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.
Posts: 1256 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
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?
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
The latter. Personal spiritual experiences are something else entirely; that's what Karl and Jacare have been talking about.
Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
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. Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
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?
Posts: 441 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
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?
posted
Actually, I would say that all other things being equal (that's a huge caveat, of course), they are roughly equally likely.
Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Angio, would you care to explain your interjection and head-banging as a response to my question to twinky?
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 1256 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 3826 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
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
Posts: 441 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 441 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
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!
Posts: 441 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
They are equally likely (or equally unlikely). That isn't a basis for dismissing belief in god.
Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 4548 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 15 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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?
Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 441 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
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?
Posts: 1256 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
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. Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 15 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.)
Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 1256 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 441 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
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?
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 1947 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged |
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?
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 1256 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
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?!
Posts: 4519 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 1256 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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?
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wall Bash]](graemlins/wallbash.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
