Atheist Toolbox : has someone the guts to go that trough ?

[Gman]

Thanks for the comments, I will try to flesh out my position a little.

Most theological discussions between people of differing viewpoints I've encountered online, including this one, involve people using the word 'fact' repeatedly. I find it unhelpful and mentioned it earlier in the thread to try and distance myself from the 'factual science' comment made by Gman.

So you deny that scientists make factual claims? As in the case for evolution?

I don't want to give the impression that my opinions are based on indisputable facts, they're merely my opinions cobbled together from bits of science, philosophy, theology, art and countless other bits and bobs. I am not here to present a set of undeniable facts and then show the robustness of my worldview as it derived from them. I'm here to share in different points of view. I'm interested in different subjective opinions of objective reality.

The existence of scientific facts makes no difference. F=MA is a very useful concept for interacting with and making predictions about the world but when pushed to extremes it breaks down. Evolution is also a very useful concept for interacting with and making predictions about the world but also begins to breakdown when pushed to extremes. Questioning my own existence also has its place, who am I?, but I find it useful to just get on with things, such as typing stuff on forums, most of the time. When pushed to the extreme the concept of 'I' also becomes difficult.

Ok... You seem to be implying that there are no objective absolutes. So technically there are no "true" scientific facts either.. I see..

This limerick nicely demonstrates the issue:

Though it seems that I know that I know,

What I would like to see, is the I that knows me,

When I know, that I know, that I know.

The term orbit implies gravity, we've not yet figured out what gravity implies. The Theory of Everything is in part the attempt to understand gravity and its relationship to other forces. If you are stating it is fact that the earth orbits the sun then you are doing so using language derived from concepts we don't fully understand.

Light is another good example that has been mentioned. We have a concept of light but that concept has been changing all the time, who would have thought hundreds of years ago that we would be using light as a basis for defining spacial measurements. To say that light is a fact is fine, as long as you are willing to be elastic in your definition of light.

Ok, but what is your point? The natural world doesn't point to an intelligent designer or does it? Can we use the natural world (as we know it) as evidence for a designer? We are just trying to understand your position. That's all..

I try to aim for a balance of faith and doubt. The religious approach tends to favour faith and the scientific approach tends to favour doubt, I tend to approach religion and science with an equal measure of faith and doubt.

Interesting that you claim that the scientific approach seems to be biased on doubt. But then again, what is your definition of religion and what is your definition of science?

In closing I would add that if you choose not to believe in light, gravity, orbits, evolution or your own existence you are still able to go about your daily business, join forums and post.
If you do choose to see some of these things as fact make sure you fill in the definitions using a pencil as they will need to be continually altered.
If you believe in a god then the scope for definition is almost endless as the variety of religion found across the world shows.

Again I would say that science in general is a useful tool to understanding our natural world. It is not evil.. And it can be used to either falsify the claims of religion or someone's philosophy...

[Proinsias]

So you deny that scientists make factual claims? As in the case for evolution?

I'm sure some of them do, I've never heard my genetics lecturer mention evolution as a fact he just talks about it. I'm not denying that you, scientists or anyone else make factual claims. I'm trying to explain that the use of word 'fact' lends no weight to one's argument, that I am not a proponent of factual science and that if you make a factual claim I will treat it no differently to any other sort of claim.

Ok... You seem to be implying that there are no objective absolutes. So technically there are no "true" scientific facts either.. I see..

I'm not trying to implying there are no objective absolutes, although it is a possibility which is difficult to entirely discount, I'm trying to imply that our current agreements on what the objective absolutes are may not, in fact, be facts.

Ok, but what is your point? The natural world doesn't point to an intelligent designer or does it? Can we use the natural world (as we know it) as evidence for a designer? We are just trying to understand your position. That's all..

I have no idea why people have such strong convictions as to the natural world being evidence for or against god. I'll happily admit my own ignorance and I've found most explanations for, or against, to be sadly lacking in substance. I enjoy the ever changing world of science and I enjoy my ever changing concepts of god. I have no need for anything to be proven as fact. I like science, I like theology and I like life. Facts don't really do it for me.

Interesting that you claim that the scientific approach seems to be biased on doubt. But then again, what is your definition of religion and what is your definition of science?

Definitions are tough, hmmm. In this context I see religion as based in faith - you must have faith in god, faith in yourself, faith in the specifics of your religion etc. With science the idea seems to be one of questioning everything - repeating things over and over again, with less and less variables to eliminate as much doubt as possible which enables ideas to move up the chain from idea to hypothesis to theory to law. And if you manage to put some doubt into a law then you are really onto something big.

Again I would say that science in general is a useful tool to understanding our natural world. It is not evil.. And it can be used to either falsify the claims of religion or someone's philosophy...

I prefer to see science, philosophy and religion as useful ways to explore the world. You can certainly use one method to falsify another but you will be unlikely to convince many people as everyone seems to fit them together differently. I think this is why there is generally low conversion rates when atheists turn up at theist forums or vice versa.

edit: for clarity

[Gman]

I'm sure some of them do, I've never heard my genetics lecturer mention evolution as a fact he just talks about it. I'm not denying that you, scientists or anyone else make factual claims. I'm trying to explain that the use of word 'fact' lends no weight to one's argument, that I am not a proponent of factual science and that if you make a factual claim I will treat it no differently to any other sort of claim.

I'm not trying to implying there are no objective absolutes, although it is a possibility which is difficult to entirely discount, I'm trying to imply that our current agreements on what the objective absolutes are may not, in fact, be facts.

Well this is actually good news.... Because the scientific community in large is claiming that evolution is an undeniable fact. So if we are going to claim that Darwinian evolution may not be entirely factual then that opens the doors to "other" possibilities.. I will agree in that sense..

I have no idea why people have such strong convictions as to the natural world being evidence for or against god. I'll happily admit my own ignorance and I've found most explanations for, or against, to be sadly lacking in substance. I enjoy the ever changing world of science and I enjoy my ever changing concepts of god. I have no need for anything to be proven as fact. I like science, I like theology and I like life. Facts don't really do it for me.

Yes.. I would also agree that this opens the door to other concepts such as Intelligent design... Science should be debatable, and if we take one's own scientific philosophy as being "the" only dogmatic answer, then I believe that actually stifles scientific inquiry as we know it.

Definitions are tough, hmmm. In this context I see religion as based in faith - you must have faith in god, faith in yourself, faith in the specifics of your religion etc. With science the idea seems to be one of questioning everything - repeating things over and over again, with less and less variables to eliminate as much doubt as possible which enables ideas to move up the chain from idea to hypothesis to theory to law. And if you manage to put some doubt into a law then you are really onto something big.

But do you think Darwinian evolution is true science? It seems that the evidence clearly shows that it is a religious philosophy...

I prefer to see science, philosophy and religion as useful ways to explore the world. You can certainly use one method to falsify another but you will be unlikely to convince many people as everyone seems to fit them together differently. I think this is why there is generally low conversion rates when atheists turn up at theist forums or vice versa.

edit: for clarity

Well, we have to start somewhere don't we?

[Proinsias]

Cheers, it appears we have some semblance of agreement.

But do you think Darwinian evolution true science? It seems that the evidence clearly shows that it is a religious philosophy...

Well again I would rank the use of the word truth up there with the use of fact.

I'm not sure I agree that is a clearly a religious philosophy although it certainly has had a great impact on some religious philosophy. All I can think is that it is seen as a religious philosophy because the idea clashes with some peoples notions of god, much as the Copernican revolution or Newton's mechanistic universe did. I may have completely missed your point though.

To use a very loose analogy I would say that it is not an impossibility in my mind that the universe 'planets' or the earth 'peoples' in a similar sort of way that an apple tree 'apples'. I don't think it discounts the notion of god or that the notion of god invalidates attempts to understand these happenings through physics, biology or botany.

[ElShamah]

To use a very loose analogy I would say that it is not an impossibility in my mind that the universe 'planets' or the earth 'peoples' in a similar sort of way that an apple tree 'apples'. I don't think it discounts the notion of god or that the notion of god invalidates attempts to understand these happenings through physics, biology or botany.

Proinsias

how do you define yourself ? what is your faith/belief ?

[Proinsias]

I have some difficulty, or fun depending on my mood, with that.

I was brought up in a very Polish strain of Roman Catholicism and ceased to participate when my mother distanced herself from the church, I was 14 or 15. I had little interest in religion for a while. I did have a love of kung fu though. The love of kung fu led me to appreciate Taoism as it was closely tied in with much of the philosophy of kung fu. From Taoism it seemed natural to look into Zen Buddhism, from Zen Buddhism I started looking into Buddhism in general. Buddhism originated from a Hindu base, and to quite an extent transformed that Hindu base, so I looked into Hinduism a little - I have a fondness for the concepts of māyā, Bráhman and Kālī.

Once I had gotten that far it seemed that I could approach Christianity, again, which I am doing rather slowly.

I believe that there is much to be gathered from great minds. I am not too concerned if someone is utilizing the framework of Christianity, God, Nirvana, philosophy, the arts, science or mathematics to aid in an expression or a concept I find worthwhile.

I think it was Osho who said that Indian religion is far less concerned with historical fact then Western religion. He used the Bhagavad Gita as his example, Krishna communicating with Arjuna on the battlefield. His reasoning was that those who put value in the Bhagavad Gita do so as they believe it to be the words of an enlightened being of divine nature, if Krishna is not the basis for the Gita then someone is. If the historical accuracy of Krishna is in doubt it matters not as the text demonstrates in itself that divinity has occurred somewhere. If it wasn't Krishna then whoever it was was of divine nature and the points made still stand. Much of the western ideas of religion are rooted in having some very definite ideas about specific things happening at specific times - which atheists love to point out cannot be proven.

I think my point is that even within something you find doubtful, say a religion or school or philosophy you do not subscribe to, you can still derive insights which will have as great an influence on you as those derived from schools of thought you do subscribe to. The tough bit is overcoming aversions to certain subject matters, theism and atheism seems to be one thing in particular that people have a hard time approaching without any preconceptions - I certainly haven't managed it.

In short: Admitting blissful ignorance whist trying to get, and give, the most from other people who are also part of this strange and wonderful thing that is happening.

[Gman]

I guess I always find it interesting how we separate western thought from eastern thought. And if we take a look at Christianity and Judaism, it certainly didn't have it's roots in western thought. Technically it's a middle eastern religion... The west being consumed with the Norse or the Druid gods and what not... Even if we look at the middle eastern people, I would say that they certainly weren't white but were brown eyed, brown skin, and had black hair. I believe Jesus actually has a greater connection with Africa than he ever did with the European whites... Of course, all this really doesn't matter since God transcends through all nations. It's interesting however how we label things and how Christ is seen as a white man.

This is a bit off topic, but I was thinking about starting another post on this anyways...

[David Blacklock]

Hi Proinsias - very interesting posts. Do you mind if I ask the derivation of your nickname?

DB

[godslanguage]

I think it was Osho who said that Indian religion is far less concerned with historical fact then Western religion. He used the Bhagavad Gita as his example, Krishna communicating with Arjuna on the battlefield. His reasoning was that those who put value in the Bhagavad Gita do so as they believe it to be the words of an enlightened being of divine nature, if Krishna is not the basis for the Gita then someone is. If the historical accuracy of Krishna is in doubt it matters not as the text demonstrates in itself that divinity has occurred somewhere. If it wasn't Krishna then whoever it was was of divine nature and the points made still stand.

Much of the western ideas of religion are rooted in having some very definite ideas about specific things happening at specific times - which atheists love to point out cannot be proven.

You mean such as atheists going about how the OOL must have happened in a primordial soup billions of year ago (how is that for a specific thing at a certain time? ). That given enough time it turned into a living, breathing, thinking, spiritual being. As far as I can tell, Buddhist teaching doesn't concern itself with these types of issues, such as ultimate causes, rather it appears its nothing more then the religion of handwaving (this might also explain why atheism is a distant second away from Buddhism) that focuses more on the individual then it does on the divine, contrary to what you say. Christianity on the other hand, demands reason and logic rather then mere handwaving, to explore ultimate cause and bring us closer to the truth (this also would explain why science is the result of Christian thinking - negative or positive). Buddhism concerns itself with the individual, Christianity concerns itself with God and the relationship to His creation.

[Proinsias]

I guess I always find it interesting how we separate western thought from eastern thought. And if we take a look at Christianity and Judaism, it certainly didn't have it's roots in western thought. Technically it's a middle eastern religion... The west being consumed with the Norse or the Druid gods and what not... Even if we look at the middle eastern people, I would say that they certainly weren't white but were brown eyed, brown skin, and had black hair. I believe Jesus actually has a greater connection with Africa than he ever did with the European whites... Of course, all this really doesn't matter since God transcends through all nations. It's interesting however how we label things and how Christ is seen as a white man.

This is a bit off topic, but I was thinking about starting another post on this anyways...

Yeah, you got me there. I'll try again. In my head there is a rough line running vertically down past the western tip of India. To the east of the line we see far more influence from Hinduism, Buddhism, Taoism and Confucian thought, to the west of line we see far more influence from Christianity, Islam, Judaism and Greek philosophy. I realise these are still rather gross generalizations but hopefully a little clearer.

The labeling of Jesus as a white man is interesting. I still think many people hold onto an image of god as an old white male with a beard, I was presented with that image at a very young age and these things are hard to let go of.

Hi Proinsias - very interesting posts. Do you mind if I ask the derivation of your nickname?

DB

Ach, I was hoping nobody would ask.

I picked it many years ago when signing up to a forum. It's from the comic book Preacher which I read when I was in my teens. There was a vampire called Cassidy, he tried to keep his Christian name a secret due to embarrassment. That name was Proinsias. I like it. It's an Irish version of Francis. The comic was pretty much The DaVinci Code on steroids with a heavy dose of violence, sex, drugs - hence my reluctance for the explanation but I may as well come clean. I wasn't going for identification with the comic, more staring at a blank username field trying to think of something a little unique.

You mean such as atheists going about how the OOL must have happened in a primordial soup billions of year ago (how is that for a specific thing at a certain time? ). That given enough time it turned into a living, breathing, thinking, spiritual being.

I was thinking about Jesus as presented in the NT or Moses & Noah in the OT as opposed to speculations on origins which are pretty universal.

As far as I can tell, Buddhist teaching doesn't concern itself with these types of issues, such as ultimate causes, rather it appears its nothing more then the religion of handwaving (this might also explain why atheism is a distant second away from Buddhism) that focuses more on the individual then it does on the divine, contrary to what you say. Christianity on the other hand, demands reason and logic rather then mere handwaving, to explore ultimate cause and bring us closer to the truth (this also would explain why science is the result of Christian thinking - negative or positive). Buddhism concerns itself with the individual, Christianity concerns itself with God and the relationship to His creation.

Personally I see science more as the product of Greek philosophy than of Christian thinking, but each to his own.

I think religion in general is the exploration of man's relationship with the divine. What one's internal reason, logic or intuition leads one to is why we have such a richness of variety and opinion in religion. Everyone has their reasons, everyone has their own logical assumptions and everyone's intuition leads them to different things in different situations.

Edit: Is there any reason why you say Christianity or Christian thinking in the above, surely Judaism or Islam involve similar demands and thought processes?

[godslanguage]

Personally I see science more as the product of Greek philosophy than of Christian thinking, but each to his own.

Most of the great figures that paved the road for modern science make some reference to the christian God one way or the other.

I think religion in general is the exploration of man's relationship with the divine. What one's internal reason, logic or intuition leads one to is why we have such a richness of variety and opinion in religion. Everyone has their reasons, everyone has their own logical assumptions and everyone's intuition leads them to different things in different situations.

Everyone is entitled to their own reasons for belief. Most religions make reference to some divinity, an ultimate source, if one takes the literal words out of context, all we can evaluate is plain logic (this I believe is where "opinions" converge rather then offset). Most religions we come to the similar logical conclusion, that God exists and was necessary. Christianity merely takes this logic a few steps further.

Edit: Is there any reason why you say Christianity or Christian thinking in the above, surely Judaism or Islam involve similar demands and thought processes?

And surely they do. I would add that western philosophy was built upon Christian ideals and that western civilization is more tolerant and open to questioning - a function of exploration.

[Proinsias]

Thank you godslanguage, I may not be in total agreement but you make some very interesting points and have certainly given me some things to think about.

[Gman]

As far as I can tell, Buddhist teaching doesn't concern itself with these types of issues, such as ultimate causes, rather it appears its nothing more then the religion of handwaving (this might also explain why atheism is a distant second away from Buddhism) that focuses more on the individual then it does on the divine, contrary to what you say.

This is quite accurate godslanguage,

In a recent conversation with the Dalai Lama, he put Buddhism this way...

Question: The God of the Jews, Christians, and Muslims to whom the faithful address themselves is a person, with whom one can have an actual exchange. It is also the ''All. " To you, does the Buddha correspond to this definition?

Answer: No. For us, the Buddha is not an "All." But if one defines God as a refuge, the Awakener, the Buddha corresponds to your idea of God. He is the omniscient Being par excellence. On the other hand, he is not the creator of the world and its creatures. We believe that we all have the Buddha nature in us. Yet we cannot create ourselves.

Question: So, in effect, the idea of creation is not at all understood in the same way in Christianity and in Buddhism?

Answer: For Buddhists, it is karma that creates the world. All action Bows from a previous action, every event Bows from a previous event, following the law of causality. It is the strength of the mind, the sentiments, the emotions that create the world in which we live, that fashions beings...

Question: Could you describe how you understand Buddhism? Is it a religion, a practice, or a philosophy?

Answer: It's all three at once. In it, one practices various forms of meditation. And analytic meditation-among others-is done with the aid of a certain knowledge. It's equally a religion, because this practice and this philosophy join beings together toward enlightenment, the refuge, aiding them to become Buddhas, enlightened beings.

[godslanguage]

[Gman]

The labeling of Jesus as a white man is interesting. I still think many people hold onto an image of god as an old white male with a beard, I was presented with that image at a very young age and these things are hard to let go of.

I'll admit that it is a hard image to shake.. But if we want to be historically accurate, I think the overwhelming evidence would reveal the contrary. I personally enjoy it when I see African nations paint Christ as a black man, or the Chinese paint Christ as a Chinese man. I think every culture should have a stake in God and paint him the way they want with their own cultural influences or customs... I think our idea of God should be all encompassing to all nations..