I would like your opinion on Bertrand Russell's comment

by Terry 34 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  Terry

  Could we discuss our reaction to Bertrand Russell's quote below?

  If I were asked to prove that Zeus and Poseidon and Hera and the rest of the Olympians do not exist, I should be at a loss to find conclusive arguments.

  An Agnostic may think the Christian God as improbable as the Olympians; in that case, he is, for practical purposes, at one with the atheists.

  In view of Carl Sagan's dictum: Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof, is there equivalency between the extraordinary claims of Christianty and Greek gods?

  Your comments and reasons and input are appreciated.
• 

  Phizzy

  I think, on this occasion, Bertie is spot on, I don't always agree with what he wrote. But, for "practical purposes, at one with the atheists" is where agnostics find themselves, saying to the believer in any God or Godess, " please give me proof before you expect me to do anything about this being."

  I think it is silly to get in to putting labels on people's position, because so much is assumed by others as to what your position is. If a label/identity is required better to make it up for yourself, some people label themselves Realist/Rationalist/ Humanist or something similar, that way they are identifying the intellectual postion they do hold, but don't have to suffer the assumptions made if you use Atheist or Agnostic.

  Of course Russell was right, there is just as much proof for the Greek gods as any other i.e Zilch.
• 

  Terry

  Another favorite Bertrand Russell quote:

  A hallucination is a fact, not an error; what is erroneous is a judgment based upon it.
• 

  TD

  Russell was describing the logical fallacy of trying to prove a negative. It's impossible to prove a negative.

  Sagan's dictum describes the flip side of the coin. The burden of proof falls upon the claimant. It's not up to the skeptic to disprove the claim (i.e. Prove a negative) It's up to the claimant to provide positive proof of the claim and the more extraordinary the claim, the more extraordinary that proof must be.

  Facially there may be an equivalency, but the problem with making a direct comparison is that it doesn't take plausibility into account.

  Belief in the Olympian gods is metaphorically speaking, frozen in amber because we have to go way back in time to find anyone who took it seriously. Belief in the Christian God is alive and well. (Some) Christians today are perfectly aware of how our understanding of the universe has evolved and do not define their belief in terms that overtly violate that understanding.

  In other words, even without proof, belief in a non-corporeal Super-being completely outside of our realm of experience is still more plausible than the idea that Hercules died from the blood of a centaur.
• 

  Band on the Run

  B/c of socially conditioning and an evolution in religous beliefs, Hercules seems improbable. I do believe that when warp drive is invented and used and Vulcans appear, the NT God will seem just as unlikely as Hercules' adventures. Both are myths.

  I believe Hercules' adventures do not impact me much simply b/c I have been socialized in another culture. Truths underlie both Hercules and Jesus if you refuse to take them literally. These are not ordianry human events. My own belief in Jesus is a conscious decision to live in accord with my tradition and civilization. I do not feel Jesus is a better God than Hindus or Buddhists or whomever worships. I am child of my upbringiing so I desire to find truth in Jesus. Krisna would appeal to me if I were born in INdia.

  Unless religion is imposed by the state, I see no reason why anyone has to prove anything to anyone else. The nastiest threads on this site involves matters that cannot be proven. People object to someone else imposing values onto someone else who is capable of forming their own belief. It drives me bonkers when someone declares a Witness fundamentalist take with the attitude that only they are correct. I hated the Witnesses for that attitude.

  I wish people here knew more about the details of other religions. Bill Mahr, whom I usually find funny, can be very obnoxious with insisting that all must believe as he does with his unbelief. Atheism is valid to me. Flogging people with it is not cool. IMO.
• 

  ProdigalSon

  TD: Sagan's dictum describes the flip side of the coin. The burden of proof falls upon the claimant. It's not up to the skeptic to disprove the claim (i.e. Prove a negative) It's up to the claimant to provide positive proof of the claim and the more extraordinary the claim, the more extraordinary that proof must be.

  It's certainly good and healthy to be skeptical. When the Catholic Church was considering a candidate for Sainthood, they would employ someone whose sole purpose was to do and say everything and anything possible to discredit the candidate, whether it was true or not. Basically, the greatest barrage of mud-slinging imaginable. Only those that survived this test would be Sainted. This person is where we got the term "The Devil's Advocate". This is a great process, necessary for evolution. It is a major part of Hegel's Dialectic.

  However, taking it too far will prevent a person from opening new doors.

  For instance, I make extraordinary claims about gnosis, and people here want extraordinary proof. The very nature of gnosis (Oneness with the Universal Consciousness, "God" if you will) makes it unprovable, since it is a personal experience. One of the first things a person learns when he decides to open his mind to it, is that someone who writes it off as impossible, i.e., those brainwashed by false religions, will never, ever, wake up, guaranteed. Why? Simply because they do not know they are asleep. It is then that a person realizes why he was never able to find the answers he was searching for, but becomes aware that he can find the answers within if he remains diligent, even if it takes many years or even a lifetime, and even if he fails to reach it in this life, his work is not wasted as he will carry it into the next one.
• 

  Ri

  SON, How do you open your mind to the oneness of God?
• 

  ProdigalSon

  SON, How do you open your mind to the oneness of God?

  I have by no means achieved gnosis, as I only began my Watchtower detox about 5 years ago, but many have, and if you read what they have to say, it is easy to recognize a common theme: Quieting the mind chatter and finding that small voice of subtle intuition within. After many years of study, practice and meditation, there is a moment of epiphany. Suddenly everything makes sense and there are no more mind-boggling conundrums to solve.

  Or, you can take a shortcut and drink a bottle of Ayahuasca

  Seriously though, knowledge is the key, because when we begin to understand the way things really work scientifically, they aren't so mysterious anymore. For instance, there is a very well-know saying, "Mind Over Matter". What does that really mean? It means that matter is first conceived in the mind, for instance a building is first an abstract thought in the mind of the person who wants to build it. An architect comes into play and translated this abstract idea into data that a builder can interpret into a real building. But it is also more than that. Can thoughts move physical objects as "witches" and "warlocks" purportedly do? If so, how do they do it? Can human thought be channeled into manipulating matter? There is certainly evidence right here on this planet that humans at one time had the ability to do so.

  Now think of what Jesus said:

  "With a mustard-grain of faith, you can say to this mountain, transfer from here to there and it will transfer, and nothing will be impossible for you."

  "You will do things even greater than these."

  The skeptics will say: Impossible. They will be stuck in their 3d world with its 3d limitations for as long as they insist on this stance. No one is stopping them from gnosis but themselves.

  But there are those who do believe, and can lead humanity towards God simply because they know it can be done.

  Those who "know" it can't be done, will never. How apropos!

  Perhaps when they actually see it being done, they can achieve it themselves. But for right now, it is just too rare, and there are too many deceptions, to convince the hard-core skeptics.

  In the end it doesn't matter, as the Creator has a plan in motion that cannot be changed. All of us will attain gnosis, sooner or later.

  Changes in the Source Field during the 2012 era are purported to be able to assist us in opening our pineal glands and more. It is said that fluoride and other chemicals are inhibiting factors. We shall see!
• 

  Joe Grundy

  'is there equivalency between the extraordinary claims of Christianty and Greek gods?'

  IMHO, yes, absolutely - and the proposition can rightly be extended to all 'gods'. In different times and places people have believed/believe in their own gods just as enthusiatically as 'Christians' of whatever flavour do today. Lack of evidence doesn't seem to have ever been a bar to belief.

  There are interesting discussions on the apparent predisposition of humans to 'need' a religion to believe in.

  Scientific knowledge is increasingly rapidly, and its availability is increasing exponentially (for example, archaeology was in its infancy when C T Russell was doing his 'pyramidology' studies). In some cultures there is a growth in the number of people disposed to ask for proof, or at least a credible explanation.

  And yet - there are a surprisingly large number of people in 'sophisticated' countries who believe that the world (and mankind) is 6,000 years old - JWs still teach it - and believe in one of the many creation myths despite all evidence to the contrary. That worries me a little, to be honest.

  To the Greeks their gods were very real. One can sense this not only by visiting their temples and 'sacred sites' but vestiges remain today. In Paphos, Cyprus (the birthplace of Aphrodite (Venus), the 'goddess of love') they still hold the annual 'Katyklysmos' sea-based festival to commemorate her birth from the waves. The festival was later taken over by the Christian church (as were so many pagan festivals) as a celebration of the 'great flood' but they didn't really fool anybody.

  As far as labels are concerned, I think most people understand 'agnostics' as 'doubters who haven't made their minds up' and atheists as 'those who say there is no god'. I'm an atheist.

  PS: I'm no expert on 'Greek gods' but IIRC Hercules wasn't regarded as one, was he? I thought he was just one of the 'heroes'.
• 

  Terry

  but the problem with making a direct comparison is that it doesn't take plausibility into account.

  I dunno. If you go back far enough in history and tell people disease is spread by invisible-to-the-eye living things that swarm they might

  not think it very plausible.

  Clearly the Catholic Church didn't think Galileo's description of the Earth going around the Sun was plausible. (Not that logic entered the picture.)

  The problem with crazy things that people use to believe is that there is enormous societal peer pressure involved.

  If you lived in the American colonies in Puritan times you'd be subjected to the most incredible superstitious mindset!

  Ever hear of the Antipodes? Makes perfect sense! Kinda.