Religion and Ethics Forum
General Category => General Discussion => Topic started by: Harrowby Hall on August 05, 2016, 11:38:05 AM
-
BBC Radio 4 - Friday, 5 August, 11.00am Available on BBC iPlayer
Swapping Psalms for Pop Songs
An interesting supplement to the Surprising BBC thread.
The programme examines the phenomenon of the "atheist church". It includes observations about the perception of atheism in the USA.
-
Well there's an idea! Did you iisten and, if so, what genre of pop music? I might listen in if I fancy the music.
Atheism has religious aspects.
Definition of religion (one of the definitions), according to Dictionary.com:
6.something one believes in and follows devotedly; a point or matter of ethics or conscience:
to make a religion of fighting prejudice.
-
Dear Harrowby,
Taking the best bits of Church without God :o not an atheist Church, and there is those two words again "new" and "atheist".
New atheism cast a shadow over it and that shadow is now clearing
The gentleman was talking about celebrating a godless outlook, I wonder how many atheists on this forum celebrate a "godless outlook".
Linda Woodhead, Professor of sociology of religion, Churches have become more and more strongly religious
less and less hospitable.
David Robertson a Minister of the Free Church, atheists think that we are inherently good, where as he thinks we are inherently flawed :o
Anyway, thank you Harrowby, that was a very interesting link but I kind of got the feeling that it was slightly biased against this Sunday Assembly movement.
Gonnagle.
PS: http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b07m7z0r
A link to the radio programme.
-
Atheism has religious aspects.
Definition of religion (one of the definitions), according to Dictionary.com:
6.something one believes in and follows devotedly; a point or matter of ethics or conscience:
to make a religion of fighting prejudice.
Careful, Brownie. The non-religious here are absolutely determined that what they believe is not a belief!
-
Well there's an idea! Did you iisten and, if so, what genre of pop music? I might listen in if I fancy the music.
Atheism has religious aspects.
Definition of religion (one of the definitions), according to Dictionary.com:
6.something one believes in and follows devotedly; a point or matter of ethics or conscience:
to make a religion of fighting prejudice.
I believe in and follow atheism to the same extent as aunicornism. Is my aunicornism a religion?
Also since I have never seen a logically consistent or meaningful definition of God, is my ahyoooottfulism a religion?
-
Listening to the programme, its interesting how similar many of the comments by those who have come with complex issues are to those who come to churches with comparable issues.
-
Thanks for that link Gonnagle.
I've listened to just over half and will listen to the rest a bit later.
Very interesting indeed!
The terms, "Atheist church", is a bit ambiguous but never mind, it's not always easy to find the right words to describe something relatively new.
It reminded me of 'Happy clappy' church, not my bag but each to their own. Spiritually uplifting :). Very concerned with community. It all seems quite positive if you like the idea of belonging to a group and joining in which isn't for all of us but fills a gap for many.
No doubt the Sunday Assembly will evolve and diverge.
The bit of the Nashville Assembly played was doing a Stones number, can't be bad!
NS - you mean unicorns don't exist ??? I've seen 'em ontelly.
-
Dear Hope,
Old Bluehillside will blow his top with this radio programme, it talks about how this generation should indoctrinate the next generation into their Church :o
Gonnagle.
-
Careful, Brownie. The non-religious here are absolutely determined that what they believe is not a belief!
Unsurprisingly - since not believing in God isn't a belief.
-
I think that there is a spectrum about non-belief. There are atheists who firmly believe that there is no God or in fact, gods. Sometimes called gnostic atheism, I think. However, there seem to be a ton of atheists who are agnostic atheists, that is, they don't claim to know about God, but lack a belief therein.
This is like not collecting stamps, isn't it? This is not a form of collecting.
But some Christians want to portray atheism as a belief, as then there is a burden of proof for the atheists.
-
I think that there is a spectrum about non-belief. There are atheists who firmly believe that there is no God or in fact, gods. Sometimes called gnostic atheism, I think. However, there seem to be a ton of atheists who are agnostic atheists, that is, they don't claim to know about God, but lack a belief therein.
This is like not collecting stamps, isn't it? This is not a form of collecting.
But some Christians want to portray atheism as a belief, as then there is a burden of proof for the atheists.
Exactly right!
I am an agnostic atheist, and I suspect most atheists on here are.
-
Gonners,
Old Bluehillside will blow his top with this radio programme, it talks about how this generation should indoctrinate the next generation into their Church :o
Can't listen just now - there's a test match on!
Does it really though? Seems like an odd thing to say given that most non-religious I'd have thought would say that "indoctrinating" children into anything is a bad idea.
-
Hope,
Careful, Brownie. The non-religious here are absolutely determined that what they believe is not a belief!
A-theism is a function of what people don't believe, not what they do believe.
How many times does this have to be explained to you before it sinks in?
-
Hope,
A-theism is a function of what people don't believe, not what they do believe.
How many times does this have to be explained to you before it sinks in?
I suppose technically that is true, but kind of 'Militant Atheism' that is spearheaded by the likes of Dawkins goes much further. In fact I would say that it has become a campaign to destroy religion.
-
I suppose technically that is true, but kind of 'Militant Atheism' that is spearheaded by the likes of Dawkins goes much further. In fact I would say that it has become a campaign to destroy religion.
if by technically, you mean actually, fine.
The second is questionable, and may just mean outspoken
The third is antitheism
-
if by technically, you mean actually, fine.
The second is questionable, and may just mean outspoken
The third is antitheism
I mean that the definition of atheism (oxfordonline) is:
"Disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods."
Fine that confirms your view.
However, mention atheism and everyone thinks of Dawkins, look around and the kind of thing that comes-up is:
http://www.learnoutloud.com/Free-Audio-Video/Science/Biology/Richard-Dawkins-on-Militant-Atheism/30876
I'm not saying that he is right or wrong but there is no denying he has an agenda that goes way beyond simple non-belief .
-
Apparently the assembly movement experienced a bit of a schism in the US giving rise to continuing Assemblies which welcome all and Cabarets which are vehemently antitheist and really only welcome the converted antitheist.
-
I mean that the definition of atheism (oxfordonline) is:
"Disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods."
Fine that confirms your view.
However, mention atheism and everyone thinks of Dawkins, look around and the kind of thing that comes-up is:
http://www.learnoutloud.com/Free-Audio-Video/Science/Biology/Richard-Dawkins-on-Militant-Atheism/30876
I'm not saying that he is right or wrong but there is no denying he has an agenda that goes way beyond simple non-belief .
Yep. The definition confirms my view. Attaching anything beyond that to me would be incorrect.
-
Yep. The definition confirms my view. Attaching anything beyond that to me would be incorrect.
I would say that a word has many associations that go beyond it's simple dictionary definition. For example, try putting atheism into a Thesaurus and you might get:
nihilism, disbelief, doubt, freethinking, godlessness, heresy, iconoclasm, impiety, infidelity, irreligion, irreverence, paganism, skepticism, unbelief, nonbelief
Put the word in Google and references to New Atheism (or Militant Atheism) will be sure to come up.
-
L.A.,
I suppose technically that is true, but kind of 'Militant Atheism' that is spearheaded by the likes of Dawkins goes much further. In fact I would say that it has become a campaign to destroy religion.
Not really, for the reasons NS has explained already.
Additionally though, "militant" atheism is a misnomer for the most part used by theists to spook the horses. Dawkins et al are for the largely characterised by their politeness in my experience, and there's nothing "militant" about them that I can see. What they actually object to is religions arrogating rights and privileges to themselves, in response to which their proponents tend to shout "militant".
RD in particular has said that he wouldn't be without the cultural heritage of Christianity. What he objects to though - as do I - is the habit of some of its clerics to overreach in the public square.
-
L.A.,
I would say that a word has many associations that go beyond it's simple dictionary definition. For example, try putting atheism into a Thesaurus and you might get:...
But a thesaurus is for associated terms, not for definitions.
-
I would say that a word has many associations that go beyond it's simple dictionary definition. For example, try putting atheism into a Thesaurus and you might get:
nihilism, disbelief, doubt, freethinking, godlessness, heresy, iconoclasm, impiety, infidelity, irreligion, irreverence, paganism, skepticism, unbelief, nonbelief
Put the word in Google and references to New Atheism (or Militant Atheism) will be sure to come up.
That's nice but doesn't apply to me so you have to deal with the actual. I can put religion in google and find IS, so you think my sainted old mother burns people?
-
L.A.,
But a thesaurus is for associated terms, not for definitions.
They are concepts that are associated with that word and therefore may give a fuller understanding.
-
That's nice but doesn't apply to me so you have to deal with the actual. I can put religion in google and find IS, so you think my sainted old mother burns people?
I think it might be useful to a great many people to understand that religion is not monolithic and that religions can be interpreted in vastly different ways by different people.
-
I think it might be useful to a great many people to understand that religion is not monolithic and that religions can be interpreted in vastly different ways by different people.
so why were you taking a position that was against that, and that for not believing?
-
L.A.,
Not really, for the reasons NS has explained already.
Additionally though, "militant" atheism is a misnomer for the most part used by theists to spook the horses. Dawkins et al are for the largely characterised by their politeness in my experience, and there's nothing "militant" about them that I can see. What they actually object to is religions arrogating rights and privileges to themselves, in response to which their proponents tend to shout "militant".
RD in particular has said that he wouldn't be without the cultural heritage of Christianity. What he objects to though - as do I - is the habit of some of its clerics to overreach in the public square.
I think he overreaches himself in the public square....but since that is not such as an offence with me as you........ he can fill his boots.
-
L.A.,
Not really, for the reasons NS has explained already.
Additionally though, "militant" atheism is a misnomer for the most part used by theists to spook the horses. Dawkins et al are for the largely characterised by their politeness in my experience, and there's nothing "militant" about them that I can see. What they actually object to is religions arrogating rights and privileges to themselves, in response to which their proponents tend to shout "militant".
RD in particular has said that he wouldn't be without the cultural heritage of Christianity. What he objects to though - as do I - is the habit of some of its clerics to overreach in the public square.
I agree, I am not accusing Dawkins of committing atrocities :) and I don't necessarily disagree with him on all points.
I am just saying that he has an agenda that goes way beyond simple non-belief - he even commissioned the Atheist Bus!
-
I agree, I am not accusing Dawkins of committing atrocities
Did you never see ''Dawkins: Sex, Death and the Meaning of Life'' on More 4?
-
I think that there is a spectrum about non-belief. There are atheists who firmly believe that there is no God or in fact, gods. Sometimes called gnostic atheism, I think. However, there seem to be a ton of atheists who are agnostic atheists, that is, they don't claim to know about God, but lack a belief therein.
This is like not collecting stamps, isn't it? This is not a form of collecting.
But some Christians want to portray atheism as a belief, as then there is a burden of proof for the atheists.
If someone is an agnostic atheist, doesn't that indicate that they believe that there is no God, as opposed to knowing that there isn't one.
-
If someone is an agnostic atheist, doesn't that indicate that they believe that there is no God, as opposed to knowing that there isn't one.
No, why should it?
-
Well I think I accept that atheism is the big non .
Unless an atheist argues with me in the name of atheism I assume I'm arguing with one of the Alf Garnetts of Antitheism on this forum.
-
If someone is an agnostic atheist, doesn't that indicate that they believe that there is no God, as opposed to knowing that there isn't one.
Not really. Agnostic atheist simply means lacking a positive belief. This is not the same as a positive belief in a lack.
Do you believe that there are black swans living in the Congo ? I don't believe that because I haven't seen any. That is not the same as positively knowing or believing that there aren't any. A positive belief derives from positive justification.
-
If someone is an agnostic atheist, doesn't that indicate that they believe that there is no God, as opposed to knowing that there isn't one.
This seems like you are proposing a false dichotomy here, where belief is the polar opposite of knowledge and where if one term doesn't fit the other must then apply by default. If so, then that doesn't work though since not only can I say I believe something I also have knowledge of, I can also simply say 'don't know' and reserve judgment or I might also consider that what was proposed is too incoherent to form a view at all, such as where the proposal is fallacious.
The key problems are where there is belief without supporting knowledge, or where what is being claimed as being supporting knowledge doesn't demonstrably justify the use of the term 'knowledge' (such as by being fallacious).
-
I find myself as someone who is convinced that that whom I have experienced is Christ against those who are convinced that that whom i have experienced is not Christ.
-
This seems like you are proposing a false dichotomy here, where belief is the polar opposite of knowledge and where if one term doesn't fit the other must then apply by default. If so, then that doesn't work though since not only can I say I believe something I also have knowledge of, I can also simply say 'don't know' and reserve judgment or I might also consider that what was proposed is too incoherent to form a view at all, such as where the proposal is fallacious.
The key problems are where there is belief without supporting knowledge, or where what is being claimed as being supporting knowledge doesn't demonstrably justify the use of the term 'knowledge' (such as by being fallacious).
Unfortunately though Gordon you have only successfully defined knowledge in terms of another belief........wha....wha....wha.....whaaaaaaa.
-
I find myself as someone who is convinced that that whom I have experienced is Christ against those who are convinced that that whom i have experienced is not Christ.
When an aboriginal communes with his ancestors are you convinced that what he experiences is not his ancestor ?
When an Amazonian enters a trance state to become an eagle are you convinced that what he experiences is not actually an eagle ?
-
When an aboriginal communes with his ancestors are you convinced that what he experiences is not his ancestor ?
When an Amazonian enters a trance state to become an eagle are you convinced that what he experiences is not actually an eagle ?
Since you seem to be on the side of those wishing to recast these experiences in naturalistic terms ....with a seeming pre emphasis on psychological incompetence.......................you tell me.
-
When an aboriginal communes with his ancestors are you convinced that what he experiences is not his ancestor ?
When an Amazonian enters a trance state to become an eagle are you convinced that what he experiences is not actually an eagle ?
Since you seem to be on the side of those wishing to recast these experiences in naturalistic terms ....with a seeming pre emphasis on psychological incompetence.......................you tell me.
Neatly side stepped.
All claims of esoteric experience are baffling to those who do not have them.
-
Since you seem to be on the side of those wishing to recast these experiences in naturalistic terms ....with a seeming pre emphasis on psychological incompetence.......................you tell me.
Neatly side stepped.
All claims of esoteric experience are baffling to those who do not have them.
Do you think people could be committed to not having them?
I know someone who described God trying to come into his life and him beating God back.
-
Vlad,
I think he overreaches himself in the public square....but since that is not such as an offence with me as you........ he can fill his boots.
Nope, and here's why...
Dawkins et al make arguments. Those arguments are separate from the people who make them, and they stand or fall moreover on their merits. If a counter-argument with more cogent reasoning emerges they fall away and are replaced; if not, they remain.
Clerics on the other hand personalise their faith claims: "God visited me, so I know god is real" etc and on the back of that they (often) claim special rights and privileges in the public square - the right to tax breaks, to teach their "facts" to children, to access to the media etc.
It's a fundamental difference. The rationalists let their arguments stand or fall as they will, and they claim no special protections or privileges for them; the clerics on the their hand park themselves in the public square as if by right.
-
Vlad,
Nope, and here's why...
Dawkins et al make arguments. Those arguments are separate from the people who make them, and they stand or fall moreover on their merits. If a counter-argument with more cogent reasoning emerges they fall away and are replaced; if not, they remain.
Clerics on the other hand personalise their faith claims: "God visited me, so I know god is real" etc and on the back of that they (often) claim special rights and privileges in the public square - the right to tax breaks, to teach their "facts" to children, to access to the media etc.
It's a fundamental difference. The rationalists let their arguments stand or fall as they will, and they claim no special protections or privileges for them; the clerics on the their hand park themselves in the public square as if by right.
This would be fine if it were invariably the case.
However when clerics speak in the public forum in secular environments on secular issues they tend to speak, well, secularly.
Any viewing of Dawkins televisual atrocity teaches us that he gets clerics to talk about faith then acts shocked and horrified when they do.
Unfortunately the easily led antitheist sap extrapolates this as the way clerics are.
I'm sure the mere sight of a dog collar elicits the response of "I just want to rip it off" in some people.
Dawkins is a convicted antitheist with an agenda based on an overarching philosophy about the way the world is.
I hear his next televisual effort is called "A year without God" In an obvious sense Dawkins can no more manage that than you or I have this past year.
Let's not forget also that Dawkins shuns scholarship of what his opposition actually believes and then decries an equal lack of scholarship in creationists and that makes him a humbug.
-
Vlad,
This would be fine if it were invariably the case.
Whether it’s invariably the case or not is neither here nor there. The fact that on the whole clerics think that “faith” should be taken seriously is sufficient to establish the difference between them and those who think that arguments should stand or fall on their merits.
However when clerics speak in the public forum in secular environments on secular issues they tend to speak, well, secularly.
Since when? Can you find me a cleric who thinks that his “faith” isn’t epistemologically important?
Any viewing of Dawkins televisual atrocity teaches us that he gets clerics to talk about faith then acts shocked and horrified when they do.
Not so far as I’m aware he doesn’t. What he does react against though is clerics who think their personal faith should be taken seriously as a guide to truth, morality, public policy etc.
Unfortunately the easily led antitheist sap extrapolates this as the way clerics are.
No – if that is how they are, then that is the proper way to treat them.
I'm sure the mere sight of a dog collar elicits the response of "I just want to rip it off" in some people.
Perhaps it does in some people - many of them religious incidentally - as do other types of religious paraphernalia for other people. So what?
Dawkins is a convicted antitheist with an agenda based on an overarching philosophy about the way the world is.
RD hasn’t been “convicted” of anything, and his ”antitheism” concerns the overreaching theists do and not their right to believe anything they wish to believe.
I hear his next televisual effort is called "A year without God" In an obvious sense Dawkins can no more manage that than you or I have this past year.
Why not?
Let's not forget also that Dawkins shuns scholarship of what his opposition actually believes and then decries an equal lack of scholarship in creationists and that makes him a humbug.
Let’s not forget that people who begin sentences with “let’s not forget” often follow them with complete untruths. RD does not “shun scholarship” at all – indeed he often knows more of the doctrines of those he critiques than they do themselves. The point though is that, while the content of the beliefs of creationists may be different from that of the local vicar, they share beliefs that are equally mistaken – by thinking that personal faith is a reliable guide to objective facts for example.
I notice too by the way that you’ve posted a (mistaken) tirade against Richard Dawkins rather than respond to the argument that undid you. Love him or loathe him, he uses arguments for his position that stand or fall on their merits. Clerics on the other hand rely on something they call faith, and arrogate rights to their opinions accordingly.
That’s why you were wrong to conflate the role of religion in the public square with that of those use reason and rationality to promulgate their views.
-
I know someone who described God trying to come into his life and him beating God back.
Did you believe that it actually happened??
-
Did you believe that it actually happened??
Don't sound very likely.
-
Did you believe that it actually happened??
Oh yes And I'm pretty sure many on here have felt "God coming on or in" and have sought distraction ........since we are all human beings.
-
Do you think people could be committed to not having them?
I know someone who described God trying to come into his life and him beating God back.
I don't think so Vlad. A person is either, by nature, inclined to have spiritual experiences or not. Plenty of Christians (& other faiths) have never had a religious experience, most in fact. If they did it would probably scare them rotten! No-one actually needs that to have faith. It's lovely if you can experience great peace and listen to your 'inner voice', such as the Quakers. Never happened to me but I'd like it - nothing more than that though.
-
Oh yes And I'm pretty sure many on here have felt "God coming on or in" and have sought distraction ........since we are all human beings.
Not me. Anyone else?
-
Not me. Anyone else?
Nope. I've never felt God coming on me while I've been beating him off.
-
Nope. I've never felt God coming on me while I've been beating him off.
Good ......
-
Oh yes And I'm pretty sure many on here have felt "God coming on or in"
How would anyone recognise that event?
-
Oh yes And I'm pretty sure many on here have felt "God coming on or in" and have sought distraction ........since we are all human beings.
...and how does someone ' beat back' the supreme being and creator of all that there is?
With a stick maybe?
-
How would anyone recognise that event?
I think probably in all sorts of ways including "protesting too loudly".
-
I find myself as someone who is convinced that that whom I have experienced is Christ against those who are convinced that that whom i have experienced is not Christ.
On this one again I see.
Last time this came up you said that we are like scientific instruments, built to detect God.
I Pointed out the scientific instruments that detect things are calibrated against known standards. However, there is no God standard, as no one can point to an actual genuine experience of an objectively true God. Many claims but that is all they are at the moment. You talk about your experience fitting a religious narrative/ linguistic framework but that is all it is, but so what. Your claims for a God experience match other claims for a God experience, but not one of the claims has got beyond the claims stage.
In other words how can you be certain that your God detector hasn't been calibrated with iron Pyrite?
-
Dearie Me,
Well I think Harrowby's link was very interesting, much more interesting than discussing Vlads favourite pin up boy or militant atheism ( what ever militant atheism is :o )
Gonnagle.
-
On this one again I see.
Last time this came up you said that we are like scientific instruments, built to detect God.
I Pointed out the scientific instruments that detect things are calibrated against known standards. However, there is no God standard, as no one can point to an actual genuine experience of an objectively true God. Many claims but that is all they are at the moment. You talk about your experience fitting a religious narrative/ linguistic framework but that is all it is, but so what. Your claims for a God experience match other claims for a God experience, but not one of the claims has got beyond the claims stage.
In other words how can you be certain that your God detector hasn't been calibrated with iron Pyrite?
As far as I know our eyes are not quality controlled before we come off the production line and yet are UHD ready.
On the other hand I agree that ones God harmonisation apparatus needs repairing and , praise be, there is one capable of that.
-
As far as I know our eyes are not quality controlled before we come off the production line and yet are UHD ready.
You are right about the eyes. What's all this about a blind spot! A bit of QC would have been handy. Intelligent Design, I think not.
On the other hand I agree that ones God harmonisation apparatus needs repairing
So, not only are our eyes faulty, but our God-o-meter is up the spout as well! Shoddy manufacturing if ever I saw it.
and , praise be, there is one capable of that.
Or maybe you need to call Rogue Traders?
Anyway, any chance of an answer to the actual points I made?
Also, not sure the "praise be" type stuff suits you, I certainly don't normally associate it with you.
-
You are right about the eyes. What's all this about a blind spot! Intelligent Design, I think not.
So not only are our eyes faulty, but our God-o-meter is as well!
Anyway, any chance of an answer to the question?
I think you are stretching metaphors here. All I am doing is challenging your notion of assumed incompetence in detection to the point of non detection.
You are just touting another version of assumed psychological incompetence.
-
I think you are stretching metaphors here. All I am doing is challenging your notion of assumed incompetence in detection to the point of non detection.
You are just touting another version of assumed psychological incompetence.
No, more a matter of logical incompetence. I asked you how you have calibrated your God-o-meter?
Why not for once engage with the actual point made. You drew the analogy with a detector, and I pointed out that in the normal run of things you calibrate it against a known standard. However, you don't have a known standard so how can you be sure you are measuring what you think your are?
Your point is actually extremely arrogant in that we should just take your word for it. I don't think any one denies you your experience, but it is perfectly reasonable to ask you to show how your experience of God leads to evidence of an objectively true God? It's a simple enough question.
-
No, more a matter of logical incompetence. I asked you how you have calibrated your God-o-meter?
Why not for once engage with the actual point made. You drew the analogy with a detector, and I pointed out that in the normal run of things you calibrate it against a known standard. However, you don't have a known standard so how can you be sure you are measuring what you think your are?
Your point is actually extremely arrogant in that we should just take your word for it. I don't think any one denies you your experience, but it is perfectly reasonable to ask you to show how your experience of God leads to evidence of an objectively true God? It's a simple enough question.
Nobody is expecting you to take any bodies word for anything.
I am an existentialist and don't believe that second hand is always first best.
Neither do I see humans as totally mechanical.
So I don't expect you to take my word for it since you have to have your own experience of God. We are all God detectors with a spanner in the works.
-
Nobody is expecting you to take any bodies word for anything.
I am an existentialist and don't believe that second hand is always first best.
Neither do I see humans as totally mechanical.
So I don't expect you to take my word for it since you have to have your own experience of God. We are all God detectors with a spanner in the works.
I don't have such an experience. Since a god possessed of the omins and a desire to be in a relationship with me would know how to achive this experience, it kind of shoots you in both feet I would have thought.
Why the spanner in the works? Surely not perfect then.
No doubt you will come back with something along the lines of "he respects your choice to not be in a relationship with him etc, etc..
This doesn't wash though as being made aware (to an extent that you can't deny their existence) is not the same a forcing you to be in a relationship with them. i.e. that person would be some kind of gnostic antitheist.
To reiterate, the main issue the spanner in the works. Why would a prefect, many Omni God create such a situation.
If he is perfect then it must mean a universe in which some people don't believe in him is better than one were everyone does. Otherwise he would have created it differently. Why then the need to proselytise? If a universe in which unbelievers exist is perfect then our should be celebrated.
-
I don't have such an experience. Since a god possessed of the omins and a desire to be in a relationship with me would know how to achive this experience, it kind of shoots you in both feet I would have thought.
Would you desire a relationship with God though?.............I think that's the point.
-
Vlad,
Would you desire a relationship with God though?.............I think that's the point.
Would you desire a pet dragon called Percy who eats Ritz crackers and likes having his tummy tickled?
I think that's the point.
If you disagree though, doubtless you'll feel the need to tell us what on earth desiring something to be true has anything whatsoever to do with it actually being true.
Won't you?
-
If you disagree though, doubtless you'll feel the need to tell us what on earth desiring something to be true has anything whatsoever to do with it actually being true.
Won't you?
I suspect that many Christians, and other religious people would answer you by saying that it has nothing to do with desire, but with experience.
-
Brownie,
I don't think so Vlad. A person is either, by nature, inclined to have spiritual experiences or not.
I think perhaps you'll need to tell us what you mean by "spiritual experiences" before we consider whether anyone actually has them rather than just thinks they've had them.
-
Hope,
I suspect that many Christians, and other religious people would answer you by saying that it has nothing to do with desire, but with experience.
First, you need to tell Vlad that rather than me - he's the one who introduced the idea of desiring something to be relevant here.
Second, you still have the mountain to climb of explaining why thinking you've "experienced" something means you have actually experienced it, rather than made a false attribution of cause.
-
Second, you still have the mountain to climb of explaining why thinking you've "experienced" something means you have actually experienced it, rather than made a false attribution of cause.
OK, I have experienced a number of things during my life, from a stroke to trekking in the Himalayas. I would say that the experiences I have had of God at work, both in my life and the lives of others are comparabe in nature and quality to the first two experiences I mentioned.
Not quite sure why you feel that it is a "mountain to climb of explaining".
-
I think probably in all sorts of ways including "protesting too loudly".
WTF does that mean?
Describe some of the other ways ......
-
Would you desire a relationship with God though?
Who wouldn't?
How do you actually achieve it though?
-
The thing is Blue, spiritual experiences have nothing to do with the brain. It's nought to do with 'thinking'. Thinking actually inhibits a spiritual experience.
Let go (of everything.... all thoughts) and..... "Be still* and know that I am God".
*in every sense...
-
The thing is Blue, spiritual experiences have nothing to do with the brain. It's nought to do with 'thinking'. Thinking actually inhibits a spiritual experience.
Let go (of everything.... all thoughts) and..... "Be still* and know that I am God".
*in every sense...
How can we experience anything without the brain's involvement?
-
Brownie,
I think perhaps you'll need to tell us what you mean by "spiritual experiences" before we consider whether anyone actually has them rather than just thinks they've had them.
............................
Or believes they've had them :). I'd settle for either, never having had such an experience, as long as it's just a gentle feeling. A peaceful sense of wonderment.
No voices or visions thank you, I'd think I was psychotic!
-
Neatly side stepped.
All claims of esoteric experience are baffling to those who do not have them.
Do you think people could be committed to not having them?
I know someone who described God trying to come into his life and him beating God back.
Another side step I think.
Maybe the person you are describing in this latest swerve is you, disguised ?
Is there anything about this experience that is not explicable in naturalistic terms ? The explanation in terms of a supernatural deity trying unsuccessfully to get through to someone casts god as a bit of fail. Perhaps he wasn't trying hard enough. So much for omnipotence.
The explanation is psychological terms is not so hard to swallow though. All humans have divided, conflicted minds. We have a war going on between left brain and right brain; we have tensions between instincts and conscious thought processes; we have inherited all manner of prejudicial baggage and peculiarities from our cultural upbringing and our DNA. Maybe this 'god trying to come in' is just religious-speak for describing the tension between parts of the individual that sought spiritual experience, and the rational individual that couldn't swallow all the supernatural beliefs that appeared to be required to go with it.
Maybe that is why Buddhism has found fertile ground amongst the disenchanted of western christendom who struggle to believe the ancient supernatural claims of Abrahamic faiths in a modern context. It offers a route to spiritual experience without paying an entrance fee in terms of proscriptive beliefs which jar the rational mind.
-
The thing is Blue, spiritual experiences have nothing to do with the brain. It's nought to do with 'thinking'. Thinking actually inhibits a spiritual experience.
I don't think that is quite right SP. All experience is delivered by the brain, that is what brains do. If you stub your toe, it is the brain that fabricates the sensation of pain, and recasts it as if it were coming from your toe. If you enjoy looking upon a beautiful landscape, all that beauty, all that sense of vision, is not out there, it is in your brain, in the occipital lobe to be more precise. Having said that, I take your point about thinking inhibiting experience. I enjoy the Faure Requiem, but if I sat there thinking about parliamentary democracy all through the performance, I wouldn't enjoy it so much, clearly. We have busy minds, and sometimes it is good to still them.
-
How can we experience anything without the brain's involvement?
Not sure that anyone has said anything about anything 'without the brain's involvement', Maeght. SweetPea highlihted the fact that these experiences have nothing to do with the 'thinking' part of the brain. For instance, do we feel the pain of a bee-sting by thinking about it, or does it bypass that section?
What about the many involuntary actions one's body performs - the brain is still involved without any thought.
-
Hope,
OK, I have experienced a number of things during my life, from a stroke to trekking in the Himalayas. I would say that the experiences I have had of God at work, both in my life and the lives of others are comparabe in nature and quality to the first two experiences I mentioned.
As I assume that when you saw these things a little man wearing a hat saying "God" didn't appear presumably what you meant to say here was something like, "the experiences I have had that, for want of a better explanation, I have attributed to something I call "God"" etc.
Which is fair enough - countless people at countless times in countless places have attributed supernatural explanations to phenomena for which they had no better explanations: Thor and thunder, fighting dragons and the aurora borealis etc.
Whether they or you are correct in your various attributions of cause is a different matter entirely of course, but the practice is just a manifestation of our explanation-seeking nature.
Not quite sure why you feel that it is a "mountain to climb of explaining".
Because if you expect anyone else to think you're right abut your attribution of cause, then so far only a strongly held personal opinion on the matter takes you not one inch down that path.
Or, to put it another way, you offer nothing for the rest of us qualitatively to distinguish your narrative from those of the Thor-ist or the dragon-ist.
-
Sweet Pea,
The thing is Blue, spiritual experiences have nothing to do with the brain. It's nought to do with 'thinking'. Thinking actually inhibits a spiritual experience.
Let go (of everything.... all thoughts) and..... "Be still* and know that I am God".
*in every sense...
If not in the brain where else would you "know" this, and in any case what distinguishes what you call "spiritual" from just feeling deeply about something?
-
Hope,
Not sure that anyone has said anything about anything 'without the brain's involvement', Maeght.
Yes they have. Read what Sweet Pea said.
SweetPea highlihted the fact that these experiences have nothing to do with the 'thinking' part of the brain. For instance, do we feel the pain of a bee-sting by thinking about it, or does it bypass that section?
What about the many involuntary actions one's body performs - the brain is still involved without any thought.
No, it's still "thought". Some thoughts we're conscious of (from the pre-frontal cortex) and others we're not conscious of (from the limbic system we share with lizards and such). It's all still thought though. "Ouch that bee sting hurts" for example is a thought.
More to the point though, attributing causal agency - God, Zeus, whatever - very much is a conscious thought process and I dare say in your case one that would have led you to a different conclusion had you been enculturated into the Roman or the Sumerian gods rather than the Christian one.
-
Vlad,
Would you desire a pet dragon called Percy who eats Ritz crackers and likes having his tummy tickled?
I suggest you are on the wrong forum then.
Since this is the religion forum the question"Do I want a relationship with God" is valid.
Sebastian Toe I take it would......and in saying that I take it that he has asked himself the question.
But I believe there are people who would not even entertain the question or even answer in the negative.
The next question of course is why would you want to avoid this question or answer in the negative?
-
Vlad,
I suggest you are on the wrong forum then.
Since this is the religion forum the question"Do I want a relationship with God" is valid.
Sebastian Toe I take it would......and in saying that I take it that he has asked himself the question.
But I believe there are people who would not even entertain the question or even answer in the negative.
The next question of course is why would you want to avoid this question or answer in the negative?
Er, no. The first question you need to address first is why on earth you think that "desiring to have a relationship" with something has anything whatsoever to do with whether or not that something exists.
-
Vlad,
Er, no. The first question you need to address first is why on earth you think that "desiring to have a relationship" with something has anything whatsoever to do with whether or not that something exists.
And yet you had no trouble posing a question about whether one would want a dragon whose tummy you could tickle.
So......what we can conclude from your post is that somehow God questions are a special case........because you made this one so.
Either Sebastian Toe is getting it when he says, even as an atheist that he would like a relationship with God or you are.
Would you want a relationship with God?
Would you want a pet dragon?
-
Vlad,
And yet you had no trouble posing a question about whether one would want a dragon whose tummy you could tickle.
Yes. It's called an analogy - if you think that desiring a relationship with a conjectural entity has anything to say to whether that conjectural entity exists at all, then you have no choice but to afford the same treatment to any other conjectural entity - pet dragons included.
So......what we can conclude from your post is that somehow God questions are a special case........because you made this one so.
No, I do precisely the opposite of that. Your (frankly bizarre) "desiring something makes it somehow more likely to be real" schtick either applies across the board or not at all. Your choice.
Either Sebastian Toe is getting it when he says, even as an atheist that he would like a relationship with God or you are.
What possible relevance do you think that has to whether there is a "God"?
Why the continued ducking an diving - it's a simple enough question isn't it?
Would you want a relationship with God?
Which "God"? If you mean the Christian god of the omnis you'd have to be suffering from borderline Stockholm syndrome to want a relationship with such a sociopath, though being in a position to ask "Him" what the fuck "He" thinks he's playing at might be quite satisfying I suppose.
Would you want a pet dragon?
Why not - would save me a fortune on BBQ firelighters if nothing else.
So do you plan ever to tell us what possible connection desiring a relationship with a god or a dragon alike has to do do with whether either of them exist in the first place?
-
Not sure that anyone has said anything about anything 'without the brain's involvement', Maeght. SweetPea highlihted the fact that these experiences have nothing to do with the 'thinking' part of the brain. For instance, do we feel the pain of a bee-sting by thinking about it, or does it bypass that section?
What about the many involuntary actions one's body performs - the brain is still involved without any thought.
She did say they 'have nothing to do with the brain' - hence the comment.
-
Gonners,
Can't listen just now - there's a test match on!
Does it really though? Seems like an odd thing to say given that most non-religious I'd have thought would say that "indoctrinating" children into anything is a bad idea.
With the exception of teaching children to think for themselves, if in fact that can be considered as a form of indoctrination.
Which form of amphetamine do you take to keep you awake whilst listening to cricket, a very strong one no doubt?
ippy
-
I suppose technically that is true, but kind of 'Militant Atheism' that is spearheaded by the likes of Dawkins goes much further. In fact I would say that it has become a campaign to destroy religion.
More put religion in it's place, than destroy it.
ippy
-
Vlad,
Yes. It's called an analogy - if you think that desiring a relationship with a conjectural entity has anything to say to whether that conjectural entity exists at all, then you have no choice but to afford the same treatment to any other conjectural entity - pet dragons included.
No, I do precisely the opposite of that. Your (frankly bizarre) "desiring something makes it somehow more likely to be real" schtick either applies across the board or not at all. Your choice.
What possible relevance do you think that has to whether there is a "God"?
Why the continued ducking an diving - it's a simple enough question isn't it?
Which "God"? If you mean the Christian god of the omnis you'd have to be suffering from borderline Stockholm syndrome to want a relationship with such a sociopath, though being in a position to ask "Him" what the fuck "He" thinks he's playing at might be quite satisfying I suppose.
Why not - would save me a fortune on BBQ firelighters if nothing else.
So do you plan ever to tell us what possible connection desiring a relationship with a god or a dragon alike has to do do with whether either of them exist in the first place?
Ah .........analogy........
And you wanted an analogy to show that desire for something is entirely unrelated to existence.
So you chose one.........whic can be easily countered by substituting the word dragon for puppy.
Not really sorry to have pissed on your bonfire.
Secondly. No one has suggested desire makes something real but desire does point to existence.
The trouble is you chose a shit analogy in order to satisfy your DESIRE to pull an argumentum ad ridiculous... Even though it has led to your downfall..........again.
And we know of a question you will always specially avoid.
-
Vlad,
Ah .........analogy........
And you wanted an analogy to show that desire for something is entirely unrelated to existence.
So you chose one.........whic can be easily countered by substituting the word dragon for puppy.
Not really sorry to have pissed on your bonfire.
Oh dear. As ever, all you've actually done it to ruin another pair of trousers. Either you think that "desiring a relationship" with something has something to do with that something being real or your don't.
The details of what that something happens to be are entirely irrelevant for the purpose of the claim you're attempting.
Possibly if you tried thinking before posting next time you'd save yourself further embarrassment of this kind? (And trousers.)
Secondly.
As your "firstly" has just collapsed, "secondly" is overreaching.
No one has suggested desire makes something real but desire does point to existence.
In what possible way then does desiring a relationship with something "point to" the existence of that something in the first place?
The trouble is you chose a shit analogy in order to satisfy your DESIRE to pull an argumentum ad ridiculous... Even though it has led to your downfall..........again.
No, the trouble is that you're hopelessly out of your depth. The analogy is fine when the substantive point - that "desiring a relationship" with something either makes it real or "points to it" being real is the same point. You can populate the object of the claim - gods, dragons, whatever - with anything you like. When the "argument" you're attempting is the same regardless, then it's the same regardless.
Care to try again?
And we know of a question you will always specially avoid.
So just to be clear - the person who refuses point blank to tell us why he thinks that "desiring a relationship" with something has anything whatever to do with that something being real/"pointing to it" being real is accusing someone else of refusing to answer a question that I answered in any case in my last post?
Really?
Really really?
Your grip on reality seems to be getting more tenuous by the post.
-
Oh come on Hillside.
You thought your analogy of a dragon with God was a clincher.
And then you undid it all by being able to answer the do you want a dragon question but specially pleaded problems with the second, Do you want a relationship with God.
So ......either poor analogy or special pleading.......
Which one are you fessing up to?
Secondly. Sebastian Toe had no problem with the relationship question but you do.
What is going on I wonder.
Given the analogy you used to show no link between desire and an object of desire was a turd. What better analogy do you have to show this?
-
Secondly. Sebastian Toe had no problem with the relationship question but you do.
You do though seem to have a problem in replying to my 'how do you go about it?' , request in #67.
What is going on I wonder?
-
You do though seem to have a problem in replying to my 'how do you go about it?' , request in #67.
What is going on I wonder?
Many apologies.
First thing.......tell God one can do that whoever and however you are.
The bible has promises, seek and you shall find, the man who comes to me I won't turn away be still and know wait on the Lord.
You are at liberty to pray and there is the time old but great piece of advice........pray as you can rather than as you should.
-
Vlad,
Oh come on Hillside.
You thought your analogy of a dragon with God was a clincher.
It is. Either you think that "desiring a relationship" with a conjectural entity "points to" that entity being real or you don't.
And if you do, you can't then qualify that with a "but it only works for some conjectural entities and not for others".
And then you undid it all by being able to answer the do you want a dragon question but specially pleaded problems with the second, Do you want a relationship with God.
I did no such thing. And the point remains: what possible connection do you think there to be between "desiring a relationship" with something and that something being real?
Why the coyness?
So ......either poor analogy or special pleading.......
No - false binary. It's nether because your premise fails.
Which one are you fessing up to?
Neither - see above.
Secondly. Sebastian Toe had no problem with the relationship question but you do.
What is going on I wonder.
Stop lying. I answered the question - the relevant and unanswered question remains though for you.
Given the analogy you used to show no link between desire and an object of desire was a turd. What better analogy do you have to show this?
Stop lying. Another false premise - the analogy is fine when the same argument is being attempted in each case.
Again:
WHAT RELEVANCE DO YOU THINK "DESIRING A RELATIONSHIP" WITH SOMETHING HAS TO THAT SOMETHING BEING REAL?
There you go - I've put the question in bold, capitals and large font so you can't just ignore it again.
You're welcome.
-
Many apologies.
First thing.......tell God one can do that whoever and however you are.
How do I do that?
...seek and you shall find, the man who comes to me I won't turn away be still and know wait on the Lord.
again, how?
You are at liberty to pray and there is the time old but great piece of advice........pray as you can rather than as you should.
I don't know the correct way though. Can you help?
-
There you go - I've put the question in bold, capitals and large font so you can't just ignore it again.
Oh no! You've gone all Sassy on us!
-
I hate to say it but I thought the same, went back and checked.
Would you want a relationship with God?
Would you want a pet dragon?
Both please.
-
But Vlad also said that 'desire does point to existence'. The only way this works, as far as I can see, is with those statements such as 'I could murder a pint', which seems to indicate that pints exist. However, this seems very different from desiring God, leading to 'God exists', and also desiring a pet dragon.
-
I hate to say it but I thought the same, went back and checked.
Would you want a relationship with God?
Would you want a pet dragon?
Both please.
As an Old Dragon myself, I sort of already have the latter ;)
-
How do I do that?
again, how?
I don't know the correct way though. Can you help?
Your prayer could be as simple as ''God, I find I am in the position where I would like a relationship with you''.
-
Your prayer could be as simple as ''God, I find I am in the position where I would like a relationship with you''.
And then?
-
And then?
Be expectant but best not to have expectations. If you find you require an experience then you need to be addressing that to God. If not you've told him how you feel in the best way you can.
In short keep addressing things to God.
-
Brownie,
I hate to say it but I thought the same, went back and checked.
Would you want a relationship with God?
Would you want a pet dragon?
Both please.
Then you're out of luck I'm afraid. Or not. Or something. Or not something. (Sorry, but I'm trying to use the hall of mirrors reasoning of Vlad here so anything goes. Or it doesn't. Or something.)
According to him "desiring a relationship" with something doesn't mean that that something is real, but - um - it does "point to" that something being real (only without any connecting logic to make it so), except that is when the something involved is not one in which he happens to believe already or approve of or find non-ridiculous, in which cases that something is excluded. Or something.
Or nothing.
All clear now?
Good. You couldn't just explain it back to me could you - just as soon as I've got a cold towel wrapped around my head and a very large vodka tonic in front of me.
Ta everso.
-
Seb,
And then?
Then Percy the dragon appears maybe?
Still, it'd be all your fault if old Perce did appear - must be because you'd "desired a relationship" with the wrong conjectural entity.
Or something.
Or not.
-
Hope,
As you seem to have missed Reply 74, here it is again.
You're welcome.
Hope,
OK, I have experienced a number of things during my life, from a stroke to trekking in the Himalayas. I would say that the experiences I have had of God at work, both in my life and the lives of others are comparabe in nature and quality to the first two experiences I mentioned.
As I assume that when you saw these things a little man wearing a hat saying "God" didn't appear presumably what you meant to say here was something like, "the experiences I have had that, for want of a better explanation, I have attributed to something I call "God"" etc.
Which is fair enough - countless people at countless times in countless places have attributed supernatural explanations to phenomena for which they had no better explanations: Thor and thunder, fighting dragons and the aurora borealis etc.
Whether they or you are correct in your various attributions of cause is a different matter entirely of course, but the practice is just a manifestation of our explanation-seeking nature.
Not quite sure why you feel that it is a "mountain to climb of explaining".
Because if you expect anyone else to think you're right abut your attribution of cause, then so far only a strongly held personal opinion on the matter takes you not one inch down that path.
Or, to put it another way, you offer nothing for the rest of us qualitatively to distinguish your narrative from those of the Thor-ist or the dragon-ist.
-
Hope,
As you seem to have missed Reply 74, here it is again.
As you say, I missed that post. However, having read the first paragraph, I'm not sure that I missed much content. The reason I said what I said is because that's what I meant. For instance, when one has a stroke, 'a little man' doesn't pop up and say - 'you've had a stroke'. Rather, one is aware that something is wrong. In my case, for a number of reasons, 'stroke' was the third option on the list as I'd recently started on a new medication whose side-effects mirrored what I was experiencing. Similarly, when trekking through the Himalayas, one doesn't meet 'a little man' who asks you what you think of the views, etc. Its a deep-rooted response to what you are experiencing.
I realise that you want everything to be clear-cut, provable and physical in nature; I'm afraid that my experience is that life doesn't fit into a neat set of parameters like that. Instead, it is messier, more dynamic, and more fluid.
-
Be expectant but best not to have expectations. If you find you require an experience then you need to be addressing that to God. If not you've told him how you feel in the best way you can.
In short keep addressing things to God.
Is there a time limit?
-
Is there a time limit?
Yes; the day of Judgement is the last day of the offer. Just when that will be - no-one knows; not even the JWs, etc. who regularly predict when it will occur.
-
Yes; the day of Judgement is the last day of the offer. Just when that will be - no-one knows; not even the JWs, etc. who regularly predict when it will occur.
Could it be soon as in a few months?
-
Sweet Pea,
If not in the brain where else would you "know" this, and in any case what distinguishes what you call "spiritual" from just feeling deeply about something?
Rather in the heart than the brain. But that isn't entirely right. It's hard to explain.
Otherwise, you're confusing spiritual experience with thoughts and emotion. (This is to Maeght and Torridon, as well.)
-
Rather in the heart than the brain. But that isn't entirely right. It's hard to explain.
Otherwise, you're confusing spiritual experience with thoughts and emotion. (This is to Maeght and Torridon, as well.)
So you do think the brain isn't involved?
Perhaps you're the one who is confused.
-
SP, if we swapped 'brain' for 'mind', would you agree with that?
-
SP, if we swapped 'brain' for 'mind', would you agree with that?
What's the difference?
-
What's the difference?
I believe they think the 'mind' is a separate entity that sits in the brain. ;D
-
Yes; the day of Judgement is the last day of the offer. Just when that will be - no-one knows; not even the JWs, etc. who regularly predict when it will occur.
What will happen on that day ?
-
Your prayer could be as simple as ''God, I find I am in the position where I would like a relationship with you''.
This looks like a psychological strategy to create an imaginary friend through mind training techniques. It presupposes there is a god there in the first place who can 'hear' silent thoughts in a human head. A more honest strategy would seek to avoid such mind conditioning, humans are masters of the art of self-deception.
-
I believe they think the 'mind' is a separate entity that sits in the brain. ;D
Who is "they" for goodness sakes? It was me who asked SP if she meant that and I don't think the mind is a separate entity that sits in the brain.
There are many studies on mind/brain, some of us on here recently delved into it. Google 'mind/brain studies' and you'll know what I meant.
-
Yes; the day of Judgement is the last day of the offer. Just when that will be - no-one knows; not even the JWs, etc. who regularly predict when it will occur.
Everybody has his own "Judgement Day". Unfortunately for some, though, is that no such activity takes place. What happens is that you just ... switch off. Nothing follows. No memories linger. Just nothing.
Wise people accept this. Religion provides a false hope that something will follow :
- singing endless praises with seraphim and cherubim to a rather self-centred deity that seems to get off on being worshipped
- endless shagging with 72 virgins for acts of random violence which also involved one's own death
...
there must be other equally vacuous fantasies.
-
Hope,
As you say, I missed that post. However, having read the first paragraph, I'm not sure that I missed much content.
Well, let’s see…
The reason I said what I said is because that's what I meant.
You meant to say that it was definitely, categorically, unquestionably “God at work” even though the claim could only be one attribution of cause? Really? Whence your cast iron confidence that you could not have been entirely mistaken about that?
For instance, when one has a stroke, 'a little man' doesn't pop up and say - 'you've had a stroke'. Rather, one is aware that something is wrong. In my case, for a number of reasons, 'stroke' was the third option on the list as I'd recently started on a new medication whose side-effects mirrored what I was experiencing.
But what you experienced there was a physiological response (which by your own admission you initially thought to be caused by something other than the actual cause), followed by the identification of the actual cause using the empirical tools of medicine. As anecdotes go, this one pretty much demonstrates the opposite of the point you thought you were making.
Similarly, when trekking through the Himalayas, one doesn't meet 'a little man' who asks you what you think of the views, etc. Its a deep-rooted response to what you are experiencing.
No doubt, but that “deep-rooted response” was an aesthetic one. So far as I can tell you’re not claiming that the sense of beauty you experienced was an objective fact for everyone else too whether or not they felt the same way.
Now compare that with you claimed fact “God”. Do you see the qualitative difference here?
I realise that you want everything to be clear-cut…
Then you “realise” wrongly – I’m fine with doubt and uncertainty and ambiguity. Why though can’t you say the same when you attribute “God” as the supposedly certain cause of the phenomena you observe?
…provable…
Well, “demonstrable such that the claim can be distinguished from mistake, just guessing etc” yes. Isn’t that a good thing though? After all, don’t you ask for the same thing in response to the claims of Thor-ists, dragonists etc?
Why the double standard?
…would and physical in nature;
Nope.If someone who posits the non-physical could ever define and demonstrate such a thing that would be a fascinating discovery with huge implications. The problem so far at leas though is that all its proponents offer is wishful thinking, which may satisfy them but offers nothing to the rest of us.
I'm afraid that my experience is that life doesn't fit into a neat set of parameters like that. Instead, it is messier, more dynamic, and more fluid.
No doubt, but ignore the problem as you might when you seek to argue for the cause you attribute to those experiences by relying on fallacious reasoning then you leave the rest of us with no choice but to conclude that you’re probably mistaken.
So to re-cap, when you opened with, “I'm not sure that I missed much content” can I politely suggest that you actually missed the content entirely?
-
This looks like a psychological strategy to create an imaginary friend through mind training techniques. It presupposes there is a god there in the first place who can 'hear' silent thoughts in a human head. A more honest strategy would seek to avoid such mind conditioning, humans are masters of the art of self-deception.
I know of people who have added ''If you exist'' to this prayer.
I'm afraid not to want to just throw a message into ''the dark'' not only presumes that God does not exist but presumes the dark does not exist.
I call this state of utter faith philosophical naturalism but some take exception to being labelled with ''utter certainty'' in what is a bad case of having their cake and eat it..........To put it simply ''Agnostic atheism my arse.''
-
I'm afraid not to want to just throw a message into ''the dark'' not only presumes that God does not exist but presumes the dark does not exist.
I call this state of utter faith philosophical naturalism but some take exception to being labelled with ''utter certainty'' in what is a bad case of having their cake and eat it..........To put it simply ''Agnostic atheism my arse.''
If you have no belief in something why would you pretend to send that something a message?
-
If you have no belief in something why would you pretend to send that something a message?
If you are agnostic about anything how do you know you are pretending to send a message. In other words if you are sure you would be pretending then you are not agnostic about God but certain there isn't.
Therefore your claim to be agnostic is just to salve your sorry conscience at being ,after all, a dogmatist.
-
I have no belief in the Christian God, or, in fact, any god, but I would happily accept that I may be wrong in my unbelief. On occasion I have been asked to pray to God, which I have duly done, with no discernible effects. These occasions therefore help to confirm my unbelief, but I would still maintain that my position is a holding position until or unless some form of objective evidence either for or against the existence of God becomes available.
-
If you are agnostic about anything how do you know you are pretending to send a message. In other words if you are sure you would be pretending then you are not agnostic about God but certain there isn't.
Therefore your claim to be agnostic is just to salve your sorry conscience at being ,after all, a dogmatist.
Of course I would be pretending if I have no belief. I don't know that there would be 'no one' there to pick up any message but the message wouldn't be genuine one if I have no belief would it?
In what way am I a dogmatist? I have always said I have no belief but could be wrong. I just don't think someone with no belief in God could attempt to send a genuine message to God - you have to have some inclining of belief to begin with.
-
Of course I would be pretending if I have no belief. I don't know that there would be 'no one' there to pick up any message but the message wouldn't be genuine one if I have no belief would it?
In what way am I a dogmatist? I have always said I have no belief but could be wrong. I just don't think someone with no belief in God could attempt to send a genuine message to God - you have to have some inclining of belief to begin with.
But by eschewing a speculative message into the dark you have committed to a definite point of view and gambled.
I might be agnostic about alien life......but that does not prevent me from looking for signals or making them or putting a small plaque on a space ship, itself a speculative shot in the dark.
Agnostics do these things. Dogmatists don't.
If you cannot send a speculative message out to the God into the dark of not knowing I'm afraid you cannot be agnostic about God.....nor an agnostic atheist.
-
Vlad,
But by eschewing a speculative message into the dark you have committed to a definite point of view and gambled.
I might be agnostic about alien life......but that does not prevent me from looking for signals or making them or putting a small plaque on a space ship, itself a speculative shot in the dark.
Agnostics do these things. Dogmatists don't.
If you cannot send a speculative message out to the God into the dark of not knowing I'm afraid you cannot be agnostic about God.....nor an agnostic atheist.
Ah, but what if there is a god but he's not your god? And what if that god is as adolescently jealous of people believing in the wrong god as you seem to think your god to be, and for that matter just as spiteful in his punishments for doing it?
Why then would Maeght take that risk when doing nothing would be the safer bet?
PS It's been a while since you dusted off Pascal's wager. Do we really have to dismantle it for you again?
PPS Perhaps you missed this earlier?:
WHAT RELEVANCE DO YOU THINK "DESIRING A RELATIONSHIP" WITH SOMETHING HAS TO THAT SOMETHING BEING REAL?
-
But by eschewing a speculative message into the dark you have committed to a definite point of view and gambled.
I might be agnostic about alien life......but that does not prevent me from looking for signals or making them or putting a small plaque on a space ship, itself a speculative shot in the dark.
Agnostics do these things. Dogmatists don't.
If you cannot send a speculative message out to the God into the dark of not knowing I'm afraid you cannot be agnostic about God.....nor an agnostic atheist.
What sort of message are you actually thinking off? I could think in my head 'Hello if you're there - make yourself known' but I'm sure any God wouldn't see this as anything genuine. For it to be a genuine attempt at communication it would need to have some belief that something existed surely. I could just as well send the same message to any of the gods people have believed in and continue to believe in - just in case. Or a general message to anything.
I haven't gambled anything since I have no belief so pretending to attempt to send out a message 'just in case' wouldn't be genuine and I'm sure no God would be fooled by that.
-
Maeght,
I haven't gambled anything since I have no belief so pretending to attempt to send out a message 'just in case' wouldn't be genuine and I'm sure no God would be fooled by that.
Which is one of the rebuttals incidentally to Pascal's wager: an omniscient god would know if you were gaming him by playing the odds, so the only way the cry in the dark (or whatever Vladdy calls it) could work would be if you believed in "him" (god that is, not Vlad) a priori.
-
Would you desire a relationship with God though?.............I think that's the point.
What an odd point though.
He either exists or he doesn't. Making his existence known to me in an unambiguous way doesn't force my hand either way. I could want to know him or reject him. It's the does it exist thing that comes first
-
Stephen,
What an odd point though.
He either exists or he doesn't. Making his existence known to me in an unambiguous way doesn't force my hand either way. I could want to know him or reject him. It's the does it exist thing that comes first
Indeed it is an odd - and irrelevant - point, though according to Vlad "desiring a relationship" with something in some unexplained way "points to" that something being real.
Why he thinks that (or even whether he's now backed away from it) is anyone's guess; predictably, having asked him that question he's first thrown irrelevant questions at it, and now gone all quiet. His usual pattern after that is to reappear later on a different thread to repeat the assertion but there's almost certainly no chance whatever of him answering a perfectly straightforward question about it even when it's in capital letters, bold typeface and 24 point font.
Ah well.
-
What an odd point though.
He either exists or he doesn't. Making his existence known to me in an unambiguous way doesn't force my hand either way. I could want to know him or reject him. It's the does it exist thing that comes first
The very idea of a god is odd to start with, but the idea of such an entity desiring relations with individual H. Sapiens on planet Earth is in an altogether different league of oddity, But then to top that, it's preferred modus operandi involves pursuing such relations with billions of individuals simultaneously but all in total secrecy courtesy of some sort of undetectable telepathy such that only particular individuals can detect him; he remains invisible to groups, to bystanders, to equipment, to penguins and octopuses. Or is that octopii ? I think it breaks all known oddometers. Or is that something for measuring distances ?
-
SP, if we swapped 'brain' for 'mind', would you agree with that?
Not really. For sometime I was into New Age beliefs where consciousness represented God. Terms used such as, God consciousness, Christ consciousness and 'the Source' are all meant to refer to God. But it's a counterfeit, used by Satan to deceive.
My spiritual experiences have been received in an outward to inward manner. An example: many years ago I was walking home and about to be confronted by a group of drunkard youths. I said a silent prayer and just let go.... surrendered, put it in the hands of God, Almost immediately, a rush of wind entered within me through the top of my head and exited through the area of my chest, towards the youths. They turned in another direction. It was something that happened in literally a second, and I felt and could almost hear the 'whoosh'.
I've had other experiences but won't share any more here as they are very personal and I wouldn't like them put under the microscope.
-
Torridon's points about secrecy and telepathy remind me of the old arguments about divine hiddenness. Why would a God with the 3 omnis, or 4 omnis, be so hidden? A perfectly loving God would make his presence felt.
Of course, there is the traditional counter-argument that God leaves it up to you, free will being paramount.
I think it goes back to Nietzsche, and probably earlier: "a god who is all-knowing and all-powerful and who does not even make sure his creatures understand his intentions — could that be a god of goodness?"
Also: "Would he not be a cruel God if he possessed the truth and could behold mankind miserably tormenting itself over the truth?" ('Daybreak')
An interesting analogy is with human relationships. Imagine that you are in a loving relationship with an adult or child - it would be very weird to hide away, and wait to be found, wouldn't it? As Nietzsche says, quite sadistic.
-
SweetPea,
Not really. For sometime I was into New Age beliefs where consciousness represented God. Terms used such as, God consciousness, Christ consciousness and 'the Source' are all meant to refer to God. But it's a counterfeit, used by Satan to deceive.
My spiritual experiences have been received in an outward to inward manner. An example: many years ago I was walking home and about to be confronted by a group of drunkard youths. I said a silent prayer and just let go.... surrendered, put it in the hands of God, Almost immediately, a rush of wind entered within me through the top of my head and exited through the area of my chest, towards the youths. They turned in another direction. It was something that happened in literally a second, and I felt and could almost hear the 'whoosh'.
I've had other experiences but won't share any more here as they are very personal and I wouldn't like them put under the microscope.
Probably just as well. You might want to have a look at the thread on fallacious thinking as you've provided such a nice example of it here. Yours is called the post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy - because event B followed event A, you've just assumed that event A caused event B. (Mind you, if you directed your "rush of wind" at me I think I'd turn away too ;) )
There are of course many possible reasons for the youths turning away - maybe it wouldn't even have occurred to them to do anything else for example - so just attributing it to divine intervention is bad thinking. You might also want to think a little about the times you've asked your god to intervene and the outcome you didn't want to happen happened nonetheless. If the ratio of good outcomes to bad is pretty much as you'd expect it to be with no god present at all, that should tell you something too.
-
Wiggs,
Torridon's points about secrecy and telepathy remind me of the old arguments about divine hiddenness. Why would a God with the 3 omnis, or 4 omnis, be so hidden? A perfectly loving God would make his presence felt.
Of course, there is the traditional counter-argument that God leaves it up to you, free will being paramount.
I think it goes back to Nietzsche, and probably earlier: "a god who is all-knowing and all-powerful and who does not even make sure his creatures understand his intentions — could that be a god of goodness?"
Also: "Would he not be a cruel God if he possessed the truth and could behold mankind miserably tormenting itself over the truth?" ('Daybreak')
An interesting analogy is with human relationships. Imagine that you are in a loving relationship with an adult or child - it would be very weird to hide away, and wait to be found, wouldn't it? As Nietzsche says, quite sadistic.
Nice post. Just to ask too, why would a god of the omnis whose presence would be beneficial to all not only choose only a select few for his special visitations, but by and large the ones least equipped to make logically cogent arguments for their "experiences" being divinely caused at all?
Is God playing a double whammy game here: "Not only will I hide from most of you, but I'll look in only on the ones least able to persuade the rest of you that I'm real"?
Seems like a bit of an odd God to me.
-
A word on behalf of the godly here. The idea that something that seems a close to universal trait to believe in in some fashion and one that is discussed so widely in so many different guises is hiding is surely incorrect.
-
I suppose it could be said that by building a faith, people are in effect fashioning their brains into god-detecting devices and that is why equipment and bystanders cannot receive divine signals - they haven't put in the work to build the required kit. Conversely, or perhaps more cynically, it could be said that such god-detectors are in reality god-synthesisers, useful for building a mirage of god within the minds of believers.
I don't see what a god would get out of such a proposed relationship. A human could benefit in principal, it is not hard to see the lure of having a friend in high places, but what benefits accrue to a god by having billions of lowly powerless worshippers, it all looks like a case of narcissistic gratification viewed from god's angle.
Maybe it is our inheritance as a worshipping species that many people even in a modern world find themselves needing an element of worship in their lives. I see for instance, in Vlad and in Gabrielle, amongst others, a need to be thankful to something beyond their parents, thankful for the chance to experience life, and building a faith goes some way to satisfying that need; to not build a faith looks like a case of sheer ingratitude as if we are recalcitrant teenagers unable to see what has been done for us.
-
Not really. For sometime I was into New Age beliefs where consciousness represented God. Terms used such as, God consciousness, Christ consciousness and 'the Source' are all meant to refer to God. But it's a counterfeit, used by Satan to deceive.
My spiritual experiences have been received in an outward to inward manner. An example: many years ago I was walking home and about to be confronted by a group of drunkard youths. I said a silent prayer and just let go.... surrendered, put it in the hands of God, Almost immediately, a rush of wind entered within me through the top of my head and exited through the area of my chest, towards the youths. They turned in another direction. It was something that happened in literally a second, and I felt and could almost hear the 'whoosh'.
I've had other experiences but won't share any more here as they are very personal and I wouldn't like them put under the microscope.
Thanks for sharing that SP and I understand what you mean in your last paragraph. Personal experiences are very difficult to explain and for others to comprehend.
What you say in your second paragraph shows you have a great faith.
-
NS,
A word on behalf of the godly here. The idea that something that seems a close to universal trait to believe in in some fashion and one that is discussed so widely in so many different guises is hiding is surely incorrect.
We, there are some issues with that.
First, what’s discussed so widely seems to be lots of different gods, rather than just “God”. I hear the “there are many paths to the top of the mountain” line but when the characteristics of those gods so often vary and frequently even contradict each other it’s difficult to see how everyone could be talking about the same god.
Second, religious belief is a socio-cultural phenomenon that to varying degrees impacts on people’s lives, whether devout, indifferent or atheistic. A lot of the discussion is about the phenomenon I’d have thought rather than about what god/gods think and want.
Third, the “god in hiding” thesis still has legs when the discussion is about the flickering signs of this god (albeit often built on bad reasoning) whereas if “He” wanted to presumably this god could just produce a substantive demonstration of His existence that dispel the doubts entirely (though I take the point that even if, for example, “He” moved all the stars to new places overnight as His proof there’d still be doubt about whether He was actually the god the bible/Koran/whatever rather than, say, a very advanced alien).
-
I see for instance, in Vlad and in Gabrielle, amongst others, a need to be thankful to something beyond their parents, thankful for the chance to experience life, and building a faith goes some way to satisfying that need; to not build a faith looks like a case of sheer ingratitude as if we are recalcitrant teenagers unable to see what has been done for us.
It's often said that in order to be thankful one needs a someone to be thankful to. I once read an entire essay by a Catholic who tried to make the case for Christianity's superiority over Buddhism on precisely these grounds, that Buddhism failed to supply a creator being to whom one could, and should, express thanks. But this seems very strange to me. Gratitude is an attitude of mind and it's certainly possible to feel grateful without necessarily directing thanks at any specific object or being.
-
Bramble,
It's often said that in order to be thankful one needs a someone to be thankful to. I once read an entire essay by a Catholic who tried to make the case for Christianity's superiority over Buddhism on precisely these grounds, that Buddhism failed to supply a creator being to whom one could, and should, express thanks. But this seems very strange to me. Gratitude is an attitude of mind and it's certainly possible to feel grateful without necessarily directing thanks at any specific object or being.
A corollary perhaps is Brexit - people protesting about any manner of things (immigrants, their lives not working out as they'd hoped, the bins only collected every two weeks instead of one, whatever) finding something to coalesce around to vent their feelings. Maybe those with a sense of gratitude do something similar - they coalesce around whichever god they think to be responsible for their good fortune and thank it.
That said, it seems to me that the devout are often anything but grateful - there's plenty who are bitter and resentful too, positively delighting in the misfortunes of those who don't believe as they do. To put it another way, there's probably not much difference in the ratio of grateful:resentful between the religious and the non-religious.
-
The idea that gratitude must have a receiver reminds me of the argument from desire, i.e. that feelings point to the existence of an object. Perhaps this suggests something about religious thinking, a belief that the external world must somehow conform to or reflect the direction of my own mind.
-
There's little difference between finding that you enjoy life, and feeling grateful for it. The grateful feeling I would say arises out of our cognitive biases, it is related to our predisposition to attribute intentionality, especially where there is no obvious simple explanation for things. So, enjoying life overspills into feeling grateful for life and gratefulness requires a giver to be thanked, we can't feel grateful to empty space.
But then, if feeling grateful is an inherited bias, maybe feeling good about life generally is also something of a bias. Are you a glass half full person or a glass half empty ? Feeling optimistic about the future is itself not rational, it is a potentially beneficial state of mind; a bit like believing in God - not rational, but it can be a powerful instrument for mediating a beneficial balanced state of mind.
-
Dear Thread,
What are you all about?
God is hiding? he/she/it is all around you.
Grateful to God? What!! Like being grateful that you can experience, like those Sunday Assembly people ( what this thread is about ) a sense of community, coming together, worshiping together, although those Sunday assembly think they are not worshiping God, they are celebrating life ( God ) they are also trying to help the less fortunate, God again!
God is not hiding, you can't get away from God, God is right at the heart of that Sunday assembly, celebrating life, helping the less fortunate, coming together as a community, it's all God!
Sweetpea's experience, God, her God, give me evidence it was not God and I will shut up, her God, Sweetpeas God.
Gonnagle.
-
Bramble,
The idea that gratitude must have a receiver reminds me of the argument from desire, i.e. that feelings point to the existence of an object. Perhaps this suggests something about religious thinking, a belief that the external world must somehow conform to or reflect the direction of my own mind.
Vlad has attempted something similar (apparently "desiring a relationship" with something "points to" that something being real), though for the life of me I cannot see a logical path from the former to the latter.
-
Not really. For sometime I was into New Age beliefs where consciousness represented God. Terms used such as, God consciousness, Christ consciousness and 'the Source' are all meant to refer to God. But it's a counterfeit, used by Satan to deceive.
My spiritual experiences have been received in an outward to inward manner. An example: many years ago I was walking home and about to be confronted by a group of drunkard youths. I said a silent prayer and just let go.... surrendered, put it in the hands of God, Almost immediately, a rush of wind entered within me through the top of my head and exited through the area of my chest, towards the youths. They turned in another direction. It was something that happened in literally a second, and I felt and could almost hear the 'whoosh'.
I've had other experiences but won't share any more here as they are very personal and I wouldn't like them put under the microscope.
It just goes to show what an incredible organ the human brain is.
-
Gonners,
What are you all about?
God is hiding? he/she/it is all around you.
Where? Why doesn't he just show himself then rather than create a world that looks exactly as you'd expect it to look if there was no God at all?
Grateful to God? What!! Like being grateful that you can experience, like those Sunday Assembly people ( what this thread is about ) a sense of community, coming together, worshiping together, although those Sunday assembly think they are not worshiping God, they are celebrating life ( God ) they are also trying to help the less fortunate, God again!
God is not hiding, you can't get away from God, God is right at the heart of that Sunday assembly, celebrating life, helping the less fortunate, coming together as a community, it's all God!
Well, that's one opinion. Your problem though if you want anyone else to think you're right about that is to make a cogent argument for it rather than just to assert it.
Sweetpea's experience, God, her God, give me evidence it was not God and I will shut up, her God, Sweetpeas God.
Does Hope know you've nicked his negative proof fallacy?
When I was a kid and really wanted eggs on toast for tea I'd avoid stepping on the cracks in the pavement all the way back from school to make it happen.
And do you know what? Yep, sometimes there was eggs on toast for tea!
Give me evidence it was not avoiding the cracks and I will shut up, my pavement, my cracks!
-
Dear Blue,
Where? Why doesn't he just show himself then rather than create a world that looks exactly as you'd expect it to look if there was no God at all?
A world that looks exactly as I expect?
If there was no God at all?
That two questions, please explain.
Well, that's one opinion. Your problem though if you want anyone else to think you're right about that is to make a cogent argument for it rather than just to assert it.
Well I have known my problem for a long time ( the doc says stop scratching and it will clear up on its own ) I can't define God, what I can do is stand in awe at the whole shooting match, a brain that has more neurons than the whole milky way has stars, a Universe that works, and works very well, a planet which lives and breathes, laws that hold it all together, humans who can touch me at my deepest level, humans who play God, or our poor definition of what a God can do, life that strives at every level, it all wants to go on, humans, fish, plant life, bacteria, it all wants to go on, WHY!!
Does Hope know you've nicked his negative proof fallacy?
What does that mean, all I am saying is that Sweetpea has God in her life, like me, like billions of others.
When I was a kid and really wanted eggs on toast for tea I'd avoid stepping on the cracks in the pavement all the way back from school to make it happen.
And do you know what? Yep, sometimes there was eggs on toast for tea!
Give me evidence it was not avoiding the cracks and I will shut up, my pavement, my cracks!
I know there are other explanations for Sweetpeas experience, but for Sweetpea it was God, her God, I do know your arguments for probability, you sent me on that journey but you still can't say it was not God, Sweetpeas God.
Gonnagle.
-
Gonnagle
but you still can't say it was not God
That is an example of the negative proof fallacy.
You or she claims it was a god, therefore you or she has to demonstrate that.
By default, it was NOT god.
-
Hey Gonners,
A world that looks exactly as I expect?
If there was no God at all?
That two questions, please explain.
The Christian God at least is supposed to be possessed of various omnis, yet we’re expected to believe that he made a largely uninhabitable home with a thin crust and horrible diseases for his special creation, that bad things are intended to happen to good people, that praying has no effect whatever when you look at meaningful sample sizes rather than personal anecdote, that the naturalistic process we increasingly uncover are all part a big plan despite the total absence of evidence for such a thing etc.
Assume no God for a moment – how would you then expect the world to look different?
Well I have known my problem for a long time ( the doc says stop scratching and it will clear up on its own ) I can't define God, what I can do is stand in awe at the whole shooting match, a brain that has more neurons than the whole milky way has stars, a Universe that works, and works very well, a planet which lives and breathes, laws that hold it all together, humans who can touch me at my deepest level, humans who play God, or our poor definition of what a God can do, life that strives at every level, it all wants to go on, humans, fish, plant life, bacteria, it all wants to go on, WHY!!
Well, I can stand in awe at all that too. Other than for an argument from personal incredulity (an error in reasoning) why though would you want to bring a “God” into it?
As for “why”, it’s a null question. Why not? To answer a why question you need to establish an intelligent “something” with the intent to decide on the why. “How” is legitimate; “why” isn’t until and unless you can demonstrate first an agency to care about and decide on the why.
What does that mean, all I am saying is that Sweetpea has God in her life, like me, like billions of others.
It means that you asked someone to show that SP’s attribution of cause wasn’t what she thought it was. No-one can do that, any more than you could show that the tooth fairy doesn’t exist. What you can do though is to show that her reasoning – in this case the post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy – was false, as indeed it would be if I claimed that my event B (a tooth under the pillow) was caused by my event A (writing a note).
I know there are other explanations for Sweetpeas experience, but for Sweetpea it was God, her God, I do know your arguments for probability, you sent me on that journey but you still can't say it was not God, Sweetpeas God.
That’s right, and you can’t say that it wasn’t the Tooth Fairy either. As the material is all we know of that’s reliably accessible and testable though, the a priori assumption should be that the cause of event B is a material one. If though you want to persist with a non-material option, then you have no choice but to allow too any other non-material cause – Tooth Fairy included.
-
A word on behalf of the godly here. The idea that something that seems a close to universal trait to believe in in some fashion and one that is discussed so widely in so many different guises is hiding is surely incorrect.
That's a fair point, although the point about different guises might support the hiddenness argument. I mean, there is nothing you can fix on.
But it certainly seems highly subjective, since many theists will of course argue that God is not hidden at all - look at the stars, for your evidence!
I think in the modern version, the argument is linked with non-belief - it's reasonable to not believe in God, (since he is invisible), whereas a more manifest God would be difficult to disbelieve. I think this is Schellenberg.
-
Dear Berational,
That is an example of the negative proof fallacy.
You or she claims it was a god, therefore you or she has to demonstrate that.
By default, it was NOT god.
Finally, we might be going somewhere, ( lets keep Sweetpea out of it ) lets say I had a experience, it was good experience, it happened in a Church ( not forgetting I am a Christian ) now why is that negative proof?
Gonnagle.
-
Gonners,
Finally, we might be going somewhere, ( lets keep Sweetpea out of it ) lets say I had a experience, it was good experience, it happened in a Church ( not forgetting I am a Christian ) now why is that negative proof?
There are two fallacies in play here. The first is the post hoc ergo propter hoc - that would apply if you said something like "event B (the good experience) happened after I went to church (event A), therefore event A caused event B. It's a fallacy because correlation does not imply causation.
The second would occur if you also said, "event A caused event B and I know that because you can't disprove it". That's the negative proof fallacy. Not being able to disprove a conjecture - any conjecture in fact - says nothing about whether that conjecture is true. Russell's teapot is the famous example here.
-
Wiggs,
That's a fair point, although the point about different guises might support the hiddenness argument. I mean, there is nothing you can fix on.
But it certainly seems highly subjective, since many theists will of course argue that God is not hidden at all - look at the stars, for your evidence!
I think in the modern version, the argument is linked with non-belief - it's reasonable to not believe in God, (since he is invisible), whereas a more manifest God would be difficult to disbelieve. I think this is Schellenberg.
Quite so. I see the premise: stars, whatever; and I see the conclusion: "God". What I don't see is any connecting logic that's cogent to take you from the former to the latter.
-
Wiggs,
Quite so. I see the premise: stars, whatever; and I see the conclusion: "God". What I don't see is any connecting logic that's cogent to take you from the former to the latter.
That surely isn't the issue in terms of the question pf 'hiddenness' - we're on a fairly specific questiion here - 'is God hiding?' and I don't think that is easily justified.
-
Dear Blue,
Just to note, I am thinking, your thoughts are not wasted on me, only to say at the moment, can you steer clear of the Christian God thing, God is God, putting a label on God does not help.
Assume no God for a moment – how would you then expect the world to look different?
I will give it a go, trouble is I am human, and I think that is where it all goes pear shaped, I can't reduce us ( humans ) to some kind of accident, it makes no sense, Einstein, Mozart, Wordsworth, Love, hate, passion, the laws of the Universe, this living breathing world, the whole shooting match.
No to much, I think my brain just tilted ( for younger viewers that is when you nudge the pinball machine and it stops working ).
Gonnagle.
-
Stephen,
Indeed it is an odd - and irrelevant - point, though according to Vlad "desiring a relationship" with something in some unexplained way "points to" that something being real.
Hi blue
Your point is entirely valid. The desire to make sense of life, to see that some ultimate meaning might exist in humanity's darkest hours might well be common enough. Though there are those who are happy to accept that there is no ultimate meaning, no matter what happens to them. Jacques Monod, the French biochemist seemed to think such sentiments were universal, whilst acknowledging that that there was no meaningful reality, concomitant with the desire that there might be.
As for Vlad's "desiring a relationship with God" - this is very revealing of his second-hand approach to all these matters. The "relationship with God" idea never existed in Christianity before the advent of the German Pietist movement in the early 17th century, I think. Before that, no believer would ever have thought of belief in God in terms of 'relationship' in the personal sense which is implied here. And if I remember rightly, Vlad also spoke of his conversion in the second-hand words of C.S. Lewis.
The point I'm making in the above comments is in tune with something that you've often said - the conversion experience very often happens to be couched in terms of the religious culture in which a person has been brought up- which I'd broaden to say, couched in the terms of the literature one has been reading, or other social influences which one may have unconsciously absorbed.
I certainly speak from experience. Though when the chips are down, I can only say that at the lowest moments of my life "Seek and ye shall find" has been so profoundly untrue that I find it difficult not to despise those who still try to perpetrate these tired old clichés.
-
Thanks for sharing that SP and I understand what you mean in your last paragraph. Personal experiences are very difficult to explain and for others to comprehend.
What you say in your second paragraph shows you have a great faith.
Personal experiences are indeed very difficult to explain. The tragic thing is that there are such a variety reported - some being truly Shakespearean in grandeur - but so diverse as to admit no comprehensive indicators for belief. What they perhaps do suggest is that the human brain is capable of producing more fantastic visions and experiences than the normal course of life provides us. But as for experiences of 'God' 'ultimate reality', indicators of the life hereafter, I think not. Though once I was prepared to think so.
-
God is God, putting a label on God does not help.
Gonnagle.
'God' is a label in itself, though whether there is a 'something' on which it may be stuck is another matter. All the other fine things you mention - are they not just fine and beautiful in themselves, without being pointers to something else?
The argument you make is largely the one that St Paul makes in Romans chapter one - a particularly obnoxious rant of his. I can forgive St Paul quite a lot, and don't think he was quite such a bad cove as often painted. But Romans chapter one just makes me want to expectorate violently.
-
NS,
That surely isn't the issue in terms of the question pf 'hiddenness' - we're on a fairly specific questiion here - 'is God hiding?' and I don't think that is easily justified.
It is the issue as a response to Gonnagle's answer specifically to the hiddenness question - ie, "he isn't hiding at all, just look at the stars" etc.
-
...
No to much, I think my brain just tilted ( for younger viewers that is when you nudge the pinball machine and it stops working ).
Meaningless questions have a tendency to halt the thinking machine. God or no god how/why should you expect the world to look one way or another, or anything at all?
Contrary to some previous statements there are actually many varieties of logic including modal logic and many-valued logics (Godel, Lukasiewicz, etc). They are just formal mathematical systems used to try and understand the world as it appears, including our own minds and thought. We try to find the best one that corresponds with and can be used to model what we observe, however there is no reason why any one of these systems must be the "true" one that describes the universe, or any reason for the universe to conform to any of them.
-
Meaningless questions have a tendency to halt the thinking machine. God or no god how/why should you expect the world to look one way or another, or anything at all?
Contrary to some previous statements there are actually many varieties of logic including modal logic and many-valued logics (Godel, Lukasiewicz, etc). They are just formal mathematical systems used to try and understand the world as it appears, including our own minds and thought. We try to find the best one that corresponds with and can be used to model what we observe, however there is no reason why any one of these systems must be the "true" one that describes the universe, or any reason for the universe to conform to any of them.
However, science at least proceeds on the basis of establishing paradigms, which become consolidated by accumulated evidence. Some of these have become such a basis of scientific enquiry, that it is unlikely that they will be overturned. It would be a monumental day if the Theory of Evolution, the Theory of Relativity etc prove to be out of conformity with the nature of the universe as it is. Maybe quantum mechanics and string theory will prove the undoing of all such paradigms?
-
Gonners,
Just to note, I am thinking, your thoughts are not wasted on me, only to say at the moment, can you steer clear of the Christian God thing, God is God, putting a label on God does not help.
Fine, but while I hear the "god is god" line a lot that's hard to reconcile that with the observable fact that many people have many descriptions (and often mutually contradictory ones at that) for the god/gods in which they believe. They seem therefore to be talking about different gods, unless that is you have some means of deciding who's right and who's wrong in their understanding of the one god.
I will give it a go, trouble is I am human, and I think that is where it all goes pear shaped, I can't reduce us ( humans ) to some kind of accident,
What "accident"? Just because there's no reason to think that there's an end game, a grand plan etc doesn't then mean that we're an "accident" - that's a false binary. Evolution for example operates on well-understood principles such that while genetic mutations may occur randomly (inasmuch as "randomly" has a colloquial meaning) the rest is physics and chemistry. The danger here is failing to grasp the anthropic principle - it's Douglas Adams' puddle again.
...it makes no sense, Einstein, Mozart, Wordsworth, Love, hate, passion, the laws of the Universe, this living breathing world, the whole shooting match.
It only makes no sense if you start from the wrong reference point - the puddle again.
No to much, I think my brain just tilted ( for younger viewers that is when you nudge the pinball machine and it stops working ).
Well, keep tilting until you reach the other end of the telescope then! Think of the lottery winner's fallacy - "look at the ginormous odds against my win. How special must I be!" etc. Neither Camelot nor "the universe" care who the winners are - regardless of how remarkable they think themselves to be.
-
Hi Dickey,
Your point is entirely valid. The desire to make sense of life, to see that some ultimate meaning might exist in humanity's darkest hours might well be common enough. Though there are those who are happy to accept that there is no ultimate meaning, no matter what happens to them. Jacques Monod, the French biochemist seemed to think such sentiments were universal, whilst acknowledging that that there was no meaningful reality, concomitant with the desire that there might be.
Well yes, though a common criticism of that from the religious is that those of us who think that way must be shallow, ungrounded – after all, we have no meaning in our lives!
It fails I think for several reasons. Fundamentally it’s an argument from consequences – “I think that there has to be a universal planner for there to be meaning in my life, therefore there’s a universal planner!”
It also fails to grasp that many people are perfectly capable of feelings every bit as deep and profound and important as they are within the paradigm of the uncaring and largely parochial universe we appear to occupy. Why wouldn’t we be? I’d even go further sometimes – how much more grand, more transcendent is the understanding science gives us of the universe than tawdry and un-ambitious tales of porcine slaughter, tribal genocide etc?
As for Vlad's "desiring a relationship with God" - this is very revealing of his second-hand approach to all these matters. The "relationship with God" idea never existed in Christianity before the advent of the German Pietist movement in the early 17th century, I think. Before that, no believer would ever have thought of belief in God in terms of 'relationship' in the personal sense which is implied here. And if I remember rightly, Vlad also spoke of his conversion in the second-hand words of C.S. Lewis.
Yup, though it’s worse than that – he takes his “desire for a relationship” as some kind of evidence that “points to” there being a god with which to have that relationship. Possibly an inadvertent channelling of a mutated cosmological argument (“cosmological lite”?), but I have no idea what he thinks the connecting logic to be.
The point I'm making in the above comments is in tune with something that you've often said - the conversion experience very often happens to be couched in terms of the religious culture in which a person has been brought up- which I'd broaden to say, couched in the terms of the literature one has been reading, or other social influences which one may have unconsciously absorbed. I certainly speak from experience. Though when the chips are down, I can only say that at the lowest moments of my life "Seek and ye shall find" has been so profoundly untrue that I find it difficult not to despise those who still try to perpetrate these tired old clichés.
I wonder how that works. Perhaps they do “find” in the sense that in their desperation their critical faculties are so compromised and their confirmation bias so heightened that they’ll grab onto a narrative that’s comforting regardless. It’s funny, when you’re desperate that’s generally reckoned to be the worst time to make life-changing discoveries and decisions, yet in respect of “God” it’s often a prerequisite. I’m struck by how often we hear stories of the, “I was a drunken wretch and then I was saved” type, rather than “after a long period of calm reflection and deep contemplation weighing up all the arguments and the supporting evidence I found god”. Some have no doubt – C.S.Lewis (as you brought him up) was one such, but many don’t.
Odd.
-
Udayama,
Meaningless questions have a tendency to halt the thinking machine. God or no god how/why should you expect the world to look one way or another, or anything at all?
Contrary to some previous statements there are actually many varieties of logic including modal logic and many-valued logics (Godel, Lukasiewicz, etc). They are just formal mathematical systems used to try and understand the world as it appears, including our own minds and thought. We try to find the best one that corresponds with and can be used to model what we observe, however there is no reason why any one of these systems must be the "true" one that describes the universe, or any reason for the universe to conform to any of them.
Dicky has got there before me, but the problem largely goes away when you don't ascribe universal, absolute values to "true". The logic that conforms with the way the universe appears to be, mediated by inter-subjective experience provides truths that are true enough to provide solutions. Those truths may yet be not true with a different understanding of the universe, but for now how would we know that pending a method to test the findings of different modes of logic?
-
Myself when young did eagerly frequent
Doctor and Saint, and heard great argument
About it and about: but evermore
Came out by the same door where in I went.
Omar Khayyam.
-
Dicky wrote:
The point I'm making in the above comments is in tune with something that you've often said - the conversion experience very often happens to be couched in terms of the religious culture in which a person has been brought up- which I'd broaden to say, couched in the terms of the literature one has been reading, or other social influences which one may have unconsciously absorbed.
I certainly speak from experience. Though when the chips are down, I can only say that at the lowest moments of my life "Seek and ye shall find" has been so profoundly untrue that I find it difficult not to despise those who still try to perpetrate these tired old clichés.
I think that's quite a common experience among non-believers. The interesting thing about God's absence is that it's an old topic, and has often been discussed in religious circles. After all, Jesus says, 'why hast thou forsaken me?', which is itself a quote from the psalms (22).
A famous modern version is Mother Teresa who is supposed to have moaned a lot about the absence of God. However, 'absence' has been construed by religious people as the dark night of soul, almost necessary as a spiritual purgation, but by atheists as non-existence, so it is very ambivalent. In fact, you can find hiddenness written up as a kind of proof of God! But this becomes boring, doesn't it?
-
Wiggs,
I think that's quite a common experience among non-believers. The interesting thing about God's absence is that it's an old topic, and has often been discussed in religious circles. After all, Jesus says, 'why hast thou forsaken me?', which is itself a quote from the psalms (22).
A famous modern version is Mother Teresa who is supposed to have moaned a lot about the absence of God. However, 'absence' has been construed by religious people as the dark night of soul, almost necessary as a spiritual purgation, but by atheists as non-existence, so it is very ambivalent. In fact, you can find hiddenness written up as a kind of proof of God! But this becomes boring, doesn't it?
And casuistic. No matter what the finding - that there's no evidence whatever for "God" for example - the answer comes, "ah, but that'll be a proof for god then", often accompanied by some of the most convoluted reasoning known to man or beast (cf Rowan Williams for example). Oddly, when the same arguments are used against conjectures in which the theist does not believe that casuistry falls away ("of course there's no evidence for leprechauns. Why would there be?"). It makes any kind of discourse more or less impossible and thus, as you say, boring.