Sometimes I have to force myself to be open-minded. Religious people go door-to-door trying to convert others to their religion, and atheists expend lots of effort trying to get believers to see reason. It’s commonplace for one person to try change the mind of another. But what about changing your own mind? I’m an atheist, and this blog post is about what it would take to convince me God exists.
I consider God to be the “ultimate” supernatural entity, so let’s start at a smaller scale and work our way up. What would it take to convince me to believe in magic? I’ve seen David Copperfield perform: he can fly, he made the Statue of Liberty disappear, he can teleport to Hawaii. He has a fantastic card trick (which I also perform):
There is a veritable treasure trove of evidence that magic is real (check out the Flash Mind Reader). Still, that has only convinced me to believe in trickery rather than magic. As Arthur C. Clarke famously wrote, “Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.” I find it most probable that David Copperfield is using advanced technology, misdirection, sleight-of-hand, and other forms of trickery to do things that appear to be magic rather than actually having magical powers.
So, if David Copperfield can’t convince me, what can? I think if Harry Potter really existed and he could take me to Hogwarts I might start to believe. Flying brooms, magic wands, spell books, ghosts, and fairytale creatures? Yeah, I think I would have no choice but to believe. Still, there would always be a small part of my brain wondering if perhaps his magic wand was merely a super-advanced gizmo designed by genius engineers (or even aliens) rather than some mystical stick with magic powers. I would also wonder if one day we could build a machine that could measure the “magic field” emanating from these wizards in the same way we measure electromagnetic fields, thus engulfing magic within the scientific realm.
Remember, compared to people living 500 years ago, we are magical creatures. We can blow things up with missiles from halfway around the globe. We can instantly send any information from one person to another using a tiny handheld device called a cell phone. We can cure all sorts of diseases. We can fly. That’s the problem: the things that Harry Potter and Dumbledore can do look like magic today, but what will they look like 500 years from now? “You mean they needed BROOMS to fly in the old days? I don’t know how I could survive without my nuclear powered anti-gravity ring.”
Anyway, I’m going to draw the line at “Harry Potter and Hogwarts” as proof enough that magic exists. Regardless of whether or not there’s an “explanation” for it, I think it fits the definition of magic well enough for me.
Now, let’s get back to God. As Carl Sagan famously said, “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.” God is the most extraordinary thing of all, far more extraordinary than magic, and as such requires the most evidence. After all, he is supposedly all-good, all-knowing, all-powerful, and the creator of the universe. That’s pretty darned extraordinary. (On a side note, I think it’s funny that magic requires less evidence and has more of it than God.) Anyway, let’s go through a couple of things off the top of my head that might seemingly convince me.
What if I met God? That wouldn’t convince me because I would just assume it was an evolutionarily and technologically advanced alien, not God himself. Anybody who has seen Star Trek knows of the character Q who is an omnipotent and omniscient alien, but none of the crew grant him the title of “God” (although he often claims to be).
What if the Bible was proven to be true? Setting aside the fact that many parts of the Bible are obviously false, I think that would probably convince me to believe in Christianity even if not God himself. Anybody who has seen Stargate is familiar with powerful alien beings enslaving primitive cultures by convincing them that they are gods.
What if all sorts of miracles started happening? That would convince me to believe in miracles, but not to believe that God is the cause of those miracles. I mean, statistically, a few miracles have to happen. If tons and tons of miracle started happening I’d probably sway more towards astrology and the alignment of the stars.
What if I had a near-death experience? This one’s easy: clearly, when your brain is damaged it starts malfunctioning and you have hallucinations. Nothing to write home about.
What if evolution and the Big Bang are proven wrong? This is another easy one. It would convince me to say, “I don’t know,” not to believe in anything specifically.
What if I died and woke up in heaven? I think this is the ultimate evidence. I suppose one can never be sure one isn’t hallucinating, but if I really did die and wake up in the afterlife that would be as much proof as I could possibly ask for. I would probably believe at that point. (In the episode Tapestry, Captain Picard really did die and wake up in the afterlife and see Q, and he STILL didn’t believe Q was God. It just goes to show how incredibly difficult it is to come up with a situation where “God” is the only plausible explanation. I would probably be more open-minded than Picard and grant Q his “win” at that point, ha ha. By the way, you should vote on your favorite Star Trek episodes.)
Anyway, I’d love to hear from the rest of you what it would take for you to believe. Also, for all of the believers out there, what would it take to convince you to become an atheist?
For fun, I have also created an un-scientific poll where people can vote on the degrees of evidence they would need in order to change their minds.
Tags: Arthur C. Clarke, burden of proof, Carl Sagan, David Copperfield, God, Harry Potter, magic, poll, religion, Star Trek, supernatural
Interesting, you seem to write a lot about science vs. religion.
Anyway, I believe in EVERYTHING. Which paradigm I believe in depends on the situation. I will believe that which will best serve my purpose. If I’m with physicists, I am an atheist. If I am with Christians, I am Christian. If I am with Daoists, I am a Daoist.
I believe in blending in, and being what the situation requires me to be. It’s too rigid being only one thing because it limits your options.
So do I believe God exists? No, because you don’t believe it. Am I your friend now?
By the way, I offered a rebuttle to your comment on my post on thedashingfellows. Thanks for your contribution!
I do write a lot about religion, unfortunately. I see myself as pro-logic, and faith is basically the antithesis of that, so religion keeps popping up.
Religion, every religion, is the cause of suffering, inequality, pain, hurt and exclusion, let alone wars, and the cause of every religion is the illogical assumption that there is a god!
Faith may be believing something, but allowing that what you believe to rule other people’s lives is dictatorial and squashing out other peoples right to self-determination!
Representatives of a faith claiming to be representing the one and only god are a. traitors to the human race, b. liars, c. abusers of people who are to stupid to have an opinion of their own, and d. working towards their own profit.
There is NO god, period.
Making the claim that “There is NO God. Period” is making a statement that you can’t prove true, isn’t that what this article is all about, what can be proven? I mean according to the article there are certain ways to prove a God exists even if it involves dying. But how in the world can you ever prove that there is “No” God.
It’s faintly amusing that many atheists have as much faith in the position that there is no god as their religious counterparts do that he exists. It’s pretty difficult to offer up proofs in everyday life for things like the big bang. I’m reasonably convinced there isn’t a god, but the fact I have so much faith in a position I can’t easily prove means I wouldn’t be to surprised if I discovered I was wrong.
Why does everyone view religion in such a narrow spectrum of thoughts? Did all the psychonauts die out? People try to understand why their conscious was conceived in this specific moment in time… “Why me?” or “What is the purpose of my life?”
In my opinion, religion was created as a means of evolution. The wiser ones see the symbolism within all the messages, while the herding-type people (the “sheep”, the crowd, the flow) are lost in translation trying to interpret scriptures to how it fits their lives.
The meaning of the symbols were to show you “what is”, not “what it could be.” Great artists, philosophers and other intellectuals knew better than to outwardly express everything they felt. That is why their thoughts are transmuted into symbols within art, scriptures, and stories. It is a streamline of consciousness that gives birth to new perspective depending on the creative ambition of the seeker.
The reason why Nostradamus lives on through his baffling philosophies is because the wise know the importance and the ignorant seek its importance. Everything is within a constant balancing act, both physically but mostly in ways we never choose to look out for.
Every object and the physical properties they hold exist as they are by laws. Laws that we perceive rather than create by legislature. The difference between what we can assume and what we perceive is the difference between your mind and your body; the difference between your faith and this universe.
Atheism is faith in science… But if you’ve been keeping up with today’s science, the line between science and religion is becoming far less distinct.
There will be a moment in the gyre of time, and a break in the cyclic misconception, in which Mars will let the great Hermes roam unrestrained.
See what I did there? The great Hermes– the Messenger God, is a symbol for the internet. Mars? Men. (Mars also happens to be the God of War in mythology. Men war often.)
In short, religion for the herds is like government. Government was originally born out of reason. Reasoning led to the wise seeking to protect the herds. Government keeps the dangerous criminals confined so the others may continue in their pursuit of happiness. Religion works in much the same way, but in a way that aims to bring harmony, not separation.
So ask yourself… Is it easier for you to acknowledge that you know nothing, or is it easier for you to acknowledge that you seek something?
In answering the main query, the easiest way for me to address it is to be autobiographical. As an atheist for most of my adult life, an intense amount of reading up on the history of social reformers generally persuaded me in my ’40s and ’50s that something very similar to deity was more probable than not after all. I still do not now view the reality of deity as certain, though, which is why I stick with “probable” instead. Also, history’s paper trail does not suggest to me that this deity phenomenon has all the attributes commonly ascribed to it in many, though not all, religions. For instance, although I tend to the assumption that deity may possibly be omniscient, I still don’t believe it’s omnipotent. That is, it may know all that goes on, but I do not credit the notion that it either micromanages or can micromanage a single thing. Also, I doubt that there is any kind of afterlife; and I have definitely not arrived at my general conclusions as to the likelihood, if not certainty, of deity through anything like faith. I’m not aware of ever having had such a “sensation” at all, in fact, and am generally uninterested in nebulous impressions of that kind. Reading and sifting many and varied accounts throughout history is more my speed.
What I’ll supply here is long, no question, and if Mr. Brocoum and the other readers here have neither the patience nor the time to slog through this, I’ll quite understand. What I’m enclosing here are two different snapshots of two ways of thinking about what I’ve read, with certain portions of various reflections that unquestionably overlap. But they illustrate reasonably clearly what changed this atheist into a believer — of sorts. I sometimes doubt that many a traditional orthodox believer in any known religion of today would even view me as a real believer at all. But I can say that I now feel that there is some kind of ever-present entity that, at the very least, inspires some people in a tangible way and abides with them from the cradle to the grave in some dimension outside of the three dimensions plus time that we all know as concrete.
Here’s “Snapshot no. 1″, written from the perspective of my erstwhile atheism –
SNAPSHOT NO. 1
This post involves, among 101 other things, an implicit query related to pioneers across the eons: Which pioneers have functioned as both “socially evolutionary” and as “Original”s? I’ll explain what I mean by these terms in more detail as we proceed. But I’ve decided to provide here two different lists first, showing a contrast that has bothered me considerably through the years. I may have already referred to this contrast in very general terms in other posts, but it’s time now to put some flesh and bones on that contrast, so others can judge its significance for themselves.
So here we go:
The first of the two lists shows many path-breaking and entirely original spins on social/cultural ethics that have emerged from founding pioneers who have, in the process, founded new and countercultural (for their time) theistic creeds as well, along with their _contextually evolutionary_ moral values –
(values that, as we’ll see, have little to do with so-called “sin”, really [ultimately, a red herring anyway, and fostered more by followers obsessed with exceptionalism than by the initial pioneers]) –
those initial pioneering moral values from the initial founders consisting primarily of salutary puncturing of socially thoughtless attitudes denying the humanity of all social misfits. These thoughtless attitudes are replaced by these pioneers with a constructive sense of responsibility for all without exception instead (“I’ll scratch your back, you scratch mine”). All well and good, but why must the most far-reaching and original spinners on such social responsibility always drag in some brand new (and countercultural and initially nonconformist) theistic creed along with their independent social conscience?
Whatever each pioneer’s individual faults — and a few of them certainly have their individual personal flaws, no question — each one has shown clear originality for their time and place and culture in that they introduce, without prior precedent
1. the centrality of peace as the spine to all social values (Lugal-Shag-Egur of 3rd-century-B.C.E. Sumeria — but he also introduces the worship of a deity, Ningirsu, who’s conceived as a powerful god who safeguards all peace treaties)
2. the establishment of protections for the treatment of the socially downscale and the introduction of the concept “freedom” (Urukagina, the Sumerian reformer — but he also reconceives Ningirsu as the safeguard of the widow and the orphan [the first known use of this turn of phrase], thus instituting a new form of worship)
3. the notion that those who are afflicted and oppressed deserve the most respect and consideration of all (the writers of Exodus — but they also introduce the worship of a new god, Yahweh, who has “surely seen the affliction of my people .. and have heard their cry .. And I am come down to deliver them” — in contrast to all other gods of that period who safeguarded the mighty instead)
4. the fundamental concept of Yin and Yang (the writer of the I Ching [thought by some to be a certain Wen Wang] — but this text also introduces something called “Tian” [loose translation: "Heaven"] as a metaphysical bulwark of all that is)
5. the first conscientiously designed Constitution in the Western tradition, instituted as the Constitution of Orchomenus (Hesiod, nicknamed “hearth-founder” for his groundbreaking constitution — but he also introduces into literature the classic picture of the cosmos as conceived in ancient Greek tradition, with its pantheon of gods like Zeus, Hera, Aphrodite, and so on)
6. the establishment of conventional wisdom as automatically suspect and the powerful’s use of the jackboot (so to speak) as intrinsically antithetical to all nature (the writer of the Tao-te-king, sometimes called Lao-Tzu — but this text also introduces a new form of worship, Taoism, which worships the Dao as “the mystical source and ideal of all existence: it is unseen, but not transcendent, immensely powerful yet supremely humble, being the root of all things”)
7. the utter repudiation of any and all violence whatsoever and a rejection of a caste system and of any system that imposes any types of discriminatory levels on the human family at all (the originator of the sermons in the Digha-Nikaya, usually taken to be Buddha — but these sermons also reconceive a new Brahma, a deity now free of anger, pure of mind, free of malice, without wealth and free of worldly cares, capable of union with and inspiration of a sequence of “messengers” who “regard all with mind set free, and deep-felt pity, … sympathy, … equanimity”)
8. the primacy of reining in the arrogance and violence of those in power, advocating a new-minted reciprocal and considerate reform in political life instead, thus shaping the extraordinarily peaceful and stable culture of the Han dynasty (Confucius — but he also introduced the concept that all moral strength comes ultimately from “Tian”, a new wrinkle on the “Tian” of the I Ching)
9. ethics itself as the most important element in humanity’s existence together with a claimed capacity for anyone, from freeman to slave, to grasp it and master it better through continually sharpening self-knowledge (Socrates — but he also introduced his conviction that he could sometimes hear God’s own voice, when being dissuaded from a course of action that would not be right)
10. service to all and living purely for others, even loving one’s enemies, in expectation of the last being first and the first last (the writers of the various Gospels, Scriptural and non-Scriptural, in describing Jesus of Nazareth — but these texts also introduce a new Yahweh, who is merciful and loving, yes, but worship of whom is still yet another form of theistic creed)
11. the primacy of negotiating peace with one’s enemies on their own turf, going in unarmed at great personal risk, just in order to construct a peaceful existence for all peoples in the region, and the instituting of an automatic gift to the poor from all citizens (Mohammed, a reformed raider — but he also introduces a new god, Allah, who must be worshiped five times a day) and
12. a nuts-and-bolts path to total world peace in our modern world, and the first conception, within a combined political/theological context, of our globe as a single village long before other politicians ever took up this idea (Bahá’u’lláh — but he also re-introduces the modern world to a then-new conception of deity as the inspirer of a sequence of “messengers”, and therefore worthy of a new form of worship, Bahai).
That’s one list. Here’s the other:
This list starts off with certain genuinely upright and courageous nonbelievers throughout history that historians rarely talk about –
A) Mathias Knutzen, who described himself as the first “Conscientist” in a series of path-breaking pamphlets published in Central Europe in the 1670s:
‘We declare that God does not exist, we deeply despise the authorities and also reject the churches with all their priests. For us Conscientists the knowledge of a single person is insufficient, only that of the majority is sufficient, as in Luke, 24,39: “Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself: handle me and see for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have” (because a single person cannot see everything) and the conscience in combination with the knowledge. And this, the conscience, which the generous Mother Nature has given to all humans, replaces for us the bible — compare Romans, 2, 14-15: (14)”For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves:” (15)”Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another” — and the authorities; it is the true judge, as Gregory of Nazianzus testifies (“On his Father’s Silence, Because of the Plague of Hail,” paragraph 5: “Under what circumstances again is the righteous, when unfortunate, possibly being put to the test, or, when prosperous, being observed, to see if he be poor in mind or not very far superior to visible things, as indeed conscience, our interior and unerring tribunal, tells us”), and is valid for us instead of the priests, because this teacher teaches us to harm nobody, to live in honor and to give everybody what is his. When we fail to do this, I maintain, as this life is for us the only one we have, our entire life will seem like a host of plagues, even as a hell. If, however, we behave in a just manner, it will be like heaven. This, i.e. the conscience, comes into existence with our birth, and it also dies when we pass into death. These are the principles that are innate in us, and whoever rejects them, rejects himself.’
When we research these ethical principles of his — and their nub is, and actually presented in italics in the original German, “to harm nobody, to live in honor and to give everybody what is his” — we find that Knutzen, in setting this off in italics, is adopting another’s code that he sincerely admires rather than conceptualizing an original groundbreaking one of his own. He is borrowing here from the ancient Roman jurist Ulpian, a polytheist whose writings formed the backbone of the Justinian code.
B) Going back to the ancient Greeks, we have Democritus who urged that everyone be engaged in public service. Admirable sentiment, of course. The “asterisk” here is that this time it is his nonbelief that is not original with him, since he was an avid student of and proselytizer for Leukippos, the ingenious elder pioneer of the ancient Greek Atomist school, the first school to recognize that all life is composed of atoms. At the same time, it is clear from what little we have of Leukippos’s own voice that he himself was solely engaged in the close study of what many term purely as physics, with social justice and philosophy never an abiding interest. In fact, Epicurus appears to have remarked that Leukippos was no philosopher.
C) A century or so later, there is Theodorus, who is, unlike Democritus, an “autonomous” atheist, with no mentor or peer group behind him, and hence a true “Original” in that respect, and also a reasonable socially responsible philosopher. His brand of philosophical hedonism, though, partakes partly of Epicurus’s more thoughtful spin on hedonism and more directly of Aristippus’s mild hedonism, the latter having pioneered the Cyrenaic school. Again, then, we have someone who is not entirely an “Original”, this time adopting, albeit sincerely, others’ ethical tenets.
D) Then there is Stratton, another upright original atheist, seemingly uninfluenced by forebears like Theodorus and/or Democritus and/or Leukippos. His (sincere) ethics, though, constitute a wholehearted adoption of the Socratic model.
E) In the C.E., there is even a genuine martyr of freethought, Vanini. His tongue was amputated and he was strangled and burned at the stake. On his way to this ghastly ordeal, he stated he wished to die “en philosophe” — with equanimity. He was an avid student of Aristotle, whose concept of the Good Life had deeply impressed this brave nonbeliever. At the same time, where Aristotle states that the Good Life resides ultimately in contemplation, Vanini had enthusiastically adopted the then-new variation on that construct, promulgated by a thinker of his own time whom he adopted as his more immediate model, Pomponazzi. Pomponazzi may be the first to advance the notion that all religions contain a kernel of the truth, but Vanini, a nonbeliever, probably had little interest in that. What he did adopt enthusiastically from Pomponazzi — and lived and died by — was Pomponazzi’s variation on Aristotle: Instead of the Good Life residing ultimately in contemplation, Pomponazzi stated that the Good Life resides ultimately in moral action. Vanini was courageous but not an “Original” in holding fast to this formulation at his very last hour.
Will there be, at some point in future history, a figure like one of these, who is just as much a moral model as one of these, but also at the same time an answer in autonomous “original”ity to the 12 cases of pioneering countercultural theisms cited further up. None of these nonbelievers cited here have that double “original”ity, both of creed and of ethics, that the 12 theist groundbreakers (above) have. They’re either “original” in one respect or the other but never both, unlike the first list.
So far — and I’ve beaten my head against a wall on this, researching this to a fare-thee-well, so I feel fairly confident in saying this — no one of this nonbeliever description has been an “Original” in both respects. The question is, Will such a transforming nonbeliever figure who can “evolve” our species come along before humanity extinguishes itself in some ghastly conflagration brought on by religious strife? So far, only total “Original”s have brought cultures back from the sociopathic brink in the past (and all of them counterculturalists in their respective theisms rather than their atheisms), with those dedicated nonbeliever advocates who dot the landscape with some already-mooted ideas being merely consigned to “big yawn” status (like the ethically impeccable but ineffective Vanini).
Of course, it is not a case of there being all that few nonbelievers in every age. There are a number, if you know where to look and what to read (encyclopedias are generally a waste of time). The thing is, they have not seized everyone’s imagination in the same decisive way — yet. And I think that can be traced to the fact that we have not had a total “Original” among those who are indeed morally perceptive — yet.
F) The very earliest (known) pioneering nonbeliever was a signal failure in terms of any new culture arising out of his example, even though he certainly had both an entirely original creed and entirely original “ethics”, unlike those unbelievers cited above. But when one studies what he said, it’s not hard to see why his example failed to gain a significant shelf life, although he did have a few adherents for about a century or so (a mere blip in human history). He was the ancient Indian thinker Brhaspati (not to be confused with other figures named Brhaspati in ancient Indian culture), the pioneer of the ancient Indian Lokayata school of philosophy. Here’s some bits of what he said:
“There is neither god nor liberation” [i.e., an afterlife]. “Moreover, earth, water, fire and air are the four forms of matter. The only valid form of knowledge is the one produced by the senses.” “There is no world other than this; there is no heaven and no hell; the realm of Siva and like regions are invented by stupid impostors of other schools of thought.”
“There is no heaven, no final liberation,
nor any soul in another world,
Nor do the actions of the four castes,
orders, or priesthoods produce any real effect.”
And his “ethics”?
“Merit and demerit also do not exist.” “The pleasure that is produced in a person due to the obtainment of the desired and the avoidance of the undesired is useless.” “gifts of gold and land, the pleasure of invitations to dinner, are devised by indigent people with stomachs lean with hunger.
“The building of temples, houses for water-supply, tanks, wells, resting places, and the like, please only travelers, not others” [OUCH! So much for social responsibility].
“While life remains, let a man live happily,
let him feed on melted ghee [an extremely expensive and fattening butter] though he runs in debt”.
It’s always struck me that here, and not in Brhaspati’s avowal of total unbelief, we have the reason why he failed to capture a whole culture’s imagination (despite his number of adherents for a century or so). Most people just like to think of themselves as caring and compassionate, whether or not they really are, and when a philosophy fails to address the needs of others in ways that presuppose that everyone hearing them is naturally as upright as the day is long (;-), such philosophies eventually get tuned out, as happened to Brhaspati. His example (as the earliest known atheist) may even have done incalculable damage to the cause of atheism for centuries, if not millennia. The “ethics” may simply have turned too many people off.
All this does not gainsay the fact that sociopathic philosophies can still exert a hold of sorts if advanced with enough charisma and cunning. But they don’t tend to transform whole cultures for more than a couple of centuries, at most. Those “ethics” that have longer influence than that are, sooner or later, the more stable ones that effectively include greater numbers within the “social compact”. Inclusiveness just yields greater long-term stability. Yes, there can be appalling suffering so long as a sociopathic philosophy prevails. And it can last for as long as two or three lifetimes. But it is ultimately self-destructive and unstable through its very cruelty.
Brhaspati’s (relatively) poor reception may be an object lesson for today. If anyone wants to be respected as proselytizing atheists, they may have to advance a clearly responsible and universally caring ethical/social/cultural code (a la the 12 theist paradigms cited at the top here), or the underlying idea — in this case, atheism — may have a hard journey indeed. It could even be that latter-day nonbelieving “self-centered-ists” like Rand and Nietzsche (and Hobbes, to an extent) have done just as much long-term damage to atheists as Brhaspati may have, due precisely to the same lack of a caring ethic.
That concludes the second list.
Someone once asked me ironically –
“So, the “good” influence of religion lies in its tendency to make people follow leaders, and if the leaders happen to be good, then religion has had a good influence?” –
with the ironic subtext that religion is the best way to make people follow some perfectly awful pioneers as well.
I would respond that while “Original” plus sociopathic can make a devastating cultural impact, that which is both “original” and altruistic tends to have a longer and stronger influence. Unfortunately, that which is originally altruistic has to apparently be presented in an entirely new and original package as well in order to establish any foothold inside any culture. That’s what history seems to teach us anyway. So far, any such successful original packages have been exclusively theistic, although counterculturally so. That shows that religion, provided it’s a new counter-cultural religion, has been the only effective carrier of such good — and original — ethical ideas — thus far. Unfortunately, it has been an effective carrier of some pretty noxious ideas as well ……………
Now, is religion — a new countercultural religion, that is — the only package in which good — and “original” — ethical ideas can take strong root in a culture on the brink of sociopathic collapse? That’s the million-dollar question. Fact is, we don’t know the answer for sure. It would obviously be important if an atheist as thoroughly original (for his immediate culture) as Brhaspati could fire the imaginations of enough people to jump-start more environmentally and socially responsible habits on a global scale today. But that would need a much more socially responsible social ethic than the apparently disreputable Brhaspati could muster up in himself almost three thousand years ago.
Is there a possibility that our brains are actually wired in such a way so that we (the majority of us, that is) only respond as a culture or a whole species to ideas that are both good/original when, and only when, they are also “clothed” in new counter-cultural theisms? Is religion then somehow a neccessary evolutionary building block of some sort for human community? I know some atheists have speculated along these lines –
http://www.nytimes.com/2002/12.....-view.html –
http://richarddawkins.net/arti.....rd-Dawkins .
One can’t help wondering, What would have happened to ancient India had Brhaspati coupled his pioneering nonbelief with an ethical code a century ahead of Buddha’s (he came approx. a century ahead of Buddha) in its all-embracing sense of social responsibility and caring? Would Brhaspati’s ideas have still ended up in the same obscure circular file they’re in today, or would his ideas have then transformed much of Asia into a region eventually free of religion altogether? The only region of the world like that? If we knew the answer to that question, we would know if the majority of our brains invariably require some form of ever-new religion (that is, necessarily counter-cultural) in order to also “take in” good/”original” ethics that periodically save us from the full horrors of sociopathic apathy, or if they can also “take in” such good/”original” ethics in some other creedal package instead, including nonbelief, provided that that package is just as soundly “original” and autonomous from its immediate culture as would be the “original”/good ethics confronting such a doomed culture in the first place under this scenario.
That concludes “Snapshot no. 1″. Now here’s “Snapshot no. 2″ written from the standpoint of having concluded that some kind of deity is more likely than not –
SNAPSHOT NO. 2
As an atheist for most of my life, I never had any difficulty accepting that evolution has been shown as scientifically verifiable and that Genesis remains strictly a myth. Today, I would have no quarrel with any part of that conclusion at all. Consequently, for me, the dynamics of speciation within evolution and of individual fitness development for individual species are central to any understanding of what makes humanity tick.
In my 30s and 40s, I became fascinated with, and a compulsive reader of, any and all written treatments of and on the various ways in which individual species manage to thrive and grow stronger and more fit in a variety of ways. And I began to be intrigued by the various steps through which humanity had managed to thrive and adapt in its behavior sufficiently to develop the kind of close cohesion within certain communities that we see today.
To begin with, I’d guess that moral/ethical codes are an inevitable development for any species dependent on socialization of any kind, the way humanity clearly is. That guess alone got me interested in turn in all countercultural manifestations throughout the ages of socially frowned on expressions of solidarity with the helpless and the left out.
At the same time, it’s basically a chicken/egg problem to me, I guess: When I studied history as an adult non-believer, I approached it pretty much as a natural phenomenon akin to something described in Stephen Jay Gould’s excellent book, The Panda’s Thumb. Since I’ve never bought into the presumed dichotomy of nature versus civilization — primarily since our civilizations seem to me an expression of our nature anyway — I’ve always viewed all of our ethical values as contingent responses at discrete levels of our natural development. This became a chicken/egg problem to me because when reading up on history as a non-believer it struck me forcefully that the natural processes by which the earliest ethical codes expressing solidarity with the vulnerable have come about inevitably seem to entail some particular individual’s expressed awareness — hallucinatory or not — of some new and deeply personal and visceral sense of deity as well, usually a countercultural and risky “spin” on deity at that, personally dangerous to the given individual in her/his particular culture at the time.
So it’s a chicken/egg problem because often it’s impossible to tell if the “hallucination” of a deity inspires the new ethical code or the new ethical code inspires some newly minted “spin”/”hallucination” of a deity. Certainly, at the least, there often seems to be an oddly symbiotic relationship between the two.
Yet before jumping to any conclusions on this, I got keenly interested in the history of the opposite side of the coin: the pioneering self-centered philosophies instead. Recent evolutionary studies like those from Stephen Jay Gould, Ed Wilson and others seem to show that when certain species whose daily existence depends heavily on socialization subsequently develop a support system that regularly looks out for the more helpless among them, that species tends to thrive better than those that stall at a discrete point due primarily to individually selfish behavioral patterns that are ultimately a species’ undoing (in many cases). If modern evolutionary studies from Gould, Wilson et al reveal self-centered behavioral patterns as being ultimately self-destructive to their species — as indeed they do — then what exactly make similar self-centered philosophies in humanity’s own history tick? Why do they arise? How do they arise?
Most importantly, what is the earliest (extant) example of an unequivocal self-centered philosophy overtly deaf to any claim on society by the more helpless among us? That question can be answered. It is the ancient Lokayata philosophy in ancient India, ca. the 7th century B.C.E. No earlier such philosophy can be traced. There may have been some earlier such philosophies, but this is the earliest for which we have any info. This philosophy claims, first of all, that resting places and watering holes for travelers are a waste of time and designed only for people who, being indigent, are therefore of no value. It also decries the notion of general dining invitations to people in the neighborhood, decrying these precisely because they are ultimately of benefit to the indigent only while inconveniencing those of greater substance and therefore of greater worth. Instead, it should be the interests of oneself only that guides individual behavior. Here is the earliest direct quote of the founder of Lokayata, Brhaspati:
“Chastity and other such ordinances are laid down by clever weaklings; gifts of gold and land, the pleasure of invitations to dinner, are devised by indigent people with stomachs lean with hunger.
“The building of temples, houses for water-supply, tanks, wells, resting places, and the like, please only travelers, not others.
“The Agnihotra ritual, the three Vedas, the triple staff, the ash-smearing, are the ways of gaining a livelihood for those who are lacking in intellect and energy.”
Now, an odd coincidence here: Lokayata is not only the earliest overtly self-centered philosophy extant. It is also the earliest extant overtly atheist philosophy as well. Ascertaining the latter gave me, as an atheist, a bit of a shock, I can tell you. At the same time, I still think it very likely that certain primitive theistic assumptions (addressing the how and/or the why of the intricate ways of this universe) should still be viewed with some wariness today. And I have to say that I also view warily certain primitive concepts of deity itself that still prevail today as well. But the behavioral tendencies of those countercultural figures throughout time who feel a visceral sense of deity around them (such as Buddha et al) and link this with a pioneering “spin” on altruism, versus those tendencies of those who counterculturally articulate both self-centeredness and nonbelief as a linked philosophy, certainly make one wonder which philosophies are more conducive to a thriving and evolving human community, as described by Gould et al.
This accorded with a general pattern for all the pioneers in non-belief down the centuries. Lokayata is not alone in advocating a self-centered way of life instead of a caring one. The earliest extant overt articulation of atheism in ancient Greek literature comes from Critias, who was the ruthless leader of the Thirty Tyrants at the end of the Pelopenesian(sp.?) War, at the end of the 5th century B.C.E. The earliest overt expression of atheism in Enlightenment France comes from the early 1700s, from Jean Meslier, who linked his posthumously issued atheism with a call to brain everyone who disagreed with him, and a wish that every noblemen might be strangled with the ripped-out guts of every remaining priest (evidently a believer in collective punishment……..)
I was thus disappointed to find that, although there have been plenty of atheist social reformers of great altruism — one thinks of humanitarians like Bertrand Russell, or Mr. Ingersoll, or Baron Holbach — there does not seem to be a single such altruist who actually introduced both her/his new atheism and her/his own pioneering ethical code at the same time — symbiotically — and whose twin introduction of same resulted in a “fast-tracked” cultural impact on everyone around her/him. This contrasts with the picture for countercultural theist altruists.
Now, within the four corners of this phenomenon, the strict historical approach would be to ascertain which factor is the variable that causes such a pattern to obtain for one group (countercultural theists) and not the other (countercultural atheists)? If this evolving process for ethical codes comes from nature itself, and I would guess that it does for precisely the reasons provided by Gould et al, then how can the “hallucination” process of deity from specific — (?)highly attuned(?) — counterculturalists not come from the same thing, nature? — particularly since it so frequently has this symbiotic relationship with ethical evolution? Of course, ascribing the “hallucination” of deity to the general nature of our species still doesn’t automatically make deity real. It just makes the “hallucination” natural and inevitable, which says nothing about its reality. But since the practical value of evolving ethical codes seem all too real and urgent to me, not an illusion at all but an urgent reality without which our species would eventually sink into anarchy, I have to ask why an individual direct deity “hallucination” isn’t also reality-based after all, given the (apparent) symbiotic relationship between the two — “hallucination” of deity and insightful countercultural ethics — throughout history.
If someone could uncover a peer-bucking atheist who introduced her/his atheism out of whole cloth to her/his own culture and did so in tandem with a profound social reform of that culture of some kind, the apparent monopoly that countercultural theist “spinners” have on jump-starting this seemingly natural process of evolving ethical codes throughout history would be broken. There would then be no reason at all for explaining this “hallucinatory”(?) deity phenomenon among the most altruistic and impactful pioneers. I could simply drop this notion of deity as something real altogether. But right now, given the historic patterns I’ve observed, it would seem intellectually dishonest for me to ignore the possibility of deity entirely. Even the introducer of the first thoroughly atheistic philosophy in Western Europe of the second millennium C.E., Matthias Knutzen in the late 1670s, while his ethics happen to be quite other-centered, shapes the ethics of his philosophy around the injunctions of another, the Roman jurist, Ulpian, instead of arriving at a new “spin” on altruism of his own.
I should add, BTW, that I don’t think I have any great emotional attachment to my newest conclusions that deity is (probably) real after all. If this described monopoly pattern were to be broken, I would then calmly conclude that I was originally correct to be an atheist. But right now, since it seems intellectually dishonest for me to stick with my erstwhile atheism, I won’t do that. At the same time, the most extensively documented figures who articulate new and deeply personal “spins” on deity and new “spins” on altruism symbiotically — Buddha, Socrates, Christ — are not agreed on an afterlife. So I still feel the jury is out on an afterlife, even though I now view deity itself as a probability and no longer a possibility.
Clearly, atheists are just as likely to feel the call of the helpless on our conscience as are any believers. The question is not Are all atheists all-good or all-bad? In fact, they show the same mix of good and bad common to the rest of the human family. Instead, the question is, Where do humanitarians like Russell get their inspiration?
The key point here is that the startups of pioneering countercultural expressions of atheism within many historic communities and cultures always seem linked with countercultural calls to unalloyed self-centeredness, and vice versa, while the startups of pioneering countercultural conceptions of deity within many historic communities and cultures always seem linked with countercultural calls to unalloyed altruism, and vice versa. These curious symbiotic relationships at the startups of creeds on either side of the divide appear to hold firm throughout history. It’s only later in the history of these creeds that positions sometimes get reversed: Hateful figures like Torquemada sometimes emerge who warp a theistic philosophy of caring into a savage orgy of blood, even as peaceful and humane figures like Holbach and Ingersoll similarly tend to emerge who then transform an initially callous atheistic philosophy bent only on self-satisfaction into a gentle warning that the people at large should eat something more than just cake……… (BTW, contrary to some assumptions, Robespierre, one of the most brutal of the French Revolution’s leaders, actually singled out atheists for the guillotine[!] along with the royalty and the nobility, being a devout believer himself — oh yes! — so it’s a canard that atheism was always at the back of the most brutal tendencies of the Fr. Rev. — unless one blames everything on Meslier, of course.)
Since I view humanity today as staring down the barrel of “perfect storm” conditions for its imminent extinction within one or two generations at most, either through ecological collapse or WMDs run amok or something else even more horrific, it is imperative that all our available brain power be used in ascertaining as accurately as possible each and every comma of whatever was said or done by figures like Buddha, or Jesus — or Tolstoy, or Gandhi, or Mandela, etc. We must gain a proper understanding of how these ethical insights were arrived at in the first place. Knowing exactly what was said and understanding precisely the mainsprings behind what was said is more important than anything. Knowledge is power. And it took the writings of the sometimes skeptical Jesus Seminar researchers to make me see this, and it was my own historical research that made me see as well that deity might quite likely be behind such insights. For the first time in my life, I took Scripture seriously: at the least, it is one of humanity’s preserved written laboratories of altruism versus self-centeredness in a fearsome agon.
So, when we have a closer knowledge of whatever facilitated a Buddha’s or a Christ’s transformative impact on a selfish culture, we’ll have a better knowledge of how we can trigger the better angels of our nature today without the jackboot (which is already a sell-out right there) and thus stave off the imminent extinction that not only seems highly likely today but — IMO — totally inevitable under current circumstances within many of our current lifetimes. Wherever the Seminar works of Borg or Crossan or others lead us, that can only be to the good. Wherever biological or chemical or general scientific research leads us, that can only be to the good –
http://www.slate.com/id/2165026/
– . If such research leads us to the conclusion that something other than deity is at the back of these altruistic cultural reformers, then that’s fine. If it confirms my working conclusion that deity is the common denominator behind these altruistic cultural reformers, then that’s fine too. This question is worth pursuing today because we have no other choice. The selfishness and the smallness and the violence and the stubbornness of most world leaders today have left us with no choice. We have to pursue this kind of study, whether it be of Jesus or of Urukagina (the earliest known cultural reformer of all [in ancient Sumeria]), without fear or favor. Otherwise, we can kiss our grandchildren’s adulthood goodbye.
Finally, putting all that aside, I would have to say that, while I’m no longer an atheist, and while I now accept a concept of deity, I don’t necessarily believe in deity as conceptualized in any one creed. If forced to choose, I feel more comfortable choosing particular individuals as models of ethical fitness rather than institutional creeds. And if forced to choose certain individuals, then I’d say that the most closely vetted individuals via modern secular scholarship who appear to have genuine interaction with deity of some kind, and whose ethics also seem to stand up to the strictest scrutiny, appear to be Siddhartha Gautama (Buddha), Socrates and Jesus of Nazareth (Christ). We probably come closer to the essence of deity by restricting ourselves to the earlest textual strata on these three figures specifically, courtesy of modern secular scholarship, than we do by adherence to any one creed.
That concludes “Snapshot no. 2″. Again, I realize this is quite a mouthful, but I simply have not had time to adjust these two different sets of reflections written at different stages of my thinking — no time to adjust them into a single account that removes overlaps. Regrets for that.
Thanks for slogging through!
Cheers,
Stone
God is a personal experience. there is no god, or there is, or they exsist in many forms. as for a physical god, its hard to believe a skeptic like myself will ever be fully convinced. if god were sitting infront of me, i might chop it up to a lack-of-sleep-induced-hallucination. id much rather never know anyways. it sucks having someone to answer to. besides, the idea of exsitance in terms of bang theories/darwin is so mythologically romantic. something from nothing, or nothing from something. i do think if there is a god, he would forgive my doubt–> i’d like to think he understands the human condition.
What would make me believe in God? You forgot:
– A strong enough blow to the head
– Lots of drugs
What would make it RATIONAL to believe in God?
– Not a damn thing
You can’t think of any amount of evidence that would be sufficient? What if Q from Star Trek or some similarly powerful entity came to you and snapped his fingers and created a universe along with some lifeforms just to show you how it was done? Surely there must be SOMETHING that would shift the evidence from “God probably doesn’t exist” to “God probably does exist”, no?
I am a christian and I believe with every bone in my body that God exists. Atheists put alot of faith and time and energy into trying to prove that God doesn’t exist. As one other person in response to this post stated, They take up almost as much time swearing there is no God, as christians do swearing there is. The bible doesnt always make sense to us but neither does science. There may not be physical evidence of God but is there Physical evidence of The big bang theory? Not really. No matter what you believe you have to have faith in what you are believing. Thats what christianity is all about. Faith in the things you cant see. It is hard for any one person to accept God and christianity unless they have experienced the power of christ and his neverending love. People who have never given God a chance dont understand What it’s all about. God loves everyone and is ready to forgive anyone who comes to him and wants to feel his presence and accept him into their life. God is kind and gentle and loves everyone. He is sad that you dont believe in him but he is ready for you to love him back. The power of God is great and everything is possible through him. If you wait until you die to find out if he is real it will be too late. You have to live your life through him. Jesus says “if you deny me before men, I will deny you before my father.” Simply saying “I believe now”, when you get to heaven is not enough. Your life has to be in pursuit of fulfilling Gods wishes and living your life through him. He is waiting for all of you to join him. NOTHING can convince me that he is not real. I have seen his love.
First of all I am an atheist, since I have been 12 years old. In addition to learning a lot about sciences I also came to the conclusion that believing in something that created the universe in order to get a proverbial pat on the back by its inhabitants, in the form of belief, wasn’t worth my time.
So first of all, dear Lindsay, there is so much evidence for the big bang theory that it’s on the verge of dropping the theory suffix. You even see some of it every time you switch on your, probably, oh so beloved TV, cosmic background radiation, but I’m not going to make a list of it now. Anyone who wants to see the Light, of reason, well its at your fingertips, google it. I’m not even going to get started on evolution, Darwin may have been wrong in some of the details, as in the “lone wolf” survival of the fittest, but survival of the fittest still holds true for groups, and so does evolution.
I never really had to think about god so much since then, well except for that all encompassing question. First of all let’s assume there is a god, purely hypothetically, of course, now ask yourself did it have a choice. Einstein asked that question. It is a very good question, it circumvents the whole “is there a god” thing, it shows that “god’s just one of us”. I bet our hypothetical god is asking himself the same question right now, I bet that’s all he does. It’s just simply the ultimate question for any being, cause no matter how “all-powerful” you are, there still is the possibility of something more “all-powerful”. Ok that sounds a little wrong, but it really is not. Imagine god as an aleph-infinity. An aleph-0-infinity is infinite, but an aleph-1-infinity is more infinite. Same goes for 1 dimensional space, it’s infinite, but 2D or 3D space is more infinite, maybe that one is a little easier to understand.
Also the idea I got at above could be used to make a structural induction to prove that the god religions speak of is actually minor, and that it and I are more or less the same. Not exactly the kind of thing I am going to worship.
What has also always baffled me is that religious nuts…eh…people, have to stick to their texts so much. I mean come on, the earth, the entire universe, our whole existance, existing for only 4000 years, thats ludicrous. The whole idea doesn’t even befit the “hypothetical” god, if any christians, who believed that, tread before the dude/lass/robot some day he/she/it would probably just shake his/her/its head an mumble something about having to get rid of the stupid gene.
If I was an all powerful entity, would I create everything myself, NO. I’d make everything make itself, exactly the way I wanted it to, I mean, come on, I have better things to do. The guy who wrote the creation myth probably just had a problem with counting, further than his fingers allowed, and everything above one hand was a pretty big number to him, not even to mention counting to 14 billion years. Its either that, or he was too lazy to write down 14 billion years of history. Anyway religion and science are only mutually exclusive in the minds of the dumb.
This whole thing leads me to the next thing, as far as I can remember, God created the humans and gave us souls so that we could love him. Love him on our own accord. Something about that really strikes me as odd, for an all-powerful entity at least. Truly all-powerful entities don’t get lonely, their meant to be above that, we’re back at the proverbial pat on the back here. A god shouldn’t need pats on the back, he/she/it is meant to be all powerful, and all knowing, he/she/it should simply know how awesome it is. I actually see the whole of genesis as proof that god isn’t all-powerful, god was just a little emo that day.
I have ranted enough about religion now. It’s no use anyway, I can’t convert people to the truth, at least not over the internet, they’ll just feel flamed.
Lyndsey, I normally would not take part to any kind of debate about this issue, but without even starting to consider the question of the existence of a god, your post is so wrong it is insulting. I have to respond.
“Atheists put alot of faith and time and energy into trying to prove that God doesn’t exist. As one other person in response to this post stated, They take up almost as much time swearing there is no God, as christians do swearing there is.”
This really is not true. First of all, it’s absolutely not about faith, but I’ll come back on that later. A great majority of atheists are aware that there is no way to cure such a deep-rooted, socially aproved, self-feeding psychological bias. It is not about proving anything anyway, I can’t prove that there is no yellow Volkswagen orbiting Pluto, it is just an absurd notion, there would be no rationnal reason to imagine there is one. So no reasonnable atheist would try to prove that there is no god, the most he would do would be to encourage you to think clearly about it. Even if I know this is a waste of time, this is real altruism. But unfortunately, very few atheists put energy into this. I don’t, and I am not proud of it. “The bible doesnt always make sense to us but neither does science.” Okay, here is some really twisted statement. Not making sense can mean two really different things : The bible does not always make sense, this is true. It means that there simply are false statements in it : most of the explanations given on our existence has just be proven wrong. Earth is not 4000 years old, it is not the center of the universe, species have not been put here in their current form, they have not survived a global deluge by putting one couple of each in a big boat, etc… these are just false statements which don’t make any sense. When we say that science does not make sense, it is a whole other meaning, quite the opposite : it sometimes shakes our intuitive perception, and it is normal. Indeed, our intuitive perception has been built by evolution to make us understand the world at the scale we are used to. Macroscopic and microscopic worlds are whole other worlds to us. In a way, you can say it does not make sense. The bible does not make sense because it is written by people with very poor understanding of the world compared to us, and science does not make sense because WE have a very poor understanding of the world compared to its real, scientific and mathematic nature.“There may not be physical evidence of God but is there Physical evidence of The big bang theory? Not really.” Wow ! This is just a lie ! I can’t even imagine you actually believe that ! There are shitload of physical evidence of the Big Bang Theory. Ever heard about COBE mission ? About Hubble’s law ? About the measures of abondance of primordial elements ?
“No matter what you believe you have to have faith in what you are believing.” That is the core of why your post is so, so wrong. There are two reasons to believe in something : because of the evidence, or because of faith. Believing in the Big Bang Theory is not a matter of faith. At all. It is a matter of studying physical evidence, and taking deductions. Of course, some so-called scientists fail at this, and are stuck in false theories because they like them, but this is not real science. Science does not consider human emotions as proofs, only rational reasonning on physical evidence. It is the only way to be right. Nearly every assumption on the way our world works, and which has been rationally verified since has been proven wrong by science. What our intuition tells us about the world has no other use than allowing us to survive in the wild world, because it is how it was built. For everything else, there is science. “Thats what christianity is all about. Faith in the things you cant see.” Exactly. Lying to yourself because the lie is cool. That’s what it is all about.
“It is hard for any one person to accept God and christianity unless they have experienced the power of christ and his neverending love.”
This is another really false statement. Just look at our civilisation’s history. Shitloads of people have accepted god because they did not know better. In the middle age, nearly every occidental believed in god. Do you say that it is because god was on a blessing spree then, but somehow got tired ?
“NOTHING can convince me that he is not real. I have seen his love.” This is the reason why most atheists don’t bother trying to help believers to reason rationally : once someone is stuck in such a self feeding delusion, nothing can make him think clear again. You are totally right about that. It’s even harder when he thinks he has experienced something special, that his faith makes him misinterpret. Feeling some love is really a human, intuitive, feeling-based information, and is precisely the kind of misleading thing that will make you believe what you want unless you take it with rationality.
Dear Erik and Yata,
Im sorry if I offended either one of you along with anyone else who read my blog.
I was not out to offend anyone or make you upset.
Im not gonna retaliate to alot of your comments because quite frankly there is no convincing me that God is not real and there is ,obviously, no convincing you that he is.
One thing that I will say is that I am not a believer because it is the “cool” thing to do. Actually in my school it is the complete opposite. Being a christian is not easy- if I wanted to take the easy way out I would simply deny God and get on with it. I believe in God because im strong enough to know that my intuition wouldnt deceive me. I know that saying this would be an easy target for you to ridicule all christians and talk about how “stuck in such a self feeding delusion” we all are But honestly I dont think any of us care. You can ridicule us and God all you want, Were not doing any of this to look cool or to impress people- most of the christian faith is based on doing the right thing and making good decisions for your own life.
Again im sorry if i offended anyone and Im not here to fight with you.
I simply wrote to tell you how i feel about the whole subject.
Im praying for all of you and i hope that God will soften your hearts…
with love,
Lyndsey
Here are some possible attributes of God:
Omnipotent, or nearly so
Omniscient, or nearly so
Omnipresent
Eternal
Having the greatest possible moral goodness
Being without peers or superiors
Created the universe
Created humanity specifically
Interested in prayers, rituals, or offerings
Interested in human thoughts or behavior in general
Determines the fate of humans in life
Determines the fate of humans after death
There isn’t universal agreement on which of these attributes are essential for a being to qualify as God. Polytheists think it is okay for a god to have peers. The ancient Greeks did not think the Olympian gods they worshipped were the creators of the universe or even of mankind (although they did create womankind). Deists don’t believe God is interested in prayer. And so on.
One can imagine meeting aliens with any combination of these attributes. It is interesting to ponder which combinations would lead you to worship the aliens as God(s) and which would not.
Why was Picard so resistant to the idea that Q was God? I think because Picard had preconceived notions that God would be, if not “benevolent,” at least “serious” and “dignified.” In Picard’s eyes, Q’s childish and capricious behavior strongly disqualified him from being God. But if instead Q had put on a show of moral seriousness, perhaps spouted some philosophy that sounded good to Picard, he might have had a much better chance of converting Picard to Qism.
Well, Lindsey, I appreciate your apologies, but you wouldn’t be so insulting if you though things through a little before saying such things. We agree on the fact that neither of us would possibly change the other’s mind about the existence of a god or of a yellow Volkswagen orbiting Pluto, and that’s really not the point. I was just complaining about the fact that you totally misinterpret the root of what makes us rational atheists think the way we do. You may find the following explanations insultings, but this I need to explain what I think about the concept of faith. Believing something without a rational reason is a way to have a high probability of being wrong, science has proved that to us through the ages. So believing something out of faith is just chosing to be wrong, lying to your own intelligence. This, as far as I am concerned, is the most degrading, discussing thing I could ever do to myself. But this is only because I have huge respect for human intelligence, and for my own. Ok, this may have sound really insulting, but I think everybody sees things their own way, and everybody put their respect in different things. Finding something degrading or disgusting for myself has nothing to do with judging someone who does it. But when you say atheist have faith in what they believe, this is not only pure bullshit, it is also an insult. you should remember this, because if you are able to draw a line between faith and rational reasonning, you are much less likely to piss people off : chosing faith and intuition over rational reasonning is your choice, but don’t assume everybody does so. Imagine a gay man saying that every straight man deeply wants a cock in his ass but just won’t admit it. Seriously, picture it. How would people react ? Well, that’s exactly the same thing as saying that atheists base their beliefs on faith.
Now, another thing you totally misinterpret, or more probably about what I just wasn’t clear enough : when I say you chose to lie to yourself because the lie is cool. There was a total misundersanting about the word cool. It is probably my fault, the world may have a different meaning in my language, so I seem to be misusing it. I meant pleasant. This has nothing to do with appearance, social acceptance or anything like that. I just meant that between a rational reasonning and an intuition, you chose the one you like most.
I am sorry that being a christian is not easy in your school. But why don’t you keep it to yourself ? A belief is a belief, why do you need to publicly act it out, and how exactly ? I don’t think that anything you DO in school involves being an atheist or a christian. I am not saying you should be ashamed of who you are, but as far as I know, it should not affect your school life.
And finally, I can’t prevent myself from quoting this, but :
“I believe in God because im strong enough to know that my intuition wouldnt deceive me”…
Many people were strong enough to know that their intuition wouldn’t deceive them. Earth flatness, it’s position in the universe, nature of matter, nature of light, evolution… I dare you to find only one case where intuition was opposing rational reasonning, and where it turned out intuition was right. I really don’t understand how anyone can ignore the overwhelming evidence that intuition keeps deceiving us, each and every time it opposes rational reasonning. You obviously call that being strong, I call that being deluded. Whatever.
Oh, and finally : when you say to an atheist that you are praying for him, it feels just like you would probably feel if I said : “I am masterbating about fucking you in the ass”. Everybody believes what he wants, everybody lives his life like he wants. But don’t involve atheists in your beliefs. Draw the line, kid. You need to be able to do that and YOU will soften people’s heart.
P.S : My previous post has been edited because of my misuse of tags, and apparently changing my name to Yata was part of the process. So Yata and Yat are the same person
YAT or YATA lol
I dont hide being a christian in school because in christianity we are taught to spread God’s love.(I dont want you to think im trying to preach, im just saying) This is what i am taught. We are suppose to profess God’s love to men.(or kids…since im in school… but you know what i mean) haha
i know it has nothing to do with school but In the bible it says to spread the word about god and if you show you are a christian in school by showing gods love and patience (which i have a feeling your gonna end up quoting me on saying that it is human love not gods love) it is as good as preaching.
I know that following intuition in the past has been wrong for people- Im not saying I have any of the answers to life or to christianity- all im saying is i believe in myself and i believe in God
Im sorry AGAIN that I offended you AGAIN by saying I was gonna pray for you- I had a feeling that would irk you a bit but I do pray for you and Im not gonna sit here and lie and tell you I dont… Just because I say Im praying for you does not necessarily mean Im trying to involve you in christianity in any way. I would, actually, More or less take it as a compliment. By saying Im praying for you, Im just trying to say I care about you and Want whats best for your life (not saying that I know whats best for your life) Im not trying to be a smartass and throw God in your face. So im sorry if I came off that way.
with love-
Lyndsey
I don’t know that god exists, just as I don’t know that god doesn’t exist. I have no certainty either way. In fact I think certainty to either end of this spectrum is a bit foolish. However let me say this – those that believe in god, have a hope for things that I myself do not have and there are many times that I’m envious of this hope. I wish I felt something benevolent guiding me, but I don’t. If there is a god, that’s not his/her/its fault – that’s mine to bear.
My biggest complaint about science and in turn atheism (more often than not they go hand in hand — although interestingly enough many scientists are NOT atheists according to the Academy of Sciences) is that it is asserted by people that science and math is the language of the universe. Think about that for a second. A infintesimal speck has declared “we know the language of the universe”. That is like an ant observing his world and declaring that he understands an internal combustion engine. The thought is a bit insane. The idea that an ant could even comprehend a internal combustion engine…its that comprehension (and comprehension vs. conception are important distinctions. you can conceive anything – but to comprehend it is another facet entirely)
Now, lets get the first objection out of the way — yes they claim knowledge, they may “Say” theory – however the moment you argue this point that theory suddenly loses all flexibility, that so called “theory” suddenly and without warning becomes “fact” and they hold it in front of you like a scepter – beating you over the head with their “theory”.
I’ve argued with LOTS of rationalists and atheists – and they love to weasel word around with the the concept of theory. if you back them into a corner – suddenly its a theory open to change through observation, but when they argue their point it becomes a fact. Its an amazing thing to observe how it changes so often depending upon the needs of the conversation. The most close minded people are the ones on either end of the spectrum. The pure rationalists vs. the Fundamentalists. They’re the same! they both preach a dogma that they have faith in, and they both are terrified of their faith letting them down.
So now – if I bypass math and science and their rational construct (which is such a limiting box it’s unbelieveable!) what are we left with?
We have a bit of a void now, and that’s scary. We get to where Hume was – and realize that everything we know could be wrong! wow. that’s powerful stuff right there. So what do we do now? Do we turn to eastern thinking, the buddha nature?…do we look to the middle east for answers from their mystics? Existenitalism? witchdoctors? hypnotherapy? How do we fill this void…how do we suddenly not doubt?
The thing is we have to shrug our shoulders a bit, realize that this is all fine and good but these thoughts won’t change the fact that in order to continue on living this life you need to keep moving forward – regardless of your beliefs or lack of them.
my question that I live with is this. Why do we assume that there is “an answer”? in fact why do we even assume there is a question to be answered? For all our intellectualism, we all could just be waiting for Godot.
God exists. this shouldnt even be an argument. thousands of years and God has helped generations of men through them all. i beleive in God. i’m sorry if you don’t i will not convince you to beleive in him(although you should) i will respect your… incorrect belief.
- beleive, and good things will happen
i will respect your… incorrect belief.
That doesn’t look like respect to me.
Hmm, interesting discussions here. Now for my atheist friends I only have one question for you. You don’t see love but you only feel it, does it mean love doens’t exitst just because you don’t see it physically? And for someone who has never fallen in love, it is easy for them to say there is no such thing as love because it can only be felt and not seen and you wouldn’t know how to convince that person that love exists because it is something that you have to feel personally and cannot present itself in physical form. The same applies to God. Even though I cannot physically see Him, I have felt his presence in my life and based on that (just like you know you are inlove when you feel it) I believe he exists because I have experienced his hand in my life.If one says show me physical evidence that love exists, would you be able to present him with proof? of course you wouldn’t because it is something you can feel but cannot see. God is spiritual and will not menifest in phyisical form just to prove Himself to some ignorant people who refuse to give him a chance because their sight is limited to physical things or nothing at all. What we don’t realise is that there is more than our physical minds can care to comprehend in the universe. What makes you guys think the life that we know here on Earth is all there is? If you compare our planet to the entire universe, it appears like a spec of dust compared to other big planets out there and just by the look of the universe there is evidence that there is a greater power out there that fashioned the world and the universe as we know it.The universe didn’t just pop up out of nothing, an intellectual mind was involved and that is who we call God. And I know that even after this you will still not be convinced because like I said, it takes a personal experience with God himself to believe he is real. Just like the example of falling inlove I gave from the start.
By definition beliefs cannot be “untrue” or “true”. They are just beliefs. I could believe that the world was flat and i would be wrong, but it would still be a belief.
With so many religions and so many variations of “god”, how can one be right and true? What about the other “gods”? Out of the thousands of different religions that have existed in the history of the world, your god is the only true god? Thats absurd. To me, religion is merely another way to control the masses. Whether or not god is real, it sure seems to work.
One of my questions concerns heaven. I am a good person, I help people, I treat others as I would like to be treated and just because i dont belive in god I dont get to go to the happy afterlife? What a bunch of crap.
This is the Pandora’s box of discussions by the way. It will never end.