OT: What do you believe and why?

[Ariadne]

@twillight
Although it makes sense to use atheist and agnostic as I have defined them, it's wrong to pretend that words only have one strict definition. Words have USAGES, not strict meanings. Take for example the word "literally"...

I don't like the common usage of those words but as long as I know what idea someone is conveying I'm fine with their usage. I might still tell them I prefer otherwise, but *shrug*

I guess you're done with the discussion but it's disappointing to see someone go to great lengths to insult someone and claim to know what their views are (ie a troll, liar, etc.). It's much better to counter someone's claims than it is to do so and then additionally tack on "you liar, troll etc."

All this text (not you, but this topic) and now thanks to your post I have this in my head...

 

[pharphis]

No problem, many of those posts were directed at Gripphon or others, while you were more involved in the cosmology/Genesis/evolution discussions.

Basically, I named three strong impressions that are basic qualities of human experience in the earlier post directed toward Gripphon.
I-1. The material world exists and operates according to universal, observable principles. (The study of this phenomena by human agents we call science.)
I-2. I have free will; I can make choices.
I-3. Some choices should be made and some shouldn't. (The study of this by human agents on a large scale is covered by studies such as morality, ethics, and epistemology.)

Even though I-1 can't be incontrovertibly proven (we've known this since the 18th c.) since all sensory experience is subjective, you seem to accept it as truth, just as I do. We are in agreement there.
If we accept I-1, we could just stop there and say that was all: there is nothing beyond the material world. Yet we can't quite do this, because by science (the area of study that becomes possible as a result of I-1) we can prove the truth of I-2. To declare that I-1 is the only of these impressions that is valid, and that there is nothing beyond the material world, we deny free will. Yet the existence of free will can be be proven through experimentation. As a result, we have proved the existence of the metaphysical world through scientific observation, which is actually fairly amazing. As such, for any individual who wishes to be logical, we must accept I-1 and I-2. (Note that we don't have to be logical. Many religions and systems of thought reject logic. But I think we are also on the same page here).

Once one has affirmed I-1 and I-2, one may reject I-3. Yet we find that this entire process so far has been governed by I-3: we have made certain choices and not made others. We have found these choices appropriate because of governing principles, which we have assumed beforehand: truth is privileged above non-truth (we don't seek lies, but truth), reason above non-reason. We could be total skeptics and not even accept I-1, and thus reject the natural sciences. Yet we see value in making some assumptions, because we see that no fact can be incontrovertibly proven. So, we've also implicitly affirmed the idea that even when something can't be proven, if it inductively seems plausible, it is desirable to accept it as truth and proceed on that basis.

So, if I've accepted I-1, I-2, and I-3, it therefore follows that I find the pursuit of external truth valuable in both the material world and the metaphysical world. The study of science is available to me, as is morality. Because morality and free will reside outside the material world, in the metaphysical/supernatural world, then it also makes sense to assent to a governing force, a God, and the God and morality that seem to coincide most with I-3 is certainly that of Christianity. If any of that seems unclear, I've spelled it out in a little more detail in previous posts, but I was trying to be concise here--always a difficult line to straddle.

Now, all of that is the product of inductive reasoning, and I'm not claiming that I accepted Christianity because I began some sort of Cartesian line of inquiry and it led me there. I can give my own personal account of what experiences in life led me there, but I'll leave the above for now.

Ok, I don't think I got around to responding to this so I will now

I-1
Correct, we assume it is true so that we can do anything
I-2
I reject this. I don't believe we have free will (ofc, this probably depends on the definition used). I believe that I FEEL like i make choices, but neuroscience isn't at the point of concluding that we do, in fact, have free will. I believe there is mixed evidence but I'm not familiar with much.
I-3
By who's standard "should" we make some choices and not others? I think I've already explained to some degree that i reject this as well. We're driven through our evolutionary history to act some ways and not others, and as a social species this becomes the talk of "morality". I think morality is strictly a product of being a social species.

 

[pharphis]

@kestegs I don't think we ever got around to it but I was hoping we could go over the topic that started the entire discussion in the first place:

You've stated your position on heaven/hell and the criteria to get there (belief) in one of the first posts. I'm wondering what your explanation is for all the people who never even hear about your faith. I have lots of pretty common questions so you've probably heard most of these before but we can go one at a time I suppose.

 

[Kestegs]

Wow, I didn't realize I was so far behind

For those who have some religious beliefs and are still around for discussion, WHY do you believe? I suspect most of you were raised to believe what you do, but as adults i'm sure you've come up with one or more reasons which you think are good reasons for belief. This might be personal revelation or something else...?

I mostly answered this already I think, but here:

I was raised as a Christian, which is where my belief started at least. I still believe what I was taught because I have tested it and found it to be true. There are things in my life that cannot be explained in other ways than God, and I can feel his presence in my life.

I have to confess I very much disbelieve these claims, given how much time reading the Bible takes for three reasons:
- its sheer length. In normal typography it takes 2-4 thousand pages (even in bible print it is more than 1,000 pages)
- the language. The KJV was translated ca. 500 years ago. Words and expressions, grammar did not get updated. This makes reading and understanding very difficult.
- the historical context. Meaning of words gets lost, use of phrases changes, expressions change meaning compared to the unupdated printed text.
- lastly most people who CLAIM to read the Bible/other holy books read them by various segments, leaving out key parts. They also never compare to actual scientific history, physics, cosmology, biology, psychology etc.
Reading eg. The Bible requires to be read from cover to cover from left to right, reading every word (even the genealogies), and in case of other works (eg. Baghavad Ghita) by the correct method of reading (it is not an accident when the reading happens by reciting and not by regular reading).

Reading the bible took me ca. a year.

If I said it its true. I'm not a liar. I have read the Bible front to back at least twice before this that I can remember for sure, and am half way through my current endeavor. And that is in addition to any topical reading or random reading I do. at 15-20 min a day it takes a year. Of course that doesn't mean I exhaustively understand everything I read, that would take a lot longer.

There's no reason to respond to the rest of your quotes. Some of them are legitimate points, but many of them are just trolling/attacks/closed-mindedness. And after how you responded to BBS I have no desire to go down that road any further.

I skimmed a lot of the last 60+ posts that didn't directly involve me, so I may have missed it, but a question:
What do you believe, and how did you come to that belief? You seem to have a basic knowledge of many religious things so I'm curious.

@kestegs I don't think we ever got around to it but I was hoping we could go over the topic that started the entire discussion in the first place:

You've stated your position on heaven/hell and the criteria to get there (belief) in one of the first posts. I'm wondering what your explanation is for all the people who never even hear about your faith. I have lots of pretty common questions so you've probably heard most of these before but we can go one at a time I suppose.

I believe God gives everyone an instinctive knowledge of him. They have the choice whether to accept it or not. I'm not sure how it all works out, to be honest. God is in control though, and I believe he is just, so I'll leave the details up to him.

Here's a short article that explains it better than I can. And it's not even from AiG!


Question for you as well (and anyone else who wants it): What do you believe about Jesus?

 

[Interdasting]

I believe Jesus is the most profound philosopher of his time and has had the greatest impact in humanity. His martyrdom for beliefs forced people to question themselves and their own beliefs and what they would do to protect them. Or even to reconsider what they hold to be true.

I do not practice or strongly believe, and I don't care too much to preoccupy myself with what label I prefer to define my beliefs, but I do recognize the importance of religion and the followers of beliefs. I respect that people have different ideas than me and I'm grateful that the majority have given me the privilege of having my own opinions and being able to express them without fear of reprisal.

I side on the idea that he indeed lived, but I don't agree with some of the decisions that have been made that describe his life. Like the Magdalene controversy and such.

 

[pharphis]

Wow, I didn't realize I was so far behind

I mostly answered this already I think, but here:

I was raised as a Christian, which is where my belief started at least. I still believe what I was taught because I have tested it and found it to be true. There are things in my life that cannot be explained in other ways than God, and I can feel his presence in my life.

---

I believe God gives everyone an instinctive knowledge of him. They have the choice whether to accept it or not. I'm not sure how it all works out, to be honest. God is in control though, and I believe he is just, so I'll leave the details up to him.

Here's a short article that explains it better than I can. And it's not even from AiG!


Question for you as well (and anyone else who wants it): What do you believe about Jesus?

What kind of tests?
"cannot explain X therefore Y" is an argument from ignorance fallacy. I understand you have other reasons for belief so I hope you move on from this one since it is literally fallacious. You could provide an example for me if you like and I can explain further why it's fallacious to believe that your one answer is the only answer (especially given your one answer is a supernatural answer)

Not sure what "Feel his presence in my life" is but I'm guessing it is similar to personal revelation...?

Ok. I have a theoretical situation for you, then:
We know that only a fraction of the global population is christian (iirc there are more muslims if you reject catholics). Now, it's pretty fair to say that most/all of these groups are at least aware of Christianity, whether they've done the research or not. Then, there are all non-religious and other groups, most of which have heard of Christianity as well I would guess.

If we want to save as many people as possible, and you believe god is just, then how does the idea sound to you if we could somehow erase all resources on Christianity so that everyone is "superficially" ignorant (you said above everyone would still have some instinctive knowledge of him).

Do you think this would be a plausible means for saving more people? What if we likewise removed all other religious references as well so that we don't have any worship of a false god?

I'm not advocating for book burning or anything but I'm just curious what you think of the thought experiment.



Thoughts on Jesus: May or may not have existed, as with any ancient historical figure. Almost certainly was not resurrected and almost certainly did not perform any "miracles". The reasons people believed he performed miracles could be many: sleight of hand, mixing of mythologies together by those who wrote about him, willingness to believe because of prophecies or other reasons, poor/modified memory...

 

[pharphis]

Forgot to respond to this:

The truth is that God exists and he made the universe, that is what science can prove, which is what I meant earlier, although I think I said it in the opposite way. If it fits better I can say that God creating the universe is a theory, if I was to teach this in a school I would want it to be taught that way alongside evolution/big bang. Now science can prove or disprove my theory, or hypothesis, if that's a better word.

Truth is that which is reflected in reality. A book does not determine what is truth and what is not. If the god hypothesis cannot be falsified, it does not lie in the realm of science, either. So can the god hypothesis be falsified? I believe you've already stated that you think if the science disagrees with the god, then it's the science that's wrong...

What about the first amendment? Science classes don't teach unsubstantiated hypotheses. They only teach that which is reflected in the scientific consensus. Should we also teach the following hypotheses next to evolution/big bang:
1) zeus is real
2) allah is real
3) krishna is real

Just to placate the believers? Absolutely not. You can have those discussions in a religion class which I actually encourage.

My guess is that you are unfamiliar with the Evolution vs. Intelligent design (aka creationism in disguise) court case that happened a few years ago.

Here's a documentary about it:

Very brief summary:
The IDers lied, and repackaged creationism materials ("of pandas and people") as "intelligent design" material, but all they did was change the names of the ideas and hence it was still a religious, and UNSCIENTIFIC "theory".
What they advocated for was unconstitutional, even though it on the surface looked as though it was scientific. What you're advocating for is strictly religious and can't even hide under the guise of "science" or alternative explanations. The only "problem" with the scientific theory (and hence why you would want to teach an alternative alongside evolution) is that it disagrees with your religious beliefs. You have no scientific rationale behind this and so it does NOT belong in the science class.

 

[Azimuthus]

I'm a theravada buddhism follower (that is the most ancient buddhist school, appeared long before any other world religion, actually, it was the first one). As Wiki says: "It is the dominant form of religion in Cambodia, Laos, Sri Lanka, Thailand, and Burma, and is practiced by minority groups in Vietnam, Bangladesh, and China".

Why? Because I find its founder Buddha Gotama as the supreme spiritual teacher with profound knowledge of human psychology. It seems that some aspects of his teaching was taken by early Christianity because of trade routes and buddhists missionaries sent to the west (they reached even Egypt and Greece) in the period of King Ashoka (3rd century B.C.)

 

[Kestegs]

I believe Jesus is the most profound philosopher of his time and has had the greatest impact in humanity. His martyrdom for beliefs forced people to question themselves and their own beliefs and what they would do to protect them. Or even to reconsider what they hold to be true.

I do not practice or strongly believe, and I don't care too much to preoccupy myself with what label I prefer to define my beliefs, but I do recognize the importance of religion and the followers of beliefs. I respect that people have different ideas than me and I'm grateful that the majority have given me the privilege of having my own opinions and being able to express them without fear of reprisal.

I side on the idea that he indeed lived, but I don't agree with some of the decisions that have been made that describe his life. Like the Magdalene controversy and such.

Interesting, thanks! So do you believe he was raised from the dead, or not?

What kind of tests?
"cannot explain X therefore Y" is an argument from ignorance fallacy. I understand you have other reasons for belief so I hope you move on from this one since it is literally fallacious. You could provide an example for me if you like and I can explain further why it's fallacious to believe that your one answer is the only answer (especially given your one answer is a supernatural answer)

Not sure what "Feel his presence in my life" is but I'm guessing it is similar to personal revelation...?

Ok. I have a theoretical situation for you, then:
We know that only a fraction of the global population is christian (iirc there are more muslims if you reject catholics). Now, it's pretty fair to say that most/all of these groups are at least aware of Christianity, whether they've done the research or not. Then, there are all non-religious and other groups, most of which have heard of Christianity as well I would guess.

If we want to save as many people as possible, and you believe god is just, then how does the idea sound to you if we could somehow erase all resources on Christianity so that everyone is "superficially" ignorant (you said above everyone would still have some instinctive knowledge of him).

Do you think this would be a plausible means for saving more people? What if we likewise removed all other religious references as well so that we don't have any worship of a false god?

I'm not advocating for book burning or anything but I'm just curious what you think of the thought experiment.



Thoughts on Jesus: May or may not have existed, as with any ancient historical figure. Almost certainly was not resurrected and almost certainly did not perform any "miracles". The reasons people believed he performed miracles could be many: sleight of hand, mixing of mythologies together by those who wrote about him, willingness to believe because of prophecies or other reasons, poor/modified memory...

Tests like checking things out, reading for myself, observing evidence, etc...

I think you are firmly in the same cannot explain X, therefore Y. You can't explain the supernatural, therefore you have attempted to explain things scientifically. This goes back to the alt medicine topic as well.

Yes, personal revelation is a good explanation.

Your situation doesn't really work, because most people reject God/Jesus in either situation.

I find it interesting that you're not even willing to admit that he existed. There's pretty strong evidence to support it. Well, never mind, I'm not actually surprised

Forgot to respond to this:

Truth is that which is reflected in reality. A book does not determine what is truth and what is not. If the god hypothesis cannot be falsified, it does not lie in the realm of science, either. So can the god hypothesis be falsified? I believe you've already stated that you think if the science disagrees with the god, then it's the science that's wrong...

What about the first amendment? Science classes don't teach unsubstantiated hypotheses. They only teach that which is reflected in the scientific consensus. Should we also teach the following hypotheses next to evolution/big bang:
1) zeus is real
2) allah is real
3) krishna is real

Just to placate the believers? Absolutely not. You can have those discussions in a religion class which I actually encourage.

My guess is that you are unfamiliar with the Evolution vs. Intelligent design (aka creationism in disguise) court case that happened a few years ago.

Here's a documentary about it:

Very brief summary:
The IDers lied, and repackaged creationism materials ("of pandas and people") as "intelligent design" material, but all they did was change the names of the ideas and hence it was still a religious, and UNSCIENTIFIC "theory".
What they advocated for was unconstitutional, even though it on the surface looked as though it was scientific. What you're advocating for is strictly religious and can't even hide under the guise of "science" or alternative explanations. The only "problem" with the scientific theory (and hence why you would want to teach an alternative alongside evolution) is that it disagrees with your religious beliefs. You have no scientific rationale behind this and so it does NOT belong in the science class.

Hmmm... I think you could be right, and I can actually agree with you to a degree on this. I will change my opinion to agree that my religious beliefs do not have a place being taught alongside science, because they are not science. I do still disagree with the fact that these theories (evolution, big bang, etc.) are being taught as FACT.

 

[Interdasting]

Interesting, thanks! So do you believe he was raised from the dead, or not?

No.

 

[Kestegs]

No.

How is he a profound philosopher then? He clearly claimed that he would come back to life. If he claimed that and then didn't then how do you believe anything else he said? Or why did he have such an effect on his society?

 

[pharphis]

Tests like checking things out, reading for myself, observing evidence, etc...

I think you are firmly in the same cannot explain X, therefore Y. You can't explain the supernatural, therefore you have attempted to explain things scientifically. This goes back to the alt medicine topic as well.

Yes, personal revelation is a good explanation.

Your situation doesn't really work, because most people reject God/Jesus in either situation.

I find it interesting that you're not even willing to admit that he existed. There's pretty strong evidence to support it. Well, never mind, I'm not actually surprised



Hmmm... I think you could be right, and I can actually agree with you to a degree on this. I will change my opinion to agree that my religious beliefs do not have a place being taught alongside science, because they are not science. I do still disagree with the fact that these theories (evolution, big bang, etc.) are being taught as FACT.

I am not in that category.
1) scientists don't assume anything (beyond being able to reasonably reliably observe and model the universe, like we all do)
2) When we have a phenomenon we cannot explain, we don't assert various answers. We come up with hypotheses to test. We use logic and reason to deduce the most likely explanation based on our current understanding of the universe.
3) Science cannot explain the supernatural by definition. We don't pretend to explain the supernatural. There is no evidence of the supernatural, either (what would that even look like to naturalistic creatures like us?)
3b) There are lots of claims of the supernatural, but how do we know which ones to accept and which to not accept? Time and time again people claim supernatural things happened which we later found or did not or were completely unsubstantiated to begin with. There are thousands of religions and they can't all be right. At best, 99.99% of them are wrong leaving only one remaining which is true. Most likely they are all wrong. Just like alien abductions, ghosts, etc.

I'm not sure what you mean by "reject". How do you reject something you've never heard of or considered? How can I reject the idea that the Earth is round if I've never considered it? Do you reject "asdwertqevsdfv"? Was that before or after I typed it out?

I'm not willing to say he did not exist, either. I'm not a historian but my understanding is that there was probably a influential guy named Jesus (or similar). But, afaik he is not mentioned anywhere outside of the bible, either. For someone so influential (and indeed miraculous if you believe that), we should expect lots of accounts about him to exist. That doesn't mean I have to accept any of the supernatural stuff that comes along with it.

We should keep in mind that all the gospels were written well after Jesus was dead. Anything attributed to him wasn't written BY him, so when you say "he made such and such prophecy and it came true" you're presupposing the accuracy of the bible and anything attributed to Jesus. I assume you're not in the camp of people who believe that god literally wrote the bible, but that it was humans "inspired" by god or whatever people normally say. A related thought is that the bible is made of many books by many different authors some of which have long been accepted to consists of plagiarizing from one book to another. I can't remember the date but I'm pretty sure the Catholic church a couple hundred years ago decided which books were canon and which were not... So much for "god's word"
(I'll have to double check this stuff later... I don't recall the dates and could be wrong about who compiled the books... you might be familiar already and could enlighten me)

Science education consists of the best explanations for the facts we have at present. When we say something is a "fact" we mean it is either an reliable observation or an explanatory theory of why these facts are what they are. Evolution is both a fact and a theory of how these facts go together. It is both observed in reality (in labs and outside), in the fossil record and in DNA. It all meshes together perfectly and nothing provides as good of an explanation as evolution does. So in any useful sense of the word, evolution is a fact. Hell, we knew evolution was a fact before we looked at our genome and found the exact same information (and more) that we found in the fossil record. We used this theory to predict where we would find transitional fossils that were key in the evolution of humans and other animals. Notice how I bolded the word predict. A scientific theory is something that allows us to make predictions, and evolution has allowed us to do that plenty (and accurately). Evolution is as much of a fact as Germ Theory, but I don't think you'd challenge the idea that germ theory is a fact.

Perhaps you have some impossible standard for the word "Fact" that I'm unaware of. We never claim 100% certainty in science (we believe it is impossible) but it would take a theory of much better predictive power than evolution currently has to replace it. Saying "god did it and made it look like we evolved" is not a better theory.

 

[pharphis]

How is he a profound philosopher then? He clearly claimed that he would come back to life. If he claimed that and then didn't then how do you believe anything else he said? Or why did he have such an effect on his society?

Why do you believe that he 1) said those things and 2) that the truth of that claim is relevant at all to the rest of his thoughts and opinions?

 

[Gripphon1]

@BBS_Agonistes

I have read your response to my post, and some other stuff in this thread you said afterwards. I don't really have anything really clever to comment, I understand your view on problem of external moral truth, as you do understand issues I presented as well. I can however comment some things.

You presentation of "evidence" for free will is convincing and is exactly the way I think about it... Only problem that I ask myself is, do those "evidences" or tests of "free will" really prove real nature of free will as it's usually presented as "I can choose", or do they actually show something else. Now I don't know do I really want to get into discussion about what free will is since philosophy behind that is enormous, but let's keep things simple if possible.
I had some discussion with one of village elders some time ago about material world and problem of determinism. Discussion went into direction of human feelings, our so called "free will" and connection with material world and determinism. We both concluded it sounds kinda incredible to present everything around as us pure material world that simply follows its natural laws and everything is happening in deterministic way. To make long story short, that would mean it was 13 billion years ago predestined that two of us will have this kind of discussion on forum at exactly this time and that I will drink water before finishing this sentence. Or if you like, anything we feel are just a chemicals, and free will does not exist, we are beings that are just simply more complex to understand than simple rock on the beach.

That does sound crazy from my point of view as I am also one of those slaves of free will who believes he builds his own way toward his destiny. Even if I accept possibility everything is de facto deterministic, I also admit I can't really comprehend world like that, at least not all parts of the world which includes us people. This "illusion" of free will is just too strong and too convincing.

Now what follows at this point is philosophy. I did participate in such discussions before, but I never really moved on from one certain question. That question is: even if I myself am pure material and my actions and everything happens by same determinism principles as does to rock I step on, what do I really have from such conclusion? We can't de facto prove free will (what you presented is not it for me), nor can we prove that we are slaves of determinism just like rocks around us cause we don't have understanding nor strong enough computers to calculate, predict and confirm that.

As for cosmology, just short comment. Cosmology perhaps can't conduct some experiments, but cosmology does use scientifically proven facts to create models and to understand universe. What works in lab should work outside lab too, right? Problem is, time and spatial scale of observation is so huge it does make job of cosmologists challenging to understand universe, also there might be things we don't understand that should be discovered yet and so on. But cosmology is also observable science, they observe phenomena and explain them with scientific facts that are already proven in lab. Obviously no one has put nebula or star in lab yet, that's why there is always good chance we will discover something we didn't know yet. That is true even for things we have in lab right before our eyes.

Now interesting digression: do you remember my explanation why I think all people understand and perceive things as their own internal truth? See, I also came to certain conclusion about God himself some time ago, and that is: God is what people say He is, people shape him and perceive him as they please. Or in other words, some say there is no God and people created Him, I say they could be right in one part that we really did create image of God, even if there might be something called God "above" our heads.
This is philosophical conclusion which follows after my arguments of subjective perceiving of external truth of something already presented in this thread. Even if there is God, we know him only by image we created about him based on our experiences and such. Not to discredit all-powerful being as some people perceive him, but when people's mind is included, God is not really different by any purple unicorn we create in our mind. This has simply to do with perception that when I talk about God with someone, I don't talk in a way "ok, now you will tell me what God is", but rather in a way "ok, now you will tell me what image of God you created in your mind".
What is your view on that, is God mostly purple unicorn we create in our mind by perceiving reality around us, or is that "unicorn" inside of us something more than just a unicorn? And why? ^^

 

[BBS_Agonistes1]

Very interesting questions. I had left the thread for a bit because I didn't want to make enemies on the forum! But I think during the week I can take time to respond. But I do think your question requires some thinking, so I will not give a superficial answer off the cuff, but will take a little while to think on it. Same for phar; I think I left you hanging on a few posts.

Also, do you literally have village elders? That's awesome.

 

[Interdasting]

How is he a profound philosopher then? He clearly claimed that he would come back to life. If he claimed that and then didn't then how do you believe anything else he said? Or why did he have such an effect on his society?

Because his ethics are founded on the idea of restitution and peace than violence. Not to mention he is the ultimate example of martyrdom, for his own beliefs at that. Just because I don't believe some things of what he said or what has been written as history does not mean I disagree with everything about him.

 

[BBS_Agonistes1]

@pharphis

You could certainly be right regarding Christians who are scientists. There could be cognitive dissonance there. I know a few, and that’s certainly not the case with my personal acquaintances, but again—I don’t disagree that this could indeed be the case for some. Ultimately, it's an assumption--some Christians might assume that actually all atheists do feel the reality of sin, and feel guilt over it, and feel some sort of need for God. That might be true for some atheists. It's certainly true of some I know. But it's ultimately a generalization and assumption.

But the issue of cognitive dissonance is actually quite pertinent. I really feel that the naturalist, determinist viewpoint requires a far huger cognitive dissonance. Ultimately, if we truly believe this account, that free will is ultimately an illusion—then actually, all the reasons we’ve given in this thread for what we believe aren’t right at all. None of our beliefs are anything but the result of physical reactions in the material world. We don’t choose to believe anything because it is more or less logical. Our “choices” are illusory—our behavior is no more logical than that of a rabbit, a single-celled organism, or a stone. The common anthem of such naturalists is “the difference between the fundamentalist’s views and that of the scientist is that the fundamentalist’s view cannot be changed by anything—they are illogical, and fly in the face of logic. The scientist, on the other hand, knows exactly what will change his views—evidence.” Well, actually that’s completely incorrect. All attitudes in humans are determined, not by evidence or inquiry or change—that is all completely illusory. The universe that exists is the only one that could have ever existed. There is no “could”—every fundamentalist whacko was determined within the big bang, as was our conversation here, etc.

(Now, I’m well aware of the reconciling arguments of determinism and free will. These accounts have been around forever—at least back to the compatibilism of the 17th c.—and they just really don’t hold water because all of them simply redefine “free will” in determinist terms. That’s not free will—that’s just predictable cause and effect. If free will functions this way, then again—falling rocks have free will. It’s a silly definition.)

The irony is really quite staggering. Not only is it an ironic situation to begin with, but even the fact that we can recognize the irony was predetermined as well.

Now, consider the cognitive dissonance of this position. I apologize for using Dawkins as an example again, but he’s put himself in the public so purposefully (or was he determined to do so?) that I can’t help it. And if he is right, I literally can’t help it. OK, I’ll stop now! Dawkins says, “Even if you are in some sense a determinist -- and philosophically speaking many of us may be -- that doesn't mean we have to behave as if we are determinists, because the world is so complicated, and especially human brains are so complicated, that we behave as if we are not deterministic, and we feel as if we are not deterministic -- and that's all that matters.”

Really? Our human feelings are "all that matters?" We should continue behaving in a way that is contrary to the actual demonstrable truth regarding the material universe? Dawkins is quite the activist, but he knows that if the material world is all that exists, then he cannot actually change anything. He argues that religions are terrible, all the while knowing the very existence of good and evil, or even ethical and nonethical, are just an illusion. He might as well be taking a rock to task because it rolls down a hill when pushed.

I find this viewpoint and corresponding behavior quite laughable, as it requires a cognitive dissonance in every single moment of life. Elsewhere, Dawkins admits that he isn't really sure about this in his interview with Manzari:

Dawkins: [says he doesn't really know what he thinks about determinism, continues..] ...what I do know is that what it feels like to me, and I think to all of us, we don’t feel determined. We feel like blaming people for what they do or giving people the credit for what they do. We feel like admiring people for what they do. None of us ever actually as a matter of fact says, “Oh well he couldn’t help doing it, he was determined by his molecules.” [there is a bit more after this, a nice Fawlty Towers anecodte.
Manzari: But do you personally see that as an inconsistency in your views?
Dawkins: I sort of do. Yes. But it is an inconsistency that we sort of have to live with otherwise life would be intolerable.

Interesting. Rejecting a conclusion based on a rational approach because it would make life intolerable. This is really what strikes me as so insincere about the more militant atheist movements, who seek to convince everyone of the truth of atheism, make everyone think rationally, and see value in doing so, despite the entire basis of their thought pushing them to reject the very idea of free will. That's a leap of faith indeed!

But let’s move to a Pascal-type wager.

If naturalist-determinists are right, then what is the effect? Well, if they are right, then my Christian beliefs are merely the result of the chain of reactions that began eons ago. I don’t really have any other options. If I cease believing, that doesn’t earn me points anywhere. There is no advantage to assuming less about the world, being logical, pursuing scientific inquiry. It just happens.

So if the naturalist-determinists are right—and in a certain meaning of possibility, I freely admit that they could be right—I don’t really have any choice about what I believe, and it doesn’t really matter either way. And regardless, I don’t have the power to change my beliefs at all, even though my consciousness (an illusion) enjoys these subsequent illusion of free will.

To address your other point regarding the subject of science vs. religion--my ultimate point wasn't that science and religion don't ever clash at all in practice. Of course they may do. But I don't ultimately believe they do, especially when many Christians, agnostics, and atheists who do know a lot about science don't believe they necessarily conflict. The militant group that claims they absolutely can't be reconciled is certainly a minority as far as I can tell. But I'm not really basing this on an argument from popularity, or anything like that. I'm ultimately saying that I'm not an expert on science, and I'm not really qualified to answer the question of whether such science is compatible with my own theological views. I just know there are others who are qualified scientists and seem to make rational arguments that there is no conflict, and at some point, and I ultimately can't be an expert on everything... that would take a lifetime. So I don't ultimately see sufficient evidence that requires me to accept either religion or science is some sort of either/or scenario.

If I did accept naturalism--the idea that the material world is all that exists--I would absolutely accept determinism in a heartbeat. It seems the only logical conclusion.

EDIT: So, if we admit the possibility of free will, ultimately I think what we do with our free will is the most pressing issue. Science doesn't really provide any guidelines on how to behave ethically, so I feel bound to explore philosophy and religion in much more depth than science. Since my profession isn't that of a scientist, I won't personally benefit from pursuing that line of inquiry in the depth that a career scientist would, if that makes sense.


@Gripphon

Obviously, the above conversation also responds to some points you raise. I was confused though: do you ultimately believe we have free will? Or not? Or you’re unsure?

I may not understand your final question, now that I look back on it.

At first I thought you were asking whether I believe God is to be reached merely through observation of the external world, or if there is a direct link with God internally. In response to this, I was thinking, yes—I do ultimately believe that there is both an internal and external link to God. (This is especially true when I consider certain doctrines of Christianity involving the will, regeneration of will, subsequent indwelling of the Holy Spirit). I am not a Christian rationalist or mystic in that I don’t affirm each of these extremes to the point of negating the other. But I do agree that there is an internal link to God, though we can be mistaken regarding this.

Now, I think perhaps you may have been gesturing in a different direction, nodding toward the idea that perhaps God is an internal creation of our own minds. If that is so, obviously I think that sometimes occurs—humans can build up inaccurate fantasies in their minds regarding anything—a spouse, a career, or other aspects of existence. But, unlike many who think this way, I do ultimately believe that there is a proper understanding of god; i.e., he isn't merely a creation of the mind, just as we can build up a false image of a spouse, but there really is an actual spouse behind that.

 

[pharphis]

I read this while I was at a conference and forgot to respond, came back to the thread now and saw that I left some things unanswered. Long post, ohnoes. If I miss something important ask me again.

@pharphis

You could certainly be right regarding Christians who are scientists. There could be cognitive dissonance there. I know a few, and that’s certainly not the case with my personal acquaintances, but again—I don’t disagree that this could indeed be the case for some. Ultimately, it's an assumption--some Christians might assume that actually all atheists do feel the reality of sin, and feel guilt over it, and feel some sort of need for God. That might be true for some atheists. It's certainly true of some I know. But it's ultimately a generalization and assumption.

But the issue of cognitive dissonance is actually quite pertinent. I really feel that the naturalist, determinist viewpoint requires a far huger cognitive dissonance. Ultimately, if we truly believe this account, that free will is ultimately an illusion—then actually, all the reasons we’ve given in this thread for what we believe aren’t right at all. None of our beliefs are anything but the result of physical reactions in the material world. We don’t choose to believe anything because it is more or less logical. Our “choices” are illusory—our behavior is no more logical than that of a rabbit, a single-celled organism, or a stone. The common anthem of such naturalists is “the difference between the fundamentalist’s views and that of the scientist is that the fundamentalist’s view cannot be changed by anything—they are illogical, and fly in the face of logic. The scientist, on the other hand, knows exactly what will change his views—evidence.” Well, actually that’s completely incorrect. All attitudes in humans are determined, not by evidence or inquiry or change—that is all completely illusory. The universe that exists is the only one that could have ever existed. There is no “could”—every fundamentalist whacko was determined within the big bang, as was our conversation here, etc.

(Now, I’m well aware of the reconciling arguments of determinism and free will. These accounts have been around forever—at least back to the compatibilism of the 17th c.—and they just really don’t hold water because all of them simply redefine “free will” in determinist terms. That’s not free will—that’s just predictable cause and effect. If free will functions this way, then again—falling rocks have free will. It’s a silly definition.)

The irony is really quite staggering. Not only is it an ironic situation to begin with, but even the fact that we can recognize the irony was predetermined as well.

Now, consider the cognitive dissonance of this position. I apologize for using Dawkins as an example again, but he’s put himself in the public so purposefully (or was he determined to do so?) that I can’t help it. And if he is right, I literally can’t help it. OK, I’ll stop now! Dawkins says, “Even if you are in some sense a determinist -- and philosophically speaking many of us may be -- that doesn't mean we have to behave as if we are determinists, because the world is so complicated, and especially human brains are so complicated, that we behave as if we are not deterministic, and we feel as if we are not deterministic -- and that's all that matters.”

Really? Our human feelings are "all that matters?" We should continue behaving in a way that is contrary to the actual demonstrable truth regarding the material universe? Dawkins is quite the activist, but he knows that if the material world is all that exists, then he cannot actually change anything. He argues that religions are terrible, all the while knowing the very existence of good and evil, or even ethical and nonethical, are just an illusion. He might as well be taking a rock to task because it rolls down a hill when pushed.

I find this viewpoint and corresponding behavior quite laughable, as it requires a cognitive dissonance in every single moment of life. Elsewhere, Dawkins admits that he isn't really sure about this in his interview with Manzari:


Interesting. Rejecting a conclusion based on a rational approach because it would make life intolerable. This is really what strikes me as so insincere about the more militant atheist movements, who seek to convince everyone of the truth of atheism, make everyone think rationally, and see value in doing so, despite the entire basis of their thought pushing them to reject the very idea of free will. That's a leap of faith indeed!

But let’s move to a Pascal-type wager.

If naturalist-determinists are right, then what is the effect? Well, if they are right, then my Christian beliefs are merely the result of the chain of reactions that began eons ago. I don’t really have any other options. If I cease believing, that doesn’t earn me points anywhere. There is no advantage to assuming less about the world, being logical, pursuing scientific inquiry. It just happens.

So if the naturalist-determinists are right—and in a certain meaning of possibility, I freely admit that they could be right—I don’t really have any choice about what I believe, and it doesn’t really matter either way. And regardless, I don’t have the power to change my beliefs at all, even though my consciousness (an illusion) enjoys these subsequent illusion of free will.

To address your other point regarding the subject of science vs. religion--my ultimate point wasn't that science and religion don't ever clash at all in practice. Of course they may do. But I don't ultimately believe they do, especially when many Christians, agnostics, and atheists who do know a lot about science don't believe they necessarily conflict. The militant group that claims they absolutely can't be reconciled is certainly a minority as far as I can tell. But I'm not really basing this on an argument from popularity, or anything like that. I'm ultimately saying that I'm not an expert on science, and I'm not really qualified to answer the question of whether such science is compatible with my own theological views. I just know there are others who are qualified scientists and seem to make rational arguments that there is no conflict, and at some point, and I ultimately can't be an expert on everything... that would take a lifetime. So I don't ultimately see sufficient evidence that requires me to accept either religion or science is some sort of either/or scenario.

If I did accept naturalism--the idea that the material world is all that exists--I would absolutely accept determinism in a heartbeat. It seems the only logical conclusion.

EDIT: So, if we admit the possibility of free will, ultimately I think what we do with our free will is the most pressing issue. Science doesn't really provide any guidelines on how to behave ethically, so I feel bound to explore philosophy and religion in much more depth than science. Since my profession isn't that of a scientist, I won't personally benefit from pursuing that line of inquiry in the depth that a career scientist would, if that makes sense.

I agree with the first part. I do think choices are an illusion, but that's different than claiming that our actions are 100% predetermined, which I'll explain based on my rudimentary understanding of quantum mechanics. Ultimately everything is probabilistic and so I don't think everything is predetermined from the outset of the universe. I could be wrong ofc but I don't really know anything about this. Still, there's no cognitive dissonance for me outside of the fact that although I think choice is an illusion I think it's in our best interests to act as if choice is NOT an illusion (we don't KNOW, after all).

I agree, except I think that outside of the discussion of free will/determinism that discussions of "changing one's mind" and evaluation of evidence needs to take on a more personal note. If I say that I think someone is not evaluating the evidence I present them honestly it is because I think they are not giving it the weight it deserves compared to the evidence they already rely on for their beliefs. There could be a million reasons as to why they weight the evidences differently but when I say that someone is not forming an opinion "based on evidence" I ultimately mean that they've already been convinced by SOMETHING (which can be called evidence in the broadest sense) but which I do not consider evidence in light of what else would normally constitute evidence in a more scientific view. For example: it might be sloppy but I would call the bible non-evidence and personal experiences non-evidence (for the supernatural) but ofc they ARE evidence, broadly speaking. They're just very weak evidence (scientifically) even though they DO shape people's beliefs.

Sorry, that was written sloppily

Now that I've gotten to this point I see I more or less agree with Dawkins. The reason is that I don't think free will or a lack thereof is demonstrably true, and I don't mean this from a solipsistic sense, either. I don't think there is strong evidence one way or the other. If we can create AI with free will that would convince me that we have free will, but ofc I think that is unlikely to happen anytime soon (if at all).

Re: Dawkins quote
I don't consider it an inconsistency on my worldview because I don't claim certainty about free will and how it relates to determinism. I don't see a good reason to believe that free will does exist, but I don't reject it as possible. I simply lean towards not believing in it because I don't know of a naturalistic explanation and I don't consider our cognition to be evidence that supports a supernatural explanation any more than I do for people who claim to have been abducted by aliens. I think whether or not we have free will or if "thinking" is an illusion that there is a good evolutionary explanation as to why we would evolve in such a way.

Agreed on the wager (I think). But, that doesn't mean I care any less (or at least think I care any less) about what people believe and why because I want (or think I want) people to be happy, healthy, etc. and discussing our beliefs is an important step to realizing these goals.

Yes this is exactly what my view is (expressed just above this line) except I don't think religion has any place in it because of how I define religions as being faith-based belief systems.
Again, this "faith" is still "evidence" but in a much weaker sense imo, such as being raised within a religious group and so you've been subjected to such thought processes or apologetics (good or bad) or whatever other reasons you can think to come to a conclusion about something like this outside of objective, independently verifiable science.*

*I don't know if I've said this earlier but I think most of us already know that science doesn't deal with the supernatural (by definition) and so it's hard to imagine how science could verify just about any religious belief based in the supernatural.

 

[Brak]

I'm an atheist

tldr verions: I've come to this conclusion based on the fact that nearly every documented civilization that has ever existed has developed some sort of religion, yet no one religion has ever been identical to another that develops in isolation. Further the human brain needs to fill gaps in knowledge in order to understand how the world works. Thus I believe that religions are a more elaborate system to explain the missing pieces that have evolved over time as they are passed down across generations.

I used to be more antitheist, but I've come to realize that most of what I disliked about organized religion was just the people manipulating it, and it's followers to benefit themselves. And this is not an attribute only found in religious structures. Therefore, being upset with religion is not the ideal position. Though it is rather infuriating the way atheists are looked down upon by large swathes of society. I'm pretty sure that my personal morals line up p much across the board with most people practicing religions aside from some that require vegetarianism on the peaceful side, and acts of retribution on the other end of the spectrum.


Sorry for ignoring the rest of the thread, just felt like jumping in



EDIT: Also in regards to free will. I dont think it really matters, since we can never be 100% certain if we do or do not. Just ask yourself how you would live without free will vs. if you did have free will. And what would the consequences be for such adjustments if you were wrong. The conclusion is that you should live as if free will exists.

 

[pharphis]

I agree that religions shouldn't be the only target of those like us who are opposed to them, because for the vocal minority of us who have done some evaluation of religious beliefs dislike religions in general for a more reasonable reason (at least the minority I am familiar with - scientific skeptics) which is that religions are faith-based. Part of what reminded me to double check this thread and what was said last was this video I saw yesterday:

Quite lengthy and semi-creepy animations (heh) but the most important part of this video (as a skeptic) is the portion around 20 mins which explains how "faith" as it is commonly used regarding religious belief is a system that inhibits the detection of lies