The Plausibility of Atheism

User avatar
ApostateltsopA
Posts: 62
Joined: Mon Sep 21, 2015 12:16 am

Re: The Plausibility of Atheism

Post by ApostateltsopA » Wed Oct 21, 2015 1:21 pm

That is not a bad summary of some of my objections to religion in general. I would hazard away from the word prooves in mind brain and state instead, all evidence indicates and no evidence I have seen contradicts. Mainly because the word prooves can lead to really fustrating solopsistic arguments.

Atheism doesn't feel like home but like the most rational conclusion. Secular humanism feels like home.

I was last a lutheran before the millenium, I also tried paganism and Islam and finally deism before landing here.

User avatar
Jason
Posts: 379
Joined: Fri Aug 22, 2008 12:28 pm

Re: The Plausibility of Atheism

Post by Jason » Wed Oct 21, 2015 3:49 pm

Understood. I will make those amendments to my list of issues to tackle. I want to caution you at the outset that many of my views are considered fringe or minority among the populace, in that I am not persuaded that God (nor Jesus) desired to start a religion and that all religions (including the one named after Christ) are unnecessary aberrations. I make this point early to avoid confusion and have no problems vigorously defending that statement. This is why you won't see me defending the institution of Christianity, much less "religion" at large. As a whole, I do not view institutional religion as a positive thing. Perhaps that will be our only point of agreement.

Hopefully, I'll have time to address the first of these topics before week's end.

dizerner

Re: The Plausibility of Atheism

Post by dizerner » Wed Oct 21, 2015 4:19 pm

all religions (including the one named after Christ) are unnecessary aberrations.
I've always found Christians saying this a little confusing. I think they want to illustrate the point that their beliefs feel like a living and dynamic relationship with a Supreme Being, rather than a dry set of rules and things to do. I think it would be more helpful to call this "false religion" rather than to reject the word religion altogether. If we take some major defintions of religion:

1. the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods.
2. a particular system of faith and worship.
3. a pursuit or interest to which someone ascribes supreme importance.

Is 1 bad? 2 bad? 3 bad? I think any real Christian has all 3 definitions: a belief in a God, a system of faith and worship (what to believe and how to please God), and a value system of what they pursue. When we say in a negative way "this person just has empty religion" or "that church is full of religious activies but doesn't know God," we are saying there is a difference between sincere true religion and a false hypocritical religion, not that "religion" is just a bad thing. If people do a lot of outward showy things for the wrong reasons, we see that as "faking" a relationship with God.

User avatar
Jason
Posts: 379
Joined: Fri Aug 22, 2008 12:28 pm

Re: The Plausibility of Atheism

Post by Jason » Thu Oct 22, 2015 8:17 am

dizerner,

It's true that using the phrase "empty religion" or "false religion" is, technically, a more accurate description of what I'm contesting here. But you have to understand that for an atheist (like our friend here), those are useless distinctions. I'm using the word "religion" the way skeptics use it: one of many institutional systems of belief. If you want to have a side conversation about this issue, go ahead and start a new thread and I'd be happy to jump on and have that discussion.

Cheers.

User avatar
ApostateltsopA
Posts: 62
Joined: Mon Sep 21, 2015 12:16 am

Re: The Plausibility of Atheism

Post by ApostateltsopA » Thu Oct 22, 2015 12:47 pm

Jason,

From my experience you are in good company. Even practicioners of the "same" branch of religion rarely agree on what being such a thing entails and how true they consider the verious beliefs. It was that very problem that seems to have led to the creeds and explains why so much of religious service is focused on reinforcing the points of doctrine. I'm looking forward to what you have to say.

dizerner

Re: The Plausibility of Atheism

Post by dizerner » Thu Oct 22, 2015 3:00 pm

Jason wrote:dizerner,

It's true that using the phrase "empty religion" or "false religion" is, technically, a more accurate description of what I'm contesting here. But you have to understand that for an atheist (like our friend here), those are useless distinctions. I'm using the word "religion" the way skeptics use it: one of many institutional systems of belief. If you want to have a side conversation about this issue, go ahead and start a new thread and I'd be happy to jump on and have that discussion.

Cheers.
I don't see how they are "useless." And thanks but no I said all that I have to say.

User avatar
Jason
Posts: 379
Joined: Fri Aug 22, 2008 12:28 pm

Re: The Plausibility of Atheism

Post by Jason » Wed Oct 28, 2015 10:16 am

I’m going to go ahead and address the first two items (the idea of an invisible god requiring belief in him, and the issue of equity) since they both address the issue of fairness. When listening to arguments against the existence of god I can’t help but notice that, once the wrapping paper is removed, at the root of these challenges is the concept of fairness. As in -- I can never be sure that there isn’t a god, but I can be sure that a certain type of god doesn’t exist. We would expect that if god does exist, then he’d at least be internally consistent. And an invisible god who is fair but only shows himself to some people, yet requires belief from all people, does not sound internally consistent. So this is a solid challenge.

It’s also important to point out that actually proving the existence of god satisfies neither the religious crowd nor the secular crowd. If we somehow prove that god exists, the religious person will say, “Big deal, even the demons believe god exists. They’re no more saved than my shoe.” And the secular person will say, “Big deal, you’ve proven that god exists. Now I only have to sort through a billion different religions to find out what kind of god this is!” I make this point because some feel that the question of god’s existence is the main concern, but this clearly isn’t the case. I’m not aware of any religious tradition that claims salvation hinges upon one simply acknowledging that god exists. What an utterly shallow qualification!

Given this, it may seem like we can’t know anything for sure so why even bother? But actually, there are things we can know for certain if we give this a little thought.

1) If god does exist, he is invisible. We’re certain of this because we can’t see him.

2) If god created this universe, his vastness would surely stretch far beyond our ability to comprehend (given the size and immense complexity of creation). So the mental image of god being a bearded man of some sort is not even remotely in the same category of the kind of imagery that would be accurate of such a being. There is simply no analog.

3) If god exists and made everything, he must have done so for a purpose. No one creates without a purpose. Even if that purpose is the artist’s own entertainment.

4) If god exists, then he’s allowed us the freedom to believe that he isn’t real. He’s also allowed us a measure of moral autonomy because we can seemingly decide how to act in any given moment. This freedom also extends to engaging with alternative ideas about him which may or may not be at all accurate (religious liberty).

5) If god exists, then what he made should give us information about himself. You can tell a lot about an artist by his painting. Certainly not everything, but some things (like his favorite brush strokes or colors). Even if the painting got damaged by its handlers and we’re only observing it a long time after it had been painted.

6) If god exists, he is surely more intelligent than the best of us. This would mean that, in order to communicate with us, it would be necessary for him to condescend. My wife speaks Filipino fluently whereas I only have a basic grasp of the language. So when she’s speaking to me in her native tongue, she has to speak to me as if I were a child. This is necessary for me to gain anything from the communication.

So off the top of my head, those are six things we’d rationally expect to be true about a god who created our world (given what we can observe). We can’t know that these things are true, but that’s hardly the point. We’re looking to see if reason and observation can tell us anything about what this god would be like and whether an invisible, fair, yet demanding god is internally consistent. If so, then we might have to take the idea of his existence a little more seriously than we otherwise would. It’s easy to disprove a claim that isn’t internally consistent. But a claim that is internally consistent and has great explanatory power is something we ought to take seriously.

So let’s consider why God would require belief in the first place. The obvious answer, I suppose, is because action follows belief. Certainty is actually overrated because we act on a persuasion, not certainty. I’m not certain that I won’t die while driving to work because it happens to people every day, but I’m fairly sure it won’t happen so I still get in my car. This is true of everything I do in a given day. We all live our lives based on what we think is probably true about reality. So I’ll maintain that concepts like proof and certainty have zero practical value. If there’s a human being out there who only does things in accordance with certainty, you’ll probably find them in a padded cell. All of us live by various shades of persuasion.

So if belief (another word for persuasion) is so important, then why does God seemingly hide from us? That doesn’t seem very fair at all. And yet, it does seem to me that while God does hide, he hides in plain sight. In other words, those who want to find God will see evidence of him everywhere. And those who would prefer that there is no God can choose their own confirmation bias. We find what we’re looking for (“seek and you will find” goes both ways). This might be the reason that God offers us some evidence of his existence, but not so much that it’s impossible to doubt. If God is concerned with the heart of the individual above all, then one’s motivation toward bias actually speaks to the state of one's heart. This seems entirely fair.

You might say, “It’s not very charitable to say those who don’t believe are merely looking for reasons not to believe.” And while it’s true that not all unbelievers fall into this camp, I think those skeptics who are more open minded will eventually find enough reasons to become persuaded. We’re all on a continuum of belief. It’s a sliding scale, not a transaction. Some would prefer not to believe. Others are inching toward belief. A few are fully persuaded. But I still maintain that we will find whatever it is we’re looking for (be it salvation or oblivion) and psychologists are fond of demonstrating this. What better way to test the heart than to observe which path one is seeking? In this sense, confirmation bias is actually a good barometer of one’s inner motivations.

This confirmation bias, or path selection, also speaks to which religious tradition we adopt in many cases. I grew up mostly secular but adopted Christian beliefs. Richard Dawkins grew up in a Christian home but later adopted atheist beliefs. In societies where religion and culture are closely knit together, adherents rarely move away from those inherited beliefs. But sometimes they do. We often forget that the earliest Christians were brought up in a strong religious tradition that was deeply tied to their birth culture. They all defected. So we have a wide range of how and why people potentially move toward or away from certain beliefs. Those who see God as a higher intelligence who chose to condescend, and also like the idea of forgiveness will be inclined to move toward the teachings of Jesus. Those who don't like those things will be inclined to look elsewhere.

I could say more on this, but I don’t wish to intrude on your time more than necessary. I’ll tackle the other items in my next post.

User avatar
Paidion
Posts: 5452
Joined: Mon Aug 18, 2008 10:22 pm
Location: Back Woods of North-Western Ontario

Re: The Plausibility of Atheism

Post by Paidion » Wed Oct 28, 2015 4:05 pm

If god exists, why do people use the masculine pronoun to refer to god? Why not the feminine pronoun? Or better yet the neuter pronoun "it"? The neuter pronoun does not necessarily imply non-personality. The neuter pronoun is used with reference to a baby if we do not know its sex.
Paidion

Man judges a person by his past deeds, and administers penalties for his wrongdoing. God judges a person by his present character, and disciplines him that he may become righteous.

Avatar shows me at 75 years old. I am now 83.

User avatar
Jason
Posts: 379
Joined: Fri Aug 22, 2008 12:28 pm

Re: The Plausibility of Atheism

Post by Jason » Thu Oct 29, 2015 7:47 am

Paidion wrote:If god exists, why do people use the masculine pronoun to refer to god? Why not the feminine pronoun? Or better yet the neuter pronoun "it"? The neuter pronoun does not necessarily imply non-personality. The neuter pronoun is used with reference to a baby if we do not know its sex.
Paidion, it depends who you're asking. The neuter pronoun "it" doesn't function well here and may be misleading. The Bible describes God as having both masuline and feminine characteristics, so it's not a case of "neither" but a case of "both." Using the masuline pronoun is following the tradition of scripture and avoids the redundant phrase "he or she."

User avatar
Paidion
Posts: 5452
Joined: Mon Aug 18, 2008 10:22 pm
Location: Back Woods of North-Western Ontario

Re: The Plausibility of Atheism

Post by Paidion » Thu Oct 29, 2015 11:35 am

Thank you, Jason. I was aware of that. Actually, I was asking the question while imagining myself to be an atheist, who might not give much credence to the Bible. An atheist might be in a position similar to the person who does not know the sex of a baby, and refers to the baby as "it." An atheist might say, "I don't know whether god is male, female, or neither. So surely reference to god as "it" would be appropriate.
Paidion

Man judges a person by his past deeds, and administers penalties for his wrongdoing. God judges a person by his present character, and disciplines him that he may become righteous.

Avatar shows me at 75 years old. I am now 83.

Post Reply

Return to “Agnosticism & Atheism”