So in other words, your conception of the universe isn't based on reason, but on putting your faith in something that can't be proved.Originally Posted by NikolaiI
Same as a Theist. I rest my case.
So in other words, your conception of the universe isn't based on reason, but on putting your faith in something that can't be proved.
Same as a Theist. I rest my case.
You still do the same mistake - NikolaiI is asking you what is the problem with that assumption not that he holds it as to be true.
Anyways, I would like to disagree, big bang or abiogenis can not be in the same plate as the spaguetti monster because they are harder to be accepted than the our tastefull friends, since scientific hypothesis demand proving and spaguettis just the trust of the glutton.
I'd hate to put words into his mouth, but he has to hold something to be true if he's an atheist. Otherwise, he's an agnostic: if somebody's position is "I don't know what's true and I don't care" then that is agnosticism, my friend. (Apathetic agnosticism, shall we call it? but agnosticism all the same.)
Let's be absolutely clear about this. Atheist belief, at its very lowest level, must at least say, even if it says nothing else, "I don't know or care how the universe came to exist, but I do know that god didn't create it, because he doesn't exist." In other words, even at its most reductive form, Atheism is a statement of faith (or belief, or irrational supposition, or whatever you want to call it), because if nothing else it is a statement that there is no god - an assertion that can't be proved.
Exactly right: scientific hypothesis does demand proving, and that's precisely my point. Seeing as it is impossible to prove the cause of the big bang [note: I'm not talking about the big bang itself] or, if you like, the cause of that cause, or the cause of that cause, or the cause of that cause, ad infinitum, it has as much scientific, rational worth as believing that the Giant Flying Spaghetti Monster started the big bang.
All this talk of abiogenesis confused the issue, because we were arguing that in relation to something else - i. e. it was being held up as an example of something that can't be proved now but "is expected to be proved" in the future, when that is patently daft; we don't know what will be proved in the future, nor what will be disproved, so what value does it have as a debating tactic?
Religious claims are strikingly bolder than their philosophical counterparts. Philosophy is very often subjected to scientific inquiry, and the majority doesn't need to be verified this way. In fact, I can't think of a single philosopher who relies on science to validate his work. If you can think of one then feel free to let us know.
Christianity does not have a monopoly on religion. Christianity does not have a monopoly on religion. Christianity does not have a monopoly on religion...No - not "effects" of religion - that's inaccurate use of language; religion doesn't cause these things to happen or exist. Much of blp's post paragraph that you're commenting on consists of a series of begged questions. The assumption is being made from the beginning that religion "threatens" damnation (it doesn't - God informs us of the consequences of abandoning Him); it assumes that all war is supported by religion - not true; it assumes that religion fosters ignorance - when in reality that is part of what is currently the issue at hand, and we are told by scriptures to investigate and be knowledgable - we are not to willingly be "ignorant" if we have access to knowledge. Same for the "sexual repression" - not all religions push this, and many simply argue for sexual discipline. There's a difference.
I see that Christianity is a large enough part of your life so that you don't feel it necessary to consider others in what blp originally wrote. Might I also mention the Crusades, Jihad, depriving homosexuals of marriage, lack of scientific study before the scientific revolution, the Inquisition, Indulgences, 9/11, etc. These were all extrapolated from religious text and has resulted quite poorly for even believers, if I remember properly
There is nothing "beyond" human logic. Logic is a tool used to examine words and numbers, and if you intend on using these, you're fair game. I repeat: Logic is used to examine words, not God.But the God who drives many religions is a figure that exists beyond human logic
I'm not sure how you intend this but those who hallucinate that they are e.g. Napoleon or Joan of Arc are a) nevertheless human and b) beyond human (or at least the norm of) logic.
That is they are beyond that but their hallucinations are not. The consensus of humanity is that both Napoleon and Joan died a considerable number of years ago. A possibly smaller consensus would agree that there has been no manifestation of God's existence outside of or since the very old, questionable books that assert it.
Why do you say that I at least have to hold something to be true? Seems a bit strange. Of course I believe in things.
Anyway, a few reasons for atheism. No sign of God, no sign of immortal soul, and every sign that humans are impermanent. Why would I believe that there is eternal life? Someone would say I am closed to the idea, and then it just gets stupid.
The universe has been here long before there was any mention of God.
On some other Earth-like planet, intelligent life evolves and eventually creates religion. Does God visit them and reveal another form of Christianity?
Some reasons for atheism.
Last edited by NikolaiI; 07-28-2007 at 03:38 PM.
Exactly. Read the discussion again. The point all along was that atheism and theism are united in the fact that they are both, at the most brute, basic level, forms of belief.
[With respect, a lot of those things aren't really reasons for atheism. That the universe was here before mention of God, and that intelligent life might exist elsewhere, have no bearing on the matter - at worst, all they are are reasons not to believe in a strict interpretation of Christianity, which is only the tiniest sliver of theistic belief.
Your first paragraph here perhaps is a reason for atheism, but again - and this is my point all along - it's really just a statement of faith (negative faith, if you will).
I have always thought of imagination as the hominid "what if" tool. It is (I think) what enabled primate alliance creation and social practices to become human culture. We have an extended capacity to story possible outcomes and meanings of events. "What if we all run straight at the giraffe? Will he fall down? What if we circle the giraffe? Will we be able to kill him before he kicks us to death? What if we stampede him over some edge so that he falls and breaks his legs? OH! That will work." Imagination works for us. But of course once achieved a new talent has the habit of taking over other areas of behavior. So our social primate need to adore/fear the troop head dude and dudette got a dose of imagination as well. "What if the big guy is really a BIG GUY?" and hence religion was born.MaryLupin, thank you for noticing and commenting my post.
Anyway, I don't think that imagination has something to do with believing in God. Faith is blind belief (one might say).
I imagine dragons, fairies and different worlds that ours, but that is something that my brain is capable of understanding it (because I want to, because I created it and no one is forcing there existence, no one is claiming that they will save my soul if I do something wrong).
There is no reason necessary for imagination, but that doesn't mean that I will worship any of it, on any day of the week.
What I find most fascinating about the operation of imagination is that the human body/mind cannot really tell the difference between an imaginary lemon and a real lemon. The mouth salivates just the same. The consequences are that despite the fact that the original "BIG GUY" was just a storied-up "big guy" our bodies couldn't really tell the difference and we reacted with juiced up versions of adoration and fear.
Interrupt away! I adore "silly comments" even if they aren't silly at all.I am really sorry, I will not interrupt this fine discussion with my silly comments.
Please, carry on.
I've always found it rather exciting to remember that there is a difference between what we experience and what we think it means.
Nice comments. I particularly liked "The destination is the comfort." That was a very nice turn on the words used in the post to which you were reacting.
I've always found it rather exciting to remember that there is a difference between what we experience and what we think it means.
Main Entry: log·ic
Pronunciation: 'lä-jik
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English logik, from Anglo-French, from Latin logica, from Greek logikE, from feminine of logikos of reason, from logos reason -- more at LEGEND
1 a (1) : a science that deals with the principles and criteria of validity of inference and demonstration : the science of the formal principles of reasoning (2) : a branch or variety of logic <modal logic> <Boolean logic> (3) : a branch of semiotic; especially : SYNTACTICS (4) : the formal principles of a branch of knowledge b (1) : a particular mode of reasoning viewed as valid or faulty (2) : RELEVANCE, PROPRIETY c : interrelation or sequence of facts or events when seen as inevitable or predictable d : the arrangement of circuit elements (as in a computer) needed for computation; also : the circuits themselves
There is no "beyond" logic or reason. So long as statements are made of intelligible words or numbers, logic may be applied. Again, it's false to say that an entity, in this case God, can be outside the scope of logic. So long as a statement conveys an agreed upon idea, it is eligible for such analysis.
An even simpler way to think of it is that if you can form sentences about God, those sentences bear a semblance of logic, and to claim that God is beyond such investigation reduces further statements about God to nonsense. If God is beyond logic, then nothing can be known about him, and your sentence is meaningless to everyone, including yourself.
For theists the destination isn't the comfort, I don't think, so much as the idea that what you're doing here on this earth has a purpose.
For atheists, the comfort comes from knowing that everything boils down to science, logic and reason.
Both provide coherent worldviews for the believer, in other words. Same motivation, different way of dealing with it.
That's rather the point, I think. Statements that would appear nonsense are believed, because the point of religion is faith, and not reason. A simple enough concept. Why would faith exist, if the existence of god was proveable by recourse to logic?
As I've argued earlier, though, it doesn't do for atheists to arrogate for themselves the monopoly on logic and reason. For atheism itself is inherently illogical in that it takes as an axiom something (god doesn't exist) that it isn't logically possible to prove or disprove.
Well Sandra, thank you for the compliments. I am glad Red has your support and that you find comfort in what he believes and says. But to attempt to answer your questions...Mary,
Are u an atheist? Reading ur posts that is what I feel u r. But I should say that I support Red more than u. But I do admire u a lot and I mean it. Seriously (if u r atheist) u must be having enormous power to believe whatever scientists say. I find it very hard to believe it myself!! I feel that somewhere deep inside of u there is a belief that someone created this world. For if u believe the big bang theory and stuff seriously I must say u have A LOT OF FAITH!!
Suppose I take a watch and break it, put it in a bag and shake the bag for a million yrs. ( God knows whether I'll live that long!! But Still think abt. it!!) What is the possiblity of me getting the watch back as before? I don't think its possible! I guess even u would agree. Well anyway I know I have diverted u from ur initial topic on Marriage etc. But I think u should think abt what u have said. Dont u think having a pure and a clean partner is more acceptable?! I haven't used any Bible quotes nothing I have just put in my views.
If u did not like what I have said then I ask u to forgive me. Anyway U are a very smart person!!
God Bless You!!
I am an atheist in the sense that I "know" that the gods and goddesses that we humans have worshiped over the years of our ascent into "sapient" status are acts of wonder and marvel at what we began to perceive once consciousness/awareness emerged from the general field of social and environmental awareness in which all primates operate. If there is a non-corporeal aware entity inside the body of the universe I have no idea. Nor in fact care, primarily because if there is such a "creature" it is not really a "creature" in the sense that it is beyond human comprehension just as we would be beyond its ability to conceive of embodied entities. So in that sense I am an atheist.
The question of faith in science versus faith in god...faith in science comes from a familiarity with its methods, logic and empirical basis. That is, I have "faith" that the empirical methodology and logic can "reveal" certain truths. It is not that I have faith in Einstein, or A.H. Guth, or Stephen Hawking, or S.J. Gould, it is that I have "faith" in the methodology common to them all. This reliance on physical evidence, on proven predictability is what makes "faith" in science different that "faith" in god. Faith in god is something that must come without evidence. In fact, as the story of Job shows, faith must be maintained even when all evidence points to either no god at all or a kind of god not at all what was promised. If a scientist abandoned logic and his/her reliance on physical evidence and proven predictability then 1) s/he is no longer practicing science and 2) I would no longer have "faith" in his/her conclusions. In exactly the opposite way, all negative evidence does for many of the faithful in a religion, is make them shore up their personal "faith." It rarely seems to make them question the "rightness" of their belief. So even though English users use the same term "faith" to discuss a "faith" in science and a "faith" in god, they are really two quite different sets of behaviors.
Re: the broken watch...except in the case of chemistry and physics the fundamental elements of our universe have "behaviors" that make them act in certain ways and not in others. So oxygen will take heed when hydrogen or iron is about and pretty much ignore the existence of helium. So if you put a bunch of the members of the periodic table in a bag and shake it about for a million years then things will begin to happen. But not because I told it to or because some divine character spoke but because it is in the physical nature of iron and oxygen to react in certain ways under certain conditions.
Re: marriage and "pure and clean"...I would like to know what you mean by pure and clean. My take on it is that what is often meant is "without history" as was said of Princess Diana prior to her marriage to Charles. I can say no. I prefer people who have some real experience behind them. I prefer people who have lived a life of passion and commitment, who have lived life rather than saved themselves for something else. I tend to like people who have tested themselves against pain and joy, against adversity and plenty. It is only then that they (and I) can really know who they are.
There is nothing to forgive, Sandra. I appreciate our differences, your candid support of Red, and I appreciate the fact that you told me what you believe and asked for what I think.
I've always found it rather exciting to remember that there is a difference between what we experience and what we think it means.
I don't think that really accounts for it, given that religion's earliest stages of development weren't about "a big guy" - it was mostly to do with totem spirits and ancestor worship, in other words group-unifying mechanisms. Religion has all kinds of psycho-social benefits for humans, but I don't think that fulfilling the need to fear a big bad something-or-other is one of them.
Please read my response to Sandra in post 118 on the difference between varieties of "faith." There is an equivalent difference between the various meanings of "prediction."
Since "faith" in science is based on empirical evidence and logic, it would seem to suggest that a specific theory's proven success at prediction in the past might suggest that some future prediction (yet to be evaluated) would carry more evidentiary weight than a prediction of a miracle (say the second coming) that has been made many times in the past and failed each time.
Or are you suggesting that empirical evidence and logic are also acts of "faith?" And if so, which kind?
A "satisfying explanation?" What do you mean by this? Do you mean this as an emotional statement (like finding comfort in one's religion) or are you using it as an indicator of logical coherence?
I've always found it rather exciting to remember that there is a difference between what we experience and what we think it means.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
