Are you tired of the whole atheist/believer debate?

by nicolaou 115 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  Narkissos

  As I'm sure you'd agree Narkissos, there is no such thing as religious truth or atheist truth - there is only truth, untruth and the unproven (which will eventually become either truth or untruth).
  
  Of course subjectivity makes life worth living, our tastes in art, music, food and even religion are all different but each can bring pleasure or happiness. If religions were viewed in the same light as literature or art in that there was no right or wrong just a matter of preference I would not object so much. No one says "Matisse was right and Picasso was wrong", it doesn't work that way. But religion is so different.

  I'm not so sure. I would personally avoid the notion of "truth" in this discussion, but arguably it can extend beyond the narrow concept of scientific truth, i.e. conformity to observable facts. I would submit that one can speak of "truth" in religion much like in art (note that only in modern times we consider those "fields," as many others, as totally distinct -- and a sociologist might find that they are not that distinct after all).

  Maybe the "truth" of a religion has nothing to do with its conformity to scientific facts (e.g. those of history, paleontology etc.; the "best" religions may be those which avoid any interference with science) but to its ability to provide a satisfying self-understanding to the (individual or collective; mostly individual now) subject. In that way a religion could be "true" or "false" too. The JWs, for instance, could be given a low level of "religious truth," not because of their unfortunate incursions into the scientific field (e.g. 607), but because they leave many of their own adepts religiously unsatisfied. Because so many people become and stay JWs, not because of subjective conviction, but for fear it might be the objective truth. In sum, a "false religion" in the sense of a religion lacking religion.

  However, do you think that most believers would accept that their beliefs are subjective? That they are held through personal conviction despite independant objective evidence that those beliefs are false?

  In cauda venenum?

  Truly religious beliefs imo can't be "false". When they are it is because they are not religious enough.
• 

  kid-A

  Allow me to conceptually describe my thoughts on the subjective nature of atheism. IMHO, the entire concept of a 'god' is a cultural and social construction implanted in the minds of children by parents or society. This was certainly the case with me. It is exceedingly unlikely that had my parents or society not intervened and implanted the 'god meme' in my brain at a very young age, this construct would likely have never even occurred to me. Evidence? Feral children raised in the absence of parental or cultural guidance have no concept whatsoever of a 'god in the sky' controlling their lives and the world in general. While there is a genetic component to religiosity or 'magical thinking' in general (see Twin Res. 1999 Jun;2(2):108-14.; Am J Psychiatry. 1997 Mar;154(3):322-9) there is no reason to think that 'belief in god' originates from any intrinsic psychological construct.

  Atheism, therefore, requires no belief. It is the absence of a belief. The rejection of an implanted concept, not the creation of a new belief system. It is simply a matter of looking around ones subjective environment and finding no tangible, replicable evidence whatsoever for the existence of supernatural forces. I merely use the term to describe myself as a linguistic convenience since fundamentally, I believe the term has no semantic logic. One cannot 'reject' that which did not exist in the first place. Particularly when I consider that my abandoning the belief in a god required NO external input whatsoever beyond my own subjective perception of the reality around me. The "belief" in god, however, most certainly DID require active input and mental construction from parents, society etc. The "non-believer" is simply subtracting or deleting an implanted "god" file.

  On a cruder level, much of the animosity these debates entail derives from the fact that most "believers" DO impose their beliefs as "hard cold facts" and fail to qualify their beliefs by admitting that "experiential reality" is only 'real' to the experiencer, and NOT to anybody else, unless they can demonstrate with tangible, demonstrable evidence that there indeed is validity to their belief. In the entire history of humanity, no believer has ever been able to do this.

  Belief in god is based entirely upon subjective "feeling" and emotion rather then any tangible element. As it stands, if I were to make the statement "I believe in purple unicorns, not because I have ever seen one, but because I can "feel" the presence of purple unicorns in my life", any believer in "god" would have to fully accept the validity and reality of my belief system, based upon the standards and criteria they themselves have established. There is presently as much "evidence" supporting the existence of purple unicorns, as their is of any god.
• 

  AuldSoul

  Feral children raised in the absence of parental or cultural guidance have...

  ...no vehicle for self-expression outside that provided by researchers after their discovery. Their conceptualizations are a complete mystery until they can communicate them, because scientists can't read minds.

  AuldSoul
• 

  AuldSoul

  On a cruder level, much of the animosity these debates entail derives from the fact that most "believers" DO impose their beliefs as "hard cold facts" and fail to qualify their beliefs by admitting that "experiential reality" is only 'real' to the experiencer, and NOT to anybody else, unless they can demonstrate with tangible, demonstrable evidence that there indeed is validity to their belief. In the entire history of humanity, no believer has ever been able to do this.

  Why would they need to demonstrate that if no one ever challenges them to do so, kid-A. You did say they aren't challenged to do so, didn't you? On another thread? Your second standard on this thread is confusing. Either they are required to prove it, or they aren't. My experiences are fact. There is experiential reality that is not observable to others. For instance, some people are cold in temperatures that are warm to other people. Neither is right or wrong, both are correct, both are completely factual from the perspective of the one experiencing it. Neither can objectively prove (tangibly) to anyone else that they are cold or warm.

  AuldSoul
• 

  heathen

  AuldSoul --- I'm not asking you to prove anything . Just want to hear your story . Looks like you were right on there, that the non believers are prone to disbelieve without even hearing the presentation . LOL Jeezus that takes alot of nerve to sit there and say it's not possible when there isn't even anything to discuss yet . There are many people that have the same type of exsperiences , that's why I'm interested . I'm not going to make you suffer for being open and honest . We do live in a strange universe full of alot of unexplained phenomena , things happen to people everyday . If not then fine .............
• 

  Narkissos

  IMHO, the entire concept of a 'god' is a cultural and social construction implanted in the minds of children by parents or society.

  Of course. No individual belief emerges in a vacuum. It reproduces, modifies, or reacts against existing patterns.

  Particularly when I consider that my abandoning the belief in a god required NO external input whatsoever beyond my own subjective perception of the reality around me. The "belief" in god, however, most certainly DID require active input and mental construction from parents, society etc. The "non-believer" is simply subtracting or deleting an implanted "god" file.

  I doubt it. You were born in a world where atheism (and more specifically post-Christian atheism) was a valid option, and you could not ignore it (even in a JW subculture, you knew about a larger culture which included atheism). You probably wouldn't have been the atheist you are in Middle-Ages Europe.

  if I were to make the statement "I believe in purple unicorns, not because I have ever seen one, but because I can "feel" the presence of purple unicorns in my life", any believer in "god" would have to fully accept the validity and reality of my belief system, based upon the standards and criteria they themselves have established.

  My question is, would you actually -- or seriously -- make such a statement? Would you be able to believe what you say? Can you really feel the presence of purple unicorns in your life? I doubt you can -- precisely because purple unicorns, so far, are not a socially admitted construct like "God" -- they are not quite as much subjectively believable, even though they may be objectively equivalent. Subjective belief has its rules too: you cannot just believe anything.
• 

  peacefulpete

  kid-A you would probably enjoy this book:Religion Explained: The Evolutionary Origins of Religious Thought The authors, after years of cataloging, suggest that there is a pattern to religious beliefs that permits the otherwise rational mind to embrace them despite they're often outlandish. As Narkissos says there is a difference between purple unicorns and invisible winged angels in the mind of believers. However the author shows that its not that one is less rational nor just that cultural pressures encourage belief in just one. They differ in how our minds catagorize and interpret in formation. I lost my book for the moment or I would explain more.
• 

  nicolaou

  Okay Auld Soul, if you're really not comfortable posting your personal experiences then please don't. There are things I choose not to share - we all have that right. But in the nicest possible way I really must pull you up on a couple of points.

  Subjective experiences are not open to objective examination, personal experiences are not open to disagreement.

  No. I don't accept that. Professional counselors and psychiatrists train for years with the express aim of objectifying subjective, personal experiences and interpreting them. I don't mean to give offence but perhaps we can compare god to some sort of cosmic ink blot test. You and I, and countless others, could all look at the following image and 'see' different things. We have simply interpreted the same data in our own unique, personal way - no right or wrong. Similarly, billions of people interpret their personal experience of 'god' in a unique, often conflicting, fashion. The experiences are real, I don't doubt that, but are any, all, none or just one of the interpretations valid?

  What evidence is there that belief in a "spiritual" aspect to reality is false?

  You have the burden of proof Auld Soul, not me. If my neighbour says to me "Hey Nic! I can communicate telepathically with aliens living on Tau Ceti 4" why would I be obliged to disprove him? If he wants me to believe him he must show me the evidence. But seeing as how you asked, consider this - billions of people have been praying to the christian god for almost 2000 years that his 'will be done on Earth'. It hasn't happened. This experiment, probably the largest in human history, has proved a negative.

  Or are we back to the ink blots and that is just my interpretation?

  Nic'
• 

  AuldSoul

  Um, no...I don't have the burden of proof. And that is my point. I haven't got to prove my experiences to anyone.

  As to your inkblot analogy, are we going to pretend that psychology is now a hard science? Or is it a subjective science and easily influenced by the interpretation of both the observer, the questioner (if these are separate), and the party asked?

  Professional counselors and psychiatrists train for years with the express aim of objectifying subjective, personal experiences and interpreting them.

  And still there are studies showing the pathetic range of opinions and diagnoses arising from such tests among various professionals who have trained for years. WIDELY divergent views. Were you unaware of this?

  The practice of Psychology is certainly beneficial, but it is also certainly subjective. Feel free to bang your head up against the classification of Psychology if you like, it is a soft science for a reason. There is no way to objectify the subjective, every attempt to do so has failed to prove itself effective when put through scientific rigors. If you admit it, we can move on, if not I will have to prove it to you. This is not a subjective opinion, perhaps you are aware of that already. There is a lot of data proving this one.

  I am not suggesting that you attempt to disprove your neighbor or challenge him for proof. Neither is possible because the subjective cannot be objectified. But I will say it is far more likely that you will (irrationally) demand proof that it did happen than that he will demand that you prove it didn't. With the subjective THERE IS NO burden of proof, as even kid-A will admit when he isn't raging against what he mistakenly thinks he disagrees with .

  But, that is a pretty picture you posted of a blood-engorged set of disembodied human lungs, with the meat hooks still protruding. Even looks like the bronchi, trachea, and tonsils came with. Couldn't figure out which organs were dangling below, but...

  Respectfully,
  AuldSoul
• 

  nicolaou

  Hi Auld Soul

  Returning to the title of this thread, clearly the two of us are not yet tired of the debate!

  I agree that psychology is an inexact and subjective science but that is my point. I am quite prepared to accept that I am wrong and that there is indeed a god, I have posted as much in recent topics here, but surely the position of the atheist is far more secure when compared to the position of the believer.

  Believers often say that atheism is just another faith position because, lacking any conclusive evidence of god's non-existence, faith is required to justify the belief. But faith is not always needed to span the gap between proof and belief. For a great many beliefs absolute proof is simply unavailable but that doesn't justify a suspension of belief in every case. Why?

  Because even when there is not conclusive proof there can be overwhelming evidence or one explanation which is superior to the alternatives. It takes a great deal of faith to believe in the supernatural, god, the soul, prayer or life after death but nowhere near the same amount to disbelieve those things. That is because atheism is based on observation and logical argument. Atheists believe what they have good reason to and don't believe what they have little reason to.

  Atheism is not a faith position because it believes nothing beyond what there is evidence for.

  Consider the famous account of Christ's disciple, Thomas. He believed that Jesus had died because he had very compelling evidence to believe it. He was not ready to believe that Christ had returned from the dead because reason and experience counted overwhelmingly against it. He only believed when presented with the evidence! Now the scriptures advise; "blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed" - John 20:29 So Christianity advises you to believe what you have no evidence to believe - very convenient.

  Faith cannot fill the gap between reasons to believe and proof, it merely props up beiefs that lack a secure foundation of evidence and reason. That is why 'Holy Men' and 'Sacred Books' tell us faith is not as easy as ordinary belief - or perhaps why atheist say that faith is foolish.

  Offered in friendship,

  Nic'