Why not believe in Thor or Leprechauns?

[Dicky Underpants]

Anselm?......He's an ontological argument guy isn't he so unless he had a cosmological 'proof' I don't know why you have pulled him into this argument.
I understand Bertrand was erstwhile impressed with the ontological argument and said it feels wrong to the modern mind but that people didn't actually understand why and where it was wrong. I am hazarding that you feel the argument from contingency is wrong but don't understand why you feel that way. The answer of course is the modern obsession with empirical evidence, science and agnosticism.....

........
Brute fact or I don't want to investigate any further? I think Russell sums atheism up well when he say's ''the universe is and there's an end to it.''

I made an aside reference to Anselm because he made an argument which was supposed to prove the existence of God. Not a cosmological one, agreed. Anyway, I have to say that it was clear to me why A's argument failed (even if Bertie couldn't see it) - it's all about the imprecision of language. You theological chaps are all too keen to use words like 'perfect' and 'greater' as if they had some absolutely precise meaning when applied to being or beings. Gabriella, in one of her extremely lucid posts, has already pointed out the meaningless nature of this approach when applied to Jesus, calling him the 'perfect' man.  A being "greater than any that can be imagined" is similarly meaningless. You might as well say "hairier than any that can be imagined". Russell's final remark above I agree with.

So, to make sure that anyone else who wants to get on board knows the theme: you're on about arguments from contingency and necessity, mixed with tangential references to arguments from "the hierarchical, sustained first cause" and the classic first cause argument. I imagine that the majority of people would be bored to death by such matters, and that their atheism is more likely to result from questions of theodicy (how can there be a good god when there is such evil in the world)

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I made an aside reference to Anselm because he made an argument which was supposed to prove the existence of God. Not a cosmological one, agreed. Anyway, I have to say that it was clear to me why A's argument failed (even if Bertie couldn't see it) - it's all about the imprecision of language. You theological chaps are all too keen to use words like 'perfect' and 'greater' as if they had some absolutely precise meaning when applied to being or beings. Gabriella, in one of her extremely lucid posts, has already pointed out the meaningless nature of this approach when applied to Jesus, calling him the 'perfect' man.  A being "greater than any that can be imagined" is similarly meaningless. You might as well say "hairier than any that can be imagined". Russell's final remark above I agree with.

So, to make sure that anyone else who wants to get on board knows the theme: you're on about arguments from contingency and necessity, mixed with tangential references to arguments from "the hierarchical, sustained first cause" and the classic first cause argument. I imagine that the majority of people would be bored to death by such matters, and that their atheism is more likely to result from questions of theodicy (how can there be a good god when there is such evil in the world)

I've argued Anselm before with someone. I think he tends to talk in terms of the maximum of any common trait. So any good quality and God is maximally that particular quality.

Theologians, I think aren't as big on the ontological argument and even I recognise it as iffy.

But then there is Socrates who said that if the perfect man showed up he'd be put to death, reflecting something about divinity that is abhorrent to people. I think divinity gives Jesus a quality that people abhorred that is pretty unique. Maximum holiness which people hate because they are anything but.

So if Jesus isn't divine and human then he's just a very good, pious and outstanding man. I think that is the view of Islam. Of course neither Islam nor Jesus as a good man christianity can further Jesus if as Dorothy L. Sayers observed, people think Trump or Stalin or Hitler is more outstanding a m,an.

I don't believe i've ever used the term greater than can be imagined.....but I wouldn't  , perhaps baulk at using the term ''greater than can be imagined by people on this forum, evidently'' .

If atheism is asking ''how can there be a good god when there is such evil in the world'' it does so with a shrug and a ''Nuffing to do wiv us, guvnor'' and an oft stated morality which according to some is like a matter of taste.

[Dicky Underpants]

If atheism is asking ''how can there be a good god when there is such evil in the world'' it does so with a shrug and a ''Nuffing to do wiv us, guvnor'' and an oft stated morality which according to some is like a matter of taste.

At the risk of taking this thread in yet another direction, I'll say something about this last point. I'm sure you've misrepresented atheists' views on morality before - and been corrected by various posters.
What is 'nothing to do with us, guv' are the earthquakes, the volcanic eruptions, delightful diseases like plague and smallpox, or the admirable life habits of the Guinea Worm.
Though most atheists would not claim any absolute moral source, I doubt that they would therefore think that 'anything goes' or the decision whether I batter someone to death is 'a matter of taste'. I think many would be quite happy to aspire to some version of Kant's Categorical Imperative, though we're all likely to fall short. The latter requires no God-reinforcement. Neither does some version of the Golden Rule. We all know what harms us, certainly on a physical level. It doesn't require much intellect or imagination to realise such things will harm our neighbour too. So don't bloody well do them.

[ProfessorDavey]

If atheism is asking ''how can there be a good god when there is such evil in the world'' it does so with a shrug and a ''Nuffing to do wiv us, guvnor'' and an oft stated morality which according to some is like a matter of taste.

That is about as far from my experience when I came to recognise I was an atheist.

While I vaguely paid lip service to christianity and actually tried to believe morality (or ethics) was something 'other', something written in a religious text on good vs evil that sat in perfect isolation, independently from my active engagement. I wasn't an active partner in morality or ethics, merely a 'consumer' of someone else's views.

That all changed when I recognised that I didn't believe in a god and therefore I couldn't 'outsource' morality onto that god, I had to take responsibility for it myself. And that's when I became interested in ethics, first in a sort of 'blimey I need to think about this myself' way and subsequently academically (in my mid 30s I studied part time for a MA in ethics, while holding down a full time job) and professionally - I've been involved in research ethics and teaching ethics ever since.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

At the risk of taking this thread in yet another direction, I'll say something about this last point. I'm sure you've misrepresented atheists' views on morality before - and been corrected by various posters.
What is 'nothing to do with us, guv' are the earthquakes, the volcanic eruptions, delightful diseases like plague and smallpox, or the admirable life habits of the Guinea Worm.
Though most atheists would not claim any absolute moral source, I doubt that they would therefore think that 'anything goes' or the decision whether I batter someone to death is 'a matter of taste'. I think many would be quite happy to aspire to some version of Kant's Categorical Imperative, though we're all likely to fall short. The latter requires no God-reinforcement. Neither does some version of the Golden Rule. We all know what harms us, certainly on a physical level. It doesn't require much intellect or imagination to realise such things will harm our neighbour too. So don't bloody well do them.

.
Many of the world's ills could be sorted with a fair distribution of wealth........ just saying.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

That is about as far from my experience when I came to recognise I was an atheist.

While I vaguely paid lip service to christianity and actually tried to believe morality (or ethics) was something 'other', something written in a religious text on good vs evil that sat in perfect isolation, independently from my active engagement. I wasn't an active partner in morality or ethics, merely a 'consumer' of someone else's views.

A consumer of someone else's views is how I found myself at my conversion to Christianity.

[ProfessorDavey]

A consumer of someone else's views is how I found myself at my conversion to Christianity.

Explain please - that previously (i.e. before you returned to christianity) that you were a consumer of someone else's views, or that once you'd returned to christianity that you were now a consumer of someone's else's views.

[ProfessorDavey]

Many of the world's ills could be sorted with a fair distribution of wealth........ just saying.

True - albeit that view is not one found exclusively in religious thought or in non-religious thought. And of course a view on a matter is one thing, putting that view into action entirely another. And there is a clear correlation between societies around the world that are the most equal and societies that are the most secular.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Explain please - that previously (i.e. before you returned to christianity) that you were a consumer of someone else's views, or that once you'd returned to christianity that you were now a consumer of someone's else's views.

A ha, this is another of these Davey experience is more true, more good, more existentially meaningful than yours.
You don't seem to realise that the national culture has been agnostic for a very long time. I came to the understanding that my thoughtless adherence to agnostic, don't mention religion, religion is silly and cranky like your uncle was just what I'd been brought up in.

You said you had been brought up in a religionless way, It looks like you went from no religion to no religion. Where is the conversion in that? To my mind you have spent a lot of time and effort on cultivating a commitment you've never not had.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

True - albeit that view is not one found exclusively in religious thought or in non-religious thought. And of course a view on a matter is one thing, putting that view into action entirely another. And there is a clear correlation between societies around the world that are the most equal and societies that are the most secular.

But in many large secular societies that has been mere hype also celebrity atheist thought is dominated by the idea of progress and some prominent atheist thinkers think this is down to capitalism. I'm sorry to say that industry and capitalism has potentially proved disasterous for the earths ecology of which we are part. The system responsible for secular progress has resulted, as it inevitable had to, in a concentration of wealth, the expendability of the poor and climate change. The opposing secular doctrine didn't mind the production or industries of capitalism and turned out not to work either

[Walt Zingmatilder]

At the risk of taking this thread in yet another direction, I'll say something about this last point. I'm sure you've misrepresented atheists' views on morality before - and been corrected by various posters.
What is 'nothing to do with us, guv' are the earthquakes, the volcanic eruptions, delightful diseases like plague and smallpox, or the admirable life habits of the Guinea Worm.
Though most atheists would not claim any absolute moral source, I doubt that they would therefore think that 'anything goes' or the decision whether I batter someone to death is 'a matter of taste'. I think many would be quite happy to aspire to some version of Kant's Categorical Imperative, though we're all likely to fall short. The latter requires no God-reinforcement. Neither does some version of the Golden Rule. We all know what harms us, certainly on a physical level. It doesn't require much intellect or imagination to realise such things will harm our neighbour too. So don't bloody well do them.

But as we know intellect isn't entirely a fit for morality, one can be clever and immoral. There are urges at play including the demands and comfort of the ego. And of course the phenomenon underlined at COP26 of knowing what you ought to do but failing to do it. Many opportunities for commandment morality like ''don't bloody well do them'' to fail present themselves.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

I've argued Anselm before with someone. I think he tends to talk in terms of the maximum of any common trait. So any good quality and God is maximally that particular quality.

Theologians, I think aren't as big on the ontological argument and even I recognise it as iffy.

But then there is Socrates who said that if the perfect man showed up he'd be put to death, reflecting something about divinity that is abhorrent to people. I think divinity gives Jesus a quality that people abhorred that is pretty unique. Maximum holiness which people hate because they are anything but.

So if Jesus isn't divine and human then he's just a very good, pious and outstanding man. I think that is the view of Islam. Of course neither Islam nor Jesus as a good man christianity can further Jesus if as Dorothy L. Sayers observed, people think Trump or Stalin or Hitler is more outstanding a m,an.

I don't believe i've ever used the term greater than can be imagined.....but I wouldn't  , perhaps baulk at using the term ''greater than can be imagined by people on this forum, evidently'' .

If atheism is asking ''how can there be a good god when there is such evil in the world'' it does so with a shrug and a ''Nuffing to do wiv us, guvnor'' and an oft stated morality which according to some is like a matter of taste.

The matter of taste comment I made refers to people's moral behaviour and I think it applies to both religious and atheist. Being religious or atheist does not seem to prevent people's moral behaviour from being influenced by their taste.

I would differentiate that from religious and atheist people's views on how people ought to behave or ought to think i.e their ethical position, which I think is a more thoughtful position derived from considerations broader than their own personal wants and preferences. I think a religious or atheist's person's ethical position should strive to be impartial and not favour any particular group in society, though we may accept that we are all influenced by unconscious biases.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

I've argued Anselm before with someone. I think he tends to talk in terms of the maximum of any common trait. So any good quality and God is maximally that particular quality.

Theologians, I think aren't as big on the ontological argument and even I recognise it as iffy.

But then there is Socrates who said that if the perfect man showed up he'd be put to death, reflecting something about divinity that is abhorrent to people. I think divinity gives Jesus a quality that people abhorred that is pretty unique. Maximum holiness which people hate because they are anything but.

So if Jesus isn't divine and human then he's just a very good, pious and outstanding man. I think that is the view of Islam. Of course neither Islam nor Jesus as a good man christianity can further Jesus if as Dorothy L. Sayers observed, people think Trump or Stalin or Hitler is more outstanding a m,an.

I don't believe i've ever used the term greater than can be imagined.....but I wouldn't  , perhaps baulk at using the term ''greater than can be imagined by people on this forum, evidently'' .

If atheism is asking ''how can there be a good god when there is such evil in the world'' it does so with a shrug and a ''Nuffing to do wiv us, guvnor'' and an oft stated morality which according to some is like a matter of taste.

Walt, I am not sure I understand what you mean when you use the term "divine" or "holy" or "perfect". There does not seem anything you can specifically point to and say these qualities cause Jesus or any other human to be divine/ holy / perfect.

How would anyone recognise that a human is perfect or divine or holy? Surely a person would have to consciously identify those attributes in someone else before they can hate them, rather than hate them for being narcissistic or obnoxious or condescending or some other reason?

[ProfessorDavey]

A ha, this is another of these Davey experience is more true, more good, more existentially meaningful than yours.
You don't seem to realise that the national culture has been agnostic for a very long time. I came to the understanding that my thoughtless adherence to agnostic, don't mention religion, religion is silly and cranky like your uncle was just what I'd been brought up in.

You said you had been brought up in a religionless way, It looks like you went from no religion to no religion. Where is the conversion in that? To my mind you have spent a lot of time and effort on cultivating a commitment you've never not had.

Nice rant Vlad - but entirely irrelevant to the question I was asking.

I simply wanted you to clarify whether when you said:

A consumer of someone else's views is how I found myself at my conversion to Christianity.

That you meant that you were a consumer of someone else's views when you were in your non christian phase or a  consumer of someone else's views when you were in your christian phase as you wording is confusing.

[ProfessorDavey]

A ha, this is another of these Davey experience is more true, more good, more existentially meaningful than yours.
You don't seem to realise that the national culture has been agnostic for a very long time. I came to the understanding that my thoughtless adherence to agnostic, don't mention religion, religion is silly and cranky like your uncle was just what I'd been brought up in.

Says the childhood Sunday School attendee, the childhood faith school attendee and the childhood christian worship attendee (albeit you seem to be rather coy about how often this was)

You said you had been brought up in a religionless way, It looks like you went from no religion to no religion. Where is the conversion in that? To my mind you have spent a lot of time and effort on cultivating a commitment you've never not had.

Actually I have never said that my upbringing was religionless, not least because it was pretty well impossible to have a religionless upbringing in the late 60s and 70s. So although my immediate family weren't religious, extended family were and schooling required attending assemblies that were effectively christian worship, with christian hymns, prayers (primary school effectively put your hands together, close your eyes and pray to god; secondary school assemblies always involved reciting the Lord's prayer). And this was in non faith schools.

However while it was impossible to avoid religion in those days (or rather to avoid christianity) growing up I don't think I ever believed it, albeit I really tried to do so, but didn't succeed in my late teens/early 20s as I knew quite a lot of actively christian people at university. But once I'd recognised I was an atheist it was pretty clear to me that I never believed any of it all along - or certainly from an age where I had sufficient maturity to be able to consider such matters. I guess when I was very young I simply believed in god in the way I believed in father christmas because culturally I was told it was true.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Walt, I am not sure I understand what you mean when you use the term "divine" or "holy" or "perfect". There does not seem anything you can specifically point to and say these qualities cause Jesus or any other human to be divine/ holy / perfect.

How would anyone recognise that a human is perfect or divine or holy? Surely a person would have to consciously identify those attributes in someone else before they can hate them, rather than hate them for being narcissistic or obnoxious or condescending or some other reason?

I think we detect the divine (our ''chief end'' as the calvinists would have it) and the holy which is more to do with goodness) because in the presence of them we can begin to feel where we stand in relationship to them. They seek us rather than us being on the lookout for them. Sometimes I feel I am with a better person not by looking at them but by being in their presence. When I mention Revelations 3.20 it is because the mentioned 'knock' was real, clear and insistent to me and the presence of the holy likewise. Since because of my experience of Christ I find Jesus inextricable from the Holy and divine.

Yes I agree one has to encounter God and Jesus to find them repulsive but one hates them for the assault of the divine nature on your own ego. 

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Nice rant Vlad - but entirely irrelevant to the question I was asking.

I simply wanted you to clarify whether when you said:

A consumer of someone else's views is how I found myself at my conversion to Christianity.

That you meant that you were a consumer of someone else's views when you were in your non christian phase or a  consumer of someone else's views when you were in your christian phase as you wording is confusing.

My apologies I thought I made it plain that my views were those of my agnostic, embarrased by religion culture and that changed at my conversion.

[ProfessorDavey]

My apologies I thought I made it plain that my views were those of my agnostic, embarrased by religion culture and that changed at my conversion.

No it wasn't clear, so thanks for clarifying Vlad.

So when you were agnostic (which is a position of uncertainty) whose views were you following. It seems a little confusing to me that you were both uncertain as to your position, but also following someone else's views. Perhaps you can explain.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

I think we detect the divine (our ''chief end'' as the calvinists would have it) and the holy which is more to do with goodness) because in the presence of them we can begin to feel where we stand in relationship to them.

Do you mean when in the presence of a good person you recognise that they are a better person than you because they are more caring or selfless or tolerant?

Or do you mean when our conscience troubles us?

As I am not clear what you think you detected. What did it sound like or look like or feel like?

They seek us rather than us being on the lookout for them. Sometimes I feel I am with a better person not by looking at them but by being in their presence.
When I mention Revelations 3.20 it is because the mentioned 'knock' was real, clear and insistent to me and the presence of the holy likewise. Since because of my experience of Christ I find Jesus inextricable from the Holy and divine.

Again what does "being in their presence" mean? If it is not what you saw or heard, what senses did it stimulate? Did you become aware of some thoughts that made you feel safe / happy / peaceful/ energised - that kind of thing? Is that what you associate with holy or divine? What were those thoughts that preceded the feeling that you were in the presence of something divine or holy?

Yes I agree one has to encounter God and Jesus to find them repulsive but one hates them for the assault of the divine nature on your own ego.

In Islam we have a different concept - we are required to fight our own egos. In the concept of jihad we struggle daily or hourly to overcome the desires of our own egos or nafs as it is known in Arabic. I know the word "jihad" is more commonly associated with a holy war but military battles are considered the minor jihad. The major jihad is considered the struggle to elevate your moral conduct.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Do you mean when in the presence of a good person you recognise that they are a better person than you because they are more caring or selfless or tolerant?

Or do you mean when our conscience troubles us?

As I am not clear what you think you detected. What did it sound like or look like or feel like?
Again what does "being in their presence" mean? If it is not what you saw or heard, what senses did it stimulate? Did you become aware of some thoughts that made you feel safe / happy / peaceful/ energised - that kind of thing? Is that what you associate with holy or divine? What were those thoughts that preceded the feeling that you were in the presence of something divine or holy?

Personally I was terrified because there was no doubting his real presence and what I call his demand. So what preceded this were the words of the bible ''follow me'' in the Gospel and revelations 3:20 '' Behold I stand at the door and knock. If anyone hears my voice and opens the door I will come in''. Obviously this is not every Christian's experience but I am relaying mine

In Islam we have a different concept - we are required to fight our own egos. In the concept of jihad we struggle daily or hourly to overcome the desires of our own egos or nafs as it is known in Arabic. I know the word "jihad" is more commonly associated with a holy war but military battles are considered the minor jihad. The major jihad is considered the struggle to elevate your moral conduct.

In Christianity it is the fellowship of the Holy spirit which elevates us.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Says the childhood Sunday School attendee, the childhood faith school attendee and the childhood christian worship attendee (albeit you seem to be rather coy about how often this was)

That's your brainwashing theory again Prof. I think you are mistaking 'churching' with 'getting religion'.

Actually I have never said that my upbringing was religionless, not least because it was pretty well impossible to have a religionless upbringing in the late 60s and 70s. So although my immediate family weren't religious, extended family were and schooling required attending assemblies that were effectively christian worship, with christian hymns, prayers (primary school effectively put your hands together, close your eyes and pray to god; secondary school assemblies always involved reciting the Lord's prayer). And this was in non faith schools.

I have noted through this board some stand out misunderstandings of Christianity by people who claim to have lost their Christianity. I cannot ever remember anybody calling for commitment at any church service I went to, any sunday school I attended and withdrew myself from, I feel I may have been pulled pretty damn sharpish and was steered away from churches where that sort of thing went on. there was no religion I encountered that elicited a response from me either way. It seems to me you experienced more religion in your shorter brush with it in the 60's and 70's than I did with mine.

However while it was impossible to avoid religion in those days (or rather to avoid christianity) growing up I don't think I ever believed it, albeit I really tried to do so, but didn't succeed in my late teens/early 20s as I knew quite a lot of actively christian people at university. But once I'd recognised I was an atheist it was pretty clear to me that I never believed any of it all along - or certainly from an age where I had sufficient maturity to be able to consider such matters. I guess when I was very young I simply believed in god in the way I believed in father christmas because culturally I was told it was true.