An interesting God perspective

[Beth]

Hi Egil,

I'm curious as to what beliefs about religion and Christians that you had that needed to be torn down? I don't understand that. I honestly believe that Christians and the religious are much like I am. They're just people with, biases, prejudices, wants and needs like me. The difference is that the religious people believe in things without evidence.

I would say the difference is that the religious people believe in different things without evidence.

 

[Dunstan]

Agreed. There seem to be quite a few Bishops an Archbishops who are finding it more and more difficult to answer questions about their own belief in God. They are tying themselves up in knots, using dozens of words to hide the fact that they have long since realised they are praying to and worshipping .....well ... nothing. I wonder what their internal dialogue is to justify telling so many people that what they are saying about 'the God of love' etc is true?

I suspect that in most cases, their internal dialogue is really the same as the external one. They've truly convinced themselves that this vague, metaphorical jibber-jabber isn't just atheism in drag, but rather truly sophisticated theology. And if some of the poor unwashed masses are still embracing the "sky-daddy" form of religion rather than the "sophisticated" kind, well, the important thing is that they've got religion. (Cue the usual "faith in faith" discussion.)

 

[RandFan]

I would say the difference is that the religious people believe in different things without evidence.

Like?

Forgive me Beth but as one who used to impart that kind of rhetoric I find it intellectually lazy. I think you can do better. But if you really want to push the idea I'll happily play along. Give me some examples? I'm guessing concepts like love but I'll wait for your list.

 

[Beth]

Like?

Forgive me Beth but as one who used to impart that kind of rhetoric I find it intellectually lazy. I think you can do better. But if you really want to push the idea I'll happily play along. Give me some examples? I'm guessing concepts like love but I'll wait for your list.

No, I have no idea what you believe in without evidence although I have a vague recollection from another thread that you believe that life exists on other planets. If so, that would be a belief without evidence.

One of my favorites is "All men are created equal". I've also made a conscious decision to believe the best of everyone I meet until I have evidence indicating otherwise. These are beliefs I hold not only without evidence, but in the face of contradictory evidence.

My point is simply that we all have things we believe in without or despite evidence. I think Penn put it as everybody has a 'gris-gris'? At any rate, I don't think it is necessarily a bad thing. Merely a human thing. Such beliefs, including belief in god, can have good or bad consequences depending on the circumstances.

 

[HansMustermann]

The difference is that we merely believe that life ought to be possible in other places too. But nobody sane:

A) postulates that a specific life form exists (e.g., purple eight-tentacled insects on Alpha Centauri) based on no more than lack of data

B) runs their life based on the imminent coming of that alien life form, or on what they supposed it would want to see here

C) postulates it based on ignorance alone. Expecting that life is possible in other places is actually based on chemistry as we know it. We know what C, H, O and N can do in certain conditions, and we actually have the experimental evidence that aminoacids and nucleotides can form in the lab within minutes in conditions similar to the early Earth atmosphere.

It doesn't take any particular leap of faith to assume that chemistry works the same on other places as it works here, and in fact we have plenty of evidence that it does. E.g., we have evidence that the spectral bands of molecules are the same in Andromeda as they are on Earth, or that the resonance levels of a carbon nucleus are the same as here (or certain supernovas would be very different), etc.

And anyway it would take a greater leap of faith to assume the contrary.

So putting it all on the same "well, we all take stuff on faith" level as some religious woowoo... well, it seems to me either disingenuous or bloody silly.

 

[Beth]

The difference is that we merely believe that life ought to be possible in other places too. But nobody sane:

A) postulates that a specific life form exists (e.g., purple eight-tentacled insects on Alpha Centauri) based on no more than lack of data

B) runs their life based on the imminent coming of that alien life form, or on what they supposed it would want to see here

C) postulates it based on ignorance alone.

Yes, well the quote in the OP doesn't exactly do any of those things either.

Expecting that life is possible in other places is actually based on chemistry as we know it. We know what C, H, O and N can do in certain conditions, and we actually have the experimental evidence that aminoacids and nucleotides can form in the lab within minutes in conditions similar to the early Earth atmosphere.
It doesn't take any particular leap of faith to assume that chemistry works the same on other places as it works here, and in fact we have plenty of evidence that it does. E.g., we have evidence that the spectral bands of molecules are the same in Andromeda as they are on Earth, or that the resonance levels of a carbon nucleus are the same as here (or certain supernovas would be very different), etc.

And anyway it would take a greater leap of faith to assume the contrary.

So putting it all on the same "well, we all take stuff on faith" level as some religious woowoo... well, it seems to me either disingenuous or bloody silly.

Ah, but I don't put it all on the same level, I merely note that we all do indeed take some stuff on faith. Putting all religious beliefs on the same level as your three points above seems equally disingenuous or bloody silly to me.

 

[RandFan]

No, I have no idea what you believe in without evidence although I have a vague recollection from another thread that you believe that life exists on other planets. If so, that would be a belief without evidence.

No. I believe that it is possible that there is life on other planets. I believe the likelyhood of life on other planets is greater than the existence of an unkown all powerful invisible person who can simultaneously listen to hundreds of millions of people converse at the same time.

One of my favorites is "All men are created equal". I've also made a conscious decision to believe the best of everyone I meet until I have evidence indicating otherwise. These are beliefs I hold not only without evidence, but in the face of contradictory evidence.

Leaving aside the notion of "created" and accepting that "men" is in reference to all humans, men and women, I don't believe that all humans are created equal. It's a great bit of rhetoric but it's without any foundation. Given the model of game theory, the sentiment is a good one if it means that all people should have equal opportunity, equal standing before the law and equal consideration by elected officials. FTR: That's an ideal that has never existed in practice but holding the sentiment as yard stick to make decisions for the benifit of society is a good thing.

My point is simply that we all have things we believe in without or despite evidence.

I'm still waiting for an example.

 

[CasaRojo]

I think Spong's name is kind of funny to say with your mouth, too, CasaRojo.

Using other body parts to say the word 'Spong' is actually much funnier.

 

[HansMustermann]

Ah, but I don't put it all on the same level, I merely note that we all do indeed take some stuff on faith. Putting all religious beliefs on the same level as your three points above seems equally disingenuous or bloody silly to me.

I've yet to see any religion which doesn't do at least one of the three faults I've mentioned, and most do the whole trifecta.

The only kind of religion which would be on par, would pretty much not say more than "you know, there might be some God out there, but we don't know what does it look like or what does it want." Which actually is agnosticism, not religion.

Actually, I'm willing to even give Deism some benefit of the doubt, although even that does a (lesser) variant of C.

 

[CasaRojo]

What's so "interesting" about this perspective? I don't see anything I haven't heard before... about a million times

I think it's interesting coming from a 'religious' higher up. Spong's book Why Christianity Must Change Or Die came as a revelation to me and I view it as significant progress from within the church. His biblical views are anti-fundamentalist. Yay!

 

[Beth]

No. I believe that it is possible that there is life on other planets. I believe the likelyhood of life on other planets is greater than the existence of an unkown all powerful invisible person who can simultaneously listen to hundreds of millions of people converse at the same time.

Okay. I wasn't sure exactly what your position on that was. I certainly can't disagree with the above statement.

Leaving aside the notion of "created" and accepting that "men" is in reference to all humans, men and women, I don't believe that all humans are created equal. It's a great bit of rhetoric but it's without any foundation. Given the model of game theory, the sentiment is a good one if it means that all people should have equal opportunity, equal standing before the law and equal consideration by elected officials. FTR: That's an ideal that has never existed in practice but holding the sentiment as yard stick to make decisions for the benifit of society is a good thing.

Again, I agree. All humans are clearly NOT created equal. I choose to believe otherwise because I feel the sentiment is a noble one and that our society is better for us collectively acting as if it so - i.e. as a yard stick to make decisions for the benefit of society. It still counts as a belief I hold without evidence though.

I'm still waiting for an example.

You'll be waiting a long time. I don't know you well enough to guess what belief of that type you might hold. I just don't believe that you hold no such beliefs, even if you belief that. Consider it another one of my beliefs without evidence if you like.

 

[Beth]

I've yet to see any religion which doesn't do at least one of the three faults I've mentioned, and most do the whole trifecta.

I don't think Buddism does any of those.

The only kind of religion which would be on par, would pretty much not say more than "you know, there might be some God out there, but we don't know what does it look like or what does it want." Which actually is agnosticism, not religion.

Sounds a lot like the opinion espoused in the OP. Plenty of religious folks of all denominations are similarly "agnostic". As I said, I don't think religious people and religion should all be lumped together like that.

Actually, I'm willing to even give Deism some benefit of the doubt, although even that does a (lesser) variant of C.

Sounds reasonable to me. But doesn't that make you agnostic in the same way as all those religious folks who are willing to admit they don't actually know either?

 

[RandFan]

You'll be waiting a long time. I don't know you well enough to guess what belief of that type you might hold. I just don't believe that you hold no such beliefs, even if you belief that. Consider it another one of my beliefs without evidence if you like.

Fair enough. But for added clarification let me offer the following.

There are times when I hear something that conflicts with my world view or, past world view, and I'm taken aback and I realize that I held a belief without evidence. It's possible in the file cabinets of my memory I hold such beliefs. The mind is a funny thing. I remember at TAM 4 (5?) I can't remember. Madeline Murry O'hare's name was mentioned and I immediately felt sickened and a wave of anger and emotion. I suddenly realized that I had not thought of her since becoming an atheist and suddenly I was forced to re-examine my opinion of her. I used to hate her. Now I just see her as a a courageous defender of her position, if not somewhat gruff and strident.

In any event, by and large I don't see the world in absolutes. I don't hold dogmatic positions on much of anything, if anything. I might argue as if I do at times but I don't. Pick any subject and you will likely find that my position is a provisional one based on evidence and reason and that the position is in no way absolute. I used to stiffen when a position I held was challenged but not so much anymore.

If I've not thought about a proposition or position in awhile and there is little or no evidence for it then I will very likely lower my expectation of the likelihood of it being true. I really have no sacred cows. I don't even find my attachment to my family as sacred. I'd die for them in a minute but I don't think the feelings are somehow sacrosanct. They are just feelings.

 

[HansMustermann]

I don't think Buddism does any of those.

Actually, from where I stand, it looks like it does all 3.

A) it does postulate a whole theory about how things supposedly work, in detail, not just at the level of "there might be something out there"

B) it tells you how to live your life, based on that

C) they don't actually have any proof for their claims either

Plus, you may want to check out Mahayana ("great vehicle") Buddhism. It pretty much introduces deity-like beings and a separate afterlife, very separate from normal reincarnation, and promises that everyone can get there if they want to. (Regardless of how their karma score would be for reincarnation.) AFAIK it's the main Buddhist branch in the meantime.

Sounds a lot like the opinion espoused in the OP. Plenty of religious folks of all denominations are similarly "agnostic". As I said, I don't think religious people and religion should all be lumped together like that.

At which point he's hardly theistic any more, he just tries to convince himself that he is.

Sounds reasonable to me. But doesn't that make you agnostic in the same way as all those religious folks who are willing to admit they don't actually know either?

Most atheists are agnostics.

 

[Beth]

Fair enough. But for added clarification let me offer the following.

There are times when I hear something that conflicts with my world view or, past world view, and I'm taken aback and I realize that I held a belief without evidence.

I, too, have had similar experiences. I suspect that we all do at times.

In any event, by and large I don't see the world in absolutes. I don't hold dogmatic positions on much of anything, if anything. I might argue as if I do at times but I don't. Pick any subject and you will likely find that my position is a provisional one based on evidence and reason and that the position is in no way absolute. I used to stiffen when a position I held was challenged but not so much anymore.

Thanks. I totally understand as I am much the same. In addition, I will sometimes argue a point I don't actually support just because a) I like to argue and b) it helps me understand the reasons other people do support the point.

If I've not thought about a proposition or position in awhile and there is little or no evidence for it then I will very likely lower my expectation of the likelihood of it being true.

Put very nicely! I try to do the same.

 

[Beth]

Actually, from where I stand, it looks like it does all 3.

A) it does postulate a whole theory about how things supposedly work, in detail, not just at the level of "there might be something out there"

That modification guts your original point.

B) it tells you how to live your life, based on that

Well, religions are about giving people guidelines for how to live their lives. This also seems to me to be very different from your original point.

C) they don't actually have any proof for their claims either

In the final analysis, none of us know for sure. That's a complaint that can be used against any religious belief except agnosticism.

At which point he's hardly theistic any more, he just tries to convince himself that he is.
Most atheists are agnostics.

With so little difference between moderate religious people and moderate atheists and agnostics, it's interesting that the disagreements seem so strident.

 

[HansMustermann]

That modification guts your original point.

Does it? In which way?

Well, religions are about giving people guidelines for how to live their lives.

Then it's hardly the same as an extrapolation about extraterestrial life which doesn't set guidelines, is it? That's what point B is all about.

This also seems to me to be very different from your original point.

Again, I don't see in which way is it different at all, much less "very different".

In the final analysis, none of us know for sure. That's a complaint that can be used against any religious belief except agnosticism.

Bingo.

With so little difference between moderate religious people and moderate atheists and agnostics, it's interesting that the disagreements seem so strident.

It's not about "strident disagreements", it's about the BS statement that we all take stuff on faith. It's that simple.

Postulating stuff is that-a-way, basing things on falsifiable evidence is the other way. That's all.

Keep your Gods if you need them, but spare me the "we all take stuff on faith" over-generalizations. A theory based on evidence is not even remoteley the same as postulating Gods and judgments based on no evidence whatsoever.

 

[Beth]

It's been a few days, but your post required some time to think about it. Please forgive my tardiness in responding. I wanted to wait a few days before reading through your posts again.

That modification guts your original point.

Does it? In which way?

Your original point was:

The difference is that we merely believe that life ought to be possible in other places too. But nobody sane:

A) postulates that a specific life form exists (e.g., purple eight-tentacled insects on Alpha Centauri) based on no more than lack of data

Your modification was:

A) it does postulate a whole theory about how things supposedly work, in detail, not just at the level of "there might be something out there"

Well, the second is a much vaguer. Does nobody sane postulate a whole theory about how things supposedly work, in detail? I have to say, it still strikes me a major modification to your first statement.

Well, religions are about giving people guidelines for how to live their lives.

Then it's hardly the same as an extrapolation about extraterestrial life which doesn't set guidelines, is it? That's what point B is all about.

This also seems to me to be very different from your original point.

Again, I don't see in which way is it different at all, much less "very different".

Let’s compare them. Your original point was:

B) runs their life based on the imminent coming of that alien life form, or on what they supposed it would want to see here

Your restatement of it:

B) it tells you how to live your life, based on that

On a second reading, I suppose you're right there. I guess I just don't see it as a bad thing. Many people are actively seeking help in living their lives better. Some of them choose to go to various types of churches to get that help. Others go to pychotherapists. Still others seek refuge by altering their brainstates with various chemicals like alcohol, marijuana, caffeine, nicotine, alprozolam, Zoloft, etc. A great many of us try all of those things and more seeking a life that suits us. Most of us enjoy being productive members of a society. Religions have a set of morality and lifestyle choices that help their members to improve their lives and, furthermore, by the testimonial evidence of millions, perhaps billions of human beings, religions are successful. On they whole, they seem to help many people around the world and throughout human history live happier, more productive lives. Not always. Not everyone. But on the whole, that religions “tell people how to live their lives” seems a good thing to me when no one is being coerced into that behavior. I do agree that those who would coerce others to feign a belief they do not truly hold as they do are despicable creatures. I would like our society to have tolerance for both atheists and fundamentalist christians.

Oops, I seem to have gone off on a rant there. Sorry.

It's not about "strident disagreements", it's about the BS statement that we all take stuff on faith. It's that simple.

But it’s not BS. See, that’s the problem. Here’s a link to a lady who said it much better and funnier than I could at TED:
http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/emily_levine_s_theory_of_everything.html

Postulating stuff is that-a-way, basing things on falsifiable evidence is the other way. That's all.

Keep your Gods if you need them, but spare me the "we all take stuff on faith" over-generalizations. A theory based on evidence is not even remoteley the same as postulating Gods and judgments based on no evidence whatsoever.

Whereas I would like to be spared equating the purple eight-tentacled insects on Alpha Centauri) based on no more than lack of data to postulate a whole theory about how things supposedly work, in detail. And I don’t like the denigration of those who look to religion to provide a framework for their values and making significant life choices as runs their life based on the imminent coming of that alien life form, or on what they supposed it would want to see here.

So, I’ll make you a deal. I won’t make any silly arguments about atheists also having faith in their worldview as being the only correct one if you’ll spare me the above sorts of over generalizations.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I would say the difference is that the religious people believe in different things without evidence.

Lots of people are not skilled at critical thinking and it certainly isn't confined to god beliefs.

But if you are comparing the nature of believing with and without evidence, you have to add that evidence based believers are going to theoretically change their beliefs when the evidence supports a change while faith based believers would not.