»
Discussion
»
Philosophy 101
»
Why God?
| Philosophy 101 |
|
Why God? |
|
|
Huan Yi Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688Waukegan 
|
. Why must there be God? Because we are afraid of death? . |
||
| © Copyright 2006 John Pawlik - All Rights Reserved | |||
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
If you chalk belief in God up to wish fulfillment, you must realize it works the other way too. Why must there be atheism, because we fear divine judgement? Also asking "Why God" already presumes atheism, because it seeks a temporal reason. And so conversation in that context is not available for those who believe. But is there common ground? I think so. Because even if "the fear of death" is not the only impetus for faith, faith may still describe why there are such fears and loves. Why we all feel at heart level that death is somehow absurd, and that there is something sacred bound up in life. You can have a suspicion which chalks all that up to invention, or you can begin to suspect that there might be a reason for the profundities within us. Stephen. |
||
|
hush Senior Member
since 2001-05-27
Posts 1653Ohio, USA |
Because people like to have explanations. How was the world created? What happens after death? |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
I don't think existance needs to be justified. |
||
|
nakdthoughts Member Laureate
since 2000-10-29
Posts 19200Between the Lines |
I am not afraid of death...but of the process of dying...and being alone during it. Even while believing in God... M |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Happy Thanksgiving all! I'm thankful for you. Stephen. |
||
|
nakdthoughts Member Laureate
since 2000-10-29
Posts 19200Between the Lines |
Happy Thanksgiving Stephen M |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
Me too! Happy Thanksgiving everyone! |
||
|
Huan Yi Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688Waukegan |
. nakdthoughts, I think you’ve touched the truth. Who is afraid of dying peacefully in their sleep? . |
||
|
Larry C
since 2001-09-10
Posts 10286United States |
Well God said death is our enemy and He sent His Son to destroy it. So now there is no reason to be afraid. |
||
|
Christopher
Moderator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-08-02
Posts 8296Purgatorial Incarceration |
quote:Disagreeing with this justification, Stephen. Without the proposal of God, there can be no atheism. You don't question the absence of something without a contrast to bring that absence to light. |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Christopher: quote: But that's not the whole story. Everyone has some evidence of God through creation and self knowledge. Therefore belief in God is properly basic (even if it is mistaken about particulars or contains agnostic features). The fact that the bulk of humanity has/ does believe in something beyond nature only tends to support this. Therefore the position of detached neutrality is questionable from the start. So, wish-fulfillment comfortably fits into atheist psychology. For even atheists have conscience, hope, and fear, to wrestle with. One advantage of Christian theism is that a cogent framework is given which tells us why these things are so. Even fear of death, in atheistic thinking, must be explained away, rather than explained. Stephen |
||
|
Christopher
Moderator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-08-02
Posts 8296Purgatorial Incarceration |
quote:Says you.  Seriously though, that's an assumption I'm not comfortable with. Creation can and has been readily explained without a creator. Unless you're defining any originating cause as "God." Self knowledge can and easily does (in my case at least) explain away the rationale of God. In my paradigm there is no need for an explanatory background figure that ties all the knots and cushions the fall from life to death. I am satisfied with the way the world is explained (in a general sense) without the presence of a deity. All the review I've done since cognizant enough to ponder the prospect has held no need for nor no belief in God. A believer, such as yourself, might say that it is there and I just don't see it, much as a someone with their eyes closed can't see the colors of a painting despite how hard they try and need only open their eyes to see it in its full glory. To that, I will just smile. God isn't a painting, but an idea, an ideal. My eyes are open and I see it how I see it, with no evidence there to contradict it. quote:This seems another baseless assumption to me. Firstly, it assumes that all people fear death and need it explained. I don't think all people are afraid of death. I also think that to say that only for atheists is there a fear of death to be explained is not quite covering it in full. I believe that most God-fearing people fear death as well. Death is an alternate form of existence no matter what you believe and many people fear change - especially on such a grand scale. I also believe that of all those who fear death, a goodly portion of them aren't so much afraid of death as they are of dying and the accompanying [presumed] pain. Just a few thoughts to add to the conversation. I think God is an explanation, a rationale developed for people who don't realize that their lives in and of themselves makes going through day to day worth it. There doesn't need to be an additional reason; existence is reason enough. |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
quote: Seeing that you are fallen and sinful (as I) I didn't expect you to be "comfortable" with the idea of a holy and righteous judge and creator.  Seriously though, Christians often have pointed out the disconcerting truth that any denial of God is ultimately based upon an avoidance of his "prickly" nature against our fallen flesh. That's not to say there's not a degree of honest doubt, or a transitional period of innocent agnosticism. It just means that self deception is real. And that atheism as a conclusion, as a final choice, is ultimately rebellion. And no, (before this is brought forth) that doesn't mean that Christians hate those who are atheists. quote: But only with "faith-like" elements that make Christian theism appear reserved. Proposing an orginating singularity (where the known laws of nature are dissolved) still falls within the realm of speculative "religion" and metaphysical assertion. quote: Never felt once that death is absurd? ... that there's something wrong? Never felt once that life, love, and beauty might be more than mere byproducts of machination? ... or that they should somehow survive the great blackout that an atheistic cosmos would guarantee? I believe such feelings are God-given, though they are delicate enough to be damaged by cynicism. I do however, sympathize with those who would love to believe those things, but are afraid of being hurt or somehow disappointed ... too afraid that such cannot be true. quote: Actually it takes into account that most communities throughout history have felt that it needs explaining ... and in the main, still do. quote: A mere "change" does not adequately explain the dread and numinous which surrounds death. And the fact that the godly fear death sometimes as well, only underscores the fact that we are fallen... that there is a root to our fear. There is the fear of unlimited pain, insignificance, and of being condemned for our evil thoughts and actions. The difference is, some may hope (through Christ) to overcome this fear ... to ultimately discover (or rediscover) that such fear is groundless because of divine promise. What atheism can never explain, is the pathos surrounding death. And that involves the dramatic desire for continuance, significance, reunion, and for love to endure. Nor can it explain our devotion and sympathies with such, without reducing them to chemical psychology, and ultimately to an illusion imposed upon matter by who-knows-what. And what you euphemistically call an "alternate form of existence", is annihilation guaranteed by an atheistic universe ... that is, unless you want to invent a mock immortality (Eternal recurrence), like Nietzsche did, to somehow retain what he could not bear to lose, seeing that God was "dead" to him. quote: Not necessarily. I only assert that our value is contigent upon something or someone else. For you it is "existence". But what when that ceases to be? Though I don't believe in soulless annihilation, I think it tends to rob much of our value now. "Don't worry, Be happy" is something we all resort to. And I don't deny that the ability to do so is sometimes a gift. But taken as an ultimate answer, it trivializes our humanity. If you hold to the value, or think that it is guaranteed without God ... If you place your value in mere "existence", I would bid you to peruse the Existentialist philosophers for a while. There is a reason that pessimism is the hallmark of their astute observations. In diagnosing the problem, I commend them. Unfortunately their solutions were made of the same stuff that they saw through. BTW, Nice having an interchange with you Christopher ... It's not that often. later, Stephen. |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Christopher, along these lines (especially the existential aspects of atheism and Christianity) here is an interesting audio lecture and article by William Lane Craig. I think you would find these interesting. Audio and Video Article Stephen. |
||
|
JesusChristPose Senior Member
since 2005-06-21
Posts 777Pittsburgh, Pa |
Stephanos, Seriously, how could anyone, who is not of faith, take with a grain of salt, an article that begins with The Absurdity of Life Without God, with a caption of "WAKE UP!." Laughable. |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
quote: I think many could, because they might be given to thoughtful consideration (even if they disagree) rather than resorting to insult and mockery. Stephen. |
||
|
JesusChristPose Senior Member
since 2005-06-21
Posts 777Pittsburgh, Pa |
I think, no, I know, it is rather insulting for a person to write a book, or whatever it is, with such a mocking and insulting title towards those who believe a different way... Seriously, pretentious as all hell. "Melvin, the best thing you got going for you is your willingness to humiliate yourself." |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
If you had more of an inclination to read the content rather then balk at the title, you'd see that it's not only Christians who have seen this, but a great many atheist thinkers as well. And hence, a case is to be made. Sorry you feel insulted. But existential statements and insults should not be confused. Peace, Stephen. |
||
|
JesusChristPose Senior Member
since 2005-06-21
Posts 777Pittsburgh, Pa |
"If you had more of an inclination to read the content rather then balk at the title, you'd see that it's not only Christians who have seen this, but a great many atheist thinkers as well." First off, as a free thinker, whom couldn't care less about what any religous forum thinks, why should I have any inclination to read the content of something that has such an insulting title? Also, it doesn't surprise me that non-christians have read this, because people are generally, a curious lot. "And hence, a case is to be made. No case to be made there. "Sorry you feel insulted. But existential statements and insults should not be confused." Now, I don't know your train of thought, but if I were an athiest or agnostic, I SHOULD feel insulted just by the title. I could play an analogy and reverse the situation in order for you to understand my point, but won't. "Melvin, the best thing you got going for you is your willingness to humiliate yourself." |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
quote: Just to clarify: What I meant was that non-Christian thinkers have "seen" the existential dilemmas described in Craig's article ... and that he makes reference to them, at least in the audio version. Therefore a case is to be made, since the "absurdity" has not been exclusively seen by Christian thinkers. I was not referring to how many non-Christians read his article. Stephen. |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
quote: Unnecessary swearing aside, I fail to see why one declaration of conviction is any more insulting than another declaration of conviction. Theirs? Yours? What's the difference between the two? When you declare something, JCP, with absolute knowledge, that is obviously and completely contrary "towards those who believe a different way," you are committing the very sin you decry. Indeed, the only difference is that they probably don't intend any insult. And you very clearly do. I've grown tired of seeing threads derailed over and over and over with virtually nothing of substance being added. We just wasted half a dozen staccato posts only to learn that you are insulted because someone has the audacity to believe something you don't. I think I'm going to give myself an early Christmas present and make this the last thread you get to ruin in 2006. Write me after the first of the year, JCP, and we can talk about what might or might not happen in 2007. And Stephen? Frankly, if you haven't learned by now to completely ignore known trolls, you probably deserve every ounce of the frustration you're feeling right now. You should perhaps read up on co-dependency and enablers? |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
quote: alas, you're right. Silence was probably the best response, that I left unchosen. My apologies. Anyway, I hope the thread can continue along more civil lines? Stephen. |
||
|
jbouder Member Elite
since 1999-09-18
Posts 2534Whole Sort Of Genl Mish Mash |
Back to the original topic ... I think the evidences have been thoroughly hashed out in this and other threads, so I won't reiterate them here. Rather, I will appeal to the existential. quote: I would tweak the first question by asserting that God's existence is, in no way, contingent upon our internal states. He either isn't there, is there and is silent, or is there and isn't silent. In my life, I have been encouraged to aspire to a life of faith in and knowledge of God not out of fear of death, but by my acknowledgement of my fear of living. Some might criticize me for not giving myself enough credit for the small accomplishments I've achieved toward the end of making the lives of very vulnerable people better, and taking significant risks in order to achieve that end. Without my firm believe in the providence of a benevolent God who blesses with great success the efforts ... even the audacious efforts ... of someone who by most standards is insignificant ... , I am not certain whether I would have even attempted to do some of the things I have done. Does this make me a weak person? I'm willing to enter a guilty plea to that indictment. I would rather be a weak person who has achieved great things as a result of my weakness (i.e., my reliance on a higher Power to lend me strength and hope to support my efforts), than be a strong person who weighed the odds and made the rational decision not to take those risks. In my view, such weakness is a better virtue to strive toward than the aspirations of power. Why? Because it enables me to keep the focus off of me, and place it squarely on the shoulders of others. Jim |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
Stephen, Great article and I'm not offended in the least by the title. C'mon, we've got Dennet's "Breaking the Spell" and Dawkins's "The God Delusion" to deal with. Do they offend you? I hope I can find the time because I really would like to address a lot of what's in there. I'm not sure what I should say on JCP's line here. I guess I'm confused. 'Free thinker', of course, is a euphemism for aetheist or agnostic (Susan Jakoby has a book with that title. Guess what it's about. ). To claim to be a free thinker and not an agnostic or aetheist is to ignore the history of the term (Is this necessarily a bad thing? I don't know.)Chris, I fear death. I fear dying in my sleep. It has nothing to do with what happens to me, it has to do with what happens to my family after I'm gone. At least for men, I suspect something like real fear really only begins after you have children (My point being simply that if you look at it from that point of view, and not metaphysically, you'll agree with me. )Jim, I don't buy it for a second. You would still do what you do with or without God. The question is would you still be Jim without that faith? Why God? Why not? I don't think I can answer that. But if we look at the question seriously without being flippant it's worth talking about. At the same time, it would be interesting to discuss why God is in fact the default position for most people in the world. I don't believe that you can pin it down to one answer. Or rather the search for one answer inevitably leads one to God, but that doesn't make Him exist anymore than the shift to the Copernican system flushed Him out of existence. |
||
|
Christopher
Moderator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-08-02
Posts 8296Purgatorial Incarceration |
quote:I don’t believe the level of comfort has so much to do with avoidance as it does with not recognizing the offering as valid in the first place. Rebellion. I’m tasting that word because it doesn’t fit; in order for there to be a rebellion, one has to recognize a ruling organization under which they “suffer” and wish to be free from. I bypass that whole part and see no logical reason to recognize God in the first place, much less need to form a spiritual rebellion… any more than I would rebel against your parents grounding me; since they’re not my parents, they have no sway over me. I can’t rebel against them because I don’t recognize in them a power to affect my life. I think, as a mild aside, one of the things that bother me the most about ideas such as “fallen flesh” is the implied notion that we must “pay for the sins of our fathers.” It’s a concept similar to asking me atone for those ancestors of mine who held slaves. It’s asking me to feel guilty for having an ancestor who committed crimes. It’s asking me, in other words, to live life not as my own, but in service of another idea, in service to God to atone for Adam and Eve picking some fruit as if my worth couldn’t be judged by its own merit, but must be weighed against a past I had no influence over. quote: quote:Using the term “creator” implies an intelligent intent. That’s a far cry from a metaphysical occurrence and much less likely. There are things that cannot be explained. While that doesn’t rule out a god, it in no way requires one. To me, it seems much more likely to break a few laws of nature than to stretch even farther and propose an alien intelligence. On one, you’re reaching just a little (from a relative perspective). On the other, you’re reaching much, much farther. I’m more inclined to believe the theory that stretches credulity the least. quote:Death is death. Annihilation, as you put it, is nothing more than an alternate form of life, a change. I don’t necessarily believe that’s what happens myself, but even if it is, that doesn’t detract from the value one has while here on this planet. If anything, it makes all they (we) do all the more valuable because, hey, that’s it, that’s all you get – make a good showing while you have the chance. quote:The fear of pain is not necessarily grounded, as that is something dependent on the circumstances of an individual’s death. The fear of whether a “hereafter” exists? Well, a divine promise is faith based. Faith based concepts don’t require (and often negate) logical pathways. One can have all the faith they want in any given thing. They can have that faith reaffirmed by old and wise men. They can have peers to also reinforce that faith… and in the end find it unfounded. If I stand at the edge of a cliff and you, Ron, and other people whose opinions I respect tells me to go ahead and jump because someone will catch me, that faith might not be founded, eh? quote:The desire for continuance, significance, etc., isn’t answered by a deity. It can promise to deliver in response to such desires, however… if you have faith. You know what comes to mind at this point (I’ve been writing this thing all darn day… work keeps interfering, so pardon any stilted conjunctions): I think of the old adage that effectively says that a person doesn’t sit on their death bed wishing they had spent less time with their family and more time at work. I think life as a whole is much the same – I don’t want to sit on my death bed thinking that I shouldn’t have wasted my life gambling on the unfounded promise of a divine hereafter, but instead should have enjoyed the life I had while I had it. Peace Stephen. I too am enjoying our interchange. |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
quote: I'm curious, Chris, why you don't seem to be equally bothered by the color of your eyes or the fact that you were born in America, both of which were beyond your control and both of which were direct consequences of decisions made by distant progenitors? Cause and effect doesn't begin anew with each human birth. |
||
|
Christopher
Moderator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-08-02
Posts 8296Purgatorial Incarceration |
So it's immoral to have been born in America with blue eyes? There is no recognizable ability to choose in those matters, Ron. A clearly definable difference between enslavement, murder, etc. quote:No, Ron, but choice does. I'm not really arguing about control itself, anyway. I'm arguing about culpability, about the need to atone for some distant transaction. If you can tell me you find I'm wrong in some way for the location of my birth or the color of my eyes, then I guess we'll take this conversation in that direction. As it stands, though, the "sins of our fathers" doesn't typically focus on traits such as birthplace or apparent genetics, but rather in deeds. Actions are something that should be judged on an individual, not an ancestral basis. I am not my father. You are not yours. We may bear some traits to them, but the choices we make are ours alone. Are our actions influenced by our ancestors? Quite likely. Does that give us any real culpability for any of THEIR actions? Absolutely not. Besides, I like the color of my eyes. |
||
|
Huan Yi Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688Waukegan |
“Death is a balance to life. Death must exist for life to have any value. That same immortality I’m joking about would remove the contrast that makes life so worth living, that shows the colors to eyes that would otherwise be blind.” ZARDOZ . Lying In A Hammock At William Duffy’s Farm In Pine Island, Minnesota [Edit Copyrighted poetry removed. Please respect the rights of others. - Ron] James Wright ................. Dead [Edit Copyrighted poetry removed. Please respect the rights of others. - Ron] Rhoda Coghill ................ Think about how the notion of God(s) has evolved as man himself has moved in time and place. . [This message has been edited by Ron (12-13-2006 08:56 PM).] |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
quote: Some in this world certainly seem to think so, Chris. In truth, of course, being born in American doesn't make you evil, but it absolutely has a very profound effect on the choices you make. And that's no different at all from the concept of Original Sin. Let's explore two hypothetical scenes. Scene one. You're ten years old, walking down the sidewalk in a quiet residential neighborhood, hand-in-hand with your father who towers at your side. He asks you not to spit on the sidewalk. Scene two. Same quiet neighborhood, but you're now walking alone, an orphan who barely remembers his parents. Across the street is a group of other kids, raucously seeing who can spit the farthest. You have the same exact choices in both scenes, Chris, but the likelihood of what you decide to do is markedly different. In scene one, you are offered direct guidance. In scene two, there is no guidance beyond, perhaps, a distant memory that your parents told you not to spit in public, and you can't even be too sure of that. You didn't ask not to be guided. That impediment was placed there for you, maybe by the father who is no longer there. Obviously, though, that doesn't change reality or shift the responsibility of your choices to someone else. The important point is precisely the one you made, Chris. The choice to spit or not spit is still yours and yours alone. You don't have to spit just because there's no one there directly telling you that you shouldn't. You don't have to spit just because the other kids are all doing it. The choice is yours. Even if you don't know any better. And the consequences of your choice will be yours, too. Now multiply that choice to spit by the two trillion seconds in an average man's life and that's a good estimate of how many times you and I have to get it wrong. Original sin doesn't predetermine your choices. If the Bible is to be believed, at least one man in history supplanted direct guidance with absolute faith and managed to never get it wrong. But you don't get to reclaim the direct guidance that was lost, either, even if you weren't the one to eat a rotten apple. That was a birthright that was lost before it could be passed to you. It should have been yours, but it never was. Just like you didn't get brown eyes or a French accent. |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Good replies from all ... I don't have time to respond right now, but I think I will leave you with this thought. We've all spit, quite a bit. So it's now beyond the "choose to be good" phase. Actually it's worse than that. Stephen. |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
Maybe we are trying to spit out something a snake talked us into eating? |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
"Without God, everything is permissible" --Dostoyevsky One of the problems that surface in that article you posted Stephen is what that means exactly. On the one hand, Craig seems to argue that it means aetheists can do what they want and this includes people who are sadistic, psychopathic, or sociopathic. We can follow our evil impulses, to revel in them as one Communist puts it. On the other, he criticizes aetheists for being 'inconsitent' if they act or applaud things that a Christian would generally consider to be good. To put it another way: It doesn't matter, so you can do anything you want. and It doesn't matter, so how can you act or applaud what you want? As far as I can tell, Stephen, you see it as the former and I agree, but until Craig sees it that way, his charge of inconsistency rings hollow. And that's just the beginning. |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
quote: I'm sorry Brad, I'm not sure I'm understanding what you are saying. Are you saying that he can't see both points you brought up ... that in doing so, he is being inconsistent? If so. I'd like you to explain a bit. From a theistic standpoint, I'm not sure that one can't cogently see the downside of atheistic relativism and the inconsistency of atheistic moralism at the same time. But maybe I'm misunderstanding you. Stephen. |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Brad: quote: I'm sorry Brad, after rereading, I think I see what you're getting at. I think Craig's argument is not that atheistic morals can't "applaud" what they want and be consistent. Because applause has to do with preference, rather than universals. I think his argument is that even atheists who decry what is "immoral" do so with the language of the universalist, as if it were more than merely preferential, and therefore obligatory to more than just themselves. Stephen. |
||
|
Huan Yi Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688Waukegan |
. In truth this seems like so much counting angels on the head of a pin. A doctor once told me that one third of all medical expenditures in the United States are involved with the last few weeks of life. That tells me that for all the talk few if anyone is all that confident there is anyone or anything after. The most confident seem to be those who blow themselves up killing others in the name of their God, (whom they are convinced by virtue of words written and taught will reward their sacrifice). . |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
John: quote: As an RN who works in an ICU where people die daily on Ventilators and various other kinds of "life support", I just have to point out that most end-of-life medical decisions are made by family members, who have their own motives for wanting to keep the loved one alive. So these expenditures (in reality) don't necessarily reflect the wishes of the incapacitated who have often been in prolonged pain. However, it is well conceded that even those who have faith are not always beyond great attachment to earthly loves. But I really don't see how that casts doubt upon God's existence one way or the other. When he created the world we now see, he said "behold it is very good". Lesser loves will often be embraced rather than greater ... After all we do see "as in a glass darkly". And even the great Apostle Paul who risked life and limb for the Gospel, said that he was torn between this life and the next. And I've always said the Zeal of extreme religionists is to be admired. The problem is not their certainty or devotion to God, but their ideas about his nature, which leads them to commit atrocities. We only lament the ability of a car (or driver) to race at 70 MPH when it crashes into another one. Stephen. |
||
|
LeeJ Member Patricius
since 2003-06-19
Posts 13296 |
I believe since the beginning of man's time, he has had this uncontrollable desire to worship something much more powerful then himself and perhaps stems from fears of violent weather, natural disasters, etc. But also, to believe in something greater then himself. Something, mystical and something that must be the creator of man and his world. |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
quote: Sorry it took so long to get back to this. I disagree with your reading, but even if what you say is true, I still don't get it. quote: From your point, I am allowed to praise a person's selfless action but that that is a mere preference on my part. And you are allowed to praise a selfless action and it has some meat to it because you believe in God. But if you're world view is wrong, then yours is a mere preference too. If mine is wrong, my preference is still correct. I guess I'm stuck with the same question again. If God tells you to do something that your 'mere preference' tells you is wrong (I don't know, how about killing your firstborn?), what do you do? But back to the article. We are told that aetheists believe in a world without reason. This is incorrect. We have reason and we have reasons, they just aren't Ultimate Reason or ultimate reasons. Believers don't have these either (They are, as far as I can tell, reserved for God.). So, how do you live with a Father who tells you what to do but leaves his justification in reserve. How long do you, we go before starting to ask questions? The hidden assumption, I think, is something we've touched on before. Foundationalism and Foundationalists believe that if you attack that one reason, that one rock everything will fall apart. We attacked, you (meaning religious folk)moved the rock and the world did not fall apart because maybe, just maybe, you don't need an ultimate foundation to have reason or to have reasons for living a decent life. |
||
|
Huan Yi Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688Waukegan |
. or Pascal’s wager . . . After all, what can you lose? “And yet the atheist, like the rest of us, instinctively reacts with praise for this man’s selfless action.’ Yet, (as I’ve quoted before from an introduction to Aesop’s Fables in support), is an evolution in human morality. Before Christianity, kicking a man while he was down was the accepted laudable wisdom. “Even if you don't know any better.” Can there then be true choice? B.F. Skinner would have doubts. John . |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
Humanitarianism, at least in the form we recognize today, didn't really arise until the late sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. It corresponded to rise of quasi-deism eventually leading to fullfledged deism, and at the same time a more concentrated view of morality in the Churches. |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Brad: quote: I didn't say it was mere preference on your part ... you too are inwardly compelled by God's law. You even criticize your own moral failures, as do we all. What I did say was that given your worldview there's no reason to think that it amounts to anything more than personal preference. It at least would not warrant the kind of moral indignation, or ethical admiration that you feel and express from time to time. quote: Pascal turned on his head? I have to admit that's the first time I've heard that one attempted. Your preference is still correct. Yes. But given the Christian worldview, what does that ensure? It's not as if you always choose what you morally admire, or live up to even your own standards. I imagine that self-censure is as real for you as it is for me. And just imagine unmitigated censure of a holy and righteous God. From the Christian view of things, that you might often agree with God about moral behavior (imago dei) is a given. Remember, I am not saying that recognition of moral absolutes is the culmination of Christianity. Rather it is the beginning of a road. Or to the atheist, a clue of a great mystery. quote: It goes without saying that Abraham’s test was an exception rather than a rule. However, there are notable things about that incident which are often slurred over, which might intimate an answer for you. Firstly, Abraham had faith in some kind of intervention (The New Testament book of Hebrews tells us that at the very least he reasoned that God was able to raise the dead), else he never would have answered Isaac’s questioning by saying “God himself will provide the lamb for the burnt offering”. Secondly, the sacrifice was prevented, vindicating Abraham’s trust. The bottom line is, Abraham felt that to disobey God would bring about a greater evil than what he could conceive in the death of his own son. And lastly, such a questionable justice (as an exception) served only to illustrate that God himself might one day do something which could technically be called a perversion of justice, in order to demonstrate an even greater mercy ... ie, the sacrifice of his own son for the sins of the world. At least the request to sacrifice one’s own beloved may give somebody like you pause, that something else is afoot. The demand to kill one’s enemies is much too congruent with a selfish lust for blood. At any rate Brad, I’m quite sure that this example cannot easily be compared to the ruthless killing by religious extremists ... examples that you have brought up in the past, of divine submission gone awry. It’s very different when the incident is exceptional rather than common, and when the potential sacrifice is beloved rather than hated, and finally disallowed. If not fully satisfactory to your mind, still less an example to be thrown up as a certain perversion of goodness, or as a barrier to faith. quote: But believers do have revealed reasons, which are absolute, even if not exhaustive. It’s easy to make the mistake of thinking that if something isn’t known comprehensively, it cannot be known. The difference is, with atheism, reason is logically reduced to egoistic pragmatism ... which doesn’t really have to be reasonable at all. And though reason in Christian theology is a handmaiden rather than a queen (that is, having significant limitations), she still has a pedigree and purpose beyond herself. As to how I live with a Father like that ... The best of human fathers exhibit the same. No parent answers the question “why” ad nauseum, or when it becomes an excuse for disobedience. quote: How long does God forbear when questions become means of avoidance? I’m not saying it’s true of you Brad, but it may become so with anyone. No one is saying questions aren’t allowed. Even Mary asked, almost incredulously “How can this be seeing I am a virgin”? quote: Brad, you seriously haven’t noticed that the world is falling apart? quote: “Where has God gone?" he cried. "I shall tell you. We have killed him - you and I. We are his murderers. But how have we done this? How were we able to drink up the sea? Who gave us the sponge to wipe away the entire horizon? What did we do when we unchained the earth from its sun? Whither is it moving now? Whither are we moving now? Away from all suns? Are we not perpetually falling? Backward, sideward, forward, in all directions? Is there any up or down left? Are we not straying as through an infinite nothing? Do we not feel the breath of empty space? Has it not become colder? Is it not more and more night coming on all the time? Must not lanterns be lit in the morning?” I simply refer you to the likes of Nietzsche, and others who have seen the horrors of becoming surrogate gods. And while I know you don’t subscribe to what he said concerning this, I don’t feel that you’ve really given convincing reasons why he was wrong. But again, moral recognition, or even meeting expectations of common “decency” is not the summation of Christianity. Stephen. |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
quote: Yeah, I knew that one would be too easy. What can I say? I was pressed for time. |
||
|
Kitherion Member
since 2006-08-01
Posts 181Johannesburg |
Now, now children play nicely ! Who says that it is a God and not a Goddess? I don't mean to offend - especially not Stephanos, my faithfull and slightly knowledgeable rival - but who is to say that the pantheon of Gods does not exist? Who in their right mind would believe in a single God, and yet they disbeleive in a multitude of Gods/Goddesses who are united and set the same goals for human kind? And no, do not misunderstand me by quoting the Greek or Roman Gods/Goddesses (and neither the Nors or Egyptian... I hope you get my point) and their squabbles. I speak about a personal belief within oneself which stems from a need and spiritual desire for acceptance. Within the path of the Goddess I walk, she guides my every step.. into the oblivion called life. |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
quote: I suppose if I'm adding anything new here, that would be it. And I suspect if I reviewed our conversations over the years, it wouldn't be all that new. But it's not just a reversal trick. quote: Nothing. A moral choice, if it is indeed moral, can't ensure anything. Kant again -- though I would never call myself a Kantian. quote: No, of course I don't live up to these moral standards, they are a conceptual ideal. But the point isn't that so much as what happens when moral concepts and God's word (whether through revelation or a reading of the Bible) conflicts with that conceptual ideal. What do you do? quote: True, in fact the emphasis on moral standards really only began in the seventeeth century -- cullminating in the Second Great Awakening in America. That is not the be all, end all of Christianity. But, at the same time, that emphasis, I think, creates a rift between what you call God's inner compulsions (what I'm talking about when I say moral decision.) and what certain Christians, not all to be sure, call God's word. That the right choice ensures something more than being moral, you see, clouds the sincerity of that decision. That sounds too abstract. If I can find the time I'll try to be more specific later. |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Brad: quote: I think instances where "conscience" would not be harmonious with God's word, would be rare indeed. But if it's God, you are safer with him than with conscience alone. That's where personal guidance comes in. I don't know of anything in the divine history (other than the exceptional story you've already pointed out) where obeying God would be considered immoral. But I am aware of the possibility of actions being misunderstood by others based upon magnifying certain moral principles to the disregard of others. quote: Have you read the same New Testament that I have? If you are referring to an ethical monomania, you might be right. If you are saying that morality has not been of vital importance in the Judeo-Christian history (from Moses till now) then I think you're simply mistaken, judging from the texts we have. quote: Can you give me an example? quote: How so? Stephen. |
||
|
Huan Yi Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688Waukegan |
. Stephen, You argue for a Christian version of a single God full of love and compassion that is pretty young in human view. Would you be just as comfortable with one of many that was capricious with lightning bolts and occasionally took on the guise of a bull to get the girl? John P.S. Namu Amida Butsu . |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
John, Of course not, I am only speaking of the Biblical God. Since the Bible spans all of human history (covering briefly even what we consider to be prehistory, in the revelation given to Moses), I am more inclined to think that such "gods" you make mention of are later perversions and fragmentations of the one true religion. This makes more sense to me than the theory that monotheism "evolved" out of many disparate religious ideas. Stephen. |
||
|
Huan Yi Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688Waukegan |
. Stephen, Yet the “Biblical God” was the faith of a very small minority and didn’t until relatively recently spread out for the chance to be perverted by anyone. This gets into Dante’s First Circle. John . |
||
|
ChristianSpeaks Member
since 2006-05-18
Posts 396Iowa, USA |
quote: Going back to Ess' comment. I think that existance always has to be justified if not at least proven. Without a higher power what is the reasoning for your belief in your own existance? Can you prove you exist?I think many look to God for the proof/justification. That way we may see it as something that was done to/for us rather than something that is random and then perhaps meaningless. Just a thought. CS |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
John: quote: The theory that monotheism is the end product of polytheism is not so certain as you make it out to be. Yawehism dates as far back as many of the documented polytheistic expressions of worship. While the documents of the Pentateuch themselves cannot be directly traced to the ancient times they describe (they are most likely compilations of earlier writings) their history has been shown to be harmonious with what is known of the Ancient Near East. Of course, like any ancient history, much is in the dark and beyond confirmation or refutation. Alongside the antiquity of Yawehism (which admittedly may have been henotheistic at times) we have the Genesis accounts where the first human parents and their direct descendents knew God and held a monotheistic recognition of him. The idea is that through the fall, and a sordid history, this knowledge was forgotten at worst, perverted at best. One Jewish Sage (Maimonides) in the "Mishneh Torah" explained it this way ... "In the days of Enosh, mankind made a great mistake... seeing that God had created the stars and constellations... and set them in the sky and gave them a place of honor... they assumed that these were worthy of praise... They began to build monuments and offer sacrifices, to verbally extol them and bow down to them." In the course of time people made representational images, and the worship of idols became widespread." Not only does this better fit what we know of social entropy, but there are strands of monotheistic tendencies within ancient paganisms, such as the Egyptian cult of Aten, early Zoroastrianism, and the early monotheistic tendencies of Hinduism. I am certainly not saying that these are directly linked to the later Mosaic religion of the Jews (beyond the primal and prehistorical described in Genesis), but such similarities are striking to me, and make would-be-certain statements about the gradual evolution of monotheism out of polytheism more doubtful. Stephen. |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
There are strong arguments though to suggest that portrayals of imperfect pagan gods were improvised in lore to make a portrayal of an all perfect God, that became the biblical God. Even in a link that I received a few days ago, it is referred to: http://www.aninfidelmanifesto.com/home.htm "Lenaire discusses the progression of multiple imperfect pagan deities that have been transformed over time into one perfect God." Where do these arguments come from, truths, halftruths, or outright lies? |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Essorant, what strong arguments? We have polytheistic and monotheistic tendencies side by side in ancient history. It's interesting that this "evolutionary" explanation of God came on the heels of biological evolutionism, a time in which the philosophical idea of gradual development was applied procrustean fashion to literally everything. It's an attempt to explain away, rather than explain. But you're right about the half-truths part ... There's no doubt that mankind's fragmented conceptions of deity have contained isolated attributes of God. More like a dropped mirror, than one constructed out of unrelated shards. Stephen. |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
http://personalpages.tds.net/~theseeker/Yahweh.htm "The evolution of God, from a multitude of various earlier deities to the currently accepted and locally popular version of a single omnipotent deity, is well documented." |
||
|
Huan Yi Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688Waukegan |
Oh No Lions and tigers and bears! |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Essorant, it would be much more stimulating to hear arguments from the likes of us, than to keep posting someone else's web pages. I don't mind quotes, as I quote quite a bit myself. But any serious discussion requires that references be secondary and truly grasping conversation primary. I could post web pages too, but I would rather explore our own grasp of the topic. It's kind of like proposing to a woman ... even if someone else could do it better, you wouldn't want them to do it for you. Of course it might be foolhardy to refuse a little help or advice. Stephen. |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
What is the point of arguing? We never come to any kind of compromise or conclusion. I think my arguing days in this forum shall be over for a long time. |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
Sorry, I posted in the wrong thread  |
||
|
Huan Yi Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688Waukegan |
Stephen, I really have to disagree. It’s if we’re not supposed to read and think and merely go out into the woods and figure things out for ourselves. If that were the case we’d still be in caves worshipping bears on a flat earth that rested on a turtle’s back in the dead center of the universe. John |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
Good point. My reference was also meant to be an example of fairly strong arguments, to back up my point that there are strong arguments to suggest the God in the bible and much monotheism, is derived from pagan deities of polytheism. |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
Ah man, you guys have made this point interesting. Why God? Here's my two cents: Before the scientific revolution, the main thinking about the world is often described as hylomorphism. Hylomorphism is juxtaposed to atomism. What's the difference? Hylomorphism: the form remains fixed, the matter changes. Atomism: the matter remains fixed, the form changes. Now both idea were, of course, around but the dominant form of thought, or so I am told, was hylomorphism. What follows from that is that the conscious mind (ourselves if you will), its form, is replicated in everything just in different substances. It follows from that that the universe is not possible without God. Get it? After the scientific revolution, atomism took over and all of a sudden the universe was different forms, same matter. What this leaves out is consciousness. How does the same matter, in any form, form consciousness? And that's pretty much where we are today. Today, of course, we talk about materialism (atomism) and dualism (a compromised form of hylomorphism). The interesting thing here is that even after atomism becomes dominant, belief in God wasn't suddenly thrown out the window. That is a slightly different story and I haven't finished the book yet. The book, for anyone interested is, "Without God, Without Creed: The Origins of Unbelief in America" by James Turner. It's not a page turner but it is interesting. |
||
|
Huan Yi Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688Waukegan |
I don’t think we can deny fear accompliced by the human trait to seek and find order, sense, even in chaos as the motivator. All through time up to the present when God was not found to be where he was supposed to be, on a mountain or a cloud, or taking care of those who believed, from the Black Plague to the Holocaust, man has come up with a new twist to explain Him still being there. Why, because without Him the end is more likely the end and that’s terrifying. And I’m not saying a religion that has carrots and sticks was all that bad. Without it there might have been such a sense of pointlessness and futility that civilization might have never progressed beyond grass huts. But it also has and, in it’s primitive forms still now, is the cause for a great deal of horror and bloodshed. Maybe we just can’t handle for the brief time we have really being on our own. |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
John: quote: Do you really think I said to do that? Not at all. I merely made the point that a philosophy forum is for putting forth premises and their defenses as we understand them. I myself try to be as well read as possible, and never have pretended that my ideas are original (only that they are correct ). My only contention is that posting links alone, rather than letting others know you even grasp the arguments at hand, is like hiring someone else to do your own job interview. I'm certainly not saying that you need get no credentials, by way of prior training, for the job. And if it's being well read that you want, I have a reading list for you too, if that's all we're doing here. But being the kind of forum where ideas in some sense become our own, discussion is paramount. Kevin: quote: I don't see "argument" as necessarily a negative thing in a philosophy forum, as long as it can be done respectfully. And evidently, neither do you see it as always negative, else you wouldn't be so anxious to show "strong arguments" for one particular way of thinking. I was only asking that you do the arguing rather than only posting links. I'm not suggesting that you can't reference anyone, or even use someone elses ideas. I would just prefer to hear it from you that's all. It lets me know that you have some grasp of the issues at hand (which I do not really doubt- it's just that I can't get any response from an author who isn't present). I certainly meant no offense. Brad is a good example for you I think. He and I do not agree, and yet he has assimilated and expressed ideas as his own, and never merely drops a blog-link without commenting on its content. I understand that critical thinking and polemics can become wearisome, and that taking breaks are needed (I disappear from the forum from time to time too). But if you're going to take a break, Joe Blogger doens't begin to take your place. I miss you too much to let him. I'd rather save a place for you. Am I the only one that feels this way? Stephen. |
||
|
Interloper
since 2000-11-06
Posts 8369Deep in the heart |
God is, and we need not be afraid of death. |
||
|
Huan Yi Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688Waukegan |
. "God is, and we need not be afraid of death." Or He isn't, which changes nothing . . . . |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
"Write me after the first of the year, JCP, and we can talk about what might or might not happen in 2007." I hope you may come back soon, JCP. |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Christopher: quote: Christopher, I apologize that I didn't address this sooner. But I wanted to ask some questions about this, and make some observations. An atheist sits on his death-bed. And (given his world-view) his very existence is ephemeral as a bit of fog on a pane of glass. Theists have typically put forth the idea that death-bed regrets are most often based upon perceived moral failures, and questions about whether or not enough love was shown to others. I understand this mindset, in light of a belief in God who is both judge and redeemer of earthly actions. But why would this question be so important for an atheist who is presumably facing personal extinguishment? What significance does the word "wasted" have upon a situation that will utterly end, especially when spoken at or near that end? You might reply that it is out of a concern for others, which would be right whether or not God exists. (however, I personally question this "big" kind of rightness if God doesn't exist) But even given that, since the past cannot be changed, and there is no certainty that it will at all matter post-mortem, wouldn't anxiety be fruitless? At least in the Christian scheme of things, regret of the past can be transformed into hopes of future redemption both personally and for those left behind. For God can mitigate the effects of failure, and bring good out of bad. Therefore the atheist's dying ponderances seem to make less sense than the Christians, given the atheists assumptions about reality. I guess what I'm getting at, is that pining for something of greater significance in one's last days is more confirming of theism than non-theism. That's why it was surprising to me that you used this example. Where's Huan's grim realism when I need it to make my point? I guess what I'm saying is does such a teleology of "wasted versus invested" even make sense at the threshold of atheistic death? Don't get me wrong, I don't accept Pascal's wager as a stand-alone reason to 'blindly' believe. I think we have been given the means to a greater certainty than a game of poker. But though you chide the dying Christian for having "gambled", doesn't the truth of Pascal's wager bite at this point? Given atheism, ten seconds prior to death, thoughts of whether or not life was squandered, seem about as significant as whether one is wearing black or white socks. Stephen. |
||
|
|
⇧ top of page ⇧ |
|
| All times are ET (US). All dates are in Year-Month-Day format. | ||
