Searching for GOD...

[Enki]

If we stubbornly said—even in the area of science—that we will accept only what we can clearly see and touch and control, we wouldn’t know much about reality.

Agreed. Science is an excellent example of a discipline that doesn't accept such simplistic guidelines. We can't see gravity, we can't touch gravity and  so far we can't control gravity. We can however build up evidence that gravity exists and is part of reality.

This helps us to better understand Jesus’ words to Thomas. It is not that we who have not seen and have believed are settling for a poor substitute for vision. No; we are being described as blessed, more blessed than Thomas. God is doing all sorts of things that we cannot see, measure, control, fully understand. But it is an informed faith that allows one to fall in love with such a God.

As the whole idea of being blessed in relation to god is a meaningless concept for me, all I see here is someone attempting the futile declaration of giving themselves a pat on the back for being 'more blessed'. I don't find such a smug and self satisfied attitude particularly useful or meaningful. So, no, I don't find it apt at all.

[Maeght]

a very apt commentary on today's gospel reading about doubting Thomas -

If we stubbornly said—even in the area of science—that we will accept only what we can clearly see and touch and control, we wouldn’t know much about reality. This helps us to better understand Jesus’ words to Thomas. It is not that we who have not seen and have believed are settling for a poor substitute for vision. No; we are being described as blessed, more blessed than Thomas. God is doing all sorts of things that we cannot see, measure, control, fully understand. But it is an informed faith that allows one to fall in love with such a God.

Accept what there is good evidence for, not only what we can see, touch and control.

What is informed faith?

[Outrider]

A baby would have no knowledge of the theory of evolution nor of the concept of a creator God.

Yes, quite - irreligion is part of a broader general ignorance.

As the brain develops, many, if not most human beings will have a natural instinct to seek the truth behind their existence - there will be much data available to help them contemplate whether science can provide sufficient evidence to justify that there is no need for a creator God - but I doubt very much if this can be considered the default position.

The evidence doesn't, and never has, led to the conclusion 'god', let alone the conclusion 'Christian God'. Gods were cited in the absence of sufficient evidence to explain the world and the universe around, and as more and more information has become available religions have scrabbled to either concede ground or claim metaphysical responsibility for the physically established mechanisms without evidence. Religion is an operation of faith explicitly because it's not a function of knowledge.

As such, whilst given enough time scientific research around the world has converged on the same answers, religion continues to sprout mutually contradictory branches and spread out. Looking to the supernatural might well be an inevitable result of the search for answers in the absence of sufficient information, the need for a poor explanation outweighing the intellectual honesty of 'we don't know, yet'; when they start, though, they start without an idea of a god, and that has to be instilled in them. Given the range of religious notions in the world currently when everyone can compare their working, there's no reason to think that someone growing up in isolation these days would duplicate one of the current expressions of religious understanding, but there's a remote possibility that they might come up with a duplicate of one of the current scientific understandings of reality.

O.

[Outrider]

Religion as you have acknowledged is more than merely intellectual assent.

No, not more than, something entirely separate from intellectual assent. Religion is not an intellectual enterprise, although there's a great deal of intellectual enterprise after the fact trying to justify it.

It is a warm feeling caused by some aspect

So are sex, if you're doing it right, and (so I've heard) heroin.

A godless universe is an intellectual construct and Goddodging the preserve of those conscious of their own sin.

No, the universe is. An understanding of it as a godless existence is an intellectual enterprise; 'god-dodging' is an attempt to shift the burden of proof, again. You want to claim 'god' you need to establish 'god' or go claiming it to people who are prepared to expend their intellectual energy after the fact trying to justify the unwarranted conclusion they've already come to.

Any explanation for how an atheist concludes atheism yet?

Yeah. There is a world. You claim there's an unseen force behind it, and I say 'prove it'. You fail, I therefore remain an atheist until, and unless, someone comes along with data that results in new information.

Or how irreligion is the default position.

I'm born. I don't know about religion, therefore I'm irreligious. I then go to school and the majority religion in my area tries to inculcate me with their religious belief... I started out without religion, though, and therefore the default is irreligion.

This isn't really rocket surgery...

O.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Yes, quite - irreligion is part of a broader general ignorance.

The evidence doesn't, and never has, led to the conclusion 'god', let alone the conclusion 'Christian God'. Gods were cited in the absence of sufficient evidence to explain the world and the universe around, and as more and more information has become available religions have scrabbled to either concede ground or claim metaphysical responsibility for the physically established mechanisms without evidence. Religion is an operation of faith explicitly because it's not a function of knowledge.

As such, whilst given enough time scientific research around the world has converged on the same answers, religion continues to sprout mutually contradictory branches and spread out. Looking to the supernatural might well be an inevitable result of the search for answers in the absence of sufficient information, the need for a poor explanation outweighing the intellectual honesty of 'we don't know, yet'; when they start, though, they start without an idea of a god, and that has to be instilled in them. Given the range of religious notions in the world currently when everyone can compare their working, there's no reason to think that someone growing up in isolation these days would duplicate one of the current expressions of religious understanding, but there's a remote possibility that they might come up with a duplicate of one of the current scientific understandings of reality.

O.

I think the questions were why is irreligion the default position ''we don't know yet'' is inadequate

[Outrider]

I think the questions were why is irreligion the default position ''we don't know yet'' is inadequate

The point isn't whether irreligion should be the default position for adults, the point is that irreligion is the default position for people because that's how they're born.

O.

[Nearly Sane]

The point isn't whether irreligion should be the default position for adults, the point is that irreligion is the default position for people because that's how they're born.

O.

So the default for humans is that they can't talk? Is that or the 'irreligion' point saying anything useful?


Note, I think that 'irreligious' generally has a more active meaning of rejection of religion than you are using it here. Pethaps 'areligious' would be better?


https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/irreligious

[Outrider]

So the default for humans is that they can't talk? Is that or the 'irreligion' point saying anything useful?

They have the capacity to talk, but they don't have language. Equally, the have the capacity to believe regardless of any evidence, but they don't have a religion. Religion is explicitly cultural, just like language - it's not something intrinsic, but it can be seen as the expression of an intrinsic capacity.

Note, I think that 'irreligious' generally has a more active meaning of rejection of religion than you are using it here. Pethaps 'areligious' would be better?

Perhaps, yes.

O.

[Nearly Sane]

They have the capacity to talk, but they don't have language. Equally, the have the capacity to believe regardless of any evidence, but they don't have a religion. Religion is explicitly cultural, just like language - it's not something intrinsic, but it can be seen as the expression of an intrinsic capacity.

Perhaps, yes.

O.

Sorry, most of that's drivel. Babies are don't have a capacity to talk or believe. They have a potential to do so at some stage. Given that, their inability is not a 'default' that can be applied in any sense. Your position is entirely inconsistent, as your post lays out, and I have no idea what point you think you are making.

[Outrider]

Babies are don't have a capacity to talk or believe. They have a potential to do so at some stage.

That's more about the semantics than the point, but let's say that they have the potential. At some point they realise that potential and have the capacity, but that does not automatically mean that they'll learn a particular piece of language. Similarly, whilst they have the potential to 'believe', and that belief might at some point be realised, that still doesn't mean that it will be realised in a particular religion, or in religion at all. Hence, whilst religion is a possibility, and the potential for belief might be inherent, areligiosity is still the default.

Given that, their inability is not a 'default' that can be applied in any sense.

It very definitely is. Religion is a cultural accrual, and you can transport an infant from one culture to another and it will broadly adopt the trappings of the new. Therefore none of the religions are in any way inherent or inherited, they're learnt. And, therefore, the lack of any of them is the default position.

Your position is entirely inconsistent, as your post lays out, and I have no idea what point you think you are making.

Well if you've not understood that's on me as the communicator, but the point is consistent.

O.

[Nearly Sane]

That's more about the semantics than the point, but let's say that they have the potential. At some point they realise that potential and have the capacity, but that does not automatically mean that they'll learn a particular piece of language. Similarly, whilst they have the potential to 'believe', and that belief might at some point be realised, that still doesn't mean that it will be realised in a particular religion, or in religion at all. Hence, whilst religion is a possibility, and the potential for belief might be inherent, areligiosity is still the default.

It very definitely is. Religion is a cultural accrual, and you can transport an infant from one culture to another and it will broadly adopt the trappings of the new. Therefore none of the religions are in any way inherent or inherited, they're learnt. And, therefore, the lack of any of them is the default position.

Well if you've not understood that's on me as the communicator, but the point is consistent.

O.

If nothing of religions are inherent, and you are an atheist, then you contradict yourself. If you don't believe in a god but don't believe in religions being inherent in humanity, then you've removed any possible explanation.

[Outrider]

If nothing of religions are inherent, and you are an atheist, then you contradict yourself. If you don't believe in a god but don't believe in religions being inherent in humanity, then you've removed any possible explanation.

And you're back to your semantic differences between the potential for something and the thing itself. We might all have the potential for religion, but that doesn't meant that we all have religion, any more than we all have the potential for calculus or playing the violin or juggling.

Nobody suggests that calculus is inherent, none of us are born already being jugglers.

O.

[Nearly Sane]

And you're back to your semantic differences between the potential for something and the thing itself. We might all have the potential for religion, but that doesn't meant that we all have religion, any more than we all have the potential for calculus or playing the violin or juggling.

Nobody suggests that calculus is inherent, none of us are born already being jugglers.

O.

You continue to contradict yourself - where does religion come from if it is not inherent?

[Alan Burns]

Yes, quite - irreligion is part of a broader general ignorance.

The evidence doesn't, and never has, led to the conclusion 'god', let alone the conclusion 'Christian God'. Gods were cited in the absence of sufficient evidence to explain the world and the universe around, and as more and more information has become available religions have scrabbled to either concede ground or claim metaphysical responsibility for the physically established mechanisms without evidence. Religion is an operation of faith explicitly because it's not a function of knowledge.

As such, whilst given enough time scientific research around the world has converged on the same answers, religion continues to sprout mutually contradictory branches and spread out. Looking to the supernatural might well be an inevitable result of the search for answers in the absence of sufficient information, the need for a poor explanation outweighing the intellectual honesty of 'we don't know, yet'; when they start, though, they start without an idea of a god, and that has to be instilled in them. Given the range of religious notions in the world currently when everyone can compare their working, there's no reason to think that someone growing up in isolation these days would duplicate one of the current expressions of religious understanding, but there's a remote possibility that they might come up with a duplicate of one of the current scientific understandings of reality.

O.

We were never meant to discover the truth and meaning behind our human existence solely by our somewhat limited intellectual capacity.  You cannot use science to prove or disprove the concept of God making Himself known to us in the person of Jesus Christ.  You will need to resort to other means to verify if Jesus really did live, suffer and die - then was resurrected as proclaimed in the books of the New Testament which were derived or written by those who claimed to be witnesses to these events.

[Sebastian Toe]

You will need to resort to other means to verify

.....such as?

[Nearly Sane]

We were never meant to discover the truth and meaning behind our human existence solely by our somewhat limited intellectual capacity.  You cannot use science to prove or disprove the concept of God making Himself known to us in the person of Jesus Christ.  You will need to resort to other means to verify if Jesus really did live, suffer and die - then was resurrected as proclaimed in the books of the New Testament which were derived or written by those who claimed to be witnesses to these events.

Do you have 'other means'? Could you outline what tgey are?

[torridon]

We were never meant to discover the truth and meaning behind our human existence solely by our somewhat limited intellectual capacity..

which is itself just another faith claim.  Circular thinking rules your world it seems

[Maeght]

We were never meant to discover the truth and meaning behind our human existence solely by our somewhat limited intellectual capacity.  You cannot use science to prove or disprove the concept of God making Himself known to us in the person of Jesus Christ.  You will need to resort to other means to verify if Jesus really did live, suffer and die - then was resurrected as proclaimed in the books of the New Testament which were derived or written by those who claimed to be witnesses to these events.

Claims aren't evidence of course. We don't know who wrote the gospels and can't just accept the claims made in documents written decades after the events in other locations.

'The majority of New Testament scholars agree that the Gospels do not contain eyewitness accounts; but that they present the theologies of their communities rather than the testimony of eyewitnesses.' (from Wikipedia).

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Claims aren't evidence of course. We don't know who wrote the gospels and can't just accept the claims made in documents written decades after the events in other locations.

'The majority of New Testament scholars agree that the Gospels do not contain eyewitness accounts; but that they present the theologies of their communities rather than the testimony of eyewitnesses.' (from Wikipedia).

I wish atheists would come clean and just admit it's more the nature of the claim rather than it being a claim
In extreme examples i've seen atheists dismiss christian claims that are 18 centuries old and accept without question Jesus as myth claims from a couple of centuries later

On another point I think you may view the term theology here as mythology  That would be a mistake since you can have a theology about any historical person and event

I suppose there are two approaches to not having eyewitnesses write the gospels
one way would be to say the gospels could be based on eyewitness and the other but extreme view is to conclude there were no eyewitnesses it never happened it's all made up or some other argument from incredulity

[Outrider]

You continue to contradict yourself - where does religion come from if it is not inherent?

People invent it. Was the Mona Lisa inherent?

O.

[Nearly Sane]

People invent it. Was the Mona Lisa inherent?

O.

In the sense of not coming from an outside agency, of course.

Again people 'invent' languauge but we wouldn't say babies were alingual and expect that to be taken other than purely descriptive.

[Outrider]

We were never meant to discover the truth and meaning behind our human existence solely by our somewhat limited intellectual capacity.

Or, perhaps, we were never 'meant' for anything. Perhaps we aren't part of any sort of plan at all.

You cannot use science to prove or disprove the concept of God making Himself known to us in the person of Jesus Christ.

Then all you have is guessing, and you'd have to put your guesses about Jesus up against other people's guesses about John Smith and Mohammed and the various Buddhas and Raven the Trickster and Zeus and....

You will need to resort to other means to verify if Jesus really did live, suffer and die - then was resurrected as proclaimed in the books of the New Testament which were derived or written by those who claimed to be witnesses to these events.

Do we see evidence of magic working anywhere else in reality? No. So the odds seem high that this story is made up just like Gandalf and Marduk and Quetzalcoatl.

O.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Then all you have is guessing, and you'd have to put your guesses about Jesus up against other people's guesses about John Smith and Mohammed and the various Buddhas and Raven the Trickster and Zeus and....

Do we see evidence of magic working anywhere else in reality? No. So the odds seem high that this story is made up just like Gandalf and Marduk and Quetzalcoatl.

But I'll bet you a pound to a piece of shit(and i'll let you hold the bets in your mouth for safekeeping)that you've never seriously stopped to consider the difference between the ultimate reality behind everything and Gandalf

Having an opinion without knowledge or experince is encultured in our society

[Outrider]

But I'll bet you a pound to a piece of shit(and i'll let you hold the bets in your mouth for safekeeping)that you've never seriously stopped to consider the difference between the ultimate reality behind everything and Gandalf.

You can pick any wizard you want, from Pug to Jesus, and they'll give us exactly as much explanation about the ultimate reality.

Having an opinion without knowledge or experience is encultured in our society.

Like making claims of knowledge of ultimate reality based upon your Big Boys' Book of Bedtime Stories isn't?

O.

[Maeght]

I wish atheists would come clean and just admit it's more the nature of the claim rather than it being a claim
In extreme examples i've seen atheists dismiss christian claims that are 18 centuries old and accept without question Jesus as myth claims from a couple of centuries later

On another point I think you may view the term theology here as mythology  That would be a mistake since you can have a theology about any historical person and event

I suppose there are two approaches to not having eyewitnesses write the gospels
one way would be to say the gospels could be based on eyewitness and the other but extreme view is to conclude there were no eyewitnesses it never happened it's all made up or some other argument from incredulity

It's not the nature of the claim. No claim on it's own is evidence.

I'm not a Jesus mythicist. I think Jesus probably existed and was probably crucified but I don't believe that Jesus was resurrected because I'm not convinced by the evidence. Documents written decades after the events making claims isn't convincing. They could have been based on eye witness accounts but they may not and to claim that they are needs supporting evidence for I to be convincing. The fact would still be though that eye witness accounts are not great evidence on their own.

Basically I have no belief and don't see documents written decades after the events which contain unsupported claims of what might have happened as convincing to make me believe.