Neha, just want to go back and respond to what you previously presented.
Firstly, I'd like to clarify something to try and provide more understanding here to Atheists or those who consider themselves on the other side of the discussion to me here.
Others who have responded to my original post think I'm making some attack or straw man argument. But, if you read over my full original post carefully, it's not really any kind of argument at all.
Rather, I state my displeasure discussing the nature of reality with Atheists because they generally offer nothing on the table. That is for me a big issue if I was to ever rationally turn away from belief in God as I'll further explain. You however, appear to have placed something on the table. Whether or not rationally consistent with not believing in God is another question, but nonetheless I appreciate you offering up a response from where you currently are in life.
To better understand me and where I'm coming from in my original post, I'm a strong advocate for
Coherentism when justifying any belief or what would entail if the lack thereof was true. Notwithstanding we as humans are also full of contradictions, I strongly believe that I'd accept that view which I see to be the most coherent with highest explanatory power. Could it be wrong? Sure. But generally, the more weight and support a position has behind it, the more rationally justified I am in assuming that position.
So for me, it is extremely important that I see a position as rationally justified, that it is truly internally coherent in a logical manner. Logic, if you couldn't tell, is a very big thing for me. And I don't make lightly of contradictions whether I find them in my beliefs or someone elses. It puzzles me, the person who will quite happily accept two obvious contradictions, or who chooses one belief or position over another according to their personal tastes. Truth is not a matter of taste like different flavoured icecreams. I'm a person who will stay up all night to try and work how two important beliefs within my worldview can be compatible. And I can't sleep until resolved, or feel all anxious, or depressed. It's a blessing being able to resolve puzzles, but it's also a curse that is quite draining.
Whether you hate me for that, or find my discussions too cut and dry... fine. I'm more than happy to discuss other things that are "less vulcan" and "more human".
Now, moving onto your responses...
Neha wrote:what do you make of our universe having a beginning?
A foreign event to be sure if it started at all. What was that event particularly, is something I am not sure about. I imagine a force, it could may very well be a God, who can say for sure? Its all hypothesis for now.
The purpose of this question -- all my questions -- is to provide Atheists with the chance to make the Atheist position more coherent as a worldview. Or, if someone just facepalmed themselves on the way
I purposefully choose to use the term "Atheist" (no names mentioned
) -- to try and make the position of a world without God more coherent.
Furthermore, in response to some others here, I don't care what intellectual redefining games some people like to play. There are two exclusive views here: Either God exists, or God does not exist. A stripped back Atheism, without any further rhetoric, is therefore plainly and simply the scenario where God does not exist.
While I hate pulling this distinction, I suppose my questions can only be answered by the strong form of Atheist. An Atheist who is quite decided their isn't God and will not pull back into an agnostic position. So perhaps these questions are not as relevant to someone like yourself where labels seem rather counter-intuitive (or Rubberneck even). Let's face it, we all attached labels to people, beliefs and what-not... but they're often less than ideal and can cloud issues and create many straw men. So... regardless of whatever one thinks of terms like "Atheist" I'm here dealing with a view of the world wherein there is no God/gods.
So getting back to your response, saying "a force, it could may very well be a God" is not a very good hypothesis for the Atheist position.
While you may be inclined to associate yourself with Atheism, I'm more inclined to think you don't know... and perhaps at this stage in your life journey, you don't really care about whether or not God exists. And if God does exist, then you have some very serious questions. But anyway, at least you're providing
your responses even if they are inconsistent with Atheism.
Neha wrote: Or how about our "self" -- are our actions and consciousness simply determined by the physical world of atoms,
This would only matter if you believe that God determines each of our actions, in lack of which I must find a determining factor as justification of my actions. But if there is no God, then our actions could be consequential at best, I am not sure why they need to be determined unless they fall upon a natural tendency for instance, a chemical firing in our brain like serotonin, which can make us feel happy.
For example I read someone saying in another thread (I think it was someone called jalay not sure) that without God, if I, an atheist loves my child, then that is no more important than an elephant fart. That is a very typical YEC line, one which the member here used quite freely. Perhaps you may think the same or not, I don't know, I hope you don't. But if you do, then you may also think that without a God, there is no such thing as love or happiness, true? Perhaps there is no objective reason to love or be kind or be happy or why even live? I mean why not I jump off a cliff if life has no objective value? I have heard that many times and perhaps by the tone of it, which you will agree is totally devoid of any love (I imagine christ and the disciples going around telling people to believe in him or else jump off cliffs) it never seems to hit the point for me. I see insult but I don't see love or care. But anyways, to your point which I am thinking would lead to the idea that love or similar actions cannot have value without God is something I don't find very true.
We godless people are not heartless chaps you know, we don't push our kids under the cars just because we don't believe there is a God. I may not have any christian justification of my love for my child but again, who says I need one. Even Paul in Romans 2, say that gentiles have the "law of God" written on their hearts? why do you think that is written like that? Is it because the having conscience is just natural for humans (even if its God ordained)? So if there is a God and you do believe there is one, then you don't need to ask this question because I assume you believe your scriptures to be true to the word. How in your world view does asking this question helps?
And that member who calls atheists' loving their children "elephant farts" needs to stop doing that too.
But I do understand and accept the fact that life is a strange marvel of nature. That its unique in many ways and that I am totally awed when I look across the universe. Do I see God, I see the possibility of one? But with no connotations of any kind, for now. You think your God is true but nearly all religions say the same.
Firstly, I don't believe God determines each of our actions. Rather, understand if we are Determined then we are not responsible for our actions. So for example, to say it is just for the rapist of a little girl to be punished, is simply nonsense. He had no control over his physical make-up any more than our bodies breathing or farting (if talking in Jlay's terms).
His actions were determined by something other than the rapist had control over.
Within Theism, we can account for some free will. In fact, Christianity is largely all about our free will and choosing to turn away from God. On a world wherein there is freedom, is it possible for the greatest good to be achieved - Love. Sadly, with such freedom one must also be free to choose the opposite - Hate. And so, there must be a real possibility for both, if love is really to be made possible. Notwithstanding there is much natural beauty and good in the world which must be equally explained, evil does exist and the amount of evil is restrained by physical boundaries including death.
There is an issue with Atheistic view of the world where we are not really free at all. Many seasoned Atheist philosophers argue for Determinism, for it appears to be an inevitable outcome of a purely materialist/physical position.
However, determinism means that people aren't good or bad, we just are. So now amorality is supported. There is no sense of justice in putting someone to death or in jail for their crimes, because "they" had no choice in the matter since their actions were determined by the environment and ultimately a bunch of atoms bouncing around. Our self-consciousness is simply an illusion of some sort, brought on perhaps by a certain arrangement of "things" in the physical world. Like fire burning wood produces smoke, our physical makeup in the arrangement that has happened produces a mental self-aware state ("the smoke"), yet all our decisions and actions are illusory. That is, "who we are" is ultimately reduced to atoms bouncing around.
There are of course different scenarios that try to answer the mind-body problem, but ultimately things are quite dire for any Materialists/Physicalists when it comes to explaining any freedoms we have at making free choices, choosing our professions, whether or not we steal, love, hate, kill. It is in a sense like a "fart" in that such actions are just the natural outworking of natural processes within our material physical bodies.
Richard Dawkins for all his pompous anti-religious chattering, held a position different to his Atheistic counterparts in philosophy in an exchange with the philosopher David Quinn. Since this exchange, it now appears Dawkins and those like him (Krauss) now dismiss philosophy and philosophers. Ha! That's like cutting your arm off in science because no you've go no way to come up with different scientific theories based on what gets observed.
Anyway, you can have a listen to their exchanges on determinism here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f7SfEXAQTkA (highly recommend!)
Neha wrote: or are we to at least some degree really free and responsible beings?
No one is really free in one way. I mean we all die. So we are all tied to chemistry or biology in one sense. But we can make choices too, like killing ourselves, drinking water, swimming etc, none of which needs to be hardwired like breathing as a reflex. So I don't think all actions can be swept under one word, as being determined or not.
Are we responsible? I am not sure I follow, responsible for what? I am sure we are free to do things we can, and not free at all to do things that are beyond our grasp.
If I you have more questions please feel free to let me know.
And so you would agree with me than that people really are responsibly for their actions?
For example, the person who rapes another, is really doing something wrong such that justice can be best served through their being appropriately punished?
You see, Determinism rips away any concepts that we are intuitively inclined to believe including that we are free to make some decisions, real good or bad, fairness or unfairness, justice, responsibilities and many other things. For me, I see the best form of determinism (if there is a best form) a world without God has to offer, is a randomly-based material/physical form of determinism. That simply means there is some randomness to our decisions, particularly caused at the quantum level of physics. Still, within such scenarios "we" (whoever we are) are still in no way responsible for the choices or actions of these bodies.
sister
