Beliefs, Religion and Faith.

[SirParagon]

Then why is it a necessary comparison? That's common sense. Either way, it still depends on how belief is defined. 'I have faith it will rain tomorrow' is not the same as '(I believe) It will rain tomorrow'

 

Because I was explaining to someone else that the position of atheism is more than just a lack of belief.

 

Indeed, Atheism is based on critical thinking.

 

You missed the point, one cannot claim to see or visually describe what is invisible. Assumptions whether something may exist without evidence does not bring legitimacy to an argument, it's a waste of everyone's time. Granted an invisible dragon is still more plausible than a god or greater power.

 

I don't think I missed the point - I simply chose not to respond because the semantic error makes it impossible to address your point if we don't even have a shared understanding of what "agnosticism" denotes. Agnosticism makes no claims aside from the fact that we have no means of discerning the truth. If you want to argue that agnosticism does make claims about invisible objects existing, then you would have to prove that there really is evidence for/against the existence of god out there.

 

Of course there is no legitimacy to an argument with no backing. In fact, that's exactly what I stated: Invisible dragons shouldn't be taken seriously, but neither should the assertion that there can be no such thing because there is no empirical evidence for this claim.

 

The notion that our minds are incapable of understanding the origin of the universe is pure assumption, why can't we understand? because we don't understand it now? Why is it rational to hold onto the idea of god when almost everything that used to appear mystical to us has been explained by science?

 

Every single interpretation of god can be disputed. My prior argument applies to any god, I was not cherry-picking a particular religion, the qualities common to all gods define a god. It is also important to realize that every step humanity takes toward science is a step away from intelligent design. People should not be held back by such an archaic concept.

 

Next analyse the word 'god', defined as an immaterial intelligent omnipotence.

 

Conceptions of God. Granted, you were addressing the most common illustrations of "god", but as you can see in the link, there is no mutual agreement that every single religious group goes by when it comes to the qualities of "god", aside from them all proposing divinity... to a million different figureheads.

 

There's an easier way of explaining this. If John Brown's Wikipedia entry claims that he is a famous poet who grew up in New York, and you find out it was all a sham and that John is actually a famous painter, does this prove that John Brown doesn't exist, or does it simply suggest someone was wrong about him?

 

"1. as a powerful, human-like, supernatural being, or as the deification of an esoteric, mystical or philosophical category":

 

Human-like? Consciousness cannot exist without matter or supernaturally project itself. This is an egocentric fairytale.

 

"2. the Ultimate, the summum bonum, the Absolute Infinite, the Transcendent, or Existence or Being itself:"

 

Where and how would such a being exist? Another dimension? You cannot ascribe attributes to something which we cannot observe or interact with. Why is it even necessary to create an infinitely generalized entity and slap an 'existence' label over it, what purpose does it serve? All purpose? Complexity this, complexity that.

 

"3. the ground of being, the monistic substrate, that which we cannot understand, etc:"

 

We cannot understand? That would make everything in the universe that we do understand an illusion and there is no rational reason to believe so. If we cannot comprehend the ground of being then what is being?.

 

Evolution was not intelligently designed any more than an interesting eroded rock formation. It occurs through the gradual transference of mutation across many generations. This genetic imperfection is contradictory to the notion of intelligent design. Advantageous mutations lead to survival and reproduction, bad mutations lead to premature death (otherwise known as natural selection). Such a process would not occur if all lifeforms were innately perfect. Abiogenesis is definitely baffling, but jumping straight to god in as an explanation has never been the true solution to any mystery - It's just lazy philosophy. 'God did it' is exactly the same as 'it was magic'. Somebody tell me why it's logical to believe in supernatural exceptions to the rule of reality.

 

Correct me if I'm mistaken here, but are you saying your definition of complex is something that takes a lot of time to form? Isn't that rather subjective and relative? I think "complex" has an opinionated ring to it, which is why I'm confused about your statement, "Complexity implies evolution." Heck, anything becomes complex once you look into it deep enough.

 

Complexity is defined through the comparison of functionality and structure. E.g. A fly is going to look millions of times more complex than a bacteria cell. Clearly a being capable of creating and maintaining a universe is going to be immeasurably complex. At no point in natural history did complexity arise from nowhere, just as matter cannot spontaneously pop into existence. This isn't unique to lifeforms - look at the sun, formed from a cloud of dust and gas, it was never immediately a star. Using god to explain origin cannot be a solution because then you have to explain god's origin, yet the idea of god having an origin contradicts what it is to be a god. Universal origin is truly mind-blowing, although most people seem to be willing to accept the Big Bang and be done with it. Given the evidence, a Big Bang probably did occur, but I refuse to believe that was the start.

 

Quantum physics eh? Personally I consider Schrödinger to be talking out of his ass, like most quantum physicists. We know for a fact that cats exist, dead or alive - that immediately rules out comparison with a deity. There can only be a single absolute truth concerning the state of this cat, it must be either dead or alive, there is no in-between or lack of state. Opposites are a fairly basic concept.

 

There can only be a single absolute truth concerning the state of god's existence: fact or fiction. What other possibilities are out there?

 

correct

 

Let's make the example more relevant to this argument. Say you're locked and chained inside a pitch-black room, there may exist a box outside this room, that box could contain anything of any state. Does that mean there is a possibility that the box contains a square circle?

 

No, because square =/= circle, unless you modified the constituents of these terms (a "circle" is now any shape with four equal sides) The word circle is simply our means of referencing a concept, you cannot change the concept by changing the word.

 

correct

 

(If these two conclusions can be accepted, why support agnosticism?)

 

---

 

All in all, I do take pleasure in discussing these abstract concepts with someone else who likes to challenge the most generally-accepted epistemological arguments instead of reiterating what they heard someone else say in a Youtube video. Maybe we'll actually get somewhere. :-P

 

I too enjoy this discussion.

[Assume Nothing]

Very interesting discussion. I shouldn't interfere with it >.>, the use of language here is a little beyond my scope.

 

What do you guys make of the idea that there may be a greater being, but they're either: not God, or a deity that doesn't concern us?

[obfuscator]

Very interesting discussion. I shouldn't interfere with it >.>, the use of language here is a little beyond my scope.

 

What do you guys make of the idea that there may be a greater being, but they're either: not God, or a deity that doesn't concern us?

If there is a greater being that created us, by definition it concerns us and is concerned about us.

[Giordano]

I always wondered. If God is all-knowing, all-powerful, all-nice why does he let bad things happen? I understand he doesn't have to give a damn about us, but, if he can stop it and doesn't he is technically an ass.

 

Correct?

[obfuscator]

I always wondered. If God is all-knowing, all-powerful, all-nice why does he let bad things happen? I understand he doesn't have to give a damn about us, but, if he can stop it and doesn't he is technically an ass.

 

Correct?

What would be the point of putting us here in the first place if he was just going to do everything for us?

[Giordano]

I always wondered. If God is all-knowing, all-powerful, all-nice why does he let bad things happen? I understand he doesn't have to give a damn about us, but, if he can stop it and doesn't he is technically an ass.

 

Correct?

What would be the point of putting us here in the first place if he was just going to do everything for us?

Still, he can help us: he's all-powerful. But he doesn't help us. He's an jerk isn't he?

[obfuscator]

I always wondered. If God is all-knowing, all-powerful, all-nice why does he let bad things happen? I understand he doesn't have to give a damn about us, but, if he can stop it and doesn't he is technically an ass.

 

Correct?

What would be the point of putting us here in the first place if he was just going to do everything for us?

Still, he can help us: he's all-powerful. But he doesn't help us. He's an jerk isn't he?

Once again: What would be the point?

[Duff]

There's a theological explanation for it. It wouldn't hold any weight with atheists if they aren't going to assume much of Catholic doctrine. But I may as well post it here.

 

I've suggested this previously in this thread, but there is a great, short book that kinda talks about theodicy: Naming the Silences: God, Medicine, and the Problem of Suffering by Stanley Hauerwas. I read it in a day, and found it thought provoking.

 

Anyway, here's a theological explanation for the Problem of Evil.

 

1. The nature of spiritual evil is sin, separating ourselves from God.

2. The origin of spiritual evil is human free will.

3. The end for which God allows spiritual evil is to preserve human free will, that is, human nature.

4. The nature of our physical evil is suffering.

5. The origin of physical evil is spiritual evil. We suffer because we sin.

6. The end or use of physical evil is spiritual discipline and training for our own ultimate perfection and eternal joy. (It also is just punishment for sin and a deterrence from sin).

 

That's the basis of it. The above theological explanation is hard for people who have experienced extreme harm because it is simply theological. It was not written to comfort. And I guess this is the main point that Hauerwas makes in his book (which is why I suggest reading it).

 

I'd be glad to take private messages concerning this. The questions that may be brought up are likely to have answers I can give you (I have a feeling the above argument's succinctness will result in many questions). I just don't want to write a whole lot here if no one is going to pay attention to it. Plus, I don't have a ton of time to spend in this thread (rather, I've chosen to avoid it now).

[Giordano]

I always wondered. If God is all-knowing, all-powerful, all-nice why does he let bad things happen? I understand he doesn't have to give a damn about us, but, if he can stop it and doesn't he is technically an ass.

 

Correct?

What would be the point of putting us here in the first place if he was just going to do everything for us?

Still, he can help us: he's all-powerful. But he doesn't help us. He's an jerk isn't he?

Once again: What would be the point?

The point of helping us? He's supposed to be a nice guy.

 

But you're saying he isn't. Which is fine. Then I have to question why millions would worship a jerk.

[meol]

It's still weird to think there is free will and absence of evil in Heaven, but not on Earth.

 

And that still only answers the problem of human evil, but you have to remember there are still natural disasters and diseases - not all suffering comes from sin. If we are here on Earth to learn and be saved, the least God could do was give everyone a fair chance at it.

 

It's not about God "doing everything for everyone", (since you say that'd have no point), but surely the toils of someone in the middle class in a developed country are more than enough? It seems deeply unjust that some of us have been so privileged, even by nature, in comparison to others.

[Duff]

And that still only answers the problem of human evil, but you have to remember there are still natural disasters and diseases - not all suffering comes from sin. If we are here on Earth to learn and be saved, the least God could do was give everyone a fair chance at it.

 

"Connecting Suffering with Sin: The Fall

 

This is not as fanciful as most people think, if we remember the principle of psychosomatic unity. This principle, affirmed by just about every one of the hundreds of schools of psychology, affirms that we are not ghosts in machines, souls imprisoned in bodies, or angels in disguise, but soul-body ("psycho-somatic") unities. Our souls or psyches or personalities are our form and our bodies our matter, much as in a poem the meaning is the form and the sounds or syllables are the matter.

 

Once we grant this principle, it makes sense that if the soul becomes alienated from God by sin, the body will become alienated, too, and experience pain and death as sin's inevitable consequences. These are not external, arbitrary punishments added on. Spiritual death (sin) and physical death go together because our spirits (souls, consciousness) and bodies go together."

 

Dunno if that helps at all. In the argument I posted, natural disasters and diseases are labeled physical evil. So they're covered in that argument.

 

EDIT: I also feel I should clarify. The argument in my previous post mentions the 'end or use for physical evil'. This is not stating evil exists for the said reasons (spiritual discipline and training for our own ultimate perfection and eternal joy, etc.). Those are, rather, it's uses. The reason physical evil exists in the first place is because of spiritual evil (sin). Spiritual evil must exist in order for human beings to exist, because human beings must have free will to be considered human (that is, free will is inherent in a human being).

[meol]

If you include that in physical evil, then point 5, "The origin of physical evil is spiritual evil. We suffer because we sin." would mean sin causes natural disaster and diseases - little more than blaming the victim. And still, that doesn't even seem to be true, since good things happen to bad people, and viceversa.

 

It just seems less far-fetched to think God, if he exists, just doesn't care. And why should he? We might just be a fleeting curiosity in the huge symphony of astronomical events he created for his own delight.

To think he'd be occupied with every moral act and every single thought of every single human not only sounds like the epitome of hubris, but it's also extremely inconsistent since he doesn't seem to be that concerned about our well-being.

[Zierro]

The notion that our minds are incapable of understanding the origin of the universe is pure assumption, why can't we understand? because we don't understand it now? Why is it rational to hold onto the idea of god when almost everything that used to appear mystical to us has been explained by science?

 

I believe agnosticism is usually split into two sects: 1.) belief that we currently don't have any evidence to suggest the existence/non-existence of god, and 2.) belief that it is impossible to find any pertaining evidence, ever. In a nutshell, the difference between claiming it is unknown and claiming it is unknowable.

 

The second form does seem pretty counter-intuitive, since we have no evidence suggesting to us that we will never be able to understand the origin of our universe. We unravel more about the universe each and every day, our technology grows more efficient at an exponential rate, and the world is full of many curious people. In our current state, I'd say we're still in the dark and should remain inductive, but we definitely have been making steady progress.

 

"1. as a powerful, human-like, supernatural being, or as the deification of an esoteric, mystical or philosophical category":

 

Human-like? Consciousness cannot exist without matter or supernaturally project itself. This is an egocentric fairytale.

 

Firstly, I'd like to point out that the article does state that these three qualities are still conceived of in various degrees of abstraction. As ridiculous as it is, some people believe the rock in their lawn to be their god, but on the other hand, if you wish to personally debunk the whole notion of "god's" plausibility then it would unfortunately be a necessity to address each and every proposition of what he may be.

 

Now as for conscious beings requiring some sort of physical host, I agree for the most part. In the realm we've come to understand, living creatures are always composed of non-living elements. Here's a mere thought though: Since not so many religions really specify where god is or what he is, doesn't that leave room for the possibility of a collective consciousness existing through the medium of all the lesser components of our universe? (The whole [a living conscious being] is greater than the sum of it's parts [molecules, atoms, etc.].) --> (God is the universe - which accounts for why there is such a muddle behind trying to articulate anything about his nature.) Of course these are just imaginative theories, but the importance of the question lies in whether this is physically impossible or not.

 

Another thing to look at is whether "consciousness requires matter" is an absolute truth. The only absolute truth I think we can ever be sure about is that there's absolute truth - and that's only thanks to semantics. Empirical knowledge cannot replace absolute truth - our senses and experiences are limited while the universe is not.

 

"2. the Ultimate, the summum bonum, the Absolute Infinite, the Transcendent, or Existence or Being itself:"

 

Where and how would such a being exist? Another dimension? You cannot ascribe attributes to something which we cannot observe or interact with. Why is it even necessary to create an infinitely generalized entity and slap an 'existence' label over it, what purpose does it serve? All purpose? Complexity this, complexity that.

 

Either way you slice it, we run into the problem of an infinitely regressing continuum of causes. From what we've gathered scientifically and empirically, every effect has a cause. The problem with this logic is that it doesn't make much sense for a universe to loop backwards into itself. It doesn't make much sense for there to be a being out there who can break these rules, either. Whatever the explanation is, questions like these are why I believe we're in the dark right now.

 

"3. the ground of being, the monistic substrate, that which we cannot understand, etc:"

 

We cannot understand? That would make everything in the universe that we do understand an illusion and there is no rational reason to believe so. If we cannot comprehend the ground of being then what is being?.

 

I can't argue with this one. I just don't understand how a concept can absolutely not possibly be understood. Though this might be the pride speaking. ;-)

 

Complexity is defined through the comparison of functionality and structure. E.g. A fly is going to look millions of times more complex than a bacteria cell. Clearly a being capable of creating and maintaining a universe is going to be immeasurably complex. At no point in natural history did complexity arise from nowhere, just as matter cannot spontaneously pop into existence. This isn't unique to lifeforms - look at the sun, formed from a cloud of dust and gas, it was never immediately a star. Using god to explain origin cannot be a solution because then you have to explain god's origin, yet the idea of god having an origin contradicts what it is to be a god. Universal origin is truly mind-blowing, although most people seem to be willing to accept the Big Bang and be done with it. Given the evidence, a Big Bang probably did occur, but I refuse to believe that was the start.

 

Still seems like a very 'wobbly' term. Would an apple be simple to a child, but complex to a scientist? A cell is complex when you ask yourself where it came from, what it is made from, why it is there, and you can keep questioning and questioning. Indeed complexity comes from evolution - it is an entirely artificial principle.

 

The word circle is simply our means of referencing a concept, you cannot change the concept by changing the word.

 

In the context of concepts, you are entirely right. My apologies - I should have worded that one more carefully.

[Duff]

@Meol:

"Christianity believes in God's creation of matter and even incarnation in a human body. Bodies are not illusions, not evil, not trivial, not secular, and not outside our essence, our identity. The evil we do is not just spiritual but physical, bodily evil, for our bodies are parts of us. So the evils we do - sins - are also evils others suffer. Each evil is like a stone thrown into a pond, sending consequences rippling outwards to the farthest limits of physical interconnectedness."

 

The Catholic Church (and others, perhaps) believe that all human beings are born with original sin. Thus, all beings are inherently out of order with nature. "Christianity disagrees [with Socrates when he says bad things never happen to good people]. Its answer is that there are among us no "good people," that is, innocent people. We are involved in a physical world with our evil, which is like that stone tossed into the pond. The two great mysteries of solidarity, original sin (solidarity in sin) and vicarious atonement (solidarity in salvation) means that even the "innocents" among us, our small children, are involved in this double drama."

 

And again, God does care. But he cannot take away from us what makes us humans. If we're assuming heaven exists, it's existence shows he does care, for he gives us a new life in Him after this life of challenges; a life that is ultimate, perfect happiness.

 

EDIT: And perhaps something else that may help:

 

"To help understand Creation and the Fall, the image of three iron rings suspended from a magnet is helpful. The magnet symbolizes God; the first ring, the soul; the middle ring, the body; and the bottom ring, nature. As long as the soul stays in touch with God, the magnetic life keeps flowing through the whole chain, from divine life to soul life, body life and nature life. The three rings stay harmonized, united, magnetized. But when the soul freely declares its independence from God, the body is separated from the soul - that is, it dies - and also from nature - that is, it suffers. For the soul's authority over the body is a delegated authority, as is humanity's authority over nature. When God the delegator is rejected, so is the authority he delegated. If you rebel against the king, his ministers will no longer serve you. Thus both suffering and sin are traced to man, not God."

[Assume Nothing]

In order to accept those arguments, one must already make assumptions regarding the existence of souls, sins and other Christian concepts. I wouldn't take every word of the Bible to be fact though - how can you be sure that the authors are credible?

[Duff]

In order to accept those arguments, one must already make assumptions regarding the existence of souls, sins and other Christian concepts. I wouldn't take every word of the Bible to be fact though - how can you be sure that the authors are credible?

"There's a theological explanation for it. It wouldn't hold any weight with atheists if they aren't going to assume much of Catholic doctrine. But I may as well post it here."

 

Giordano asked, and I provided an explanation from the Christian standpoint. I thought that was obvious.

 

We've already discussed the Bible being pure fact or not or in between.

 

Catholicism = inerrancy of the Bible: "the Bible solidly, faithfully and without error teaches the truth which God wanted put into sacred writings." In other words, whatever was written down, through this writing God intended to help us attain eternal life. (Dei Verbum paragraph 11, from the Second Vatican Council).

 

You can easily disagree with this; nothing is stopping you. Again, the purpose of my posts was to explain the problem of evil and suffering from a Christian standpoint, which means I was speaking in terms of Christian belief.

[SirParagon]

The conflict between atheist and agnostics is essentially whether we should choose to assume some sort of meaningful reason behind the origin of the universe - this is the true philosophical discussion. As soon as people start introducing holy-books to the argument the atheists tend to exclusively target silly fantasies instead of the core concept of universal intent. Both sides are at fault. In this day and age there's no need to discuss why the stories embedded within organized religion are false.

 

...but fine.

 

If someone wishes to hold on to the stories told by religion then by all means do so. My only real problem is how the religious are so adamant to mount their moral high horse. Have a good read through your holy book then tell me your beliefs do not violate the non-aggression principle. You explain to me why morality would not exist without religion. Is it pure coincidence that the most religious western nation (the US) is also the most involved in foreign wars? Explain why you believe some people are innately evil? (I would like to point out that a person's behaviour is almost solely determined by their upbringing).

 

Don't you dare corrupt your children's minds before they have the chance to rationalize what is being proposed to them. Children will believe anything they are told and it is truly monstrous for any institution to take advantage of this.

 

Altruism exists in nature without coercion, it is always mutually beneficial for two parties to cooperate without threatening each other. Also understand it is not virtuous to do good while under the impression you're going to hell if you don't.

 

 

@CrustyGoblinFoot

 

At this point I'm quite sure we've both conveyed our respective sides well enough, I can see the previous argument going in circles if we continue. There's still a part of me that wants to believe the universe isn't a freak occurrence.

[Assume Nothing]

Just to let you know, I've quoted your (SirParagon's) post in the 'Parenting' thread since that may serve as a better platform regarding religious upbringing (actually had a little discussion regarding that already, although hardly elaborate).

[kamykazee]

The conflict between atheist and agnostics is essentially whether we should choose to assume some sort of meaningful reason behind the origin of the universe.

At this point I'm quite sure we've both conveyed our respective sides well enough, I can see the argument going in circles if we continue. There's still a part of me that wants to believe the universe isn't a freak occurrence.

 

I agree with this. The entire belief in a higher power seems to heavily rely on the assumption that there must be some higher meaning/purpose for everything that happens. If you take it that there isn't one and things are just the way they are for no apparent reason other than chance, then some of the proposed arguments in favour of good, spirituality, and all that, fall.

[Jaffy1]

[hide=Anti spam]

I always wondered. If God is all-knowing, all-powerful, all-nice why does he let bad things happen? I understand he doesn't have to give a damn about us, but, if he can stop it and doesn't he is technically an ass.

 

Correct?

What would be the point of putting us here in the first place if he was just going to do everything for us?

Still, he can help us: he's all-powerful. But he doesn't help us. He's an jerk isn't he?

Once again: What would be the point?

[/hide]

The point of helping us? He's supposed to be a nice guy.

 

But you're saying he isn't. Which is fine. Then I have to question why millions would worship a jerk.

 

Being nice does not equal taking control of, or doing things for, people. What you are saying is like claiming I am a jerk for not going into F2p to hold every noob's hand to ensure they're not scammed and don't waste their time being noobs.

 

The point of not doing so is to let us screw up ourselves and learn from that.

[Assume Nothing]

It's not exactly the same thing though - one is literally giving overbearing attention to some naive new players with very little maturity, whereas the other is to simply prevent some disasters and disease outbreaks from occuring. Ofcourse it doesn't mean he has to watch out for everything we ever think, or do, or ever will do.

[obfuscator]

 

Don't you dare corrupt your children's minds before they have the chance to rationalize what is being proposed to them. Children will believe anything they are told and it is truly monstrous for any institution to take advantage of this.

 

Sorry, are you trying to restrict my right to teach my children what I believe to be the truth?

 

Oh, and also:

 

s it pure coincidence that the most religious western nation (the US) is also the most involved in foreign wars?

 

This is blatant speculation at best which doesn't even attempt to take into account any other (real) reasons why the US goes to war a lot. The US isn't even the most religious North American country.

[Crocefisso]

"But when Zarathustra was alone, he spoke thus to his heart: 'Could it be possible! This old saint has not yet heard in his forest that God is dead!'"

 

I take issue with religion because:

 

a) It can never be true in an epistemological sense;

 

b) It is often treated as fact irrespective of this, especially in the USA;

 

c) It is an absurd superstition that was devised to control people via fear and a fictional amor fati, an escapist fantasy, all a promise that can never be kept (I refer, of course, to the afterlife). It is slavery.

[Jaffy1]

It's not exactly the same thing though - one is literally giving overbearing attention to some naive new players with very little maturity, whereas the other is to simply prevent some disasters and disease outbreaks from occuring. Ofcourse it doesn't mean he has to watch out for everything we ever think, or do, or ever will do.

 

What would be the point in creating nature and then to limit its being by making it docile?

Why would preventing disease be a good thing anyway?

[SirParagon]

 

Don't you dare corrupt your children's minds before they have the chance to rationalize what is being proposed to them. Children will believe anything they are told and it is truly monstrous for any institution to take advantage of this.

 

Sorry, are you trying to restrict my right to teach my children what I believe to be the truth?

 

What YOU believe to be the truth. A child should be freely exposed to all belief systems, all learning opportunities and then they will make up their mind through critical thinking. Religion as whole would completely evaporate if only a single generate skipped the indoctrination process, consider that for a moment.

 

Oh, and also:

 

s it pure coincidence that the most religious western nation (the US) is also the most involved in foreign wars?

 

This is blatant speculation at best which doesn't even attempt to take into account any other (real) reasons why the US goes to war a lot. The US isn't even the most religious North American country.

 

This is not speculation and I'm not here to spoon-feed you data. If you want proof, go search for it. You cannot ignore the historical correlations between violence and religion.