2 of 32
2
Atheist or Agnostic?
Posted: 11 April 2006 03:25 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 16 ]
Administrator
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  15401
Joined  2006-02-14

[quote author=“Jayhox”]Onc could hypothetically believe God exists and not believe “in” God.  I believe David Hasselhof exists, but I don’t particularly believe in him!

On the other hand, many if not most atheists would answer “I don’t know” if God exists (absence of evidence does not equal evidence of absence) while not believing in God.

Hi Jay,

OK, by “belief in God” you mean something like “allegiance to God”, if I understand correctly. The problem is that this is not a standard usage of “belief in”. People say “I believe in ghosts”. They don’t mean “I have allegiance to ghosts”, what they mean is “I believe ghosts exist”. So I think we should be careful with this sort of terminology.

One further problem is that by most theistic conventions, if God exists, he is the sort of person who commands allegiance ... that is, he is perfectly ethically good, all powerful, creator of all that exists, and so forth. So it’s not precisely the same sort of thing as David Hasselhof!

I can’t speak for most atheists, but I imagine that they believe as I do that God does not exist. The world is just not the sort of place that could have been created by such an ethical perfectionist.

And the principle that “absence of evidence does not equal evidence of absence” is a terrible one except in the narrowest logical sense. There is an absence of evidence of Easter Bunnies, Tooth Fairies, gnomes, elves, leprechauns, Santa Clauses, and so on endlessly. Does that mean that we should suspend our disbelief in such things? Clearly not. I would suggest a counter-principle that “belief should follow the preponderance of evidence”. That is, since we lack evidence for Easter Bunnies, Tooth Fairies, God, and so forth, therefore we should believe that they don’t exist, at least provisionally.

Of course, all belief is provisional on the most current state of the evidence. Who knows? Perhaps tomorrow new research will discover a race of leprechauns living at the ends of rainbows. I wouldn’t lay money on it, but anything is possible ...

LOL

 Signature 

Doug

-:- -:—:- -:—:- -:—:- -:—:- -:—:-

El sueño de la razón produce monstruos

Profile
 
 
Posted: 18 April 2006 01:59 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 17 ]
Jr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  81
Joined  2006-04-08

Hi Doug,

I think we actually agree, albeit we are looking at the question from a slightly different vantage point.

I guess the way I interpret those questions is as follows:

-Does God exist?  I.E., is there a creator of the universe outside of space and time (whether or not it’s the Judeo-Christian version of God)?  Is there an “Essence of Being” or “Ground of Being”, etc.?  It’s all drivel to me, and I don’t believe God exists in any form, but I really don’t know; in fact, I believe it’s impossible to know.

-Do you believe in God?  I.E. As you so eloquently put it, do I have an allegiance to God?  Do I believe in a personal and omnipotent God, the God of the Bible, etc, etc?  No I don’t.

Potato Potahto.

Does this make sense?

Profile
 
 
Posted: 19 April 2006 01:32 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 18 ]
Administrator
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  15401
Joined  2006-02-14
[quote author=“Jayhox”]-Does God exist?  I.E., is there a creator of the universe outside of space and time (whether or not it’s the Judeo-Christian version of God)?  Is there an “Essence of Being” or “Ground of Being”, etc.?  It’s all drivel to me, and I don’t believe God exists in any form, but I really don’t know; in fact, I believe it’s impossible to know.

Hi Jay,

You say that:

(1) You don’t believe that God exists, but

(2) You don’t know whether or not God exists, and think it may not be possible to know.

This is an odd pair. What do you mean by “know”? Standardly, to “know” X is to have a true, well-justified belief that X. So, I know that I am sitting in front of my computer now, because I have a true belief to that effect, well justified by my visual and tactile experience of the computer.

A skeptic may say that I could be dreaming ... fair enough, then my appearance of knowledge would be incorrect. But that doesn’t mean that in those cases where I am not dreaming I don’t know where I am and what I am doing! That would make a hash of how we use words like “know” in daily life.

So: you say that you don’t/can’t know if God exists. How is that any different from my case with the computer? If what you mean is you can’t prove logically that God exists, of course that’s true, but then I can’t prove logically that I am sitting in front of my computer, either.

So the case of the existence of God is exactly the same as any other belief we have. Since you don’t believe that God exists, you are an atheist, and if you are right about that (and your belief is justified, i.e. it has a rational basis) then ipso facto you know that God doesn’t exist.

[quote author=“Jayhox”]-Do you believe in God?  I.E. As you so eloquently put it, do I have an allegiance to God?  Do I believe in a personal and omnipotent God, the God of the Bible, etc, etc?  No I don’t.

Exactly so. Since you believe (and I would say you know) that God doesn’t exist, how can you have allegiance to him? Impossible.

Best,

 Signature 

Doug

-:- -:—:- -:—:- -:—:- -:—:- -:—:-

El sueño de la razón produce monstruos

Profile
 
 
Posted: 23 April 2006 12:44 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 19 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  508
Joined  2006-04-18

I am agnostic, not specifically because I don’t want to offend anyone, though that may have advantages in moving people to think rather than spout prerecorded dogma.

I am agnostic because I think it is more true to the roots of the scientific method most secular/humanist people are fond of. When considering a theory of everything it would be hubris to dismiss all of them because of a few very bad examples.

Since science believes we may only be able to see and describe as little as 5% of everything in the universe (dark matter & energy); While the singularity and its rapid expansion can explain the unfurling of space-time, the descriptions of it’s state before that time provide us no answers to the question of it’s origin; That not long ago Newtonian’s thought they had all the answers sewed up and then an obscure patent clerk turned science on it’s head; And the burgeoning life we have found recently at black smokers and the discovery of the coelacanth show us that we still have much to discover about our own planet let alone the origins of everything.

Science is wonderful, and our technology is rapidly improving everything for everybody. But it (and we) is really only in a stage of infancy. Taking such a big bite out of possible (maybe not probable) origins is not necessary or prudent on as grand a scale as the myriad explanations of a divine aspect to nature.

I think that one can be agnostic regarding an all-encompassing definition of the divine and extreme edges of nature. Doing so in now way allows for, or kowtows to a supernatural worldview, but rather admits that our understanding of the limits of nature is very poor and constantly in flux. 

To me atheism (strong or weak) can only be used to deny a specific definition of divinity. So to say I am atheistic about the god as presented by the Roman Catholic church is well and fine (provided that I have studied or trust the studies by others on the matter), but to say that there are no gods is an unscientific and irrational belief based on no less faith than claiming the miracle of creation in 7 days.

To say you disbelieve gods can be agnostic or soft atheist, it really just depends if you are open to exploring the idea further, or the case is closed. A position where the case is closed until someone else brings new relevant data is a weak atheistic view and could stifle scientific exploration into the matter.

Skeptical enquiry is an agnostic position. It is the suspension of judgment on a concept as a whole while scrutinizing and making a decision on each individual case.

But Bertrand Russell said all of this much more eloquently that I.

 

An atheist, like a Christian, holds that we can know whether or not there is a God. The Christian holds that we can know there is a God; the atheist, that we can know there is not. The Agnostic suspends judgment, saying that there are not sufficient grounds either for affirmation or for denial. At the same time, an Agnostic may hold that the existence of God, though not impossible, is very improbable; he may even hold it so improbable that it is not worth considering in practice. In that case, he is not far removed from atheism. His attitude may be that which a careful philosopher would have towards the gods of ancient Greece. If I were asked to prove that Zeus and Poseidon and Hera and the rest of the Olympians do not exist, I should be at a loss to find conclusive arguments. An Agnostic may think the Christian God as improbable as the Olympians; in that case, he is, for practical purposes, at one with the atheists…

...No sensible man, however agnostic, has “faith in reason alone.” Reason is concerned with matters of fact, some observed, some inferred. The question whether there is a future life and the question whether there is a God concern matters of fact, and the agnostic will hold that they should be investigated in the same way as the question, “Will there be an eclipse of the moon tomorrow?” But matters of fact alone are not sufficient to determine action, since they do not tell us what ends we ought to pursue. In the realm of ends, we need something other than reason. The agnostic will find his ends in his own heart and not in an external command. Let us take an illustration: Suppose you wish to travel by train from New York to Chicago; you will use reason to discover when the trains run, and a person who though that there was some faculty of insight or intuition enabling him to dispense with the timetable would be thought rather silly. But no timetable will tell him that it is wise, he will have to take account of further matters of fact; but behind all the matters of fact, there will be the ends that he thinks fitting to pursue, and these, for an agnostic as for other men, belong to a realm which is not that of reason, though it should be in no degree contrary to it. The realm I mean is that of emotion and feeling and desire.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 23 April 2006 02:56 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 20 ]
Moderator
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  363
Joined  2006-02-23

Atheism or Agnosticism, The discussion has gone off in a whole host of directions.

We need some definitions (and because I am such a stinky typist a spell checker) So here is a statement about the god we are referring to first and then some definitions.

Everyone speaking of god spoke only of the god of Abraham. In human history there have been lots of gods and there are lots of them now. the Hindu gods make great sense to Hindus and the deity posited by buddhists makes sense to them as a special overarching life force, the druze have their version we could go on. The Bopp Hale comet folks had theirs.

But this is a discussion of belief in the god of abraham so lets define him. He (it is for sure a He) is all powerful, he exists in eternity, he knows everything past present and future with what has been referred to as a single massive thought. His mind doesn’t change, because if it did he’d be no better than us. The use of the word thought for what this god has in his mind is probably the only way to present the concept but it is not a good way to do it. He acts in the temporal sphere himself (Moses etc.) through his son (Jesus) and the aspect of his being called the Holy Ghost. (A later Christian addition)

An atheist doesn’t believe in that or any other god that acts in the temporal sphere past present or future .

An agnostic doesn’t believe in that or any other god past or present but says further that he can’t know if there may be a being more powerful and different from us out there that does act somehow in the temporal sphere.

That ladies and gentlemen is the difference between atheism and agnosticism.

Angels on the Head of a pin. But we here are all secular humanists, WE DON’T BELIEVE IN A DEITY THAT AIDS US IN OUR LIFETIMES OR PUNISHES OR COMFORTS WHAT IS LEFT OF US WHEN WE’RE GONE. That’s what the secular word in our description means. We don’t run around screaming we’re atheists because it serves no worthwhile purpose and alienates those we most wish to communicate with. BUT we are Atheists.

Someone in this thread asked why we need to convince others of the correctness of our naturalistic view. To him I say read Sam Harris book, “The End of Faith”.
Jim

 Signature 

Jimmie Keyes
Tavernier, FL
http://secularhumanism.meetup.com/1/
Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter. (MLK Jr.)

Profile
 
 
Posted: 23 April 2006 06:01 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 21 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  508
Joined  2006-04-18

Oh, please call me Chris.

[quote author=“dougsmith”] The one god that I might be OK with is the sort of “pantheist” god that simply identifies god with the physical universe. If that’s what you mean by god, then I am a believer. But nothing interesting follows from that sort of god in a religious sense.

Yes I agree that those god-as-part-of-nature concepts are and should be a-religious. I would say that thus far I am a-religious (and have dipped below the surface of many), atheistic about supernatural gods, ( like this one   )  more so the more I study any given one, and agnostic about a divine theory of everything and its origins.

I also think that CFI has approached all it’s study (not just supernatural) with an open minded & honest disposition of inquiry, not a predisposition to a desired outcome, which: A. is why they are so admired by me, and B. why I feel their approach to each study begins as agnostic rather than atheistic (though the two are only a quanta apart).

[quote author=“jimmiekeyes”]
Everyone speaking of god spoke only of the god of Abraham.

Well it may have seemed so, but I wasn’t, and I don’t believe we should limit it to that god. It’s a big broad world and we have to make headway all over it. Sure the god of Abraham is getting most of the press because of all the violence but you would not believe the amount of new age quackery and its own brand of oppression growing here in the east.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 23 April 2006 06:11 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 22 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  508
Joined  2006-04-18

Lately I have also been considering something I was planning to post to the skepticality board, but since its 1am my time and I’m about ready for bed I’ll drop it here.

It seems to me that before C.E. the entire definition of god was regularly refreshed. The concept grew and adopted new features to remain practical, or when a particular god-concept was shown to be impractical it was either completely or in part, usurped by a new god.

I find it interesting that this evolution of the definition of god (meme?) has stagnated. It seems that it is caught between several unforgiving forces (a few gods and the scientific method). Interesting times"but then I imagine people of every era said so.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 23 April 2006 07:21 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 23 ]
Administrator
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  15401
Joined  2006-02-14

[quote author=“cgallaga”]It seems to me that before C.E. the entire definition of god was regularly refreshed. The concept grew and adopted new features to remain practical, or when a particular god-concept was shown to be impractical it was either completely or in part, usurped by a new god.

I find it interesting that this evolution of the definition of god (meme?) has stagnated. It seems that it is caught between several unforgiving forces (a few gods and the scientific method). Interesting times"but then I imagine people of every era said so.

Hello Chris,

How do you mean that “the entire definition of god was regularly refreshed”? It is true that that was a time of great religious ferment ... but I would not say that it was any better than what we have nowadays: the ages BCE were absolutely filled with superstition, religious hatreds (usually subsumed by nationalist wars), and of course the total lack of any sort of scientific method.

... Unless you count the handful of Greeks that started the whole thing off. But that was a needle in a haystack.

Also not sure what you mean by the notion of god having “stagnated” recently. It’s true that the religions “of the book” have a very rough standard view of god—the one I noted above. But is that a bad thing? At least there is clarity.

What is the other option if we are to break out of stagnation? It seems to me the other option is new agey woo-woo stuff about “forces” and “powers” and “deities”; new sorts of polytheism; squishy unclarity on religious issues. Yes, that is another option, but I don’t really see it’s obviously a better one. After all, the Hindus and ancient Greeks were perfectly capable of fighting wars for their polytheistic gods ...

 Signature 

Doug

-:- -:—:- -:—:- -:—:- -:—:- -:—:-

El sueño de la razón produce monstruos

Profile
 
 
Posted: 23 April 2006 11:19 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 24 ]
Jr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  81
Joined  2006-04-08

Hi Doug,

I don’t have much time, but I’ll post a quick example of our earlier discussion re: knowlege vs. belief.  I always enjoy your comments even though they actually make me have to think.  :wink:

Example 1

Let’s say I was a cosmologist who for years have developed and put forth a comprehensive theory of infinite universes (ie multiverse), in which we are one tiny bubble.  Theoretically it’s solid; the math works out and it has met with the approval of my peers, etc.  I could say I believe that we are one universe in the multiverse, but do I know it?  Nope, not until there’s concrete proof.

Example 2

I am paleontologist who found the Tiktaalik roseae fossil, a “missing link” between water and land dwelling creatures.  I believe there is a more advanced fossil with even more land adaptation.  This isn’t a hope or a wish, it’s based on probablities due to information I have.  Do I know there’s such a creature?  Nope, not until you dig one up and plunk it down in front of me (figuratively speaking).

So, that’s my distinction.  Belief is “tentative knowlege”, based on likelihood and probability.  Knowing is certainty (ignoring esoteric arguments about what we can actually “know”), demostrable proof.

Hope this clarifies my belief about what I believe I know.  I have faith that you know what I believe I know.

Jayhox

Profile
 
 
Posted: 23 April 2006 12:04 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 25 ]
Administrator
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  15401
Joined  2006-02-14

[quote author=“Jayhox”]Belief is “tentative knowlege”, based on likelihood and probability.  Knowing is certainty (ignoring esoteric arguments about what we can actually “know”), demostrable proof.

Hope this clarifies my belief about what I believe I know.  I have faith that you know what I believe I know.

smile

Hi Jay and thanks for your comments.

What you are distinguishing is strong belief from weak belief, which is what we do when oddsmaking.

We may ask, “What is belief?” “What is it to believe something?” One way we can actually measure belief is by oddsmaking and betting.

If you say “I believe X”, I can gauge whether this is really true (and to what extent) by asking “OK, and then what money would you put on X?” or “What odds would you put on X?” That’s because clearly we don’t believe everything with the same confidence, as you note in your two examples.

I believe strongly that Tony Blair is the PM in England; I’m pretty sure of the name of the head of the French gov’t, less so of Germany ... these can be measured in degrees.

Oddsmakers and bookies do this when they ask for the “spread” in a game. How strong is your belief that the Yankees will win the World Series this year? You can actually put bets on this and win if you’re right.

But strong belief is different from knowledge. We can say “I strongly believed X, but I was wrong.” But it seems very odd to say “I knew X, but I was wrong.” (Notice that you can say, “I thought I knew X but I was wrong.”)

That’s because knowledge involves truth. In order to know something, it has to be true.

The standard philosophical definition of knowledge, again is this:

Knowledge is true, justified belief.

If you are interested we can get into why the “justified” is added here.

Best,

 Signature 

Doug

-:- -:—:- -:—:- -:—:- -:—:- -:—:-

El sueño de la razón produce monstruos

Profile
 
 
Posted: 23 April 2006 03:32 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 26 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  508
Joined  2006-04-18

[quote author=“dougsmith”]
How do you mean that “the entire definition of god was regularly refreshed”?

Also not sure what you mean by the notion of god having “stagnated” recently. It’s true that the religions “of the book” have a very rough standard view of god—the one I noted above. But is that a bad thing? At least there is clarity.

Paraphrasing Karen Armstrong in “A History of God” and perhaps oddly Elain Pagels in the “Origin of Satan”, we find that god’s (and their evil sidekicks) evolved to answer the practical needs of the faithful. The god had to “work” for the believers. Even during the enlightenment period the minds of the day began approaching metaphysics in a pantheistic or deistic fashion, further evolving the meme to meet the practical needs (in this case reduce it’s practical effect on science).

And yet now, with the scientific method “working” so well, even for non-believers, we come to an impasse: The conflict between supernatural and natural. And on the one hand the dogma of the true believer will not allow them to refresh their belief with notions of science, and on the other hand secular humanism has not yet been successful in supplanting or incorporating the religious into it’s body.

I think you hit on a possible part of the reason: The written word. It seems to me that the printing press has given these gods more permanence. In the past a believer would only have the vapid word of another to defend, and it seems like a verbal tradition would be easier to supplant. While now the believers (and their teachers) have a book to bang. (Johnny Standley had it right: “It’s in the book!”).

I also think that scientific knowledge is evolving so rapidly that: 1. The knowledge minded are prone to some hubris (but who isn’t). 2. The spread of information is slower than the progress and then often faulty or misleading. 3. The mass of men are busy leading their lives of quiet desperation. They go on believing (kinda-sorta) what their kin always have and don’t think too much about it (I just realized I’m talking about my mother here) They have no time or attention for high minded books and documentary’s.

That’s what I am getting at and I am not saying anything could or should be different. Secular Humanism is a very new umbrella and time will tell how well it unfolds to encompass a society of human’s who have and exchange a naturalistic world view, and weather that society will come to be the dominant and enlightened world view.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 23 April 2006 03:57 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 27 ]
Administrator
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  15401
Joined  2006-02-14

[quote author=“cgallaga”]And yet now, with the scientific method “working” so well, even for non-believers, we come to an impasse: The conflict between supernatural and natural. And on the one hand the dogma of the true believer will not allow them to refresh their belief with notions of science, and on the other hand secular humanism has not yet been successful in supplanting or incorporating the religious into it’s body.

Hi Chris,

One difficulty here with science “refreshing” religious dogma is that, at base, science is directly opposed to such dogma. That is, science persists in gathering knowledge by one manner (experiment, reason, etc.), and religious dogma uses another (“revelation”).

It’s not clear how science could refresh religious dogma, except by basically exterminating it to a degree: by pushing god farther and farther off the stage. For example, knowledge of geology and Darwinian evolution in the 19th c. pushed god’s creative influence back to the creation of life (at the latest!) a couple of billion years ago.

The problem is that science explains so much that there is no further need for the mythology of gods and spirits that were supposed to explain natural phenomena back in the darker ages.

[quote author=“cgallaga”]The mass of men are busy leading their lives of quiet desperation. They go on believing (kinda-sorta) what their kin always have and don’t think too much about it (I just realized I’m talking about my mother here) They have no time or attention for high minded books and documentary’s.

That’s what I am getting at and I am not saying anything could or should be different. Secular Humanism is a very new umbrella and time will tell how well it unfolds to encompass a society of human’s who have and exchange a naturalistic world view, and weather that society will come to be the dominant and enlightened world view.

Yes I think you are right here ... people join religions for social reasons (because their kin is religious, or their community, etc.). And in that circumstance it is difficult to expect them to shed these beliefs for secular humanism that is quite foreign and not held by anyone they know.

But hey, got to start somewhere you know. At least it has the virtue of being true and rationally defensible.

:wink:

 Signature 

Doug

-:- -:—:- -:—:- -:—:- -:—:- -:—:-

El sueño de la razón produce monstruos

Profile
 
 
Posted: 26 April 2006 12:22 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 28 ]
Jr. Member
Rank
Total Posts:  25
Joined  2006-04-23

Re: Atheist or Agnostic?

[quote author=“Bob”]Doug wrote:
“Is God a sort of “separate case” here? Why do we see so many people willing to say they are agnostics when they claim that all evidence is against there being a God? I don’t get it.

My guess is that the word “atheist” just has such a bad connotation in our culture that many people who would otherwise be normal atheists just shy away from the term.”

Doug,
That’s a good guess.
Bob

Why do we have call ourselves “Not believing in a god”.  I think it should be the other way around.  If you want to believe in a god, fine (well, not really, but…) call yourself a “Theist”, plus whatever subflavour of whatever flavour of superstition you’ve chosen. 

I’m just a person, though I don’t mind the term Rationalist.  That’s positive.  The “A-” prefix is negative.  We are not, Not NOT negative.

Like the whole left-handed equating with “Sinister”.

Comedian and SNL alumni A. Whitney Brown said something like, “I’m an atheist…but I don’t like defining myself as disbelieving in something that doesn’t exist.”

Profile
 
 
Posted: 26 April 2006 12:37 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 29 ]
Administrator
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  15401
Joined  2006-02-14

Re: Atheist or Agnostic?

[quote author=“CanadianAntiTheist”]Why do we have call ourselves “Not believing in a god”.  I think it should be the other way around.  If you want to believe in a god, fine (well, not really, but…) call yourself a “Theist”, plus whatever subflavour of whatever flavour of superstition you’ve chosen. 

I’m just a person, though I don’t mind the term Rationalist.  That’s positive.  The “A-” prefix is negative.  We are not, Not NOT negative.

Like the whole left-handed equating with “Sinister”.

Comedian and SNL alumni A. Whitney Brown said something like, “I’m an atheist…but I don’t like defining myself as disbelieving in something that doesn’t exist.”

Excellent, certainly. I would never define myself as an atheist ... it isn’t who I am in any important way. My point rather was to tease out the difference between atheism and agnosticism. There are a lot of people who seem to be clearly atheist (= not believing in God) but who nevertheless call themselves “agnostic”. I think we should skip the squeamishness and just call a spade a spade. Here it’s rather like the gay community accepting the word “queer” ... take the stigmatism away from it.

Now, there is a second issue of whether it is good “marketing” to define our position as a negative one ... that’s why some have taken to names like “freethinker”, “secular humanist”, etc. Which would you suggest?

 Signature 

Doug

-:- -:—:- -:—:- -:—:- -:—:- -:—:-

El sueño de la razón produce monstruos

Profile
 
 
Posted: 26 April 2006 12:50 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 30 ]
Jr. Member
Rank
Total Posts:  25
Joined  2006-04-23

[quote author=“dougsmith”]
OK, by “belief in God” you mean something like “allegiance to God”, if I understand correctly. The problem is that this is not a standard usage of “belief in”. People say “I believe in ghosts”. They don’t mean “I have allegiance to ghosts”, what they mean is “I believe ghosts exist”. So I think we should be careful with this sort of terminology.

One further problem is that by most theistic conventions, if God exists, he is the sort of person who commands allegiance ... that is, he is perfectly ethically good, all powerful, creator of all that exists, and so forth. So it’s not precisely the same sort of thing as David Hasselhof!

Hi Doug.  Really enjoying this thread—and your cogent comments in particular.

What made me want to comment was the “all powerful” juxataposed with “perfectly good”.  Although if there IS a FSM out there He would, of course, be inscrutable to us, why do we assume He’d be perfectly good?

Sure, as the AllPowerful, whatever He defines as good would pretty well have to be accepted.  But if “power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely”, well…  Liked your term “Omnicompetent” (that was yours, wasn’t it?).  How about adding Omnicorrupt?

Re someone’s earlier comment: “I believe anything Doug tells me to”
as well as your(?) thing that churches/Religion provide for social/political needs/desires more than spiritual ones…

I agree about the social (case in point Dawkins visit to the megachurch that makes itself the hub of all social activity)

I agree about the political.  Jefferson’s(?) quote “the cleric always sides with the tyrant and gets protection and reward in return” (my paraphrase).  Plus, of course, the politician mouthing religious platitudes in order to get the support of those who follow that faith.  He believes what I do, so
- he’s a good guy and, as he becomes powerful, it validates me ( and might even get me specific or at least general material benefit)
- when in office, he’ll advance our agenda

Religion, as wielded, is a political instrument.

Religion, as sought after, also includes the desire many have to fill their spiritual void.

I can’t speak for most atheists,

I’d say you’re doing a pretty good job here.

but I imagine that they believe as I do that God does not exist. The world is just not the sort of place that could have been created by such an ethical perfectionist.

And the principle that “absence of evidence does not equal evidence of absence” is a terrible one except in the narrowest logical sense. There is an absence of evidence of Easter Bunnies, Tooth Fairies, gnomes, elves, leprechauns, Santa Clauses, and so on endlessly. Does that mean that we should suspend our disbelief in such things? Clearly not. I would suggest a counter-principle that “belief should follow the preponderance of evidence”. That is, since we lack evidence for Easter Bunnies, Tooth Fairies, God, and so forth, therefore we should believe that they don’t exist, at least provisionally.

Of course, all belief is provisional on the most current state of the evidence. Who knows? Perhaps tomorrow new research will discover a race of leprechauns living at the ends of rainbows. I wouldn’t lay money on it, but anything is possible ...

LOL

Well said.  Also, the “well it’s just impossible to say, really” is just kinda wishy washy.  It’s not taking a stand.  And when you don’t take a stand, those who do…might end up standing on YOU.

Keep up the good words!


= = =

Over 100,000 weeks on the NYT Bestseller List for Fiction: The Holey Bible.
(and still smellin’...er, sellin’)

Profile
 
 
   
2 of 32
2