The atheists' dilemma

[Gordian Knot]

Tea said"I agree to the point that some of the issues are discussed in a social context where people as a group need to agree on a course of a action. Even if a lot of us would like to leave some things outside politics and law-making, when the process is started it often hard not to get involved on one side or the other."

While this is all fine and dandy, it has nothing whatever to do with finding the inner path that I was discussing. Come on Tea, keep up!

 

[A Cup Of Tea]

Tea said"I agree to the point that some of the issues are discussed in a social context where people as a group need to agree on a course of a action. Even if a lot of us would like to leave some things outside politics and law-making, when the process is started it often hard not to get involved on one side or the other."

While this is all fine and dandy, it has nothing whatever to do with finding the inner path that I was discussing. Come on Tea, keep up!

He said from behind...I CLEARLY took what you said and ran with it, trying to move forward Mr Stuck-in-the-mud.

 

[Jane-Q]

Hi voiceofwood.

I have to agree with Marcialou and wil, on this:
Fundamentalists (whether fundamentalist Monotheist or fundamentalist atheist) use faith or logic more like a weapon . . . rather than like a tool to understand the nature of reality. More like a hyper-focused battering-ram (tunnel-vision) than like an open-minded "experience."

I don't post often on the Philosophy Forum because virtual all philosophical discussion follows a circular track:
If A is true, then we can infer B.
How do we know A is true? Well, B is the proof.
Circular logic.

If I wanted to (which I don't) I could probably come up with a dozen logical proofs for "God's nonexistence."
And then come up with another dozen logical proofs demonstrating that "God does exist."
All circular arguments . . . because the original question ("Does God exist?") has all sorts of cultural/ideological assumptions built into it. If you seriously question any one of these cultural/ideological assumptions, then the most well-crafted argument fractures, if not crumbles entirely.

Your analogical argument about "consciousness" is no different.
Once upon a time the west had commonsense definitions of "human" consciousness . . . scientists are now finding evidence for this commonsense kind of "consciousness" in other mammals, particularly other primates.
So new definitions of "human consciousness" need to be put forward. Say, consciousness involves language which is then internalized as "inner speech" (Vygotsy, I think?). Or, say, consciousness needs to be pictured as the simultaneous coexistence of near random neural threads, converging from any number of neural networks, collectively providing a consensus viewpoint (Dennett).
And all languages are cultural, with different terms (vis-a-vis other languages) for the objects of the outer world and for objects of the inner world (Poststructuralism). So "consciousness" for you and for a female Tibetan highlander is going to be very different, one from the other, i.e. non-equateable. The very thing that you call "God," she might call "no-gods."

Aboriginal Buddhism would assert that "consciousness" itself (all its objects, anyway) constitute pure delusion. And various strains of Hinduism and Taoism would assert about as much.
Analogical arguments imply an "equal sign" ( = ). Aside from pure mathematics, there is nothing on this planet that is (100%) equal to anything else.
We live, now, in a digital world and arguments need to be statistically proportionate, and processed in a way that is digitally-based (i.e. built-up from minutia).

The early Christians were, from time to time, persecuted by the Romans.
The Romans called the Christians "atheists," because the Christians would not give sacrifices at the temple to the local patron deity of the city where they lived, nor sacrifices to any other deity. This was a civic duty, in the Roman world. To refuse to sacrifice was not just impious, but seditious.
Back in the Bronze Age it was commonsense: everyone believed in the gods (this was how the world worked). Romans still held this worldview. Christians, to educated thinkers, were nutcases which had to be tolerated. But during some periods, Christians were considered an out-and-out menace to civic authority and to the larger Roman peace.
Socrates never explicitly denied the existence of the gods, but his critics assumed he did (named him an "atheist") and this was one of the reasons his city condemned him to die.
"Atheism" (in the form of Christianity and Socratic philosophy) changed the world.
Yes of-course, these were not self-proclaimed atheists. But they did choose to "not believe." Did choose to question the beliefs that were "commonsense" during their era. Did choose to believe differently than their forefathers believed.
So (to me) there is a kind of pragmatic (not "pure") logic to "criticism of former ways of thinking and behaving." (Criticism of the "Mind"-set, the mentally "internalized culture," within which one has grown-up.)
And I think I can (semi-)accept the subjective reports of a person's "experience" as long as there is an element of self-criticism involved (intellectual honesty.) Whether this person is "believer" or "atheist."

The question "Does God exist?" is not a very interesting question, to me. It's a non-starter.
The more interesting (and useful) question is . . .

"If God exists, what picture would we expect science to give us which would validate that existence?
Validate the (subjectively experienced but non-delusive) character of that existence?"
​

This is a question which can be answered in a critical and in a statistically-progressive manner (i.e. in a provisional, not an absolute way) . . .
i.e. accomplished via digital imaging
(i.e. via a neurophysically-based imagining - validity measured in terms of hard-data from brain-science and/or from Quantum Mechanics, carried out via digital processing technologies and their logic).
It's about the minutia of hard-data which supports a pretty-good (an imaginative but not a perfect) theory.
Which reconstructs a very solid, credible image.

It's not really about "proof."
Like Roman versus Christian . . . it is about which form of belief is richer, long term.
Which (pragmatically) builds a better reality.
And that is something which can be tested over time.

Jane.

{{ voiceofwood,
You are technically correct about marriage. In the Bronze age, everything was religious - including the marriage agreements between one family and another (never between one person and another person). These were economic contracts, ones sanctioned by the local deity.
But you are wrong, also. Everything - marriage included - was either a tribal or a civic contract (covenant) between one family and another, witnessed and sanctioned by the local tribal god or the local civic deity, but witnessed also by human observers (i.e. these contracts between families carried the force of "law" - which could, if disputes arose, be adjudicated by secular judges and kings, calling upon these human witnesses to testify).
Tribal and civic covenants were both legal and religious at the same time. (Not just marriage . . . all contracts were).
Families arranged marriages to insure continued good bloodlines . . . this was the real-world bottomline:
the legal and religious trappings were only there to publically enforce this long-term genetic imperative. }}

 

[Shibolet]

"If God exists, what picture would we expect science to give us which would validate that existence?
Validate the (subjectively experienced but non-delusive) character of that existence?"
​

The concept of Causality on the basis of Logic will render the ultimate evidence for the existence of God. Here is how:

The Ultimate Evidence of God

In 1922 the Theory of the big bang was the gift Science needed to break up with Aristotle that the universe was infinite. It was the gift of a Theist, George Lemaitre: The universe did have its beginning.

Now, the point is to demonstrate what or who caused the universe to begin because from the logical point of view, the universe could not have caused itself to exist. Simply because being the universe composed of matter and matter cannot cause itself to exist, the Primal Cause has ultimately become obvious.

Now, to all atheists, I have the following message: I am ready to give you the benefit of the doubt and probably even my word that I am ready to change my views about the universe if there is one that believes the universe caused itself to exist. If the answer stands the screening of Logic, my proposal is as good as gold that I'll be no longer a theist.

 

[Thomas]

Fundamentalists ...

I suppose it rather depends on who's calling who a fundamentalist.

I don't post often on the Philosophy Forum because virtual all philosophical discussion follows a circular track:

Bultmann's argument in a nutshell.

All circular arguments . . . because the original question ("Does God exist?") has all sorts of cultural/ideological assumptions built into it. If you seriously question any one of these cultural/ideological assumptions, then the most well-crafted argument fractures, if not crumbles entirely.

Have you read the Perennialists? There's a common metaphysic that unites them all, and transcends cultural/ideological boundaries.

So new definitions of "human consciousness" need to be put forward. Say, consciousness involves language which is then internalized as "inner speech" (Vygotsy, I think?). Or, say, consciousness needs to be pictured as the simultaneous coexistence of near random neural threads, converging from any number of neural networks, collectively providing a consensus viewpoint (Dennett).

I think Ricoeur is my personal favourite on the discussion of 'narrative' which underpins all our thinking.

Aboriginal Buddhism would assert that "consciousness" itself (all its objects, anyway) constitute pure delusion. And various strains of Hinduism and Taoism would assert about as much.

But the contextual connotation of that is often missed, I think.

We live, now, in a digital world and arguments need to be statistically proportionate, and processed in a way that is digitally-based

Hasn't that always been the case in philosophy?

The Romans called the Christians "atheists," because the Christians would not give sacrifices at the temple to the local patron deity of the city where they lived, nor sacrifices to any other deity.

Did they really? I've never come across that.

I know the Romans also made a special dispensation to the Jews, on the basis that they were just too much trouble ...

I know in Pliny their religion is perceived as harmless ... but the state always has the option of rendering a religious conviction a criminal act. Look at England under Elizabeth I. The people got sick of burning heretics, but thanks to an error on behalf of a pope, Catholics were classed as 'traitors', and the persecution continued.

Christians, to educated thinkers, were nutcases which had to be tolerated. But during some periods, Christians were considered an out-and-out menace to civic authority and to the larger Roman peace.

Well it was axiomatic to the Fathers that if their religion was true, it was arguable reasonably, rationally and logically – philosophically – which is why we have Justin v Trypho, or Origen v Celsus, or Irenaeus against the Gnostics, for example.

Yes of-course, these were not self-proclaimed atheists. But they did choose to "not believe." Did choose to question the beliefs that were "commonsense" during their era. Did choose to believe differently than their forefathers believed.

Don't we all do that?

"If God exists, what picture would we expect science to give us which would validate that existence?

Well we have 'metaphysics' which is a universal language, we have philosophies which are particular to a given Revelation.

(i.e. via a neurophysically-based imagining - validity measured in terms of hard-data from brain-science and/or from Quantum Mechanics, carried out via digital processing technologies and their logic).

But I think both neuroscientists and quantum physicists agree there's more they don't know than they know ... so they're a long way from making pronouncements on the nature of the Divine, and indeed the nature of consciousness. Digital processing is just number crunching, but it's not 'consciousness'. We can map the passage of a thought-process in the brain, but will those maps ever reveal our thoughts as we experience them?

(Curiously, they are both sciences that the seriously-engaged keeps quiet about, because there's so much nonsense declared in the name of neuroscience and QP. They're hip topics ... )

 

[wil]

Yes in education, in academia, in science....the more you know, the more it increases what you know you don't know.

Shame that is the opposite in many religions.... take it easy Thomas...not speaking of you... but you know exactly what I mean.

 

[Thomas]

Shame that is the opposite in many religions....

Well the opposite is equally true in education, academia and science ... why you find it necessary to keep singling out religions, I have no idea.

 

[Gordian Knot]

Having a bit of a hard time following the replies.

Wil "Yes in education, in academia, in science....the more you know, the more it increases what you know you don't know. Shame that is the opposite in many religions"

Thomas "Well the opposite is equally true in education, academia and science"

The 'opposite' being defined as "the more you know, the more you know what you know". Is that correct?

Or probably more to the point being made, the definition of 'opposite' would read "the more you know the more you know you are right."

If my understanding is correct, my reply would be -

In science it would be rare for a scientist to think that the more he/she knows, the more they know they are right. Science tends to be a humbling endeavor as there are always plenty of other scientists to point out the known facts that dispute your theory, as well as the requirement that your theory be reproducible by others. If the latter cannot happen, your theory is dead in the water.

In religion it is very common for people to think that the more they know the more they believe they are right. It is also true that the less they know, the more they know they are right.

As a matter of fact, my observation of the religious is that the ones who proclaim to know they are right the most are the ones who actually know the least.

There is no built in self-correcting mechanism in religion as there is in science. Which is a huge hinderance in getting at any truths.

 

[wil]

academia, science, education...old outdated books, theories, data are archived and folks move on with new information...

the literalists in religion stubbornly hold on to things that are obviously either wrong or not to be taken literally. They chuckle at Roman, Greek, Norse Mythology while spouting their own repeatedly and teaching their children it as fact....and Religions...continue the process of teaching the children the same stuff without and caveat or indication that it is not fact...

Why religions?? Because it is true.... and taking our country (USA) down a path of becoming backward nation....a laughing stock of ignorance.

 

[A Cup Of Tea]

G-Knot, I think that what you're talking about is a rather idealized version of science, science as it should be. But it's practised by people, and there are all kinds of people. What, in practice, keeps science as much in the straight and narrow is that it's practitioners demand reason in discussions. And that isn't necessarily less true in any other group of people, such as religion.

Science can be used by spin-doctors to trick those of us who don't know that much about a given topic. Look at the pseudo-science of advertisement. Or the the confusion still surrounding global warming. When science is practised by a person who can't see beyond is personal convictions, or perhaps greed, it goes just as wrong as in any religious context.

The difference, as I see it, relates to the tread you posted the other day. Religion is strongest where education is low (for whatever reason) and our ability to use reason and reliance on reason is related to education, to my mind. Thus we associate reason with education/science/atheism and the inability to reason with low income/low education/religion.

But this isn't a given, it CAN be true and often is true. But we must all have read a lot of the complicated theological philosophical texts Thomas quotes? It's not harder to be rational when practising religion, and the idea that Religion is irrational and Secular rational is unfair and prejudice.

 

[Thomas]

Hi GK —

Basically I was getting at Wil's tendency to choose the best from the secular side and compare the worst from religion ...

So what I'm saying is you can get educationalists, academics, scientists who talk a load of bull, same as you can Christians and Buddhists and Daoists.

In science it would be rare for a scientist to think that the more he/she knows, the more they know they are right. Science tends to be a humbling endeavor as there are always plenty of other scientists to point out the known facts that dispute your theory, as well as the requirement that your theory be reproducible by others. If the latter cannot happen, your theory is dead in the water.

Same with theology ... which is a science ...

In religion it is very common for people to think that the more they know the more they believe they are right. It is also true that the less they know, the more they know they are right.

I've met the same attitude with regard to science. The idea that the physical/empirical sciences can and will one day finally validate God, or consign Him to the dusty corners of human superstitions, is a nonsense. Too many people have far too much 'blind faith' in science!

 

[Thomas]

the literalists in religion stubbornly hold on to things that are obviously either wrong or not to be taken literally.

In your opinion ...

Why religions?? Because it is true....

In your opinion ...

and taking our country (USA) down a path of becoming backward nation....a laughing stock of ignorance.

well I'm not trying to be contentious or abusive, but I think you're managing that without recourse to religion!

Seriously though, same here. The far right is making ground across Europe, too. It's a shame that the media tends to speak only in terms of extremes ... and they're not entirely innocent in the laughing stock stakes, either.

 

[Gordian Knot]

Okay (cracks knuckles) here come the replies!

Wil first. I am in complete agreement with your entire post. It has always perplexed me that most every religious person (there are exceptions; they are rare) is so confident that their way is the only way. Person A knows their way is the only true way. While Person B thinks the exact same thing, only their way is not the same way of Person A. But Person B is just as sure as A is.

According to both person's beliefs only one way can be the real, true way. But for both it is their way that is the one; the other person's is wrong. Multiply this by the number of religions and subgroups of religions and it reaches a level beyond absurdity.

Modern religious types mock the old religions; look at them as so silly, all the while completely believing in the tenants of their religion, which have elements that are often just as silly.

It is an aberration about humanity that totally baffles me.

 

[Gordian Knot]

Tea, you are not wrong that the view I stated of science is the ideal. And that scientists are human too, and it does happen that they sometimes allow their prejudices to distort truth. That being said, one cannot make a therefor statement that science and religion are similar in this respect. It is not 'reason' that separates science from religion, or from any other endeavor for that matter. It is that science is the only discipline that has a built in self correcting system.

That system is the scientific method. Scientists can be as reasonable or as unreasonable as any other group of people, but in the end the built in self correcting system will sort out the unreasonable from the reasonable.

I do not think the examples in your second paragraph are valid. I know how much you love having me say that! You said it yourself though. Advertising is not a science. It is a pseudo-science. About global warming. There is no confusion. There is just a bunch of rich old farts in power in this country who do not find it advantageous to admit it is happening, and that we are responsible.

This latter group are not scientists. To say that science is at fault because non-scientists don't go along is silly, don't you think? When 95% of scientists believe that global warming is happening, and that we humans are responsible. And 53% of members of Congress say they do not believe it. That is not a flaw of science.

Finally my suggesting that science is rational and religion is irrational is not unfair, or prejudiced if the comment is true. Are there irrational scientists? Oh yes! Are there rational theists? Yes there are. Taken as a whole though the majority of scientists tend to be more rational than not. And most theists tend to be more irrational than not.

I would like to point out though, that I do not believe the fault of irrationality amongst the majority of theists is the fault of religion. It is a failure of the religious folk to put their faith in perspective with the rest of their world. The reality of God(s) must be taken on faith. Which is fine. Faith has no part to play in making decisions about other aspects of people's worldly existence. This is the trap I see so many fall for.

 

[Gordian Knot]

Thomas. Theology is most certainly NOT a science! Again, what separates science from any other endeavor is the scientific method. If any group does not use the scientific method, what they are doing is not science. And it is impossible to use the scientific method when it comes to Gods and miracles and all the other concepts about religions that are not in any way provable.

Science cannot prove Gods exist. Science cannot prove that Gods do not exist. It's like trying to put the proverbial round peg in the square hole. It just is not possible.

One has to be able to prove/disprove a theory in order for it to be science. And it isn't just religion that fails. There has been a heated debate for decades whether psychology is a science or not. Like theology, psychology is often dealing with intangibles. Not anything that can be tested for or against. A lot of very bogus junk was believed to be true within psychiatric circles that turned out to be wrong. But it was never 'proven' to be true in the first place. It was approval by majority rule.

People love to bandy around that phrase 'blind faith in science'. Some times it is a legitimate claim. More often than not it is a misunderstanding about the process of science that causes people to believe that phrase. Take Dark Matter (Please!) for example. There is not enough matter in a galaxy to keep all the matter within it rotating at the same speed. Therefor there must be something else that is causing this to happen. I've heard people complain that science is making up imaginary stuff to fix a theory they cannot explain. "That stuff just has got to be there!" They say this is akin to blind faith.

But it isn't. Nobody is stating that this invisible stuff exists and that is the answer. Scientists are saying that there may be this invisible stuff which would explain the anomaly. It is a theory. One that may end up being shot down. That's the other great thing about scientists. They (mostly) are not afraid to say they do not know the answer to something that is perplexing.

 

[A Cup Of Tea]

First, you don't need to defend science, I'm talking about the people who practice science or religion.

That system is the scientific method. Scientists can be as reasonable or as unreasonable as any other group of people, but in the end the built in self correcting system will sort out the unreasonable from the reasonable.

Yes, it's suppose to, but there can be a great number of things that is standing in the way of that system. I'm trying to get that are more stuff going on then just that one aspect. Primarily the people.

Advertising is not a science. It is a pseudo-science. About global warming. There is no confusion. There is just a bunch of rich old farts in power in this country who do not find it advantageous to admit it is happening, and that we are responsible.

This latter group are not scientists. To say that science is at fault because non-scientists don't go along is silly, don't you think? When 95% of scientists believe that global warming is happening, and that we humans are responsible. And 53% of members of Congress say they do not believe it. That is not a flaw of science.

Here you distinguish Scientists from the general public, that's fine, that's even what I was talking about. People who don't understand some areas of science can easily be fooled by psudo-science, or poor science, or just misunderstandings. And the idea of a unified scientific community is an illusion in my eyes, there are clicks and disagreements over all manner of things. Since their human.

And there is a lot of confusion over the climate, there is strong agreements by the majority about some fundamentals, but there are also organizations that state the opposite of the great mass. To me, it's just as likely that they are driven by greed as their honest convictions (whatever they are based on) or even something that is beyond my understanding.

Are there rational theists? Yes there are. Taken as a whole though the majority of scientists tend to be more rational than not. And most theists tend to be more irrational than not.

First, they aren't mutually exclusive. And, how many are most? And most importantly why are they irrational?

In the end, we will never agree on this, you argue from two polar blocks of people. And I argue from the grey mass of people that it's all made up of. Different perspective. Unfortunately I can never accept your black and white, by the letter, according to the dictionary, understanding of the world. It's a shame.

 

[A Cup Of Tea]

Thomas. Theology is most certainly NOT a science!

In what way does theologians work differently then any other given field of study?

 

[Gordian Knot]

I never said that theologians work differently than any other field.

I said scientists work differently than any other field.

In almost any field of study you can name, it comes down to opinions & power. Those with the most power tend to have the opinion that rules. Or the consensus that is accepted by the most people in the field is the opinion that rules.

Science is the only field where the standard is not set by opinion. It is set by a process that must stand the scrutiny of other scientists. One can have the greatest opinion in the world, but if your theory cannot stand the test of the scientific method, your theory is not going to be accepted.

And I do not think we are so far apart as you believe. I never said I believed in polar opposites. I used the term majority, and you asked how many is most. Your grey area is that you see the middle to be much larger than either end. I also think there is a grey area; I just do not think the middle ground is as large as you do. I think the middle ground is smaller than the two ends.

And surely there is no shame that you do not see the world as I do and vice versa. There is plenty of room for thinking people to have differences of opinion. You are wrong about the dictionary though!

 

[A Cup Of Tea]

I never said that theologians work differently than any other field.

I said scientists work differently than any other field.

In almost any field of study you can name, it comes down to opinions & power. Those with the most power tend to have the opinion that rules. Or the consensus that is accepted by the most people in the field is the opinion that rules.

Science is the only field where the standard is not set by opinion. It is set by a process that must stand the scrutiny of other scientists. One can have the greatest opinion in the world, but if your theory cannot stand the test of the scientific method, your theory is not going to be accepted.

Describe the process in theology please.

And I do not think we are so far apart as you believe. I never said I believed in polar opposites. I used the term majority, and you asked how many is most. Your grey area is that you see the middle to be much larger than either end. I also think there is a grey area; I just do not think the middle ground is as large as you do. I think the middle ground is smaller than the two ends.

No, I don't see a middle ground at all, I don't see a linear spectrum. I see a spectrum with uncountable dimensions. For me it's inherently faulty to say that this group believes A and that group believes X since those groups are made up of individuals that follow the group norm more or less. On this I have never seen any similarities between the two of us.

You are wrong about the dictionary though!

Your statement is invalid.

 

[Gordian Knot]

Your statement that my statement is invalid, is invalid.

More to come shortly!