| Author | Thread |
|
|
08/09/2006 05:31:55 AM · #551 |
Originally posted by milo655321:
Originally posted by routerguy666:
They need it because the thought of being an insignificant collection of cells that winks in and out of existence... makes them uncomfortable. |
I can't believe I forgot the most important reason people believe any particular religion. Religions (not all) allow one to believe they can escape their own inevitable death. I think that is the most powerful motivator - the fear of death. |
I think that you are broadly on the same page here...
Personally, I think that acceptance of mortality is quite a pleasant thing. It allows you to avoid all the petty obstacles and distractions that religion involves, and get on with the process of living.
|
|
|
|
08/09/2006 11:48:14 AM · #552 |
I enjoy listening to you guys postulate why people believe in a religion. it's like watching a few Jews argue over whether thin or thick slice bacon is better...
|
|
|
|
08/09/2006 11:54:28 AM · #553 |
...or getting marriage advice from a celibate priest. ;-)
It's easier to figure out the origin of religion than the origin of life or the universe. |
|
|
|
08/09/2006 12:12:40 PM · #554 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I enjoy listening to you guys postulate why people believe in a religion. it's like watching a few Jews argue over whether thin or thick slice bacon is better... |
Pig farms in Israel are built entirely on elevated wooden platforms, because the law specifies that no pigs may live "on the soil of Israel." |
|
|
|
08/09/2006 12:15:21 PM · #555 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I enjoy listening to you guys postulate why people believe in a religion. it's like watching a few Jews argue over whether thin or thick slice bacon is better... |
You may be assuming that I never held religious beliefs. I was at one time a Christian.
The more appropriate analogy may be more like a converted Orthodox Jew reminiscing about the taste of bacon. |
|
|
|
08/09/2006 12:27:32 PM · #556 |
Originally posted by milo655321:
You may be assuming that I never held religious beliefs. I was at one time a Christian. |
Me too, and my parents/grandparents are about as devout as you can get. I also once had an unshakable belief in Santa Claus, and probably dismissed or explained away any so-called facts that contradicted my faith in seasonal flying ruminants. |
|
|
|
08/09/2006 12:28:34 PM · #557 |
A few quotes from Lewis...
"If you look for truth, you may find comfort in the end; if you look for comfort you will not get either comfort or truth only soft soap and wishful thinking to begin, and in the end, despair."
C. S. Lewis
I am searching for another quote, but can't find it. Basically Lewis says it's odd that we would decide to ascribe a broken, messed up world to a benevolent God unless there was something there. I'll have to keep looking for that one.
|
|
|
|
08/09/2006 12:41:33 PM · #558 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
...Lewis says it's odd that we would decide to ascribe a broken, messed up world to a benevolent God unless there was something there. |
Odder still that an omniscient, infallible being would be considered the unquestionable creator of something that is (or could be) messed up. I remember a college professor pointing out multiple, later-revised biblical references where God clearly declared that the earth's surface is 80% land. Wish I could find THAT again! |
|
|
|
08/09/2006 01:03:59 PM · #559 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
...Lewis says it's odd that we would decide to ascribe a broken, messed up world to a benevolent God unless there was something there. |
Odder still that an omniscient, infallible being would be considered the unquestionable creator of something that is (or could be) messed up. I remember a college professor pointing out multiple, later-revised biblical references where God clearly declared that the earth's surface is 80% land. Wish I could find THAT again! |
Well the problem of Evil has bothered theologists for millenia, but it is no easier for atheists. My question is why you even consider the world "messed up". Why wouldn't you consider it simply "to be as it is"?
Message edited by author 2006-08-09 13:04:14.
|
|
|
|
08/09/2006 01:14:52 PM · #560 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
My question is why you even consider the world "messed up". Why wouldn't you consider it simply "to be as it is"? |
Because after 4000 years of righteous preaching we still have such exemplars of Christian thought as our "fearless leader" robbing from the poor and our children to give to his rich friends, while bombing the heck out of anyone he declares a threat to our way of life?
Because of millions of starving kids and $6000 shower curtains (sorry --- I think maybe that guy was acquitted).
Because we now find Chevron/Texaco has dumped toxic waste into the Amazon basin because it was "too expensive" to treat it or properly dispose of it -- soemthing like ten times the amount as the Exxon Valdez spill -- and no one is upset?
Bumper Sticker:
If You're Not Outraged, You're Not Paying Attention |
|
|
|
08/09/2006 01:19:58 PM · #561 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
My question is why you even consider the world "messed up". Why wouldn't you consider it simply "to be as it is"? |
I was referring to your paraphrased quote, but since you asked... if the world ISN'T messed up, why would there be evil at all (and why is evil a problem for atheists)? Actually, I DO consider the world "to be as it is." I also consider the universe and life in general to be as they are- a natural consequence of equally natural processes. That's pretty much the point of this discussion, no? |
|
|
|
08/09/2006 01:48:00 PM · #562 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
My question is why you even consider the world "messed up". Why wouldn't you consider it simply "to be as it is"? |
I was referring to your paraphrased quote, but since you asked... if the world ISN'T messed up, why would there be evil at all (and why is evil a problem for atheists)? Actually, I DO consider the world "to be as it is." I also consider the universe and life in general to be as they are- a natural consequence of equally natural processes. That's pretty much the point of this discussion, no? |
Because as General pointed out so well, none of us believe the world is as it ought to be. Even if you put on the brave atheist face and say it is, I don't believe you. We all feel in our hearts that the world is "broken" and if it is as such, we must have a standard to which we are measuring it. The atheist has nothing to point to as that standard, while the theist does. So while the theist has to contend with the very difficult question "WHY isn't the world as it ought to be?" the atheist has to contend with "WHY do I think the world ought to be any different?"
Why do you think it should be different General? (although I don't know your worldview as far a religion goes)
|
|
|
|
08/09/2006 02:04:34 PM · #563 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
the atheist has to contend with "WHY do I think the world ought to be any different?" |
Huh? Much as I think the world could be a nicer place if it were different, I certainly don't think it ought to be. "Evil" is an artificial label imposed by society. In some cultures, showing a woman's bare ankle is evil, while in others rape and cannibalism wouldn't raise an eyebrow. Bad things/people MUST exist! If they didn't, we wouldn't have a relative benchmark to call something good. That's just the way it is... ask a trilobite. ;-) |
|
|
|
08/09/2006 03:36:43 PM · #564 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
none of us believe the world is as it ought to be. Even if you put on the brave atheist face and say it is, I don't believe you. |
I agree that I have ideals, and people fail to live up to them, and occasionally I fail to live up to my own ideals. I don't think that has much to do with religion (except that religion is often used by others as an excuse for carrying out those actions).
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
We all feel in our hearts that the world is "broken" and if it is as such, we must have a standard to which we are measuring it. The atheist has nothing to point to as that standard, while the theist does. So while the theist has to contend with the very difficult question "WHY isn't the world as it ought to be?" the atheist has to contend with "WHY do I think the world ought to be any different?" |
I have very strong ideals. They are predominantly based in what I concieve to be progressive, fair, and mutually beneficial concepts within and for the society we inhabit. I don't rely on morality as taught didactically in a religious context.
Message edited by author 2006-08-09 15:37:25.
|
|
|
|
08/09/2006 03:44:31 PM · #565 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Because as General pointed out so well, none of us believe the world is as it ought to be. Even if you put on the brave atheist face and say it is, I don't believe you. We all feel in our hearts that the world is "broken" and if it is as such, we must have a standard to which we are measuring it. |
I don’t feel the world is “broken”. Is there more suffering than is desirable? Yes. Could more be done to reduce suffering? Very probably. That doesn’t, however, lead to the conclusion that at one time the world was in a state of “non-brokenness”.
I do not desire to suffer. In fact, I don’t like suffering. From what I am able to observe, other people and animals don’t desire to suffer either.
It isn’t too much of a stretch to conclude that, on the whole, suffering is an undesirable state of affairs for a majority, need I say all, living creatures. But, again, that is no indication that there exists out there an actual ideal state of affairs without suffering.
(I read years ago that some people in the Middle Ages believed that animals couldn’t feel pain because they didn’t have “souls”. When an animal was injured, it was seen as acting as if it were in pain, like an automaton or as we see a programmed computer designed to simulate emotion. Other animals didn’t feel, they just behaved as if they did. For these Middle Ages believers, a God who allowed soulless creatures to suffer in reality for the sins of mankind was seen as too cruel.)
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
The atheist has nothing to point to as that standard, while the theist does. So while the theist has to contend with the very difficult question "WHY isn't the world as it ought to be?" the atheist has to contend with "WHY do I think the world ought to be any different? |
I disagree. I think the world could be different. I think that there can be less human suffering. I think that humans are the only ones who can effective bring about less human suffering. Gods, if they exist, are welcome to help anytime they wish. No one could stop them. I’m not interested, however, in the gods’ self-proclaimed intermediaries.
Message edited by author 2006-08-09 15:45:23. |
|
|
|
08/09/2006 04:16:48 PM · #566 |
So the shoe is on the other foot now, or at least the foot is in the fire (too mix some metaphors).
You guys all feel you have an ethic or a standard. You all feel the world doesn't live up to it and you feel you yourselves don't always live up to it. But I'm afraid that what lies on the other side of that standard, when you look hard, is nothing.
Milo doesn't want suffering in the world. What if I came along and told Milo I believed suffering strengthens us all and we should have more suffering in the world? How would Milo argue that I was wrong other than an adult version of "fraid not" and "fraid so"? Science isn't going to help with this and Ethics and Morals degrade simply into "what I believe" with nobody able to claim any higher ground over someone else who believes something different. It's all a charade.
|
|
|
|
08/09/2006 04:35:07 PM · #567 |
How did you get from science to ethics and morals? Even monkeys have a sense of right and wrong. You seem to be trying to suggest that morality and ethics are incompatible with a lack of religion. I don't get it. Maybe the monkeys are monks?
Message edited by author 2006-08-09 16:46:45. |
|
|
|
08/09/2006 04:44:15 PM · #568 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
How did you get from science to ethics and morals? Even monkeys have a sense of right and wrong. Why would you try to make any connection between atheism and ethics or morality? |
Well, since I was having so much fun trying to explain religion in the realm of science I thought I'd share the joys and have you guys explain Atheism in the realm of philosophy... ;)
|
|
|
|
08/09/2006 05:10:53 PM · #569 |
I still don't get it. Religion is thoroughly incompatible with scientific method. It's proof by faith (regardless of tests) vs. proof by testing (regardless of belief). Philosophy is more about rationalization than proof of anything, and no more compatible or incompatible with Atheism than Christianity.
Message edited by author 2006-08-09 17:15:39. |
|
|
|
08/09/2006 05:13:37 PM · #570 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Well, since I was having so much fun trying to explain religion in the realm of science I thought I'd share the joys and have you guys explain Atheism in the realm of philosophy... ;) |
If you're truly interested, Richard Carrier's Sense and Goodness Without God: A Defense of Metaphysical Naturalism is supposed to be a well written book on the subject.
Disclaimer: I have not read the book myself, just heard about it. |
|
|
|
08/09/2006 05:14:36 PM · #571 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
So the shoe is on the other foot now, or at least the foot is in the fire (too mix some metaphors).
You guys all feel you have an ethic or a standard.
Science isn't going to help with this and Ethics and Morals degrade simply into "what I believe" with nobody able to claim any higher ground over someone else who believes something different. It's all a charade. |
What is the purpose of what we call "civilization?" I believe it is our recognition that we, as a species, can proliferate more efficiently (the pupose of every life form, right?) if we abandon the "law of the jungle" or even "survival of the fittest" by having some of the stronger members of the society voluntarily sacrifice for the benefit of the weak, who, instead of being left behind to be eaten by wolves, and now given food and shelter and medicine so they live long enough to develop Type II Diabetes or cancer.
It is that sharing of resources and sacrifice of the strong to protect the weak which most distinguishes us from the "lower animals," and unfortunately it seems to be a social policy in complete reversal in the USA, which is why I've often referred to our current system of coporate democracy -- where a corporation is given the same rights and priviledges as an individual citizen -- as fundamentally anti-Christian in its over-riding philosophy of accomplishment stimulated by greed.
Any system which takes from the haves to give to the have-nots is going to need some rules, and some incentive for the powerful to abide by them -- the threat of some unknowable eternal punishment might be necessary to convince some neolithic clan chief to share his McMammoth, but I don't really think we need that threat to see that we can be more successful as a species through cooperative effort than cutthroat competition -- a strictly scientific analysis would show the same thing. |
|
|
|
08/09/2006 05:16:17 PM · #572 |
If you want to get back on the science topic my bottom line is this:
Science does an excellent job helping us understand the world and universe. Heck, let's all recall my life is dedicated to science. However, science cannot currently answer all questions we ask. Many of these lie in the "realm" of science and may or may not get answered in the future. How confident you are in their ultimate answer is a matter of "faith". On the other hand, there are also questions we tend to ask which science can do nothing about. If you start asking questions of morals and ethics and purpose, science starts to stagger around like a three-legged elephant.
I am an odd juxtaposition of serious pursuit of both science and religion. I encourage others to share in the exploring of both. The more you sit squarely in one camp or the other, the less you are ultimately equipped to deal with the issues we all face in life. I know too many scientists who feel thoroughly uncomfortable when people start asking "How do I search after what is right?" and "Is there such thing as Truth?". They tend to stick their noses back into their latest issue of Nature and pretend they didn't hear. On the other hand, I have too many friends who would turn blue when I suggest the evidence DOES support the idea that the earth is really, really old. They happily stick their heads in the sand and hope the next thing they hear is the chorus from "Come Ye Sinner".
I am Contrarion. I do it to bring two sides together. Extremists tend to be dogmatic and idealogues. I try to be the voice that says "everything in moderation".
|
|
|
|
08/09/2006 05:21:46 PM · #573 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Any system which takes from the haves to give to the have-nots is going to need some rules, and some incentive for the powerful to abide by them -- the threat of some unknowable eternal punishment might be necessary to convince some neolithic clan chief to share his McMammoth, but I don't really think we need that threat to see that we can be more successful as a species through cooperative effort than cutthroat competition -- a strictly scientific analysis would show the same thing. |
The problem is no scientific analysis is gonna help me when I am dead in the trenches of France in 1914. Altruism is only so strong and the naturalistic belief that "it is best" only takes us so far. I can counter this by saying "The Cheater" gets further. Take income tax. We pay so that society is sustained and stability ensues. This benefits all of us. But the person who benefits the most is the one who doesn't pay his taxes and still reaps the benefits of those who do. Sometimes you get caught, sometimes you don't. The benefits, however, are theoretically clear. How can you argue that our ultimate goal isn't to be "The Cheater"?
|
|
|
|
08/09/2006 05:23:08 PM · #574 |
Originally posted by milo655321:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Well, since I was having so much fun trying to explain religion in the realm of science I thought I'd share the joys and have you guys explain Atheism in the realm of philosophy... ;) |
If you're truly interested, Richard Carrier's Sense and Goodness Without God: A Defense of Metaphysical Naturalism is supposed to be a well written book on the subject.
Disclaimer: I have not read the book myself, just heard about it. |
That might be interesting. I'd like to see how someone defends ethics in an atheist worldview. I can guess the direction they will take, but it will be interesting to see how cognizant they are of the potential weaknesses.
|
|
|
|
08/09/2006 05:23:12 PM · #575 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
So the shoe is on the other foot now, or at least the foot is in the fire (too mix some metaphors). You guys all feel you have an ethic or a standard. You all feel the world doesn't live up to it and you feel you yourselves don't always live up to it. But I'm afraid that what lies on the other side of that standard, when you look hard, is nothing. |
Are you saying atheists don’t have ethics and standards? Or that those standards are based on nothing? Most of the atheists I know appeal to reason as a basis upon which to base their morality. Just because atheists don’t believe in gods doesn’t mean that they no longer have to live and operate within their respective societies or that there cease to be consequences to their actions, immediate and/or long lasting, or that we suddenly live in a vacuum.
If that were so, I have to openly why wonder why, in a 1997 study conducted using U.S. Federal Bureau of Prison records, only .2% of the federal prison population consisted of self-identifying atheists. Atheist make up at least 6% of the U.S. population. If the ethics and standards of your average atheist are based on nothing, they seem to be fairly effective at keeping them out of federal prisons.
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Milo doesn't want suffering in the world. What if I came along and told Milo I believed suffering strengthens us all and we should have more suffering in the world? How would Milo argue that I was wrong other than an adult version of "fraid not" and "fraid so"? |
What would be your basis for arguing that suffering strengthens us all?
Incidentally, there are Christian sects that have argued suffering is good for you (self flagellation). Do you agree with these Christian sects? If not, why not? Doesn’t that eventually lead into the same “fraid not” and “fraid so” arguments?
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Science isn't going to help with this and Ethics and Morals degrade simply into "what I believe" with nobody able to claim any higher ground over someone else who believes something different. It's all a charade. |
But aren’t religious arguments exactly “what I believe” arguments?
|
|
