by Terry 46 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
When rejecting a belief in God, the atheist must either ignore and not learn anything to replace their belief, or they must move on to the logical consequence of their lack of belief, namely that something came from nothing or else the universe is eternal and has had an eternal series of big bangs prior to the most recent.
Or we can just be really honest with ourselves and say, "Gee, I just don't know."
Your use of 'must' is also most unusual.
If it weren't for the pithiness and precision of EntirelyPossible I'd just stay home and knit cravats! Thanks for easing the burden old chum! Just noticed this, Terry. Thanks! Back at you! Next time I get to Dallas, we should grab a beer. Or a taco! Or a steak! |
I tried to interest people in Anselm and his ontological proof several months ago, but no-one was interested and universal scorn seemed to abound, so I shut up!
You made him sound so much more interesting to more people, Terry, and you did it with pictures, too!
Anselm has long been one of my favourites, ever since I was 17... a long time ago now....when I specialised in him at school and then at uni. Signs of a mis-spent youth, no doubt!
Long out of fashion now, but I still love the mediaeval spiritual writers.
"This is the kind of statement that sent me towards math and science rather
than religion or philosophy."
I don't think the perspective I intend should be any affront to someone who
doesn't care for religion or philosophy (although aversion to all philosophy
could obviously lead to problems whether you believe in God or not).
I enjoyed math and science in school and read the latest science news.
In understanding faith as such, as a hope for a possible God beyond the known
things, I'd also recommend keeping up with the known things God is possible
beyond (liberal not conservative stances on various issues--evolution, rights
and regard of women and LGBT people, etc.).
Understanding it as a possibility, not a proven, also means there shouldn't be
harm over it. Arbitrary hurting and killing are sadism and murder, and 'centric
intolerance by some of either choice about faith have caused the most harm on
the issue. Claiming proof of either stance can lead some to make either law of
the land with punishments, which is institutionalized 'centric intolerance.
An analogy I make is with music, the known things being like the objective
math of the music and faith or not being like subjective reactions beyond it
with no one obliged to anyone else's subjective reactions. Get the known things
right or you'll play off the beat and hit wrong notes. Not wanting final arbi-
ters of taste requiring subjective reactions is like wanting separation of
church and state. We can't objectively prove someone else has to have the same
subjective reaction so shouldn't be 'centric and only have friends with the same
likes and dislikes in music.
I've enjoyed math and science, but can love writing and listening to songs,
too. In this perspective, atheism, rejection of belief in god or gods, is like
someone not liking a song another likes to me, not a difference in acceptance of
math and science. Misinformation with those come with the sort of conservative
stances I referred to which I'd discourage as harmful to the God concept and
people.
I think St Anselm's argument or "proof", simply reinforces the conclusion that there is not a God.
The properties that make for greatness in a being, i.e power, goodness, and knowledge , do have intrinsic maxima : omnipotence, being perfectly good, omniscience.
As is evident from the things we perceive no such Being exists, or evil would not for one thing.
Just for clarification,
Atheism and Agnosticism are not mutually exclusive. Atheism states what one believes, Agnosticism states what one knows. I am an agnostic atheist. I do not believe in any supreme being but I do not and cannot assert that there is no such entity.
Some are Agnostic Theists which believe there is a deity but do not claim to know who or what it is, much like deism.
A Gnostic atheist is one that both does not believe and claims to know there is nothing beyond the physical realm.
Ontological arguments don't require all beneficence. They should exclude it
if taken to require that He have us all live in heavenly circumstances forever
and we don't. Still, you can believe in life or not and a God that presides
over it or not and reckon on the possibility. Otherwise evil partly gets into
human free will and whether or not this God should provide that.
Atheism is rejection of belief in God or gods, similar to rationalism defined
to mean focus on only the known proven things, not a belief, although atheists
may be better or worse at rationalism--getting the facts right--and may believe
other things. Agnosticism leaves the possibility of God open. Belief can be
understood for God as beyond the known things while staying up on the known
things or not.
The point of my Topic was to bring into the open how the ongoing confidence of the True Believer has never waned throughout history when it comes to---what seems to THEM--as a RATIONAL defense of their position.
St. Anselm, bless his heart, thought he'd found a loophole!
The only thing greater than a make-believe God is a real God, he tells us, THEREFORE.....since we define God as "there is nothing greater"..we are COMPELLED to believe in a real God.
It is simple and does challenge us to RE-EXAMINE the definitions we attribute to our terms!
But, we define things (even important things) with a cavalier insouciance! Surely we can't expect people to believe their own definitions to the point they are compelled into acceptence of the supernatural!
Here is what I say: Stop pretending that BELIEF has anything to do with RATIONAL thinking!
If you insist on accepting an unprovable into your head--go and do so gleefully! But, don't pretend you really CAN prove an unprovable.
The Supernatural and the Natural are not overlapping magesteria!
