage, we have the morals we can afford. The point of our development is for us to advance, and accept higher and higher morals at each level, and strive always for more.
Eventually the lion will lie down with the lamb. We will be advanced to the point that we can make most of the brutality and suffering of nature unnecessary. This is our job, here in Middle Earth. We have to do it ourselves, it is our appointed task, and the way that we shall learn and grow. But of course, we will have help when we least expect it from the Valar, and from Eru, the One.
Don't you see? It's all metaphors, but it describes the literal truth which we are not yet capable of grasping fully. The fall is an exact description, in parable form, of what happened.
Posted by Corwin (Member # 5705) on :
Edit: to beverly (boy, does this thread move fast or what!?)
quote:But that opens a whole 'nother can of worms.
Ok, I got that. But now I have another question: why would God give some people reasons to have faith (ok, maybe "reasons" isn't the best word, but I can't find another one right now), and doesn't give them to others? Why do you have that faith and that hope that gets you through troubled times, and I don't have any of it, and when I suffer there's nothing to tell me: it will get better? As mothertree said in another thread:
quote:It's not no God that's the problem. It's a God that other people say has helped them but who apparently didn't help you.
Posted by jebus202 (Member # 2524) on :
quote:You can have light without darkness. You can have joy without sorrow. You can have wisdom without stupidity. That we have come to define these things largely by the absence of negative emotion does not in fact mean that they are dependent upon negative emotion to exist.
What makes you so sure of this?
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
quote:Ohhhhh here is where it gets fun.
...
Does your head hurt yet?
None of those arguments are new, none of them are in any way convincing, and no, my head does not hurt. Posted by Corwin (Member # 5705) on :
:pokes twinky in the head:
Does it hurt *now*? Posted by Alcon (Member # 6645) on :
Couldn't have said it better myself Twinky
Or even said it that well.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
Ow! My head!
(That was really funny, Corwin. I wasn't expecting that. )
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
Corwin, there's no doubt that our existance is rife with inequalities. Some people having faith and others not is miniscule compared to other major ones like great wealth to some and abject poverty to many.
This all points back to my personal faith about it all being balanced in the end. I believe that my having faith and your not having faith will be balanced in the end. But that is not something that you believe. Deliciously ironic, eh?
But, you know, assuming that I am right, all atheists and agnostics will have something to consider upon finding that they continue to exist after death. And since I believe that death is not the end of our chances to accept God, for those who just *can't* have faith because of what they see around them, there are still opportunities.
But I imagine the added evidence of God's existance will not automatically clear up all the issues people have with believing in God. There will still be a great many who have come to the conclusion, based on what they've seen and how they perceive it, that if God exists, He is not worth worshiping.
I imagine these reconcilliations will take a lot of time and effort. This coming from a perspective that God *is* both Good and Wise. Even, as Scott R so wonderfully puts it, He isn't always "Nice".
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
BTW, my definition of "worship" is overwhelming respect, admiration, and trust in a being who is completely worthy of all those things, because He does balance things out so that they make sense, have purpose, and beauty in the end. A being that protects the integrity of the natural laws of the universe while also doing everything in His power for our benefit.
This is who I believe that I worship.
Posted by Corwin (Member # 5705) on :
twinky: Expect everything! Unagi!
beverly:
quote: I don't believe in God with a capital G and, despite their obvious solidity, I don't believe in the gods with their small g's. Not as real forces in the universe. But I believe in the *****-goddess Irony. She crosses all the time. She rules men and gods and God alike. And She has a wicked sense of humor.
- Dan Simmons, Ilium
Kind of works for me.
quote:But I imagine the added evidence of God's existence will not automatically clear up all the issues people have with believing in God.
Neither do I, for that matter.
Anyway, this is where this discussion ends for me. I'd really like to thank you all, it's probably the first time I have a view this clear of what I believe and why and you have helped me reach this conclusion. Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote: all atheists and agnostics will have something to consider upon finding that they continue to exist after death
Well, yeah. It would come as quite a shock. And a relief, I'd imagine.
Posted by Corwin (Member # 5705) on :
quote:And a relief, I'd imagine.
Not sure about that. Which God is going to judge me?
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
The funny thing is, if I'm wrong and I just cease to exist at death, I will never *know* that I was wrong.
Am I worse off or better off for having had that faith, even if it is wrong? I will never *know* for a fact that it was wrong.
I guess I am agnostic in the sense that there is no possible way to prove to me that my faith in an afterlife of some sort is misplaced. But it is possible to prove (eventually, and to myself) that there is an afterlife.
So it is a "wait and see" sort of agnosticism.
Posted by mackillian (Member # 586) on :
I can't exactly form my thoughts over any of this. One thing is that for some reason throughout my life, I've never doubted there WAS a god.
What form, what shape, what his personality would be...all that stays nebulous. Sometimes I think I might snatch a meaning here or there, or perhaps some sort of truth. I've been angry with god, happy with god, ignored god. Watching that caterpillar scene would've killed me too, Karl. If anyone else watched that bee film that was linked on sakeriver--that also got to me. Both basically the same as when some sort of human atrocity happens--like what happened in london. Just total disbelief at the stuff human beings will do to one another, all in the name of whatever, whether named or not.
Sometimes I wonder if we're like ants. God created our ant farm and set us loose on it, and then watched what we did with it. No controls on what we do exactly, except for what he included in the human design. Or whatever designs he started with. I don't know.
Posted by Alcon (Member # 6645) on :
Eh, I'll deal with that hurtle if it comes. Frankly I'm quite happy with my view that after death comes nada, zip, zilch. It makes the most sense based on the facts and I think after having lived 70 to 80 years of life I will be quite ready for a nice, long, nap thank you very much.
But if I do find myself living after dieing, well like I said, I'll have new information then and I'll deal with if it happens.
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
If it's my version of God judging you, I assure you, He will be both fair and merciful. In fact, the scripture I put my trust in says that even those who are condemned will completely agree with God's judgement of them.
In other words, no one will be crying, "No fair!" in the end.
Posted by Chaz_King (Member # 3184) on :
Twinky: Maybe not new, but convincing depends on the person... I general won't argue about if there is a God because it is really all just philosphical posturing, and probabilities in the end. And whether or not someone really believs in God always tends to be a personal mindset rather than a rational one.
Tom: When I was an Agnostic I always wondered why God couldn't just let me meet him when I died if he existed, and then if I thought he was cool I would hang out with him. If not he could just smite me =P. I just thought it was odd that I couldn't make a decision about God when I actually met him but aparently I have to make all of those choices based on what I see in my life.
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
quote:Originally posted by Alcon: Funny the more and more God gets explained the more and more human he gets... wonder why that is?
Because we have the limits of human intelligence and experience to force God into, which is the problem with this whole line of argument. The real answer is beyond us. Suffering exists. It may have a purpose beyond our understanding. It may not have a purpose beyond evolutionary forces.
We can pick one or the other... it seems everyone is picking the one they perceive to be the most humane, which is good.
Posted by Corwin (Member # 5705) on :
quote:Originally posted by beverly: I guess I am agnostic in the sense that there is no possible way to prove to me that my faith in an afterlife of some sort is misplaced. But it is possible to prove (eventually, and to myself) that there is an afterlife.
So it is a "wait and see" sort of agnosticism.
From that point of view, I'm agnostic too.
Oh, and relief would come when God would tell me what I did wrong in my life, make me understand why those things were wrong, would explain why me doing bad things toward others was even allowed or necessary, why "accidents" are allowed/necessary, etc. and then I'd go to Heaven. And He'd tell me there's no Hell, and that no one is living an eternity of pain or suffering, whatever they committed in this life. Until then I'll keep my angst, thankyouverymuch! Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
Posted by mackillian (Member # 586) on :
quote: PICARD What's going on, Q?
Q I told you. You're dead. This is the afterlife. And I'm God.
PICARD You are not God.
Q Blasphemy! You're lucky I don't cast you out, or smite you or something.
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
WARNING: This is very long, because I included scripture. And it probably won't make me very popular nor will it answer very many questions, but hey, when have those facts stopped me from posting before?
The "Problem of Evil" is not new to Christian apologists and theologians. It's been around a long time. And it's been answered, in many different ways, for centuries. In fact, it even has a name, "theodicy."
Here is one thing to consider, which goes back to something that was already posted here, and then dismissed but I truly think it's worth another look.
I'm going to quote C.S. Lewis here for a moment.
quote:My argument against God was that the universe seemed so cruel and unjust. But how had I got this idea of just and unjust? A man does not call a line crooked unless he has some idea of a straight line. What was I comparing the universe with when I called it unjust?…Thus, in the very act of trying to prove that God did not exist—that the whole of reality was senseless [given evil]—I found I was forced to assume that one part of reality—namely my idea of justice—was full of sense. Consequently, atheism turns out to be too simple…If there were no light in the universe and therefore no creatures with eyes, we should never know it was dark. Dark would be without meaning.
There is an argument that evil exists so that we can know what good is. That without evil, there is a perfect creation, with no sin, no death, no suffering, and therefore no need for salvation. That is a creation that doesn't need redemption, that doesn't, in a sense, need God. That creation brings therefore, no real glory to God.
I believe God allows evil and sin because it glorifies Him.
That is not a comfortable belief to wrap oneself up in. It is also not the view of all Protestants, perhaps not even most Protestants. Now you know why my traditional southern Baptist family is horrified by me at times. I happen to think it's a view that fits scripture, however.
We like to think of God as nothing but all-loving and all-caring, and in fact my husband has a phrase for this belief - he calls it the "Jesus is a giant teddy-bear" syndrome. It's tempting to say "oh God would never allow anything so evil as a baby dying of cancer, so obviously God can't be in control of that type of evil." But that flies in the face of God's sovereignty. If God doesn't control cancer, then God is not sovereign.
Scripture does not bear that out, though. Not to me it doesn't. There's plenty of scriptural evidence that God does in fact control all things, even things we would consider bad or evil.
quote:Who can speak and have it happen if the Lord has not decreed it? Is it not from the mouth of the Most High that both calamities and good things come? (Lamentations 3:37-38)
I form the light and create darkness, I bring prosperity and create disaster; I, the LORD, do all these things. (Isaiah 45:7)
When a trumpet sounds in a city, do not the people tremble? When disaster comes to a city, has not the LORD caused it? (Amos 3:6)
So God does control both Good and Evil things that happen. Why? To our sense of justice it doesn't seem fair. Because if we believe that he allows death and sin and evil for His own glory, then we must wrap our minds around the belief that he creates people for the express purpose of damning them and allowing them to suffer so He can be glorified. That is NOT a pleasant thought and one I struggled with for a long time.
However, I think it's a scripturally sound thought.
quote:I will say to the north, "Give them up!" and to the south, "Do not hold them back." Bring my sons from afar and my daughters from the ends of the earth – everyone who is called by my name, whom I created for my glory, whom I formed and made. (Isaiah 43:6-7)
In him we were also chosen, having been predestined according to the plan of him who works out everything in conformity with the purpose of his will, in order that we, who were the first to hope in Christ, might be for the praise of his glory. (Ephesians 1:11-12)
And I will harden Pharaoh's heart, and he will pursue them. But I will gain glory for myself through Pharaoh and all his army, and the Egyptians will know that I am the LORD… (Exodus 14:4)
For the Scripture says to Pharaoh: "I raised you up for this very purpose, that I might display my power in you and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth." What if God, choosing to show his wrath and make his power known, bore with great patience the objects of his wrath – prepared for destruction? What if he did this to make the riches of his glory known to the objects of his mercy, whom he prepared in advance for glory… (Romans 9:17, 22-23)
But is there not some higher standard, that even God should be held to? Don't we have the ability to question God's actions, to say to Him, that what he's doing is wrong? To say that it was wrong for him to purposefully harden Pharoah's heart so that He could manifest His glory in the suffering that caused?
No. We don't have that right. It is not for the creation to question the Creator.
quote:One of you will say to me: "Then why does God still blame us? For who resists his will?" But who are you, O man, to talk back to God? "Shall what is formed say to him who formed it, 'Why did you make me like this?'" Does not the potter have the right to make out of the same lump of clay some pottery for noble purposes and some for common use? (Romans 9:19-21)
Though one wished to dispute with him, he could not answer him one time out of a thousand. His wisdom is profound, his power is vast. Who has resisted him and come out unscathed? He moves mountains without their knowing it and overturns them in his anger. He shakes the earth from its place and makes its pillars tremble. He speaks to the sun and it does not shine; he seals off the light of the stars. He alone stretches out the heavens and treads on the waves of the sea. He is the Maker of the Bear and Orion, the Pleiades and the constellations of the south. He performs wonders that cannot be fathomed, miracles that cannot be counted. When he passes me, I cannot see him; when he goes by, I cannot perceive him. If he snatches away, who can stop him? Who can say to him, "What are you doing?" (Job 9:3-12)
"Will the one who contends with the Almighty correct him? Let him who accuses God answer him!" Then Job answered the LORD: "I am unworthy – how can I reply to you? I put my hand over my mouth. I spoke once, but I have no answer – twice, but I will say no more." Then the LORD spoke to Job out of the storm: "Brace yourself like a man; I will question you, and you shall answer me. Would you discredit my justice? Would you condemn me to justify yourself?" (Job 40:2-8)
Woe to him who quarrels with his Maker, to him who is but a potsherd among the potsherds on the ground. Does the clay say to the potter, "What are you making?" Does your work say, "He has no hands?" Woe to him who says to his father, "What have you begotten?" or to his mother, "What have you brought to birth?" This is what the LORD says – the Holy One of Israel, and its Maker: Concerning things to come, do you question me about my children, or give me orders about the work of my hands? (Isaiah 45:9-11)
Oh, the depth of the riches of the wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable his judgments, and his paths beyond tracing out! "Who has known the mind of the Lord? Or who has been his counselor? Who has ever given to God, that God should repay him?" For from him and through him and to him are all things. To him be the glory forever! Amen. (Romans 11:33-36)
So is there an answer to the problem of evil? I think so. It may not be one that everyone likes, or everyone is comfortable with, but I think there is definitely an answer. Evil exists to glorify God. Therefore the evidence of evil is not evidence against the existence of God. But I think it's worth noting that evil is a temporary condition, that God, in His infinite mercy, will destroy evil, just as in His infinite mercy, he has redeemed the elect.
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: All the crap you go through in life is crap you go through. If you have greater joy, great. And perhaps you were able to achieve that greater joy by applying some of the crap you went through -- and perhaps you achieved that greater joy for some other reason. But your greater joy is in no way dependent upon the crap, unless the joy is in fact so inadequate that it only resembles joy in comparison to crap. [/QB]
You're right; it's not dependent upon the crap. I think the point is to have joy in spite of the crap. Anyone can be happy when everything's going right. Can you still be happy when nothing's going right? Can you learn to let go of the things that don't matter and only hold on to the things that do? That's what all the crap is for: not to serve as a simple contrast, but to teach us how to have joy in the things that really matter.
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
quote:There is an argument that evil exists so that we can know what good is. That without evil, there is a perfect creation, with no sin, no death, no suffering, and therefore no need for salvation. That is a creation that doesn't need redemption, that doesn't, in a sense, need God. That creation brings therefore, no real glory to God.
Interesting. There is a passage in the Book of Mormon that you have nearly paraphrased here. It is found in 2nd Nephi chapter 2:
quote:ll For it must needs be, that there is an opposition in all things. If not so, my first-born in the wilderness, righteousness could not be brought to pass, neither wickedness, neither holiness nor misery, neither good nor bad. Wherefore, all things must needs be a compound in one; wherefore, if it should be one body it must needs remain as dead, having no life neither death, nor corruption nor incorruption, happiness nor misery, neither sense nor insensibility.
12 Wherefore, it must needs have been created for a thing of naught; wherefore there would have been no purpose in the end of its creation. Wherefore, this thing must needs destroy the wisdom of God and his eternal purposes, and also the power, and the mercy, and the justice of God.
13 And if ye shall say there is no law, ye shall also say there is no sin. If ye shall say there is no sin, ye shall also say there is no righteousness. And if there be no righteousness there be no happiness. And if there be no righteousness nor happiness there be no punishment nor misery. And if these things are not there is no God. And if there is no God we are not, neither the earth; for there could have been no creation of things, neither to act nor to be acted upon; wherefore, all things must have vanished away.
Of course, this last part doesn't make any sense for those who believe that the universe goes on just fine without a creator.
Either it's true or it ain't.
quote:Because if we believe that he allows death and sin and evil for His own glory, then we must wrap our minds around the belief that he creates people for the express purpose of damning them and allowing them to suffer so He can be glorified.
That is an unpleasant thought. In the same chapter I quoted from above is the scripture, "Adam fell that men might be; and men are that they might have joy."
The idea here is that for reasons we don't fully understand, passing through this mortal existance with it's pleasures and pains, all its oppositions, is the only way we can have greater joy than what we could've had otherwise. And this possibility for greater joy is worth the suffering.
Of course, we Mormons believe that we, each and every one of us, are here by choice. That we understood what awaited us in mortality and chose it anyway. That idea resounds powerfully with me.
Kinda like a woman choosing to go through pregnancy, childbirth, and the difficulties of raising a child, because she believes having that child is worth it.
I am certainly not satisfied with the answer that evil exists solely to glorify God, or even that we exist solely to glorify God. It makes me *not* want to worship Him. I guess that is why I reject most flavors of Christianity.
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
Belle, thanks for that nice elucidation of Reformed theology on the matter.
I have to say though, that if Calvin was right, I'm a damned soul, so I hope he was wrong
Are you familiar with an author named Jack Scott (God's Plan Unfolded)?
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I'm currently working on a theory where the result of going through the crap is to produce Fear of the Crap, which makes us more grateful for the joy.
I've never had any particular fear of God, but I do fear the...natural consequences of doing the things that the Lord lovingly warns us away from. For some things, it remains abstract, and for others, I know exactly what I am staying away from and am afraid of.
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
Interesting point, Jon Boy. It introduces the idea of us stretching our ability to be joyful by learning to be joyful in spite of things that suck. I'm not entirely sure what I think of that.
Tom says that going through crap doesn't increase our enjoyment. But I don't know if I agree with that.
When I go camping, I love being outdoors. But camping isn't the most comfortable of things. I have decided that one of the reasons I go camping is to increase my gratitude for all the wonderful comforts of home. My soft, warm bed, my shower, running water, toilets, fast food....
It's kind of a silly analogy, but it works for me.
As well, living in a third world country for 18 months increased my appreciation for all the blessings of a first world country. It gave me PERSPECTIVE.
What if that is part of what mortality is about? Perspective?
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
Jim-Me, that one doesn't ring a bell. I'm so behind on reading right now I don't know if I'll ever catch up, but I'll file it away as something to check out.
Beverly, I know the Mormon view is vastly different on this point. And yes "Calvin's" God can seem very harsh at times. It took three years of really studying the issue and immersing myself in scripture before I came to believe in the Reformed view. However, I am not of the flavor that only the Calvinist view is definitely the correct one. I'll paraphrase Charles Spurgeon: "If you ask me if I'm a Calvinist, I will tell you that I prefer to be called a Christian, because I follow Christ, not John Calvin. But if what you mean is do I believe in the doctrine of Grace that is sometimes referred to as Calvinism, then the answer is yes, I do. However, I do not believe that only Calvinists will be present in heaven. God forbid!"
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
Beverly: Yes, I think so. Think about the story of Job. He lost all his earthly possessions, his family, and his friends, and he endured a great deal of physical suffering. Yet he still had faith in God. He knew that he was still saved and that he would meet God one day.
And for all those Mormons who like to talk about Star Wars in church, I'll mention something Yoda said in Episode III: you have to be willing to let go of the things you're afraid to lose. If you're only happy because of the things you have, then you're not truly happy.
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
quote:Originally posted by Belle: Jim-Me, that one doesn't ring a bell. I'm so behind on reading right now I don't know if I'll ever catch up, but I'll file it away as something to check out.
No biggie... it's really popular with PCA and other conservative Presbyterians.
He's my Great Uncle. I'm a minor character in his follow up book Revelation Unfolded. </proud relative>
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote: I believe God allows evil and sin because it glorifies Him.
Wow. Belle, please don't take this the wrong way, but I think if your God exists, I'm proud to be an active enemy of His.
---
quote: Tom says that going through crap doesn't increase our enjoyment. But I don't know if I agree with that.
It doesn't. At most, it increases your appreciation of your enjoyment.
If you torture someone, they are happier when you stop. Should they be grateful?
------
quote: I'll mention something Yoda said in Episode III: you have to be willing to let go of the things you're afraid to lose. If you're only happy because of the things you have, then you're not truly happy.
Remember the context. Yoda said this to someone who was afraid of losing his wife. Are you quite ready to let your wife die, Jon Boy, because you'd be more truly happy without her? Does the joy she brings you really make all your other joys seem less significant than would the sorrow you'd feel upon her passing?
Yoda was never at his more ignorant.
There's something to be said for Buddhist detachment, but this isn't it.
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
Tom, I understand. I know a lot of people feel the way you do.
Posted by Puppy (Member # 6721) on :
What if pain, suffering, and injustice are a natural part of any physical world? What if God simply found reality this way, and His purpose here is to create a group of people that can overcome evil and pain and create self-sustaining joy?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote: What if God simply found reality this way, and His purpose here is to create a group of people that can overcome evil and pain and create self-sustaining joy?
Then that's great. I'm not sure that's really most people's definition of God, but I've said before that the Problem of Evil doesn't exist if your God is not omnipotent and/or didn't create the universe.
Making God considerably less powerful resolves a lot of theological paradoxes.
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
but much less like God Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: Remember the context. Yoda said this to someone who was afraid of losing his wife. Are you quite ready to let your wife die, Jon Boy, because you'd be more truly happy without her? Does the joy she brings you really make all your other joys seem less significant than would the sorrow you'd feel upon her passing?
Yoda was never at his more ignorant.
There's something to be said for Buddhist detachment, but this isn't it.
I should have clarified that I believe there are certain things this statement does not apply to; family is one of them.
Posted by Jacare Sorridente (Member # 1906) on :
quote: However, if we're talking benevolent, all powerful creator who cares about his subjects, then screw him. If that's the best he could come up with clearly he's not all he claims to be.
That is not clear at all. Just because you happen not to like how the system works doesn't mean that the system is faulty.
quote: Precicely becuase it causes pain and suffering. If he's truely omnipotent and all powerful then he could most certainly come up with a better mechanism for the same job. That is if he's truely that benevolent and loving of his subjects.
You dislike pain because it is uncomfortable. In order to properly function it needs to be uncomfortable.
What you are suggesting would involve, for example, making humans indestructible. It is a great idea in theory, but it speaks once again to the purpose of life. For example, indestructible people can't die.
quote: Jacare - I picked a baby so he would have "no sins" attached to him. Nothing to be punished for with that pain. If he does whatever he can to stop it, and people try to help him but can't, why does God still allow the pain to go on? I keep asking why is that pain necessary and you keep telling me that we try to avoid it. Somehow we're not talking about the same thing here.
I have told you why pain is necessary. Where is the disconnect? DO you prefer a metaphysical explanation to a simple practical one?
I don't think that pain is directly tied to sin at all- it is simply the logical byproduct of the specific type of bodies that we have.
quote: If it makes sense for evolution to come up with this mechanism then why do we need God at all to explain it?
We don't, but then, it doesn't make much sense to debate why God would allow pain and suffering if we don't allow for the existence of God.
Tom said:
quote: You can have light without darkness. You can have joy without sorrow. You can have wisdom without stupidity. That we have come to define these things largely by the absence of negative emotion does not in fact mean that they are dependent upon negative emotion to exist
You are wrong. If all that exists is a single side of a thing then it is not a valid attribute at all. For example, if all things are equally wise, then wisdom is not even an attribute- it is simply what all things are. If all humans were equally wise then wisdom is a meaningless term. If light permeates all space equally then darkness cannot possibly exist and light is a meaningless term. Therefore anything which has a given attribute has that attribute precisely because something else lacks that attribute.
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
quote:It doesn't. At most, it increases your appreciation of your enjoyment.
And maybe that is worth a great deal.
quote: If you torture someone, they are happier when you stop. Should they be grateful?
See my analogy of the mother chosing all that she does in order to have a child. The difference is going through it willingly. In your torture example, the one suffering does so unwillingly.
And here is where perspective comes in. From our current perspective, we *are* unwilling. But what if we did willingly chose this mortal life with all it's suffering? We don't remember chosing it, so we don't feel it's effects now. But it comes with the concept of receiving True Perspective (at some point, perhaps not right away) after this life is over.
Since I believe that each and every one of us willingly chose this life, it greatly changes my perspective on suffering to be more like the mother chosing to have a child rather than the unwilling torturee.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote: For example, if all things are equally wise, then wisdom is not even an attribute- it is simply what all things are.
I find this baffling. Of course it's an attribute; it's just a univerally-applicable attribute.
There might be no word for wisdom, but that wouldn't mean that wisdom didn't exist, or that people were any less wise.
The universality of joy would not preclude the existence of joy. It would just preclude the recognition of joy as a special attribute.
-----
quote: Since I believe that each and every one of us willingly chose this life...
Including the snails, carrots, and puppies? Or are they ultimately just props for the enormous moralistic play that we're putting on for ourselves?
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
Belle: OK Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
quote: It would just preclude the recognition of joy as a special attribute.
Again, maybe this is a big deal. Maybe the contrast, the context, is what gives meaning to existance.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
I'd like to think that my life has meaning no matter how successful I am at removing sorrow from it.
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
But if you had never known sorrow at all, would it still have meaning? Maybe your life would have meaning because of your success at removing that sorrow. You can't know. You've never (that you remember) not known sorrow. Though maybe there was a time where you didn't--before this mortal life.
Posted by Zalmoxis (Member # 2327) on :
Experience is painful. Growth and change is inredibly difficult. Goodness can't result from stasis.
And I don't think that anyone really knows why this is so. In fact, it's not clear to me that God knows the why -- only that he knows (perfectly) that it is (and how it is) so. I'd also add that it seems to me that God knows the best way to maximize growth and experience with the least pain and that if people paid more attention to his ideas on that, there'd be less pain in the world.
--------------
Of course, the caveat here is that this is from the perspective of LDS theology.
EDIT: I see that predictably the conversation has already turned in this direction. Shame on me for not reading the entire thread before posting. Let me only add that it would seem that experience (and the pain and joy that comes with it) is a necessary part of relationship forming, and I think that relationship forming is the key to this whole existence thing.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
"Evil glorifies God."
Hmm. I wonder if you mean in the sense that ALL things work toward God's glory?
Like C.S. Lewis said: We can choose to be God's tools, like Judas and Satan; or we can choose to be His sons, like Jesus and Peter. . .
??
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
Bev wrote:
quote:Am I worse off or better off for having had that faith, even if it is wrong? I will never *know* for a fact that it was wrong.
Assuming it's a binary thing, sure, but why make that assumption?
Posted by Corwin (Member # 5705) on :
Jacare: Let's try again:
- I say: a rock hit me in the head. I ask why did it have to hit me? - You say: Pain is there so I can learn to duck rocks next time.
But that is not what I'm asking, is it? I'm asking why did it have to hit me in the first place?! Why that part was necessary, not why the effect of that - me feeling pain - is necessary. I don't see any answer for that in your posts. I'm sorry, I don't know any other way to make it clearer. Posted by Jacare Sorridente (Member # 1906) on :
quote: I find this baffling. Of course it's an attribute; it's just a univerally-applicable attribute.
There might be no word for wisdom, but that wouldn't mean that wisdom didn't exist, or that people were any less wise.
The universality of joy would not preclude the existence of joy. It would just preclude the recognition of joy as a special attribute.
Let me rephrase- something cannot be recognized as an attribute unless there is something with which to compare it. No one could possibly realize that things could be any other way. Wisdom would be completely outside of everyone's experience and wisdom itself- the term, what it means, its very existence would never have been.
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
Noemon: Which, the worse vs. better or the not knowing? I'm not sure what you mean.
Posted by Corwin (Member # 5705) on :
quote:Assuming it's a binary thing, sure, but why make that assumption?
Me not getting this... Uga... Which part are you answering?!
Edit: Neither does bev, apparently...
Posted by Jacare Sorridente (Member # 1906) on :
Corwin said:
quote: But that is not what I'm asking, is it? I'm asking why did it have to hit me in the first place?! Why that part was necessary, not why the effect of that - me feeling pain - is necessary. I don't see any answer for that in your posts. I'm sorry, I don't know any other way to make it clearer.
What is the alternative? If a rock hits you in the head, and you feel no pain, you may have fractured your skull and you wouldn't know it. If you don't take steps to staunch bleeding or otherwise care for injuries then you might die.
The only alternative I can imagine for the existence of pain is to have indestructible individuals. If your question is: "Why didn't God make us all indestructible?" I would say that you have to determine the purpose of life on earth.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
I think Corwin's point is that the alternative is the rock not hitting him at all, which presumably god could prevent from happening.
Posted by Corwin (Member # 5705) on :
quote:Originally posted by twinky: I think Corwin's point is that the alternative is the rock not hitting him at all, which presumably god could prevent from happening.
Eureka! All hail twinky! Posted by Jacare Sorridente (Member # 1906) on :
quote:I think Corwin's point is that the alternative is the rock not hitting him at all, which presumably god could prevent from happening.
Again, this speaks to the purpose of life. If the purpose of life is to live pain-free then God is sure doing a poor job of it. If the purpose of life is otherwise then that is why God doesn't intervene to prevent pain- it is simply a matter of priorities.
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
Bev, I think that I may have excerpted the wrong bit of your post, which would definitely explain the confusion. What I took you to be saying was that if you were right, that would be great, and if you were wrong you'd have ceased to exist, and so would never know that you had been wrong. I can't actually find the post now in which I thought you were saying that (I can't believe how quickly this thread grows! Take a minute to do some work and a page and a half has flashed by).
Anyway, my response to that was that what you were saying (or what I thought you were saying) was only the case if it was a binary situation--if either you're right or the atheists are right.
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
Jacare, the question here is why didn't God make a universe where His creations could live in sublime pleasure every waking moment. Or at least never experience any displeasure. No rocks would ever fall on people's heads. They would be magically deflected, or something.
I have argued that such a live would have little meaning, and that true joy could not exist without having known sorrow. (This is a specific definition for "joy" since I cannot think of another word to fit the definition. It is different than "just pleasure" or "just bliss". It is "pleasure in context" or "pleasure with wisdom, understanding, and knowledge". When LDS use the word "joy", it has specifically this meaning. Feel free to come up with a better term for it. )
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
quote:Anyway, my response to that was that what you were saying (or what I thought you were saying) was only the case if it was a binary situation--if either you're right or the atheists are right.
Note I specifically talked about only one aspect of me being right: that there *is* an afterlife. On that, the situation is binary. I recognize there is plenty of wiggle-room on my other beliefs.
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
Ah, okay.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jacare Sorridente:
quote:I think Corwin's point is that the alternative is the rock not hitting him at all, which presumably god could prevent from happening.
Again, this speaks to the purpose of life. If the purpose of life is to live pain-free then God is sure doing a poor job of it. If the purpose of life is otherwise then that is why God doesn't intervene to prevent pain- it is simply a matter of priorities.
Yes, I get what you're saying -- god preventing pain is tantamount to making humans indestructible -- but if god is omnipotent then I don't see why this is incompatible with having another purpose in mind for life. Being omnipotent means you get to break the rules of logic.
Posted by Jacare Sorridente (Member # 1906) on :
quote:Jacare, the question here is why didn't God make a universe where His creations could live in sublime pleasure every waking moment. Or at least never experience any displeasure. No rocks would ever fall on people's heads. They would be magically deflected, or something.
I see that, but I think it is a very silly question. I have addressed this in Corwin's form, but another way of phrasing it is: "If God really exists, why didn't he make the universe just as I think it should be?"
The clear answer is: God made the universe the way it is because that is how he wanted it.
Whether such is whimsy or if there is a reason behind it (and what that reason might be) is the entire purpose of religion. But it is absurd to say "The universe could have been built differently, therefore God doesn't exist."
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
But maybe sparing us pain in the now would only cause greater pain in the eternities.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
Why? If god is omnipotent, he can prevent that pain, too.
Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
quote:Originally posted by twinky:
quote:Originally posted by Jacare Sorridente:
quote:I think Corwin's point is that the alternative is the rock not hitting him at all, which presumably god could prevent from happening.
Again, this speaks to the purpose of life. If the purpose of life is to live pain-free then God is sure doing a poor job of it. If the purpose of life is otherwise then that is why God doesn't intervene to prevent pain- it is simply a matter of priorities.
Yes, I get what you're saying -- god preventing pain is tantamount to making humans indestructible -- but if god is omnipotent then I don't see why this is incompatible with having another purpose in mind for life. Being omnipotent means you get to break the rules of logic.
If the purpose that God has in mind for life is to progress and grow stronger and have joy, as Bev has pointed out, then preventing pain is incompatible with that purpose.
If God acted to prevent circumstances where we were prevented from having pain, that would entail a good deal of our free agency being taken away. We need to be free to make poor choices as well as good choices, and we need to be free to suffer the consequences of poor choices. We also need to be free to be in a position where we can get hurt.
Posted by Jacare Sorridente (Member # 1906) on :
quote: Yes, I get what you're saying -- god preventing pain is tantamount to making humans indestructible -- but if god is omnipotent then I don't see why this is incompatible with having another purpose in mind for life. Being omnipotent means you get to break the rules of logic.
I don't think omnipotent means that at all. We can argue what was meant by those who defined God as omnipotent, but a perfectly functional definition of omnipotent would be "capable of doing anything which is possible".
The real issue here is whether a God has no bounds whatsoever or whether there are limitations (eg he can only do what is logically possible).
However, I would like to point out that if one posits that God can absolutely do anything at all, with no limitations, then humankind is really just a silly little game. If he could have immediately made us in any possible form with all possible knowledge then there is no reason at all why humans are one way and not another. It is completely arbitrary. That seems to be the position that Corwin is arguing from, but I see no reason to accept the underlying assumption.
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
quote:Being omnipotent means you get to break the rules of logic.
According to LDS teaching, even God has to follow logic. Even if it is logic that we cannot grasp or do not have the full information to see clearly.
I figure being omnipotent means that you have all power within the realm of natural laws. Not even God is above the laws of the universe. He may be above the laws He gives to man without being above the laws of the universe. "Thou shalt not kill" and any of the other commandments are not laws of the universe. Gravity is. (At least, inasmuch as we actually understand it--which is "not much".)
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
Logic says that, yes. But as I said, an omnipotent god is not constrained by logical rules. If god wanted us to not experience pain and yet still "progress and grow stronger and have joy," then god could make that happen despite how illogical it seems to us.
Edit: Lots of posts in the meantime. If god is not omnipotent, then all this is fine. I just wanted to know where you stood on the omnipotence question.
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
quote:The clear answer is: God made the universe the way it is because that is how he wanted it.
And the conclusion that many atheists draw is: if that is how God wanted it, and it was *His* whim, then God is not good nor benevolent. In fact, He may be evil (which is all hypothetical assuming He exists, says the atheist.) ^_^
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
Twinky, I don't believe in such a God. And neither do you.
Edit: But I understand and agree with what you are saying, and apparently so does Jacare.
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
quote:Originally posted by twinky: Why? If god is omnipotent, he can prevent that pain, too.
But what if he isn't omnipotent in the classical sense?
Personally, I find it much more construction to ask, "Why are things the way they are?" instead of "Why aren't things this other way?" If there is a God, then there's a reason for his making the universe (and all of us) the way that he did. And I don't think we're really in a position to second-guess someone capable of making all that.
Posted by Corwin (Member # 5705) on :
quote:Originally posted by beverly: Jacare, the question here is why didn't God make a universe where His creations could live in sublime pleasure every waking moment. Or at least never experience any displeasure. No rocks would ever fall on people's heads. They would be magically deflected, or something.
Something like that, but not really. Perhaps more like: getting what you deserve for your actions, but in a way that would make you understand that that is why it happened. In other words, why isn't this world more meaningful if it is the creation of a greater being? The answer "maybe it is, but we don't see that meaning" doesn't help.
In my vision of a Universe created by a god, at the end of everything there would be happiness for everyone, because everyone would understand why certain "wrongs" happened, etc. And, also very important, this life would not seem such a series of random events with little relation to our actions. The purpose of life in that type of Universe would be to learn through your actions, but not through what I view as unnecessary pain.
Anyway, I don't really understand how a Universe like this would be...
quote:But it is absurd to say "The universe could have been built differently, therefore God doesn't exist."
But it's not absurd to say: "This Universe isn't built in accordance to what I view a Universe created by a superior being would look like, therefore I don't believe in such a superior being."
Posted by Jacare Sorridente (Member # 1906) on :
Just a bit of expansion on my previous point:
The Logic Corwin and Twinky seem to be operating on goes like this:
God can do anything whatsoever that he conceives of.
If God wanted humans to be perfect he would have made us that way.
Since God did not make us perfect he is the reason for all pain and suffering.
Since God needlessly causes pain and suffering he is evil.
As can be seen, all of these conceptions about God, reasoning behind his motives etc. proceed from the assumption that God can do anything at all that he (or by extension, we) can conceive of. The real question then, is whether this characterization of God is correct.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
Beverly:
Indeed I do not.
However, my understanding of LDS beliefs is that you differ significantly from other Christians on the question of the extent of god's power over and within the universe.
Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
quote:Logic says that, yes. But as I said, an omnipotent god is not constrained by logical rules. If god wanted us to not experience pain and yet still "progress and grow stronger and have joy," then god could make that happen despite how illogical it seems to us.
He couldn't do that if he wanted us to be free agents for ourselves above all other things.
God is not God because he can do anything; he is God more because of what he will or won't do.
Posted by Corwin (Member # 5705) on :
Man, this thread moves really, really, really fast...
Posted by Jacare Sorridente (Member # 1906) on :
quote: But it's not absurd to say: "This Universe isn't built in accordance to what I view a Universe created by a superior being would look like, therefore I don't believe in such a superior being."
No, this is perfectly reasonable, though of course whether one believes in a superior being or not is irrelevant to the question of whether there is one.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
Whoa, hold up there, Jacare. Not once in this thread have I stated my actual position beyond that I do not believe in god. I'm just trying to make sure that you and Corwin aren't talking past one another.
Edit: AFR, it seems to me that you're simply saying "god is not omnipotent." That's fine. If god is not omnipotent then the logic works.
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
Corwin: It sounds like the Universe you would create as an omnipotent being would read like a novel or view like a movie.
Everything shown would be shown for a specific purpose. Nothing "just happens". It is all about the symmetry of the story arch rather than the free will of the individual characters. All the lose ends are tied up at the end, everyone gets what they deserve.
Now, if I reflect on the way I believe, I believe that a lot of this *may* be the case. But the problem is that death is not the end of the story.
In fact, an apostle in the LDS church once spoke on this, that life is a 3-act play, and we are stuck in the middle of the 2nd act with no memory of the first and no knowledge of the last. The idea here is that the story *only* makes sense if you can see all three acts. But that vision does not come until the end.
Posted by Jacare Sorridente (Member # 1906) on :
quote: Whoa, hold up there, Jacare. Not once in this thread have I stated my actual position beyond that I do not believe in god. I'm just trying to make sure that you and Corwin aren't talking past one another.
But you did state that if God was omnipotent he could make things in a different way. This leads me to believe that your line of reasoning is something like what I posted. Please correct me if that is wrong.
Posted by Corwin (Member # 5705) on :
Well, Jacare, I think we understand each other! I can't say that God exists or not, that much I acknowledged somewhere in this thread. I'm wondering how am I supposed to believe there is a God. Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
quote: Being omnipotent means you get to break the rules of logic.
I couldn't disagree with this more.
Being Omnipotent does not being able to make something both exist, and not exist, for example.
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
Ooo! You mean like Schrodinger's cat?
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
When you say "my line of reasoning," do you mean the line of reasoning that led me to become an atheist?
...because when it comes to the question of pain, I'm actually with Noemon -- I don't see Karl's opening example as evidence either for or against the existence of god(s).
Posted by Corwin (Member # 5705) on :
quote:Originally posted by beverly: Corwin: It sounds like the Universe you would create as an omnipotent being would read like a novel or view like a movie.
...
Now, if I reflect on the way I believe, I believe that a lot of this *may* be the case. But the problem is that death is not the end of the story.
In fact, an apostle in the LDS church once spoke on this, that life is a 3-act play, and we are stuck in the middle of the 2nd act with no memory of the first and no knowledge of the last. The idea here is that the story *only* makes sense if you can see all three acts. But that vision does not come until the end.
Well, ok, maybe not everything. I'm still fuzzy on this. But most/more of this world would have to make some sense. Some "moral" sense, or something like that. And I believe most of it does not make sense. Maybe it's only a small act in a larger play, but even so I find too little sense in this to make me believe there is a God.
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
Twinky, I've never seen you explain what line of reasoning lead you to become an atheist. Is that something you'd be willing to talk about here? If it is private, I understand. Though, you are welcome to email me about it.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jim-Me:
quote: Being omnipotent means you get to break the rules of logic.
I couldn't disagree with this more.
Being Omnipotent does not being able to make something both exist, and not exist, for example.
I think it does. If you believe otherwise, then in my view you believe that god is not omnipotent. That's perfectly fine! I don't see anything problematic about believing in a non-omnipotent god. Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
IMO, being omnipotent means being the master of everything that is possible.
Being like God is perhaps like using that power very, very wisely.
Posted by Humean316 (Member # 8175) on :
quote: And the conclusion that many atheists draw is: if that is how God wanted it, and it was *His* whim, then God is not good nor benevolent. In fact, He may be evil (which is all hypothetical assuming He exists, says the atheist.) ^_^
Atheists would not draw this conclusion because they would think that God does not exist. Agnostics, on the other hand, MAY draw this conclusion but it has no bearing on the existence of God. For, if God is evil, he must exist.
I have studied a theory by Peter Unger called Philosophical Relativity which basically states that your beliefs are based not upon objective facts, but upon other beliefs that you hold. These beliefs then play a role in how you weigh evidence. For instance, if you have a strong belief in God, then you weigh evidence against the problem of evil more heavily then say an atheist. I think that this explains many of the disagreements we see here in the thread. As I have read through the thread ive noticed that something like "well you believe one thing and I believe another" or "I come down on the other side even though i see your argument and vice-versa" is common. If there were an objective truth to the arguments we have presented (on both sides) shouldnt we all agree to the same conclusion? Its interesting to talk about religion this way when it seems like there has to be an objective truth to the existence God (he either does or does not exist). Yet, without a way to independently verify this claim (i.e God walks up to you and says hi) it certainly seems like we are going to rely on arguments and evidence, and by so doing we open ourselves up to the thought that our arguments cannot provide a solid basis for belief or disbelief in God. If this be the case, then you will simpy believe or disbelieve based what evidence you hold most dear. Of course, then your beliefs are relative to those factors you hold dear. LOL, sorry if I didnt present this argument correctly. What do you guys think?
Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
I'm curious about how you would answer this question: How do you become omnipotent?
Posted by Jacare Sorridente (Member # 1906) on :
quote: When you say "my line of reasoning," do you mean the line of reasoning that led me to become an atheist?
...because when it comes to the question of pain, I'm actually with Noemon -- I don't see Karl's opening example as evidence either for or against the existence of god(s).
Not at all- I mean your line of reasoning in suggesting that things could be otherwise than they currently are. The entire logical chain seems to rest on the assumption that by definition God can do whatever he conceives us (such as make everyone perfect in all ways). As you have agreed, if one does not begin with that assumption then the logic which leads to the conclusion of an evil or capricious god really doesn't apply.
quote: Well, Jacare, I think we understand each other! I can't say that God exists or not, that much I acknowledged somewhere in this thread. I'm wondering how am I supposed to believe there is a God. [Big Grin]
That is the million dollar question. Anyone you ask will give you a different answer ranging from "You can't logically believe in God" on one end to "Just believe in God" on the other with a whole lot in between.
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
quote:Maybe it's only a small act in a larger play, but even so I find too little sense in this to make me believe there is a God.
That's fine. Belief is such a subjective thing. We are all doing our best to perceive what we believe is real. I am not one to point the finger at someone who would like to believe, but just can't.
Though along the lines of your analogy, I still think that even with a full understanding of things, some people would still choose do to evil. In fact, that is one of the reasons why I believe God keeps so much knowledge from us--to keep us from doing ourselves even more damage by "sinning against the greater knowledge". He instead teaches us slowly, as we are prepared to deal well with what we are given.
Basically, I believe that the more knowledge you have that the thing you are doing is wrong, the harder it is to redeem yourself from doing that wrong thing. This belief in some ways has absolutely *nothing* to do with religion or God.
Posted by mothertree (Member # 4999) on :
I'm just book-ending this thread, having read Karl's first post and a couple of others, so I hope this isn't a re-do.
My question is how could a naturalist photograph this event and not intervene? How could you watch it and go on with your life? I don't really know the answers to those questions either. And now I know about the horrors of weaver ants. What, in all seriousness, is my duty as a believer?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
In fact, the whole "God is omnipotent" is a fairly recent invention; God makes much more sense as a limited being.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
Edit: Addressed to H316.
Well, I certainly don't think there's any way to prove or disprove the existence of god(s), barring incontrovertible evidence straight from said deity or deities.
It's a question of faith. People willing to make the leap of faith necessary to believe in god -- either as a result of a personal spiritual experience or for some other reason -- will believe. People who are not willing to do so won't believe.
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
quote:Atheists would not draw this conclusion because they would think that God does not exist.
I'm sorry, this didn't even occur to me. You see, as a believer, it is not at all hard for me to postulate, "What if there is no God?" So I don't understand why an atheist couldn't do the same in the other direction. Hypothetical conversations happen all the time about things we don't believe are true. That's the whole point of hypothetical conversations.
Posted by Jacare Sorridente (Member # 1906) on :
quote: If there were an objective truth to the arguments we have presented (on both sides) shouldnt we all agree to the same conclusion?
Not at all. This would be the case only if there were an objective truth which is easily independently verifiable.
It is rather like witnesses in a trail. Each witness saw something different and explains what they saw in different terms, yet clearly there is something objective which occurred but which is simply not easy to verify.
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
quote: It's a question of faith. People willing to make the leap of faith necessary to believe in god -- either as a result of a personal spiritual experience or for some other reason -- will believe. People who are not willing to do so won't believe.
Twink: Is this in response to my question to you specifically, or something else? I think that there are people who want to believe but can't. They need far more evidence in order to believe something, anything.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
quote:I'm curious about how you would answer this question: How do you become omnipotent?
You don't. An omnipotent god would essentially be the universe, in my view.
quote:I mean your line of reasoning in suggesting that things could be otherwise than they currently are. The entire logical chain seems to rest on the assumption that by definition God can do whatever he conceives us (such as make everyone perfect in all ways). As you have agreed, if one does not begin with that assumption then the logic which leads to the conclusion of an evil or capricious god really doesn't apply.
See, I haven't said that god is evil or capricious, so I don't understand where you're getting that from. I don't care what this hypothetical god would be like since I don't believe any gods exist. The question I had was whether this god would be omnipotent, and that has been answered to my satisfaction.
beverly, if you want me to explain it, I can.
Posted by scottneb (Member # 676) on :
quote:Why? If god is omnipotent, he can prevent that pain, too.
Shove it, Twink! If you didn't go through pain, you wouldn't have made some of your music. How dare you imply that you shouldn't have made that stuff!
(Totally tongue in cheek, BTW.)
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
So how does a near-omnipotent (or whatever term you prefer) god become near-omnipotent?
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
scottneb: Wrote a new one last night. Posted by Corwin (Member # 5705) on :
Did I ever say that I like your way of reasoning, bev? 'Cause I do!
Oh, and sorry for my poor choice of words earlier in this thread. Sometimes when what I want to say seems really clear to me I'm not able to rewrite it so that it becomes more intelligible no matter how much I try. Thanks twinky for helping me out, and Jacare for not giving up until what I wanted to say was worded properly!
Edit: With this said, I'm off for a night of canasta. Posted by Humean316 (Member # 8175) on :
"It's a question of faith. People willing to make the leap of faith necessary to believe in god -- either as a result of a personal spiritual experience or for some other reason -- will believe. People who are not willing to do so won't believe"
Exactly my point. Whatever belief you hold most dear is what will influence your belief in God, but if so then your belief isnt based upon objective facts, only relative (sometimes subjective) beliefs. Faith is the ultimate relative factor. If you have faith it is because you value something more than a person without faith does.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jon Boy: So how does a near-omnipotent (or whatever term you prefer) god become near-omnipotent?
I don't understand why you're asking me this.
Posted by scottneb (Member # 676) on :
quote:Wrote a new one last night.
Does that mean, that you have it on paper? Or that you wrapped on it last night?
Posted by Jacare Sorridente (Member # 1906) on :
Twinky- I reached that conclusion based on this post of yours:
quote: Logic says that, yes. But as I said, an omnipotent god is not constrained by logical rules. If god wanted us to not experience pain and yet still "progress and grow stronger and have joy," then god could make that happen despite how illogical it seems to us.
Edit: Lots of posts in the meantime. If god is not omnipotent, then all this is fine. I just wanted to know where you stood on the omnipotence question.
I am not saying that you belive this, but it seems that, from our point of view, if God could make us into anything at all but decided to make everyone suffer for no good reason then he isn't really all that nice of a fellow.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
quote:Originally posted by scottneb:
quote:Wrote a new one last night.
Does that mean, that you have it on paper? Or that you wrapped on it last night?
On paper? Hah! I never write them down.
No, I just mean that I wrote a new group of melodies that could become a song if I work a little more at them and write some lyrics.
Posted by Angiomorphism (Member # 8184) on :
"What can be asserted without proof can be dismissed without proof."
— Christopher Hitchens, "Less than Miraculous," Free Inquiry magazine, February-March 2004, Volume 24.
i don't like most arguments against the existence of god, nor most of the arguments for the existence of god (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arguments_against_the_existence_of_God) . all of them can be refuted in some way by the other party, so i prefer to follow the principle outlined in this quote, as well as this one (my favorite)
"It is often said, mainly by the 'no-contests', that although there is no positive evidence for the existence of God, nor is there evidence against his existence. So it is best to keep an open mind and be agnostic. At first sight that seems an unassailable position, at least in the weak sense of Pascal's wager. But on second thoughts it seems a cop-out, because the same could be said of Father Christmas and tooth fairies. There may be fairies at the bottom of the garden. There is no evidence for it, but you can't prove that there aren't any, so shouldn't we be agnostic with respect to fairies?" — Richard Dawkins, from www.world-of-dawkins.com
the idea behind this quote is that the mere idea of a debate on whether god exists or not is stupid, because it has the same logical stance as arguing whether or not fairies exist. arguments from ignorance are fallacious, both ways.
Twinky: I would very much like to know more about how you arrived at your current beliefs. Posted by Jacare Sorridente (Member # 1906) on :
quote:Edit: With this said, I'm off for a night of canasta
I wish that I was off for a night of canasta. I love that game.
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
quote:Faith is the ultimate relative factor. If you have faith it is because you value something more than a person without faith does.
Huh. This doesn't really make sense to me. Different internal value systems could definitely give rise to different kinds of faith, but I don't necessarily think there is a huge difference in values between the believer and the atheist.
We all want justice and mercy, right? If not from God, from man-made law. We want things to have meaning in our lives, even if it is only the meaning we choose to give it. I think we are a lot more the same than we are different.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jacare Sorridente: Twinky- I reached that conclusion based on this post of yours:
quote: Logic says that, yes. But as I said, an omnipotent god is not constrained by logical rules. If god wanted us to not experience pain and yet still "progress and grow stronger and have joy," then god could make that happen despite how illogical it seems to us.
Edit: Lots of posts in the meantime. If god is not omnipotent, then all this is fine. I just wanted to know where you stood on the omnipotence question.
I am not saying that you belive this, but it seems that, from our point of view, if God could make us into anything at all but decided to make everyone suffer for no good reason then he isn't really all that nice of a fellow.
Oh, I see. Sure, that's certainly true, but none of you believe in what I'd call an omnipotent god, so your positions don't have that problem.
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
quote:Originally posted by twinky: I don't understand why you're asking me this.
I was just curious. But never mind—I think I misread someone else's post as being one of yours.
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
quote:if God could make us into anything at all but decided to make everyone suffer for no good reason then he isn't really all that nice of a fellow.
Naw, it's me who said that. But mostly because I have heard *other* atheists/agnostics say it. It wasn't an idea that occurred to me before that.
Posted by scottneb (Member # 676) on :
quote:I was just curious. But never mind—I think I misread someone else's post as being one of yours.
You didn't take your pills, did you?
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by twinky:
quote:Originally posted by Jim-Me:
quote: Being omnipotent means you get to break the rules of logic.
I couldn't disagree with this more.
Being Omnipotent does not being able to make something both exist, and not exist, for example.
I think it does. If you believe otherwise, then in my view you believe that god is not omnipotent. That's perfectly fine! I don't see anything problematic about believing in a non-omnipotent god.
Being omnipotent (which I do believe God is) does not mean creating things which are contradictory in the current logical scheme. Now, it does mean the ability to change that scheme. But then they won't be mutually contradictory anymore.
Posted by Jacare Sorridente (Member # 1906) on :
quote: the idea behind this quote is that the mere idea of a debate on whether god exists or not is stupid, because it has the same logical stance as arguing whether or not fairies exist. arguments from ignorance are fallacious, both ways.
The problem with Dawkins is that he is sure that he is smarter than everyone else.
Look at it this way- the majority of human beings believe in some sort of divine entity. Now, it is possible that all of these people are stupid, ignorant or delusional, but I wouldn't want to bet the farm on it. That is why Pascal's wager makes some logical sense whereas believing in fairies makes less sense.
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
quote:Originally posted by scottneb: You didn't take your pills, did you?
They were gone. I think you took them. Posted by Angiomorphism (Member # 8184) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jacare Sorridente:
quote: the idea behind this quote is that the mere idea of a debate on whether god exists or not is stupid, because it has the same logical stance as arguing whether or not fairies exist. arguments from ignorance are fallacious, both ways.
The problem with Dawkins is that he is sure that he is smarter than everyone else.
Look at it this way- the majority of human beings believe in some sort of divine entity. Now, it is possible that all of these people are stupid, ignorant or delusional, but I wouldn't want to bet the farm on it. That is why Pascal's wager makes some logical sense whereas believing in fairies makes less sense.
actually, pascal's wager causes more problems than it solved, because it requires you to pick a specific religion to believe in, which means that if any of the vast others are right, you're still screwed
EDIT: and i dont think that ppl who believe in god are dumb or etc., they just dont apply rationalism to that part of their lives, because they have been taught not to. its more of an indoctrination thing
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
quote: There is no evidence for it, but you can't prove that there aren't any, so shouldn't we be agnostic with respect to fairies?
Huh, well, maybe we are. Did you ever think of that?
Honestly, I don't know why so many cultures have stories of fairies, dwarves, vampires, and giants. I was just reading yesterday about the Philippino version of these fey creatures. I thought it was interesting that there would be so many similarities.
Granted, I don't think fairies exist. But I can't say for a fact that I *know* they don't exist.
Posted by scottneb (Member # 676) on :
quote:They were gone. I think you took them.
I have no need to take your pills, Jon. I'm not crazy like you. Besides, paranoia is a symptom...
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:Look at it this way- the majority of human beings believe in some sort of divine entity. Now, it is possible that all of these people are stupid, ignorant or delusional, but I wouldn't want to bet the farm on it.
I don't know, were I to form an opinion based on this evidence, I think I'd be more likely to say, given that the various conceptions are generally mutually exclusive, that this widespread conception reflects a psychological need (e.g. for supernatural control/security) or perceptual set among these humans, rather than an underlying condition of reality.
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
quote:Originally posted by scottneb: I have no need to take your pills, Jon. I'm not crazy like you. Besides, paranoia is a symptom...
No it's not! IT'S THE CURE!!!
Posted by Angiomorphism (Member # 8184) on :
cant forget the crutch effect, religion can be a very effective way of getting you through hard times, and bringing an otherwise incompatible society together. it wouldnt still be here today if i didnt help us live and reproduce, but i feel as though the way that evolution is leading towards now (at least social evolution) is to secularism
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Is Ang King of Men?
Posted by Jacare Sorridente (Member # 1906) on :
quote:I don't know, were I to form an opinion based on this evidence, I think I'd be more likely to say, given that the various conceptions are generally mutually exclusive, that this widespread conception reflects a psychological need (e.g. for supernatural control/security) or perceptual set among these humans, rather than an underlying condition of reality.
But of course you come to the question with a preconceived set of notions (as do we all) that prejudices you to view this issue the way you do.
Put another way, your point of view could also explain the phenomenon, but it depends on a couple of assumptions, such as emphasizing the differences in beliefs rather than the similarities. While perhaps you would couch it in other terms, this position also essentially requires that all of those who claim to have had supernatural experiences of one form or another are delusional.
Posted by Angiomorphism (Member # 8184) on :
no, im relatively new here. and this is my only account. promise
Posted by Angiomorphism (Member # 8184) on :
quote:Originally posted by beverly:
quote: There is no evidence for it, but you can't prove that there aren't any, so shouldn't we be agnostic with respect to fairies?
Huh, well, maybe we are. Did you ever think of that?
Honestly, I don't know why so many cultures have stories of fairies, dwarves, vampires, and giants. I was just reading yesterday about the Philippino version of these fey creatures. I thought it was interesting that there would be so many similarities.
Granted, I don't think fairies exist. But I can't say for a fact that I *know* they don't exist.
haha good point, but i think that he meant other things as well, like flying carpet keyboards (just made that up), should we be agnostic to them too? i understand that we cant prove anything completely, just by the paradigm of the empirical method, but that doesnt mean that we should seriously discuss something, until we have some evidence for it. we dont discuss flying carpet keyboards, just like we should believe in or discuss god in principle, cuz its not logically sound. if god does exist, and he gave us rationalism, then he really doesnt want us to believe in him
Posted by Humean316 (Member # 8175) on :
"Huh. This doesn't really make sense to me. Different internal value systems could definitely give rise to different kinds of faith, but I don't necessarily think there is a huge difference in values between the believer and the atheist.
We all want justice and mercy, right? If not from God, from man-made law. We want things to have meaning in our lives, even if it is only the meaning we choose to give it. I think we are a lot more the same than we are different."
While this may be correct, if we were to think about why people choose to have faith or not, we would see that other factors in the persons life cause them to believe unconditionally in a God (whether it be culture, experience, or simply logic). The factors that cause one to believe in a God through faith are much the same to those who do not believe in God. Yet, some people value things more strongly than others. For instance, for someone who has had a relative who has been sick may take this as a sign that God does not exist and therefore, loses faith. On the other hand, for someone else who has gone through the same thing, they may take this as sign that God has taken them to heaven and thus, their faith is strenghtened. Faith is relative in this way as, i suspect, are most things we argue about.
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
quote:Originally posted by Angiomorphism: EDIT: and i dont think that ppl who believe in god are dumb or etc., they just dont apply rationalism to that part of their lives, because they have been taught not to. its more of an indoctrination thing
Wrong! Thanks for playing; try again.
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
Angio, cultures across the world have independantly come up with stories about fairies and other magical creatures. Enough that it makes me wonder why. Not enough to make me think they exist.
But if you start telling me I should be agnostic about invisible pink unicorns and purple pandas, you're just being silly.
Posted by MattB (Member # 1116) on :
quote:if god does exist, and he gave us rationalism, then he really doesnt want us to believe in him
Or he doesn't expect us to make rationality our only way of seeking truth.
Posted by Angiomorphism (Member # 8184) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jon Boy:
quote:Originally posted by Angiomorphism: EDIT: and i dont think that ppl who believe in god are dumb or etc., they just dont apply rationalism to that part of their lives, because they have been taught not to. its more of an indoctrination thing
Wrong! Thanks for playing; try again.
the only possible way i see that im wrong is in the case of people who changed religions throughout the course of their lives, but even then, the concept of a god that we should all believe in and not question *is* something that is taught to us as children, and something that we are traditionally not supposed to doubt in the same way we would doubt the existence of flying cows or invisible gnomes. this is the geo-social argument against religion, the one that states that wherever you were raised or born influences your religious beliefs more than your own sincere faith, because if you were born in rome, you would most likely be catholic, and if you were born in mecca, you would most ikely be muslim. there is no real counter argument to this, and it even applies to atheists.
however, if you still think that i am wrong, would you be so kind as to give me a reason why?
Posted by Angiomorphism (Member # 8184) on :
quote:Originally posted by beverly: Angio, cultures across the world have independantly come up with stories about fairies and other magical creatures. Enough that it makes me wonder why. Not enough to make me think they exist.
But if you start telling me I should be agnostic about invisible pink unicorns and purple pandas, you're just being silly.
thats the whole point, you shouldnt be agnostic about them! just like you shouldnt be agnostic about god. it is dumb to believe in invisible pink unicorns just because there is no evidence they do not exist, or because someone wrote about them a thousand years ago. do you see my point?
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
Because I have not been taught to not scrutinize religion rationally. I have been taught that rationality and faith are compatible. I have spent a lot of time thinking rationally about my religion, and I still have faith in it.
Edit: You're telling people it's dumb to believe in God? That probably violates the user agreement for this forum, you know.
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
I believe in Tom Davidson's Purple Panda.
Posted by Angiomorphism (Member # 8184) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jon Boy: Because I have not been taught to not scrutinize religion rationally. I have been taught that rationality and faith are compatible. I have spent a lot of time thinking rationally about my religion, and I still have faith in it.
maybe you and i have different concepts of what it means to look at something rationaly, because it seems to me that if you were to look at religion rationaly, you shouldnt still have faith in it. explain to me how they are compatible?
and dont get me wrong, i have nothing per say against religion, i just think that we need to seperate it from rationalism, and recognize that separation
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
Religion may be inherently unprovable. But it is not inherently irrational.
AJ
Posted by MattB (Member # 1116) on :
quote:this is the geo-social argument against religion, the one that states that wherever you were raised or born influences your religious beliefs more than your own sincere faith, because if you were born in rome, you would most likely be catholic, and if you were born in mecca, you would most ikely be muslim. there is no real counter argument to this, and it even applies to atheists.
How about this: Your argument is not really "against religion." It's only about why people might believe in God, not about whether God really exists. The fact that lots of little kids are being brought up to like Harry Potter says nothing about whether the books are well-written or not (don't diss them, though).
Posted by Angiomorphism (Member # 8184) on :
"Edit: You're telling people it's dumb to believe in God? That probably violates the user agreement for this forum, you know."
i believe i said explicitly that it *isnt* dumb to believe in god, just not rational in my opinion. does it make someone dumb if he/she holds a belief that isnt rational? you said yes, i didnt
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by BannaOj: Religion may be inherently unprovable. But it is not inherently irrational.
Well put.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
quote:Originally posted by beverly: Twinky: I would very much like to know more about how you arrived at your current beliefs.
Okay. This is the Coles Notes version that does not include the things that really upset me. There are some things (not serious or terrible things, just ones it would take a long time to explain) that I'm not willing to post about here and now. I hope that's okay.
I was raised theistically, in that the Christian god was just something that everyone around me believed in (or at least did not expressly deny; I now know that my father went to church partly to indulge my mother and partly because he liked the music, not because of any particular devotion). I went to church and even Vacation Bible School. The part of Nova Scotia I grew up in was full of Baptists, though we were Anglicans (not that I discovered this until a couple of months ago; denomination was never a big issue, we just went to whatever church we wanted).
In my teens, though, I realized I knew nothing about this god person everyone else was always thanking or praising or praying to, and that I'd never had any interaction with him. I was curious about that, but I assumed it was simply because god did not take a direct hand in people's lives. A few years later I heard the word "agnostic" for the first time and realized that it described me pretty well, since I certainly had no way of knowing whether or not god existed. I mentally applied the label to myself and started thinking about the question of god's existence.
In that period, a Catholic friend of mine (one of the most wonderful people it has been my pleasure to know in life) told me about the words of a famous agnostic whose name escapes me. It was something along the lines of "I don't know if god exits, and I don't believe that it is possible to know." That resonated very deeply with me. I found myself becoming more and more confused about why exactly everyone else seemed to believe so unquestioningly in god's existence. When I mentioned this to my mother, she said that she went through a similar phase as a teenager herself. Presto! The first time I ever felt condescended to by a theist. I was irritated at not being taken seriously, but didn't let it show. I mean, she's my mother. I know she meant well.
So after that I didn't talk to my mother about religion anymore. It never occurred to me to talk to my father, because he simply never talked about religion. I don't think I ever heard him say the word "god." I considered this recently, actually, and I'm starting to suspect that this was part of the effect that the Korean War had on him. He learned to shoot a rifle before he was even ten yeras old, won championships and stuff, taught his kids in New Zealand to shoot, went out and shot rabbits with them all the time, then went off to war and as far as I know never touched a gun again afterward. There were certainly no guns in my upbringing, and the first time I ever touched a real one was when I was in New Zealand meeting my step-brothers. One of those things.
I had a very fundamentalist Christian (we're talking Young Earth Creationism here) friend all through school. He and I started discussing the question of god about the time I started questioning my faith. We went through all of the usual things -- carbon dating, fossils, the Flood, irreducible complexity, blah blah blah. The more I talked to him the less and less compelling I found Christianity, though I certainly liked him well enough and we stayed friends. In fact, his father runs a Christian bookstore and my friend gave me my only copy of the Bible. He suggested, of course, that I read it.
I took it to university with me and read it, though not the whole thing. I found the Old Testament extremely troubling, as many do -- particularly so because my mother is Palestinian and I take great issue with the notion that god promised her homeland to the Jews. I also read Karen Armstrong's A History of God, among other tomes, which gave me a better understanding of Judaism and Islam. Ultimately I found that the tenents and strictures of all three religions did not ring at all true to me.
It was also about this time that I began taking philosophy courses at university as electives. I examined as many philosophical arguments for god's existence as I could get my hands on, from Aristotle to Descartes and onward into more modern writers, and found none of the arguments convincing or compelling. I concluded that the question couldn't be answered by sitting around and thinking about it, and decided to follow the chief piece of advice offered by theists to agnostics or atheists seeking faith -- look for it.
Partly because it was next in line and partly because I'd recently taken up karate, I began to study Zen Buddhism. I ultimately realized that it requires the same leap of faith as any other religion, but of a different kind (you must believe in the oneness of the universe before you can become enlightened enough to realize that it is true), but I did find it significantly more compelling than any of the monotheistic religions. I found, though, that when I practiced my katas I entered a meditative state similar to that advocated by the practitioners of Zen. So I tried the real kind of meditation, as well as prayer, looking for god or the universe to see what I would find. Nothing happened. No prayers were answered, no sense of union with a great power or with the universe overwhelmed me.
Eventually, I stopped looking. At first I thought less of myself for it, but then I realized that I was actually happier. I resolved to stop looking for real and for good, because the question of god's existence is irrelevant to me living a happy life, and I wanted to get on with living that happy life and stop worrying about whether or not god existed. A little while after that, I stopped answering the question "Do you believe in god?" with "I don't know" and started answering it with "No." That, combined with my generally negative experiences and interactions with evangelical theists, my generally negative opinion of the Judeo-Christian god as described in the Old Testament, and most importantly the total and complete lack of personal spiritual experiences in my life got me to start self-identifying as an atheist.
I am an atheist because of my answers to the following two questions:
"Do you believe in god?" "Do you believe that god exists?"
My answer to both is "No." I don't need to believe in god to be happy, so why bother? I'm just not going to worry about it anymore. It's fun to dabble in these sorts of discussion sometimes, but that's all it is for me now -- enjoyable hypothetical discussion.
Hope that helps. Posted by camus (Member # 8052) on :
1. God did not create evil. The fact that evil exists is not because He created it with some specific purpose for mankind, rather, He allowed it so that we humans have the perception of choice and free will.
2. God is not responsible for suffering. God created humans with perfect abilities. The fact that suffering does exist is due to the effects of Sin. As a result, "time and unforseen occurrence befall us all". So why does God permit suffering to continue? There are issues of universal sovereignty that were raised that need to be answered before mankind can be restored to their perfect state.
3. Why do animals suffer? We need to accept that we do not have an answer for everything in the universe. For example, it's completely possible that something/someone else is responsible for some of the "evil" things we see in the world.
4. Faith is a reflection of the heart and mind. A person will rationalize what they perceive as evidence or lack of evidence in whatever way fits what they want to believe. If God appeared before us right now, some would see a miracle and proof of a God, others would see a hallucination, others might see proof of an alien race, while others may create some completely new scientific theory to try to explain what they cannot understand. Egyptians and Isrealites witnessed the separation of the Nile River by Moses. Some chose to believe, while others did not. Likewise, we probably witness miracles all the time, but we just choose not to see it for what it is. We can try to discount the Flood of Noah's day because it seems impossible, but that's what makes it a miracle. "The Life of Pi" illustrates really well how there can easily be two sides of a story, it's just a matter of what you want to believe.
5. Regarding the "wait and see what happens" approach to an afterlife, what if there are strict requirements that need to be met if you want to get to the afterlife? If I live a religious life and it turns out I am wrong, I'm no worse of than an atheist. However, if an atheist is wrong, granted he won't know after he's dead anyway, is going to miss out on a lot. Personally, I'd rather err on the side that at least gives me a prospect to look forward to.
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
quote:Originally posted by Angiomorphism: maybe you and i have different concepts of what it means to look at something rationaly, because it seems to me that if you were to look at religion rationaly, you shouldnt still have faith in it. explain to me how they are compatible?
and dont get me wrong, i have nothing per say against religion, i just think that we need to seperate it from rationalism, and recognize that separation
And it seems to me that you don't understand faith or rationality if that's what you believe. They're compatible to me because I have arrived at the same result using both faith and rationalism.
And one thing: one second you're saying that people need to examine religion rationally, and then you're saying that religion and rationalism should be separate. What exactly do you mean by that?
quote:it is dumb to believe in invisible pink unicorns just because there is no evidence they do not exist, or because someone wrote about them a thousand years ago. do you see my point?
You're obviously using invisible pink unicorns as a metaphor for God and then saying that it's dumb to believe in them, because there's no proof they exist.
Posted by Angiomorphism (Member # 8184) on :
quote:Originally posted by MattB:
quote:this is the geo-social argument against religion, the one that states that wherever you were raised or born influences your religious beliefs more than your own sincere faith, because if you were born in rome, you would most likely be catholic, and if you were born in mecca, you would most ikely be muslim. there is no real counter argument to this, and it even applies to atheists.
How about this: Your argument is not really "against religion." It's only about why people might believe in God, not about whether God really exists. The fact that lots of little kids are being brought up to like Harry Potter says nothing about whether the books are well-written or not (don't diss them, though).
you are right, HP does kickass, and you are also right, the argument isnt about the existence of god, but it does explain why certain people are so strong in their opinions about god, even when said opinions contradict many other religious ppl's opinions, or rationalism in general
there are no fool-proof arguments against god, but there are also no fool-proof arguments for god. in cases like this, rationalism would dictate that we dismiss the idea completely until some sort of real evidence surfaces, just like we dismiss the existence of invisible pink unicorns, and that alone is why a belief in god is irrational.
again, that doesnt mean its wrong!! just cuz something is irrational doesnt make it bad. why is it so hard for ppl to accept that you can separate religion and rationalism, and agknowledge that you believe in god just cuz you do, and not because it is rational, or because there exists some sort of proof?
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
Angio, I think you missed my point. I *don't* just believe in God because someone thousands of years wrote about Him. I also believe in God because I believe that He called a prophet in the early 1800s who spoke with Him face to face, and left a line of prophets leading up to modern-day. I trust their testimonies for a variety of reasons. Part of it is that their teachings appeal to me, make sense, have symmetry. That isn't all of it, but it is true that it is more subjective than objective.
I haven't seen God face to face, but that's where the faith comes in. I can wait till after I die to see for sure. Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
Once again: "Unprovable" DOES NOT EQUAL "Irrational"
Not even in mathematics AJ
Posted by Angiomorphism (Member # 8184) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jon Boy:
quote:Originally posted by Angiomorphism: maybe you and i have different concepts of what it means to look at something rationaly, because it seems to me that if you were to look at religion rationaly, you shouldnt still have faith in it. explain to me how they are compatible?
and dont get me wrong, i have nothing per say against religion, i just think that we need to seperate it from rationalism, and recognize that separation
And it seems to me that you don't understand faith or rationality if that's what you believe. They're compatible to me because I have arrived at the same result using both faith and rationalism.
And one thing: one second you're saying that people need to examine religion rationally, and then you're saying that religion and rationalism should be separate. What exactly do you mean by that?
you still havent given me any exampels of said compatibility. what i think is that once you examine religion rationally, you realize that it isnt rational, so you have 2 options: 1) discontinue your belief in religion or god, or 2) separate religion and rationalism. its up to you what you do
but please provide me with your justification for reconciling rationalism and faith, i am sincerely interested in how you arrived at the same conclusion regarding your belief in god.
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
"Proveable" DOES NOT EQUAL "Rational"
Posted by Angiomorphism (Member # 8184) on :
quote:Originally posted by BannaOj: Once again: "Unprovable" DOES NOT EQUAL "Irrational"
Not even in mathematics AJ
could you give me an example?
if you are talking about the millenium problems from the clay institute, then i think you are confusing things. these problems are as of yet unprovable, but we know that a proof exists, because we can practically show that they work. the same cannot be said about god
Posted by Angiomorphism (Member # 8184) on :
quote:Originally posted by BannaOj: "Proveable" DOES NOT EQUAL "Rational"
id really like it if oyu developped your thoughts a little more, as i feel as though you have somethign constructive to add to the discussion
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
quote:Originally posted by Angiomorphism: you still havent given me any exampels of said compatibility. what i think is that once you examine religion rationally, you realize that it isnt rational, so you have 2 options: 1) discontinue your belief in religion or god, or 2) separate religion and rationalism. its up to you what you do
I really don't know what you mean by an example. I've had spiritual experiences that caused me to have faith. I've examined that faith and those beliefs rationally and decided that they make sense. What doesn't make sense is your two options.
Posted by Angiomorphism (Member # 8184) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jon Boy:
quote:Originally posted by Angiomorphism: you still havent given me any exampels of said compatibility. what i think is that once you examine religion rationally, you realize that it isnt rational, so you have 2 options: 1) discontinue your belief in religion or god, or 2) separate religion and rationalism. its up to you what you do
I really don't know what you mean by an example. I've had spiritual experiences that caused me to have faith. I've examined that faith and those beliefs rationally and decided that they make sense. What doesn't make sense is your two options.
you told me twice that you have reconcilled rationalism with faith. i am asking for an explanation of that reconcilliation. when you examined your faith and beliefs rationallty, what did you find? and what is your definition of "rationally", because based on the one i know, it would be impossible to explain spitritual experiences rationally without making reference to psycotic episodes, and even more impossible to explain faith rationally. im a ligitimately curious as to how you achieved this, that is why im asking
EDIT: anywhooo, im going home now, and leaving for the weekend, so please dont address me personally anymore, cuz i wont be able to respond. cheers, and have a good weekend everyone
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
Sorry I guess I was being too subtle for you.
Your underlying assumption to your entire argument is that rational = provable.
quote: what i think is that once you examine religion rationally, you realize that it isnt rational,
This is not true. Religon (examined without the influence of faith) is not irrational. Yes a tenet of an given religious system might appear irrational. However, that is not the entirety of "religion" as a whole.
It's just scientificaly unprovable. You can't prove or disprove faith externally. But, there are most definitely, rational people, that believe wholeheartedly in the existence of God. Many exist on this forum. It is an insult to claim that they are irrational.
There are also many rational people on this forum that don't believe, or unsure of the existence of god. It's just as much of an insult to call them irrational.
My approach is actually probably more inconsistent than most of the other people here. I believe in God when I believe in God and I don't believe in God when I don't believe in God. I'd give it about a 80% belief- 20% unbelief ratio. If I acknowledge that I am inconsistent, does that make me inherently irrational?
AJ
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
quote:Originally posted by Angiomorphism: you told me twice that you have reconcilled rationalism with faith. i am asking for an explanation of that reconcilliation. when you examined your faith and beliefs rationallty, what did you find?
That they were compatible. That it all made sense. Isn't that what I've been saying?
quote:and what is your definition of "rationally" . . .
quote:. . . because based on the one i know, it would be impossible to explain spitritual experiences rationally without making reference to psycotic episodes . . .
Thank you for the backhanded insult.
quote:. . . and even more impossible to explain faith rationally.
Then maybe you don't understand faith and rationality.
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
To me, the greatest evidence that there is no god is that people make up stories to tell their children.
Children demand answers to questions we don't know answers to. I know my kids wouldn't accept it when I answered "I don't know." In fact, my daughter insisted for a long time that I had told her that I know everything. I suspect that she misinterpreted one of my explanations, where I was trying to tell her exactly the opposite, but that's the way she remembered it.
But I know I did occassionally give answers that were bogus, just to shut them up when they were in the "WHY? WHY? WHY?" phase. And I certainly played the Santa Claus on them, because that kind of storyland magic is part of what makes childhood so special. Realizing that Santa can't exist is also a rite of passage into adult rational thought. And eventually we get to be grownups and realize that we have to bring the presents in after the kids are in bed, because Santa isn't going to do it.
What I believe is that thousands of years ago, when people didn't have many answers in the first place, they just came up with an anthropomorphic "God" to answer their children's questions. "Because God made it that way" sounds a lot more authoritative than "I don't know."
The difference is that God fulfills a need we continue to have into adulthood, so most people continue to believe.
What I find intriguing about this thread is that pain and suffering doesn't factor into whether I believe in God or not, yet it seems to be significant to a lot of people.
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
Also, in mathematical, and logical statments, you can write all kinds of "rational" statements.
You can only prove a very small number of them though. And almost every proof depends on assumptions.
AJ
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Specifically, many people on this site alone believe they have had direct experience of one sort or another with God, and consequently believe. This is perfectly rational, but not independently verifiable.
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
tom you can always boil it down more succintly than I can! AJ
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
Do you think that the prophets who claimed to have seen God were doing so to tell their children stories to explain what they didn't know? How 'bout Sauls claim that he saw Jesus Christ on the road to Damascus and it changed him 180 degrees from his previous passionate behavior? I understand you might come up with a myriad of other reasons why they might claim to have seen visions and have authority, but this one you've given here doesn't explain it.
quote:To me, the greatest evidence that there is no god is that people make up stories to tell their children.
I don't. If they ask a question, and I don't know the answer, I tell them so. They accept it just fine. In fact, I think they are comforted by the knowledge that I never lie to them when I don't know something. It gives them a sense of security, that the world around them *makes sense*.
quote:And I certainly played the Santa Claus on them, because that kind of storyland magic is part of what makes childhood so special.
Nope, I never told them that there was a real Santa Claus. Not even jokingly. Does that make me a bad parent? I think my kids will learn to trust reality all the more for it.
quote:"Because God made it that way" sounds a lot more authoritative than "I don't know."
This is absolutely true. But I say it because I believe it. Some might snarkily say that it is the only "fairy-tale" I tell my kids is real.
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
BTW, twink, thanks for the background information. I appreciate it.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
No problem, beverly. Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Bev, if I understood Glenn correctly, he was advancing an explanation for where the belief in gods came form in the first place, not for any particular person's belief in it. You would have to go much further back than Saul, into Neolithic times at least, to find the first guy who made up a god. Once invented, of course, the meme spreads very rapidly because it's such a comforting story, and sometimes it even fits into personal experience. Hence, Saul etc.
Kat, I am assuredly not Angiomorphism, and I'm insulted that you could have thought so. Not only do I insult people much more effectively, I capitalise my sentences when doing so.
A few pages back someone brought up CS Lewis; I'd like to point out that his argument is just standard Platonic idealism. Just because you can conceive of something doesn't mean it has to exist; thus I can conceive of the IPU without believing in her existence, or in perfect justice without believing in the existence of a perfectly just being. Moreover, the argument can easily be turned on its head : Clearly the Universe is not utterly and completely evil, yet I can conceive of a being who is, and who is also all-powerful. Voila, Satan exists and created the Universe.
Finally, 'irreducible complexity' ain't.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Wups, I forgot about the presence of evil; it was argued that pain and so on are the result, not of the Fall alone, but of the world being 'captured by evil'. That still cannot explain the presence of pain in dinosaurs and other pre-human creatures, because without free will, there is no evil. So evil cannot capture the Universe before the first free-willed being.
Also, somebody argued that the Universe has a definite beginning and therefore must have a cuase, but a creator doesn't need one through having existed forever. Not a good argument; there are a lot of explanations for the Big Bang that postulate something else existing forever before that particular moment, whether a quantum sea (my own favoured explanation) or a cyclical universe. A god is nothing special in this regard.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Oh yeah, I forgot about Tom's Objectivism argument too. I have to disagree, because it is not obvious that self-interest is the only rationally supportable choice. Why shouldn't I choose to build my moral axioms on a basis of producing the maximum number of pink unicorns? Or minimising the number of orgasms in the world? I'm not arguing that either of these is rational, I'm saying that by definition, no moral fundament is rational. Now, I'll certainly grant you that self-interest is likely to appeal to a lot of people, but that's not the same as saying it makes sense. Christianity appeals to many people too, after all.
So, since I do not see any rational basis at all for moral axioms, I would instead observe what people do. (For broadly similar reasons, I am an experimental rather than a theoretical particle physicist; perhaps my bias is showing here.) And the moral axioms people actually choose tend to be reasonably altruistic; not perfectly so, by any means, and of course there's a lot of variation, but the primate sense of justice does lead to reasonably good people. The instinct that produces that sense of justice isn't exactly rational either, but it works.
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
Wow, I don't think I've ever started a thread that has gone to 6 pages. Certainly not in its first day. Sorry I haven't been here to follow along.
I just wanna say "thanks" to ScottR for responding to my last post. We really should have a long conversation in private.
I'll read more when I get time, but that probably wont happen until Monday or so and by then the thread will probably be dead. Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
KOM said: "if I understood Glenn correctly, he was advancing an explanation for where the belief in gods came form in the first place, not for any particular person's belief in it. You would have to go much further back than Saul, into Neolithic times at least, to find the first guy who made up a god."
Exactly.
Actually there's a very good book on this called "When God was a Woman" about the development of gods from an anthropological/archaeological point of view. The thesis is that the early gods/idols were all female, up until about the time when humans figured out the causal relationship between sex and procreation. Basically, "God" was the answer to the question: "If you're my mother, and you had a mother, then who was the first mother?" Follow the family line far enough and you get the person who created life to begin with, hence "God."
When they figured out that men were part of the process, women were diminished in stature from creators of life, to merely being the "vessel" that carries the seed. So man is the creator of life. Male gods appeared at around the same time.
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
I've read some stuff about the theory that God was originally a woman, and it's pretty much complete bunk. There is no archaeological evidence that I've seen.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Angiomorphism:
I bet you realize that "Angiomorphism cannot prove this statement true" is true, even though you can't prove it.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Not the Christian God, JB, but the concept of some creator impulse. For that there is plenty of evidence.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Wow, I don't think I've ever started a thread that has gone to 6 pages.
Actually, that book suggests that the Jewish and hence Christian religions evolved from volcano worshippers, if I remember correctly. It's been a long time since I read it.
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
The book presents the archaeological evidence.
I couldn't present it here, it's too extensive.
However, early copies of the writings of the bible stories prior to Abraham often used feminine genders to refer to gods. And the "golden calf" that angered Moses was a female god that also had a human form.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Um, fugu, he can, actually. You just need to take 'any statement containing the words 'Angiomorphism' is true' as an axiom. Whether that's a useful axiom is another question, but it's certainly a possible one.
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
" Actually, that book suggests that the Jewish and hence Christian religions evolved from volcano worshippers, if I remember correctly."
I don't remember that part.
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
Like I said, it's been a long time. I'll try to find it when I get home. Just for interest, not for any relevance to this conversation.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Oh, really, KoM?
Lets assume he's proved it true. Is it true?
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
If we assume he proved it, yes.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Urr... I admit I forgot it was self-referential. However, I think I'll follow Hofstadter and say that the statement is neither true nor false, but belongs to the class undecidable.
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
I have difficulty with the term "axiom" as KoM used it. An axiom implies that it is generally accepted as true. You can't create an axiom unilaterally.
You can use the term "assumption," but then your opponent is free to dispute your assumptions, because they're yours, not his.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
You can eliminate the parts of the system which would make it false, yes, but there's an implicit assumption that the system is still complex enough to allow the statement its intended meaning.
Also KoM, your axiom is inconsistent with that implicit assumption -- yes, there are degenerative cases for any statement, but I'm clearly not talking about a degenerative case, I'm talking about systems such as one might think about religion within (and in fact, any system with the aforementioned implicit assumption will by nature not be degenerative).
By that assumption, its impossible to prove true. Any possible set of statements intended as a proof will necessarily, if the statement to prove is added to them, be false as a union.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
GA -- yeah, I know, if we assume he proved it; I was trying to convey the notion of a set of statements thought to be a truth not being true in union with the original statement Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Glenn, I agree that that is the usual meaning of axiom, but in logic and math you can choose anything you like for axioms. Whether the resulting system is useful for anything is a separate matter.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
>>I just wanna say "thanks" to ScottR for responding to my last post. We really should have a long conversation in private.
I think you're just swanky, Karl.
You know my email.
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
According to my Axiomatic Geometry textbook, an axiom is a "statement that you already accept, that I don't need to justify."
My dictionary defines an axiom for mathamatical applications as: "a self-consistent statement about undefinable objects."
Oddly enough, my Discrete Mathematics textbook uses the term, but doesn't define it.
You can choose anything you like for an assumption, premise or hypothesis, but not an axiom.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Consider Euclid's fifth axiom, that for a given line there is exactly one parallel passing through a given point. Seems very reasonable, yes? But its two negations give you perfectly sensible geometries, to wit, spherical and Riemannian. I think your Axiomatic Geometry book is simplifying a bit.
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
"I think your Axiomatic Geometry book is simplifying a bit."
No, you are. An axiom requires acceptance, a requirement that you dismiss. In order for a premise to be an axiom, you have to gain acceptance for it.
It's pretty easy to gain acceptance for an new axiom if you use the accepted one as one prong in a set of cases, to wit: For a given line there is either exactly one parallel passing through a given point, or there is not.
The Title of my book is: "Euclidean and Non-Euclidean Geometries, Development and History."
What Euclid called axioms (because they were accepted as obvious at the time) are now referred to as Euclid's postulates.
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
I've just read the whole thread. Wow! I really didn't think I'd spark this much of a discussion.
The possibility that the caterpillar didn't experience pain, per se, does not make a difference to me. Weaver ants, and many other ants, will give the same treatment to a young bird that falls into their path or any of many other creatures that most probably do experience pain as we would define it. This through no guilt of their own, but because they were going about the business they were "designed" to do.
I understand Jacare's point about the necessity of pain in life. But in this example, we are not talking about pain that will teach you or keep you alive. We are talking about torture that serves no purpose whatsoever to the tortured. The victim does not live to learn to avoid the ants. Perhaps there is some value to the fact that this is a painful experience for those who escape, since it causes whatever extra skills they may have possessed that allowed them to escape to be bred into their populations, but that doesn't mean anything to the individuals who died.
I also made it very clear that I in no way offer this example as proof of anything. I don't think it is proof at all. I just find it equally compelling evidence of the absence of a benevolent creator as the fact that the earth provides such bounty (for the strong or lucky and their friends) is evidence for one.
But the thread has sparked a couple of ideas for new threads which I'll probably start in the next week or so.
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
quote:Originally posted by Glenn Arnold: " Actually, that book suggests that the Jewish and hence Christian religions evolved from volcano worshippers, if I remember correctly."
I don't remember that part.
Glenn -- I found it. It's just a couple of pages in chapter 5. It's not easily excerpted, and it's way off topic, and it would probably start a fight, so I'm not going to post clips. I have the 1993 B&N hardcover edition, if you happen to have the same one the relevent part is on pages 122 - 124. Otherwise, just look up volcano in the index. Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Ugh. That made my head hurt. One minute's worth of research in the OED disproves the lava connection. It's so bad that I can hardly call it linguistics.
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
Too bad amazon wants my credit card number.
I don't have a copy of the book. It belonged to a housemate of mine a LONG time ago.
I can see that judeo-christian religion must have considered volcanic activity when they decided that hell was full of fire and brimstone. Likewise I guess for Sodom and Gommorah. But I don't know how that constitutes "worship."
Maybe I'll have to get a copy of the book and read it again. At this point it's kind of pointless to discuss without the book for reference.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
What follows is a long post, but I ask you to please read it, first of all because I respond to a lot of things that people have individually said here, and second because I hope some of you can respond specifically to what I say, and I can learn from your responses as I have learned from your posts so far. How about that? I don't think I have ever specifically asked people to read something I have posted before, but I know how as threads get long, especially when they get long quickly, people start skimming.
It's been a long time since a thread made me this proud to be a Hatracker. Six pages of discussion, and it has generally been respectful and polite. I kept waiting for the other shoe to fall, and it hasn't yet. Reading this thread makes me want to be part of a community that discusses issues like this with this level of respect.
King of Men, I've been quick to criticize you in the past when I have felt you were being rude and disrespectful in your statements; whether you care or not, then, I believe it is only right for me to compliment you for how thoughtful your statements in this thread have been.
Angiomorph, I believe you believe that you do not intend to be rude, but you have been so. It has been pointed out several times already how, despite your initial protestation to the contrary, you have, in fact, come out and said it is unintelligent to believe in God, so I won't waste time repeating the exercise. Take an example from the other athiests and agnostics in this thread who have demonstrated that they can explain their rational conclusions without asserting that those who come to different conclusions must be irrational.
(By the way, as a sort-of-mathematician, let me point out that your belief that everything that is true can be proven is a statement of faith, and that there is no reason to believe that this statement is either true or logical. And there is nothing wrong--or irrational--with this faith of yours, but it speaks to your particular choice of axioms. But if you assume that everyone who rationalizes from different axioms than your own is, in fact, irrational, then that speaks more to your limitations, and inability to perceive beyond your beliefs, than to those of anybody else here.)
-o-
I label myself agnostic. That may not be an entirely accurate label, as I shall explain, but I'll fall back on what someone in this thread said (sorry, I don't want to search for it) who used percentages to explain how much they were believers and how much they were not. I'm not sure that Tom has accurately characterized where Twinky is on the spectrum of agnosticism when Tom said Twinky was on the opposite end of it, though I guess that's more for Twinky to say, or not. It doesn't seem to me like an accurate description of Twinky's beliefs because I think I am the one who is on the opposite end of that spectrum from Tom. I call myself agnostic, but I want to believe. My problem is that my rationalism needs to lead me to my belief, or I refuse to believe it, and my rationalism has not lead me to such a belief (as it has for Jon Boy and Hobbes, both of whom have specifically made this claim). I understand that some of you who are believers do feel that belief is separate from rationality while some do not. If I were a believer, I would have to be the latter kind.
I essentially believe in a creator who stands outside the cycle of time. (Then why do I label myself agnostic? This is where I'll fall back on the percentages thing. I don't always believe this, but this is what I lean to.) I don't care to explain why I believe this, because my questions aren't about this, and I don't care to debate it. Let us say I've received what I consider to be a personal revelation. I actually would not term it that; I am coopting the language I've heard LDS use on this board. What I'm trying to do is work out the rational ending points of that postulated truth.
The problem of evil and the problem of suffering have never been my stumbling blocks. (I believe I will start a different thread exploring the issues I struggle with, because I would like to watch the discussion that would flow from it, but it's really a different topic, I think.) Still, I would like to specifically thank the believers that have answered this question for their insights, because they have turned my thoughts in directions I have found fruitful for my own questions. In particular, the responses of Jacare, whose viewpoint I very often do not share, have been very (for lack of a better word) fruitful to me. Kat and Tatiana, too.
Before I go off and start another thread, though, here are some random reactions to things I have read:
quote:But this isn't true. Even a cursory glance at our world shows that there is far more "evil" than "good."
I do not see this at all. I respect that you see it this way, but then I object to the phrase "even a cursory glance shows," because it implies that a reasonable person can't help but see this as you do.
This thread is too big for me to want to go searching for it, but someone, Twinky, I think, said that there was no reason an omnipotent God could not stand outside of logical bounds, or not be restricted by logic. I understand why this seems so, but I disagree, because of how I personally see God. People tend to either anthropomorphize God, or see him as some sort of "Love-Power." They don't tend to talk about things like math and logic when they talk about God. But I see logic as being one of His attributes. So to want God to not be bound by logic is to want God to not be God. (And I would say that the phrasing of the question Is God bound by logic is inherently meaningless. Logic is not a bound nor a limitation to His power, but a manifestation of Him. A consequence of this is that I believe that we are called upon to use our rationalism, and to study His creation, and to question our beliefs, and so--and I realize here is where I will make my strongest break with what some Hatrackers believe--my beliefs lead me to see it as wrong to choose to ignore scientific evidence for things like, say, evolution, because they clash with our interpretation of scripture. (But then, I don't place scripture on anywhere near as high a pedestal as Protestant Christians tend to. In fact, I have not decided whether I believe any of it at all. If I do, I certainly believe it is allegorical, and imperfect.) I see scientific discoveries as being, essentially, revelations from God. (And when we discover that something science held to be true is, in fact, incorrect, I see that simply as further revelation correcting our earlier, incorrect interpretation of revelation. (Christians: Do you capitalize revelation? Forgive me for not doing so, if so. I'm getting tired enough of capitalizing He, Him, and His.)
-o-
quote:I've read some stuff about the theory that God was originally a woman, and it's pretty much complete bunk. There is no archaeological evidence that I've seen.
Forgive me for perhaps coming across as disrespectful, but it strikes me as odd for a Latter-Day Saint to dismiss anything out of hand as bunk due a lack of archeological evidence. As with Angiomorph, it's one thing to say that you personally find the evidence presented for a claim uncompelling, but another to say it is bunk.
-o-
Here are a couple of minor thread derailments. If nobody feels like talking about these things, that's fine, because neither is a terribly pressing issue to me, but I'm curious to hear the opinions of believers on these:
What does God want from us? Why worship Him? Do worshippers (as opposed to believers, though usually nobody seems to be one without being the other) simply worship God out of respect for what He has done, as, I think, Beverly suggested . . . i.e., I think, out of gratitude or something like it? Or does God crave our worship somehow? If so (and I realize you probably would not phrase it with the intentionally charged word "crave" if you believe this way), why does God want our worship/praise/belief/etc? Again, an article of my nascent belief seems to be that God may have aims for us that involve our spiritual fulfillment (though by no means is this a given; I'm just postulating it for argument's sake) but that His aims probably don't necessitate our belief or worship, and so God probably doesn't give a fig what we believe. My desire to know the Truth, then, is more about me and my desires than a wish to be on the right team so that I can get into Heaven when it's all said and done.
Posted by camus (Member # 8052) on :
I just Googled my name and the search returned no results. So because the search could not provide me evidence proving my existence, is it rational to conclude that I must not exist? Of course not. One reason is that the search was limited. If I used other tools, I would surely find documented proof of my existence. The tools we have available to us may not prove that God exists, but our tools are limited and we should not let our perceptions be limited by our tools.
Another reason is that my proof of existence lies not in documents or third person accounts, it lies in the results of my actions. I must exist, for example, because I typed the search. Sure, it's possible that the computer could have done the search on its own, but the chances are pretty slim. Likewise, sure it may be possible that the universe and everything in it evolved or was created from a Big Bang, but that doesn't mean it did.
Now speaking rationally, the odds of us being here through natural causes is so overwhelmingly small that a rational mind would conclude that it is possible that something, at the very least, started everything. The irreducible complexity of so many things creates the possiblity that something designed us. A rational mind would conclude that the chances that a god does exist are equally as likely as the astronomical odds of us evolving. To completely rule out the possiblity of a god is the product of an irrational mind.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Oh, I thought of one more thing. Somebody mentioned Schrödinger's cat in the context of a thing simultaneously existing and not existing. Now, there are two points to be made here : First, the Cat is simultaneously alive and dead, but it is certain to exist, in the sense that its individual molecules are guaranteed to be in the box and at least vaguely cat-shaped. There is no possible superposition between existing and not. And second, superposition and wave-function collapse are extremely poorly understood, for all that we've built a large superstructure of math and observation on top of them; drawing philosophical conclusions from them is highly ill-advised.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
camus, are you responding specifically to me or just making your own observations?
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Now speaking rationally, the odds of us being here through natural causes is so overwhelmingly small that a rational mind would conclude that it is possible that something, at the very least, started everything.
Not true. You have absolutely no idea what the odds are of us coming into existence. Neither do I. One can estimate these things using various models, but as long as we have zero experimental data, such estimates are really no better than wild guesses.
quote:The irreducible complexity of so many things creates the possiblity that something designed us.
Not true. There ain't no such animal.
quote: A rational mind would conclude that the chances that a god does exist are equally as likely as the astronomical odds of us evolving.
Not true. In the first place, I am moderately rational, as evidenced by my ability to put together English sentences. Yet I conclude no such thing. In the second place, 'astronomical' is mere rhetoric in this context; you don't know what the odds are.
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
Icarus, thank you. I found what you wrote here to be intensely beautiful. It really struck a chord with me.
I will give my opinion on the craving to be worshipped. As a child reading the scriptures, often God "came across" to me as craving worship. This idea did not settle well with me. Perhaps it seemed *too* human, or too weak. Anyway, it didn't seem to fit the picture I had of Him based on the other things I learned. There was a scripture that said that God does not do anything unless it is for our benefit. So why would His selfish desires come into play?
I came to the conclusion that it is very important to God that we worship Him, but not out of craving. I came to the conclusion that it was because if we worshipped Him, we would trust Him, follow Him, and that that would be the most beneficial path for us in the end. The idea here is that following His commandments will bring us the greatest happiness. If we "worshipped" other things, that would mean they were more important to us, and they would tend to lead us away from the path that would bring us the greatest happiness in the end.
This, incidentally, touches on the idea of the ancient Jewish prophets preaching so strongly against idol worship. I believe that one of the reasons that this was a "big deal" is that it led people into practices that lead them away from that which was naturally good and right.
But I think it would be similar to someone today putting TV as their highest priority, or their car, or their career, or whatever. The idea is that if you put God first, meaning you follow His teachings, your priorities will be in the right place, whether it is your family, friends, what you do with your money, etc.
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
quote: Somebody mentioned Schrödinger's cat
It was me, and I was trying to be funny. You see, I find Schrodinger's cat terribly funny. It reminds me of how little we really understand about the universe.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
It would seem to follow that most Christians in positions of power through the ages were not, in fact, worshipping God properly, what with all the Really Weird priorities they had.
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
KoM, I think I actually agree with that statement. Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Fair enough, bev, I didn't catch the funnay vibe - I was reading the thread at work, and responding from memory. If this amuses you, you might also get a chuckle from this interesting factoid : It is possible to show, in classical quantum mechanics, that a watched pot never boils. Quite literally : If you observe a radioactive nucleus sufficiently often, you can make the probability of its decay go to zero. The trick relies on some taking of limits, so if time is in fact quantised - in other words, if you can't really observe a nucleus as often as you please - it fails. Still, it does show something of how badly understood, or at any rate non-intuitive, wave-functions really are.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
Thank you beverly.
I'll throw out another tangential statement here, just because it popped into my head. I don't currently pray, in any traditional sense of the word. In fact, I actively resist the temptation to do so, when it pops up. However I suspect that my meditations or what-have-you on the existence and nature of God are a sort of prayer. This seems to fit somehow with what you said, in that prayer seems to be to you an attempt to know God as much as or more than anything else. You think?
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
Dude. Quantum mechanics is teh Weird.
Quantum mechanics makes superstitions not seem so, outrageous. (I was reading the other day that Philippinos believe that whistling at night will make the wind blow harder, or will invite evil spirits.)
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
Icarus, I have actually not thought of it that way before. It is an interesting thought. I have heard it said often amongst those of my faith that singing a hymn is like saying a prayer. But then, the words of hymns tend to be more like that of a prayer anyway.
Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
quote:What does God want from us? Why worship Him? Do worshippers (as opposed to believers, though usually nobody seems to be one without being the other) simply worship God out of respect for what He has done, as, I think, Beverly suggested . . . i.e., I think, out of gratitude or something like it? Or does God crave our worship somehow? If so (and I realize you probably would not phrase it with the intentionally charged word "crave" if you believe this way), why does God want our worship/praise/belief/etc?
"Worship" isn't an abstract or mysterious black box. It's an active thing that involves learning God's will through scripture, prayer, and meditation; serving your fellow men; and doing all that God has commanded us to do.
Essentially, worshipping God is what helps us progress toward him. God doesn't ask us to worship him because of the ego trip it gives him. He asks us to worship him because of how it will benefit us and those around us. Worshipping him is how we better ourselves, deepen our knowledge, and make the world a better place. God knows we need these things, and he sets himself up as a sure path to follow and a strength for us to rely on.
According to the laws of God, when we worship God through obeying his commandments and following his example, he can bless us with everything we need to return to him. If we don't, he can't bless us.
Praising God means acknowledging all that he has given us and expressing gratitude for it. Again, this is for our benefit. If we are inclined to be thankful for what we have and acknowledge that it comes from God, we will avoid being swallowed up by pride and we will remain open to sharing and serving others.
Belief in God is a desire to know him and become more like him. Belief in God puts us on the right path and helps us be more willing to follow him. Not believing in God prevents us from knowing him and knowing how to secure his blessings.
Edit: Son of a gun, I'm going to stop posting here. I take the time to type out a thoughtful response and the thread's moved on. Good night. Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
You know, if you substituted 'Master' for 'God' in that passage, you'd have a pretty good ideology for keeping slaves content.
EDIT : Let me clarify that a little; I'm not trying to be nasty, it was just the first thing that struck me on reading the text.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
afr, do you believe in one of the Christian denominations that believes you must be Christian in this life in order to be "saved" in the next? If so, how does this jive with what you've stated there?
Or more simply put, if you (or anybody) believe that is true, WHY do you think God requires that belief? What if you follow most of His commandments incidentally because they happen to coincide with your own religious beliefs or sense of ethics?
If you believe you are "saved" by faith--a typical Protestant Christian doctrine, no?--and (further) that you must come by that faith in this life, i.e., in the absence of proof, what do you believe is God's purpose in this seemingly (to me) capricious requirement?
Personally, I reject this notion that belief/faith in this life is necessary in order to commune with the Creator in the next.
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
Icarus, I can't answer your questions as a believer, or even as a non-believer for that matter because the questions are about what and why believers believe. However, I wanted to say that the rest of your post struck a chord with me. I could accept a creator that stands outside the "cycle of time", but I still consider myself an athiest. Some might classify me an agnostic, and I have myself at times in the past, but the more I think about it, the more I consider myself an athiest.
Basically, I do not believe that there is a being who is intimately concerned with individual human lives. Given proper evidence, I might believe in a creator of sorts. I might believe that some allegorical Adam and Eve, or even some proto-human was "created" or its evolution was influenced by some intelligence, or even that all life on earth was so seeded. I could believe in a being who fabricated this universe on a black-board in some "out of the cycle of time" laboratory before calling it into being. But I don't think that those kinds of beings are really what most people mean when they ask "Do you believe in God?" Thus I either answer "no", or ask them to clarify the question.
I believe that there is no objective evidence of the existence of a God. I believe that the human body and mind are so subject to the chemicals that run them and those chemicals are so subject to the types and amounts of rest and food and physical make-up of the individual that it is difficult, if not impossible, for one person to take the testimony of another's spiritual experience at face value. Indeed, I think it would be very difficult for me, myself, to take anything so vague as a feeling, or burning bosom or such as real evidence of anything divine even if I felt it myself. I think it is far to easy to psych yourself into any manner of belief for any such internal or personal "revelation" to be in the least trustworthy evidence.
While I'm willing to accept that God may not have fashioned the universe according to my sense of justice or propriety, I do think that if he exists it is His responsibility to talk the language of his listener. Because of this I believe that if "God" has ever spoken to me, he told me that I am just fine being who I am and loving who I love. Just fine believing what I do and rejecting what I have rejected. This has been confirmed to me as far as I can tell in exactly the same way most people claim contrary beliefs have been confirmed for them. From this experience, if I have a witness of anything it is that no organized religion has a true divine stamp. I recognize that others believe differently, and I am willing to grant that they are not irrational or stupid. I hope they can grant the same charity to me and my point of view. As to whether either of us are delusional, surely it's rational and not unfair to believe that one of us must be. I'm willing to accept the possibility that it might be me. But if it's me, God had the biggest hand in that so I'm comfortable laying the blame at His feet if He thinks I've strayed from a path He might have preferred.
[If anyone takes offense at this, please note the time and give me some slack. I'm happy to discuss any grievances at a future date.]
[ July 16, 2005, 02:14 AM: Message edited by: KarlEd ]
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
KoM, I suppose that could work. But one would have to presuppose a "Master" who is perfect and is only interested in the benefit of the "Slave".
Interestingly enough, the scriptures are full of passages where God is described like a "Master" and we His "servants".
The "Father" "Child" relationship is used also.
But the idea is brought across in the combination of both that God knows what is best, far more than we do (as in a parent with a small child) and also that He is the source of all that we have (as in both the parent allegory and the "Master/servant" one.)
Though both ideas include the possibility of the "child" or "servant" becoming like the "parent" or "master.
Children grow up to be like their parents, and in the parable of the talents, the "master" rewarded his faithful servants with dominions of their own.
Posted by camus (Member # 8052) on :
Icarus, I did not see your post until after I completed mine, so no I was not responding to you, I was merely voicing my own observations, although I did thoroughly enjoy your post.
However, in response to your post, I do believe that God desires our worship. After all, isn't that kind of why he created us? The Bible mentions that "He is teaching us to benefit ourselves." He wants what is best for us which can be found through worship of him. Advice For Robots explained it best. And remember, this life that we see is not the way in which mankind was originally created. So we really are not able to understand fully right now all of the benefits of drawing closer to God.
King of Men, Irreducible Complexity does not have to refer to a specific creature. There are many examples within the human anatomy of organs and systems that would need to have several things evolve all at once and in harmony before it would work correctly.
Actually odds have been calculated as to the possibility of the correct things happening at the correct times and in the correct stages of earth's development that could produce life. The odds are astronomical in the sense that they are essentially zero. The reason is that because if one step didn't happen, nothing else would have happened after that. However, as you state, these odds are all wild guesses, so my point is that the idea of a god is not any more improbable than the idea that we were created by chance. So it is completely rational to conclude that a god might exist. I'm not saying ALL rational people will come to that conclusion. My point is that all religious people are not irrational.
Posted by Zotto! (Member # 4689) on :
Too tired to type a meaningful reply right now, but I did write a post awhile back that might be relevant to some parts of the discussion at hand.
quote: There is no possible superposition between existing and not.
KoM, what if rather than poison gas we used a small thermonuclear bomb and a really big box? The cat would still be in a superposition, but in one reality it would no longer be recognizable as a cat.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Well, its molecules would still exist.
camus, you've been misled by creationist propaganda. There are excellent evolutionary paths for each and every organ in the human body. The mistake usually made in the kind of 'calculation' of odds that you refer to is to assume that everything has to do its current job, right from the beginning. Still, at least you didn't bring up information; I'll thank you not to do so.
quote:But one would have to presuppose a "Master" who is perfect and is only interested in the benefit of the "Slave".
Yes, that's what would make it such an excellent way of keeping the slaves under control, if they could be convinced of his benevolence.
Posted by Lucky4 (Member # 1420) on :
Reading this thread has taken a lot of time, but I enjoyed every minute of it. While I don't think that I have anything to add (my thoughts are still distilling), I wanted to say thanks to everyone who shared and a particular thanks to beverly and Icarus. Your thoughts resounded deeply with me, and I appreciate so much your taking the time to write them down.
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
Thanks, Lucky4. I've always enjoyed your posts myself. Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
Thank you, Lucky4. I too appreciate the time Beverly has taken to give me (and others) well-reasoned and honest answers to my questions, the open-mindedness she (and Porter) always show for those who believe differently from them, and the class with which she answers comments that my knee-jerk response would be to take offense at. Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
Awwww.
*hugs all 'round*
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
Thanks. I don't feel open-minded, but I try.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
I've always thought you were empty-he--er, open-minded.
Posted by ShadowPuppet (Member # 8239) on :
I'm late in posting here and I didn't read all seven pages (pages pages of theological debate tend to get boring especially when you have such debates all the time) so I could just be re stating someone else's post
but to me theology all boils down to one thing at the end of every argument there's only one answer you either believe or you don't your justifications for believing or not are your own
we've all heard of people who lost faith in God because of some tragic event that scarred them for life (i.e. a parent or other family member dying) but then again some people come to faith in God for the exact same reasons
it's all free will you choose how you live you choose what you believe in if there's an eternity you will spend it according to how you lived your life if there isn't then I guess it didn't matter but... even if there is no God no eternity what's wrong with spending your own life helping people and being a good person it can't hurt
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
Ick -- That sounds more like it. Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
So, SP, are you accusing me of not helping people and being a good person?
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
quote:Originally posted by Icarus:
quote:I've read some stuff about the theory that God was originally a woman, and it's pretty much complete bunk. There is no archaeological evidence that I've seen.
Forgive me for perhaps coming across as disrespectful, but it strikes me as odd for a Latter-Day Saint to dismiss anything out of hand as bunk due a lack of archeological evidence. As with Angiomorph, it's one thing to say that you personally find the evidence presented for a claim uncompelling, but another to say it is bunk.
I guess I wasn't clear enough. What I was referring to was an entire theory built around nothing more than a few scraps of pottery, basically stating that the Proto-Europeans (the pre-Indo-Europeans) were a peaceful, agrarian, matriarchal society. Then the bloodthirsty patriarchal Indo-Europeans came in and killed everyone and destroyed the idea of a peaceful, female god. The theory is nothing more than some old pottery fragments, a lot of radical feminism, and a lot of interpolation.
Dismissing someone's religious beliefs based on scant archaeological evidence is stupid and misses the point. Dismissing a would-be anthropological theory based on scant archaelogical evidence is entirely justified.
And let me elaborate on why the proto-Judaism/lava worshipper connection is so bogus. First off, he takes a fairly random assortment of words without looking at the histories of any them. There are a few Germanic words, a few Latinate words, and one or two Hittite and Hindi words. Some are ancient, and some are modern.
The words have next to nothing in common. They all have an initial l, but the following vowels and consonants are pretty much arbitrary. The parts of speech are arbitrary, and the semantic domains are completely different. He's got
washing
pouring
lifting
flowing
glowing
burning
lightning
avalanche
There is nothing to suggest that the different sets of words are related, especially considering that lava, meaning molten rock, only dates back about 300 years. It came from a dialectal use of an Italian word meaning "a stream or gutter suddenly caused by rain" (which of course traces back to the Latin lavare, meaning "to wash"). There is no connection between washing and fire, at least etymologically speaking.
And the biggest problem, of course, is that there is no connection between Indo-European and ancient Hebrew. Presumably, the word would have been borrowed from Hebrew, which means that there should be cognates or modern reflexes in Semitic languages today. If there is any evidence that the ancient Hebrews were fire-worshippers, it isn't supported by any linguistic evidence in Indo-European languages.
Posted by Nidaar (Member # 8373) on :
Hi everybody! It is my first posting on hatrack. I was shown this thread by a good friend of mine and one your authors here. I take this as a chance to express my "model" about the World. It might bring new insights to some of you. I am looking forward to learning from your comments new insights that I might have missed.
If "God" is the answer to "why", then the usefulness of the notion of God is continuously decreasing. It appeared some 2-3 million years ago, when humans started to question why things happen as they do. They created this notion of God not only to answer questions, but also to sooth their fear of unknown, and most importantly, of death. (I do not comment here if God exists or not, but how people either "invented" or "discovered" God). This is the anthropological point of view and is compelling. As time passed, humans made observations of nature. They tried to explain. One of the first seem silly nowadays, but were excellent work of brilliant minds that used the information possessed at that time (the Greek philosophers, for example). Science was created. Modern science started some 400 years ago and answered A LOT of questions, so that God was had fewer and fewer things to explain. Questions still remain, but one may argue that we have to give science its chance in explaining even more. Thus, we hope that we would know more and more.
One of Kant's four questions was: What I am allowed to hope to know? And this is intimately related, if it is not the same, with the question of "why": Why are the natural laws the ones that are? Why is the human world the one that is? Science is incapable of explaining everything, as Gödel proved in mathematics that some laws may not be proved both right and wrong. One might argue that this set of "problems with currently no solutions/explanations" (that includes the "fundamentally unsolvable problems") is left as the realm of God and religion. I strongly hope that this realm diminishes and humans are able to explain more and more about the universe and themselves through science.
The question is: Why do we need God as an explanation for something? The Universe works the same if "She" (to be politically correct) exists or not. Thus, I conclude that Her existence is transparent to us, humans, living this life on Earth. If one believes in afterlife (or for that matter prelife), we want to know if She exists, as one would surely not want to go to Hell by not believing in Her. But if one does not believe or does not care what happens if an after life exists, there is no reason to appeal to God.
The Universe has laws. Once the Big Bang happened, these laws (maybe the laws themselves changed in time, though we take them as fixed for now) allowed the first particles to create, the quarks and bosons formed nucleons, electrons and photons, these formed atoms and the universe became transparent to light (and there was light! of the bible), atoms formed molecules, molecules added and added together as to form stars that formed planets ( a lot of planets!). On one (or maybe more) conditions were met as to create organic molecules to be created. An experiment from the 1920s proved clearly how urea could be created in an environment as the one the Earth might have had 4-5 billion years ago. Life appeared (still a troubling question for science), than life evolved and the theory of evolution explains perfectly how we arrived at the current situation of species. Animals have to eat each other and/or eat plants, plants "eat" minerals. They are not good or bad, they have to survive.
Everything that exists now is because our ancestors survived something and most likely killed something. We humans exterminated another species of humans (the Neanderthals) and this is a scientific fact. North Americans exterminated almost all the indigenous population. And the examples might continue. Is anyone questioning the morality of the Americans very existence just because they live in a territory they stole from the populations they exterminated? Almost no one does and we feel we are entitled to have white people in North America being at home, because ...because of what? Well, we were more civilized, we were stronger. We implicitly apply evolution in our history.
The story continues and will continue with the death of the Sun and so on. Where in all this does God have to appear? One would argue that one has to look in detail on human life.
During this life on Earth, people act out of free will and outside the person, things happen. Free will is by definition free, has no cause but may have a purpose/motivation. Natural phenomena are all explained by science to be causal (the tsunami came because of the accumulation of tension under the oceanic crust and not in order to punish the unbelief of these Muslims that do not accept Her Christ). However, religion speaks of purpose, not cause.
On my understanding of LDS doctrine, humans are born because they made this choice out of free will when they were just intelligences in their preborn life. They made that choice for a purpose, in order to evolve by experiencing the life on Earth, with good and bad. And in order to understand better the teachings that they will receive in the afterlife. But even without considering prelife, as most Christian religions do, life has a purpose, not a cause in the religious belief. They act so that they may be worthy to live close to their Heavenly Father, to enjoy the after life (in Heaven and not in Hell).
However, the science discredits this idea of purpose and backs the idea of cause. I try to be a scientist and I admit this is a hypothesis. If humans spent time developing models of nature and universe that would explain why the Universe is the way it is not because there are the natural laws and from the Big Bang (as a cause), but in order to reach a final given state (as a purpose), if science found evidence (if not proof) for the idea of purpose, then maybe the religion idea (and God with it) might stand a chance (at least in my personal beliefs).
I do not agree that I should have faith in God and afterlife just because we humans are afraid of dying.
Moreover, the world is not good, is not evil, as people here tried to see which one prevails in our world. There is no cruelty. Just some mere laws of interactions because particles that are accountable for everything in this world ( intelligence, consciousness and life are complex, but don't we have theory of complexity that explains how a complex system has more properties that just the sum of the properties of its part). If there ever was/is God, She stopped intervening after the Big Bang. Thus, Her existence does not affect us anymore.
You need a religion to be moral? I do not think so. And if I need, I'd surely choose an Asian one, that states a harmony and not a God.
Harmony is a proof of God? Einstein believed in this harmony of the world. Isn't it amazing that when he created his restraint relativity theory he thought: What would be the most beautiful universe, imagined and and later humans tested it and proved him right? Humans would call the Universe an intelligent design, but does not prove God. Hei, this world is not bad at all, it might actually be the best/most beautiful possible. (World=Universe explained by cosmology).
As for life on Earth and the seemingly small chance that it appeared, hey, do you have an idea how many planets are in the Universe? Science can guarantee at least 100 and it predicts billions. We are here because this planet had the good conditions. On a planet having other conditions, life may not have appeared and we would not ask questions in the first place.
In conclusion, science explains a lot and is promising to explain even more, as science has had an exponential growth in the last 3 centuries. If one rejects the idea of prelife and afterlife, there is no need of God whatsoever in our life, as God may be omnipotent but chose not to do anything. At most She created the universe and established its laws and put it in motion by Big Bang.
She then just let "the ants enjoy the picnic".
Posted by Zalmoxis (Member # 2327) on :
KarlEd:
I, for one, am not offended. But I do want to point out that so far as I know there is nothing in LDS theology that precludes the possibility that spirit (matter more refined) can interact with brain chemistry -- or for that matter that may be exactly how the interaction occurs.
The physics of that may be problematic, but I'm not sure that we know enough (and ever will know enough) about how dimensions and other universes work to know for sure.
The problem as I see it isn't so much of the impossibility of true revelation from God (or in other words 'not-just-self-or-environmentally-induced-chemical actions'), but rather the fact that our conditions here in this time and space and form make intepretation of such feelings/insights/revelations/inspirations difficult and often sketchy. Why this is so -- or rather why God let's this be so -- is another discussion (and one that I believe many of us have had).
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
I am only up to page 2 of this thread, but one bone of contention I can throw out is one that irks Spider Robison, and me: given the obvious reasons for Earth creatures to have pain of various sorts, then why would God ordain clinical shock? Pain can deter a creature from further damage, but shock kills. Indiscriminately. Almost always after the cause of pain and threat of further damage is no longer an issue.
Why??
Why is there shock in an orderly Universe?
Posted by Kayla (Member # 2403) on :
quote: I recognize that others believe differently, and I am willing to grant that they are not irrational or stupid. I hope they can grant the same charity to me and my point of view. As to whether either of us are delusional, surely it's rational and not unfair to believe that one of us must be. I'm willing to accept the possibility that it might be me.
This is why I love you KarlEd. Anyone who is willing to grant that others might be right and that people who don't share your opinion aren't irrational or stupid is wicked cool in my book.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
I agree!
I apologize if what follows has already been said. I was reminded in KarlEd's original post about the things Paul said about how the ancients would have had enough evidence in the world around them to convince them of God's existence. Maybe they didn't have ant swarms back then?
Or, maybe the point is something else entirely.
Maybe death isn't the end we think it is. Maybe pain, even in animals without what we would recognize as "conscious thought" is not without meaning.
Maybe the lesson is that life is worth struggling to retain even through the pain.
I don't know.
I hope to know someday.
And that is why I believe there's a God, because without that, the Earth is merely a mechanism -- beautiful but ultimately here for the temporary ascendance of bits of genetic material.
With the concept of God...well, who knows? Maybe this is the entrance fee to something far better. Or maybe this is the training ground. Or maybe it's a gift to us and our job is to MAKE it better.
Do we "ride tandem with the random" (to quote Peter Gabriel) or is there a purpose? If there's a purpose, there's a God...
Or we have to invent our own purpose. And, as a species, we sort of suck at communal strategic planning.
Posted by CT (Member # 8342) on :
Welcome, Nidaar. *smile
Posted by mackillian (Member # 586) on :
Excellent post, Nidaar.
quote:She then just let "the ants enjoy the picnic".
And at one point, she accidentally spilled a rather large glass of water. Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:And that is why I believe there's a God, because without that, the Earth is merely a mechanism -- beautiful but ultimately here for the temporary ascendance of bits of genetic material.
But this is an argument from 'ought' to 'is'. You don't like the consequences of not-X, so you assert X. This is also known as wishful thinking.
[ July 17, 2005, 04:01 PM: Message edited by: King of Men ]
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
KoM: I can't prove either case -- the existence or non-existence of God. For most things in my life, the distinction doesn't matter and thus the consequences of my being right or wrong don't matter.
In short, I don't care whether it's wishful thinking or bloody-minded contrariness.
Why?
Because in OTHER parts of my life, the distinction matters a great deal. The part of my life that helps me ponder the things that are beyond both Science and Religion. The parts that don't just work in the realm of experience (empirical knowledge) or in the realm of reason (no matter how abstract).
That doesn't mean I abandon my faculties for reason and thought. Truly, I realize that the possibilities are limitless and thus I'm free to imagine (or even wish) for whatever I want.
Who knows, maybe my will wish will come true!
Since part of my wish is that I be pleasantly surprised, I figure I've got a good shot at it.
I think it is important in life to realize the limitations of any brand of epistomology. The ability to KNOW is limited by the method. It always is. There are questions or topics that are always outside the bounds.
A dogged adherence to a mode of thought that cannot possibly answer any particular question is, to me, just a sign of a lack of creativity or, worse yet, arises from laziness or fear.
In other words:
- logic and reason where they apply - empiricism where I can actually observe - everything else, I'm free to roam.
There's a definite freedom in believing just about anything to be true until it is proven false. It may not work for practical stuff like crossing the street safely, but it sure is illuminating in the grand universe of the possible.
IMHO, of course.
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
*wonders if Angiomorph is back yet*
Posted by Jacare Sorridente (Member # 1906) on :
KarlEd said:
quote: I believe that there is no objective evidence of the existence of a God. I believe that the human body and mind are so subject to the chemicals that run them and those chemicals are so subject to the types and amounts of rest and food and physical make-up of the individual that it is difficult, if not impossible, for one person to take the testimony of another's spiritual experience at face value. Indeed, I think it would be very difficult for me, myself, to take anything so vague as a feeling, or burning bosom or such as real evidence of anything divine even if I felt it myself. I think it is far to easy to psych yourself into any manner of belief for any such internal or personal "revelation" to be in the least trustworthy evidence.
I certainly understand the desire not to fool yourself, but while I agree with what you said about our brain chemicals etc. yet we still all act as if our brain were completely reliable. We don't question what we see, hear, taste touch etc. and yet those neuronal paths are just as subject to the sorts of interference or malfunction as any other neurons. Therefore, I think it reasonable to conclude that if sight and sound and so on are trustworthy then thought is equally trustworthy, at least in relationship to brain chemistry and so on.
As far as morality goes, here is an even weaker version of pascal's wager which some atheists might be able to swallow. If one doesn't believe in God, one could still probably agree that working to make one's family and community as strong and happy as possible is probably a good goal. Since most of the laws of God seem to be aimed toward that purpose, believers and non-believers would be living most of the same laws anyway. When they die if the atheist comes to find out that there really is a god, perhaps he won't be under too much condemnation since he was working hard to be a good person anyway, so maybe he'll only get a little toasty in hell rather than burning there indefinitely.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote: Therefore, I think it reasonable to conclude that if sight and sound and so on are trustworthy then thought is equally trustworthy, at least in relationship to brain chemistry and so on.
Why? I can IMAGINE that you're floating in the sky in an orange tutu, but that doesn't make it so. And we know for a fact that thought is untrustworthy, which is why we have things like asylums.
quote: When they die if the atheist comes to find out that there really is a god, perhaps he won't be under too much condemnation since he was working hard to be a good person anyway, so maybe he'll only get a little toasty in hell rather than burning there indefinitely.
I would argue that atheists don't have to swallow this, because almost every atheist I know is already working towards being a good person. It's only the religious people I know who think they wouldn't be good people if they weren't afraid of Hell.
But it's also worth pointing out that most Christians wouldn't accept your interpretation, and would point out that if the atheist didn't accept Christ, he'd still wind up in Hell no matter how good a life he'd led.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
...and that's one of my biggest problems with Christianity (the last bit).
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
I feel it's important to point out that not all Christians would agree with that statement.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
I'm well aware of that, particularly with respect to Mormons. Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
I figured you were; I was just being anal-retentive. Posted by Jacare Sorridente (Member # 1906) on :
Tom said
quote: Why? I can IMAGINE that you're floating in the sky in an orange tutu, but that doesn't make it so. And we know for a fact that thought is untrustworthy, which is why we have things like asylums.
I can't really understand what your point is with this. Your imagination is not chemically induced by an unreliable brain- it is under your will just as much as choosing to point your eyes at a particular object.
Asylums do not exist because brains are inherently unstable- if they were then everyone should spend time in an asylum. Your point is the equivalent of saying that the sense of sight is untrustworthy because some people go blind.
quote: I would argue that atheists don't have to swallow this, because almost every atheist I know is already working towards being a good person. It's only the religious people I know who think they wouldn't be good people if they weren't afraid of Hell.
First, I didn't just say "try to be a good person", that is even more general and nebulus than what I did say. Second, proceeding from my remarks to arguing that religious people are afraid they would be evil if not for the threat of hell while atheists are good on general principles is not only irrelevant but ridiculous and speaks to motivations that I neither ascribed nor implied.
quote: But it's also worth pointing out that most Christians wouldn't accept your interpretation, and would point out that if the atheist didn't accept Christ, he'd still wind up in Hell no matter how good a life he'd led.
It is actually not worth pointing out, unless you also think it is worth pointing out that from an atheist point of view Christians hypothetical souls will evaporate along with the rest of their mental constructs upon their death. It is true enough, but who cares?
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
Things I believe in:
Purple Pandas Orange Tutus in the sky
AJ
Posted by scottneb (Member # 676) on :
quote:But it's also worth pointing out that most Christians wouldn't accept your interpretation, and would point out that if the atheist didn't accept Christ, he'd still wind up in Hell no matter how good a life he'd led.
I almost got in a fist fight with a guy in Basic Training because he repeatedly told me that I didn't accept the "real" Christ. He also told me that Joseph Smith was the devil-incarnate and through that logic I was a devil worshipper. It really is amazing how harsh and demeaning some of the Christian denominations can be.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:I can't really understand what your point is with this. Your imagination is not chemically induced by an unreliable brain- it is under your will just as much as choosing to point your eyes at a particular object.
Ah. Except that imagination is NOT always under someone's will. Which leads me directly to my asylum comment.
We know delusions happen. We know that people perceive things which are not there, and we know that such delusions can generally be disproved through other means and independent verification of the truth.
What you are saying is that someone's thoughts are sacrosanct, and do not require independent verification to be considered accurate. What I am saying is that we know that thoughts in particular are vulnerable to delusion, and also unfortunately very difficult to verify at all.
How do you know that I am not, in fact, the risen Christ? What if I insist that I am, or that -- more appropriately -- I have heard an internal voice telling me I am?
There's no reason to elevate imagination to the level of direct perception.
quote:First, I didn't just say "try to be a good person", that is even more general and nebulus than what I did say.
What you said -- "working to make one's family and community as strong as possible" -- is my definition of "goodness." Sorry I wasn't clear enough about that. And, again, almost every single atheist I know already expressly works toward this goal; there's no need for them to buy into some superstitious wager to seek to improve society.
quote:Second, proceeding from my remarks to arguing that religious people are afraid they would be evil if not for the threat of hell while atheists are good on general principles is not only irrelevant but ridiculous and speaks to motivations that I neither ascribed nor implied.
But you implied the HECK out of it! The implication is that atheists might not already be working for these common goals, and/or that religion is the best way to achieve these goals. And the second implication is that religious people wouldn't be working for these goals unless they had a religious reason to do so. I reject both premises. But unless you don't, there's no point in mentioning Pascal's Wager at all.
quote:It is actually not worth pointing out, unless you also think it is worth pointing out that from an atheist point of view Christians hypothetical souls will evaporate along with the rest of their mental constructs upon their death. It is true enough, but who cares?
Because you quite specifically mentioned that an atheist who'd worked to be a good person might not find himself too condemned. And I just wanted to point out that the majority of Christian religions in this country do not, in fact, believe this. In fact, if being a good person is all you need to do to get into Heaven, I think more people should be emulating the atheists of my acquaintance -- rather than the other way around.
Posted by Jacare Sorridente (Member # 1906) on :
quote: Ah. Except that imagination is NOT always under someone's will. Which leads me directly to my asylum comment.
We know delusions happen. We know that people perceive things which are not there, and we know that such delusions can generally be disproved through other means and independent verification of the truth.
What you are implying is that delusion is common place. I see no reason to accept that postulate. I see no evidence that such is the case.
quote: What you are saying is that someone's thoughts are sacrosanct, and do not require independent verification to be considered accurate. What I am saying is that we know that thoughts in particular are vulnerable to delusion, and also unfortunately very difficult to verify at all.
The internal logic to your argument is suspect. If delusion is so widespread, then independent verification is meaningless.
Further, you take it as granted that thoughts are particularly vulnerable to delusion, but I do not agree. What proof have you that people are likely to have delusional thoughts?
quote: What you said -- "working to make one's family and community as strong as possible" -- is my definition of "goodness." Sorry I wasn't clear enough about that. And, again, almost every single atheist I know already expressly works toward this goal; there's no need for them to buy into some superstitious wager to seek to improve society.
Well, most religious people work toward this goal too. And since we all agree now that most everyone is working toward the same goal, the problem is solved and all is well.
quote: But you implied the HECK out of it! The implication is that atheists might not already be working for these common goals, and/or that religion is the best way to achieve these goals. And the second implication is that religious people wouldn't be working for these goals unless they had a religious reason to do so. I reject both premises. But unless you don't, there's no point in mentioning Pascal's Wager at all.
You are reading things which aren't there. If atheists and religious already have the same goals of building family and community, then perhaps everyone can put their guns down and work together. THAT is the purpose of my post, not some implication that atheists should become believers just in case.
quote:Because you quite specifically mentioned that an atheist who'd worked to be a good person might not find himself too condemned.
If you don't recognize my statement as humor, perhaps you should turn up the gain on your sensor a bit.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
quote:THAT is the purpose of my post, not some implication that atheists should become believers just in case.
If that's the case, you probably shouldn't have mentioned Pascal. Posted by Jacare Sorridente (Member # 1906) on :
quote: If that's the case, you probably shouldn't have mentioned Pascal.
Well, since I then went on to explain exactly what I meant, I will not accept responsibility for those who somehow equate what I said with Pascal's wager.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
You said that your paragraph was a "weaker form of Pascal's wager." I didn't misinterpret it, but I definitely think the allusion leads the reader in the wrong direction.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote: What you are implying is that delusion is common place. I see no reason to accept that postulate. I see no evidence that such is the case.
Fully 70% of Americans believe they have communicated with God. I think some level of self-delusion is VERY common, and even to be expected.
quote: If atheists and religious already have the same goals of building family and community, then perhaps everyone can put their guns down and work together.
Except that what I consider family and community-building, many religious people would not.
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
I think delusion is commonplace on just about every topic under the sun. It has nothing to do with god.
I accept that postulate regardless of whether 70% of people think they've comunicated with god or not.
AJ
Posted by Jacare Sorridente (Member # 1906) on :
quote: Fully 70% of Americans believe they have communicated with God. I think some level of self-delusion is VERY common, and even to be expected.
Circular reasoning.
quote: Except that what I consider family and community-building, many religious people would not.
For example?
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
Furthermore, "God" often seems to spend a great deal of time in various religious writings telling people they *are* delusional. So I don't think belief in God inherently contradicts the "delusional" bit.
AJ
Posted by scottneb (Member # 676) on :
quote:Circular reasoning.
Best. Arguement. Ever!
Posted by Jacare Sorridente (Member # 1906) on :
quote: I think delusion is commonplace on just about every topic under the sun. It has nothing to do with god.
In order for a person to be delusional a reference is required. There must be some solid bit of reality which clearly refutes their delusion. If the majority of people are delusional, who will supply the solid reference?
Posted by Angiomorphism (Member # 8184) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jacare Sorridente:
quote: I think delusion is commonplace on just about every topic under the sun. It has nothing to do with god.
In order for a person to be delusional a reference is required. There must be some solid bit of reality which clearly refutes their delusion. If the majority of people are delusional, who will supply the solid reference?
or *what* will supply the reference
Posted by Sterling (Member # 8096) on :
I understand that prayer has been shown to have a statistically measurably effect on events such as the recovery of individuals in hospitals.
I was told in my science classes of long ago that energy never simply "dissipates", but only changes form. From this alone I find it difficult to imagine something as remarkably complex as the human soul (or consciousness, if you prefer) simply being destroyed at the end of the body's lifespan.
As to the myraid strains that make up human belief, I do not know if any single one is "right" or if all are simply flawed attempts to make sense of something which may ultimately be beyond human comprehension. I _do_ think it is worth trying to understand, and that if a Creator exists, then reason was a gift and we should use it to its fullest.
I have faith in the existence of God, but I feel I have some evidence, if not of God, then at least of Something More.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:I understand that prayer has been shown to have a statistically measurably effect on events such as the recovery of individuals in hospitals.
Wrong. The effect is only significant if you insist on picking out one result from hundreds; in other words, you'd expect there to be one sample where this happened anyway, just from sheer randomness. In fact, the study looked at several hundred factors that might be influenced by prayer, and (as you would expect from random factors) found some factors where the control (non-prayed-for) group did better than the experimental group. In other words, prayer made things worse for some groups of patients.
As for your energy argument, the human mind doesn't consist of energy, it consists of ordered matter. (If you can't measure it in Joules, it ain't energy, whatever the New Agers may say to the contrary.) Bet your teachers never told you that organisation can't disappear. In fact, if they did, they were lying, since that's what entropy is all about : Energy (and matter) take more disorganised forms as time goes on.
Posted by Angiomorphism (Member # 8184) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: Specifically, many people on this site alone believe they have had direct experience of one sort or another with God, and consequently believe. This is perfectly rational, but not independently verifiable.
sorry to bring it back to the whole "rational" thing, but i felt a comment here was necessary. To say that someone who has had a suposedly "supernatural" or "transcendental" experience is using reason when they conclude that this means God exists is to totally ignore Occam's Razor. It had the same logical force as saying that a flying yellow cow caused the experience. If i *believed" that i had a "direct experience of some sort or another" with a flying yellow cow, would that justify a belief in the cow, and would that make said belief rational? I doubt it. Unless you are talking about another kind of "experience"?
Here's how i see things. If someone told the most devout christian or LDS that there was a flying yellow cow in the sky, and then pointed to the fact that there is no evidence agaisnt a flying yellow cow, that they had a spiritual experience concerning that cow, and that they had an ancient text describing that cow (and how it had created all of existence out of nothing), as a means of convincing that christian or LDS, do you think it would work? Again, i doubt it. I think that most people in this forum (who are intelligent and articulate and very rational) would dismiss this idea, and think the person who said it was being irrational. Yet, when you replace "flying yellow cow" with "god", alot of people will throw the skepticism they just had out of the window. Now i never said this is a bad thing. Religion doesn't have to be rational to have a good influence on peoples' lives, or to mean something. So why is it so hard to see that we all have certain beliefs (even myself) that we can't explain with reason, or that aren't reasonable (in the traditional sense of logic and all), but that we still believe in, JUST BECAUSE?
Posted by AC (Member # 7909) on :
"that cow (and how it had created all of existence out of nothing)"
Then the cow wouldn't be too different from what people usually mean when they say "god", so the cow would be "god", which had chosen to appear to you in the form of a flying yellow cow, which may be the symbol it wants people to use to represent it.
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
Jacare, I do not trust most religious experience that I have heard about because it seldom comes in broad daylight to someone with a clear head. Every first Sunday in Fast and Testimony Meeting I would hear countless people relate conversion experiences. Indeed I have heard hundreds of non-LDS relate conversion stories as well. What most of them seem to have in common are from the following: Late at night; after extensive study; after extensive prayer; after much fasting. For some religious it is after hours of repetitive recitation or chanting. For some religious it involves charismatic shaking and group hysteria. For this last bit, I've seen it in both Charismatic Christian Churches, and in Brazilian Macumba spiritualism, the only difference to me being that the latter kept a better beat. A lot of non-specifically-Christian worship involves heavy incense and sometimes drugs.
Nearly all of these techniques used to get one closer to God also very often produce mental states that lead to brainwashing, hallucinations, seeing ghosts, UFOs, Bigfoot, whatever.
That is why I feel comfortable not trusting "The Spirit", but feel perfectly comfortable trusting the sensation of the keyboard beneath my fingers or the taste of the grape popsicle I just ate.
******
I'd also like to point out that belief, or hope, of some kind of life after death isn't specifically religious. If after the moment of my death I still experience conciousness, I don't think that automatically confirms the existence of a god. I think it is perfectly reasonable to entertain the possibility of passing from this existence into some other existence without necessitating God.
Posted by Angiomorphism (Member # 8184) on :
hey, it worked with the piggies
Posted by Angiomorphism (Member # 8184) on :
quote:Originally posted by AC: "that cow (and how it had created all of existence out of nothing)"
Then the cow wouldn't be too different from what people usually mean when they say "god", so the cow would be "god", which had chosen to appear to you in the form of a flying yellow cow, which may be the symbol it wants people to use to represent it.
I can't tell if this is sarcasm or not...
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Incidentally, I have a splendid proof that the IPU is actually the most popular religion of all time. It goes as follows :
1. Really devout worshipers wear an IPU tattoo - indeed, I have one myself.
2. The IPU is not only Pink, but also Invisible - hail her Greatness!
3. Therefore, IPU tattoos are invisible.
4. Therefore, everybody does in fact have an IPU tattoo somewhere about their person.
5. Therefore, everybody is an IPU worshipper.
All hail the Invisible Pink Unicorn, may Her Hooves Never be Shod!
Posted by AC (Member # 7909) on :
It wasn't sarcasm
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
quote:In order for a person to be delusional a reference is required. There must be some solid bit of reality which clearly refutes their delusion. If the majority of people are delusional, who will supply the solid reference?
Aye, there's the rub.
See, everyone has bits of reality and bits of delusion. Reality, is what more people have collective bits of, and delusion is what fewer people have bits of, or their bits don't belong to collective. So the majority always holds the reference point.
Doesn't mean we should necessarlly trample on the minority delusion. (as long as they aren't physcially harmful) That's what the constitution is all about. And in another few genrations it could be the other way 'round.
AJ
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
L'enfer, c'est les autres. Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
Tom? I'm drunk and I don't know french sober, and Steve's asleep (he used to be fluent)
(It isn't "example for the good of the others" is it?) If so, I've had enough of that today after my boss screwed me royally on my yearly performance review, because he needs to prove me incompetent for his own gain.
AJ
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
FYI... the Eye of Argon MST 3K is highly reccommendeed while in toxicated
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Nope. It's Sartre's "hell is other people," which basically says that no one's perception of the universe survives contact with other human beings. Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
This has been a startlingly civil thread. Congratulations.
You have all progressed to the next level.
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
Huh. That's very similar to the classic military axiom that no battle plan survives contact with the enemy.
Posted by Angiomorphism (Member # 8184) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: Nope. It's Sartre's "hell is other people," which basically says that no one's perception of the universe survives contact with other human beings.
Yeah, great play (Huis Clos that is... not sure what the name is in english). I've seen it performed several times, on varying scales, and i always love it (it's a tie between it and "Les Mains Sales" for my favorite Sartre play, oh, and you have to see/read it in french, it's just not the same in english.. seriously. learn french.)
but about "l'enfer c'est les autres"... i'm interested in your reading of its meaning. could you elaborate? aside from the literal interpretation (which lends itself very well to the performed peice), i know there is a ton of existencial hooplaw in there, and i'd love to discuss it!
Posted by camus (Member # 8052) on :
quote:Originally posted by Angiomorphism: If someone told the most devout christian or LDS that there was a flying yellow cow in the sky, and then pointed to the fact that there is no evidence agaisnt a flying yellow cow, that they had a spiritual experience concerning that cow, and that they had an ancient text describing that cow (and how it had created all of existence out of nothing), as a means of convincing that christian or LDS, do you think it would work? Again, i doubt it. I think that most people in this forum (who are intelligent and articulate and very rational) would dismiss this idea, and think the person who said it was being irrational.
Let's replace your flying yellow cow with William Shakespeare. What evidence do we have that Shakespeare actually existed? Evidence points to a lot of other possibilities as to the author of the works credited to Shakespeare. In fact, some people believe the evidence proves that someone else authored Shakespeare's writings. Really, the only real evidence we have is a name scribbled on some writings. Yet, that is enough to rationally conclude that William Shakespeare may in fact have actually written what was attributed to him.
I believe that Newton existed because other people have seen and spoken with him and because of the application of his theories. Yet, belief that Newton existed is not considered irrational even though there is no more proof that he existed than the existence of god.
However, it is interesting to note that Newton was considered an irrational lunatic by his peers. Incidentally, he was being very rational, they just didn't know it at the time. So it seems to me that the measure of a person's rationality is somewhat based on general consenus. Something is logical if the general community believes it to be logical. In the end, Everything we believe in is based on faulty senses, inaccurate memories, and trust in the words of others that we deem credible. It takes a measure of faith to believe in anything, including our own senses. Thus, it seems to me that to discount the possibility of a god just because you can't measure his mass or detect his presence with modern tools seems a bit irrational.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Uh, camus, we also have abundant records of shakespeare's life, and numerous accounts of his friends of his authorship of the plays. In fact, we don't actually have shakespeare's signature on many (any?) of his plays, though his name is regularly affixed of course.
And no, Newton was considered a genius by his peers, he was a widely respected scientist and mathematician during his time.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Oh, and as for the existence of doubters of Shakespeare, if you name something, no matter how well grounded, I can point to doubters of it.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
camus, Angio said:
quote:So why is it so hard to see that we all have certain beliefs (even myself) that we can't explain with reason, or that aren't reasonable (in the traditional sense of logic and all), but that we still believe in, JUST BECAUSE?
I don't think you're contradicting him, here.
However, I am more likely to believe in William Shakespeare and Isaac Newton because of my knowledge that human beings exist. I have no such knowledge of god. While I don't think it's wise to dismiss the possibility of god outright, I certainly see no reason to believe.
Added: It's interesting that you're making this argument given your choice of screen name.
Posted by Promethius (Member # 2468) on :
I have not read all 8 pages of this thread, and if this has been brought up already just tell me. If there is no God then how can you explain all of the prophecy in the Bible? And I dont just mean the stuff about Christ, but the things in it about when the Jews will return to Israel, about how they will be attacked on the first day they are a country? The Bible has predicted quite a number of things that have happened in recent history. What other way is there to explain prophecy if it isnt God? is it Aliens? Time travelers? Blind luck?
Posted by Corwin (Member # 5705) on :
I'd go with blind luck. Write a big enough book, something is bound to be right. Especially when most of the passages can be interpreted in more than just one way.
But that's just my uneducated opinion, since I haven't read the whole Bible, or any other major religious book for that matter. Me too, I'd like to hear what others who have read more have to say.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote: The Bible has predicted quite a number of things that have happened in recent history.
No, I'm afraid it hasn't. Show me a good prophecy -- and I guarantee you that for every one you can come up with that fits, I can give you a) a prophecy that doesn't appear to have come true and b) another interpretation of that prophecy from the past in which someone else thought it had come true for them. Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Thus, it seems to me that to discount the possibility of a god just because you can't measure his mass or detect his presence with modern tools seems a bit irrational.
Which is why, barring direct personal observation of God, most atheists also point out the logical inconsistencies in most descriptions of God as arguments against His existence.
--------
quote: i'm interested in your reading of its meaning. could you elaborate? aside from the literal interpretation (which lends itself very well to the performed peice), i know there is a ton of existencial hooplaw in there, and i'd love to discuss it!
Sartre's point, as I understand it, is that we can never truly "know" anything outside our own interpretation of our perceptions. Everything we perceive is filtered through our biases and physical limitations, which means that there is no such thing as a "universal," objective truth that can be perceived exactly the same way by everyone. (Consider, for a moment, how you know that what YOU think the color green looks like is how everyone else sees the color green.)
But this isn't normally a problem. Most people have learned to work within their limitations and have come up with both moral frameworks AND perceptive filters that make it possible for them to be quite happy within their own little universes.
Unfortunately, Sartre points out, other people exist. This means that your little universe is bound to bump up against someone else's little universe -- and if you both see the color "green" differently, ONE or BOTH of you probably has to be "officially" wrong. So we come up with standards -- be they logic, measurement, law, etc. -- to make it possible for us to agree on commonalities, but even these standards can seem ridiculously oppressive. (IS a belief in God "rational?" Why should it matter? Why is "rationality" a good thing? And so on.) Sartre argues that most of the angst of existence comes not from other people being unpleasant (which is the common misinterpretation of "hell is other people") but rather from the fact that the majority's perception of the universe will ALWAYS oppress the minority's perception of the universe, and there's often no way to even appeal that kind of subconscious decision.
Posted by Jacare Sorridente (Member # 1906) on :
quote: Jacare, I do not trust most religious experience that I have heard about because it seldom comes in broad daylight to someone with a clear head. Every first Sunday in Fast and Testimony Meeting I would hear countless people relate conversion experiences. Indeed I have heard hundreds of non-LDS relate conversion stories as well. What most of them seem to have in common are from the following: Late at night; after extensive study; after extensive prayer; after much fasting. For some religious it is after hours of repetitive recitation or chanting. For some religious it involves charismatic shaking and group hysteria. For this last bit, I've seen it in both Charismatic Christian Churches, and in Brazilian Macumba spiritualism, the only difference to me being that the latter kept a better beat. A lot of non-specifically-Christian worship involves heavy incense and sometimes drugs.
Nearly all of these techniques used to get one closer to God also very often produce mental states that lead to brainwashing, hallucinations, seeing ghosts, UFOs, Bigfoot, whatever.
That is why I feel comfortable not trusting "The Spirit", but feel perfectly comfortable trusting the sensation of the keyboard beneath my fingers or the taste of the grape popsicle I just ate.
Meh. There are a certain number of wacked out individuals who really are delusional. Doubtless there are a number of individuals who hope and focus their energies on achieving a "spiritual experience" and so they interpret whatever occurs as such an experience. I simply cannot credit the notion that all experiences of (using Tom's stat) 70% of Americans may be relegated to this heap. Indeed, my own anecdotal experiences defy this interpretation. I doubt very much that you and I can come to an agreement on this. My background will automatically color all of my interpretations, and yours will do the same.
Nonetheless, I can understand where you are coming from. I think CS Lewis expressed it well. He said (frome memory) that as a Christian he had days when it seemed that there was nothing more than the world we see and all the rest was just fantasy, while when he was an atheist there were days when he felt certain that all of the old stories were true and that there was certainly a divine power.
That is simply the nature of belief- anyone who is certain he has got it all right is almost guaranteed to be wrong.
quote: Aye, there's the rub.
See, everyone has bits of reality and bits of delusion. Reality, is what more people have collective bits of, and delusion is what fewer people have bits of, or their bits don't belong to collective. So the majority always holds the reference point.
Doesn't mean we should necessarlly trample on the minority delusion. (as long as they aren't physcially harmful) That's what the constitution is all about. And in another few genrations it could be the other way 'round.
I suspect you may be using the term "delusion" here to collectively refer to people who are wrong about something. If that is the case then I can certainly agree. We all interpret the world in different ways, and some of those interpretations (all of them?) are certainly not correct, or are oversimplifications etc. While I suppose that this is a fair definition of delusion, the primary definition is usually associated with a psychosis. I find it difficult to believe that everyone in the world is psychotic, so on this level I disagree with your characterization of everyone as delusional.
Posted by Promethius (Member # 2468) on :
Ok, I figure this prophecy is fitting because I talked about Jewish people returning to Israel.
"In Leviticus 26:3, 7-8, the Bible says that the army of Israel would have a supernatural power to prevail during times of conflict, if the people are obedient to the Lord. This Bible passage says that 5 people would be able to chase away 100 people, and that 100 would be able to chase away 10,000. Is there any proof to this incredible claim? Judge for yourself:
Example 1: Within hours of Israel's declaration of independence in 1948, Egypt, Syria, Jordan, Iraq, and Lebanon invaded Israel. The combined population of those countries was at least 20 million at that time. Israel had fewer than 1 million Jews."
It is the ninth one down on that page. There are many others there too about the creation of Israel, and of course the text can be found in the Bible. And you may be able to give me a prophecy that hasnt come true yet, but not everything is going to happen all at once. So I dont think it is really important that every prophecy hasnt come true yet because it is going to happen, or so the Bible says.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Promethius, I am a devout and believing Jew, and I don't agree with most of that site's claims. Especially since there are some fairly poor translations and context issues.
Posted by Nidaar (Member # 8373) on :
First of all, thank you to those who have welcomed me on hatrack.
Sterling wrote:
quote: I understand that prayer has been shown to have a statistically measurably effect on events such as the recovery of individuals in hospitals.
I have recently lived a similar experience, in the sense that the doctors would give me a 20% chance of recovery for a damaged nerve in a car accident, that had left my thigh and foot paralyzed. I am now almost recovered and the nerve continues to grow and the muscles to become stronger, whereas at first they were atrophied.
I practiced what you would call "prayer". But I would call it "autosugestion", in the sense that I "talked" to my subconscious ( I would say) or to God (would say the religious) and I visualized how I would be able to move my toes and lift my foot. I tried to persuade me and my body to grow the nerve again, neuron by neuron. And this slowly happened.
However, I do not conclude that autosugestion works at any time. In cases when the nerve is cut, not only damaged, the chances of recovery are almost 0. On the other hand, I would prefer to hope that there are inner resources that makes the human body (and its subconscious) stronger than our science currently admits. I even leave a door open at the question: Can a human walk over water? (As Jesus allegedly did). I would guess that with hard (mental)training, as the one done in Asian traditions, one might do that. But it is very unlikely.
Moreover, one could argue that I recovered thanks to the 20% chance.
The statistics that you saw actually lacked "statistics", i.e. a large number of individuals on which the test was performed. Moreover, there are a lot of parameters to take into account, as KoM answered. I would like to see results of studies on a large sample of individuals, studies that would also take into account a lot more variables. For now, the evidence of these experiments is not compelling.
In the end, i.e. for my inner psychological state, (and maybe this is the key in understanding why other people become religious) it does not matter what are the statistics about the effects on prayer. I JUST wanted to be able to be able to WALK again. And I am can walk now. I "bear my testimony" that this is a feeling for which you would be so thankful (to life, or to chance, or to the subconscious, or to God) that one would be strongly tempted to not be rational any more and to extrapolate what happened to himself to every other human. He would thus believe that one has proved that unknown inner resources or God exist.
Sterling again.
quote: I was told in my science classes of long ago that energy never simply "dissipates", but only changes form. From this alone I find it difficult to imagine something as remarkably complex as the human soul (or consciousness, if you prefer) simply being destroyed at the end of the body's lifespan.
You were told right but your conclusion is not compelling. You were told that both matter and energy conserve. Actually, just a combination of both does conserve, as matter transforms in energy and energy in matter. We know that since exactly 100 years thanks to Einstein. I agree that the parts that form "you" do not disappear after your death. Your atoms would continue their cycle in Nature, as well as your energy. (Have you ever thought that you might have within you in this very moment a few atoms that were shared at some point by both Hitler and Julius Caesar?).
You ask then what happens with your "soul" after death. I ask you to define "soul" and say what its physical content is before you use a reasoning of conservation of matter-energy which applies strictly to matter.
A more interesting question would be what happens to my conscious, to my memories, to my personality, to my feelings? In order to answer that, we need to understand first of all how they work while we are alive. In our current (superficial) scientific understanding, all these have chemical and electrical cause in our brain. I conclude that when we die, our body disintegrates, the atoms are taken away from the other, the bonds break. Thus your atom that belonged to Hitler does not make you a mass murderer.
Nevertheless, I leave open the question that maybe our soul is made of something different, as some kind of information in a data base. And this (and this alone) might continue to exist after we are dead. This data base would the equivalent of God (as God is omniscient), but it would be a passive data base. It is not used to create new humans or afterlife. But maybe we, humans living this life on Earth, might reach a technology to discover the data base and then read it. I would imagine a world in which one would read (and not influence) the past, as viewing the film of a battle or admiring Platon meditating. This would surely make an interesting Science Fiction.
In conclusion, your argument that conservation of energy-matter implies the existing of life after death is not compelling. However, if you postulate the conservation of information, you would have a data base that would exist after your death. However, you yourself would not be there to enjoy it and you would not be bothered when others invade your (past) privacy.
Moreover, information is very vaguely used in science, but a lot of scientists feel and hope that it would provide a next language of explaing nature (instead of particles and fields, of forces and energies), one would reason in terms of exchange of information (communication) between systems. Even the universe (thus God) would be a giant computer in these discussions. But that is a whole other possible thread.
Posted by camus (Member # 8052) on :
quote: Uh, camus, we also have abundant records of shakespeare's life, and numerous accounts of his friends of his authorship of the plays. In fact, we don't actually have shakespeare's signature on many (any?) of his plays, though his name is regularly affixed of course.
We also have "records" of god's life and his friends/relationships with people. Regarding Shakespeare, based on evidence like Shakespeare's rather uneducated background, the illiteracy of his children, events in his life, and other details that I'll not go into, the logical conclusion is that the evidence actually suggests that it is very unlikely that Shakespeare actually wrote any of his works. However, that does not mean that you are irrational if you do believe that he wrote them.
quote: And no, Newton was considered a genius by his peers, he was a widely respected scientist and mathematician during his time.
My mistake, I meant Galileo who was placed under house arrest because his views regarding the Sun being the center of the solar system contradicted popular opinion.
quote: quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- So why is it so hard to see that we all have certain beliefs (even myself) that we can't explain with reason, or that aren't reasonable (in the traditional sense of logic and all), but that we still believe in, JUST BECAUSE? --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I don't think you're contradicting him, here.
I wasn't disputing that statment, rather, I was disputing his claim that a belief in god is irrational.
quote: Which is why, barring direct personal observation of God, most atheists also point out the logical inconsistencies in most descriptions of God as arguments against His existence.
descriptions of god are based on perceptions and memories, both of which are highly inaccurate and should not be the grounds for proving/disproving anything. (just like eye witness accounts of a crime are very unreliable)
Posted by Angiomorphism (Member # 8184) on :
quote:Originally posted by twinky: camus, Angio said:
[QUOTE]Added: It's interesting that you're making this argument given your choice of screen name.
yeah, the thing is, i used to be of the opinion that people who believed in god were mislead, or manipulated, or dumb, etc.. but that didn't really work very well with my observations of the many people i am close with who have some sort of belief or another concerning a higher power. I still think that as a general rule, believing in "god" is illogical or irrational (and in my own humble opinion, unecessary), but that the people who hold this belief aren't any of the aforementioned qualities. I know a load of people who are incredibly smart and rational etc. who believe strongly in god, or some form of higher power. from my years of debating and discussing this issue with them, i came to realize (or so it seems to me) that most of these people understand that their beliefs aren't rational in the traditional sense, nor can they prove them by any modern means. However, they still hold them (quite strongly). The reason they do is because they are able to seperate their spiritual beliefs from their sense of logic and reason, and in the same light, they aren't the type of people you would ever hear proclaiming that something is wrong is sinfull because God said so. God (or whatever they belive in) plays a part in their lives, but not when it comes to modern day issues and events, which they deal with with empiricism and logic and reason.
so to set the record strait, *I* am a super dooper atheist, but i'm not the type that frowns upon spirituality as a whole, i just don't personally need it (ok, maybe i get pissed of at organized religion every so often, but ideology and spirituality about the unknown is perfectly fine with me).
Posted by Promethius (Member # 2468) on :
Rivka are there any you do believe in? And as a Jewish person isnt it natural that you are going to disagree with a website based on Christianity? This was a site I stumbled upon a number of months ago that was interesting, I dont think it is flawless but it made some serious claims. I am not a Christian, but if these things are true, then I think they hold some weight in an argument.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"And as a Jewish person isnt it natural that you are going to disagree with a website based on Christianity?"
If the prophecies are unequivocally true, then it probably ISN'T natural for disagreement to be possible, no.
Posted by Angiomorphism (Member # 8184) on :
quote: And no, Newton was considered a genius by his peers, he was a widely respected scientist and mathematician during his time.
My mistake, I meant Galileo who was placed under house arrest because his views regarding the Sun being the center of the solar system contradicted popular opinion.
galileo was placed under house arrest because his views regarding the coppernican model of the solar system contradicted the *church approved* ptolemic model. At the time, whatever the church said was the right answer, and in fact, the majority of scientists soon came around to Galileo's views. So when yo say "popular opinion", you are really saying "what the church wanted to be popular opinion at the time".
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
I don't believe that any of the claims they are making specifically about the Israeli wars of the past 50 years are necessarily connected to those prophecies (except in the most general sense). I am only commenting about prophecies from the MT; I have no comment on those from the NT.
It's not that I don't believe that they either have been fulfilled or will be (mostly the latter). I just don't think it has happened yet.
Posted by Promethius (Member # 2468) on :
Rivka, when looking at the Christian version of the old testament lets say the new international version or one of the other popular versions of the Bible, do you notice consistency with your version? Because I have heard some words in Hebrew are almost impossible to translate correctly into english simply because we do not have words in english that mean exactly what a Hebrew word means. Or are they pretty similar?
"If the prophecies are unequivocally true, then it probably ISN'T natural for disagreement to be possible, no."
Yes, but we know Christians and Jews have some very obvious differences when it comes to many things in the Bible. The most obvious is Christians believe Jesus was the messiah and Jewish people dont. One of these groups is correct. The Bible even talks about how many Jewish people will reject Jesus when he comes.
Posted by camus (Member # 8052) on :
quote:galileo was placed under house arrest because his views regarding the coppernican model of the solar system contradicted the *church approved* ptolemic model. At the time, whatever the church said was the right answer, and in fact, the majority of scientists soon came around to Galileo's views. So when yo say "popular opinion", you are really saying "what the church wanted to be popular opinion at the time".
Yes it was the Church that was the problem, but the beliefs of the Church many times do NOT reflect what is stated in the Bible. So instead of Galileo contradicting the Bible, he was instead contradicting those that held power. When I say popular opinion, I mean whatever is fashionable to believe at any given time. Science is in general a pretty reliable basis for belief, but many times science is incorrect. In fact 1/3 of surveyed scientists have admitted to misrepresenting data (either by ignoring errors of peers or passing studies that they knew were incomplete, etc.) for the sake of appeasing sponsors. And there are many instances of when science has come to the wrong conclusion.
Using the example of Newton once again, his theories on gravity were incorrect, it took until Einstein to come along and correct Newton's theories. The reason Newton was wrong was because he didn't have the tools and knowledge necessary to create an accurate model of the universe and gravity. He was limited by the things available at his time. The same is true today. Science will always be limited by the tools that it has available and the limits of human perception and observation. To believe in the possibility of a god does not contradict science, but rather admits the limitations of science. Thus, recognizing those limitations is not a sign of irrationality, but rather is a little bit of honesty.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
Nidaar, that was a really good post.
--------------
Promethius:
quote:"In Leviticus 26:3, 7-8, the Bible says that the army of Israel would have a supernatural power to prevail during times of conflict, if the people are obedient to the Lord. This Bible passage says that 5 people would be able to chase away 100 people, and that 100 would be able to chase away 10,000. Is there any proof to this incredible claim? Judge for yourself:
Example 1: Within hours of Israel's declaration of independence in 1948, Egypt, Syria, Jordan, Iraq, and Lebanon invaded Israel. The combined population of those countries was at least 20 million at that time. Israel had fewer than 1 million Jews."
I promised myself some considerable time ago that I would never discuss the issue here again, and this is as close as I'm willing to dance along that line. Here is why your "prophecy" is essentially meaningless:
1) The actual ratio of combatants in the war was almost certainly not 20:1. Using the populations of the countries rather than trying to find an estimate of the number of combatants on both sides shows pretty clearly that the author merely picked the number that suited him and ignored everything else.
2) There was plenty of fighting going on before Israel's formal declaration of independence. The "War of Independence" was well underway before the declaration, whatever you think about whose fault the whole mess was.
3) The Israeli combatants were not supernaturally gifted -- rather, they'd had the foresight to purchase comparatively high-quality military hardware (from the French, among others). The Arab nations, as shown in 1948 and repeatedly since then (particularly in 1967) didn't know the first thing about modern warfare.
4) Finally, there's the "obedient to the Lord" stipulation, which one presumes was violated by both sides by the riots, gangs, and scattered guerrila warfare in the 1930s and 40s as the conflict started to escalate.
In other words, the actual events don't fit with the prophecy at all. I've read Leviticus, and I saw nothing prophesised in it that has actually come true. Your problem is that you start from a position of belief and then go through history selectively choosing accounts of events -- and, in this particular case, twisting them so that they fit. Square peg, round hole.
-------------------
camus:
It is grossly unfair to say that Newton was "wrong." Newtonian mechanics got us to the moon. Newton's model is accurate for a subset of all cases, just like Einstein's model. Your choice of phrasing reveals an underlying absolutism that is incompatible with science.
Further, the Bible talks about the sun as though it revolves around the earth. How else could the sun stand still, or god command the sun not to rise? It doesn't expressly state "the sun revolves around the earth," but someone reading it who doesn't know better would probably come to that conclusion.
Posted by camus (Member # 8052) on :
quote:Originally posted by twinky: "In Leviticus 26:3, 7-8, the Bible says that the army of Israel would have a supernatural power to prevail during times of conflict, if the people are obedient to the Lord. This Bible passage says that 5 people would be able to chase away 100 people, and that 100 would be able to chase away 10,000. Is there any proof to this incredible claim? Judge for yourself:
Example 1: Within hours of Israel's declaration of independence in 1948, Egypt, Syria, Jordan, Iraq, and Lebanon invaded Israel. The combined population of those countries was at least 20 million at that time. Israel had fewer than 1 million Jews."
The physical nation of Israel lost God's favor back when the put Jesus to death. There is now a spiritual nation of Israel out of all tribes, nations, peoples, and tongues. In regards to other prophecies, I do believe in the prophecies in the Bible, however, I don't think they make good points for convincing other people of the authenticity of the Bible. As others have stated, events can be twisted, manipulated, and interpreted in ways to support any prophecy.
quote: camus:
It is grossly unfair to say that Newton was "wrong." Newtonian mechanics got us to the moon. Newton's model is accurate for a subset of all cases, just like Einstein's model. Your choice of phrasing reveals an underlying absolutism that is incompatible with science.
Further, the Bible talks about the sun as though it revolves around the earth. How else could the sun stand still, or god command the sun not to rise? It doesn't expressly state "the sun revolves around the earth," but someone reading it who doesn't know better would probably come to that conclusion.
Newton's theories could produce inaccurate results. It created an inaccurate view of the universe. Obviously it was very useful for certain things, but not in correctly understanding the universe. Had Newton suggested what we know now about space-time, warped time, and singularities, he probably would have been seen as a lunatic, even though a correct one. My point is that ideas of rationality are limited by the general beliefs of the time and community. That is just part of the reason why science has limitations. To dismiss certain beliefs completely on the basis of not thinking it's possible is in complete contrast to the foundations of science. What I'm saying is that science and religion can in some cases complement each other. A religious person does not have to refute science, and science does not have to refute the notion of a superior creature that created us. That is not absolutism. Absolutism is believing that it is impossible for God to exist even though it cannot be proved, or to believe the everything can be explained through science.
Regarding the Bible's terminology, remember that the Bible was written from a human perspective. If God had directly written it, we probably wouldn't be able to comprehend it. To humans, it would have seemed like the Sun stood still. In fact, there is no reason to believe that either the Sun or the earth remained motionless. There may have been other ways that God employed to provide more daylight. God does not have to reveal to us the physics behind his miracles.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
quote:Newton's theories could produce inaccurate results.
This is not the same thing as being wrong.
quote: It created an inaccurate view of the universe.
This isn't true either. It was certainly accurate for all cases in Newton's time, and it's still accurate for most earthly cases today. If he was "wrong," then why do we still learn Newtonian mechanics -- but not relativistic mechanics -- in school?
quote: Obviously it was very useful for certain things, but not in correctly understanding the universe. Had Newton suggested what we know now about space-time, warped time, and singularities, he probably would have been seen as a lunatic, even though a correct one.
Considering what you go on to say from here, the fact that you're throwing the word "know" around willy-nilly is telling. Most of the things you mention are theories.
quote:To dismiss certain beliefs completely on the basis of not thinking it's possible is in complete contrast to the foundations of science.
Fine, but nobody's making that claim.
quote: That is not absolutism. Absolutism is believing that it is impossible for God to exist even though it cannot be proved, or to believe the everything can be explained through science.
Then you're arguing against a position you've constructed yoruself, since I don't see anyone claiming those things. And as I've metioned already in this post, you're still using absolutist terms to discuss theories (we "know" this today, we "know" that today, in reference to things that are far from being experimentally proven).
quote:Regarding the Bible's terminology, remember that the Bible was written from a human perspective. If God had directly written it, we probably wouldn't be able to comprehend it. To humans, it would have seemed like the Sun stood still. In fact, there is no reason to believe that either the Sun or the earth remained motionless. There may have been other ways that God employed to provide more daylight. God does not have to reveal to us the physics behind his miracles.
If he did, it might make skeptics more likely to believe.
My point -- and Angiomorphism's, as far as I can tell -- is that there is no rational basis for believing in god. That doesn't mean that god does not exist. You're conflating two entirely separate arguments.
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
Jacare:
quote: I simply cannot credit the notion that all experiences of (using Tom's stat) 70% of Americans may be relegated to this heap. Indeed, my own anecdotal experiences defy this interpretation.
Well, put that way, neither can I. However, I would also postulate that a relatively small percentage of believers have had what you or I would call a "conversion experience" (and here I'm not just talking about LDS believers). In my experience, most people don't really question their beliefs. They accept what they are taught as children. Though your definition of the term "tested" may be more generous that mine, I'd say the majority of people have a faith that hasn't really been tested.
One thing I've noted in my experiences with people is that, in general, the more powerful the spiritual event, the more likely it is tied to a time of stress, often including fasting, intense prayer, etc. It seems suspect to me that God seems to talk most loudly to people when they are most vulnerable to delusion.
Note, I'm not saying that religious experience is delusion. I'm saying that by and large it is indistinguishable from delusion to an outside observer.
If a man loses his only child and in his grief the voices in his head tell him life is worth nothing and he must kill himself, most Americans would probably say he was delusional with grief. If the voices in his head (or heart, if you prefer) tell him that God wanted his son home early and he must be strong for his family, well then he was touched by God. In my view, neither of these situations has a better or worse claim to the term delusion.
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
quote: That is simply the nature of belief- anyone who is certain he has got it all right is almost guaranteed to be wrong.
I agree with you whole-heartedly on this one. Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
quote:One thing I've noted in my experiences with people is that, in general, the more powerful the spiritual event, the more likely it is tied to a time of stress, often including fasting, intense prayer, etc.
And in my experience, many (maybe most) claims of spiritual experience involve the loss of a loved one, which is a very stressful event and is very much related to the idea of an afterlife.
Posted by camus (Member # 8052) on :
quote:the fact that you're throwing the word "know" around willy-nilly is telling
"know" is a fairly relative term. Can we truly "know" anything? I don't really believe absolute truth is attainable, so in that sense I guess no one "knows" anything. I believe we "know" things in the sense that we can have a firm confiction based on available information. I guess I should have explained my usage of the word "know" earlier.
Briefly going back to Newton, he proposed certain laws respecting the way in which different objects interact with each other. Einstein found that Newton's laws weren't always true. Einstein found that Newton's ideas were fundamentally wrong (or perhaps a better word is incomplete, but since Newton did not know that, it might be said that he was wrong). It worked on small scales, but on universal scales it was flawed. Whether he was "wrong" or "incomplete" is an issue of semantics.
My point is that science is always changing (for the better). As a result, it cannot be proven that God does not exist. I know that isn't exactly your point. You say that "there is no rational basis for believing in god." and that's the point I disagree with.
The proof of the existence of a god is the same as the proof of the existence of people in the past, or anything else that science can prove. Everything we "know" is based on trust in our senses, our peers, or our memories. God is no different. So how can belief in God be irrational when other beliefs are rational if they are all based on the same things?
quote: If he did, it might make skeptics more likely to believe.
Belief of anything is not based solely on evidence, it's also based on what you want to believe. Not all that witnessed the parting of the Red Sea became believers. Not all that witnessed Jesus' miracles believed in him. If we were to witness a miracle right now, what we want to believe will dictate whether we think we just witnessed a supernatural act or if we witnessed some unexplainable scientific anomoly and then try to create some theory that may explain what we just witnessed. In fact, if God did explain the mechanics behind his miracles, then people would believe that His miracles were a manipulation of physics done by some insightful person instead of God.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
quote:It worked on small scales, but on universal scales it was flawed.
That isn't precisely correct either. And in today's world, it's relativistic physics that do not work on small scales (we have quantum mechanics for that). You chalk it up dismissively to semantics, but it's actually a pretty important distinction.
quote:As a result, it cannot be proven that God does not exist. I know that isn't exactly your point. You say that "there is no rational basis for believing in god." and that's the point I disagree with.
I've been saying it can't be proven that god does not exist all along. That's not a basis for belief.
quote:The proof of the existence of a god is the same as the proof of the existence of people in the past, or anything else that science can prove. Everything we "know" is based on trust in our senses, our peers, or our memories. God is no different. So how can belief in God be irrational when other beliefs are rational if they are all based on the same things?
God is fundamentally different. I believe that other people exist because I have direct experience with many of them, and indirect experience with many more. I do not have any direct or indirect experience with god, and furthermore even if god exists there's only the one, according to your view. I believe Newton existed because it certainly seems that lots of people exist today, making it likely that lots of people existed in the past.
Further, science proves things by verifying them experimentally. This has absolutely nothing to do with god.
So no, there is no rational basis for believing in god. And why should there be? It kind of defeats the purpose of believing in the first place, don't you think?
I am not saying that people who believe in god are irrational.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
twinky, do you mean there's no rational basis for anyone regardless of their experiences, to believe in God, or that there's no rational basis to believe in God based on the testimony of others?
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
The latter. Personal spiritual experiences are something else entirely; that's what Karl and Jacare have been talking about.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
OK, that's what I thought. Your last post made me think I had possibly misread the entire conversation.
Carry on. Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
I believe other people exist because I have personal experience with them. I have not had such experience with god -- after plenty of looking -- so I don't believe that god exists. Posted by Angiomorphism (Member # 8184) on :
quote: [QB] [QUOTE]As a result, it cannot be proven that God does not exist. I know that isn't exactly your point. You say that "there is no rational basis for believing in god." and that's the point I disagree with.
this is an argument from ignorance (i.e. there is no evidence flying pink unicorns don't exist, so they do), and is totally fallacious. I've quoted this before i think, but it is very relevant to this topic: "What can be asserted without proof can also be dismissed without proof"
quote:The proof of the existence of a god is the same as the proof of the existence of people in the past, or anything else that science can prove. Everything we "know" is based on trust in our senses, our peers, or our memories. God is no different. So how can belief in God be irrational when other beliefs are rational if they are all based on the same things?
a belief in god is *not* based on experience and the senses. Anyone who tells you they have had personal experiences with God, and therefore believes in god, is totally missing the concept of Occam's Razor. What is more likely, that a supernatural being exists and is communicating with you, or that you are having some sort of psycological experience?
Posted by Angiomorphism (Member # 8184) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: twinky, do you mean there's no rational basis for anyone regardless of their experiences, to believe in God, or that there's no rational basis to believe in God based on the testimony of others?
Occam's Razor!!!! Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
Actually, I would say that all other things being equal (that's a huge caveat, of course), they are roughly equally likely.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Angio, would you care to explain your interjection and head-banging as a response to my question to twinky?
Posted by camus (Member # 8052) on :
quote: I am not saying that people who believe in god are irrational.
AH, I think we finally have found a point to agree on. That point was essentially the whole basis of my argument. Somewhere in the last eight pages it was implied that a belief in God is the product of irrational thinking.
To believe that a god (or even multiple gods depending on how we view dieties) exists is not irrational. The basis of my arguments about Newton and others was basically that science and knowledge is always changing/progressing. Just like any belief. We can never be completely sure of anything (due to limitations in perception, knowledge, and resources), which is where belief comes into play. True, belief in God is very different than say belief in gravity, but both are based on things that we cannot control. We cannot control our senses, memories, or the measurements that are taken by other people. We have to trust that what they (scientists) say is accurate based on their credibility, and that credibility is relative to what is important to each person individually. Likewise, we have to trust our personal memories (if we believe we've encountered or communicated with God), or trust in the experiences/credibility of others that claim to have encounters with God.
In general, I do believe that science is to be trusted much more than religion (just look at all the foolish things done in the name of religion) but I take offense at the implication that my current belief in God is not rational. Twinky, you weren't implying that but others were, and that's who I'm arguing with.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
Ah, okay. I do have one issue:
quote:Likewise, we have to trust our personal memories (if we believe we've encountered or communicated with God), or trust in the experiences/credibility of others that claim to have encounters with God.
To me the last item has to go. I cannot come to believe in god through listening to the testimonies of others; if I could, I might have found the religious texts I've read more compelling, I might be convinced by Biblical "prophecy," or the fact that a number of people I deeply respect are firm theists. Further, I don't think that accepting the testimonials of others is a healthy (or, strictly speaking, rational) way to arrive at belief. In other words, I think that rational belief in god can only be arrived at through personal spiritual experiences (and, of course, those still have the problems that Karl and Jacare are discussing).
----------------
Angiomorphism, Occam's razor is a guideline, not an absolute principle that must be applied in all cases. Furthermore, the probability of god's existence and the probability of the universe being spontaneously generated are both incalculable, so you can't really say that one is more or less likely than the other.
Posted by Sterling (Member # 8096) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men:
quote:I understand that prayer has been shown to have a statistically measurably effect on events such as the recovery of individuals in hospitals.
Wrong. The effect is only significant if you insist on picking out one result from hundreds; in other words, you'd expect there to be one sample where this happened anyway, just from sheer randomness. In fact, the study looked at several hundred factors that might be influenced by prayer, and (as you would expect from random factors) found some factors where the control (non-prayed-for) group did better than the experimental group. In other words, prayer made things worse for some groups of patients.
As for your energy argument, the human mind doesn't consist of energy, it consists of ordered matter. (If you can't measure it in Joules, it ain't energy, whatever the New Agers may say to the contrary.) Bet your teachers never told you that organisation can't disappear. In fact, if they did, they were lying, since that's what entropy is all about : Energy (and matter) take more disorganised forms as time goes on.
I grant that my understanding of the effect of prayer is based more on hearsay than on a particular study. However, I find it difficult to believe that there is a _single_ study that has definitively proved the opposite. Others believe that various kinds of affirmations have similar effects; perhaps there is some power in the focused will of a group of minds, a "spiritus mundi", if you will.
Certainly the human mind is not as simple as "ordered matter"; ordered matter without the electro-chemical impulses that fire in a working brain is little more than one more piece of flesh.
Also note that the Big Bang theory implies that entropy is not the only force working on matter; as things condense, break down, become simpler, so are they also capable of expanding, creating, and becoming more intricate.
If science has a flaw, it is that if something happens only one time in a million, statistically speaking it "hasn't happened."
I'm not pushing dogma here; I'm simply stating that the possibility of something more than us is neither unfeasible nor foolhardy.
Posted by Angiomorphism (Member # 8184) on :
quote:Originally posted by twinky: Ah, okay. I do have one issue:
quote:Likewise, we have to trust our personal memories (if we believe we've encountered or communicated with God), or trust in the experiences/credibility of others that claim to have encounters with God.
To me the last item has to go. I cannot come to believe in god through listening to the testimonies of others; if I could, I might have found the religious texts I've read more compelling, I might be convinced by Biblical "prophecy," or the fact that a number of people I deeply respect are firm theists. Further, I don't think that accepting the testimonials of others is a healthy (or, strictly speaking, rational) way to arrive at belief. In other words, I think that rational belief in god can only be arrived at through personal spiritual experiences (and, of course, those still have the problems that Karl and Jacare are discussing).
----------------
Angiomorphism, Occam's razor is a guideline, not an absolute principle that must be applied in all cases. Furthermore, the probability of god's existence and the probability of the universe being spontaneously generated are both incalculable, so you can't really say that one is more or less likely than the other.
who ever said the universe spontaneously generated itself? i didn't. there are some questions we simply cannot answer right now (such as what started the universe, what is the universe expanding into etc.), because of our limited knowledge and perception, and as such, it is logical to wait until (and if) we are able to rationally explain these things, rather than invent a diety to explain what we do not understand.
as for occam's razor, someone was arguing that it was rational to believe in god because of a spiritual experience. i was simply using occam's razor to point out that this was infact not rational, since there are many other possible explanations that can be reasoned to explain such an experience, and that do not necessitate the existence of god
Posted by Angiomorphism (Member # 8184) on :
quote: To believe that a god (or even multiple gods depending on how we view dieties) exists is not irrational. The basis of my arguments about Newton and others was basically that science and knowledge is always changing/progressing. Just like any belief. We can never be completely sure of anything (due to limitations in perception, knowledge, and resources), which is where belief comes into play. True, belief in God is very different than say belief in gravity, but both are based on things that we cannot control. We cannot control our senses, memories, or the measurements that are taken by other people.
are you saying that you cannot control your belief in God? I sure did. And also, it is true that we cannot control our sense and experiences to a certain extent, but we can control how we interpret those things, and what we derive from them. So you might have an experience that you cannot explain, but to then assume that that means that God exists, and that he is talking to you, or interacting with you, is totally under your misguided control.
And yes, it is true that we can never be sure of anything *absolutely*, but there are things that we can be relatively sure about, in terms of what we experience and reason to be true. Nothing can be proven absolutely, but we can empirically gather evidence, and create hypotheses (which can always be disproved and changed according to new evidence), to explain what we experience. God is not something we can empirically or rationally examine and prove or disprove, just as the IPU isn't, so when it comes to rationalism, we must *discard* the idea all together. Belief if science and belief in God are two completely different things. One (science) belief is rational, as there are means to support it and it can change (thought belief in the method will remain firm until a new and better one arises), but belief in God is neither rational nor justifiable with reason.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
quote:as for occam's razor, someone was arguing that it was rational to believe in god because of a spiritual experience. i was simply using occam's razor to point out that this was infact not rational, since there are many other possible explanations that can be reasoned to explain such an experience, and that do not necessitate the existence of god
But without having had one yourself, you are not in a position to claim which of these things is simpler. In other words, Occam's razor does not apply.
Posted by Angiomorphism (Member # 8184) on :
of course i am in a position to comment. one implies that there must be a magical being who exists in the sky, who created all of existence out of nothing, and who is personally concerned about each and every individual (who believes in him) on this planet. Other options are that you were manipulated into believing something, that you had a hallucination, or that you misinterpreted your experience as divine.
wihch scenario is most likely, logically speaking?
EDIT: im going to go read Haaaary P. see you all later, have a good night!
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
They are equally likely (or equally unlikely). That isn't a basis for dismissing belief in god.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Angio, you're reasoning from your conclusion: the existence of God is unlikely, therefore experiences which tend to support God don't really do so.
Posted by Jacare Sorridente (Member # 1906) on :
quote:However, I would also postulate that a relatively small percentage of believers have had what you or I would call a "conversion experience" (and here I'm not just talking about LDS believers). In my experience, most people don't really question their beliefs. They accept what they are taught as children. Though your definition of the term "tested" may be more generous that mine, I'd say the majority of people have a faith that hasn't really been tested.
I absolutely agree. Here is the issue: religious belief is often associated with the values which are at the core of who one is. This core is formed, in large part, in childhood- which explains why people are often the same religion as their parents. Changing philosophy- whether embracing a new religion or leaving an old one- requires a modification to those inner core values, and that is something which is exceedingly difficult to do.
quote: One thing I've noted in my experiences with people is that, in general, the more powerful the spiritual event, the more likely it is tied to a time of stress, often including fasting, intense prayer, etc. It seems suspect to me that God seems to talk most loudly to people when they are most vulnerable to delusion.
I think that there is an alternative explanation which is likely one you have thought of. It is exactly at the times of great stress when people often decide that they need the aid of God most in their lives, and this in turn leads them to seek more diligently.
quote: Note, I'm not saying that religious experience is delusion. I'm saying that by and large it is indistinguishable from delusion to an outside observer.
And we should expect that to be the case. All individual human experience is delusion-like to an outside observer. Take falling in love, for example. When people fall in love they often change their behavior, sometimes even radically so. Their focus changes, and perhaps even their core values may change. To an outside observer this may appear extreme or ridiculous, but it is perfectly justifiable to the one who is in love.
quote: If a man loses his only child and in his grief the voices in his head tell him life is worth nothing and he must kill himself, most Americans would probably say he was delusional with grief. If the voices in his head (or heart, if you prefer) tell him that God wanted his son home early and he must be strong for his family, well then he was touched by God. In my view, neither of these situations has a better or worse claim to the term delusion.
From the perspective of the outside, you may be right. You cannot know what is happening inside his head. But he can, and that makes all of the difference.
Posted by Nidaar (Member # 8373) on :
quote: I grant that my understanding of the effect of prayer is based more on hearsay than on a particular study. However, I find it difficult to believe that there is a _single_ study that has definitively proved the opposite.
There is no study on a large sample of individuals. Thus, no conclusions may be drawn. There is no experiment stating that prayer is bad. My guess is that a prayer could only help, regardless of the existence of God, because of psychological reasons.
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
I don't believe it is possible to conduct a scientific study about prayer, either to prove or to disprove its effectiveness.
First, there is really no way to set controls. How can you? Pick one hospital wing and pray for them, and then tell another wing you're praying for them, but secretly don't? How do you pick a group of patients and keep their family or friends from praying for them behind your back? What about the patients themselves? How will you keep them from praying for themselves? What about all the prayers across the world that include "God bless those in need", or "God bless the sick and infirm"?
Second, from a religious perspective is not the whole idea patently offensive? Who here prays to a God that blesses only the sick who get the most prayers?
And finally, what is the point of the experiment in the first place? Surely not to prove the existence of God. I'd suspect that confirmation that a bunch of people "praying" for one group actually doing them good in a scientifically quantifiable and verifiable way would do more to prove the existence of ESP than to prove a divine being. In fact, if the experiments really were to show a difference in the prayed-for group over the non-prayed-for group, I'd take that result as confirmation that there is no god. I mean really, what kind of a God is slave to the popular vote?
Posted by Angiomorphism (Member # 8184) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: Angio, you're reasoning from your conclusion: the existence of God is unlikely, therefore experiences which tend to support God don't really do so.
actually, i'm not begging the question. what i'm saying is that to use god as a causal factor for experiences you cannot explain has little logical efficacy. infact, id say that it's you who's doing the begging, as you most likely already believed in god before you had anything you claimed to prove his/her existence. you were searching for things that could possibly validate your conclusion, where as i am searching for things that could falsify it, or discount it logically. a million peices of positive evidence cannot prove something true, but 1 peice of counter-evidence can prove it false.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
But you're not presenting counter-evidence. You are specifically relying on the premise "It is less likely that Person X had a divine experience that it is that Person X was manipulated into believing something, had a hallucination, or misinterpreted am experience as divine."
You have no rational basis for this premise to justify using it as the deciding factor in applying Occam's razor.
Posted by camus (Member # 8052) on :
quote:Originally posted by twinky: To me the last item has to go. I cannot come to believe in god through listening to the testimonies of others; if I could, I might have found the religious texts I've read more compelling, I might be convinced by Biblical "prophecy," or the fact that a number of people I deeply respect are firm theists. Further, I don't think that accepting the testimonials of others is a healthy (or, strictly speaking, rational) way to arrive at belief. In other words, I think that rational belief in god can only be arrived at through personal spiritual experiences (and, of course, those still have the problems that Karl and Jacare are discussing).
Yes, I agree, entrusting your belief system to others is definitely not a good idea. However, as I mentioned somewhere earlier, each person has to decide which people are credible.( for example, if my brother was personally visited by Jesus, I would highly doubt it, but I would give it additional attention considering my respect for the honesty and sanity of my brother) That credibility comes from different factors for different people. I can easily see why many people may not accept the credibility of Bible writers or people that claim certain religious experiences. I'm not arguing here, just clarifying my statement because I think we probably agree here as well.
quote:of course i am in a position to comment. one implies that there must be a magical being who exists in the sky, who created all of existence out of nothing, and who is personally concerned about each and every individual (who believes in him) on this planet. Other options are that you were manipulated into believing something, that you had a hallucination, or that you misinterpreted your experience as divine.
god (lowercase 'g') doesn't have to be everything that you just stated. After all, there are thousands of religions professing different beliefs and many more millions of people that profess some belief in a god without endorsing a specific religion.
And I did not say we cannot control our belief in God. But there are certain factors that we cannot control, and that's where trust comes in. I truly believe in the things that I see, even though I know that sight can be misleading. All evidence (science or religion) is subject to interpretation. All reasoning is subject to interpretation and perspective.
I would agree that many religious people are not rational. But I wouldn't go so far as to say that all religious conclusions are irrational. A person can still use the scientific method to deduce that a god exists (but as Twinky stated earlier, that deduction should be based on personal experiences, not hearsay from perhaps delusional people). Just because they may not be right does not make them irrational. And until you experience what a "believer" experiences, how can you know for certain the level of their rationality?
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Promethius: Rivka, when looking at the Christian version of the old testament lets say the new international version or one of the other popular versions of the Bible, do you notice consistency with your version? Because I have heard some words in Hebrew are almost impossible to translate correctly into English simply because we do not have words in English that mean exactly what a Hebrew word means. Or are they pretty similar?
You seem to assume I read the Christian bibles regularly. I do not. However, when I have discussed specific passages, as here, I find that some are fairly close and some are way off. No surprise; this would be true of a translation of a straightforward and simple text.
quote:Originally posted by camus: The physical nation of Israel lost God's favor back when the[y] put Jesus to death.
Funny. Your own scriptures blame the Romans. I haven't been called a Jesus-killer in at least a year -- until today. Posted by Nidaar (Member # 8373) on :
Totally agree, KarlEd.
I would still want studies on these ESP. Difficult as they are, with lots of work, one might get some first hints, not evidence, not proof of potentially possible uses of ESP and psychology and auto-suggestion and placebo effect for ill/sick/depressed people.
Suppose that auto-suggestion/prayer does help and suppose that God is not responsible for this. Asians claim they have techniques as bio-energy and healing with hands. They model that by some "energy" passed from a person to the other (or coming from the Universe). If healing is helped by this "energy", I argue that the more "energy" you receive (too much might be fatal, but I mean in a linear regime) the stronger the effect of healing is.
Analogy: "energy"->medication/food/water for a sick/hungry/thirsty person.
If studies discover that their techniques are true, we would have some strange hospitals would nurses whose job would be to pray. However, I prefer to hope that each patient's auto-suggestion is enough to replace prayer and give confidence in the actual medical treatment (surgery, medication, physiotherapy), so that these nurses would actually be some very friendly psychologists that help you remember the moments in your life when you were the winner.
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
Jacare, first, thank you for continuing this discussion with me. You are one believer who really makes me think hard about what I am trying to say. You also always seem to really read what I'm saying and not just dismiss my comments out of hand. I respect and appreciate that.
quote: I think that there is an alternative explanation which is likely one you have thought of. It is exactly at the times of great stress when people often decide that they need the aid of God most in their lives, and this in turn leads them to seek more diligently.
Yes, I believe that is the case. My issue with that is with God himself. You see, I've been there. I've had the crisis point where I've sought God until I felt my soul would break. I had an experience in that moment that I have only been able to interpret two ways. Either God touched me and let me know that the parts of myself that are directly contrary to the teachings of my former religion are in fact perfectly OK in his eyes, or I was able, at that crucial moment, to save myself by throwing off all the dead baggage of the religious dogma I had picked up and realize that God, if there was one, didn't give a whit about what we puny humans on our tiny planet in our remote corner of an average galaxy do with our lives.
Well, to be perfectly honest, I did briefly entertain two other possibilites. First, all I had been taught really was true, but for some particular reason God specifically didn't give a crap about me. Or, alternatively, I was such a low and disgusting creature in God's eyes at that time that he abandoned me to Satan entirely and he's had me ever since. But quite frankly, I'm not conceited enough to believe the former, nor self-despising enough to believe the latter.
quote: And we should expect that to be the case. All individual human experience is delusion-like to an outside observer. Take falling in love, for example. . .
Though I'm not at all sure that "All" human experience is delusion-like, I like your comments as they pertain to love, and I agree with them. And truthfully I haven't thought about the issue from that angle before. But really that only underscores the importance of including rational, clear-headed, non-stress induced experience to counter-balance the feelings you are experiencing in "the moment", or to at least review some of those experiences carefully when the emotion has passed. Or to put it more succinctly, it is probably foolish to base life choices on emotional experience in light of evidence to the contrary. (NOTE: "evidence" here being personal evidence, not objective.)
quote: From the perspective of the outside, you may be right. You cannot know what is happening inside his head. But he can, and that makes all of the difference.
Exactly. I think we're on the same page, Jacare. I hope it's clear that I haven't implied that I can know what is happening in someone elses head. But by the same token, everyone therefore owes it to him- or herself to really find out what they believe and not rely on "well, everyone else believes it so it must be true". Unfortunately, I think the world, to date, is built on that notion and that notion is probably the biggest impediment to real progress modern man faces.
(Ironically, it's also possible that society can't exist without that notion in some form.)
Posted by camus (Member # 8052) on :
quote:Originally posted by KarlEd: I don't believe it is possible to conduct a scientific study about prayer, either to prove or to disprove its effectiveness.
First, there is really no way to set controls. How can you? Pick one hospital wing and pray for them, and then tell another wing you're praying for them, but secretly don't? How do you pick a group of patients and keep their family or friends from praying for them behind your back? What about the patients themselves? How will you keep them from praying for themselves? What about all the prayers across the world that include "God bless those in need", or "God bless the sick and infirm"?
Second, from a religious perspective is not the whole idea patently offensive? Who here prays to a God that blesses only the sick who get the most prayers?
And finally, what is the point of the experiment in the first place? Surely not to prove the existence of God. I'd suspect that confirmation that a bunch of people "praying" for one group actually doing them good in a scientifically quantifiable and verifiable way would do more to prove the existence of ESP than to prove a divine being. In fact, if the experiments really were to show a difference in the prayed-for group over the non-prayed-for group, I'd take that result as confirmation that there is no god. I mean really, what kind of a God is slave to the popular vote?
hmmm...I think I agree with you here. There's no definitive way to prove the effectiveness of prayer. Likewise, prayer cannot prove definitively anything about the existence (or lack of existence) of God. For every positive example, there will be equal number of negative examples, thus proving nothing. And as said, what would that prove, that God favors a consensus? Actually, I think it's quite ridiculous the things that God get credit/blame for.
Posted by Angiomorphism (Member # 8184) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: But you're not presenting counter-evidence. You are specifically relying on the premise "It is less likely that Person X had a divine experience that it is that Person X was manipulated into believing something, had a hallucination, or misinterpreted am experience as divine."
You have no rational basis for this premise to justify using it as the deciding factor in applying Occam's razor.
i was talking about the general paradigm of science with the whole evidence thing. you don't need to present evidence when you are using occam's razor as a logical guide to supposition. i was merely saying, that to conclude that god exists, and created existence, and cares about you, is alot more to assume than just saying that you misinterpreted a seemingly supernatural experience as divine. generally speaking, the more widespread assumptions you have to make to accept or justify a claim, the weaker it is.
as for evidence goes, as i have stated before, you do not need to present evidence against god's existence to discount his existence, because the only "evidence" for his existence is the fact that you cannot provide evidence against it (and im saying "real" evidence, not individual's delusions of divine experience). when you get into arguments from ignorance of this nature, the only logical path is to dismiss the premises or conclusion alltogether, until you can present some sort of valid evidence for one side or the other. just as most of you would dismiss the IPU, i dismiss god. if one day i am presented with meaningful evidence that asserts god's existence, i will reconsider my stance, but until then, it is utterly irrational (this is based on definition, i.e. using reason to assert something) to believe in god. period.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
quote:Either God touched me and let me know that the parts of myself that are directly contrary to the teachings of my former religion are in fact perfectly OK in his eyes, or I was able, at that crucial moment, to save myself by throwing off all the dead baggage of the religious dogma I had picked up and realize that God, if there was one, didn't give a whit about what we puny humans on our tiny planet in our remote corner of an average galaxy do with our lives.
Out of curiosity, how did you decide between these options? Or didn't you?
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: But you're not presenting counter-evidence. You are specifically relying on the premise "It is less likely that Person X had a divine experience that it is that Person X was manipulated into believing something, had a hallucination, or misinterpreted am experience as divine."
You have no rational basis for this premise to justify using it as the deciding factor in applying Occam's razor.
I think, actually, we can find such a rational basis, by looking at episodes agreed by a large majority to be delusional. For example, I trust you'll agree that Fred Phelps and Jack Chick are not, in fact, God-inspired, though obviously these are rather extreme examples. Now, most if not all religions, particularly those outside modern liberal Christianity, would quite likely claim the adherents of any other religion to be delusional and their own to be God-inspired. Even assuming some particular cult to be right, any given episode of talking to god is rather likely to be a delusion, then.
Somebody mentioned that there is no reason to assume the god hypothesis less likely than the natural-causes hypothesis for the beginning of the Universe. Now, I'll concede this when it comes to purely empirical observations; but if you look at the history of human thought, the case looks different. Take the number of times people have claimed 'this must be divine intervention' and later been proved wrong - from weather to conception - and divide by the total number of times divine intervention has been touted. The latter is equal to the former, plus one, the one being the beginning of the Universe. That's a rather large success-rate for the natural hypothesis, and grounds for considering it more likely.
Posted by ShadowPuppet (Member # 8239) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: So, SP, are you accusing me of not helping people and being a good person?
(late again)
don't flatter yourself my post actually had nothing to do with you
I was just stating my thoughts on the whole topic in general
but thanks for thinking I actually cared about what you think and say Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
dkw, Actually, I'm not entirely sure that I have. At the time, I had gone beyond questions of whether or not the LDS Church was true, or even whether Christianity was true. What I knew, at the end of my experience, as surely as I believe anyone can know something metaphysical, was that I was OK. That the things I hated about my life at that time had nothing to do with me, and that the things integral to myself, that is, the parts of me without which I don't think I would be me, were good things. I really couldn't tell at that time where that knowledge came from, but it has shattered all my previously held conceptions of the nature of the universe. I was left to start from scratch. For a time, I wondered where I should go. The experience for me was confirmation that there was nothing for me in the LDS church, but not that there was anything better anywhere else. I plodded along basically just going through the motions religiously. I didn't go inactive from the church for almost a year and a half after that, basically because it was the only social lifeline I had, nothing else seemed better enough to pursue and frankly I was terrified by the idea that there was no God at all. I wondered, as do many on this board, how an athiest could find life worth living, truly believing there is no God.
Eventually, I started reading Carl Sagan. In him I found, not only a fountain of cool information about the universe, but a man who exuded excitement about life and the universe. And he was an athiest. I met other vibrant people, who taught me, mostly through example, that God was superfluous to living an fulfilling life, (or at least that God was central to a fulfilling life only for those who made him so - I think there is a distinction.)
At any rate, that event opened a new chapter in my life. I feel now that I walk around with eyes wide open and the universe seems even more real and amazing that it did before. I feel less worried and stressed, on average, than I ever have before. My life isn't perfect, and I don't think it's necessarily better than the average person of my socio-economic class, believer or not. But the philosophy I hold now is one I have pieced together myself out of what few truths I feel I have been able to confirm, and I feel that I am better for it.
So, if I haven't actually made a concious decision between the two options above, I guess I could at least say that I'm leaning heavily toward the one that doesn't involve an elusive inscrutable being.
To people who aren't interested enough in the truth [edit: I mean "precision"] of my answer to listen to or read a 9 page discussion of the subject, I'd definitely say I'm an athiest. I don't believe in God as I've heard anyone else define him, though I don't rule out the possibility of a definition I could believe in. Thus far, however, I've only been able to come up with definitions myself that are pretty close to meaningless and it's pretty pointless to say you believe in a meaningless god.
Anyway, does this answer your question in any coherent fashion? I wouldn't have gone on this long in a reply to such a short question but you are another of the believers I most admire, and I wanted to answer as honestly as I could.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
It does answer it, and thank you.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:you don't need to present evidence when you are using occam's razor as a logical guide to supposition
quote:im saying "real" evidence, not individual's delusions of divine experience).
You are arguing a tautology: the individual's experience is delusional because God satisfy Occam's razor, and God doesn't satisfy Occam's razor because God is delusional.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
And would you please for the love of all that is good and pure in the world please capitalize correctly.
quote:if one day i am presented with meaningful evidence that asserts god's existence, i will reconsider my stance, but until then, it is utterly irrational (this is based on definition, i.e. using reason to assert something) to believe in god. period.
No. You find it to be irrational. Not the same thing at all, especially since you've conceded the possibility that some evidence might be sufficient for a rational belief in God. Rationally, you must admit the possibility that others have obtained that evidence without your knowledge.
Posted by Amanecer (Member # 4068) on :
quote: You cannot know what is happening inside his head. But he can, and that makes all of the difference.
Jacare- I disagree with the statement that "he can" know what's happening inside his head. Using the example of a man whose family just died and hears a voice tell him that his life is worth living, all the man KNOWS is that he heard this voice. If he interprets that as being God, then that is an interpretation based on faith. Which doesn't mean that interpretation is incorrect, but even for that individual it is not absolute proof of God.
This is something that I commonly encounter in conversion type stories. People feel great comfort or a moment of clarity and they attribute it to God. The event itself does not actually constitute any proof- only their interpretations of the event do.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by KarlEd: dkw, Actually, I'm not entirely sure that I have. At the time, I had gone beyond questions of whether or not the LDS Church was true, or even whether Christianity was true. What I knew, at the end of my experience, as surely as I believe anyone can know something metaphysical, was that I was OK. That the things I hated about my life at that time had nothing to do with me, and that the things integral to myself, that is, the parts of me without which I don't think I would be me, were good things. I really couldn't tell at that time where that knowledge came from, but it has shattered all my previously held conceptions of the nature of the universe. I was left to start from scratch. For a time, I wondered where I should go. The experience for me was confirmation that there was nothing for me in the LDS church, but not that there was anything better anywhere else. I plodded along basically just going through the motions religiously. I didn't go inactive from the church for almost a year and a half after that, basically because it was the only social lifeline I had, nothing else seemed better enough to pursue and frankly I was terrified by the idea that there was no God at all. I wondered, as do many on this board, how an athiest could find life worth living, truly believing there is no God.
Eventually, I started reading Carl Sagan. In him I found, not only a fountain of cool information about the universe, but a man who exuded excitement about life and the universe. And he was an athiest. I met other vibrant people, who taught me, mostly through example, that God was superfluous to living an fulfilling life, (or at least that God was central to a fulfilling life only for those who made him so - I think there is a distinction.)
At any rate, that event opened a new chapter in my life. I feel now that I walk around with eyes wide open and the universe seems even more real and amazing that it did before. I feel less worried and stressed, on average, than I ever have before. My life isn't perfect, and I don't think it's necessarily better than the average person of my socio-economic class, believer or not. But the philosophy I hold now is one I have pieced together myself out of what few truths I feel I have been able to confirm, and I feel that I am better for it.
So, if I haven't actually made a concious decision between the two options above, I guess I could at least say that I'm leaning heavily toward the one that doesn't involve an elusive inscrutable being.
To people who aren't interested enough in the truth [edit: I mean "precision"] of my answer to listen to or read a 9 page discussion of the subject, I'd definitely say I'm an athiest. I don't believe in God as I've heard anyone else define him, though I don't rule out the possibility of a definition I could believe in. Thus far, however, I've only been able to come up with definitions myself that are pretty close to meaningless and it's pretty pointless to say you believe in a meaningless god.
Anyway, does this answer your question in any coherent fashion? I wouldn't have gone on this long in a reply to such a short question but you are another of the believers I most admire, and I wanted to answer as honestly as I could.
Interestingly enough Carl Sagan began as an aethiest and through his experiences became a believer in God.
As for the example of the man who hears voices in his head. It is a flawed example.
1: have you ever heard a voice in your head? If not how could you possibly try to judge the man's experience either one way or the other?
2: If the man did indeed receive a revelation from God how could he possibly use words to explain how it is different from any other form of communication. A favorite analogy of this principle is "Assuming that I have never tasted salt before, please tell me what it tastes like"
So say God spoke to EVERY SINGLE person in the entire world except YOU. You would be no more convinced that God existed because you would have NO idea what people were talking about when they tried to explain the situation. You would only be convinced that everyone else was crazy.
One last thing you are forgetting that if God existed and was all powerful he would certainly be capable of communicating with us in such a manner as to remove all doubt and confusion. If God spoke and we were incapable of hearing he wouldnt be much of a God would he?
Posted by Vid (Member # 7172) on :
So I'm really late to this post, but has anyone brought up Free Will?
Because that completely deflates the why-doesn't-God-just-talk-to-us argument Posted by Amanecer (Member # 4068) on :
Blackblade- are your comments about the man who hears voices directed at KarlEd or me?
Posted by camus (Member # 8052) on :
KarlEd, What a great post! I think I can relate to some of your points. In studying religion, science, and philosophy, I've gone back and forth on my beliefs about God. In the end (meaning in my current state) I had trouble believing that God did not exist, mostly because of the complete lack of purpose resulting from the nonexistence of God. I had a hard time seeing why anyone would even want to be an atheist because to me it seems so empty. This idea is presented in the book Life of Pi which basically shows through one boy's life that two stories can explain why we are here. What we choose to believe won't change the fact that we are here. So really the only choice left is, what do you want to believe? One story gives you hope and a reason to endure hardships and pain, while the other tells you the pain and hate that we see around us is merely the product of survival of the fittest and since the final outcome is death, there really isn't much of a point to our existence. For me, I feel that religion gives me satisfying answers.
However, religion hasn't really helped the cause much. Religion is responsible for so many of the atrocities of mankind's history that it is hard to put faith religion.
It seems you have found a means for a satisfying life. I'm truly happy for you because many religious people are not satisfied and many non religious people are still searching. In the end, maybe God exists, maybe he doesn't, maybe he died a long time ago, maybe he was a fraud, maybe he exists and is just unconcerned about mankind, maybe he never existed and the universe is part of some complex mechanism that we will never understand...so many options and who can say definitively which is correct?
Anyway, here is my current religious belief that seems to get me by: God is responsible for the creation of the universe. God created humans and has an interest in them, as indicated in the Bible. Satan, by deceiving Eve and causing Adam to sin, challenged God's right to rule and to be worshipped. In effect, he was claiming that mankind was better off ruling themselves. Later with the case of Job, Satan claimed that mankind did not really have the desire to worship God and wouldn't remain loyal to God if confronted with hardships. Job lost everything he had, but in doing so (by remaining loyal to God) gained everything for he was promised an even better life than what he lost. Job's suffering was for a reason, it proved that mankind would remain loyal to God. But regarding Satan's earlier challenge about God's right to rule, that could only be answered by allowing mankind to rule themselves. Mankind was then left to determine for themselves right from wrong and the result is the conditions we see ourselves in today. Pain and suffering is not allowed because it's necessary for happines or because it is some test from God, pain and suffering exists to show the results of mankind left to rule themselves. It's a small price to pay for eternal blessings. Think of all the early Christians and prophets that died for their beliefs. They knew that the real life was yet ahead, and that any suffering now would pale in comparison to the benefits they looked forward to.
These beliefs don't answer all my questions, and they don't necessarily provide me with the purpose in life that I want to believe in, but it does provide me with a reason to believe in myself and my life. It provides a prospect worth living/dying for. If I'm wrong and there is no God, the worst case scenario is that I'm dead and wrong - no problem there, but the best case scenario is that I'm right and have a grand future ahead of me to look forward to. without God what hope do I have to look forward to? the best case and worst case scenario for an atheist is the same - death. To me the option that at least offers a glimmer of hope is the best for me.
Posted by Amanecer (Member # 4068) on :
quote: So really the only choice left is, what do you want to believe?
I agree with this completely, at least as it pertains to my own life. However, I think that once you reach this conclusion it seems a little dishonest to just choose to believe in God because you want to. To me, that doesn't feel like belief, it feels like self-deception. If I were to suddenly start attending church and espousing such and such doctrine, I would feel like a hypocrite. I think belief is only worthwhile if you actually have faith in it. A decision to simply behave as though it's true feels too much like a lie.
quote: the best case and worst case scenario for an atheist is the same - death.
Regardless of whether God exists or not, I think it's important to live your life without thinking too much about the next life. Make what you have now beautiful and meaningful. If there is an afterlife, you can stand behind your beautiful life with pride and a just God will appreciate your endeavors. If there is no afterlife, the best case scenario is that you lead a meaningful life and can look on it with pride. I don't see the benefits of worrying about the existence of an afterlife when there's so much to do in this one.
[ July 20, 2005, 03:45 AM: Message edited by: Amanecer ]
Posted by Corwin (Member # 5705) on :
quote:Originally posted by camus: So really the only choice left is, what do you want to believe? One story gives you hope and a reason to endure hardships and pain, while the other tells you the pain and hate that we see around us is merely the product of survival of the fittest and since the final outcome is death, there really isn't much of a point to our existence. For me, I feel that religion gives me satisfying answers.
If it would be that easy, if the only thing that matters is what I want to believe then I'd go for God and a meaningful world. But if based on evidence (or lack of) and my own reasoning I think that God does not exist, how can I still want to believe?! And I think you hit something there; I think that many people believe in God out of a need for meaning, but to me that's just the highest form of delusion. It's betting on God because the alternative sucks. I find that people who have this attitude act childish, going around the problem instead of facing it.
quote:I had a hard time seeing why anyone would even want to be an atheist because to me it seems so empty.
Because to me it rings true. And in my view of the world "true" is above "good" or "beautiful" or "needed" or "just". Is my life empty because of this? Sometimes it does seem so. But in fact one of the major things that keeps me going through this life is that it matters only if I want to make it matter. I remember that I can choose my fights and that I'm responsible for them only to my conscience, and frankly even my conscience is hard enough to satisfy. I don't have to follow things I can't understand, nothing is imposed to me unless I let it.
Now, if for another person the existence of God rings truer than his nonexistence, then by all means, let him believe that there's a God! This is not taking the easy way out, this is accepting your truth and I will respect those who do that. I don't think that living life according to God's demands is easy either. The easy way is to say that you believe in God and then go around acting the way you want to - and I've seen my share of people who do that, which makes it even harder to think of finding truth in organized religion; I keep wondering: how many people do really believe?!
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
BlackBlade:
quote: Interestingly enough Carl Sagan began as an aethiest and through his experiences became a believer in God.
This is a myth perpetuated by those who feel their views are stronger the more dead celebrities they can collect.
Read the "Epilogue" to his last book. You can find it here or in the book itself. It is written by his wife who really ought to know the truth of the situation. I'll quote the pertinent paragraph:
quote: Contrary to the fantasies of the fundamentalists, there was no deathbed conversion, no last minute refuge taken in a comforting vision of a heaven or an afterlife. For Carl, what mattered most was what was true, not merely what would make us feel better. Even at this moment when anyone would be forgiven for turning away from the reality of our situation, Carl was unflinching. As we looked deeply into each others eyes, it was with a shared conviction that our wondrous life together was ending forever.
That clarified, whether Carl Sagan did or did not change his mind is immaterial to his earlier work or the effect he had on me just as the vicious polemic OSC sometimes spouts in his political columns doesn't change the beauty of Songmaster or Hart's Hope. Though I will admit that if your fantasy were true about Carl Sagan, I would probably feel a little differently about him. But probably not much.
OH, and regarding all else that follows in your same post:
I'm assuming that part isn't addressed to me. If it is, it doesn't make sense if you've read what I've posted in this thread thus far. I'll save a detailed rebuttal until you clarify to whom you were replying.
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
quote: the best case and worst case scenario for an atheist is the same - death.
Being an atheist doesn't preclude the possibility of existence after death. Likewise, if you die, but find "yourself" still existing in a form that is self-aware and capable of thought and/or action, this does not in any way (in and of itself) prove the existence of a god any more than the fact that you being alive right now in the form you are in proves it.
quote: One story gives you hope and a reason to endure hardships and pain, while the other tells you the pain and hate that we see around us is merely the product of survival of the fittest and since the final outcome is death, there really isn't much of a point to our existence.
Only if you limit your thinking to that false dichotomy. Sure the pain and suffering in the animal kingdom is a product of "survival of the fittest". But pain and suffering among humans isn't. It is in countless ways the product of things that have little or nothing to do with survival of the fittest. It has lots to do with neglect, and avarice, and needless cruelty.
Speaking as a self-described athiest, I believe that regardless of the origin of the universe, the human species IS. That's an undeniable fact. We may be animals at the Kingdom level, but we are remarkable animals. We can change our environment more thoroughly than any other animal. We can choose to make our world more comfortable for just ourselves, or for our family, or for our kind, or for as many living things as our powers will allow.
As I've said before, an athiest is not inherently a man without faith. I have loads of faith. I have faith that the vast majority of human beings prefer peace to war. That we prefer friends to enemies, and that we prefer comfort to suffering. I have faith that most people recognize that one thing better than a good meal is a good friend to share it with. I believe that most of us recognize that the enjoyment of abundance is lessened by the knowledge of famine elsewhere.
I have faith that most people recognize (when they think about it) that no single person or even single family, or even single nation can achieve maximum happiness in a vacuum. That we are all dependent on one another.
I believe most people feel like I do (regardless of their beliefs as to "why", or how it came to be this way) because to me these things seem practically axiomatic. I say this because the exeptions to the articles of faith I state above are almost universally defined with negative ideas. (Loneliness, selfishness, greed).
I believe that we know so much (and yet so little) about the nature of time and this universe and the possibility of other universes and dimensions that it is patently absurd to believe that mortal death is anything more than the end of mortal life. No one knows what that really means and no one knows if it really is an END.
I believe that if there is a God, it is just as likely that he plans to give us immortality and eternal life through our own ingenuity as it is that he plans to plunk it down as a freebee, or any other option along the spectrum. I also believe that the non-existence of God does not preclude the possibility of our ingenuity getting us there on our own at some point. If something is possible for God then why exactly isn't it possible for any sufficiently advanced race?
Those are the beliefs that get me through the day. I don't see any there that make me less of an athiest.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
quote:It provides a prospect worth living/dying for. If I'm wrong and there is no God, the worst case scenario is that I'm dead and wrong - no problem there, but the best case scenario is that I'm right and have a grand future ahead of me to look forward to. without God what hope do I have to look forward to? the best case and worst case scenario for an atheist is the same - death. To me the option that at least offers a glimmer of hope is the best for me.
I've seen this many, many times, and since becoming an atheist it has never failed to make me sad. There are a couple of reasons for this: first, that's Pascal's wager, which I think is a weak and empty reason to believe in god. If you're only believing in god as a "just in case," how can your faith be truly fulfilling? I recognize from the rest of your post that this isn't specifically why you yourself (I use "you" in this post, but it's the royal "you," not you personally) believe, but saying atheism seems empty when you look at it from a position of belief is putting the cart before the horse.
Furthermore, I sincerely hope that you can find enough fulfillment in your life that you don't need god to be happy. It's fine if your faith is fulfulling, but if that's the only fulfillment you get from life, or even the most fulfilling thing in it, then in my view your life is the one that's empty. My life certainly isn't.
I think humans can create astonishingly beautiful things. It's incredible to me that we can create transcendental experiences for ourselves and others. Think of the last time a book, song, or movie left you in awe. Now think that in my worldview, this transcendental experience is an entirely human creation. That's pretty amazing. When you add the hand of god, transcendental experiences become mundane. Even a modicum of divine influence can create such an experience.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
I quoted from Karled's post but I guess I was really writing just what I felt I wanted to say at the time. I confess I did not read through 9 pages of lengthy posts as I did not want to dredge up old points laid aside and at 12:00am I didnt really have the energy to compose a well thought out post.
I admit I was alittle disapointed that the only thing that caught interest was an apparent misunderstanding about the beliefs of Karl Sagan. Interestingly enough your comment in regards to who would know what Cark Sagan believes you said
"Read the "Epilogue" to his last book. You can find it here or in the book itself. It is written by his wife who really ought to know the truth of the situation."
Interestingly enough there ARE people who suggest that they have VERY similar relationship with God. Yet how can we trust Karl Sagan's wife to divuldge the truth of his beliefs to us? She may have had a different perception of his beliefs. Perhaps he had lost the power of speech on his death bed and could not articulate what he was feeling. How in tune was his wife REALLY to his beliefs. Maybe she was dilusional.
I know these all sound like unfounded arguements but I wrote them because they are often used to discredit people who say they have seen God and understand his will through personal experience.
Karl Sagan is dead, he has died relatively speaking quite recently. And yet already people misunderstand what his beliefs were. Some thought he became a christian, others insist he believed in God but that was all, and others are saying he made no such change. If we can misunderstand something as simple as that, and given centuries of time I would wager it possible that people could completely misunderstand Karl Sagan in just about EVERY aspect, how much easier is it to not understand the nature of what, say Jesus said? He lived about 2000 years ago, FAR longer than the late Karl Sagan.
Yet what do we have to go on from this Jesus VASTLY outnumbers 1 paragraph of a book written by a wife.
The people of the LDS persuasion understand this better than most as we have 4 books all preporting to be God's word. 4 books that testify of Christ and his mission. We have for 185 years had prophets telling us what his will was. Assuring us that God still speaks today. We have been instructed to speak to him and that he will answer.
But what happens when we try to tell non believers what "salt tastes like" (refer to previous post) they say it is impossible that something could taste that way. Or perhaps that we only imagine in our heads the taste of salt. Maybe even salt may taste that way to you but it doesnt neccesarily taste that way to me. As if anyone who has not tasted salt could instruct ME as to its qualities.
I do not mean this as a condescending post, indeed I am used to being looked down on by aetheists not vice versa, but I am trying to illustrate how something as painfully obvious as the existance of God (or Karl Sagan's belief therof) could become misundestood and very hotly debated.
I would be the first to stand up and say that there is TONS of idiocy, aggresion, and dare I say it evil performed in the name of religion. And believing in a religion is a very risky business. But what good ever came without any risk? If there was a true philosophy of God out there would it not be worth searching ones entire life for it? Certainly a life of aetheism can be happy, but can it really rival a person who KNOWS (and I mean this hypothetically so I dont have somebody say "how can you know") where we were before we were born, why we have been placed on earth, and what possibilities exist for us after death? As if a 4th grader could really be as happy with their simple understanding of the world compared to a college graduate. The more you understand the more you can control your destiny, and yes this knowledge must be used wisely or else it brings sorrow instead of joy.
Posted by camus (Member # 8052) on :
You guys brought up some good points. First, I do not believe my faith to be empty, and it really isn't as simple as choosing what you want to believe. Rather, after studying religion, science, and philosophy, it just seems that choosing is the only choice I have left for me. I found that there are so many different stories or possibilities for our existence that make sense and none can ever really be proved (so it seems). Science always seems to be progressing, so I guess I would probably lean towards science eventually finding something that would dispel religious notions instead of the other way around. But for the current state, it seems to me that both a dead god or a living god hold the same possibility of being true. That being the case, if all things are equal, what should I believe? That's the choice that I need to make. I don't think it's empty faith because the moment I feel there's evidence that shows to me that God doesn't exist, then that's when I become an atheist. (Actually, I have briefly gone through all three stages, belief in God to agnosticism to atheism back to agnosticism and now back to belief) And my beliefs are founded on strong reasons. I can look through my life and see where I have been touched by God. So I do truly believe in God, but I also do recognize how perceptions and memories can be very deceiving so I'm not going to hold to a rigid structure of beliefs if I'm convinced that I've been wrong.
Secondly, regarding survivial of the fittest, I had forgotten how this thread got started so I wasn't thinking about what my statement of being the product of survival of the fittest would mean in this context. To elaborate on what I meant, we, humanity and the evils that we are capable of, are the results of millions of years of evolution. The fact that so much of it is needless and pointless to our survival is discouraging to me. I would like to think that evolution/survival of the fittest would have produced a better intelligent lifeform. Millions/billions of years of evolution created a lifeform that could change the world yet it always seems close to destroying itself and the world. This is the part of atheism that doesn't appeal to me. If that were true, then I would definitely not see a point to existence.
Additionally, I think that a pointless life is different than a meaningless life. Your life can be very meaningful, especially to those around you and to those in the future, however I think it would still be pretty pointless if the universe ended up collapsing in on itself and destorying everything in it. Likewise, you can have a point in life to strive towards, but your choices can make your life meaningless.
I never meant to suggest that if you are an atheist, then you can't have a meaningful life. For me, when I was doubting the existence of God, I looked towards the potential that was in mankind. I quickly lost faith in man as well upon seeing all the potential wasted because of certain attitudes that have plagued mankind for thousands of years. I see mankind progressing towards unimaginable levels of knowledge and technology, but I also see so many ways for mankind to destroy everything that we've created by nuclear warfare, tampering with the environment, tampering with genetics, wars, hate, etc. I tried to just have a happy life based on good values and being ethical. It just seemed like something was lacking. I could have great enjoyment over things, but the why part always bugged me. I can't really explain it, but there was always something missing in my accomplishments. God seemed to fill in some of the blanks. I don't think that's the answer for everyone (as can be seen by the testimony of many here) and it's not really a good answer for me if I can't even explain it. Basically, faith does not create a meaningful life, it just makes some of the pieces fit together a little better.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Yes, atheist happiness most certainly can rival the believing version. And while I don't usually use the word 'bigot', I find it extremely insulting that you would compare atheism versus theism to grade school versus college. The illusion of having knowledge about an afterlife is nothing but a crutch for the weak of mind; such happiness is worth about as much as that of a heroin addict.
As for Carl Sagan, deathbed conversions are a standard fundie lie; but in any case, how does it matter? If the Pope decided, on his deathbed, that he had been wrong all his life and there really wasn't a god, would that shake the validity of Christianity?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:And while I don't usually use the word 'bigot', I find it extremely insulting that you would compare atheism versus theism to grade school versus college.
Good heavens, we wouldn't want anyone to be insulting around here, would we?
quote:The illusion of having knowledge about an afterlife is nothing but a crutch for the weak of mind; such happiness is worth about as much as that of a heroin addict.
Oh.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
quote:I think it would still be pretty pointless if the universe ended up collapsing in on itself and destorying everything in it.
I really, really disagree with this. It wouldn't be pointless at all. We're part of the fabric of the universe and that's pretty cool. If it ultimately just sort of ends, that's fine. At least we got to be part of it. I don't understand why you need the universe to have a "point." It's enough that it is.
Added: That is to say, the universe's existence is its own point. Er...
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote: I know these all sound like unfounded arguements but I wrote them because they are often used to discredit people who say they have seen God and understand his will through personal experience.
So are you saying that you believe everyone who says they've seen God and understand his will, or that you only believe the Mormons who say this? Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
If the universe collapses into a singularity, won't it, by definition, be its own point? Posted by Corwin (Member # 5705) on :
A point well taken...
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Good. I was afraid I was too dense to get it.
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
quote: How in tune was his wife REALLY to his beliefs.
Well, I imagine she was a bit more in tune than you or I. I am not willing to accept the "well we just can't know" aspect of what you've written about Carl Sagan. If there is any doubt at this point about what he believed on his death bed, it seems pretty obvious to me that it was started by liars and continued by people who are more concerned with scoring political points than in finding out if what they spout has any grain of truth. Forgive me if I sound harsh, but what you are engaging in is pure rumor-mongering. Sure Anne Druyan might be delusional, but the "might" in her case is the exact same "might" that applies to everyone equally and therefore has NO BEARING on her qualification as a witness. Can you name a source or witness for your belief that Carl Sagan became a believer? Any source at all? If so, in what way is that source a better witness than his wife? What doubt can you cast on his wife that doesn't apply to your own source doubly so?
quote: I admit I was alittle disapointed that the only thing that caught interest was an apparent misunderstanding about the beliefs of Karl Sagan.
I didn't show interest because:
1. Your two enumerated point only served to show that you had no idea what the conversation was about at this point. Specifically we've already established that a personal experience is by definition subjective.
2. I didn't see the point in responding to the following paragraph because when I first read it, it sounded insulting and when I re-read it, giving you the benefit of the doubt, it sounded pointless. If God spoke to every person except me and told them the same thing I would have to be pretty pig-headed indeed not to lend it some credence. So if the "YOU" in that paragraph was personal, it's annoying. If it's the impersonal "you" I disagree with the paragraph entirely.
3. Your final paragraph just shows that you have no idea of my feelings on this subject. I have often stated that if God wants someone to know something it's up to him to communicate it properly. As far as "forgetting" to mention it, I don't see how the point applies at all to what you've quoted.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote: I know these all sound like unfounded arguements but I wrote them because they are often used to discredit people who say they have seen God and understand his will through personal experience.
So are you saying that you believe everyone who says they've seen God and understand his will, or that you only believe the Mormons who say this?
Neither. Merely that if somebody DID see God thats what people would say to him/her.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Its seems that I have annoyed you KarlED, and I apologize if I have.
You seem to misunderstand that I am not arguing that you are wrong in regards to Karl Sagan. I personally have no firm foundation to stand on when I said what I did about him. I was ignorant to the fact that I might be wrong in that regard. I thought I made it clear that I only said those things because it illustrates how somebody could 100% know there is a God, speak to him on a regular basis and yet down the road people still doubt.
As for sounding like I am insulting. I would encourage you to realize that when I attempt to insult you, you will not have any questions as to whether or not I am doing it. If I clearly have NO idea what the conversation is about then I invite you to either A: respond to my comments as if they were what we were talking about B: inform me as to what I am missing for clearly I am missing something.
Posted by Angiomorphism (Member # 8184) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee:
quote:you don't need to present evidence when you are using occam's razor as a logical guide to supposition
quote:im saying "real" evidence, not individual's delusions of divine experience).
You are arguing a tautology: the individual's experience is delusional because God satisfy Occam's razor, and God doesn't satisfy Occam's razor because God is delusional.
what im saying is that to INTERPRET an experience such as a vision or some sort of supposedly supernatural occurence as proof that god exists is irrational. i am isolating this example from all others. pretend we knew nothing about god, there were no atheists or religious people. you then had an experience you could not immediately explain. what would be more rational, to attribute it to a divine being, or to some sort of physical occurence that affected you alone? one requires a vast number of assumptions that affect all of humanity and existence. the other requires 1 assumption, being that you misinterpreted your expereince, or are delusional. which is more likely? that's it, i never said god was delusional, or anything similar to that.
and btw, why do you have such a problem with my non-use of caps? i find it sames time when i am writing informally, and i dont feel as though it affects the clarity of the writing one bit (just as i dont use " ' " unless its necessary when posting on online forums). maybe if this were en essay competition, your Capital elitism would be justified, but since it's not, why dont ya just chill out a little
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:what im saying is that to INTERPRET an experience such as a vision or some sort of supposedly supernatural occurence as proof that god exists is irrational. i am isolating this example from all others. pretend we knew nothing about god, there were no atheists or religious people. you then had an experience you could not immediately explain.
So this guy sees a burning bush. He gets told to go free his people from slavery. Along the way, things that he is told will happen actually happen. A staff turns into a snake in his hand. The sea parts just as they reach it, and unparts just when it will catch the pursuing army.
What requires more assumptions? That Moses was the luckiest leader who ever lived, or that the voice that talked to him was actually God's?
Sure, these experiences aren't like that. But there's a continuum of experiences between a feeling God is near and actually seeing the seas part and fire descend from the sky. You're drawing the cutoff point for number of assumptions very arbitrarily.
quote:and btw, why do you have such a problem with my non-use of caps?
Because it makes it much harder to read your posts.
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
[edit: to BlackBlade:]
I accept your apology.
I took your reply as an arguement because you didn't concede, but went on to say how we already have lost the truth of the matter about Carl Sagan . . . etc. I feel it imperative to note that we have not lost the truth of what Carl Sagan believed, but we might very well lose it if we allow unfounded rumors to be proffered as truth unchallenged.
I in turn apologize to you if I come across harshly. My only defense is that you have hit a hot button of mine.
As for using misconceptions about Carl Sagan as an illustration of the current state of belief about Jesus, I think you're arguement needs reworking. (or placement in a different thread) The arguement sounds to me like "We can't even agree on what Carl Sagan believed, so it's no wonder we can't agree about what Jesus taught." I don't see how that applies to the discussion at all. First, this arguement hasn't even risen to something as theologically complex as a savior. We're still basically discussing the nature of knowledge and the possibility of divine communication and the nature of faith. I wouldn't say that much of what we've talked about is even specifically Christian at all, though many other participants may not have noticed that either. Posted by Jacare Sorridente (Member # 1906) on :
quote: Jacare, first, thank you for continuing this discussion with me. You are one believer who really makes me think hard about what I am trying to say. You also always seem to really read what I'm saying and not just dismiss my comments out of hand. I respect and appreciate that.
I am sure that I enjoy the discussion as much as you. You are a thoughtful fellow and one who shares a similar background, though you have arrived at quite different conclusions than I have. That in itself makes your opinion worth listening to.
quote: My issue with that is with God himself. You see, I've been there. I've had the crisis point where I've sought God until I felt my soul would break. I had an experience in that moment that I have only been able to interpret two ways. Either God touched me and let me know that the parts of myself that are directly contrary to the teachings of my former religion are in fact perfectly OK in his eyes, or I was able, at that crucial moment, to save myself by throwing off all the dead baggage of the religious dogma I had picked up and realize that God, if there was one, didn't give a whit about what we puny humans on our tiny planet in our remote corner of an average galaxy do with our lives.
Knowing what I do of your background, I think I can understand what brought on the crisis, and I recognize that it must have been very trying for you. I obviously cannot say anything at all about your conclusions, as this experience was wholly your own, though that won't stop me from throwing out some of my own ideas on the matter.
I think that we humans have a tendency to both over- and under-estimate the importance of the things of this life in the grand scheme of things. In the first case, most religious folks I know seem to think that God is exceedingly interested in what line of work we pursue, how big a house we live in and so on. I personally believe that such trivialities matter not one whit in God's eyes, except with the possible caveat that it may make a difference in which people we come into contact with and how we treat those people. Also tangentially related to such issues is how each one of us develops as a person, but I think that this factor is also much different than most people view it, as I think that it is much more weighted with the question of how much we learn with regards to eternal law instead of how much schooling and what level of society we reach. To use an analogy, it is precisely like when my daughters excitedly jabber to me about a rock they have found or the horse they would like to own etc. I am happy that they like to share such things with me, and I smile at the things they place importance on, but I am much more concerned about issues regarding them which probably never even pass through their heads (such as safety from strangers and how best to teach them mathematics) than I am about the rock they dropped in the grass and can't find.
On the other hand, even these trivialities may become important if, for example, the rock is dropped in the street and so one of them wanders around in the middle of the road to look for it.
Of course there are much more weighty matters which they will also face, such as the person they choose to marry and so on, but obviously there will be a lot of change between now and the time when such a decision will be made.
My point in mentioning all of this is that there are human decisions which are very important and others which are trivial and others which are trivial but tied to ones of great moment, and we humans are likely fairly poor at distinguishing one from another.
And all of this can be said without even reflecting on the clear existence of exceptions to the general guidelines which God provides us.
I find it saddening that the very difficult position you found yourself led to your loss of faith in God, and I hope that someday experience leads you to find that faith again. Though you and I have come to different conclusions, in the end all I think that any one of us can really do is try our best to do what we think is right and trust that we will gain greater understanding someday. For me that involves trusting that after I die God will show me my mistakes and set me on the path to correcting them, so long as I am willing to recognize that I likely err frequently and egregiously and am not nearly so wise as I would like to deceive myself into believing.
quote: Though I'm not at all sure that "All" human experience is delusion-like, I like your comments as they pertain to love, and I agree with them. And truthfully I haven't thought about the issue from that angle before.
Perhaps "all" is a bit hyperbolic; but I do believe that much of human experience could fall into this category.
quote: But really that only underscores the importance of including rational, clear-headed, non-stress induced experience to counter-balance the feelings you are experiencing in "the moment", or to at least review some of those experiences carefully when the emotion has passed. Or to put it more succinctly, it is probably foolish to base life choices on emotional experience in light of evidence to the contrary. (NOTE: "evidence" here being personal evidence, not objective.)
I absolutely agree. In love, for example, it is probably a pretty bad idea to make important, life-changing decisions while in the deepest throes of (at least partially) chemically induced haze which allows one to gloss over the shortcomings of the object of passion. As I have heard it stated before: keep your eyes wide open when dating, and then half-closed after marriage.I would say the same thing to one looking at a new religion or other important decision.
quote: Exactly. I think we're on the same page, Jacare. I hope it's clear that I haven't implied that I can know what is happening in someone elses head. But by the same token, everyone therefore owes it to him- or herself to really find out what they believe and not rely on "well, everyone else believes it so it must be true". Unfortunately, I think the world, to date, is built on that notion and that notion is probably the biggest impediment to real progress modern man faces.
Definitely. There are two real problems involved in this idea- the first is, to quote Paul- we see as if through a glass darkly. There is a haze of interpreted experience, upbringing, preconceived notions, brain chemical balance etc. through which anything we view is seen. Further (and really only an extension of the first point), as "herd" animals, humans have a tendency both to look for a "herd leader" for guidance as well as to follow the other proximate animals as they mill in the same general direction. This could act for either good or ill, because I suppose it is just as likely that the herd leader perceives things more clearly as it is that a given member of the herd perceives things best, but it is probably wise to keep these things in mind when we make important decisions.
Nonetheless, in the end all one really knows is what occurs in one's own mind and what oneself has experienced, and if one is trust in anything it must begin in trusting oneself.
Posted by Jacare Sorridente (Member # 1906) on :
Amanecer said:
quote: Jacare- I disagree with the statement that "he can" know what's happening inside his head. Using the example of a man whose family just died and hears a voice tell him that his life is worth living, all the man KNOWS is that he heard this voice. If he interprets that as being God, then that is an interpretation based on faith. Which doesn't mean that interpretation is incorrect, but even for that individual it is not absolute proof of God.
This is something that I commonly encounter in conversion type stories. People feel great comfort or a moment of clarity and they attribute it to God. The event itself does not actually constitute any proof- only their interpretations of the event do.
Here is the issue, whatever the interpretation, the only one who really knows him or her-self, however imperfectly, is that person. One can watch from the outside for a lifetime and identify patterns of behavior etc., but you can still never know what goes on inside that person's head. In the end each man must be his own judge, for no one else is capable of performing that function.
Posted by camus (Member # 8052) on :
quote:Originally posted by twinky: [QUOTE]I really, really disagree with this. It wouldn't be pointless at all. We're part of the fabric of the universe and that's pretty cool. If it ultimately just sort of ends, that's fine. At least we got to be part of it. I don't understand why you need the universe to have a "point." It's enough that it is.
Added: That is to say, the universe's existence is its own point. Er...
I guess it just seems like it should have some type of point to it. Perhaps some chemical inbalance in my brain is making me look for an answer that isn't there or for a solution to a problem that doesn't really exist. I don't know. Call it a gut feeling.
And I guess that if the universe does just end, whether it be by collapsing in on itself, expanding into infinity, or freezing into inactivity, whatever the outcome it doesn't really have an impact on my life now because there's a really good chance that I won't be around to see it anyway.
I can say, however, that I am really fascinated with what science is discovering. I would love to know if strings are the foundation of everything we see today, or if we do live in some type of multiverse, or what exists outside of our universe, and so on. And my perspective regarding science is that the knowledge that science gives us lets us peer into the handiwork of God, not a replacement for God. But that's just my perspective.
Ultimately, I don't think religion should really change a person's life, just a person's perspective. There are certain standards and rules of conduct that a person should live by regardless of his beliefs.
Posted by Angiomorphism (Member # 8184) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: So this guy sees a burning bush. He gets told to go free his people from slavery. Along the way, things that he is told will happen actually happen. A staff turns into a snake in his hand. The sea parts just as they reach it, and unparts just when it will catch the pursuing army.
What requires more assumptions? That Moses was the luckiest leader who ever lived, or that the voice that talked to him was actually God's?
Sure, these experiences aren't like that. But there's a continuum of experiences between a feeling God is near and actually seeing the seas part and fire descend from the sky. You're drawing the cutoff point for number of assumptions very arbitrarily.
Yeah.... Moses... I shouldn't have to say this, but the Bible (genesis and all) *cannot* be interpreted literally in the way you did. Genesis represents an oral tradition, which was then passed down trough 40 generations (according to it), and then translated and copied thousands of times before it got to what you are reading today. Never mind the fact that there is absolutely no evidence for, nor anything whatsoever to validate a literal interpretation (or even whether they happened at all) of Moses' actions or experiences thousands of years ago, and simly the scope of the transformation that genesis has gone through dismisses any literal interpretations. I was unaware that you meant to reference a fictional story and fictional experiences and actions when you were speaking about experiences explaining god's existence. I would be much more inclined to consider modern and personal experiences as an even remotely valid argument, but when you start to bring in ancient people's ancient and academically contested experiences into the debate, you are just being ridiculous.
When you see fire fall from the sky, and the seas part, give me a call, but until then, your "experiences" are far from providing even a shread of evidence for the existence of god, or any type of higher (active) power.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
<whisper> Pssst -- The story of Moses isn't in Genesis </whisper>
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:I was unaware that you meant to reference a fictional story and fictional experiences and actions when you were speaking about experiences explaining god's existence.
Wow. You know they're fictional? What evidence and reasoning are you basing this on?
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
Pure rationality, of course. Posted by Angiomorphism (Member # 8184) on :
What evidence are you basing their verity on? The Burden of proof is on you here.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
quote:I guess it just seems like it should have some type of point to it. Perhaps some chemical inbalance in my brain is making me look for an answer that isn't there or for a solution to a problem that doesn't really exist. I don't know. Call it a gut feeling.
It's fine for you to want there to be a purpose. I think a lot of people feel that way. I just don't think it's necessary is all.
quote:And my perspective regarding science is that the knowledge that science gives us lets us peer into the handiwork of God, not a replacement for God. But that's just my perspective.
Peering into the handiwork of god, absolutely. But for those of us who don't believe, it isn't a "replacement" for god, it just is. There's a difference. There's no god-shaped hole in my life or in my worldview that needs to be filled.
quote:Ultimately, I don't think religion should really change a person's life, just a person's perspective. There are certain standards and rules of conduct that a person should live by regardless of his beliefs.
Sure, I'd agree with that. Posted by Angiomorphism (Member # 8184) on :
quote:Originally posted by dkw: <whisper> Pssst -- The story of Moses isn't in Genesis </whisper>
Yeah, i just was thinking of genesis because i studied it extensively this year in Western Civ.
Also, i frequently confuse the names of Moses and Noah.. (though not the stories)
Posted by Amanecer (Member # 4068) on :
Jacare- I wrote this before I saw your entry, but I think it addresses your post even though it doesn’t reference it.
quote: 1: have you ever heard a voice in your head? If not how could you possibly try to judge the man's experience either one way or the other?
In my childhood, I was quite religious. And yes, there were times when I believed that the Spirit spoke to me. Not in words, but in feelings of great comfort or clarity. However, when I look back on it I see many other possibile interpretations for what I was feeling. When I feel emotionally moved, I still feel those same emotions- the "burning of the bosom" and other feelings of comfort. It could very well be that it is God communicating with me. However, I am not convinced of that. I have felt extremely moved by things that would be offensive to many religious people. I think it's very possible that when I felt the Spirit in my childhood, I was simply feeling moved and interpreted those feeling in a way that I had been taught to. I am not trying to judge other people's experiences and I am very open to the possibility that God is indeed communicating with me. However, I stand by the statement that the man only knows he is hearing voices. Attributing them to God is an act of faith.
quote:A favorite analogy of this principle is "Assuming that I have never tasted salt before, please tell me what it tastes like"
I don't know. It is very possible that I have never tasted the salt or that I have tasted it and fail to recognize it as salt. But I also think it is equally possible that all of us taste the salt, but some of us call it "salt" and some of us don't.
quote:If God spoke and we were incapable of hearing he wouldnt be much of a God would he?
I don't know that that would say much about God, but more about humans. If God spoke to somebody who was patiently awaiting the voice of the Purple Unicorn, then they would take that as proof of the Purple Unicorn. I don't doubt that God, if He exists, is capable of speaking to us. I do doubt our ability to know that it is Him.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:What evidence are you basing their verity on? The Burden of proof is on you here.
You flat out asserted their invalidity. You didn't say "most likely." You didn't say "I believe." You said they were works of fiction.
I have no burden of proof, because I'm not asserting anything at this point (though I happen to believe they are true). I merely noted the range of possible interactions one might have with God, and asked why you arbitrarily drew your Occam's razor line where you did.
Posted by Jacare Sorridente (Member # 1906) on :
Amanecer- what you are essentially saying is that our feelings and/or other senses are unreliable guides into determining whether or not God exists.
Obviously it is accurate to say that people reinterpret their feelings all the time, as your experience from your childhood indicates. The same is also true of sensory inputs such as sight and sound. We often see what we expect to see and hear what we expect to hear, independent of what we actually saw and heard.
But none of this can be seen as evidence for or against God. It is simply the way the game is played, and all human activities are subject to the same uncertainty. As we live and grow we are constantly re-interpreting things which have happened to us based on our current understanding of how things work, but never is there any guarantee that a particular interpretation is correct- whether it be atheistic, shamanistic, deistic or what have you. As all humans are equally subject to this phenomenon, outside observers are even less reliable than oneself, and that is because they interpret your actions through their own filters. That is why I say that only one being knows the self (outside of the possibility of an omnipotent God, of course).
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
It has everything to do with the existance of God. I have tried to illustrate the inherent difficulty of describing even a 100% genuine experience with God. And how the truth through the natural distortion of time often becomes twisted as to be almost entirely bereft of the original fact.
So if say God spoke to a man, throughout his entire life, he would be hard pressed to convince anybody with his own abilities. So it is left to us to confirm that what a man or woman says about God is true or false. A God who exists and wants us to have the truth would likely be willing to although not appear directly communicate his presence with us on an individual basis.
So I guess my point is I can prove to myself that there is a God. I have done so (we will leave it at that) I cannot prove it to you, neither can you prove to me that my own experience is false. But you are free to try the different philosophies that dictate how a man may grow near to God, and through that find out which one, if any, is the most correct. As unlikely as it is, I happened to luck out on my first try.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
quote:As unlikely as it is, I happened to luck out on my first try.
I hope that your first try wasn't your only try, though.
Posted by Nidaar (Member # 8373) on :
Dagonee:
quote: So this guy sees a burning bush. He gets told to go free his people from slavery. Along the way, things that he is told will happen actually happen. A staff turns into a snake in his hand. The sea parts just as they reach it, and unparts just when it will catch the pursuing army.
What requires more assumptions? That Moses was the luckiest leader who ever lived, or that the voice that talked to him was actually God's?
If the first paragraph is true and it describes things that really happened, your reasoning using Occam's razor seems correct to me. It is more likely that all these are part of a "plan" (God's plan, maybe) than a sheer thread of coincidences.
But we have no proof for any of those. I prefer not to believe the stories of the Bible until I see a proof. The Bible should be taken allegorically. One learns a lot of morale teachings from it, as well as some of the history of the Jews. But not more.
Thus, I say bushes might burn because of a summer hot day (see the 700 forest fires going on this very moment in Quebec). I state that the probability that a sea split so that humans could pass through it is so slim, ti means 10 to the power of - 20 or 30 or 100. I state that even Jesus' returning to life is very unlikely. He might have been in a coma. He might have been in asleep and never on a cross in the first place. Or his body was simply stolen and people lead to think he came back to life and left on his own feet. Thus, the believers are the ones that have the burden of proof on their side. Believers just choose to believe without having proof. Moreover, Noah's flood was a very severe flood, maybe a tsunami in the Mediterranean. Even the Greeks wrote about it a few centuries before Christ.
You ask us to prove that Jesus never actually came to life or that the sea did not split. I was not there to tell, but you were not either. I claim that you and I will never know the truth about these stories (at least during our life on Earth). That does not stop us from believing. You believe it did happened. I believe it did not happen.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:But we have no proof for any of those. I prefer not to believe the stories of the Bible until I see a proof.
This and everything that follows might be true, but it's not relevant to the point for which I brought this up. I was illustrating the range of possible divine experiences someone could experience, and asking where in that continuum Occam's razor stopped suggesting mental hallucinations and started suggesting divine intervention to the person experiencing the events.
I can and have gone on at great length about testimonial forms of evidence. But I wasn't citing that as evidence; I was citing it as illustration for the range described above.
quote:You ask us to prove that Jesus never actually came to life or that the sea did not split.
I have not asked this. I said that the person making the definitive statement ("this story is fiction") had better qualify the statement or come up with proof. "You believe it did happened. I believe it did not happen." is very different than what angio was saying.
Posted by Angiomorphism (Member # 8184) on :
Like i said, if fire starts falling and seas start parting, then i might start to believe you about god (unless there was another more sensible reason for this happening), but until then, the only evidence you present is personal experiences with god, which have no physical manifestation. Those do not pass the "occam's razor" bar in my opinion. The others could potentially, but so far as we know, they didn't happen.
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
You know, as I understand it, Occam's razor says nothing about truth, it says you shouldn't complicate things more than they need to be complicated in order to find the truth.
If you've run out of things to explore along the simpler path and still haven't found your answer, you're still required to go back and examine the other proposition, if you want to be rigorous.
In the context of this thread, the "burden of proof" argument (Antony Flew's version) goes something like this:
Theist: There is a God.
Atheist: I don't believe that.
Theist: Then prove there is no God.
Atheist: I don't have to, you said there's a God, I just said I don't believe that's true. If you want me to believe, you have to provide evidence (or proof), so the burden of proof is on you.
This is pretty cut and dried, especially since the theist made an assertion, and then demanded the atheist accept that assertion.
This goes back to my argument several pages ago with KoM about axioms requiring the acceptance of both parties. If you can accept certain axioms, and work exclusively from those axioms, then you can procede with civility. But you can't demand that someone accept your assertions as axioms.
Essentially this is the crux (pardon) of the argument here, for both sides.
1. A divine experience that one person experiences, but is not transferable to another, can't be treated as an axiom by that person, without acceptance by the party he's arguing with.
(I think everybody accepts that. The divine experience argument is for rationality of an individual's belief, not for the purpose of convincing someone else.)
2. Introducing the bible as axiomatic evidence is also not acceptable.
But here Angiomorphism is pre-emptively introducing the Bible as a strawman (it wasn't introduced by his opponent, as far as I can tell), and at the same time claiming that it is a work of fiction. Interesting wording, because he's making a positive claim when he could so easily make a negative one.
Then he goes a step further and makes the burden of proof demand. Nope, that doesn't work here.
The sad thing is there is quite a bit of archaeological evidence that the Exodus and the Conquest of Canaan didn't happen as described.
But that's an entirely different argument. The upshot here is that unless you have first person access to another person's divine experience, you can't know whether they are being rational or not.
This reminds me of John Nash's explanation of why he believed his psychotic delusions about extraterrestrials sending him secret messages: "Because the ideas I had about supernatural beings came to me the same way my mathematical ideas did, so I took them seriously."
Ultimately Nash used rational thought to distinguish between the two, effectively negating the effects of his psychosis. He still has the delusions, but he can choose to ignore them now.
Posted by Angiomorphism (Member # 8184) on :
The Bible was introduced by my "opponent" when he made reference to Moses' experiences as proof that a belief in god can be rational, if based on experiences like those Moses supposedly had. I was not refuting his conclusion, but rather his premise, that Moses' experiences represent actual historical fact. My "opponent" disagreed with me about the verity of Moses' supposed actions, and since I really didnt feel like getting into a long and prolongued argument about historical accuracy and what we do and don't know, so I used the "Burden of Proof" (which i knew neither of us could fulfill completely without hours of work) as a means to change the topic.
I'm not quite sure what you mean that it is altogether different to call the bible a work of fiction, rather than to say that it is not a work of non-fiction (positive vs. negative).
As for the whole rationality thing, here's my point, as simply as i can put it. Occam's razor is a method employed to attempt to find a reasonable answer to something we do not know. So, by using Occam's Razor, you are ensuring that you conduct your search as rationaly as possible (i never said it would discover the absolute truth, but it would be the rational way to go about it). Soooooo, if you are not using Occam's Razor, and you are asserting right off the bat that because of your spiritual experience, God exists, i think that the belief you are affirming in this case is irrational. Whether God actually exists or not (the truth) is not in question here, but rather the means by which one uses to find said truth, and if their beliefs are based in reason.
In my opinon, whether God does really exist or not, there are no rational means by which to confirm his/her existence, so we shouldnt believe, or come to terms with the fact that our belief isnt rational.
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
"I'm not quite sure what you mean that it is altogether different to call the bible a work of fiction, rather than to say that it is not a work of non-fiction (positive vs. negative)."
The negative statement would be to say that the existence of the bible does not prove the existence of Moses' evidence.
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
"Soooooo, if you are not using Occam's Razor, and you are asserting right off the bat that because of your spiritual experience, God exists, i think that the belief you are affirming in this case is irrational. Whether God actually exists or not (the truth) is not in question here, but rather the means by which one uses to find said truth, and if their beliefs are based in reason."
You're drawing your system to close. None of this occurs in a vacuum. The evidence for and against god belief is far too complicated to say that because of an apparent divine experience that this leads to an assertion "right off the bat."
I think both you and KoM have used an argument that theistic belief exists in an individual because they have been conditioned to believe it by their parents, and since birth. They've developed schema that easily incorporate evidence FOR the existence of God, so they easily see coincidences as divine experience.
A couple of example:
1. I picked up a hitchhiker, who said immediately as he got in the car: "I knew you were going to pick me up. I just prayed." (very ironic, I thought) Obviously, he makes opportunities for this coincidence to occur a lot, and reinforces his schema.
2. I was playing a Beatles record, and at one point, I looked at the floor in front of my fireplace, and thought "this needs to be swept." at exactly the same moment Harrison sings "I look at the floor and I see it needs sweeping." Really stunning coincidence with no theistic implications whatsoever. But if I'd been looking for a sign from god, I might have interpreted it as such.
Are either of these delusions?
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
quote:The Bible was introduced by my "opponent" when he made reference to Moses' experiences as proof that a belief in god can be rational
Ah, I see. Yes, Dagonee introduced Moses' evidence axiomatically. Yeah, bad form, but his argument is still valid because he's using it as an example of the kind of evidence one might have that isn't transferable.
This is the paragraph that makes his argument work, and it's the third paragraph, so it's easy to miss.
quote:Sure, these experiences aren't like that. But there's a continuum of experiences between a feeling God is near and actually seeing the seas part and fire descend from the sky. You're drawing the cutoff point for number of assumptions very arbitrarily.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
I don't think anyone is disputing that there could be genuine evidence for the existence of the Christian god. I seem to recall someone saying, a few pages back 'If God exists, why doesn't he make it clear by telling me about it, un-ambiguously?' At any rate, this is a fairly common srgument in such discussions as this. What's under dispute is whether the actual evidence that people present is good enough. And when you look at it, it comes down to
a) Internal, state-of-mind experiences b) Second-hand stories, ie the Bible.
I wouldn't take either one as sufficient for the efficacy of a cough mixture, and I suspect most theists wouldn't either. Yet they accept a really momentuous, gargantuan fact on such a basis. I think there's an argument to be made that this level of doublethink is indeed delusional. (If anyone can think of a better word than doublethink, please tell me. What I mean is that the believers seem to be applying way looser criteria to their religious beliefs than to anything else in their lives.)
Posted by Angiomorphism (Member # 8184) on :
yes, i agree KoM, and also , i do not think that drawing a cutoff point between falling fire (and parting seas), and modern personal visions or experiences is all to arbitrary.
And no, your experiences are (EDIT)not delusions, but if you interpreted those experiences as proof in the existence of god, then i think you would be commiting a fallacy in reasoning. The reason i was using Occam's Razor is because the argument *was* set up in a vaccum when it was first presented, and in a vaccum, it isnt rational in my opinion.
[ July 20, 2005, 10:05 PM: Message edited by: Angiomorphism ]
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
I think you missed a 'not' there, which rather changes the meaning. I suggest you start proofreading your posts. And while your capitalisation has improved, it needs a bit more polish, along with your spelling. You evidently have absolutely no idea how much brighter it makes you look to have posts properly spelled and capitalised; it's well worth the extra effort when you want to get a point across. And besides, it's just common courtesy. Why should we bother to read a post that you dashed off in the greatest possible hurry?
Posted by odouls268 (Member # 2145) on :
quote: I think that if you just can't reconcile it that God would want you to be an Atheist.
I don't think that God would want anyone to be an Atheist. I think that God would want a person to search harder for their own answer, and even moreso, I think that God would want a believer to feel obligated to try and help a nonbeliever understand.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
And I think the Invisible Pink Unicorn (May Her Hooves Never Be Shod) would want me to subject believers to electroshock therapy, so they can realise Her Greatness better. Plainly, they just haven't been looking hard enough; helping them is nothing but my duty.
Posted by Enigmatic (Member # 7785) on :
How is the Unicorn both Invisible and Pink? This raises interesting questions on the nature of color. Can something still be pink if it cannot be seen? Is "pinkness" part of the Unicorn's inherent nature, even though we can't see it? Is it taken on faith that the Unicorn is pink, or is she sometimes actually visible?
--Enigmatic (just as interested in this as the rest of the thread)
Posted by Angiomorphism (Member # 8184) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: I think you missed a 'not' there, which rather changes the meaning. I suggest you start proofreading your posts. And while your capitalisation has improved, it needs a bit more polish, along with your spelling. You evidently have absolutely no idea how much brighter it makes you look to have posts properly spelled and capitalised; it's well worth the extra effort when you want to get a point across. And besides, it's just common courtesy. Why should we bother to read a post that you dashed off in the greatest possible hurry?
Yeah, I did miss a "not" in there, thanks. My posts aren't made in any particular hurry though, and I have to disagree with you in regards to the whole capitalization and spelling thing. I'm sure you saw that email floating around a while ago that was writen entirely with the letters in words mixed around (except for the first and last one) "taht was erinetly raedalbe". Spelling isn't as important as you make it out to be when it comes to conveying your message, and shouldn't that be what posting is about? I feel that if someone wrote a really interesting idea, then it wouldn't matter how said idea was gramatically structured.
But if it really means something to all you guys, I will use correct form. I personally just hate capitalizing "I", i feel like it's a supreme waste of time (as well as apostraphies).
quote:The Bible was introduced by my "opponent" when he made reference to Moses' experiences as proof that a belief in god can be rational, if based on experiences like those Moses supposedly had. I was not refuting his conclusion, but rather his premise, that Moses' experiences represent actual historical fact.
Since your "opponent" did not rely on the premise that Moses's experience represents actual historical fact, your opponent wonders why you brought the veracity of Moses's experience up at all. Especially since you seemed, in the preceeding sentence, to understand exactly what I was getting at: "The Bible was introduced by my "opponent" when he made reference to Moses' experiences as proof that a belief in god can be rational, if based on experiences like those Moses supposedly had."
Your "opponent" was presenting an experience that would make it rational to believe in God, and asking how you decided where on the continuum of experiences ranging from a feeling of God's presence to parting the Reed Sea you think the line should be drawn where Occam's razor is no longer appropriate.
Your opponent still awaits an answer to this.
In other words, yeah, what Glenn said:
quote:Ah, I see. Yes, Dagonee introduced Moses' evidence axiomatically. Yeah, bad form, but his argument is still valid because he's using it as an example of the kind of evidence one might have that isn't transferable.
This is the paragraph that makes his argument work, and it's the third paragraph, so it's easy to miss.
It's kind of like picking the ticking nuclear bomb in the middle of New York when discussing when torture is permissible. It's not that this proves it's acceptable in all cases if it's acceptable in this one, but the example does serve to immediately clarify whether we're drawing a line or making an absolute exclusion.
I'm not sure why it's bad form, though.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
It may be 'erinetly raedalbe', but it takes an effort. You shouldn't be imposing effort on the reader to decipher the form of your message; you want him to concentrate on content. After more than a single sentence of 'erinetly raedalbe' text, I find myself skipping; it just isn't worth the effort - particularly since bad spelling usually goes together with vacuous content. Even where this isn't the case, it's just plain rude. If you can't be bothered to hit the shift key once in a while, which really isn't much effort, why should we bother to go to the considerably greater effort of reading your missives?
Enigmatic, the worship of the IPU is, like all religions, based partly in logic and partly in faith. We logically know that She is invisible, because we can't see Her; and we have faith that She is Pink, because it is revealed to us by Her prophets. And, dropping out of my worshiper persona for a moment, the contradictory traits of invisibility and pinkness were chosen precisely because they are contradictory, as a parody of the many paradoxical aspects of various faiths, "which we'll understand in Heaven." Trinity in a theoretically monotheistic religion, and omniscience plus free will, are obvious examples.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: It may be 'erinetly raedalbe', but it takes an effort. You shouldn't be imposing effort on the reader to decipher the form of your message; you want him to concentrate on content. After more than a single sentence of 'erinetly raedalbe' text, I find myself skipping; it just isn't worth the effort - particularly since bad spelling usually goes together with vacuous content. Even where this isn't the case, it's just plain rude. If you can't be bothered to hit the shift key once in a while, which really isn't much effort, why should we bother to go to the considerably greater effort of reading your missives?
Enigmatic, the worship of the IPU is, like all religions, based partly in logic and partly in faith. We logically know that She is invisible, because we can't see Her; and we have faith that She is Pink, because it is revealed to us by Her prophets. And, dropping out of my worshiper persona for a moment, the contradictory traits of invisibility and pinkness were chosen precisely because they are contradictory, as a parody of the many paradoxical aspects of various faiths, "which we'll understand in Heaven." Trinity in a theoretically monotheistic religion, and omniscience plus free will, are obvious examples.
What inherent contradictions are there in the paradoxical aspects of various faiths? Maybe the many ideas that men have created and called God are different. You chose to point out the docterine of the trinity within a monotheistic religion. Not every christian believes that the trinity is one entity. Just as the reincarnation the hindus believe in isnt EXACTLY the same as the buddhist one.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Perhaps I phrased it badly; I meant that each faith has paradoxical aspects within itself, not that they are paradoxical because they contradict each other; though that aspect has been parodied too, in the attempted schism of the Very Stealthy Maroon Unicorn.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Please state a specific example of a paradox within a religion. And dont use the tired old "god of the old testament was cruel, new testament was merciful"
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
I already did. The Christian god is held to be Three and One. It is also held to be omniscient, yet humans still have free will.
Posted by Enigmatic (Member # 7785) on :
Thank you both for the IPU info. I've seen KoM mention this before and hadn't realized it was a more widespread reference point. Fun.
Angio's making some strides, but I still think KoM's the athiest.
--Enigmatic (will wander off again and come back in another 10 pages or so)
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
as I said NOT ever christian (mormons for example) do not believe in 3 in 1. Omniscient is a knowledge of all things, how does that contradict with humans having free will.
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
"I'm not sure why it's bad form, though. "
It goes back to what I had just said about using an axiom unilaterally. A qualifier like "if" or "assuming" would have solved it.
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
" And I think the Invisible Pink Unicorn (May Her Hooves Never Be Shod) would want me to subject believers to electroshock therapy, so they can realise Her Greatness better."
The Invisible Pink Unicorn (PBUHHH) tramples people who believe in her though. The only way to worship her is to NOT believe in her.
"I don't think that God would want anyone to be an Atheist."
Well, assuming God exists, then he created us right? Must be a reason, according to ecclesiastes, there's a purpose for everything.
I think he created us to keep theists honest.
(damn, I blew my own irony meter!)
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
What does the lack of homogeneity have to do with it? If even a single Christian believes in a god that is simultaneously three and one, then his beliefs contain a contradiction.
Free will is contradicted by omniscience thusly : Since god knows what you are going to choose in any given situation, the universe is perfectly predictable, at least by god. How are your choices free if they are known millennia in advance?
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Well, Glenn, in the first place you are a heretic who uses PBUHHH instead of MHHNBS as praise, so why should I listen to your interpretation? But in the second place, I was using 'to realise Her Greatness' as a synonym for 'become an atheist'.
Posted by Angiomorphism (Member # 8184) on :
Drag, I misunderstood your initial point about the actual factuality of Moses' experiences, but I answered your actual query nonetheless. I said
"if fire starts falling and seas start parting, then I might start to believe you about god (unless there was another more sensible reason for this happening), but until then, the only evidence you present is personal experiences with god, which have no physical manifestation."
So I guess the "arbitrary" line is something that is experienced my not just you alone, and something that is physically manifested. That's all I can think of at the moment, but I'm sure I could add some criteria if I put some thought into it. Suffice it to say, it would take some quite substancial and concrete experience to make me discount all other factors, and believe in god.
Posted by Angiomorphism (Member # 8184) on :
Drag, i misunderstood your initial point about the actual factuality of Moses' experiences, but i answered your actual query nonetheless. i said
"if fire starts falling and seas start parting, then i might start to believe you about god (unless there was another more sensible reason for this happening), but until then, the only evidence you present is personal experiences with god, which have no physical manifestation."
so i guess the "arbitrary" line is something that is experienced my not just you alone, and something that is physically manifested. thats all i can think of at the moment, but im sure i could add some criteria if i put some thought into it. suffice it to say, it would take some quite substancial and concrete experience to make me discount all other factors, and believe in god
EDIT: this is the last message without caps and 's. I understand that reading an entire text writen in scrambled letters would be difficult, and unecessary, but I think that one or two spelling mistakes (which I normally don't have, or catch and edit out) aren't so bad, and un-capped I's aren't really necessary for comprehension are they? This being said, I will oblige, and try my very best to cap-it-up.
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
Well, KoM now you've just gone and done it. You've broken the first law of atheist doctrine. YOU KNOW WHAT THAT IS DON'T YOU?
Rule number one: There is no atheist doctrine.
And you call me a heretic.
(But you should put in for a BAAWA Knighthood however.)
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Well, a heretic would say that, wouldn't he? A pathetic last-ditch attempt to save yourself from your just punishment. Get out - the Comfy Chair!
Posted by camus (Member # 8052) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men:
Free will is contradicted by omniscience thusly : Since god knows what you are going to choose in any given situation, the universe is perfectly predictable, at least by god. How are your choices free if they are known millennia in advance?
That idea really made me think about the idea of omniscience and free will. So I'm not trying to argue, I'm just relating some of the thoughts that came to my mind and some of the questions they raised. I'm not trying to refute KofM's point, just trying to understand its implications. Anyway, here's what I thought, and I'm sure that my logic is missing some crucial factors, but that's why I'm posting it for all to see.
I think it entirely relies on how omniscient you believe God is. For example, He could be infinitely wise, all knowing, or just capable of knowing all things. All three examples can be defined as omniscience, but have very different meanings. Let's just consider the last two examples.
1. capable of knowing all things. If a person has a specific ability, it's hardly expected that he would be doing that specific thing all the time. Let's say I happen to be a good runner, that doesn't meant that I'm always running. Likewise, God may have the ability to fortell the future or know what choices are going to make, but that doesn't mean He exercises that power all the time. I can't see a contradiction here, but maybe I'm missing something.
2. God does know all things. That does seem to support the idea that free will can't exist if God already knows the decisions that you're going to make, but what exactly is free will? Is a choice anything more than chemical reactions and electrical impulses between neurons based on connections that are subconsciously formed? If we were to somehow completely replicate a person's brain and place them in identical settings, would they produce the same results? If yes, then that means that unless there is a certain degree of randomness programmed into our brains, we are predictable. If we are predictable, then do we really have free will?
Alternatively, some theories suggest that time is like any other dimension, except that we can only perceive it in one direction. The idea is that the past, present, and future all exist simultaneously, it's just that we are limited in our perception of it and create for ourselves the notion that time passes. If that is the case, then that kind of makes the idea of free will a moot point.
Anyway, like I said earlier, I'm not trying to make any specific claim here, I'm just trying to sort through some ideas.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: What does the lack of homogeneity have to do with it? If even a single Christian believes in a god that is simultaneously three and one, then his beliefs contain a contradiction.
Free will is contradicted by omniscience thusly : Since god knows what you are going to choose in any given situation, the universe is perfectly predictable, at least by god. How are your choices free if they are known millennia in advance?
God knowing what we are going to decide has nothing to do with interfering with our free will. A man may watch his son become an alcoholic. He may forsee drunk driving offences, money lacking, and possibly an early grave, but does that mean the father is making those choices for his son? Likewise though God can see everything in advance the doing is still up to the human race.
So Omniscience does not interefere with man's freewill.
Again just because 1 christian believes that there are 3 in 1 does not mean thats what christianity really says. Unless the christian happens to be Christ. Just as different scientists interpret data different sometimes correctly sometimes incorrectly, still there remains the true interpretation.
Posted by Nidaar (Member # 8373) on :
Angiomorphism:
quote: Soooooo, if you are not using Occam's Razor, and you are asserting right off the bat that because of your spiritual experience, God exists, i think that the belief you are affirming in this case is irrational.
Totally agree.
Only that in the discussion about Moses, I argue that if I ever see the sea splitting I would take it as a rational experience, not as a spiritual one. Of course, I could have the illusion of the sea splitting. For example, he mirage of the desert may be shared by a lot of people simultaneously and this has been proved by science as simple deflection of light because of the variation of the index of refraction of the air with temperature. However, if the sea suddenly froze in that shape that leaves a tunnel so that people could go through, I would have a strong chance to believe that it truly happened, as I can not think of an explanation of why it would be an illusion. If I am alone, maybe I was drugged, I agree. But if many many people see the same sea splitting, then I tend to believe it did happen. Thus, I have a choice for explaining this: either I admit there is a very complex natural law and look for its details, or I choose to forget the details of this law and claim the law as "God".
I conclude that the splitting of the see would truly be a miracle (of God), especially if someone (a prophet) claims beforehand that this would happen.
However, I believe we do not know if it happened or not, so we have to believe it did not happen.
Posted by Nidaar (Member # 8373) on :
quote: In the context of this thread, the "burden of proof" argument (Antony Flew's version) goes something like this:
Theist: There is a God.
Atheist: I don't believe that.
Theist: Then prove there is no God.
Atheist: I don't have to, you said there's a God, I just said I don't believe that's true. If you want me to believe, you have to provide evidence (or proof), so the burden of proof is on you.
Totally agree with the line of reasoning. Only that I do not agree with your conclusion out of this. I state that the atheist (and for that matter the agnostic) has the last point of view and the theist has the burden of proof.
Well, you continue stating that there are no axioms generally accepted, as an explanation that actually the theist does not have to prove anything.
Though, you give the example of the bible and of the personal (spiritual) experience that are not accepted as axioms by the scientist. Totally agree. However, you give no example of an axiom not believed by the religious. Until you give one, I state that all scientific axioms that are generally accepted by the scientists should be accepted by all humans. The religious simply choose to ignore them.
Conclusion: What are the axioms of the rational/scientists, which of them are not accepted by the religious (and why, if you may expand on that).
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Free will is contradicted by omniscience thusly : Since god knows what you are going to choose in any given situation, the universe is perfectly predictable, at least by god. How are your choices free if they are known millennia in advance?
Free will is by no means contradicted by omniscience. If I know an individual well-enough to say with near or even utter certainty what that person will do when faced with such a situation, is that person's free-will eroded in any way by my having had that foreknowledge?
Why aren't one's choices free just because someone else might know what choices that person will make in advance? You haven't contradicted anything at all.
------
It's threads like this that make me less uncomfortable with the stance taken by moderators regarding deity as profanity. With sneering patronizers like King of Men and Angiomorphism around, surely the religious aren't too powerful around here Anyway, back to patting yourselves on the backs, you two, and congratulating each other on how much smarter you are than most everybody.
(Studied the Book of Genesis extensively *snicker*)
Posted by Nidaar (Member # 8373) on :
quote: quote: Originally posted by King of Men:
Free will is contradicted by omniscience thusly : Since god knows what you are going to choose in any given situation, the universe is perfectly predictable, at least by god. How are your choices free if they are known millennia in advance?
Continuing Camus' questioning of definitions of "free will" and "omniscient", I have a feel that:
1. "free will" definition is OK. I want to turn left at the crossroad, I do it. I want to turn right, I do it. There are electric impulses and chemical reactions that order my muscles to move in that way as for me to make a choice or another. I agree that in a deterministic (scientific) universe it is already determined what impulses you have, thus what decision you make, thus there is no free will. However, quantum mechanics has introduced a non deterministic universe and has introduced quantum fluctuations. How exactly these lead to free will is not known (yet). However it only matters here that I am able to choose A or B and God (if She exists) can not do anything about it.
2. "omniscient". a) God knows everything. b) God may know anything (like an oracle) but only when She wishes. She does not exercise this ability all the time. -Suggested by Camus.
c) (I propose:) God knows everything indeed. But what means everything here? I propose: everything that may be known. (one of the 4 questions of Kant was: What can I know?). Future may not be known, as future does not exist. Past events are clear and the data base / God will know everything that happened. It is not clear if present events are known by God or by "my" data base (model), as it takes a small amount of time, but not zero, for information to propagate. I am here, I may know what happens on the other side of the Earth very quickly, but it takes some time. Actually, even the presence of ALL past events in the data base or in God's mind is questionable, as only the events in the sphere of causality are known to some observer.
Of course, this is science and the hypothesis is that God is not a regular observer. Rather the most special one, the one that knows everything and breaks these barriers of causality for past and present events. Even in this case, She is limited by the fact that the future is created step by step. If future does not exist, how can she know it?
Conclusion. God is omniscient=God knows all that is possible to be known. (Same: God is omnipotent = God may do anything that is possibility for a human and a god to do. Neither of them can see the future, as the future does not exist. Neither of them is able to create the future, because the future comes along even if God does not exist).
Posted by Nidaar (Member # 8373) on :
quote: Raqueesh:
Free will is by no means contradicted by omniscience. If I know an individual well-enough to say with near or even utter certainty what that person will do when faced with such a situation, is that person's free-will eroded in any way by my having had that foreknowledge?
You say: I have a friend I know so well, I can guess everything she does. For ex, I know that when she goes to a bar, she chooses a drink A.
I say. One day, out of the blue, she will say: "I want to make a surprise to my friend and I will ask for a B".
Now, God is even stronger than me. Are you telling us that God may not be surprised?
Ability to surprise is caused by free will.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Angiomorphism: My posts aren't made in any particular hurry though, and I have to disagree with you in regards to the whole capitalization and spelling thing. I'm sure you saw that email floating around a while ago that was writen entirely with the letters in words mixed around (except for the first and last one) "taht was erinetly raedalbe". Spelling isn't as important as you make it out to be when it comes to conveying your message, and shouldn't that be what posting is about? I feel that if someone wrote a really interesting idea, then it wouldn't matter how said idea was gramatically structured.
If they're made in no particular hurry, you won't mind using a spell-checker for those of us who are peculiar enough to prefer easy legibility, neh?
As far as that infamous email, Snopes debunked it ages ago. The only people I know who still cite it are lazy people who can't be bothered to spell properly. And Pop, but I'm pretty sure he does that just because he knows it bugs me.
Oh, and there is NO "r" in Dagonee's nick.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
My point is not that God would or wouldn't be surprised. My point is that the question of whether or not foreknowledge negates free will hasn't been answered or explained. All that has been said is that it just does.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Angiomorphism, you've got a bad habit: telling other people what is and isn't important, is and isn't worthwhile, is and isn't meangingful-even if it's about their OWN opinions!
If it makes you less easily understood, of course spelling has importance to conveying message. I also think it's laughable that instead of you simply taking a teensy bit of effort and using a spell-checker and decent grammar, you think your ideas are so momentous that everyone else should have to parse your own unique English.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote: Omniscient is a knowledge of all things, how does that contradict with humans having free will.
Actually, it's the following:
If God is omniscient, omnipotent, AND omnibenevolent, humans cannot have free will.
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka: As far as that infamous email, Snopes debunked it ages ago. The only people I know who still cite it are lazy people who can't be bothered to spell properly. And Pop, but I'm pretty sure he does that just because he knows it bugs me.
I'm not sure what you mean by "debunked". As far as I can tell, Snopes lists the claim as undetermined. I'm not sure I'd equate "undetermined" with "debunked". However, I agree with the point of the rest of your post. Posted by Jonathan Howard (Member # 6934) on :
quote: If God is omniscient, omnipotent, AND omnibenevolent
Why not call him omniomnes?
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
>>If God is omniscient, omnipotent, AND omnibenevolent, humans cannot have free will.
Can you explain this, Tom?
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
I don't follow the arguement that "if God is omniscient man has no free will". I don't see how foreknowledge equates with foreordination.
Can anyone actually explain this view rather than simply state it as fact?
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Already our minds are becoming one. . .
For my next trick: THE WHEEL OF ICY HORROR!!
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:So I guess the "arbitrary" line is something that is experienced my not just you alone, and something that is physically manifested.
Why does it have to be experienced by someone else for belief in God after this experience to be rational to the person who had the experience?
quote:What are the axioms of the rational/scientists, which of them are not accepted by the religious (and why, if you may expand on that).
I'd be interested in hearing some axioms accepted by scientists/rationalists that are not accepted by the religious, too. And don't cite evolution - many of the religious accept evolution.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
quote:I don't think that God would want anyone to be an Atheist. I think that God would want a person to search harder for their own answer, and even moreso, I think that God would want a believer to feel obligated to try and help a nonbeliever understand.
And if I search "harder" for my own answer and conclude that as far as I can tell god does not exist? Do I still need to be "helped" to belief by a theist such as yourself?
You're saying that if a person hasn't found god, he or she simply hasn't looked hard enough. Do you see how your attitude can alienate nonbelievers?
Posted by camus (Member # 8052) on :
quote:Originally posted by KarlEd: I don't follow the arguement that "if God is omniscient man has no free will". I don't see how foreknowledge equates with foreordination.
Can anyone actually explain this view rather than simply state it as fact?
I'm not sure I really follow the line of reasoning that ominiscience means no free will either, but here's my idea based on the assumption that God can and does know the future with absolute certainty.
Let's say that God tells me that I'm going to go left. I was going to go left anyway, but would I be able to go right if the idea pleases me? It would be impossible for me to go right because it's already been determined that I'm going to go left. So it's my choice to go left, but that's because I can't make another choice. It's like saying any choice I make is alright as long as it's what God says. It seems like a choice because it's what you wanted to do anyway, but that just makes choice an illusion.
I really shouldn't be trying to explain an idea that I didn't propose or even believe in, but that's my take on what it may possibly mean, but like I said, I don't believe it to be true.
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
I think Occam's Razor can only be invoked in the discussion at hand on a personal level. In other words, I have no problem with an atheist stating that given the evidence on hand, it's more likely that there is no God, but that same arguement can't be applied to the believer because he or she feels that they are privvy to additional evidence, namely, personal revelation.
Since rationality and reasoning are things that take place in our minds anyway, it seems irrational to automatically discount the personal experience of others simply because you didn't experience it.
I know I sound like a fence sitter here, but if there ever was a pointless and flawed arguement it's the one that goes "I didn't see what happened in your head, so because of Occam's Razor it must not be what you think it was." That seems to be what is being said here.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
OK, right at the moment I haven't time to go more deeply into the free will issue, but I want to take issue with something BlackBlade said :
quote:Again just because 1 christian believes that there are 3 in 1 does not mean thats what christianity really says.
Ridiculous. Christianity, by definition, is what Christians believe. Besides, I don't have to show that some ideal fantasy version of Christianity has contradictions; I just need to show that some particular version of some religion, not necessarily Christianity, actually held by real people does. And really, I don't care whether you call them Christians or not; certainly they are religious, and they call themselves Christian, that's good enough for me.
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
twinky,
quote: You're saying that if a person hasn't found god, he or she simply hasn't looked hard enough. Do you see how your attitude can alienate nonbelievers?
Well, I do, of course, but there is also the opposite view that if a person hasn't come to realize that God is a myth he just hasn't followed all of his religious beliefs to their logical (or rational ) conclusion.
Assuming there is an objective reality, doesn't there either have to be or have to not be a God or Gods? If this is true, then wouldn't one of the above attitudes have to be correct?
Are you taking exception because the blatantness of the claim isn't very conducive to civil discussion between the two groups, or because the claim itself is flawed?
See, I approach the situation assuming that a believer believes that if a person hasn't found God, he hasn't looked hard enough. Sure, it's an alienating assertion, but do you think it is one that a believer can not hold and still be a firm believer. I guess I find it hard to be offended by the assertion because I accept at the outset that somebody's gotta be wrong and it's natural that each side thinks it's the other.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Assuming there is an objective reality, doesn't there either have to be or have to not be a God or Gods?
Yes, but for any given believer to assume that his particular god must be the one that exists in the former case is just plain arrogant. Maybe he just hasn't looked hard enough to realise that the real creator is actually a tribal fetish in the upper Congo.
quote:If this is true, then wouldn't one of the above attitudes have to be correct?
No, because true, as someone (Dag?) pointed out, is a weaker concept than provable. Just because it's true doesn't mean it can be shown from universally acceptable first principles.
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
"My God is the right God" is inherently more arrogant than "There is no God despite personal experience you claim to have to the contrary"?
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
"Either a god exists, or it doesn't. And if it exists, it has to be this particular one." Non sequitur, that-does-not-follow. More arrogant than "Either a god exists or it doesn't, and I believe the latter." Assertion of belief, sometimes supported.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
quote:Originally posted by KarlEd: twinky,
quote: You're saying that if a person hasn't found god, he or she simply hasn't looked hard enough. Do you see how your attitude can alienate nonbelievers?
Well, I do, of course, but there is also the opposite view that if a person hasn't come to realize that God is a myth he just hasn't followed all of his religious beliefs to their logical (or rational ) conclusion.
Sure, but I don't hold that view. I might joke about it with my atheist buddies, and I might have a relatively dim view of organized religion, but if someone says to me that they've had a personal spiritual experience and believe in god for that reason I accept what they say at face value. I'm not exactly in a position to tell him he's wrong; it's his head, not mine.
quote:Assuming there is an objective reality, doesn't there either have to be or have to not be a God or Gods? If this is true, then wouldn't one of the above attitudes have to be correct?
Are you taking exception because the blatantness of the claim isn't very conducive to civil discussion between the two groups, or because the claim itself is flawed?
The claim is flawed. I believe that if you could put the same person in an identical situation more than once they would not always respond in the same way. I also believe that two equally intelligent, logical, and rational people can examine the same set of evidence and come to entirely different conclusions.
The theist is allowed to believe that I'm wrong, but the suggestion that I'm wrong merely for lack of trying to find an answer is both flawed and rude, particularly given that the theist knows nothing about how hard (or in what manner) I looked for answers unless I tell him.
quote:See, I approach the situation assuming that a believer believes that if a person hasn't found God, he hasn't looked hard enough. Sure, it's an alienating assertion, but do you think it is one that a believer can not hold and still be a firm believer. I guess I find it hard to be offended by the assertion because I accept at the outset that somebody's gotta be wrong and it's natural that each side thinks it's the other.
I approach the situation expecting that no one is going to try to convert me and that they trust me to be intelligent enough to explore questions for myself (including asking for additional information if I want it). Given that I've already said I am no longer looking for answers (and explained myself at some length in this very thread), there must be another reason I'm participating in this discussion, right? I'm certainly not trying to convert any theists to atheism. I am not an evangelical atheist. I simply wish they'd accept that my beliefs are perfectly justified.
Added: And the fact that in my experience a lot of them won't accept that -- or they might claim to accept it but then unintentionally make statements like odouls', which I've commented on here before -- is one of the things that pushed me away from both organized religion and theism.
Added 2: Finally, OSC once wrote "If I honestly believe someone is going to hell, isn't it my responsibility to at least warn them?" I disagree. Show me some respect and trust that I can make my own intelligent decisions.
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
quote:Originally posted by camus:
quote:Originally posted by KarlEd: I don't follow the arguement that "if God is omniscient man has no free will". I don't see how foreknowledge equates with foreordination.
Can anyone actually explain this view rather than simply state it as fact?
I'm not sure I really follow the line of reasoning that ominiscience means no free will either, but here's my idea based on the assumption that God can and does know the future with absolute certainty.
Let's say that God tells me that I'm going to go left. I was going to go left anyway, but would I be able to go right if the idea pleases me? It would be impossible for me to go right because it's already been determined that I'm going to go left. So it's my choice to go left, but that's because I can't make another choice. It's like saying any choice I make is alright as long as it's what God says. It seems like a choice because it's what you wanted to do anyway, but that just makes choice an illusion.
I really shouldn't be trying to explain an idea that I didn't propose or even believe in, but that's my take on what it may possibly mean, but like I said, I don't believe it to be true.
"It would be impossible for me to go right because it's already been determined that I'm going to go left." Right there you are attempting to explain omniscience precluding free will again by simply stating it as fact. I don't think that works.
Were I a believer, I'd argue that free will exists in time, but omniscience exists only outside of time. That is, from a Godly perspective outside of our time, it is possible to know all that is, was, and will be (for our timestream), however, from within the stream we are all free to still swim right or left. If God enters the time stream to tell you that you are going to go left, what he has destroyed is his own omniscience, not your free will. This is because in order for him to regain omniscience, he will have to exit the time stream to see what change his meddling has wrought. That would also neatly explain why God probably doesn't waste his time telling people that they are going to do this or that in the future. Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote: Can you explain this, Tom?
Sure.
If God is omniscient, all our actions and consequences are known to Him.
If God is omnipotent, He has the ability to control all our actions and resulting consequences.
If God is omnibenevolent, He chooses to do Right -- depending on your definition of Right -- and produces situations most likely to bring the most Right into the universe.
-------
If God is both omnipotent and omnibenevolent, He is limited by His attention but can otherwise be depended upon to produce the most "Right" consequences when appropriate. History cannot be trusted, as God may well have changed our past to produce better history.
If God is both omniscient and omnibenevolent, God may well wish the universe were better, but can at best nudge it in that direction.
If God is both omniscient and omnipotent, nothing happens or ever has happened without His tacit approval. Bad things can still happen, however, and this universe may well be on the way downhill.
If God is omniscient, omnipotent, and omnibenevolent, this is the best of all possible universes. Nothing happens without God's approval or knowledge, and nothing happens if it does not increase the amount of Right in the universe; there is, in this situation, truly providence in the fall of a sparrow.
Note that Free Will -- the ability to choose to do something other than "Right" -- may well be the highest form of Right; evil, in other words, may well be accepted as a necessary cost of Rightness. This is still irreconcilable with true omnipotence, but semi-potence -- as in Mormon theology -- is compatible with this approach.
(The reason true omniscience and omnipotence is irreconcilable with omnibenevolence and Free Will is that, by being both omniscient and omnipotent, God also has the ability to create the preconditions for every decision required of every human being, AND the awareness of the consequences of those decisions. That He has adjusted matters to produce those consequences is only reconcilable with benevolence if indeed we assume that this is the best of all worlds.)
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
quote:The claim is flawed. I believe that if you could put the same person in an identical situation more than once they would not always respond in the same way. I also believe that two equally intelligent, logical, and rational people can examine the same set of evidence and come to entirely different conclusions.
The theist is allowed to believe that I'm wrong, but the suggestion that I'm wrong merely for lack of trying to find an answer is both flawed and rude, particularly given that the theist knows nothing about how hard (or in what manner) I looked for answers unless I tell him.
Thanks for that. I understand and agree.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:This is still irreconcilable with true omnipotence, but semi-potence -- as in Mormon theology -- is compatible with this approach.
Not really - God's ability to do something does not preclude him from doing it. Therefore, God could retain the ability to stop people from doing bad things but refrain from doing so in order to increase the amount of "right" in the Universe.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
(Added: That's to Karl.)
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
While, I'll smile at you anyway: Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote: Therefore, God could retain the ability to stop people from doing bad things but refrain from doing so in order to increase the amount of "right" in the Universe.
That would only be true if you accepted, as I said earlier, one of two precepts:
1) That the performance of those specific bad things somehow, in the long run, increases the amount of "Right" in the universe (i.e. allowing the Jews to suffer for millennia makes everyone, in some small way, a better person)
2) That there is no Right more important than the ability to freely choose to do wrong. In the latter case, a truly omnipotent God has chosen to not only refrain from preventing that choice, but also from preventing the preconditions that led to that choice and ameliorating and/or eliminating the consequences of that choice. This implies that every time something incredibly bad happens, God has chosen to permit it in full because He thinks meddling is inherently Wrong. Unfortunately, we also hear repeatedly from believers and from scriptures that God occasionally meddles, which means He believes that meddling is not universally wrong -- that there are, in other words, circumstances in which it is better to meddle than to preserve free will. Saul had no free will; certainly, those kids eaten by bears didn't have any. When someone prays to be delivered from an attacker and IS, are they -- when they later thank God -- implying that God didn't think their attacker's free will was important enough to preserve, while the free will of a young mother who booked an airplane that later crashed into the ocean was so valuable?
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
quote:certainly, those kids eaten by bears didn't have any.
I'm right with you except for that phrase, where you lost me. How did being eaten by bears mean they had no free will?
The "attacker" example was much better, since the free will that was preserved was the attackers. In the bear example it seems that free will was preserved as well. Either the free will of the children to make a mistake that led to their deaths, or the free will of those who should have been protecting them from harm, but weren't.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
(That's to Dag.)
Oh yeah, Karl, I meant to add that I actually think atheism sort of sells itself. It ties into my thoughts on transcendental experiences from earlier in the thread.
(Added: "Sells itself" in the sense that I don't think it's at all bleak and empty; rather, I think it implies some pretty neat things about human beings.)
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:That there is no Right more important than the ability to freely choose to do wrong. In the latter case, a truly omnipotent God has chosen to not only refrain from preventing that choice, but also from preventing the preconditions that led to that choice and ameliorating and/or eliminating the consequences of that choice.
There's also the possibility that God meddles only when it will increase the amount of Right, and He knows when that is, not us.
Posted by camus (Member # 8052) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: This implies that every time something incredibly bad happens, God has chosen to permit it in full because He thinks meddling is inherently Wrong. Unfortunately, we also hear repeatedly from believers and from scriptures that God occasionally meddles, which means He believes that meddling is not universally wrong -- that there are, in other words, circumstances in which it is better to meddle than to preserve free will. Saul had no free will; certainly, those kids eaten by bears didn't have any. When someone prays to be delivered from an attacker and IS, are they -- when they later thank God -- implying that God didn't think their attacker's free will was important enough to preserve, while the free will of a young mother who booked an airplane that later crashed into the ocean was so valuable?
hmmm... what if God only meddles only when it's necessary to accomplish his will (which is to preserve Rightness in the universe) while not interfering with other matters so as to preserve the notion of free will? Perhaps the person delivered from the attacker was crucial to God's overall will, while the victims of an airplane crash were merely victims of chance. His omnibenevolence would still be preserved if the victims were resurrected to an after life. [edit] basically what you already said: "1) That the performance of those specific bad things somehow, in the long run, increases the amount of "Right" in the universe "
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
quote:Totally agree with the line of reasoning. Only that I do not agree with your conclusion out of this. I state that the atheist (and for that matter the agnostic) has the last point of view and the theist has the burden of proof.
If you reread the dialog, the atheist is stating that since the theist made the assertion and wants the atheist to believe, then the burden of proof is on the theist. So we agree.
quote:However, you give no example of an axiom not believed by the religious. Until you give one, I state that all scientific axioms that are generally accepted by the scientists should be accepted by all humans.
quote:I'd be interested in hearing some axioms accepted by scientists/rationalists that are not accepted by the religious, too. And don't cite evolution - many of the religious accept evolution.
It really doesn't matter whether there exist axioms accepted by some people and not others. The point is merely that if you are arguing a point, the two sides must agree on axioms first, or there's no point in going forward. More importantly, one side cannot demand the other accept an axiom.
As I said earlier, you can sort of corner an opponent into accepting an axiom by stating it as a tautology, as in: (There is a god or gods) or (there is no god). Assuming then you can break the argument into cases and move forward, even if your opponent won't accept your favored case as an axiom.
BTW, a scientist wouldn't accept evolution as an axiom anyway. But if he insisted on acceptance of evolution axiomatically, it would be an example of a bad argument.
(Note: there's a difference between stating something as an axiom, and stating the conclusion you intend to reach at the beginning of your argument.)
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote: what if God only meddles only when it's necessary to accomplish his will (which is to preserve Rightness in the universe) while not interfering with other matters so as to preserve the notion of free will?
Then one might ask why He has not arranged the universe -- knowing as He does all the consequences in advance -- to produce a situation that maximizes Right without requiring further meddling.
But, then, this will ultimately boil down to "what if God is doing what He's doing for reasons that not only seem unlikely but insanely illogical to us humans, because we can't see the entirety of His ineffable plan?"
And I submit that no sane person would ever willingly worship such a mad, random, unknowable God. The faith that God is working in the best interest of the universe when He arranges for you to watch as your three-year-old child is raped by an intruder is, I submit, a cold comfort; so, for that matter, is the knowledge that you were living here in the United States instead of losing your lives in a terrible tsunami a few months back.
If God is indeed so unpredictable and undependable, what's the point?
[ July 21, 2005, 12:18 PM: Message edited by: TomDavidson ]
Posted by camus (Member # 8052) on :
quote: And I submit that no sane person would ever willingly worship such a mad, random, unknowable God. The faith that God is working in the best interest of the universe when He arranges for you to watch as your three-year-old child is raped by an intruder is, I submit, a cold comfort; so, for that matter, is the knowledge that you were living here in the United States instead of losing your lives in a terrible tsunami a few months back.
If God is indeed so unpredictable and undependable, what's the point?
Can we assume that it is possible for God to be omniscient, omnipotent, and omnibenevolent while preserving free will? Let's say that there's some balance point, some threshhold, where God uses his powers and abilities but only to a limit so as to preserve free will.
Now let's say that a significant portion of God's creation questioned God's use of His power and in effect rebelled against God saying that no one should listen to Him. God knows that not listening to Him will cause pain and suffering to humanity, so He wants people to recognize His good intentions and His ability to know what is best.
So how does one go about proving that? He can't force people to listen to Him because that would contradict free will. He can't just destroy all the rebels, because that would just support the idea that maybe they were right. So what if he decides to let them govern themselves to prove once and for all whether people are better off without God?
God's allowing the resulting suffering to occur does not contradict his benevolence because He, by means of his omnipotence, will undo the problems caused by man's independence from God. (such as resurrection)
After God restores the earth and all His creation to what he originally intended, then people can decide for themselves with a complete understanding whether they want to listen to God or not. Those that choose not to listen to God will not be allowed to inflict harm or disturb the peace of those that do listen to God. As a result, some degree of meddling will be necessary but only because free will allows people to make bad decisions. God's meddling will just prevent those bad decisions from having disastrous consequences.
These statements are pure speculation, and I'm not trying to convince you of any type of doctrine, but I think this might illustrate how it's possible that the idea of an all-powerful God can exist in the world in which we see around us.
Posted by ssywak (Member # 807) on :
Camus,
quote:Can we assume that it is possible for God to be omniscient, omnipotent, and omnibenevolent while preserving free will?
This has been discussed ad nauseum. I believe that the answer is, "No." There is a logical contradiction at the heart of that statement that can only be resolved by invoking the "God is capable of anything He wants to do, regardless of it's logic" clause.
quote:As a result, some degree of meddling will be necessary but only because free will allows people to make bad decisions. God's meddling will just prevent those bad decisions from having disastrous consequences.
I guess you weren't living in New York City a few years ago, eh? I also guess that He doesn't meddle when natural forces (which He established and can control supernaturally) have disastrous consequiences, correct?
What you appear to have proposed is a God that doesn't really do anything anymore ("He doesn't really do anything; that's the beauty of Him!") The world just runs as it does, and people just do what they do. Reparations are made after we're dead, and can (how convenient!) no longer report back our findings to the living (as if such a condition could ever, really, exist).
So you either have a capricious God (see Tom Davidsin's earlier remarks) or you have an absentee God. Or you're still digging around in the burnt entrails, looking for next week's answers.
Posted by Corwin (Member # 5705) on :
quote:He doesn't really do anything; that's the beauty of Him!
Now THAT was spoken like a true Hatracker! Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
BTW, Karl, when I was referring to "those kids eaten by bears," I wasn't making a broad reference to all the children ever eaten by bears, whom we can safely assume to have been eaten by bears of their own free will. I should have been more specific, and mentioned that I was addressing directly an instance of God's interference (in which He sent a she-bear, violating HER free will, to eat some teenagers bugging one of His prophets, thus violating THEIR free will. Unless the bear just happened to drop by and got included in the myth by lucky accident, which I suppose is always possible.)
-----
BTW, camus, your explanation -- that God is exposing us to suffering as a dare, or on our request, so that we can experimentally see what the world would be like if we had free will -- makes sense only in a few limited cases:
1) if there are no eternal implications in this life (i.e. people who sin today will not suffer for that sin after the experiment is over).
2) that God's occasional interventions (assuming you believe God intervenes) are essential to keeping the test project going, or at least more essential than they would have been at times He didn't intervene.
3) that somehow all the natural disasters and inhuman suffering in the world is also a consequence of free will, and not simply a consequence of removing God's grace from the world. (Otherwise it's not a fair test, as indeed it might be considerably easier to have free will in Eden. In other words, we have to assume that free will causes volcanoes, or else the Earth and other natural systems have free wills of their own.)
Worse, though, is the implication of what you've said: that the purpose of existence is to prove to our immortal souls that free will is unnecessary and potentially dangerous. If that's the case, though, why would God bother giving us free will at all, especially if He would know the result of all possible tests of this sort (and especially if He's still meddling in the test by interfering with it, anyway)? Heck, why would He bother even creating us, much less with free will, if the whole point of mortal existence is to prove to us that we should submit to Him?
Heck, I can make little men out of clay to dance at my bidding. And if they disobey, I can do all kinds of horrible things to them, and at the end of the day I'll be content in my knowledge that they're will-less creatures of clay and I'm not. But I don't need that kind of validation.
Posted by camus (Member # 8052) on :
quote: BTW, camus, your explanation -- that God is exposing us to suffering as a dare, or on our request, so that we can experimentally see what the world would be like if we had free will -- makes sense only in a few limited cases:
Let me clarify my hypothetical situation. God's original purpose for mankind was for us to exercise free will, but with God's guidance (so that we don't cause harm to ourselves and others). God's omniscience (an ability that he doesn't have to always use) would allow him to know how certain actions would turn out, so then his omnipotence allows Him to direct things so that we would be able to understand as well, and his omnibenevolence would allow us to make the decision ourself (free will) but he would step in if that decision caused damage to ourself or others. (though this is not the world we live in now)
Now what if people didn't want God's guidance at all, or His intervention of natural disasters? (kind of like the Worthing Saga) Thus, we were ushered into the world we know now.
In the future, God will restore the universe to its original state according to God's original plan.
The idea of free will doesn't change in my pre-modern, modern, and post-modern scenarios. The only thing that changes is God's involvement. So natural disasters are not a consequence of free will, however, the consequences of natural disasters show (subject to interpretation)that we do need God.
quote:that the purpose of existence is to prove to our immortal souls that free will is unnecessary and potentially dangerous.
I was not trying to imply that free will is dangerous, just that life without God can be dangerous [edit]if this scenario were true, and this scenario was created to explain the possibility of an all-powerful God while also having free will. This is not meant to imply that God is necessary for our existence or happiness, since we don't really know for certain if he exists. Similarly, this is not meant to try to prove that God exists either.
Of course, all of this relies on one's definition of omniscience. My scenario is based on the assumption that God can know all things, he just doesn't do so for the sake of giving us free will. In handling matters that way, he is saying that the Rightness of the universe depends on our having free will, but it also depends on His guidance.
[ July 21, 2005, 02:28 PM: Message edited by: camus ]
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote: Now what if people didn't want God's guidance at all, or His intervention of natural disasters?
Then this is a terrible test, unless you believe that no religion on Earth possesses God's guidance and/or that God never intervenes in natural disasters.
Posted by camus (Member # 8052) on :
quote: Then this is a terrible test, unless you believe that no religion on Earth possesses God's guidance and/or that God never intervenes in natural disasters.
God guides religions to the extent that it allows for people to know His existence and His Will. God does not intervene in natural disasters unless it is necessary for His Will to be accomplished. I do not think it is a terrible test if that is what non-human creation required of Him. (remember that according to Biblical account, God allowed the suffering of Job to prove to Satan that Job would not curse God or blame Him for his suffering) And it is not as much of a test as it is a chance for mankind to show what they are capable of.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: OK, right at the moment I haven't time to go more deeply into the free will issue, but I want to take issue with something BlackBlade said :
quote:Again just because 1 christian believes that there are 3 in 1 does not mean thats what christianity really says.
Ridiculous. Christianity, by definition, is what Christians believe. Besides, I don't have to show that some ideal fantasy version of Christianity has contradictions; I just need to show that some particular version of some religion, not necessarily Christianity, actually held by real people does. And really, I don't care whether you call them Christians or not; certainly they are religious, and they call themselves Christian, that's good enough for me.
Dont try to make it seem as though I am judging what is or what is not christianity. Christianity is NOT contingent on what its followers say it is. Last time I checked the bible was the word of God. Not man saying if God were here this is what he would say.
Regardless of what I say, Christianity has true interpretations of its philosophy and false ones. Just because somebody says they are a christian and believe it so does NOT mean what they says christianity is, is in fact so.
If it WAS in fact that way, then Christianity would be a philosophy of polytheism where men are gods, the prophets pretend to speak for our one desciple Jesus. Backwards to the core.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
I am not going to go deep into the concept of "If God knows all why does he allow bad things to happen" 2nd guessing an omniscient being in my opinion is often fruitless at best and confusing at worst. I only plan to mention one principle often left out of the conversation.
If there was a God, and man has an afterlife. Then death loses MOST of its terror, and significance. If God feels his purposes are better served by bringing groups of people into the afterlife than we cant really be mad at him any more than we can curse him for letting us be born in the first place.
Birth and Death according to that are both merely transitory things, and both positive experiences. Now yes to an Atheist death is the end of existance. And the worst thing that may happen to a person, so when theists and atheists discuss the matter of death, we are both disadvantaged by our views on death, because neither side has empathy for the other sides beliefs.
Posted by camus (Member # 8052) on :
BlackBlade's post reminded me of one of the Ender books about where (if I remember correctly) the Piggies needed to die before reaching the second stage of their life. Thus, death isn't necessarily a bad thing depending on what you believe. However, that does not explain pain and suffering. But consider this example:
A butterfly while in a cocoon must struggle very hard in order to break free from the cocoon. Now if you were to free the butterfly so that he could avoid the struggle, his wings would not gain the necessary strength to fly. The struggle is what enables him to survive in his second stage of life. - just some food for thought.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: I should have been more specific, and mentioned that I was addressing directly an instance of God's interference (in which He sent a she-bear, violating HER free will, to eat some teenagers bugging one of His prophets, thus violating THEIR free will. Unless the bear just happened to drop by and got included in the myth by lucky accident, which I suppose is always possible.)
What makes you think bears have free will? And I don't see how being eaten by a bear violates someone's free will.
It merely ends it, as I don't believe it is something the dead possess.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote: Now yes to an Atheist death is the end of existance.
And yet the religious ALSO have laws against murder.
-------
quote: What makes you think bears have free will? And I don't see how being eaten by a bear violates someone's free will.
Unless animals are just props for this hypothetical morality play, it doesn't seem unreasonable to assume that the suffering THEY experience is also intended to be instructive to them. Otherwise, what kind of sadistic jerk would create a universe in which creatures capable of feeling but not reasoning must suffer because some higher order of animal needs to be taught a lesson?
And the BEAR didn't rob the youths of their free will; neither did being eaten. Being eaten because God sent the bear to eat them, rather than as a consequence of their actual behavior, robbed them of their free will.
Posted by Angiomorphism (Member # 8184) on :
Here's an interesting idea I heard somewhere before, relating to commiting the crime of murder through a religious and non-religious perspective.
If you do not believe in God, or an afterlife, and you kill someone, that's the end. That person's life is over, there's nothing more after that, period. You will (hopefully) be punished for your crime, go to jail or whatever. You have to live with the thought for the rest of your life that you ended someone's existence absolutely.
If you believe in an afterlife (which to some extent means God), then when you kill someone, your punishment is greater, because not only do you go to jail and have to live with yourself, but then when you die, you go to hell or its equivalent for eternity. However, the person you killed might not be so bad off. Provided they lived their life according to the will of "God", then they will be granted eternal paradise.
I'm not sure if I personally agree with the implications of this idea (it's not mine), so I was wondering what you guys thought.
Posted by camus (Member # 8052) on :
quote:Originally posted by Angiomorphism: Here's an interesting idea I heard somewhere before, relating to commiting the crime of murder through a religious and non-religious perspective.
If you do not believe in God, or an afterlife, and you kill someone, that's the end. That person's life is over, there's nothing more after that, period. You will (hopefully) be punished for your crime, go to jail or whatever. You have to live with the thought for the rest of your life that you ended someone's existence absolutely.
If you believe in an afterlife (which to some extent means God), then when you kill someone, your punishment is greater, because not only do you go to jail and have to live with yourself, but then when you die, you go to hell or its equivalent for eternity. However, the person you killed might not be so bad off. Provided they lived their life according to the will of "God", then they will be granted eternal paradise.
I'm not sure if I personally agree with the implications of this idea (it's not mine), so I was wondering what you guys thought.
If there is no after-life of any sort, then yes you have to live with the thought of permanently exterminating someone's life. However, their life was going to end anyway at some point, so you could try to rationalize what you did as being not that bad. (Disclaimer: Not suggesting that such a trivial attitude should be adopted by anyone)
Regarding an after-life, if eternal torment in a fiery hell does exist (which I don't personally believe) then yeah, you're kinda screwed for all eternity. But if you are reincarnated to another plane of existence, then it may not be so bad becuase you'll have a chance to redeem yourself and hopefully progress upwards in existence. Personally, I believe that judgment for sinners is death without the hope of a resurrection. Is that fair? I can't really say, but it seems more in line with the idea of a comassionate God instead of a vengeful God that exacts eternal punishment.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
When you kill somebody you are in effect sending them into their next life ready or not. Why should you get the chance to prepare for it?
Just a thought, please dont respond with the glib "eye for an eye" nonsense.
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
Don't you mean, "Please don't respond with the glib 'turn the other cheek' nonsense"? It sounds from the first paragraph like you are implying "eye for an eye".
quote: Now yes to an Atheist death is the end of existance. And the worst thing that may happen to a person, . . .
I've explained at length how God is not necessary for belief in or hope for an afterlife, in this very thread. Additionally, I imagine there are many athiests (myself included) who can imagine that there are many things far worse than death.
So, not accepting your premise, I can hardly accept your conclusion. In fact, I think this thread has shown a lot of empathy of each side for the beliefs of the other (with a couple of notable exceptions).
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
I must have missed the post where you articulate the possibilities of an afterlife in a universe without a God.
My comments about murder and the lack of preparation for an afterlife are not conclusive AT ALL. I was merely bringing out a point that anybody can think about.
Again I did not say this thread specifically is lacking in empathy merely that this topic of discussion is often crippled by this fact. Dont get a big head, but you are the first atheist I have ever met who believed in an afterlife. I'd look for the post where you explain it but it woudl take a LONG time to find it as skimming often does not work out for me. I will look for it but feel free to A: paste it again B: write out a summary. I do not intend to respond to it however as I do not want to make the conversation go in circles if that is something you would like to avoid.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote: Dont get a big head, but you are the first atheist I have ever met who believed in an afterlife.
Technically, many Buddhists are atheists.
(And why the heck would Karl go to the trouble of repeating himself if you don't intend to respond and don't think it's worth YOUR time to properly read the thread? Extend him a little courtesy, man.)
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
I'm not sure so many of them are atheists so much as unconcerned with the question, which was a large part of buddha's point.
Posted by camus (Member # 8052) on :
Personally, I too agree with KarlEd that the possibility of an afterlife does not require the existence of God. One way of looking at it is with the example of the Piggies in the Ender series. Death created a rebirth into another stage without a god to facilitate the process. There are also scientific (and by scientific I mean theoretical) possibilities that suggest that the life that we recognize in our human form is not the only part of our existence. Our consciousness, identity, will, or whatever you may call it, remains after our physical bodies decay. Just as when a caterpillar transforms into another body, its identity still remains the same. It's possible that the same could be true of humans in such a way that we cannot possibly understand with our current knowledge. I'm not sure if this is what KarlEd had in mind, and it's not something I personally believe since I do believe in God, but I think it's good to be open to possibilities regardless of your current beliefs.
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
There's not a lot about the future that I specifically believe. However, there are many things I believe are possible regardless of whether or not there is a God of any kind.
I think it is possible that we ourselves will develop the technology to either extend our lives indefinitely, or to perhaps even re-claim the essence of those who have passed (weird as that sounds, I know). I believe it is possible that there is something beyond the known particles that make us up physically that continues on in this universe or exists in some other dimension. I don't think that such a substance or dimension or existence requires a divine creator any more than our mortal, physical existence here and now does.
All of this is such speculation that I can't say any of it is what I believe, but I also don't dismiss the possibilities out of hand.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by KarlEd: There's not a lot about the future that I specifically believe. However, there are many things I believe are possible regardless of whether or not there is a God of any kind.
I think it is possible that we ourselves will develop the technology to either extend our lives indefinitely, or to perhaps even re-claim the essence of those who have passed (weird as that sounds, I know). I believe it is possible that there is something beyond the known particles that make us up physically that continues on in this universe or exists in some other dimension. I don't think that such a substance or dimension or existence requires a divine creator any more than our mortal, physical existence here and now does.
All of this is such speculation that I can't say any of it is what I believe, but I also don't dismiss the possibilities out of hand.
No No I find that concept quite intriguing. I have never attempted to think of an afterlife bereft of the influece of God, but the way you describe it I can at least say that it seems like a plausible idea. I may not agree with it now but I can at least entertain it. <clap> <clap>
Though one would have to wonder if there is an afterlife and it has nothing to do with God why do we have no indication of such a place/existance.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
quote:Though one would have to wonder if there is an afterlife and it has nothing to do with God why do we have no indication of such a place/existance.
Then you understand why atheists wonder why, if there is a god, we have no indication of this god's existence. It really is exactly the same sort of thing. Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Science certainly posits the existence of things we can't interact with and so which essentially aren't "there" even as they exist.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
No it doesn't; what would be the use of such a thing?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Yes, it does. The simple positing of other universes meets my description.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
There is a difference between 'speculating about' and 'positing'.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
'Positing' means 'to put forward for consideration.'
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
According to Google, that's only one meaning :
quote:situate: put (something somewhere) firmly; "She posited her hand on his shoulder"; "deposit the suitcase on the bench"; "fix your eyes on this spot" submit: put before; "I submit to you that the accused is guilty" postulate: (logic) a proposition that is accepted as true in order to provide a basis for logical reasoning postulate: take as a given; assume as a postulate or axiom; "He posited three basic laws of nature"
Answers.com and the free dictionary both give 'postulate' as the primary meaning (in fact one of them is likely copying from the other) :
quote:To assume the existence of; postulate. See synonyms at presume. To put forward, as for consideration or study; suggest: “If a book is hard going, it ought to be good. If it posits a complex moral situation, it ought to be even better” (Anthony Burgess). To place firmly in position.
In any case, I don't see why another universe should be unreachable in principle.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Whatever. We can't think of any reason we'd get to it now, or in the foreseeable future.
Posted by camus (Member # 8052) on :
I was just thinking about the idea (I don't really think it's a thoery or religion) of Gaia - the idea that the earth is a living creature. At first the idea seems quite ridiculous, but interesting because the earth does have a lot of processes and cycles that are similar to other living organisms (the ability to reproduce not being one of them, although it's funny to try to picture it, okay maybe that's only funny to me). So if people have theorized about the possibility of the earth being alive, what about if the universe is alive? What if the universe in it's entirety is what some of us consider to be God?
If the universe were to be self-aware, it could satisfy some of the problems with an all-powerful God and the notion of free will. It would be omnibenevolent because it's going to do what is best for itself (survival). It would be omnipotent because it would have the power to, within the bounds of logic, alter any aspect of itself. And it could be omniscient in the sense that it knows everything there is to know about itself. We would still have free will because our choices don't really affect the big picture of what is best for the universe (unless we find a way to blow up galaxies and become, in effect, a cancer to the universe). So instead of being created by a spirit-like god, we were actually created by means of the Universe creating the conditions that made it possible for life to be created.
Obviously this idea is not the least bit provable, so Angio, if you want to talk about irrational beliefs, I would agree this is one of them. So I guess I was just wondering if there is any existing thought about this type of idea. I'm not sure what the implications of such an idea would be, but it's kind of fun to think about these abstract ideas.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by twinky:
quote:Though one would have to wonder if there is an afterlife and it has nothing to do with God why do we have no indication of such a place/existance.
Then you understand why atheists wonder why, if there is a god, we have no indication of this god's existence. It really is exactly the same sort of thing.
Hoo boy back to square one. You could say that all existance hints at the existance of a GOD, and you will likely say no it doesnt. But then again disproving gods existance is even more difficult to prove. I'm afraid seeing as how it is it seems to me to be impossible to use science to either prove or disprove God's existance, perhaps a different method is required.
Posted by Amanecer (Member # 4068) on :
KarlEd-
quote: I think it is possible that we ourselves will develop the technology to either extend our lives indefinitely, or to perhaps even re-claim the essence of those who have passed (weird as that sounds, I know).
What an incredible idea! This'll be fun to think on. You just made my day. Posted by Promethius (Member # 2468) on :
"capitalised"
When chewing out others for spelling people should check their own spelling.
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
Amanecer, read The Light of Other Days by Arthur C. Clarke. I warn you, though, that like several of Clarke's books, the ideas in this one far outstrip the story or writing. The plot is clearly only barely there to give him a vehicle to explore the consequences of a new technology in his fictional world. But he does make the technology seem plausible, and his ideas are fascinating.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
quote:Hoo boy back to square one. You could say that all existance hints at the existance of a GOD, and you will likely say no it doesnt. But then again disproving gods existance is even more difficult to prove.
But I haven't said anything about proving or disproving. I also said nothing about science. You said:
quote:Though one would have to wonder if there is an afterlife and it has nothing to do with God why do we have no indication of such a place/existance.
But this statement is equally valid:
quote:Though one would have to wonder if there is an afterlife why do we have no indication of such a place/existance.
Or:
quote:Though one would have to wonder if there is a god why do we have no indication of such a being.
Many individuals, through personal spiritual experiences, claim to have such indications. Collectively, however, we as a human race do not. This is not a proof or disproof of the idea itself. But if you're going to be skeptical of Karl's idea of a godless afterlife, surely you can see that it's equally valid to be skeptical of god's existence for precisely the same reason.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Capitalised is the correct spelling. It's not my fault if you colonials can't do the simplest things right.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
I can see the dual application of the skepticism.
But then again the majority of the human race has believed in a God of some fashion. Why is it that people have some sort of inate desire to worship something.
You could explain it away as the greatest hoax in history. Yet is there any other lie that has sustained itself through so much time and so much skepticism? Typically Lies are rooted out as time goes by, yet here we are a world composed of a majority of believers. There has to be a better explaination that, they are all idiots and led along by the lies of their ancestors.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Slavery is based on a lie, namely that some humans are worth less than others. It isn't quite dead yet. Racism keeps showing up even in the West, too, despite the best efforts of the media to stamp it out. Finally, it's kind of disingenuous to claim Hindus, pagans, Shinto, and Buddhists all under the umbrella of people who 'believe in a god of some fashion'.
Posted by Promethius (Member # 2468) on :
Fair enough, I was wrong! But I dont have to like it!
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
You do have to use an apostrophe when you contract "do not", though.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
quote:But then again the majority of the human race has believed in a God of some fashion.
This doesn't make it any more likely to be true.
quote:Why is it that people have some sort of inate desire to worship something.
Do we? I certainly don't. Posted by camus (Member # 8052) on :
I think both perspectives make sense depending on what you believe.
If I was an atheist I would probably say that we evolved a religious desire that complemented our survivial instincts while also serving as a uniting factor that added even more likelihood of survivial. People eventually found a way to exploit that and thus religion was born.
As a believer, I would say that the desire stems from the fact that we were created and God wants us to at least acknowledge His existence through belief. Just as we have a conscience, so too we have a religious voice deep down in our subconscious self.
Once again, I think that the desire to worship is not conclusive and should not be used as an argument for or against the existence of God.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
quote:Once again, I think that the desire to worship is not conclusive and should not be used as an argument for or against the existence of God.
Precisely. Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: Slavery is based on a lie, namely that some humans are worth less than others. It isn't quite dead yet. Racism keeps showing up even in the West, too, despite the best efforts of the media to stamp it out. Finally, it's kind of disingenuous to claim Hindus, pagans, Shinto, and Buddhists all under the umbrella of people who 'believe in a god of some fashion'.
But slavery used to be WORLDWIDE, and now it is becoming extinct. And yes I am putting christians, muslims, hindus, pagans, shinto, buddhist, because they all have a desire to worship something they feel will effect their lives for good.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
And religion used to be worldwide, and is now becoming much, much weaker - I believe it is the first shudders of extinction we are seeing, though obviously you won't agree. I do note that slavery started to weaken in a similar way : Around 1600, for example, Europeans - although they had no objection to taking slaves from Africa - would have considered it repugnant to enslave white people. Likewise, although Westerners still believe in gods, they consider it repugnant to torture others for failure to do so.
Further, I do not think hindus would understand the word 'worship' in the same way you do, and assuredly a buddhist wouldn't, they aren't theists at all. The various ancestor-venerating cults aren't worshipping as a Christian would understand it, either, and anyway they can point to the bones of their ancestors, and in some cases have actual memories of them. The original pagans, who are admittedly few in number these days but who dominated the world for a long time, did not seek to become better people, but to become richer and dominate their enemies; as late as the Romans we find a highly mercenary approach to worship : I sing a praise-song or sacrifice a bull, you get me a new house. Indeed, early Protestants believed that material success was a sign of their god's favour, and the concept of Heaven as a reward for good behaviour has many of the same overtones.
Finally, I think there are few people today, especially in the West, who would continue to go to church if it actually cost them something. Charge the price of a movie ticket to go to Mass, and we'll see how many 'desire to worship something they feel will effect their lives for good'.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: And religion used to be worldwide, and is now becoming much, much weaker - I believe it is the first shudders of extinction we are seeing, though obviously you won't agree. I do note that slavery started to weaken in a similar way : Around 1600, for example, Europeans - although they had no objection to taking slaves from Africa - would have considered it repugnant to enslave white people. Likewise, although Westerners still believe in gods, they consider it repugnant to torture others for failure to do so.
Further, I do not think hindus would understand the word 'worship' in the same way you do, and assuredly a buddhist wouldn't, they aren't theists at all. The various ancestor-venerating cults aren't worshipping as a Christian would understand it, either, and anyway they can point to the bones of their ancestors, and in some cases have actual memories of them. The original pagans, who are admittedly few in number these days but who dominated the world for a long time, did not seek to become better people, but to become richer and dominate their enemies; as late as the Romans we find a highly mercenary approach to worship : I sing a praise-song or sacrifice a bull, you get me a new house. Indeed, early Protestants believed that material success was a sign of their god's favour, and the concept of Heaven as a reward for good behaviour has many of the same overtones.
Finally, I think there are few people today, especially in the West, who would continue to go to church if it actually cost them something. Charge the price of a movie ticket to go to Mass, and we'll see how many 'desire to worship something they feel will effect their lives for good'.
You seem to take alot of liberties with telling ME what I understand. For one I grew up in China and Malaysia. So understanding buddhism, taoism, and Islam is something I feel I do.
In the 1600's they did not have white slaves per say but they DID have indentured servants.
To say they do not worship dieties in hinduism to me is almost intentionally ignorant. They worship hundreds upon thousands of Gods, and it is up to the family to decide how. Yes it is a bit more non intrusive of a religion, but You are correct in your guess that I would disagree with you about the current state of religion. I do believe that people now more than ever before are forsaking religion, but I also know that at least in my religion our numbers are growing fast.
I guess something worth mentioning is that even according to my own religion towards the end of the world religion will all but disappear as MOST people will be evil and seek the blood of one another. So if religion was in its first shudders of exinction it is not something I care to debate as I believe it is inevitable. BUT if religion was going to go extinct I think it would have done so by now, and if not right now, we would be seeing a more dramatic erradication of it. Thus far we only have 3 examples of religion being forced out of a society. Soviet Union, France (french revolution), and China. Soviet Union couldnt really TOTALLY remove religion so it ignored it. China IMO is on the revolution fast track again, seeing as how its atheist government is possibly the most oppresive government ever formed, and france during its revolution utterly failed at accomplishing anything positive in its little atheistical experiment.
Religion may be dying, but its not because of some enlightenment such as the one that has driven out slavery. It is because people are beginning to trust in their own inteligence exclusively, and at least to me mankind does not have the most inteligent track record.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:BUT if religion was going to go extinct I think it would have done so by now, and if not right now, we would be seeing a more dramatic erradication of it. Thus far we only have 3 examples of religion being forced out of a society.
Why do you think religion would only go extinct if forced out of a society?
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote: Further, I do not think hindus would understand the word 'worship' in the same way you do, and assuredly a buddhist wouldn't, they aren't theists at all.
Yes, because to them gods are different things, and to some Buddhists-definitely not all, as you have said-there are no deities at all.
As for the notion that people wouldn't go to church if it didn't cost them anything...ummmm...what the hell are you talking about, man? Costs time, at the very least, even on a minimal level. Weekend-time, no less. Weekend MORNING time, more so.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
I spoke inexactly; I should have said, 'cost them more than an hour's socialising is worth.' Also, people tend not to notice that kind of cost; if even a small sum of money was involved, I suspect we'd see a right drastic drop.
And BB, I suggest you visit a church in Norway on an average Sunday, count the people there, and divide by the size of the community. You might get some interesting information on how religions die, and repression has nothing to do with it.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
KoM: look up and read the paper entitled "Why Strict Churches are Strong" by Iannaccone
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Many people who attend church put in considerably more than merely an 'hour's socializing' (although nicely done! Another insult ).
Frankly I suspect that if money were involved, we'd see a rise in attendance, because people could link their piety to how much money they spent.
Posted by Promethius (Member # 2468) on :
Church is free but often people donate a great deal of money to their church. People are supposed to give 10% of their income to the church. I dont think this is enforced but this is what is supposed to happen. Although I did recently read an article about how the majority of church goers dont tithe anywhere near 10%.
I would be curious to see how getting charged a ticket fee would alter church attendance. I guess this post didnt really add much, but I just wanted to point out that people do pay some money to attend church.
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
We give 10% of our gross income to our church, and give charitable offerings on top of that. It hasn't hurt our piety in the least. Granted, it is voluntary, but then I'm not sure what your point was to begin with.
Also, all positions within this church are unpaid, even that of head of the congregation. The people freely give of their time and efforts to make the church run. Again, doesn't exactly seem to be hurting piety at all. If anything, it does the opposite.
Without having read the article fugu referenced, I imagine it refers to this sort of thing.
Posted by Shigosei (Member # 3831) on :
Those who've read the paper can perhaps confirm or deny the impression I got from the article. It sounds like the theory states that high expectations for behavior (and belief, to a lesser extent) help bond a community together, and provide a valauble social network.
I was also very amused by this paragraph in the article:
quote:What does the pious person get in return for all of his or her time and effort? A church full of passionate members; a community of people deeply involved in one another's lives and more willing than most to come to one another's aid; a peer group of knowledgeable souls who speak the same language (or languages), are moved by the same texts, and cherish the same dreams.
Nothing like any communities I know of. Nope, not at all. (Is Hatrack's civility and fairly stringent self-policing equivalent to the strictness of certain churches?)
Posted by Angiomorphism (Member # 8184) on :
Good article relating politics to religion. You'd think it was biased, but for the most part, it just quotes actual political leaders, so don't be surprised by how crazy it sounds.
EDIT: grrrr... this URL thing doesn't seem to be working.
[ July 26, 2005, 10:03 AM: Message edited by: Angiomorphism ]
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
I say, do you mind giving your URL a short name, so it doesn't take up more than a screen? And I counted three quotes (admittedly damn scary ones) and a bunch of rhetoric.
Posted by Angiomorphism (Member # 8184) on :
Tell me how to give it a shorter name and i will, and I really don't think the rhetoric is that bad, since most of it is things that are already happening. It is biased, but not as much as some people would like.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Click the 'URL' button, paste the link address into the popup, press enter, type the short name, press enter again.
Posted by camus (Member # 8052) on :
John 6:15 - When Jesus therefore perceived that they would come and take him by force, to make him a king, he departed again into a mountain himself alone.
John 18:36 - Jesus said, "My kingdom is not of this world. If it were, my servants would fight...But now my kingdom is from another place."
Jesus and his disciples remained neutral from politics and government affairs. If Christianity would have respected and imitated that stance, they would not have fought and killed fellow believers in war. Religion, if following the example of Jesus, is to remain completely separate from politics.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
>>Religion, if following the example of Jesus, is to remain completely separate from politics.
Not exactly. Insomuch as politics mingles with morality, religions have an obligation to put their feet in. 'Render unto Caesar what is Caesar's,' etc.
[ July 26, 2005, 07:04 AM: Message edited by: Scott R ]
Posted by Corwin (Member # 5705) on :
Angio, you could use tinyurl (Edit:) in combination with what KoM said.
[ July 26, 2005, 07:58 AM: Message edited by: Corwin ]
Posted by camus (Member # 8052) on :
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: >>Religion, if following the example of Jesus, is to remain completely separate from politics.
Not exactly. Insomuch as politics mingles with morality, religions have an obligation to put their feet in. 'Render unto Caesar what is Caesar's,' etc.
...but God's things to God." Means that we are subjects to an earthly government but recognize that God's rulership is absolute. If Jesus felt that religion had a place in politics, he or his disciples would have done so.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
>>If Jesus felt that religion had a place in politics, he or his disciples would have done so.
We have different interpretations of what Jesus' example means for his followers. Are you asserting that just because Jesus never tried to be a scribe, lawyer, pharisee, tax collector, etc., that his followers should avoid service in the government as well?
Similarly, one could assert that since we have no record of Jesus' marriage, neither should his followers marry.
By the same token, recall that Jesus came to fulfill the Mosaic law-- his political connection to Jewish law was intimate.
Also, consider his treatment of the woman taken in adultery-- here is the ultimate expression of politics mingling with morality. Roman law decreed that only the Romans could enforce the death penalty; Jewish law demanded the woman's life. Laying aside the fact that the whole scenario was a trap for Jesus, he still took a political stance by NOT stoning her.
Also-- the healing of the Gentile woman, the healing of the lepers (and his admonition that they go to a priest to be declared clean); all these acts had political, social, and theological ramifications.
Finally, keep in mind that Jesus was the 'Son of David,' a title never contested by his opponents, and one he never revoked. (I recognize that there were probably LOTS of men who could fit the title; nontheless, we don't have any extravagantly popular religions devoted to them. ) The title is both geneological, because Jesus could trace his mother's line back to King David, and his adopted father's line to the same source; it was also a political title, marking Jesus as having links to Jewish royalty.
Angio, you've GOT to shorten that link.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
quote:If Jesus felt that religion had a place in politics, he or his disciples would have done so.
In an era when Rome was proclaiming itself as Lord of the world, when coins were minted declaring Caesar Augustus as the son of [a] god, the claim “Jesus is Lord” was profoundly political.
Posted by camus (Member # 8052) on :
quote:Are you asserting that just because Jesus never tried to be a scribe, lawyer, pharisee, tax collector, etc., that his followers should avoid service in the government as well?
My assertion is based on the idea that Jesus supports a Divine government that extends beyond national borders and which does not rely on political entities on the earth. I believe his example, in correspondence with his words quoted above, indicate that even though he could have accomplished a great deal by holding an earthly political office, he chose instead to recognize that his rulership was heavenly, not an earthly government.
Granted, this is only my interpretation, so I undertand if we differ in opinions. My point is that I believe that Church and State powers should remain separate. From my perspective here in America, political leaders should not promote a certain religion and religious leaders should not promote certain governments or nations, unless of course your religion has its own nation.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: I spoke inexactly; I should have said, 'cost them more than an hour's socialising is worth.' Also, people tend not to notice that kind of cost; if even a small sum of money was involved, I suspect we'd see a right drastic drop.
And BB, I suggest you visit a church in Norway on an average Sunday, count the people there, and divide by the size of the community. You might get some interesting information on how religions die, and repression has nothing to do with it.
I dont need to go to Norway to know how apathy kills churches. If there is one thing I have learned from history its oppression is not as effective as apathy. If the people themselves just stop caring that is FAR more effective then some foreign group of people trying to force you them into not going to say church.
Not to add fuel to your arguement but even counting people at church isnt the best indicator as many go to church out of habit or fear of being rejected by the rest of society. Some go because their entire family goes. These people MIGHT change down the road and understand why church is important, but most of them will not, and might as well not count, as they dont even think about religion during the rest of the week.
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Hail]](graemlins/hail.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
![[No No]](graemlins/nono.gif)
![[Hat]](graemlins/hat.gif)
![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
![[Embarrassed]](redface.gif)
![[Cool]](cool.gif)
![[Mad]](mad.gif)
![[Kiss]](graemlins/kiss.gif)
![[Party]](graemlins/party.gif)
![[Wall Bash]](graemlins/wallbash.gif)
![[Evil]](graemlins/evil.gif)
) conclusion.