By the way I have seen a few definitions of Atheist presented on here such as the following:
a person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being or beings.
That is a fairly serviceable definition as far as it goes but it does NOT truly define the complexity of a person self identified as an Atheist.
I can really only offer my own personal definition which is that since there is NO compelling evidence to support ANY deity, I simply do not. In my opinion to do so would be to spit in the face of the very things which makes me a human being. My intellect and self awareness.
I have no innate desire to argue against anybody's desire to believe in WHATEVER they choose to believe so long as they keep their superstitions away from our ability to make progress as a species. If people of faith demand that their belief system share the same respect as thousands of years of scientific research then I indeed have a problem with that. Or if they insist that THEIR version of morality supplant the version that I have painstakingly pieced together throughout a lifetime of trial and painful error, then again we have a problem.
If in fact there were irrefutable evidence that a being, which could be identified as a "god," did indeed exist than I would have to revisit my opinion. But of course, and this is where I somewhat disagree with the poster above, the minute such an opportunity arose, and "God" were something which could be subjected to scientific examination, he would by definition cease to be "God." He might be the source, and inspiration, for all of the Abrahamic religions, but he would suddenly be reduced to quantifiable components and abilities, which a God cannot.
Therefore of course it will never happen, and the only pathway to acceptance of his existence will always be blind faith. And that is a chasm over which I am apparently biologically unable to traverse.
Very good, Gryphen, but some quibbles with your usage of "God" here. If existence were proven, a Supreme Being would not cease to be God (particularly given the Anselmian definition "that than which nothing greater can be conceived.") Instead, what would cease would be faith.
ReplyDeleteTo quote another philosopher - Soren Kierkegaard:
“If I am capable of grasping God objectively, I do not believe, but precisely because I cannot do this I must believe. If I wish to preserve myself in faith I must constantly be intent upon holding fast the objective uncertainty so as to remain out upon the deep, over seventy thousand fathoms of water, still preserving my faith.”
― Søren Kierkegaard
The short version of that is "once we have knowledge, faith becomes impossible."
Happy Solday
Which was essentially my point.
DeleteIn order for this entity to remain "God" in the eyes of the faithful, he/it simply cannot be subjected to actual examination by humans.
Once that happens then it becomes essentially a specimen which will be subjected to scientific inquiry unti8l its godlike abilities have been adequately explained.
"Magic's just science that we don't understand yet." Arthur C. Clarke
Forgive me if I'm mistaken. I'm not sure, Gryph, if you are meeting Kierkegaard in the way you might think. The key is in the quote Anonymous 4:28 am gives - "If I wish to preserve myself in faith I must constantly be intent upon holding fast the objective uncertainty so as to remain out upon the deep, over seventy thousand fathoms of water, still preserving my faith.”
DeleteKierkegaard was a devout Christian. His point was that uncertainty-or doubt-is a necessary component of faith, otherwise it would not be faith. That may seem to be what you are saying - knowledge or potential for discovering knowledge - obviates faith. Following Kierkegaard, however, one sees the implications somewhat differently.
What doubt as a necessary component of faith means is that people who are sure that their religion is right, who brook no question, and who try and make others accept their beliefs as the only true beliefs, have no doubt therefore have no faith.
Kierkegaard is all about trying to get us to take a leap of faith - and he is not just talking about faith in God, but also faith in love.
He had a great deal to say that makes one turn things around and see how they look from another direction. "The greater the risk the greater the faith," is one of these ideas.
And a happy Solday to you. Enjoyed your comments. Thanks.
DeleteSolstice coming up - so few people even think of where their planet is in space, and where it is in relationship with the surrounding cosmos. Solstice in North America is on the 20th of June this year. 7:09 EDT. Good to be with you in this especial awareness.
You are alone in how you stand on this issue, but no need for me to say that other than to be companionable. Though, people who do not blindly embrace a particular dogma are often derided, excluded and generally mistrusted. Sometimes it just feels good to know that what resonates for us as individuals also finds acceptance in others.
ReplyDeleteWhat strikes me most by saying that though is that those of us who do not believe or merely question do not really have the same drive or need to have others believe exactly as we do. We are sufficient.
So, while it is nice to know we are not alone, it is not crucial to our self-acceptance, our contentment or fulfillment. That is, I think, one of the most significant differences between believers and non-believers.
Atheists and agnostics do not feel the compulsion to convert others to our viewpoint. However, if pushed, we will push back to retain the right to our own views. Only the most radical of believers seem compelled to convert us - as if misery loves company.
Atheists and agnostics do not feel the compulsion to convert others to our viewpoint.
Delete??????????
I disagree.
Thought you might get a kick out of this, Gryph -
ReplyDeletehttp://www.politicususa.com/brian-fischer-reason-liberals-god-gave-deranged-minds.html
...fromthediagonal thanks you once again...
ReplyDeletePlease do not be discouraged that these posts garner less comments, but know that we share your philosophies and thought processes.
Gryph, I tend to be agnostic, with a side of spiritualist thrown in.
ReplyDeleteI don't know very much about Atheism, so I'd like to ask you how you explain miracles? Miracles as in spontaneous healing, the avoidance of catastrophy, psychic gifts/intuition, savants and so on.
Pure science to me doesn't really explain the unexplainable, I tend to believe that a higher power had a hand in those kinds of things. So how do you explain the unexplainable for yourself?
I am sincerely curious.
BTW did you mean "the only pathway to acceptance of his [Gods] existence will always be blind faith" to apply only to yourself?
Thanks for the post, very thought provoking. I have never given Atheism much thought before, now I am intrigued and would like to know more.
Miracles in my opinion are simply the inability of the observer to adequately understand how an event occurred. In other words, primitive man believed that the a solar eclipse was a "miracle" and if a priest/witchdoctor/soothsayer were able to capitalize on that the miracle could be attributed to them, or his god.
DeleteHowever miracles do not fair well in a clinical setting and are often given magical qualities by the people who share the stories of their occurrence.
Imagine this, if a child were diagnosed with cancer, yet after hours of prayer by Buddhist monks was suddenly cured, some would call that a "miracle."
Yet if another child were diagnosed with cancer, and nobody prayed for their recovery, and yet the symptoms simply disappeared, would that be a "miracle," or would the first thought be a misdiagnosis, or a product of the child's biology? If the latter were true, and doctor's examined the child's immune system, imagine how much could be learned about the body's ability to fight this terrible disease.
And once again this quote seems appropriate:
"Magic's just science that we don't understand yet." Arthur C. Clarke
Providing miraculous answers to occurrences that we don't understand is to allow our most primitive instincts to circumvent our intellectual curiosity. That is NOT how progress is made.
These so-called miracles have never included a spontaneously regenerated arm/leg/hand/foot that had been amputated, or the healing of advanced brain disease (Alzheimers, for example), or advanced joint disease (Arthritis). Hmmmmm, wonder why.
DeleteShroud of Turin...
Deletestill a mystery.
http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=7404624n
I appreciate what you say, Gryphen. Some people just need proof. Others easily believe in God.
ReplyDeleteThere are many people of all persuasions, religions, who have recounted unexplained phenomena. There's no scientific proof, but their experience is there. They can't deny it. Was watching the silly but humorous "BigFoot" and the witnesses who 'saw' a creature say they felt a 'presence' following them, watching them, and had an eerie feeling. Of course the Kentucky sightings maybe had extra incentive with the moonshine whiskey. But, I digress. Strange miraculous phenomena happens, unexplained, and unexplored scientifically.
Hauntings, presences, UFO's, abductions, spiritual experience that defies logic. And these things put the fear of God of them, too. I never heard too many atheists discuss that and if they feel these people are in the oddball category or not. Do people who believe in this frustrate those who don't believe in a god? Just wondering.
While searching for purpose, and just having an easy time believing in one God, I had experiences that I can't explain. They were little steps, but nonetheless there. A verse in the OT where God asked those who knew him to 'prove him'.
I had some pretty funny things happen to me, dreaming of a scripture, then waking up, reading it, and it being the exact answer to the problem I was facing. It was soothing, comforting to know that someone is watching over and knows and cares. Just saying.
But, again, I understand where it's hard for some, who have had different knocks in life. Thought I'd share just one small experience, among the many others that I know happened and changed my inner peace and my life. 'spiritual' just can't be physically examined.
"I had some pretty funny things happen to me, dreaming of a scripture, then waking up, reading it, and it being the exact answer to the problem I was facing."
DeleteYour brain works even when sleeping. And it often finds a way to bring a solution to a conscious level. Pure intellect. Some sky pixie with nothing better to do than solve your problems........Spare me.
This is a big fallacy that a lot of religious/spiritual/New Age commit a lot. "Science can't explain X, therefore Y is true", where "Y" is Jesus, Big Foot, UFOs, whatever.
DeleteIf science cannot explain something, all that means is that right now there is no known scientific explanation. Someday there might be a scientific explanation. And even if there never is, that does not mean that your particular religion/belief has the correct answer.
Nor does the Big Bang Theory have irrefutable evidence. That's why it is called a theory. Those of us who believe in God, see the amazingly complex world in which we live as proof. Both require faith to believe it. This dance is getting tiresome, Gryphen. Can't you just live and let live?
ReplyDeleteThe Big Bang Theory is a SCIENTIFIC THEORY. Come back when you learn what a SCIENTIFIC THEORY is.
Delete(A little education can often be embarrassing.)
HRH,
Deletego suck a dick.
Sorry, was that Rude?
Jerk!
The BIG BANG T-H-E-O-R-Y was undoubtedly named by a man.
DeleteMuch of what happens in our world is, in actual fact, largely unexplainable. That doesn't mean there is a "God" that causes things to happen or to be, it simply means that we haven't yet made the discoveries necessary to explain everything.
ReplyDeleteWe humans have such incredibly large egos! If we can't explain it, it must be a miracle.... I do think that our egos are responsible for the need of religious belief and, most especially, our concern about what happens after we cease to live. Our egos won't allow us to entertain the idea that when we die, we die, that there is no hereafter, no "Kingdom of Heaven", no reincarnation, no reuniting with our long-lost parents and loved ones, and no kindly Heavenly Father to care for us for all eternity.
I understand (having grown up in the Protestant faith) why people cling to it, and why they continue to pray to "God". It took me several years to come to terms with the fact that there is no "Heavenly Father", that praying is useless for anything other than a means of contemplation. But I think I've also come to (comfortable) terms with the fact that, when I take my last breath, that's it, folks. It will be the same as losing consciousness as we do during sleep, but this time it really IS for all eternity.
I totally respect what you believe, but I don't get the part about believing in God having to do with ego.
Delete"God is a tennis shoe!" cried the heretic.
ReplyDelete"Release him," said Torguemada, "For there is much to be said on both sides".
Why is it that many atheists have no problem saying, "There is no God", despite not having proof to back up the statement, and yet they mock and take to task those who believe in God and back it up with the claim that the believers can't prove there is a God.
ReplyDeleteAny side that claims they know definitively what the answer is has not yet earned a place at this debate.
The burden of proof is on the person saying that something DOES exist, not on the person doubting its existence.
DeleteAnd by the way atheists do not necessarily proclaim decisively that "there is no God." What they claim is that there is insufficient evidence, or reason, to justify the belief in one.
And once again IF Christianity in America was not infringing on the rights of others, or inflicting their version of morality on those not within their faith, there would be less reason for any debate at all.
Well, Gryphen, I doubt there's gonna be a burning bush on your lawn anytime soon (unless it's a Palin after dark!).
DeleteSo, you probably aren't going to the the PROOF you seek to accept the existence of God.
It's been up for debate since the beginning of time, I doubt it will happen on your watch.
You're happy with yourself, great.
You're Unhappy with over the top righteous assholes who use GOd and Jesus to perpetuate hatred and ignorance.
That is not what "Christianity" is, and it is not what Jesus lived or taught.
You have a great many opinions of God, but what about Jesus? Do you respect and like Jesus? Do you think Jesus was real?
Do you think Jesus was a liar?
The evidence for the 'existence of God' has been proven.
DeleteWhere have you people been?
You obviously refuse to believe in the evidence.
Here lies the problem.[the obstinate refusal to believe the evidence produced]
The CORRECT definition of the word 'God' has to be acknowledged.
Once you accept the correct definition, you are well on your way to discovering the truth.
Gryphen, you are a long long way from understanding the truth.
You know nothing. You only think you know.
Your ignorance is overwhelming.
You are still in kindergarden, as far as knowing the truth is concerned.
And if you can't accept my words, then you are worse off than I thought you were.
There is a big difference between 'believing something' and 'knowing something'
You just don't know. That is not your fault. You first have to ackowledge that you do not know the truth.
Once you acknowledge that,and you have to show some humility here, you are ready to begin.
No humility, no beginning of journey.
Therefore, my challenge to you is: are you ready to begin?
The evidence for the 'existence of God' has already been proven.
DeleteWhere the hell have you ostriches been?
Just because you REFUSE to believe, does not mean the evidence is not real.
You are wasting my time.
My point is that any person on either side has no right saying that their belief is anything other than that - simply a belief. A debate cannot be held if either side says, " I know this to be true and you are a fool for believing otherwise".
ReplyDeleteAnd, in essence, that is what you have been saying, time and time again in your posts. Even in this one, when you say things like, " I have no innate desire to argue against anybody's desire to believe in WHATEVER they choose to believe so long as they keep their superstitions away from our ability to make progress as a species. " , the minute you relegate their belief to a silly superstition that has no place in the same field as your beliefs, you are saying that you believe they are entirely wrong.
We do not know who is right and who is wrong. My guess is that it's a big ol' mixed up bowl of both sides. The parable of the blind men and the elephant is perfect for any discussion about beliefs of any kind. All of us are in the dark , to one degree or another, and we only have our own small world of senses to use as tools. Each story of "the truth" is going to be different.
I must thank all above. I am enjoying this dialogue immensely. I could make a comment on each comment separately, and may do so yet. Firstly, who has ever walked in a beautiful forest, felt the breeze carrying the scent of hundreds of blossoms, heard the delicate song of a hermit thrush, seen Fibonacci number patterns (the Golden Ratio-chambered nautilus spiral) in every tree, every flower, every rock, and on one's own hand - and not 'known' that there was something hugely intelligent and all wise behind it. The outer forms aren't 'God." They are just the tangible perceptible manifest result of something behind everything that is 'unmanifest.' People often call that essence "God." Or "Great Spirit." Or "The Field." "Consciousness" even.
ReplyDeleteBut it certainly isn't a man with a beard sitting on a cloud hurling lightening bolts to earth because somebody 'sinned!'. That image is a mythological concept created by humans and, yes, worshipped by humans as real.
The dialogue in all the comments above is about "God," but everyone has their own 'definition' of what that word means. Best to define what we mean by the word GOD first. We're talking Newtonian Physics vs Quantum physics here. BIG difference in perception - even about "science."
When you get the slightest drift of what Quantum mechanics reveals, "Science" and "God" come together. No conflict at all.
Here's an interesting blog that addresses this issue. If you go back a bit, there are some previous posts that take an interesting look at this topic.
http://spiritnexus.blogspot.com/
Gryphen uses the word "superstition" to belittle religion. I enjoyed reading Gasman's prior post in which he held your feet to the fire for this attitude, G.
ReplyDeleteNumerous posters, including I myself, have named a number of Christians who are highly educated and could never accurately be called superstitious: Dr. Francis Collins, head of the National Institutes of Health and former director of the Humane Genome Project, who is also a Christian who believes in miracles; Dr. Martin Nowak, a practicing Roman Catholic and Harvard lecturer on evolution and faith; Dr. Alvin Plantinga, philosopher and believer; Dr. Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, Jesuit priest, philosopher, and paleontologist who discovered Piltdown Man. There are many more. There is no empirical support for the fantasy that all "brights" are atheists.
Just Google Christian Nobel prize winners. Do some reading of the great philosophers, G. Ailsa gently pointed out that you misunderstood the Soren Kierkegaard quote. You, on the opposite end of the spectrum, cite a sci-fi writer, and sometimes you've even quoted a Las Vegas illusionist, as if these men are sources of great philosophical wisdom.
The study of religious philosophy is a stringent discipline and we can all profit from careful reading and study of the field. It helps to have good teachers, and it's necessary to keep an open mind.
A few weeks ago, a fake cartoon graph appeared on IM to show that religion had held back the progress of science. Baloney. In fact, some of the greatest scientists in history have been Catholic or have belonged to other faith traditions. The original proponent of the Big Bang Theory was a Catholic priest, as was Gregor Mendl, father of genetics.
Lastly, if one states "There is no God," that is an affirmative statement which one can be called upon to defend in a debate format.
I could go on, but we're going out for Father's Day. Happy Father's Day to you, Gryphen, and to all fathers everywhere.
Superstition
Delete1.a belief or notion, not based on reason or knowledge, in or of the ominous significance of a particular thing, circumstance, occurrence, proceeding, or the like.
2.a system or collection of such beliefs.
3.a custom or act based on such a belief.
I merely used the most appropriate definition.
And regardless of how many intelligent Christians there are, and of course there are man, the fact remains that today our education system is under attack by individuals who use the inerrancy of the Bible as a weapon to silence the critics who fight to keep superstition out of the science classroom.
As for the argument that religious fundamentalism does not impede scientific progress, one need not go back 400 years to the trials of Galileo for an example, as it is still happening today in 2012.
Oh I forgot, happy Father's Day!
DeleteThe term "ominous significance" used in that definition of superstition shows why the word is unsuitable in a general reference to Christianity, since most mainline Christians, whether Protestant or Catholic, don't believe in omens.
DeleteThere may be some fringe sects who do. I don't know if omens feature in Judaism, Islam, or Mormonism.
Galileo was a practicing Catholic who managed to rack up an impressive array of accomplishments in spite of some issues with the magisterium. In fact, some of the greatest intellectual firepower in the history of science has been exercised by Catholics.
I don't buy the notion that religious fundamentalism impedes scientific progress in any significant, permanent way, simply because science historians don't think that's the case.
Gryphen,
ReplyDeleteI'm not too keen on ANY type evangelism, whether Christian, Muslim or atheist. So long as they respect your beliefs and don't try to influence the government with their religion, I'm not sure why you give a fat rat's ass what anybody else believes. All types of intolerance seem to be intellectual indefensible.
I don't criticize your beliefs, why do you criticize mine? Hell, you don't even KNOW my beliefs.