Make me a believer

Can anyone suggest a book that I should read which will make me doubt my atheism? The bible won't do it because I consider it to be a collection of stories and myths with some (not much) historical truth.

What I would really like to read is a book written by a believer which directly challenges my godless, scientific view of the world without constant reference to ancient scriptures.

Am I asking too much?

I think so.

I think that anything that would make you (or me or many of us) doubt atheism would have to be a very profound, life-changing personal experience, not information in a book.

Fair point but there must be something out there that makes me at least question some aspect of my atheism.

The only books I can think of I haven't read yet so I wouldn't feel comfortable recommending them.

I'm pretty sure there's at least one good criticism of Dawkins at least out there. But I kind of consider Dawkins to be the Dobson of atheism, so that may not be what you're looking for.

I have no suggestions for a book but am curious, why are you wanting to question it? And if you are looking for something to make you question it, aren't you questioning it already?

Sorry, I'm nosy.

I think he was just looking for somebody that could provide a good, solid defense of religion without relying on scripture.

^ However, most theistic religions that have sacred written texts (e.g., Zoroastrianism, Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Sikhism, Baha'i Faith, etc.) tend to base many or most of their beliefs on those texts. So, trying to provide such a defense independent of the texts is probably doomed to failure.

Granted, many of those same religions also give weight to individuals' spiritual experiences (or perceptions thereof), but is someone else's private experience -- real or imagined -- truly persuasive to the rest of us? Likely not, else we'd all be religious and not "happy heathens." ;)

Some of the more thought-provoking things I've read, mainly journal and magazine articles, have tended to come from the areas of science and medicine. Although, I'm not sure that those things necessarily indicate the definite presence of gods.

If there IS such a book (life-changing, worldview-altering, etc.) out there, I'd love to know about it. :)

#7 - Essa,

If there IS such a book (life-changing, worldview-altering, etc.) out there, I'd love to know about it. :)

Take your pick: The Da Vinci Code, The Secret, whatever Mitch Albom has written lately? We've got a million of 'em!

Can anyone suggest a book that I should read which will make me doubt my atheism?

Am I asking too much?

It seems unlikely.

For one thing, a desacralized weltanschaung has been a long time coming and has had to battle its way through the every sort of objection from the anciene regime. So atheism, properly understood, is pretty robust

There are probably only a finite number of arguments and variations, and by now I'm pretty sure that they've all been hashed and rehashed unto death.

So, unless one is new to the literature, the likelihood
of stumbling on something "new" would seem remote.

Still. there's no end to ingenuity, so who knows whether some old wine might not be more appealing in new bottles.

For another thing, the claims of theists are so extraordinary, that it seems unlikely that commensurately powerful evidence in their favor could be adduced to matter what.

For a third thing, belief seems to have more to do with brain chemistry than with argument, so if you want to become a doubter, I'm thinking heavy drugs is the true way.

Hmmm, I've got nothing. You should read the bible though, it is a hoot. Also a fabulous source of arguments against most of what modern christians hold dear.

> 8 LOL! I guess my phrasing should have been, Something that will alter MY life and change MY worldviews. :D I think the only way that books like Da Vinci Code, etc. have changed my life, is that I actively avoid venues and forums where people are going on and on (and on and on) about them, because I don't want to listen. :D

> 10 is quite true. Actually, I think it's a great idea for non-believers to read and be familiar with the holy texts of various religions. Then again, it'd be a great idea if believers read and were familiar with their OWN holy texts, too. ;)

Were I to suggest something, it would not be a philosophical work. Seven Storey Mountain by Thomas Merton comes to mind. Or The Long Loneliness by Dorothy Day. Or Good Country People by Flannery O'Connor. Or End of the Affair by Graham Greene. I like Walker Percy, but I am not sure you would. But Lancelot is a favorite of mine. (He got rather polemical in his latter works, but Love in Ruins is a fun read.

There is always Brideshead Revisited and anything by Chesterton.

The poetry of Rainer Maria Rilke is worthwhile, especially Rilke's Book of Hours. And I always find Rumi to be a fun read. You could start with The Essential Rumi.

Of course there is always The Lord of the Rings. Not so Christian, at least overtly.

I am sure none of these books would "convert" you but they are well written, and should make you think.

Less to convince you than to give you permission to believe, Martin Gardner's The Whys of a Philosophical Scrivener might interest you.

Robert

May I suggest: "Pilgrim at Tinker Creek" By Annie Dillard
No ancient or modern scriptures are mentioned. when she writes about the pine tree - ponder

Were I to suggest something, it would not be a philosophical work.

Actually, I find Lord of the Rings (and much else by Tolkien) to be highly philosophical, as is the poetry of Rumi (and Hafiz, and ibn al-Arabi, and ud-Din Attar, and many of the other Sufi poets). Albeit not, perhaps, in a classical sense. But still. :)

What I would really like to read is a book written by a believer which directly challenges my godless, scientific view of the world without constant reference to ancient scriptures.

There are plenty of such books, arguing the theist's case from first principles without just resorting to authority. However, many will be highly personal accounts, which will challenge you, but are quite unlikely to convince you. Others will advance philosophical arguments: Dawkins & co. can dispose of the easy ones; John Beversluis or J. L. Mackie anything that's left, cause this is well-trodden territory.

Am I asking too much?

Well, what are you asking, exactly? To be persuaded that some old guy with a long beard on a cloud created the earth in seven days? I suspect not.

A potentially relevant idea is that the transcendental / numinous is possible without presupposing an external cause, let alone its omnipotence. Like Religion without God and the 60s atheistic Christian tradition it mostly comes from. Still not necessarily compelling, or able to stand up to a scientific analysis that says: it's all just the neurons in your ape brain, no matter how real consciousness seems; and it's ultimately less real than even the weird science of the very small or the very old.

I was really not much impressed with "The Whys of a Philosophical Scrivener". I loved the Mathematical Games and Puzzles section of the Scientific American and I probably have all MG's books based on the column.

But as for his arguments, which I dont remember, having read the thing ages and ages ago, I think
the following sums it up:

"Myself when young did eagerly frequent
Doctor and Saint, and heard great Argument
About it and about: but evermore
Came out by the same Door as in I went."

I am a big fan of Gardner's too, modalursine. "The Whys of a Philosophical Scrivener" is one of the few books of his that I don't have. I will look it up.

#5,#6 The reason I posed the question is because it arose in regular discussions I have with a devout Christian friend. He has not read any atheist literature so I challenged him to read God Is Not Great and asked him to suggest a book that I should read. He hasn't suggested one yet.

> 19
I don't know whether you noticed, but the question was asked from the other side of just such a dialog in the Christians' group: What book would you give to an atheist? (actually, it was asked twice at the same time). The usual suspects (Chesterton and Lewis) come up, plus an interesting Cold War perspective from the poster. I might suggest that the current crop of atheist best-sellers are a rallying cry for those already convinced, or perhaps to persuade a fence-sitter, but not the devout, just as the ones over there were.

I think they are plenty of great books about generalized spirituality, I would suggest To a God Unknown by Steinbeck as one example. Resurrection by Tolstoy is good in that it supports the idea that a Christian world would be a better world (and he is a very unusual christian - one who actually knows his holy texts and applies them without fear or concern for the political status quo). Finally Life of Pi is supposed to convince you to believe in god - it only convinced me that I don't mind if other people do as long as they are as rational as the character in the book (not very common).

Oh, and I have to say that I looked over at the "what book would you give an atheist thread" and practically spit water at the screen when I read "Chicken Soup for the Christian Soul" near the top of the list. Whoever is going to find that ill-written sentimentality to be life-changing, it sure isn't going to be any thoughtful atheist.

Oh yes, I forgot that one! The whole "Chicken Soup" franchise!

If only it were more than a mock-up. I'd buy it for laughs (and a good Julia Sweeney story) if nothing else!

Has anyone read The Reason for God by Timothy Keller?

I haven't read it, so I don't know whether to recommend it. However, Keller wrote it in response to Harris, Dawkins, etc. but from reading the descriptions of it I'm not sure it really answers the reservations most atheists have.

It's supposed to be an updated Mere Christianity and if that's really what it is, you'd probably be better off just reading the Lewis.

Disclaimer: I lurk here a lot, but I'm a "believer." However, I come from a Happy Heathen background, specifically Unitarian Universalism. I like to read the criticisms of religion posted here and I very rarely post.

I've read both "Mere Christianity" and "The Screwtape Letters". I really enjoyed the "Letters", but "MC" not so much, though he did get off a few good lines.

But neither one seems to have done much to raise my theist quotient.

Lee Strobel seems to be active in this field with several books on this subject. I might look up The Case for a Creator. It sounds interesting.

> 27
Each of the Christian apologists presented has a significant web presence. You may find it superior to track down their arguments on evolution, the origin of life, cosmology, consciousness, etc. directly, depending on how you like Strobel's presentation style.

Personally I think books meant to "convince" the other side are pretty paltry. Dawkins will not convince me because as I read him, I know the territory he is trying to talk about much better, and I know what he does not know. So his arguments fall very flat. I would think the same would be true of an atheist reading a book by a Christian.

That is why I did not recommend any books on apologetics. If I really wanted to try "convert" someone, I would ask them to pray with me, to go visit the sick with me, to worship with me, and give all that a try.

The heady stuff...meh. I see people with those kinds of convictions in the psych ward! For me, faith is ultimately a matter of the heart. The head counts, and I believe in an intelligent faith. But intelligence alone is not faith.

I've only gotten about 1/4 of the way through it so far, but I'm finding Swami Prabhavananda's Religion In Practice is at least making me consider softening some long-held hard-line hostile stances towards religion in general ... which has surprised the heck out of me!

 

Anyone read Plantinga? I haven't but it may be something like what you are looking for.

(edited to fix touchstone)

So Arctic Stranger, 'bout that Good Country People recommendation. What are you trying to say exactly?

I was surprised to find many references to God in A Brief History of Time by Stephen W. Hawking and although I'm already a monotheist (but not a Christian), I was very comforted by his integration of scientific theory and God.

Of course, most of the science was way beyond me but I really enjoyed the book. Oh, I guess I should mention that I listened to it, didn't read it. I have a copy of it at home, though, and looked at the pictures.

It has been a while, but my favorite line is when the one legged woman starts to tell the Bible salesman who sophisticated she is, and that she does not believe in God, and the salesman replies, "Hell, I didn't need no education to figure that out."

And then he steals her leg.

O'Connor said it was about people from Good Country, ie modern America.

#34 You have a dark side AS. I'm feeling a lot better about the whole Myers cracker incident.

I am thinking that no book will consistently have the effect of making one doubt atheism directly, i.e. by rational argument. However, perhaps what is needed is a how-to manual for the pursuit of transcendent experiences via meditation, fasting, pilgrimage, drugs, involvement with believers, participation in rituals, etc. People do these things and have transcendent experiences that convince them utterly -- although the process doesn't have much intersubjective validity.

31> I have bought a couple of key books by Plantinga, but I haven't yet read them. My understanding of him is that he talks about warranted belief.

I don't know whether that means that the existence of God depends on epistemological fidgeting, and so reading him, beyond the Wikipedia article, is necessary. But briefly he says, probably among other things, that the general belief over the past few years is that there is a God; it is therefore the disbeliever's responsibility to demonstrate the truth of their lack of belief.

There is so much to read; I wish that I could promise to get to it soon, but it is not likely. I have also taken a little bit of a look at process theology; process theology resurrects the ontological argument but finds a God that is not omnipotent -- wiping out the mystery of iniquity, among other things.

I have read enough about emergence to know that it is interesting. The next couple of books have chapters on emergence and religion. If they cause the scales to fall from my eyes I will let you know.

Robert

ref #36
A "transcendent experience" wont do the trick.

See for example, the thread on neurobiology and bliss

You mean that it won't do the trick for you. But then, outside of drugs, have you ever had one?

#29 Did you read God Is Not Great, Arctic? Your comment about Dawkins is valid but I'm not sure this can be applied to Hitchens. He really knows his stuff.

"it is therefore the disbeliever's responsibility to demonstrate the truth of their lack of belief.
"

Always fails - you can't demonstrate the lack of a FSM, or pink unicorn either, in convincing others the burdon of proof always lies on those with evidence for something. I hope he has other more convincing points.

#41:

"that there is a God" is a pretty vague statement in the first place. You can't really compare it to statements about the FSM or IPU since both of those would also count as "a God".

I'm an atheist by default because I haven't yet figured out what it might mean to believe in God. As far as I can tell the word is a placeholder for nothing. There's no agreement about what kind of properties this God would have. This means that in addition to there being no way to tell if one exists, there's also no way to tell if I believe in it.

Unfortunately there's no short word for whatdoyoumeanism.

darrow - I doubt there anything could be written to convince a skeptic to believe in god. On the other hand there may be a book that can convince you that you want to or should believe in god, or that you might benefit from believing in god. It's a slightly different question.

#21: jlelliott - I just recently read To A God Unknown. It's an interesting exploration of a pagan spirituality, although I saw it as an argument against that kind of belief. Life of Pi is interesting in this vein too, but it's different. I found it not so much about spirituality as about the power of delusion - in a beneficial way. I'll add one more book to this pile - The Road by Cormac McCarthy.

ETA - jlelliott, I just checked your profile and I now see I'm a day behind in recommending The Road!

37: Aside from his own Wikipedia page you should check out Plantinga's modal logic form of the ontological argument—I don't find it the least bit persuasive but it is a step up and his discussion of putting the probability of god at 1/2 is reasonable, relatively speaking. In any event, it's not much connected to any scripture.

#ref 39
The premise of the thread is "what would do it for you, Bob Dog?"

How would I know if I've had a "transcendent" experience. Does three dimensional color vision count?
Oh wow man! The colors!

Does astral traveling?

If I said I had 10 a day, how would you know I dont just have heartburn?

Has anyone had a transcendental experience? Really?
Oh yeah? How do I know, beyond he just makes the claim?

I dont know but I been told, some women sometimes fake having an orgasm.

#45 Everyone suddenly envisions that scene from When Harry Met Sally.

#1) darron: two books are " God Doesn't Believe in Atheists" and " How to Know God Exists". Both books are by Ray Comfort, a really good author, and yes, a christian. He backs stuff up with more than scripture, I understand that is what your wanting. Very convincing. Happy reading, I pray you get the answer you need.

- Faithdancer09

I have not read Hitchens, with the exception of a few interviews. Those left me VERY unimpressed. He is describing a Christianity that I don't recognize much at all. But those were just interviews, so it is hard to say how much got edited, and how much he edited himself before he spoke.

ref #48
That sounds to me like a Sufi saying he doesnt recognize the faith of the prophet in the stated belief and practice of all those Wahabbis and Salafis.

That may redund to the great credit of the Sufi, but it doesnt erase all those Wahabi religious nuts (term of art, you understand) out there.

I've been lurking on this thread for a while now, trying to get the gist of what is really wanted. The OP requested a book recommendation, but then later darrow said:

there must be something out there that makes me at least question some aspect of my atheism. (#3) and in regular discussions I have with a devout Christian friend . . . {I} asked him to suggest a book that I should read. (#19)

I'm thinking that the wrong question is being asked. Or to put it another way, the question is non-sensical in our post-Enlightenment western culture. Most of the folks I have encountered here seem to be either intelligent or well-educated or both. We are used to analyzing and processing our world with our brain/mind, asking questions and searching for inconsistencies. Since even before the Enlightenment, such folk have known that proof for the existence if God is spurious at best. My seminary Historical Theology prof stated outright that none of the so-called "proofs of God" can hold up. . . and they never did, not even to the folks to whom they were aimed at the time they were formulated.

But people continue to believe in the Divine. No matter that there seem to be infinite varieties of descriptions and definitions of such god/goddess -- people still believe that there is something beyond the dry rational construction of modern human "logic." I would call it the Infinite as easily as I would call it God. And being infinite, it cannot be wholly described but could embody an infinite variety of descriptions.

But no book is going to make you doubt your atheism, because you are using a tight, boundaried human thought process to ask questions about something infinite that has, for as long as we can tell, elicted wonder in even the most educated minds. Provided they are open to experiencing wonder, that is. It's like trying to convey what experiencing a beautiful painting is like, by listing its color spectrum. Its the wrong language, the wrong question.

People don't believe in the Divine because they have read a book. (I don't care what fundamentalist evangelicals say.) They believe in the Divine because they have experienced something infinitely and wonderfully greater than what can be summed up in mere words or proofs.

If you want your atheism to be challenged, look for wonder and try being genuinely grateful to the infinity of the universe for stretching you beyond the boundaries of your logical mind. That would be a good start.

>try being genuinely grateful to the infinity of the universe for stretching you beyond the boundaries of your logical mind. That would be a good start.

That kind of start leads one to an interest in astrophysics, not religion.

They believe in the Divine because they have experienced something infinitely and wonderfully greater than what can be summed up in mere words or proofs

May I suggest that there are those who have experienced something infinitely and wonderfully greater that what can be summed up in mere words or proofs who decline to believe in the supernatural?

They may even be found lurking here; who is to say?

#50 In other words, for God to be revealed to me I must abandon logic and rational thought. Why cannot God reveal himself to the rational mind? Why does he have to be so obtuse?

Ooh Jesse. That's a bit strong. I hope you will edit it so I don't have to flag it.

54: My closest thing to a religious experience ever was Wittgenstein.

Wovon man nicht sprechen kann, darüber muss man schweigen.

> 53 I didn't say you have to abandon logic and rational thought. I said that they are limiting and inadequate. The universe is infinite. An infinite number of people could spend an infinite amount of time (and money) studying the universe, and we would never exhaust all there is to know. It is not possible.

But that's a logical argument (see how easy it is to overanalyze, even when you're trying not to?). Would you explain to your beloved partner-in-life how your heart aches when you are separated by talking about synapses and neurotransmitters? Or comfort a child with a skinned knee by describing how wounds heal? Maybe, but I doubt it.

We live our lives with our whole bodies - all five senses plus our sense of location and position (can't recall the technical terms) - our emotions, our hopes, and our dreams. Yes, you can do a half-a**ed job at explaining them with logical jargon, or you can let yourself experience them fully. That might not get you to an in-the-box "God of the Bible" (don't even get me started on this "he" baloney). But it might let you tap into something that is more than what you can nail down with logic.

It's not the Divine that's obtuse. It's we who are.

Wovon man nicht sprechen kann, darüber muss man schweigen.

LT-ers are not big on the "schweigen" bit.

As to books that make you doubt your atheism I would also strongly second Martin Gardner's The Whys of a Philosophical Scrivener.

If you need something else that will talk to your "godless, scientific view of the world", I would recommend other philosophical works. As an introduction, I liked Does The Center Hold?: An Introduction to Western Philosophy by Donald Palmer; it's both entertaining and educational.

Another would be any work by John Polkinghorne, a Professor of Mathematical Physics at the University of Cambridge who became a Anglican Priest. I think there is no one better at championing a religious worldview to someone with a scientific background. I am currently reading his Exploring reality : the intertwining of science and religion. Polkinghorne is a winner of the Templeton Prize, and the Templeton Foundation website is a great place to find other material from all viewpoints on such topics as "Does science make belief in God obsolete?"

I also like Roger Scruton's work; for example An Intelligent Person's Guide To Philosophy.

#50 walk2work

That is an interesting post. The problem I have with it is that is doesn't take into account a very important atheist point-of-view. Essentially, what you are arguing is that it's possible there is a god of some kind. There is an assumption in that logic that says there is a good reason to be looking. I think most, or at least many, atheists are starting with the assumption that there is no reason to even look for a god.

So, I guess what I'm saying is there is a missing bridge. Before an atheist cares whether God is possible, he/she must first be convinced the question is worth asking. Why bother looking for a god? Why would searching for god be any better than, say, searching for the fountain of youth - or something else that is possible within the infinite, beneficial if found, yet is not likely to be found or usable within the known world?

Something feels funny about that last post.

I run into plenty of people who don't believe in God. Most of them are hardly aware of that fact. It is not until I come into the hospital room that they even think about it. (I usually hear at this point, "I am a spiritual person, but....") Now for that person, your post makes a lot of sense.

But a self proclaimed atheist would, I think, be, at the start of their thinking, at least a little curious about the existence of God, and after that curiosity is satisified, might then proclaim there is no God.

But to say that atheists don't even think the question is worth asking, therefore the matter is settled, sounds strangely like my teen-aged son who tells me he does not have to go to school, because he is sure there is nothing they can teach him. Maybe that is true, but not going doesn't settle anything, except that he would rather play his guitar all day.

#57 The universe is infinite.
Unlikely. Hawking says that it is finite but unbounded in A Brief History of Time.

#61 AS
Good point, I had trouble with the wording. I guess what I meant is there is a philosophical gap. I'll try again.

An atheist begins with the assumption that there is no god and that all known things can be explained without a god's existence. From that logic, saying "God is possible" doesn't get one anywhere. That's nice that it's possible, but so are the Teapot and the FSM.

I think the missing step is answering the question "For what reason should we look for a god?" If you can give a reason that has value to an atheist, then you can move to the next step.

#60 Before an atheist cares whether God is possible, he/she must first be convinced the question is worth asking.

Religion occurs in every culture. Even as an atheist I have to concede that belief in the supernatural is a human default position.

#64 - see #63.

#65 :D I guess we were writing at the same time.

"For what reason should we look for a god?"

Because its as though 85% of the population sees a color that we do not see. That phenomena itself - and the fact that it is an evolutionary advantage - is an object of curiosity.

#63 That makes more sense.

#66 - Mrs.H - I figured, just clarifying.

Your argument doesn't exactly work for me. While it does make me wonder what the god concept does for humanity, it does not make wonder whether there is a real god.

#68 It's not so much a matter of looking for God as completely absorbing another person's perspective. If I could give you a drug that, under which you would "beleive" for one day, would you take it?

I would.

It is interesting to talk to people who have been in both camps. While my beliefs have changed over time, I think I always believed, even when I said I didnt. I clearly live on one side of the fence.

But I talk to people who have been on both sides (and not just former atheists, but also former believers) they have a perspective I don't.

58: lol, indeed

#63 "An atheist begins with the assumption that there is no god and that all known things can be explained without a god's existence."

The trouble with atheism is that is can be as dogmatic and irrational as some religions. It seems a rather dogmatic position to assume that all known things can be explained. For example, can you explain why that is a rational assumption. (Unless, by "known" you are mean all things that can be explained.) There are other types of "things" that require explanation. Many of these questions are "why" type questions. For example try "Does the Universe have a purpose?" "Why are there quarks?"

#72 Actually, its not practical to operate as though something that you can't verify with your senses is present?

You're correct that Odin may be the all powerful and jealous God that you imagine and that we may be surrounded by a legion of invisible flying spaghetti monsters.

Worshiping them however, has not yet shown to have any measurable affect on our lives and thus takes up valuable time and calories that could be spent on activities that do have an impact on our lives.

-72 There is nothing dogmatic about atheism - a disbelief in the existence of god does not imply any other beliefs. For example I am sure there are plenty of things out there that we may never understand completely, not because they are beyond science or within the realm of the supernatural, but simply because they are vastly complicated. I am also having some trouble understanding your point about "known things' that cannot be explained. What is an example of such a thing?

Worshiping them however, has not yet shown to have any measurable affect on our lives

Actually, from what I understand, a number of studies have shown that people involved in (healthy, non-abusive) religious communities do tend to have lowered stress rates, better odds of healing after hospital stays, and so on.

I myself believe this is largely due to the beneficial effect of support networks and friendships that usually come with the religion package, as well as activities such as meditation and prayer, which have been shown to help relieve stress.

So, there do in fact seem to be effects, and from what I understand of the medical and scientific literature, the effects can be tangibly measured.

Known things that cannot be explained (but they can be talked about)

Love
Beauty
Justice
Consciousness
My Seventeen year-old son.
Light
Spirit/Soul
Hatred
Sarah Palin

Prayer has been shown in study after study to have no effect, making it even more likely that the social aspect of organized religion is what is mediating the effect in these studies (although it must be said that atheism is so frowned upon in many societies that it itself could be negatively impacting the non-religious, rather than religion benefiting the religious). So atheists can join any relevant organization, and expect to garner the same benefits. Not much of a reason to change one's belief system.

#73

I should have stated more explicitly that I was addressing dchaikin's points which were "An atheist begins with the assumption that there is no god and that all known things can be explained without a god's existence." and "For what reason should we look for a god?". I was challenging that assumption and possibly pointing out the sort of questions that some answer by postulating a god.

Given that, I am not sure what point of mine your answer was addressing, but to leap in anyway...

"Worshiping them however, has not yet shown to have any measurable affect on our lives and thus takes up valuable time and calories that could be spent on activities that do have an impact on our lives."

There must be, somewhere, some studies showing the beneficial psychological effects of attending worship. It may not have done anything for you in the past, but I am sure that it has "a measurable effect/impact" on other's lives.

> 77 Correct, and I wasn't suggesting that atheists change their belief systems. Merely that, from what I've seen, people who practice a religion do, in fact, experience measurable effect from the practice. (And, arguably, in some cases there are distinct negative effects on some worshippers, as well, e.g., violence or abuse and whatnot.)

The study on the brain waves of Buddhist monks, for instance, is interesting, and is an example of an effect that can be measured. Such studies do not indicate that a religion is "true" or should be believed. But they do indicate that religious activity -- like, I'd assume, many other activities humans do -- have measurable effects upon us.

Haha, at the last one. I think there is quite a bit of good explanation for the almost all the items on your list (excepting your dear son and the spirit/soul) - many people have worked hard to describe the phenomena themselves, what causes them biologically, what neuronal pathways are activated when you feel them, why they might be evolutionarily helpful or how they might be related to other evolutionarily advantageous changes in brain structure, etc. Surely we don't have a complete understanding, but there is no reason to believe that it is impossible (although, as I said before, it could be sufficiently complicated to stymy us for ages). Work on beauty and justice is particularly interesting, indicating a usefulness in mate selection and social interactions respectively, and like phenomena have been found in many other animal species.

I guess I still think that while they may not be fully explained today, they are still explainable.

#74

Am I wrong in thinking atheists believe "there is no God" and not "disbelieve in the existence of God"? The first is a dogmatic cosmological position. The second is a softer position I would normally associate with agnostics.

I gave an example of "known things that cannot be explained" in "Why are there quarks?". I know there are quarks, I just don't know why.

How are those two statements different? To me they say essentially the same thing.

Just because you have a thing (a quark) doesn't imply that there is a reason for its existence - so a reason for the existence of quarks isn't a "known thing". Atheists, if so inclined, could answer those types of "why" questions in several ways. One would be to say there is no reason, and that their existence is just a result of chance or the laws of physics or what have you. Another might say that our form of life is only able to think about such questions because we live in a universe where physics include quarks and also makes the emergence of sentient life possible.

I see what you are saying, and the existence of matter, the laws of physics, the beginning of time, and other issues like this are certainly far beyond our understanding now. However I've never seen any religion address any of those issues, either :o)

#82 What you said

Atheists have one assumption in common - that there is no "supernatural." I can't think of any beyond that.

#79 Yes, I love that ongoing study with the Monks, but they were meditating, not praying - deliberately invoking a sense of compassion as I recall.

#76
Love - chemical soup
Beauty - evolutionary predisposition for semitry
Justice - evolutionary predisposition for group benefiting behavior
Consciousness - illusion created by speech (see Dennett)
My Seventeen year-old son. - a true mystery :)
Light - energy (I didn't understand why this was added)
Spirit/Soul - non existent hogwash
Hatred - chemical soup
Sarah Palin - I promised I wouldn't attack our lack of democracy again until after the election

ref #60,61

I have to agree with AS. As a die hard "strong" (i.e. obnoxious in-your-face) atheist I think that for anyone interested in "Life, the Universe, and Everything" and in what the universe is made of, how it works, and what our place in it is or could be, the existence of a "god" (Devilish hard to get agreement on what the funny word means, but take the transcendent god of the Abrahamics as a first approximation.....a powerful personality that created everything, has a plan, is interested in human destiny and interferes to keep his plan on track etc ) is worth getting a handle on, one way or the other.

I also suspect (but I know nothing!) that most people despite their protestations (in the US its most) that they are "spiritual" or are "believers", are in fact practical atheists who dont internalize any of the official credos, and live their lives, for the most part, as if none of the religions ever existed; but dont give much thought to it either way and hence are undefended when confronted by "circumstances".

-84 I agree that most people are atheists - absolutely no one I know acts as though their religion were true.

#82

"How are those two statements different? To me they say essentially the same thing."

An agnostic could agree with the statement that she does *not* believe the statement "God exists" or the statement "God does not exist". But an atheist does believe the statement "God does not exist".

Quarks are "known things", the reason for their existence cannot be explained, or rather there is *currently* no rational way of deciding between the options like those you offer on behalf of an atheist. That does not prevent the question from being a valid question. And a theist would have an answer to the many Why's. It's for answers to those sort of questions that people turn to philosophers and theologians.

#86 Well, people that have a high degree of discomfort with ambiguity turn to philosophers and theologians. You could just say "I don't know."

#86, 87 - And as a theologian, my answer to why quarks exist would be something along the lines of: "Because that's what stuff is made up of in this universe."

"Stuff" is something, and therefore must be made up of something. Quarks are one of the smallest (the smallest? my physics is rusty) somethings that stuff is made of. That's why.

I leave questions like that to the philosophers.

This thread has got a bit squirrelly. The OP asked "Can anyone suggest a book that I should read which will make me doubt my atheism?" and "which directly challenges my godless, scientific view of the world". darrow obviously thought the question worth asking.

dchaikin took a step further and asked "For what reason should we look for a god?" and gave as a reason "that all known things can be explained without a god's existence."

I think that it is obvious that neither science nor atheism can provide answers to either set of questions and suggested that we look to philosophers and theologians for answers (and even suggested a few). I am certainly going to look up some of the other suggestions from literature and eagerly anticipate more from this erudite crowd.

Well, people kind of pooh-poohed my thought that the way to become a believer was to have a transcendent experience via fasting or meditating or joining a spiritual community or whatever. However, if we look at people who are believers, I think that most are because they were raised to be, so that it has been a part of their psyche for a long time. Then some have gone through a conversion experience, where something transcendent happened where they felt the hand of God upon them. Very few indeed have become believers because of something they read. I have only anecdotal evidence of this, not a formal poll, but I think that's how it works.

I suppose a few have attempted to become believers for pragmatic reasons -- just in case it might help them in the long run -- but I don't think that one can just decide to believe. I am pretty sure one can't just decide not to believe either. Also, I suspect that nearly all believers have doubts, to a greater or lesser degree.

I don't think there is a scientific explanation for why the universe exists, or why it is ordered, and why so much of it is beautiful. All of these things are wildly improbable. Of course, wildly improbable things do occur, but typically in the context of a whole bunch of other things happening as well. Of course, there may be a zillion other universes, but (a) such a remarkable claim would require quite a bit of proof, and (b) that would still punt on the question of why any of them exist at all. And theistic explanations don't really answer anything either, because they don't explain why God exists, or why he/she/it might have created a universe like this one.

Conclusions:
Some things are inherent mysteries.
Mysteries are more than chemical soup.

#84

There is a big difference between religion, and a belief in God (or gods, or a higher power etc). Just because someone hasn't "internalize{d} any of the official credos" doesn't make them an atheist or anything even approaching an atheist. I really dislike the term "practical atheist". You can argue that some one is not a Christian, or a Muslim, or a Buddhist etc because they don't follow the credos of that religion (though I also find this problematic for other reasons), but you cannot infer that they don't truly believe in a higher power. It may be that the way they behave means they don't evince a true belief in an interventionist god, but that doesn't prevent someone from having spiritual ideas and beliefs. They may just have not found a way to properly express their beliefs and so they fall back on explanations and ideas thet are familiar with, or have grown up with, even though they don't truly reflect exactly how they think.

While I myself am an atheist through and through, living with and dealing with religious people on a daily basis, and discussing our different ideas has led me to see that while I personally don't see any evidence for God or a higher power or indeed anything supernatural, in some ways that indicates that I have "faith" of a sort that science can explain everything. My Christian housemate on the other hand believes that God created the universe. This isn't to say that science is invalid, or useless (she's a med student with a science degree after all) but she believes that some things are a mystery, some things are not measurable by science and some things are outside the scientific realm. In some ways, she has just as much evidence for her belief as I do for mine that there is nothing that cannot be explained though natural, rather than supernatural, means.

The "why" question comes up constantly in discussions between atheists and believers. It gives rise to an ontological argument for the existence of God.

It is impossible to conceive of a rational answer to the question, "Why do quarks (or anything, for that matter) exist?". This will always be so. Even if it is proved that their existence was demanded by the laws of physics, we must explain why those laws exist. Therefore the answer must lie outside of rational thought; in the supernatural.

The atheist might say that there is no reason to insist that there is a purpose for anything at all.

#72 rpp

#63 "An atheist begins with the assumption that there is no god and that all known things can be explained without a god's existence."

The trouble with atheism is that is can be as dogmatic and irrational as some religions. It seems a rather dogmatic position to assume that all known things can be explained.

I don't feel that statement is dogmatic. What it says is that an atheist (of this type?) argues that we should begin with what is known.Then build philosophically from that point. Until an atheist feels something known points toward god, they remain atheist. So, the door is open towards god, an unicorns and whatnot. What is missing are the building blocks to get there.

From that perspective saying "there is a god" is beginning with an assumption that can not possibly be known. It's philosophically lacking a foundation.

#93
You begin with an assumption "all known things can be explained without a god's existence" that to me has a similar status to the assumption "there is a god". How do you know that "all known things can be explained without a god's existence" is a good assumption or rather an assumption with any better philosophical basis than "there is a god"?

I still assert that the "all known things can be explained" bit is not a part of atheism. Atheism is simple - no gods. That is it. Sum total. Some atheists may believe that the universe can be explained totally without god. Like I said before, all evidence that I know points to the reality that the universe is explicable but that humans may not have the time or computing power to figure it all out. I neither expect nor demand that all atheists share that conclusion.

-91. Perhaps it would be more exact to say that these types of people are "not-theists" as opposed to atheists. Belief in an amorphous god of that type is more like deism, not theism. I at least would not be leading the average american life if I truly believed in any theistic god.

#95 jlelliott - Fair enough, I'm only following one type of logic. I don't know what the correct term is.

#94 rrp - I should reword. In this group it's tough because I have to avoid the terms "natural" and "natural laws". See earlier posts. So, when instead I use the term "without god".

Think of it another way. In say 1800 I could have argued that "we begin with the assumption that all things can be explained by Newtonian Physics." Of course, we now know that breaks down, so we go to a new type of physics. But, the first comment wasn't a dogma, it was the best conclusion at the time. The same logic applies with God. The simplest start is with the known physical laws and the known current observations. Neither of these point to a god at this time, as far as I know. To start without god is not a dogma, it's a place to start. There is always an opening to other ideas, including god-like ones. But, just because they exist as ideas, doesn't mean we can fit them in any physical models. And, discounting these god-like ideas as not-yet-needed-in-any-explanation is not dogma, it's just observation.

ref #91
There is a big difference between religion, and a belief in God (or gods, or a higher power etc)

One of the problems of getting a serious discussion going about religion is that it is a very slippery term.

Augustine (of all people for a committed atheist to quote) said something to the effect that when no one asks, he knows perfectly well what he means by "time", but if someone does ask, he doesnt know what to tell them. As with time, so with "religion" and "science".

Thats why I often just narrow the scope by taking into account only the Abrahamics sometimes throwing in the Hindu/Buddhist cluster for good measure. That gets the lion's share of contemporary believers and is close enough for government work.

Funny how some think we can explain everything by math when we can't even agree what our words mean.

# 97 dchaikin

I think I am now beginning see where you are coming from. You ask questions of the Universe, seeking answers (explanations). All the questions you ask, you assume, have answers that can be formulated from within the domain of science. From within science, there is no need to invoke a God to explain anything. Therefore, it is not necessary to assume "that God exists".

This maybe also be where the OP is coming from when he refers to his "godless, scientific view of the world".

I think the main point of departure from this argument is to question the assumption that all the questions you ask, have answers that can be formulated from within the domain of science. To me, that assumption is not valid. In fact, I know of at least one important question that cannot be answered from within the domain of science, which is "Can your assumption be justified?". If you are willing to question the assumption, you are not being dogmatic. But, if you do question the assumption, you are opening yourself to the possibility of answers from outside of science, which some here have labeled supernatural but metaphysical might be a better term. God, if God exists, would be part of the metaphysical domain, and in that domain you need a set of rationalizations from outside of the domain of science to decide matters of truth.

99: Math is much less slippery than words!

Not when I do it.

#100 Interesting point. This is Gödel's theorem applied to science (which he never intended) but Hawking and others have suggested that the theorem may indeed apply.

(Gödel's theorem) implies that even the most sophisticated formulation of physics will be incomplete, and that therefore there can never be an ultimate theory that can be formulated as a finite number of principles, known for certain as "final".

It does not follow that God must exist to make it complete.

#103

I agree, well almost. My point was indeed related to Gödel's theorem in the sense that we know there are questions for which answers cannot be found within the domain of science. If you accept that, you must accept that there are other ways of deciding matters of truth. That one little step opens the door to metaphysical truths. Still rational, but beyond physics. There is much that has been and can be said about the truth of things beyond physics and questions of religion fall in this domain. It does not follow that God must exist to make physics complete. But if there must be truths beyond physics, why not God?

The recent discussion has reminded me of another book I could recommend: Truth : a history and a guide for the perplexed by Felipe Fernandez-Armesto. It describes four ways we come at truth, through feelings, through what we are told, through reasoning and finally through our senses; all with an historical perspective.

I agree, well almost. My point was indeed related to Gödel's theorem in the sense that we know there are questions for which answers cannot be found within the domain of science. If you accept that, you must accept that there are other ways of deciding matters of truth. That one little step opens the door to metaphysical truths. Still rational, but beyond physics. There is much that has been and can be said about the truth of things beyond physics and questions of religion fall in this domain. It does not follow that God must exist to make physics complete. But if there must be truths beyond physics, why not God?

Not a correct reading at all from what I've heard.

Okay, Jesse; that's something that I have taken as an entree in the transcendent. So how does a correct reading contradict that?

Robert

rrp, thanks for the recommendation. Ralph Waldo Emerson talked about accepting things because they resonate, and Hannah Arendt, who deserves, like Emerson, to be reread, talked about judgment as an important part of the life of the mind.

I have added Truth: a history and a guide for the perplexed to my wishlist. I am hopeful that it will inform me on these notions.

Robert

Yeah that book sounds interesting. In my wish list too.

#100: rrp All the questions you ask, you assume, have answers that can be formulated from within the domain of science.

Some thoughts on this. Science is an extreme, in the sense that the knowledge obtained is limited by the method applied. Something is known through science only if something can be "proven" and the resources are then used to prove it. There are limits, see post #76. Can love be "explained" by science? Probably on some level, but...well, if we had a full explanation of the chemical soup involved, how much further would that get us towards understanding love?

I don't want to undermine the power of science, or its significance in the questions about the existence of God. Science is the most powerful method of argument we have, and it has consistently shown various religious ideas are false... to the point that the strongest arguments for God are always that God must exist outside the limits of science.

But, I did not intend to align my logic to science. It's more along the lines of the your post 103 about the book Truth - "four ways we come at truth, through feelings, through what we are told, through reasoning and finally through our senses; all with an historical perspective.. I'm not sure whether anyone ever comes to "truth." But the four ways are a good summary of how we know what we know.

So, rewording posts #63 & 93:

As an atheist, I philosophically begin with what I perceive. This includes feelings, reasoning, senses, and what I've seen, heard and read. I then evaluate this information to create what I feel I know. And from this develop my own “laws of a nature”. In other words, the laws are derived from my perception. And, just to clarify – when I say “laws of nature” I don’t mean unbreakable laws, I simply mean laws that I haven’t seen broken.

In my own perception of "nature", explanations are not bound to any consciousness outside the mind – or anything resembling a god. What I mean is that inanimate objects always follow physical laws. And living things follow these same physical laws with some more complicated variations. An ant will always act as an ant within the possible genetic variations. And a deer won't become a carnivore hunting prey. Nowhere in this form of nature is there a need for an outside consciousness directing, creating, or tweaking these things.

At the same time, inside the human consciousness almost anything seems possible. But that doesn't make it real outside the mind. Given human consciousness can have physical effects and these can be conscious or unconscious (and good or bad). These physical effects are real, but the thought process that created them are still not real outside the mind.

I think this philosophy can work the other way too. If someone feels their perception points to knowledge god exists, then they can hold that view. And, they will probably stay that way unless there is something inside them that the idea hinges – and this breaks down.

When Darrow in the original post says "suggest a book that I should read which will make me doubt my atheism", then I imagined he was coming from a similar philosophy as me. One in that what he knows does not require a god.

If God isn’t apparent or necessary, then why look for it? That is why I suggested in post #63 that an answer should begin by answering the question “For what reason should he look for a god?"

#100 dchaikin

Your argument is: why look for reasons for God, because there are no reasons for God. Is that not begging the question?

Your philosophy resembles Positivism, if not Scientism. If you haven't read A.J. Ayer's Language Logic and Truth, you might enjoy it. Although, be warned, subsequent philosophers have picked many holes in it.

My case here is not to give reasons for God, but to encourage doubt that all the possible reasons for God are invalid, moving not from atheism to theism but from atheism to agnosticism. If you examine carefully the foundations of your philosophy, I think you will find that there are some things you believe to be true or false that cannot be justified within that philosophy. If you haven't read any Philosophy of Science it can be enlightening. The philosophers just love to take digs at science. It's not a book, but I enjoyed "The Great Courses - Philosophy of Science" lecture CDs by Jeffrey L. Kasser.

#111 modalursine

All decisions are, at bottom, emotional; even decisions about truth. When we decide on a matter of truth, we can (and should) go through chains of detailed rationalizations, but that process is a bottomless pit. At some point we indeed say "Whoa Nelly!" and stop. We usually stop at the point when feel we have enough reason to be convinced. So yes, emotions have a place in deciding truth.

The following articles cover distinguished scientists who believe in God and cite books they have written in support of their faith. I haven't read any of them, but I thought they might be good to check out for your purpose:

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/25/science/25books.html?_r=1&scp=17&sq=fr...

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9D04E2D6173AF93AA35750C0A9679C8B6...

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C02EFDB1139F936A25750C0A9649C8B6...

walk2work (post 50):

Are you making the simple, entirely unwarranted conclusion that the fact that people believe in God or "the divine" (which I suppose you mean to be interchangeable terms) on the basis of their vague feelings proves that God exists? Vague feelings that God exists do nothing to demonstrate that God actually exists: they are only experiences (albeit often extraordinary ones) that someone has taken to evince the existence of God. It is perfectly obvious that a feeling, or putative experience, of God can occur without God him/ her/ itself existing. I could point out that not only has this fact been recognized since at least the ancient Greeks, but it has also been very explicitly and undeniably corroborated by a mass of modern scientific research. But that observation, of course, would be vain in your case, because you reject reason, discourse, and science, insofar as they might impinge disadvantageously upon your religious claims (if they have enough substance to be called that), and think that in the absence of clear evidence for God we should, rather preposterously, assume his / her/ its existence. To my mind, it is better rather to wait for actual considerations pointing to God's existence than simply to assume it in ignorance. Only in religion is assuming the truth of what is clearly false considered a virtue. And there there are obvious, identifiable, and overwhelming social, psychological, and other motives for human beings to save belief in God, even if that demands--as it does--repressing intelligence of the most elementary kind.

Another point is that you are yourself recommending reason of a limited and invalid kind, so far as it serves your obscurantist purpose: you are taking nature and feelings as proof to any percipient of God's existence. Thus you are recommending acceptance of (alleged) truth to be arrived at through such observational evidence as seems to suit your argument. That means that you are practicing evidence- and reason-based argument while condemning us, in a rather haughty way, for doing the same. It is only that your argument is extremely poor and false. If this criticism is unjust, or I have missed an important point, please let me know.

Another fundamental point for everyone to notice is that, in the end, you are not recommending belief in anything that could reasonably be understood as "God," as you are perhaps aware. Any atheist could, entirely without hesitation or contradiction, speak of "the infinite." I don't think anyone here is looking for any such vacuous and false idea of God as this; this is too indeterminate and vacuous a notion to be called "God" in any meaningful way. I surmise that the people on this thread are talking, very reasonably, about a robust God who would actually mean something to us human beings. You are uttering high-sounding, bombastic sophistry.

Addendum: I have apologized to walk2work, whose post I was addressing here, for the obviously uncivil nature of this post. After consulting walk2work, I agree that it is best to leave it in its original form because, among other reasons, altering it might potentially lead to misunderstanding some aspect(s) of later parts of the thread. Archival considerations also play a role.

It is the insulting nature of my expression for which I am issuing this heartfelt apology. The essential arguments of this post should be considered on their own merits; and I am confident that there are substantial merits in them, which are better appreciated by trying to disregard the intemperate form in which the arguments are expressed.

ref 113
Well, I'll give you this:
That at bottom we have some core attitudes or judgments, aesthetic choices, I suppose you could call them, such as a preference for fairness (especially if it works for me) or a "judgment" if you will that honesty is (or should be) the best policy, or that loyalty is "a good thing" or that cooperation is better than conflict.

I rather think of those as basic axioms. Calling them "feelings" as in "I like cherries but dont much care for
persimmons" trivializes what's going on and makes our
mentation seem way more fickle than it really is.

> 115 Thanks for the abuse.

I wondered why no one had responded seriously to my post, but decided not to bother asking. I was not aware that it sounded "haughty," but if so, I apologize.

As for me, I will only point out that contrary to this group's description, Happy Heathens is clearly not a place for people who have non-traditional faiths.

Bye, folks. It's been real.

#112: rrp Your argument is: why look for reasons for God, because there are no reasons for God. Is that not begging the question?

Not exactly. I did not mean to imply there are no philosophical reasons to look for god. I'm asking the question because I don't see the reasons - specifically for someone like me. It's a real question, not rhetorical.

#117 walk2work - I'm sorry you feel that way. Your post #50 inspired some 60 or so responses. Not a single one agrees, but agreement isn't exactly typical here.

I think walk2work has a very valid point. As someone with a non-traditional Christian belief, I find I get it from atheists for a) believing in a God and then b) not believing in the God they want me to believe in when I say I believe in God. All sorts of things get attributed, whether I actually believe it or not. And few people bother to ask questions; they just launch into something like in #115.

I find that a frustrating place to attempt a conversation.

Well you are associating yourself with a long line of precedent and belief systems when you say you are a "Christian", and everyone has a different idea of what that means. It might be easier if you start off explaining whatever aspect of your belief you feel is unusual first, and then saying that you still feel that you are a Christian.

Nosy I know, but what is non-traditional about your beliefs, if I might ask?

ref # 120,121

"The guilty flee where none pursue", so maybe I'm not who you had in mind when you talk about ones who get on your case for "not believing the God they want me to believe in"

But jlelliott has a point that when someone says he's a Christian and "believes in God" one might justifiably assume that his god is the Abrahamic god whose qualities the orthodox churches have proclaimed over the centures, i.e. Creator of everything, and possesor of all the "omni"s.

Now, there's no kind of god that I "Want" you to believe in, unless its the null set; But I'm enough of a Cunfucian to think that if a Jew, Christian or Moslem says he believes in God, but doesnt mean the the all powerfull King of the Universe, well, he's got some explaining to do. Not because I want him to believe in anything in particular but because I feel I've been snonkered (not intentionally of course and perhaps self snonkered would be more accurate) into thinking one thing when the case is quite other.

Err...is that making things clearer or am I violating the first rule of holes?

#116 I think the desire for fairness is really a desire for consistency in the application of rules or an aversion to change.

ref #123

I'm sure you're aware of the famous experiments in which one party (the proposer) is given a sum of money and proposes to split it any way at all (his choice) to a second party, (the acceptor) who may accept or decline. If the acceptor accepts, they each get what the proposer proposed (sounds like Dr Seusse
but that's the way it is).If the acceptor declines they both get a big fat nothing.

Rational choice theory predicts that the proposer would propose the smallest possible unit of coin (one cent), and the acceptor would accept because something is better than nothing.

When the experiment is performed, invariably the acceptor almost never accepts anything less than about 30% and often the proposer doesnt even bother offering anything much below 50%; as if the accept is saying "Oh, so 50% wasnt good enough for you eh? Well now how do you like nada greedy guts ?

Consistency and stability may be a factor, even a big factor, but it seems that parity and/or "patsy avoidance" seems to be an important factor here.

#124 Oohhh. I had forgotten that one. Also, as you just demonstrated, relative gain plays a big role in perceptions of justice.

#117, 120 - 122

Although I'm more on the agnostic side of things, there are IMHO many ways you can call yourself a "Christian" that do not require to swallow every tenet of your faith hook, line and sinker.

Examples:

1) "Cultural Christians". Although I don't believe in the tenets of my faith anymore, when I talk to a Muslim or a Hindu, I am culturally and in terms of many values clearly shaped by a Christian upbringing. So as such I am more 'Christian' than I am a Hindu for example.
2) Christians with a non-traditional idea of God. I can see how you can believe in a more mystical idea of God (i.e. not an all powerful, all good white-bearded person for example) and see Jesus as some kind of inspired teacher or incarnation or whatever. You would still follow many of the teachings (such as "love thy enemy"), but you would not embrace all the detailed teachings of your church. I don't see any problems with somebody like that calling themself 'Christian'.

There is a bit of a tendency of hard-core atheists to see everything black and white: Either you believe every single thing that they perceive as being part and parcel of being a Christian or you better admit that you are an atheist. This is actually exactly the same as what a fundamentalist Christian would say, and as such not very helpful.

There are many shades of thinking about nature, God, universe. There isn't just atheist - fundamentalist.

Here are a few more thoughts, which are less considered than some of my other writing here. The God of most peoples' belief--and worship, which implies the existence of a personality capable of appreciating that worship--is a God who has real attributes and performs real actions in the world at large, and almost always in the individual believer's life as well. This is a God who matters to humanity; he is not "the infinite" or any such indeterminate, attenuated, vacuous concept. It is this kind of God that almost all members of the three "great" religions have worshiped and believe in to this day. You may point out that many early peoples were polytheistic, but that does not matter for my point, which is that people have overwhelmingly believed in robust gods with identifiable characteristics. It is abundantly clear that Zeus, Apollo, and the rest had identifiable, uniquely characteristic qualities.

Two of the characteristics of the gods of our churches, synagogues, and mosques include immortality, vastly greater power than ours, a habit of intervening in the lives and world of mortals, and capricious and cruel use of their power of intervention to inflict terrible suffering--much of it eternal--upon helpless and miserable human beings (although believers usually are not willing to recognize the latter characteristic). The moral improvement and eventual abstraction into nothing of the gods of our overwhelmingly prevalent religions have been directly correlative with human beings' increasingly advanced knowledge of the world and humane moral standards since the Enlightenment. It is obvious that Christians, for example, want to make their God more morally acceptable, and even laudable, than the one whose existence and nature are expounded abundantly in their Scripture, and is thus the only one whose existence is grounded in any plausible source. From what other source than the Bible can anyone plausibly claim to know or discover anything about the specifically Christian God? There is no such source, and when Christians deny the Bible, as they necessarily must, because of its patent contradictions, confusions, and incomprehensibility, and related defects, they have denied any justification they might have had for the existence of their God. And after they have replaced their historical religion's God and his characteristic qualities with ones that they find comforting and sufficiently satisfying, they still want to pretend that this vitiated, Mr. Rogers-type "God" is really still the God of their Fathers. This is as false as anything can be. It is as if I professed to worship Zeus and to cherish his "justice" as depicted in the Greek tragedy Prometheus Bound--namely, nailing the Titan Prometheus to a rock to make him suffer torture for 30,000 years for the sin of trying to ameliorate the suffering of human beings--and actually claimed that the same Zeus was benevolent and generous toward all the other gods and toward human beings, and that I should always respect his will and trust his plans since I know that he is perfectly good, and that he has a great inscrutable plan in mind that we are too unworthy and feeble- minded to understand and of which we are vouchsafed not an iota of a hint, and recognize that it is sinful to question not only his existence but also his goodness. This the same procedure that professing Christians perform in the case of their own God. It is just that, in the case of Zeus, everyone will readily acknowledge the absurdity and falsehood of the claim; but when the question is the existence and benevolence of the Christian God, those who profess Christianity will find no problem, never mind the equally patent absurdity; but the respective reasons for believe are equally (un)sound in each instance .

The reason why professing "Christians" will go to the most ridiculous but sad lengths to justify belief in supremely preposterous nonsense is that what they think of as Christianity is, in our time and place, what William James called a "live option" (in The Will to Believe, in which he recommends--fittingly for a man with a pragmatist conception of "truth"--that we believe in God because it makes us feel good, and might even do some other kind of good, too), which is to say that today's faux Christianity is widely recommended as credible in our age and culture. But the fact that Christianity is considered credible in our time and place, and is therefore a "live option" in James's parlance, is absolutely no indication that it is true. It is only through a complex set of historical accidents, two of which were its popular acceptance and eventual political establishment in the vast Roman Empire, that a version of Christianity was set and evolved into its current forms in which countless persons profess belief now.

Notice that in all these cases--except in the one where the "real" God is abstracted away into no such thing-- God is putatively robust and personal in that he allegedly intervenes in the world and in the lives of mortals; and almost everyone assumes that this intervention is for the best. It is surely comforting and satisfying to fashion and try to sustain belief in such a being. To continue to believe that God not only exists, is personal, and is active does not avail for comfort and satisfaction without the further belief that he is also supremely good and certain to work things out for the best, despite every reason for disbelieving these things. That is why the religious insist on "faith," which amounts to the absolute determination to believe in their God and what they take to be his tenets, which obviously requires depreciating reason and evidence and denying manifest reality.

One more--and somewhat more ambitious--thought for now. Many, probably most, professed religious believers think, and often say, that their lives would be intolerable without their faith. But I would suggest that they think so because they have never brought themselves to try to live without it. In any case, I have a bias in favor of truth over attempted forced belief in something false that is designed to bring comfort and satisfaction.

There is a bit of a tendency of hard-core atheists to see everything black and white: Either you believe every single thing that they perceive as being part and parcel of being a Christian or you better admit that you are an atheist. This is actually exactly the same as what a fundamentalist Christian would say, and as such not very helpful.

Ah, the famous "Your another, fella!" argument.

Cheerful though I am by nature, that sort of argument makes me grumpy on its face; in part because its major premise is just not so.

Lets start with the part about "you've got to believe it all or your out of the club". I'm a hard core atheist and I know thats a crock; but its useless to go to the other extreme and think "Well, anything is "Christian" if I say it is". Transubstantiation or Consubstantiation?
Christians have argued, unto death, literally, over "what is the proper color of a gown, and whether the juice of a certain berry be blood or wine" ; so in the end they mostly (Except a few die hards) agree to disagree on those points, formerly seen as crucial.

There are people who are "christian" , meaning culturally christian because they've been brought up in a milieu that has been chrisitian for a long long time, and so they've picked up certain assumptions, cultural forms, images, stories, "ways of being" that are part of their identity and that they find worth while even after becoming Deists, Pantheists, Atheists, or whatever-ists.

You can be part of the folk, sympathetic to the general mindset, aware of the influence on your own personal history and biography and hence connected in some way to a historical or religious tradition, and not buy into the essential myth of that religion, i.e. not be
a "beleiver" of the religion in any plain and simple way.

But all organized religions have a line that cant be crossed. Whatever the zealous gardians of orthodoxy may think about it, I hold that a fair minded outsider has to agree that there is some minimum creed for each "church" such that whoever rejects that minimal creed is outside, however much he may sympathise or be historically connected. Not being a christian, I may be mistaken on this point, but somehow, not accepting the divinity of jesus seems to me to be the dividing line between someone who may,lets say, admire jesus or his teaching or the excellence of his disciples on the one hand, and an actual authentic, no kidding believer on the other.

It would be a funny hindu who didnt believe in Karma.

What sort of Mormon rejects the teachings of Joseph Smith or the authenticity of the Book of Mormon?

Bottom line. Labels either mean something or they dont.

All modern religions maintain brand standards. Fall too far short of the standard and you cant carry the brand.

Religion and marketing are not so far apart, you know.

walk2work was justified in noting abuse in my post #115. I am deeply sorry that I committed it, and have posted an apology on her profile, which you may read there. Also, I would personally appreciate it if you could ask her to forgive my intemperance sufficiently to return to this site for more civil discussion than I offered her in my post.

Christopher Riels

-126 - I absolutely see your point in personal faith, anyone can believe whatever they want and call themselves what they like, as far as I'm concerned. The problem is when people try to enforce those faith-based ideas on others, while using "Christianity" or any other mainstream religion as their justification. They invariably cherry-pick their beliefs from the available christian writings, doctrines, and philosophy, and we are supposed to trust them to decide which parts are relevant and god-inspired and which are not? In this case I think it is perfectly valid to point out the inaccuracies or inconsistencies in their religious thinking, and demand explanation for why their view of Christianity should take precedence.

I think, in the end, it is a real mistake to judge people by what they say they believe. In the first place, no one really practices 100 of what they say they believe. Second, Christianity was not, IMHO, not started through doctrine, but through example. Third, who gives flying crap what people say they believe. If they are mistreating people, I don't care whose god or lack of god they use to justify it. If they are caring for people, I really don't care a lot about whose name they do that in.

I have my own beliefs and I admit that I cherry pick. I try to stay with the stuff about compassion and acceptance and loving. I am not really good at it.

"In the first place, no one really practices 100 of what they say they believe. Second, Christianity was not, IMHO, not started through doctrine, but through example."

I'll try to address these two points together. The facts about the starting of Christianity are as follows. Beginning with the obvious, the Greek title "the Christ"--the original Greek term being "ho christos" (a literal translation of the Hebrew title "the Anointed One")--has always been attached by Christians to one person, namely Jesus, who, as virtually everyone agrees, lived a physical, flesh and blood life of a little over 30 years as human being in a particular time, place, and culture, which happen to be very remote from ours: 1st century Palestine, on the fringe of the Roman Empire in the east. Original Christianity (that is, Christianity as it got started) was in part, as you suggest, an example: namely the example of Jesus of Nazareth, the putative "Christ" or "Anointed One", which many of his contemporaries observed in passing and a few, namely the disciples, observed intimately. But it was not only his example that started Christianity: it was also his sayings and dictates that he deliberately directed his disciples and some others to believe and live by. If "the Christ" taught anything, then his teachings are certainly a fundamental part of the start of Christianity; and, since Christianity is inextricably grounded in the ancient history of an under-educated people of a very alien land and culture (whether we like it or not), the source of Christianity is a man who lived in that time and place, and we have no reason to suppose, and every reason not to suppose, that his beliefs and values will accord with those of our post-Enlightenment time and place. If the record about Jesus of Nazareth left us the impression that Jesus the Christ lived but never uttered any teaching, then it would be true that whatever he did that we could read about would constitute his "example," and that is all that we would have to inform us about the start and original nature of Christianity. It is clearly true that Jesus provided an example to those who observed his behavior; and I can show that his example itself is often far from commendable. But it is far from the case that he only lived, thus providing an example, but without ever uttering any teachings to provide more explicit instructions and doctrines to his followers. Christianity in its essence must include the teachings of "the Christ", as best as we can determine them from the Bible that Christians regard as sacred. Authentic Christianity--what Jesus taught and did so far as we an ascertain them--cannot be determined by any other means than consulting the synoptic Gospels: it is only there that the story of actual Christianity can be found. Thus, it is quite false, or at best extremely misleading, to claim that Christianity did not start "through doctrines." I am sorry, but that is a claim that has absolutely no basis; it just seemed good to say.

Someone will say: but we have no way of knowing what Jesus the Christ's doctrines were, since the only record of them is the Bible, which has passed through centuries of corrupted manuscript transmission and is not reliable. And I will answer: But the Bible is the closest record that has ever been and ever will be produced that passes down to us anything that can claim to approximate what the he taught. If we do not have a reliable record of what the Christ taught, that is certainly no reason to disregard the record we do have, however imperfect, and to pretend that he taught whatever we would like to believe and call that Christianity. What we would like to believe and live by is, in the case every decent person, something inestimably better and truer than what Jesus, "the Christ," the origin of Christianity, taught.

When we come to consult the synoptic Gospels in order to learn what original and authentic Christianity is so far as we can ascertain it, we may be astonished to find what is really there. Much of it is absolutely not anything that anyone now would care to believe or practice; and furthermore it is absolutely impossible to believe and practice it once you see what it is. Here, then, is some of what the New Testament, specifically the synoptic Gospels--the only part of the Bible that concerns itself with narrating the historical sayings and doings of Jesus "the Christ"--presents Jesus as teaching. (In the interest of time, I will not include passage citations here, but will have no problem supplying them later on request). Jesus teaches that most of humanity will go to Hell. If you doubt that, I will prove it with plenty of clear citations. One way in which he deliberately ensures that result is as follows, and very few people know this unless they have read the gospels through rather than just cherry-picked parts of them. All three synoptics report that, after Jesus addresses a large crowd in the form of unintelligible parables, his disciples tell him afterward that they do not understand what those parables meant. Jesus then reveals the meaning of the parables to his disciples in private, and adds that--please pay close attention here--he speaks in parables to the crowds for the very purpose of preventing them from understanding his message and thus "turning" and being "forgiven." He explains that this process of ensuring his hearers' damnation is necessary in order to fulfill a prophecy in the Hebrew Scriptures, which he cites. Again, I will be pleased to cite the full passages in each of the synoptics: Matthew, Mark, and Luke. Jesus also teaches that the end of this world is imminent, and will occur within the lifetime of some of those who were listening to him speak there and then, in the 1st century. He demands that you abandon your home and family (and even, at Luke 14.26, that you "hate" your family: Jesus' real "family values"), sell everything you own and give the proceeds to the poor (that may sound nice, but are you really going to do it?), and make no provisions for your next meal or day's lodging: God will provide you with all your material necessities without your lifting a finger or giving a thought for them. The only thing that matters is spreading his message before it is too late: "The time is fulfilled: Kingdom of God has come near; repent, and believe in the good news (same word as 'gospel')" (Mark 1.15, the first words he utters in his "ministry"). He teaches that if you look at a woman and feel the slightest sexual feeling as a result, it is exactly the same as committing fornication with that woman, and you are equally damnable before God. If we are looking for the starting point of Christianity, we see that it fundamentally involves doctrines taught by "the Christ," the only credible source of original Christianity; and that reading the synoptic Gospels is the closest procedure whereby we can learn even an approximation of them. And when we look at those doctrines, we see that they are mainly either atrocious or demonstrably false. (His essential doctrine, that the stars would fall and the cosmos collapse to the earth, etc., and then this world would be replaced by the Kingdom of God, and the sheep would be sent to eternal joy, and the goats to eternal fire, is an example of patent falsehood: Probably everyone of Jesus' generation has now died, and the cosmic cataclysm that he predicted, and consummation-- the end of the world itself, have pretty clearly not occurred almost 2,000 years later.) Most of our latter-day "Christians" do not care to acknowledge these tenets of Jesus, but they are recorded as his--and it is clear that they represent his teaching just as reliably--as much as the more humane and reasonable doctrines that the same Gospels attribute to him. It is now almost unanimously agreed among biblical scholars, including those with church affiliations (although perhaps only in in the company of fellow scholars who also know and acknowledge the facts), that the essence of Jesus' teaching--i.e. his euangellion: "good news", i. e., gospel-- was that this world was about to end within a few short years, and that those who were then living must, with extreme urgency, prepare themselves for that event. (A very clearly written book explaining how and why biblical scholars know this is Bart D. Ehrman, Jesus: Apocalyptic Prophet of the New Millenium. All this being so, the fact that Christians do not practice "100% of what they say they believe is hardly the issue. The case is much more extreme and untenable: they practice very little indeed of what they say they believe, and they in fact do not believe in much of it either.

You mention, and I have acknowledged, that Jesus' example, too was part of original Christianity, although far subordinate in importance to the teachings that have been passed down as his. One problem with Jesus the Christ's example is that he often commands people to do one thing and blatantly does the opposite himself. He commanded love and mercy, for example, and often treated people despicably and harshly himself. As Richard Robinson noted in An Atheist's Values, a book that has special significance in my own life: "It is a typical nemesis on blasphemy against reason that through it Jesus came to exhibit in himself or ascribe to his god some of the bad qualities against which he warned humanity. . . . While he preached to men that they should forgive, he threatened unforgiving damnation to those who disbelieved himself or his missionaries, and represented his god as going to produce weeping and gnashing of teeth. While he preached love, he showed an unloving god. . . ." (p. 152)

Hmm, I abandoned this thread for a long time, but I just wanted to add a couple things real quick:

Someone wrote, somewhere:
Very few indeed have become believers because of something they read. I have only anecdotal evidence of this, not a formal poll, but I think that's how it works.

Well, as an anecdote, I mostly became a believer through what I read. Not entirely, of course. I suppose it might be better to say that what I read opened me to the idea that becoming a believer didn't mean I also had to join the religious right or even respect them. Regardless, what I read had a great deal to do with my whole conversion.

In regards to what a faith label has to say about faith, I think what Arctic-Stranger has to say about what a person believes is mostly true.

If you quizzed me and my close friend about our beliefs at this moment we'd probably come out pretty similar. We disagree on a few things (evolution, what biblical inerrancy actually means, mostly) but we'd both come out as some sort of moderate to conservative Christian. But the churches we go to and the ways we express our faith are wildly different. Asking us what we believe in a general one or two word way, or even big creedal things, wouldn't get you much of anywhere.

Quotation:

"As someone with a non-traditional Christian belief, I find I get it from atheists for a) believing in a God and then b) not believing in the God they want me to believe in when I say I believe in God. All sorts of things get attributed, whether I actually believe it or not. And few people bother to ask questions; they just launch into something like in #115."

a. believing in a god: well, yes, you can pretty well expect at least somebody in this group to tell you that you are mistaken to believe in a god.

b. the god I (as you put it) want you to believe in

If you say that you believe in the Christian god and have Christian beliefs, then, as I have explained elsewhere on this thread, I take that to mean something fairly definite. But I find little in your statements of belief that has anything to do with Christ or distinctively Christian teaching. My criticism here is not that I "want" you to believe in a certain God; it is, rather, that I cannot let pass an expression of alleged Christian belief in the Christian god that has nothing to do with distinctive tenets that might reasonably be called Christian. It is not a matter of what I want; it is a matter of what you say about your professed Christian belief vs. any recognizable or justifiable version of Christianity.

Also, I did ask a question in # 115. It is plain to see if you read the first sentence. Unfortunately, it is so rudely expressed as to discourage a reply. But if she had had some correction or clarification to make that would have rendered null the rest of what I said, I would have been glad to know about it. And it seemed to me that, although I had question about it, I was interpreting her post with considerable accuracy, and I remarked on what I regarded as that at least somewhat accurate interpretation. I didn't just "launch into something" irrational: intemperately expressed, yes, but with real argumentative force that I still believe addressed the issues.

criels: You are very keen to have me respond to your post #115, especially the question of your first sentence:

Are you making the simple, entirely unwarranted conclusion that the fact that people believe in God or "the divine" (which I suppose you mean to be interchangeable terms) on the basis of their vague feelings proves that God exists?

No. I'm not, and I never did. But I will not get into a sparring match with you. You have clearly thought a great deal about why Christianity is bad, wrong, in error, whatever. . . but I will try to clarify my original post.

Here's the thing. The OP did not ask to be made into a Christian. If one reads my post carefully, one will see that I did not make that presumption. In fact, there is nothing in my post that suggests that I am Christian, nor is there on my profile page. So, to assume that this was my goal, is to project something that simply wasn't there.

The OP asked to have his atheism challenged. To me, that's a very general and basic request, and far different from asking to be converted to Christianity. To become Christian, there are some basic tenets of belief that are pretty essential. Modalursine and I disagree on exactly what constitutes the bottom line, but I do agree that one exists. But that's not what the OP asked, and that's not what I offered.

The reason my post seemed so vague, was that I had no goals for the OP (or any other willing reader) than simply to offer them a chance to experience Something Greater Than Themselves That Might Make Them Question. I was not suggesting that they would find evidence for the Christian God. And I find no reason to blast me for not doing so. This is an atheist group. Why would I come here and try to convert people? *Bangs head against the wall*

atheists, generally: I do recognize that I was sloppy for saying that the Divine = Infinity. But folks here tend to be rigidly hypersensitive to Christianity or anything that seems like it might be (IMHO). It's exhausting to have to continually combat the attitude that Christianity's God is the Big Bearded Guy Who Lives Above the Firmament. Christian theology moved beyond that archaic cosmology centuries ago; and the theology of the Trinity blasted the Big Guy (literal Abrahamic God) nearly 2000 years ago. I'm not talking conventional-wisdom Christianity, the over-simplified stuff you hear in the media - I'm talking academic theology, which is much more complex and nuanced than some folks here give it credit for. Please try to keep in mind that this is LT - as I said in my post #50: the folks here . . . {are} either intelligent or well-educated or both. Please do not treat us like ignorant hicks. We don't do that to you.

I am glad I got this thread re-invigorated with my somewhat provocative statements ;-)

Will read & respond, but got to run to teach...

>134 criels:

~shaking my head over this entire thread~

Criels, why do you get to be the one to define what Arctic means when he says he is a Christian? He knows what he believes, and for whatever reason, he chooses to call his particular set of beliefs Christianity.

I think I may have a vague understanding of what Artic means, but in a different context. I haven't eaten meat in many many years, but I absolutely love fish and shellfish (basically anything that can be dragged out of the water). I don't consume eggs as eggs, but I don't mind if they are hidden in baked goods. I don't drink milk at all, but I do eat some kinds of cheese, and I choke down some yogurt on a fairly regular basis for the calcium. I don't make a big issue out of it, but if someone notices that I am not eating meat, and asks if I am a vegetarian, I usually say yes, because it is easier than explaining my finicky taste, which they don't really want to hear about anyway.

Every once in a while, someone who thinks I am a vegetarian will see me eating fish, and will get all confrontational because a "real" vegetarian does not eat fish. If that person is a meat eater, they will say that I am not a "real" vegetarian, so why not eat meat? And if that person is a vegan, they will tell me what a terrible monster I am to be eating fish. But see, I don't need to have a label for my diet...I just eat what I like. But some people insist upon labeling it, and then having labeled it, they want me to abide by whatever they understand that label to mean. Sorry, life is too short.

-138 - So you aren't really a vegetarian in any sense of the word, so why wouldn't you expect people to be confused when you call yourself one? You are labeling yourself with a term that has a concrete definition, and people are completely justified to assume that they know what it means and what in turn it means about you. They aren't justified in questioning your preferences, but they are justified in questioning your self-identification. How hard is it to just say that you eat what you prefer to eat?

I think that is actually an excellent example of the problem we are discussing on this thread. If you involved in a discussion about theology, you can expect to be questioned when your self-identified religion bears little resemblance to your personal beliefs, and I think you can also expect that the person to whom you are talking is sufficiently interested in the matter that you can bother to explain what you believe specifically, rather than relying on an ill-fitted label. Just like you could tell a person who is interested in your "vegetarianism" that you are really just not a fan of meat, though you love seafood. If you withhold that info, then obviously the person speaking to you is not going to be able to carry on a relevant discussion.

>139 jlelliott:

But that's what I said. I don't call myself a vegetarian. If someone asks why I don't eat meat, I will tell them that I don't like it. If they insist upon having a label, vegetarian is probably as close as any, as I don't eat fish more than a couple of times per week. Totally off topic, but when I vacationed in New Zealand, I was surprised to find that they use the term "vegetarian" to mean my kind of diet - no meat, all the fish you want, and some dairy. Maybe I should really confuse them and tell them I am a New Zealand vegetarian.

I'm a vegetarian, but other people's labels tend not to bother me much. Some meat eaters are still gonna ask me "But don't you eat fish/turkey/moose?" when I tell them I'm a vegetarian. :D

I think one of the problems/issues with huge, global religions, such as Christianity, Islam and Buddhism, is that there are so many sects, varieties and flavors, some of them virtually in direct opposition to one another in terms of belief and practice. An adherent can use the label, but further clarification is usually required to learn exactly what s/he means by it.

Why, you culinary heretic!

All criels can really say is that I don't correspond very well to HIS idea or Traditional Christianity.

I pray to the God Jesus spoke about in the Gospels. I sometimes pray to Jesus. Pray in the name of Jesus, but not always. I see the face of Jesus (sometimes) in the faces of the people I meet on a regular basis.

I read the Hebrew and Greek scriptures, and believe that they are somehow inspired--not every word, for that would make it some kind of idol, something we can safely put on a shelf and revere. I believe it is inspired when people interact with it.

I believe that God is a being who is beyond our immediate comprehension. For me God is like music; I cannot read notes, so the hows and whys are really beyond me, but I can sing a bit (not well) and I love to listen. The fact that I cannot understand music theory does not stop me from appreciating music, and the fact that, in spite of my theological training, I don't understand God, does not stop me from enjoying a relationship with God.

I believe Jesus hit the nail on the head when he said the most important thing we can do is to love God and love our neighbor. The really tricky part is how we define that love. Some people are pretty good at it. Others...not so good. But deep down, I think we know when we have been loved, and maybe that is the true test.

I don't think I have all the answers, or even very many of them. I don't really believe in answers all that much anymore. I had too many of them at one time in my life, and most of them turned out to be wrong. I don't believe the Bible has all the answers either. Nor do I even think it is a book of answers--more a book of some really good questions. (Which might explain my frustration at the Job thread, where people are looking at Job for answers--there are none to be found there.)

I worship weekly at a Quaker meeting house. I live for that. It is one of the best parts of my week. Although I am an ordained Presbyterian minister, I am very active with the Quakers.

I pray with a lot of patients at the hospital. Some are Christians, and some are not. I pray with them as they need it.

I occasionally do zazen at our local Zen Center. I don't see how that interferes with any of my Christian beliefs. In fact, it enhances them at times.

I don't think it is my place to tell others where they are sinning. I think it is my place to look at my own life, and see where I am sinning. And I am a hypocrit. I don't practice what I preach. Not enough, anyway. But then, I don't believe that belief negates our humanity.

Belief, to me, is not finding a set of tenets we find tenable, but more a matter of lining up our lives with The Big Things that are Far Beyond. For me, that is God.

BTW observation about what it means to call yourself "Christian":

While it may be generally true that You are labeling yourself with a term that has a concrete definition, and people are completely justified to assume that they know what it means and what in turn it means about you. If I call myself Christian, I am probably also meaning to say that I am not Hindu, Muslim, or Shinto. But it might not. In many other cultures -- as close as Mexico -- it is not at all odd to find folks who follow more than one "religion" and do not see any contradiction there.

Let me demonstrate how there are so many sects, varieties and flavors, some of them virtually in direct opposition to one another, that the label Christian is not as concrete as one may think. I went to www.beliefnet.com and took their Belief-O-Matic quiz. It's a fun little quiz that attempts to locate your beliefs among the world's religions (including secular humanism). I took it and used the most extreme answers within my personal belief bracketing (relying on my science background, and not allowing any of what might be called "superstitious" beliefs). I still came out as Liberal Quaker, which I'm guessing most folk would identify as Christian.

This is not to say that the label has no meaning. It just might not mean all that people think it means.

Edited to add (sorry for the length): I realized that this demonstration won't mean anything unless I tell you what the "extreme personal belief bracketing" consisted of. I am a panentheist and subscribe to process theology (this is true). There followed, for the purposes of this demonstration: No personal being called God exists, or if it does, evidence for its discernable "body" would lie outside the observable universe. Since that can't be known, is not a belief tenet. That being said, there can be no incarnation, so Jesus is not God, nor the Son of God in any way other than that we are all "Children of the Universe." There is no such thing as Original Sin or the Devil; nor do we become "saved" by Jesus' death. In fact, maybe nothing happens after we die, except that our energy and molecules recycle in the physical world. (There are other questions, but this is the gist of the heavy theology location.)

And still I came out as Liberal Quaker. So why do I call myself a Christian? you are probably asking. First of all, because I don't always have such an extreme faith position. For example, when I pray, I pray as if someone really is listening, as if the universe itself is aware (that's the process theology). More importantly, I call myself Christian because I am so passionately moved by the life, ministry, and death of Jesus of Nazareth, who is called the Christ, that I want to model my life after his selflessness and intentional relationship to the Divine. That his personal understanding of divinity differs from mine, does not change my conviction me that he and I are/were awed and in love with something significant and worthy of reverence.

Oregon: May I suggest pescetarian? Though it may require a definition for many people, which would seem to eliminate the usefulness of a handy label...

-140 I guess I assume that if you answer yes to the question "are you a vegetarian" you do in fact consider yourself to be a vegetarian. As an aside, people in South/Central America have the same understanding of what "vegetarian" means as do New Zealanders - it just means you don't eat beef.

-142 Thanks for elaborating, it is always nice to hear people's personal philosophies. Sounds pretty Christian to me ;o)

jlelliott:

Thank you for your exemplary and concise restatement and defense of the greater part of what I have been trying to get across all this time(#139). I regard the point as perfectly obvious, and do not understand how anyone else can fail to do so. Others on this thread, however, will never accept the point, and we are thus at a total impasse with them on the subject of God's existence and the related issues here. We regard this point--essentially that labels that people use to characterize their beliefs, their practices, and their very selves should convey some reasonably definite meaning that the listener should be able to understand from that term in order to enable mutually comprehensible communication--as obvious and fundamental to meaningful and productive dialogue. We are being criticized for assuming that religious labels have the meanings that they may perfectly reasonably be understood to bear. Let it be noted emphatically that I am not saying that a label should convey every detail of an individual person's beliefs, for it is precisely in the details that discussion is required. I am saying only that a person's self-adopted label should provide a reasonably definite framework that encompasses certain fundamental ideas without which the label is inappropriate and, at best, misleading. At least, if someone uses a label in a way that is clearly outside the scope of the meaning that the label ordinarily bears, then, to avoid the certain misunderstanding and miscommunication that will ensue, the user of that label should tell us that his or her understanding of that label is eccentric and state what his or her understanding of that label is. In any case, basic mutual understanding of the very concept to be discussed is an absolute prerequisite to discussion. There can be no meaningful discussion where the interlocutors are supposing that they are arguing about the same idea when they are really arguing about totally different ideas. And that is part of what is happening here.

Oregon: one point. You note that you do not initiate the labeling of yourself as vegetarian: you only use it as shorthand, when you are asked the question specifically and the conversation is brief, for what you think it can reasonably be understood to mean. But the situation is different with several other people on this thread: some participants here actively and voluntarily label themselves as Christians, and even more label themselves as believers in God. Thus they are taking on even more of an obligation to convey a reasonably definite idea of, respectively, either Christianity or theism.

criels, et. al. I understand now your frustration. Here is what I see as the problem. Christian theology has been written and developed for approximately 1700 years since the Biblical canon was closed. It has not been immune to the Enlightenment, quantum physics, post-modernism, or any of the other major world-shattering intellectual developments of the past 250 years or so. There simply is no global, authoritative Christian theology, much as one might long for one (personally, I don't).

So here's my proposal for the basic meaning when someone calls themselves Christian: "The life of Jesus of Nazareth is critically important to my personal faith." That's it. That's about the only thing that all self-identified Christians can be expected to have in common, when it comes to personal theology.

I offer a suggestion: Since we are really talking about several different questions, and thus talking past each other to little good end, it might be a good idea to specify and discuss one or more of the actual topics that we are talking about and concentrate specifically on those. It seems to me that the following might be good choices. (This list is not intended to be exhaustive.)

Is it moral or immoral to argue the falsehood of God, or a particular God, or a particular person's idea of God?

What / Who do we mean by God?

What is Christianity?

Are some ideas true and some things real in fact, independent of any person's mind, and others false and others unreal independent of any person's mind? Or is there no objective reality, so that the only "reality" is merely subjective, i. e., what goes on in each individual person's mind?

If we assume that there is reality independent of what goes on in each individual's mind, does God or any particular god or version of God exist?

walk2work:

Thank you for your overlooking my rudeness to the extent that you came to understand my genuine concern, and for your gracious, acute, and productive statements in posts 147 and 143, which I did not see until after I posted no. 146, where you did exactly what I was calling for there (and 147, which I still recommend as a useful proposal). The kind of statements and clarifications you offered are exactly the kind of contributions that we need in order to conduct successful and meaningful dialogue, and I suggest that your post no. 147 is a good starting point for further discussion.

#116

I was not relabeling judgment as a feeling. I maintain that any decision you have ever made about a question of truth, be it accepting atheism, theism or 1+1=2 was an emotional decision. The brain, awash with chemicals, is not a linear computing machine. Every time you make a decision about a matter of truth you cannot build a logical house of cards from all the basic axioms, sense data and language atoms (does it depends on what the meaning "is" is anyone?). You may reflect and reason for a while, but at some point, when it feels right you stop and accept the truth.

#118

dchaikin: I did not mean to imply there are no philosophical reasons to look for god. I'm asking the question because I don't see the reasons - specifically for someone like me. It's a real question, not rhetorical.

So your reason for not seeking reasons for God is not philosophical. Not rational then but emotional?

#151 "So your reason for not seeking reasons for God " - How did you get this from what I've written?

(edited to remove snarky remark)

The story so far. darrow asks "an anyone suggest a book that I should read which will make me doubt my atheism?". Many chip in with interesting suggestions. Some others doubt the utility of the question. Some on the grounds that no book can do the job; the atheists because all arguments for God are known to be false, some theists because the Divine can only be approached in other mystical ways. A few asides about labels and their appropriate uses ...

Oh... I thought of another book to recommend. Raymond M. Smullyan's The Tao is Silent. Smullyan has written many books about logic puzzles, but this one is a logician's view of religion. Funny and enlightening. You can find the chapter where Mortal argues with God about why he wasn't given a choice about whether he is given free will or not, online at http://www.mit.edu/people/dpolicar/writing/prose/text/godTaoist.html.

#152

My remark sort of flowed from #116. You did not mean to imply there are no philosophical reasons to look for god. I assumed that you meant that there are philosophical reasons to look for god but that you choose not to follow them. I also assumed that as your reasons were not philosophical, the basis of your decision must be emotional.

It is very helpful to have your summary here. I think, as I indicated above, that it would be a good idea to step back and decide on a topic that we can agree to stay on. I recommend that we consider my suggestions at no. 148.

In the meantime, I recommend the following proposition, sung by the Monkees three (oops, four: showing my age) decades ago:

"Then I saw her face /
Now I'm a believer"

criels: This thread is doing fine - they always wander around. If you have a particular topic you'd like to focus on, just start a new thread.

Allrighty. I'm going to step back and watch for a while. (I know, unanimous disappointment.)

#143, #148

I tried out the Belief-O-Matic(TM) and apparently I am 100% Confused. The only thing I am definitely not is Taoist, which is a disappointment. But it did give me an idea: maybe criels questions (148) could be reworked to form the basis of a Disbelief-O-Matic(TM) to find out what sort of disbeliever you are (and maybe, in the spirit of the OP's question, suggest a cure :o) ).

rrp Did it actually come up with "100% Confused" as a type? If so, how bizarre! I've never seen that on my list of potential matches. Or was it that in your opinion it grossly wrongly categorized you?

That I could believe, since Belief-O-Matic does presume that everyone must be something and in my experience it can categorize on very slim evidence, indeed. For example, it seems that if you answer just one question in the positive (the one about intercessory methods like crystals, mediums, etc.) you will be categorized as New Age, pretty much regardless of what your other answers are.

I think rrp is joking. ;-) I always comes up with the same categories and gives percentages. But it is confusing how to answer a lot of the questions, unless you are a true believer in *something*.

I came up as secular humanist or unitarian (both 100%). My Catholic roots sunk to a lowly 16% just above Jehova's witness (12%)

I think the Belief-o-Matic has a harder time with non-dogmatic religions.

When I was a Unitarian Universalist, I seemed always to show up as a Taoist or a Quaker, even though UU was an option.

I think it's roughly true now (Mainline to Conservative Protestant) though I think there are a lot of Conservative Christians who wouldn't recognize me as their own.

Of course, I still score really high on Quaker. Maybe that's really where I belong, but I kind of doubt it.

I'm thinking that maybe the title of the site-- Belief-o-Matic--suggests parody. Religion is known for being a complex issue. And now there is a tendency to look for immediate and simple answers to things, often through dependence on information technology, which, as many thinking persons would agree, is an inadequate way of dealing with philosophical questions. So this title, which, to me, looks flippant on its face, suggests what might be a kind of parody: "This site is here to instantly determine exactly what percentage of what religious groups' doctrines you espouse by processing your answers to some superficial, canned, vague / ambiguous questions." I've never seen the site, so I'm just surmising.

(Sorry if somebody else has already said as much.)

I don't know if it is parody or not, but pity the person who took it too seriously!

#163

Oh Belief-o-Matic is entirely serious. They even have a legal disclaimer. "Warning: Belief-O-Matic assumes no legal liability for the ultimate fate of your soul."

That would count as evidence, wouldn't it.

There is an element of lightheartedness about the Belief-O-Matic, yes. It's meant to give you a quick-and-dirty something to think about. It certainly is not designed to vet anyone's particular set of beliefs. It's not like taking the little quiz enrolls you in a particular faith community, for goose's sake.

But the website that hosts it, Beliefnet.com is definitely a serious undertaking, intended to give folks a place to talk about their faith, peacefully and with openness across interfaith lines.

Ref #139

Hope this isnt too much of a stretch; but I'm reminded of a line from "Rock and Roll" (Stoppard)....

"I'm a vegetarian, but I'm allowed Lamb Chops because I'm a EuroVegetarian"

I'm a chicke-fishe-tarian with occasional grilled burger deviations.

Can you be a moose-aterian? Or a Caribouterian?

Yes, if you only eat moose and vegetables.

What if you eat only Moose Tracks and Caramel Caribou ice cream?

Robert

Hhhmmm.

If it fits down my neck and stays down, I eat it.

As long as we're disclosing dietary choices, I don't use animal products. Pretty straightforward, until you get to the microscopic level, where I have little to no control or choice.

Chesterton is fun. A little dated, but some of what he said is relevant, such as...

"It is not a question between mysticism and rationality. It is a question between mysticism and madness. For mysticism, and mysticism alone, has kept men sane from the beginning of the world. All the straight roads of logic lead to some Bedlam, to Anarchism or to passive obedience, to treating the universe as a clockwork of matter or else as a delusion of mind. It is only the Mystic, the man who accepts the contradictions, who can laugh and walk easily through the world."

Since you have provided no commentary or introduction as to your own views about this piece, I will assume what I think is probable: that you approve of it and mean it as a straightforward argument directed against us unbelievers in Christianity. Would there but world enough and time, I would answer this argument, which is a very typical one of countless of its kind, in detail. Unfortunately, I have spent so great a portion of my weary life addressing other articles of this nature and quality that I cannot keep it up and have time or energy left for any other pursuits.

This article is but one specimen of countless absurd, false, and transparent efforts of "Biblical" theologians to obscure and deny what is obvious to anyone who is not antecedently determined to believe in something they can call "Christianity." Chesterton, however excellent he may be among ostensible exponents of the Bible, is not arguing in favor of what he has learned from the Bible, but is rather doing his best to obscure and deny the patent teachings of the Bible in order to pretend that they are morally, epistemologically, or otherwise superior to anything that mere human beings can approximate. What Chesterton and so many others of his orientation (notice that I avoided saying "ilk") do in putatively interpreting the Bible and Christianity is astonishingly dishonest, irrational, and condescending: they pretend that our secular, more advanced, post-Enlightenment ideas and values are really Christian ones; and, if you bother to read the Bible, or at least the New Testament (all of it, not cherry-picked parts of it shorn from their context, which you have probably been made somewhat aware of by "Christian believers") and pay attention to what it actually says (not what "Christian believers" or books or other sources told you it means) you will see that it is not a book that you would ever believe or try to live by.

I have taken some trouble and time to present you with some commentary here, as you did not do for us. You can find numerous posts of mine in this group's forum that present some of my own refutations of the line of thought that you are recommending. Thus, I have given a substantial, although necessarily not complete, account of my reasons for rejecting Christianity. I hope that you will present your Christian beliefs to us so that we can consider them. (For my part, I will be equally glad to do so publicly or privately. I just want to help you learn.) In order to prepare best for the discussion and maximize your knowledge and strength in argument, I recommend that you read at least one published refutation of one of your renowned and most sophisticated recent theologians: a good example is Chapter 14 of The Miracle of Theism: Arguments for and Against the Existence of God by J. L. Mackie. But what is indispensable and essential is that you read preferably the entire Bible or at least the New Testament with the intention of learning what it has to say rather than what countless "interpreters" and other "Christians" have believed or claimed is says.

Again, I will be glad to engage in an open, honest, good- faith dialogue with you about the Bible or any related Christian topic. I just need to know that, first, you have enough knowledge to explain your own beliefs in an informed way. I no longer have the time or energy to argue meaningfully against a whole presentation like Chesterton's because there are so many false and misleading statements it that there is no real argument to refute: I could only address a series of random, disconnected falsehoods posing as argument. And I have found that trying to pick apart writings like that, in addition to being a protracted and arduous task, is almost always a waste of so much serious exertion.

criels. I think you need to lighten up a bit. We know you don't believe, and that is fine. But you are not doing a lot to enhance conversation here. Your last paragraph could easily be read as, "I will only talk with you if you agree with me," which is probably not what you mean, but it in no way makes me want to engage you in any discussion.

Arctic-Stranger:

I'll be uncharacteristically brief.

"We know you don't believe, and that is fine. But you are not doing a lot to enhance conversation here."

1) If you have the impression that what I have posted amounts more or less to a repeated announcement that I "don't believe," then we have serious, and probably intractable, difficulty communicating with each other. I have contributed many important and trenchant facts and ideas to the discussions here that are the fruits of extensive learning and careful thought that has taken serious account of various points of view. Where the topic is theism, especially but not entirely Christian theism, I do not see how these contributions can fail to "enhance conversation here." Further, my arguments have been very rigorous and clearly and precisely presented; that deserves more credit than you are giving them. It seems to me that the only way in which you could have missed this fact is by failing to read my comments with sufficient understanding or by reading them under the influence of a strong predisposition to regard my points and evidence as unworthy of consideration because of your sense of their offensive nature.

2) "Your last paragraph could easily be read as, 'I will only talk with you if you agree with me,' which is probably not what you mean. . . ."

Not only is that not what I mean, but I see no way in which the words of that paragraph can be honestly interpreted to mean this. I would appreciate your demonstrating how anything in the paragraph could suggest that meaning.

3) "It in no way makes me want to engage you in any discussion."

If you continue to respond to my posts only with the approach that you seem currently to be exercising, then I could live with that result.

I'd say Chesterton is a lot dated, but we've been over that before.

He has some good rants against vegetarianism. Look for “The Logical Vegetarian” and “Honesty in Vegetarianism.” Amusing even to a teetotaling vegetarian.

criels: Arctic and I disagree on many things but I agree with him on this point: "You need to lighten up a bit". Getting up on your high horse and demanding responses will not work in this forum. Cool it, please.

I'll do better than that. I'll leave. I don't stay where I'm not wanted.

I'll do better than that. I'll leave. I don't stay where I'm not welcome.

I wouldn't say that you're not welcome criels, it's just that you've missed the tone of this forum just slightly. While we do discuss a lot of serious issues, we usually take a light-hearted approach. Occasionally it can descend into mud-flinging, and sometimes the views can get a little heated and occasionally offensive, but generally the tone is light.

While I understand that you have issues with religion, Christianity in particular, it is worth remembering that everyone here has different views and we attempt to engage in discussion respectfully (with the occasional noticeable exception). It's not so much a place to denigrate religion as to discuss beliefs and non-beliefs and enjoy a place where we can freely question our own and others' assumptions without rancour.

I hope you come back. You have a lot to contribute and have obviously spent a great deal of time considering these issues. Just remember to bring your sense of humour and the respect we should all have for each other.

So who's gonna help me blow rasberries at the believers?

you are on your own sucker.

I just have one question for you--do you feel lucky today, punk?

Chesterton's argument is interesting, at least to me. He is not saying that Christianity is true so much as that it is necessary, because there can't be moral behavior without religious belief -- and to that he appends some not very serious arguments that Christianity is the ultimate religion, because a culture that can follow the thread of Christian religious doctrine is going to be smart enough to invent technology, and the other religions are too simple minded for that. In condensing his viewpoint on why Christianity is superior when contrasted with other religions, I am distorting it I am sure, but what did I miss?

So -- Is Christianity, or a similarly oriented on a moral code, necessary? The alternatives Chesterton gives are (a) determinism -- which says that there can be no morals because there is no choice, or (b) morals derived from nature ... but nature is below us, and filled with behaviors which we should reject, or (c) nihilism, where nothing has meaning, except via pretense.

I claim that one can derive a code of moral behavior independent of religion ... but I find that I am on mushy ground. As an agnostic, I have strong beliefs about right and wrong -- but I wonder if they would be the same if I were not the product of a Christian society. I doubt that I could derive them de novo via logic and empirical observation. We see throughout history examples of very orderly and productive societies that did not share my moral perceptions at all.

> addendum -- We also see in history Christian societies that did not have my moral beliefs either. So Christianity is only part of their origin. So is the enlightenment, and the technological world in which we live.

I claim that one can derive a code of moral behavior independent of religion ... but I find that I am on mushy ground.

The Dalai Lama has some interesting things to say on the subject of morality, independent of religion, in Ethics for the New Millennium.

To go back to the original question "what will make me doubt my atheism?", I think the answer depends somewhat on the type of atheist you are, implicit or explicit, weak or strong, evangelical or moderate etc. There seem to be as many strands of atheism as there are religions, but most atheists seem lonely (there are few atheist congregations) and so resist being characterized. One common theme though seems to be a tendency to scientism. However, I think the key word in the original question is "doubt". Do atheists doubt less than theists? There is, after all, a central concept of "faith" in theology. I think the key first step to recovery for an atheist is to admit that, at the foundation of any philosophy, there are truths that must be taken on trust; truths that cannot be proved by either experience or reason. We all base our philosophies on acts of faith and faith admits doubt.

rrp, define philosophy, because, to me, scientific method isn't a philosophy. Its a an investigation style.

MrsHeisenberg

"philosophy: the study of the fundamental nature of knowledge, reality, and existence"

But I am wondering what the purpose of your question is. I don't think I mentioned the scientific method (and I'll resist the temptation to ask you to define it). Are you saying that the scientific method is somehow independent or immune from philosophical investigation? Or that its results are?

>Are you saying that the scientific method is somehow independent or immune from philosophical investigation? Or that its results are?


Certainly not. In your post #190 you mentioned scientism, and seem to indicate that science is a philosophy. I don't think that it is. Maybe I should ask for a definition of "truths" first. I take it you mean something other than verifiable data in the material world.

> Maybe I should ask for a definition of "truths" first.

Ah, there's the rub! To define truth. Certainly "something other than verifiable data in the material world". Take mathematical truths for instance.

Scientism ("excessive belief in the power of scientific knowledge and techniques") seems to be a worldview (I wouldn't credit it with the label philosophy) that is common among atheists. Science, as a powerful epistemological method, is distinct from scientism.

Maybe for some atheists, the path to a cure will be to persuade them to doubt their certainty about some aspects of "truth". A difficult task to be sure, but perhaps worthwhile. For, others, it may be enough to point out the errors of scientism. Of course, many are of a harmless denomination and can be safely left in peace, apart from an occasional recreational discussion about the nature of "truth".

#194 Mathematical theorems can be proven.

I'm waiting for a solid example of scientism, and a "truth."

I am not sure why examples are needed, though I am happy to oblige. I would say that if you declare that science is the source of all truths, you are guilty of Scientism. As for an example, I am sure Richard Dawkins isn't guilty, but he sure seems to play it close to the line.

As for an example of a "truth" will "1+1=2" do? Or how about "There are questions that science cannot answer"? (and to anticipate a follow-up, an example of a question that science cannot answer is "What is truth?")

I have done quite a bit of thinking on the subject (I studied philosophy in college and am a scientist) I am confident that science is a philosophy. As rrp said, a philosophy is merely a method of inquiry, an attempt at explaining what truth there may be in the universe. There are also many philosophical ideas that you have to accept without evidence before you can start working on the knowledge-gaining process of science (for example - that the world/universe is a real place, that causality is real, other slightly esoteric ideas).

I think "scientism" (what an ugly word by the way, where did you find it?) is a myth - I've never met anyone who thought science could answer all questions. Science can never answer questions with any value judgment (determining if it is right or good to do something - science can only anticipate the possible effects of actions but cannot imbue them with value and thus cannot differentiate them alone without input from some value system). Not to mention all the questions that science not only cannot answer, but does not regard as meaningful questions (why questions - such as "Why is there a universe?", etc).

Scientism is "excessive belief in the power of scientific knowledge and techniques". Believing that science can answer all questions is just a sufficient test for membership. Anyway, all this scientism stuff is a little off track.

The important point, is that we admit, like jlelliott that there are some truths that must be accepted without evidence. In other words, on faith.

#196 and #197 So if I'm understanding you, truths = an argument's premise.

For instance 1+1=2 is axiom (mathematical premise), but 1+1 does not equal 2 in a binary system, it equals 10.

The problem that I have with the word "truths" is that it sounds like something ordained from on high rather than what it is - a foundation laid to simplify a model or an experiment - a product of our own invention, like a number system.

If you define a species as a a group of organisms capable of interbreeding and producing fertile offspring does it's definition become a "truth?"

I think "scientism" (what an ugly word by the way, where did you find it?) is a myth - I've never met anyone who thought science could answer all questions.

Agreed

-rrp - These philosophical ideas aren't really accepted on faith, because science clearly works - we see the evidence of that all around us, in the technologies that makes our lives easier and in the theories that accurately predict events in the natural world. We cannot prove that there is a real world, but assuming that there is yields clear results.

#199

OK, I agree "scientism" is an ugly word; but it isn't a myth, it's a label.

I think you agreed that "There are questions that science cannot answer" is a truth (I must admit I am not sure) and cannot work out how that truth fits with your definition. Though it does sound intriguing, I don't see how it throws any light on my point that there are some "truths" that must be accepted without evidence. Maybe your definition is that "truth" concerns only those things for which we have experimental evidence? For myself, I recognize that there are limitations to my reason and that understanding truth probably comes into that category.

#200 Ah, you are a pragmatist. Doesn't your argument open the door to the argument that "We cannot prove that God exists, but assuming that he does yields clear results (at least to some people)." Just because it works, doesn't make it true, just useful. I think "faith" is a good label for believing things for which you have no evidence, but am not worried if you want to call it something different. The important point is that there are things for which you use a justification other than experiential evidence to decide their truth.

I think you agreed that "There are questions that science cannot answer" is a truth

I think that what they'd say would be something more along the lines of "There are some things we can not know." rather than "There are truths that we must accept without evidence."

#201
rrp, I think I'm having trouble with trying to understand the "truths" thing. I keep expecting you to come up with some moral absolute. That isn't what you mean though, right?

From my perspective, theists have a high degree of discomfort with ambiguity. Somehow its too uncomfortable for some to say "I don't know." As in, I don't know how the universe started, and so God becomes a kind of place holder for "I don't know."

#202 Or I would say "there are things beyond the grasp of our monkey brain, but this is not to say that they are in any way 'supernatural.'"

I'm reminded of one of Feynman's quotes -

"God was invented to explain mystery. God is always invented to explain those things that you do not understand. Now, when you finally discover how something works, you get some laws which you're taking away from God; you don't need him anymore. But you need him for the other mysteries. So therefore you leave him to create the universe because we haven't figured that out yet; you need him for understanding those things which you don't believe the laws will explain, such as consciousness, or why you only live to a certain length of time -- life and death -- stuff like that. God is always associated with those things that you do not understand. Therefore I don't think that the laws can be considered to be like God because they have been figured out. "

- 201 I have certainly never denied that some people find religion useful, and I agree that that utility in no way makes it true.

I do think it is important to differentiate a belief based on physical reality that cannot be defended from all arguments (For example, the existence of dinosaurs can be countered by suggesting there is an all-powerful god who put those fossils there to fool with our minds. This idea is ridiculous but cannot really be disproved, so by believing in dinosaurs you are in a way taking it on faith that there is no devious all powerful god. Arguments against the existence of the world and causality are similarly unlikely but impossible to reject.) and beliefs that are not based on any reality. It is also not helpful to think of a simple dichotomy of "true" beliefs versus false beliefs. Belief in dinosaurs and belief in the existence of fairies are both beliefs taken on faith, but they are by no means equal in validity.
Scientists are always ratcheting their ideas closer towards "truth" (probably best defined as "consistency with the physical world" for scientists), though aware that perfection is unlikely ever to be reached.

Which brings more from Feynman, this time from The Pleasure of Finding Things Out -

The scientist has a lot of experience with ignorance and doubt and uncertainty, and this of great importance, I think. When a scientist doesn't know the answer to a problem, he is ignorant. When he has a hunch as to what the result is, he is uncertain. And when he is pretty darn sure of what the result is going to be, he is in doubt. We have found it of paramount importance that in order to progress we must recognize the ignorance and leave room for doubt. Scientific knowledge is a body of statements of varying degrees of certainty - some most unsure, some nearly sure, none ABSOLUTELY certain.

#186 Don't worry I'm here.

Chesterton was really good on Dickens, and wrote a fab poem on the Battle of Lepanto. His Christian writing is, of course, rubbish.

I claim that the existence or non existence of God (as professed or "understood" by most Americans) is largely an empirical question. There either is or is not sufficient evidence to think the "god" hypotheses likely.

As an atheist, I can think of only two things that might change my mind, neither of them very likely to happen.

1. Show me theoretically/logically that my criteria for "sufficient" evidence is too restrictive and that the "evidence" which has so far been brought forward is more than simply laughable.

2. Show me some new (or heretofore un remarked) objective evidence that "wows" me and that stands up to honest scrutiny after the initial "oh wow! man, the colors" experience.

Actually, thats the same criteria as for convincing me of fairies, unicorns and yetis.

I am getting the impression of some healthy doubting here.

#203 MrsHeisenberg "there are things beyond the grasp of our monkey brain"
#205 jlelliott "Belief in dinosaurs and belief in the existence of fairies are both beliefs taken on faith"
#206 Jesse_wiedinmyer from Feynman "Scientific knowledge is a body of statements of varying degrees of certainty - some most unsure, some nearly sure, none ABSOLUTELY certain"
(and yes, I know I cut the first two quotes off before their important qualification statements.) These are things I agree with wholeheartedly.

Moving away from the needle from hard over on "certain" to just a modicum of "doubt" is a (tiny) step in the right direction and leaves a little room for maneuver.

I would alter MrsHeisenberg's ambiguity to a more general uncertainty. I don't think there are uncertainties just at the outer edges of science but also at the inner core, at the foundations, in concepts such as causality and the validity of empirical evidence. Science is expressed in a combination of language and mathematics. Language is fuzzy at its core, mathematics can never be complete.

But you continually ignore the fact that not all doubt is the same. Obviously the amount of doubt we have in the existence of dinosaurs is far less than that in the existence of fairies. Science is a thought process based on doubt, as almost all scientists accept, and you aren't accomplishing anything by pointing that out without also accepting that science aims to continually minimize doubt through analysis of physical evidence.

I'll agree with #210.

Oh agree entirely that there are degrees of doubt; I am not ignoring it, that's why I used the words modicum and tiny. All I am saying is that a modicum of doubt is a step in the right direction. A tiny crack can grow, with a little patience and work. If you doubt even just a little, we can have a reasonable conversation about where to draw the line between doubt and certainty.

And yes, I agree that science does seem to continually minimize doubt through analysis of physical evidence (it's funny how there is always more to know though). My other point, which I think we have agreed on, is that science has its limits; there are some doubts that science cannot minimize, in particular metaphysical questions at its foundation. And maybe fundamental questions at its edge too.

Language is fuzzy at its core, mathematics can never be complete.

Bollocks and cobblers.

Well that's constructive. Which is which?

Almost totally off-topic ... every time I read the thread title "Make me a believer" I have a Rocky Horror moment ... as Dr. Frank-N-Furter sings:

"So come up to the lab
And see what's on the slab
I see you shiver with antici...
...pation"

Or, more accurately, the stanza preceding that.

Heh ...

 

BTRIPP, be careful. That stanza would seem to support creationism.

Reading all this parsing of the concepts of truth, certainty, and doubt, remind me of my personal version of Pascal's wager -- or at least, what little I know of Pascal's wager.

Given the "unknowable" aspect of the definition of God, it is impossible for me to know with perfect certainty whether God really exists. But of this much I am pretty certain: my believing in a non-existent god will not cause that god to come into existence; and my unbelief will not cause an existing god to cease to exist.*

*I am aware that some philosophical systems would disagree with this.

There are consequences to being wrong in either case; but as for me, I will continue to follow my experience in the matter, and continue to believe.

Hello to all. This room was recommended by a friend as a room for some good debate. My friend is an athiest and said I would find some very interesting people here. Since I am a Christian (most would call me a fundamentalist) I would like to engage in some of that debate. I will not try to convert anyone (unless they want to be converted). If no one has an objection I would like to touch on the subjects posted in the first 50 or so messages. Most of those touched on books defending Christianity without using a Scriptural basis. If I am not intruding into an ongoing conversation about something else I would like to put my two cents worth in. Thanks for your time.

>218 greghendrix:

Did you make an argument or just say you would like to make an argumemt? Go ahead, man--if people minded civil argument they wouldn't be here.

Rather than revive this thread it might be a good idea to start a new one and link back to this one, though. After over 200 comments, threads begin to load slowly for some users.

You might want to post in the group Pro and Con (Religion) instead of here. It was set up to be more along the lines of debate while Happy Heathens is basically non-believer oriented.

I dont have a list (google "source amnesia") but I seem to remember reading about people who say that reading this or that (no specifics, sorry) has started them doubting, or has convinced them that traditional belief is on shaky ground, or in some way has contributed to their atheism.

I have a hard time remembering anyone saying that reading a book had started them on the road to theism, starting from a fairly stable atheist position.

"Tolle ledge " doenst count, it just helped our boy change from one church to another.

If I had to guess, I'ld say wider experience and more learning, especially in science and history, tends to lead people to more atheism. The best correlate of a "turn toward religion" would be heavy drugs or traumatic personal experience.

Here are some books I would recomend to help Athiests move on:
Further Along the Road Less Travelled by Scott M Peck
The Alchemist by Paulo Coelho
The Life Game by Nigel Watts
Candide by Voltaire

#221

Isn't C.S. Lewis the classic example of an atheist who turned to theism, and I am sure the books he read had something to do with it.

>219 Alixtii:
I have nor made an argument yet but wanted to make sure others would not be offended by a Christian in their room. Since I have your go ahead I will make a post now. Also, please see the room Christian Apologetics for some more of my posts concerning what I am writing here.

As stated I am not an atheist. But, if I were I would want all the information I could get on all the religions I could find. I would want to know what they believe and why. I would want to read their texts and the commentaries on them. After all of that research I believe I would be more able to make the comment "there is no god." I don't think it would be a stretch to say Christianity would be one of the religions I would research. I would read the Bible and then want to know if what I read was true. Of course no one can prove the Bible is the inspired Word of God. But, I would want to know how we came to have the Bible in its current form. What do the scholars say about it etc. I think one of the best books to read concerning that is "The New Evidence that Demands a Verdict" by Josh McDowell. While he is not, in my opinion, a great author, he does a great job compiling scholarly opinions and has a great reference list for those who would like to read those opinions. Thanks to all for taking time to read this.

As stated I am not an atheist. But, if I were I would want all the information I could get on all the religions I could find. I would want to know what they believe and why. I would want to read their texts and the commentaries on them.

Hi greghendrix, and thanks for your comments. Be of good cheer! Some of us have done, and continue to, do exactly that. :)

My own opinion is that it is of benefit not only to atheists and the non-religious to do that, but that religious believers, too, would benefit greatly from such study -- careful and critical study of their own religion and of the religions of others, as well as an understanding of some of the non-religious points of view.

My bias: I consider myself a "little a" agnostic. (Since labels can be deceptive - I don't believe in any interventionalist type magical sky-wizard, but I don't unilaterally rule out the possibility of such, I have just never seen or heard any credible evidence of such and therefore find it highly unlikely.)

I haven't found any "Christianity-for-non-believers" writing that "directly challenges my godless, scientific view of the world".

There are some Buddhist works that I have found rather mind-expanding. Since Buddhism is more of a philosophical stance and not a faith-based doctrine -that might be an easier stretch for us non-theists.

An easy start would be:
Buddhism Without Beliefs by Stephen Batchelor

I strongly disagree with the contention that in order to "doubt" atheism one must be persuaded to consider one of the mainstream religious systems. I'm of the opinion that both atheism and theism represent an avoidable fall into metaphysics (in the pejorative sense of meaningless nonsense). My own understanding of the transcendent as something which can be experienced but not spoken of derives from Ludwig Wittgenstein's Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus; this creates room for the mystical while still firmly denying superstition.

I've never been an atheist (I've been a theist, pantheist, or nontheist at various points in my life), but I've found that the works which most strongly keep my sense of mysticism alive are ones written not by Christians or other theists but by atheists who could not, as hard as they tried to exorcise it (and despite their considerable genius), keep the transcendent from popping up in their philosophical systems: Friedrich Nietzsche, Wittgenstein, Jean-Paul Sartre, Jacques Derrida, etc.

(To identify as a Christian, I also needed works coming from the side which demonstrated how I could make the Christian religious symbology work with that sense of the mystical, which meant working with a lot of liberal, feminist, liberation, and/or postmodern theology: Leonardo Boff, Paul Tilich, Kathryn Tanner, Rebecca S. Chopp, and so on. But that goes far beyond what the original post asked for.)

-227 What distinguishes an atheist and a nontheist for you, just out of curiosity?

An atheist is someone who denies the existence of God. A theist is someone who asserts the existence of God. An agnostic is someone who doesn't know whether or not God exists.

For me, a nontheist is someone whose relationship with the divine is complicated enough that she doesn't fit neatly into any of those categories. It's a paradoxical, unstable word (in its attempt to create a distinction between a- and non- where it's not clear one exists)--which fits, I suppose, with the pardoxical, unstable position it attempts to describe. It's an attempt to remove oneself from the dichotomous thinking reflected in the theist/atheist binary.

Mainly, though, I was just building on PortiaLong's use of the word in >226 PortiaLong:. Due to the essential unclarity of its referent, I try not to be the one to introduce the word, even as I find it useful to describe myself and others.

I was just curious. To me atheist and nontheist are identical, because I use the original definition of atheism (as in, not a theist). An atheist doesn't deny god in any form, but specifically a theistic god (a personal, active god). So you can be an atheist and still believe in many types of god or spirituality. I admit that most people don't use this definition, but I think it is the most correct one.

The Language of God is a good read. The author organized the human genome project, and was an atheist, but then found God. This book also has lots of information about evolution as well.

Suffering is always a good teacher. At least it was for me. I believed in God; the jealous, punishing God of my inherited religion. Gave up my beliefs and eventually, after much pain and many misadventures, came to know a loving God that only wants good things for us; in fact, to raise us to the highest level of perfection and bliss. I chronicled the journey in a book, "Blessings in Disguise/A Tale of Redemption" that has won awards and acclaim from many who have read it. Could be helpful. At the very least, it's a good read.

>229 Alixtii:
Mainly, though, I was just building on PortiaLong's use of the word in >226 PortiaLong:. Due to the essential unclarity of its referent, I try not to be the one to introduce the word, even as I find it useful to describe myself and others.

Wait! I am confused - I only used the word agnostic (not atheist) and non-theist on purpose and further specified "little a" agnostic and then defined what I meant by that... ("Big A" Agnostics - apparently feel that not only do they "not know" but that it is not possible to know - which requires a level of "faith" that I don't hold).

**PortiaLong settles back to re-read...**

Ah - I think I have it now - goes back to something I posted a while ago in a different thread:
(http://www.librarything.com/topic/28147)

It seems that whichever definition of agnostic/atheist I try to use to shortcut the "what do you believe?" question - the person I am talking to has a different definition (the right one of course).

Part of the problem, of course, is that "agnostics" or "atheists" as a group don't believe (or disbelieve) anything - individual people believe (or disbelieve) - there is no central atheist/agnostic doctrine that tells us what we do or don't believe (Thank Goddess!)

While it would be convenient for conversation to have a word that conveys in a capsule the particular set of non-beliefs that make up my mindset ultimately it generally comes down to some catechism of non-belief:

Do you believe there is a Goddess?
No. (by some definitions this makes me an atheist - fine - as long as you don't assume that I have ruled out the possibility that a Goddess exists of which I am not personally familiar)

Do you believe there is NO Goddess?
No, it's possible that there IS a Goddess who just chooses to not reveal herself to all comers, but it seems highly unlikely to me and I have seen/experienced no evidence that such Goddess exists. OTOH, if she showed up at my door one day, I would offer her a beer and settle in for a very interesting conversation. My world-view would not be shattered - Goddesses, and other questionable characters, permitted. (by some definitions this makes me an agnostic - fine.)

Do you believe that it is impossible to prove or disprove the existence of said Goddess?
Erm, I don't think you can disprove the existence of a Goddess - whether she exists and doesn't affect anything I have noticed or doesn't exist (and doesn't affect anything I have noticed) - the result is the same - so no conclusion can be drawn. The Goddess could "prove" herself by showing up for a beer. The fact that she doesn't though, doesn't "prove" anything (maybe she doesn't exist, maybe she just doesn't like beer). But there could be levels of "proof" that I am completely unaware of so...

"Impossible?" - no. "Highly unlikely?" yes - but that estimation is based on my own personal experiences (none of which involve a Goddess) and biased opinions (my own) therefore not submittable as evidence...

Of the labels available - "agnostic" (little a - of a "don't know/possible but not likely" variety) seems the most appropriate, "nontheist" works as well (but it is not as generally used - so perhaps not so useful) - except that my relationship with the divine is not particularly "complicated", more "nonexistant"...

Why is it necessary to have 'beliefs' at all? Whether you do or you don't, what difference does it make to how you live your life?

My very religious friend's life is most definitely affected by his beliefs. He helps everyone, whatever their background and circumstances because he believes it is his Christian duty to do so. He has been exploited many times.
He has a poorly paid job and will not leave because he thinks his employer needs him and can't manage without him.

@ #22

I tried to make my way through that list. I really did. When I got 4 or 5 messages into it and saw the person describing themselves as a "former atheist" who was convinced by a work of C.S. Lewis because it was so full of "logic and common sense", my brain exploded.

Maybe after I heal back up, I can go back and give it another try. I'll have to wait until the twitching stops, though.

-233 It is hard, the words mean different things to different people. So while I am perfectly willing to admit that something with the qualities of god could conceivably organize things so as to make proving their existence impossible, I don't self-identify as an agnostic. It seems to that the main attribute of an agnostic is that they aren't sure, and I am sure. God(s) may or may not exist, but I am sure that I'll have nothing to do with them either way.

Isn't Athiesm a hatred of God rather than a non-belief, or more accurately a hatred of Man's conception of God? Is it possible to be an athiest without being angry, and to whom is the anger directed if God doesn't exist?

#238 - um, No, and then Yes, and therefore there may not be any anger to direct.

I don't hate god. I'm not angry at god. I don't feel much of anything about god. That's how I became an atheist... I stopped feeling anything about god. It became impossible to believe in something that I couldn't muster anything more than apathy.

Now, if you want to talk about close minded or over zealous folks (either religious or otherwise), those people make me fairly angry.

>240 inkdrinker:
I fail to understand how a lack of feeling can direct a person's quest to know if there is a god or if that god can be known. I must admit that I do not understand atheism. I understand agnosticism and how one can come to that conclusion, but not atheism. In my opinion, there are just too many signs that point to a (or many) gods to warrant non belief in a higher power. I am interested to see what you all say about your atheism.

#241 - "In my opinion, there are just too many signs that point to a (or many) gods to warrant non belief in a higher power."

I would love to see your list of signs.

I consider myself an agnostic, as I see no absolute proof either way. However, I lean heavily towards atheism, as it seems much more likely to me. I see none of your 'signs.'

#241

From a psych point of view I am an INFP (Meyers-Briggs). I try very hard to be analytical about ideas which can be factually substantiated and I believe very strongly in the ability of science to answer many if not most of the questions. However, more often than I would like my "Feeler" gets the best of me and I base things on emotional stances. Although I was a very analytical Christian, my core faith was based on emotion and not logic.

For the first 3/4 of my life I was a VERY liberal and VERY fervent Christian. When all feeling of god left me, I was left with no faith. From there I began to explore books by atheists and my atheism became more logically based, but it started as an emotional state.

#241
"In my opinion, there are just too many signs that point to a (or many) gods to warrant non belief in a higher power."

I find that an interesting statement, because even when I was at my peak of belief I would have said that there was nor real evidence for the existence of a high power. I would have said that that's why they call it faith.

Isn't Athiesm a hatred of God rather than a non-belief,

Strictly speaking, a-theism simply means without-gods. (cf. asymptomatic, without symptoms) Lacking a belief in Wotan, Zeus, Amaterasu, El/Yahweh/Allah, and all the rest.

or more accurately a hatred of Man's conception of God?

Some atheists certainly do find many conceptions of many gods to be distasteful.

Is it possible to be an athiest without being angry,

Yes, of course, just as it's possible to be a theist without being angry. :)

and to whom is the anger directed if God doesn't exist?

Not everyone has anger as their baseline emotion. Some people are entirely apathetic about the existence of any gods. Some atheists describe their "anger" at "God" as being the "anger" they have for Santa Claus -- neither God nor Santa exists, so it's silly, and impossible, to be angry at them.

>241 greghendrix:
In my opinion, there are just too many signs that point to a (or many) gods to warrant non belief in a higher power.

Like some of the others I find this statement interesting. I don't "know" if there is a god(s) or not. If I had to make a guess I'd say "probably not." I have never personally seen ANY signs that point to a god(s) so I am curious as to what signs YOU are seeing.

>238 Weirdbeard:
Isn't Athiesm a hatred of God
...er, no, How can you hate something that doesn't exist?

or more accurately a hatred of Man's conception of God?

Possibly - but that would probably only describe a tiny minority of atheists (the one's that have been described as "fundamentalists")

"Hatred" is a strong word - What I personally object to (as do the majority of athiests/agnostics that I know personally - approx several dozen) is the use of religion/beliefs to justify:

1.) bad decisions (withholding medicine from a sick child due to the beliefs of their parents)
2.) bad policies (not allowing gays to marry)
3.) poor behavior (harassing women seeking medical care because the clinic they go to provides abortions)
4.) teaching non-science in science class (creationism belongs in a 'comparative religion' class not a 'science' class).

Believe whatever you want but when your beliefs detrimentally affect other people - THAT I have a problem with.

Try Dinner with a Perfect Stranger, by Gregory

What has God got to do with religion? Aren't they mutally exclusive? People join religions because they don't know what 'God' is and join a club (church) of people that pretend to know.

#247 - It has been my experience that in general people don't join religions. They are raised in them.

Clam wrote: It has been my experience that in general people don't join religions. They are raised in them.

Of the people I've talked to who have joined religions, I find it fascinating that none of them had first investigated religions other than the one which they joined. Let's say that a non-believer becomes convinced that the universe does show evidence of "intelligent design." Isn't there still a long way to go to arrive at belief in any given set of doctrines? Why go straight to drinking a particular flavor of KoolAid?

I think that Weirdbeard is on the right track. But I get the impression that it is usually less a case of looking to find out what God is, and more a case of being offered acceptance, fulfillment, a sense of community or family, and the great satisfaction of being one of the select group who know the truth.

I must look for a copy of The True Believer. As I recall, Hoffer postulates that there is a similar fulfillment of needs in joining various dogmatic non-religious groups. I wonder if he included political parties. :-)

@238
How can I be angry at something that doesn't exist? Do you get angry at Santa Claus when your presents aren't to your liking? Get annoyed when Wiley Coyote screws up and misses the Roadrunner yet again? Or to put it another way: I'm assuming you don't believe in Zeus, Thor, or Marduk; why are you so angry at them? ;)

Actually, I get angry at the roadrunner. I wish coyote would get him some time. ;-)

He's not nearly as annoying as the smug, sanctimonious mouse from Tom & Jerry.

True.

I did so want Jerry to be eaten.