Belief, Truth, Assumption, and Reason

[quandary121]

Belief, Truth, Assumption, and Reason
Most believers, regardless of their denomination or sect, have not been given information contrary to or unsupportive of the articles of their faith—and this is understandable. Religious groups have an insulated agenda motivated both by separatism and doctrinal bias, an exact and prepossessed interpretation of scriptures that disunites them from other disciplines. Most often this bias begins arbitrarily at birth, decided by the continent, country, and culture into which the believer is born. Indoctrinated by parental partisanship, reinforced through social setting, the believer is raised to believe a certain way, embrace a certain ideology, conditioned and cocooned from unrealized alternatives and the inability to consider these alternatives as anything other than evil, human foolishness, or the demonic perversion of some supernatural 'truth'.
For the most part a person born in Riyadh becomes a Muslim, a person born in Tel-Aviv a Jew, in Salt Lake City a Mormon, in Milan a Roman Catholic, and so it goes from country to country, city to city, household to household all around the world. Statistically most people embrace the faith of their parents who in turn have embraced their parents' faith, receding further back in a long generational queue. Believers traditionally believe the way they do simply because of where and how they were raised, and most conversion experiences are nothing more than an acceptance of childhood's god and the sacred book used to extol that god. Simply put, if you were born on the other side of the world would you be as sure, confident, and defensive of your religious traditions there as you presumably are here and now?
If religious choices are as important as their advocates would have us believe, if the final residence of our eternal souls is really at stake, shouldn't our convictions be based on something more substantial than the cursory acceptance of a belief system impressed on us by the geographical happenstance of where we happened to be born? Wouldn't our religious leaders want us to avail ourselves of all possible information and to consider all the accessible facts before assuming the inerrancy of something so critical? Since it is our immortal souls in question, isn't it our duty to seek the truth wherever that journey may take us? Anything less may be contributed to abject laziness, spiritual cowardice, pathological denial, or outright ignorance.
As a truth-seeker, I for one think it is our imperative duty to question every claim which presupposes the supernatural (events and environments found nowhere in the natural world: miracles, prophecies, fiat creation, the disembodied soul, life-after-death, Heaven, Hell, etc).

 

[quandary121]

The primary impetus for truth-seeking is not so much to ask whether a particular religious faith is true from a believer's point of view, but to impel believers to ask themselves why they 'think' it's true in light of other choices and evidence. Most religious people know what they believe (e.g., the tenets of their faith), but they've never been taught how to ask themselves why they believe it, what criteria they use for support, whether the position they take and the arguments they tender for proof are built on sound evidence or initiatory assumptions.
Assuming the validity of a religious document from the offset does not empower that document to be used later as proof of its validity. Quoting a source to support its own authority is plainly erroneous and throws the door open to every imaginable (even unimaginable) fatuity. No, for the sake of truth, assumptions, like beliefs, should be diligently tested, and not merely from one or two mindful overtures—they should be carefully and conscientiously explored from a thousand avenues of inquiry. :lol:

 

[quandary121]

Fundamentalist believers, whatever their religious bent (Christian, Islamic, Mormon, etc.) have neglected to acknowledge this important facet of their adherence to any one particular dogma: the assumption of documental validity at the offset. In other words, fundamentalists must first assume their religious texts (the Bible, the Koran, the Book of Mormon, etc.) are true, inspired, and authoritative before ever turning back the cover. This assumption is doubly instilled when fundamentalists are pressed to argue the validity of their so-called religious texts: this they do by opening the religious text in question and quoting from it as proof of its validity. They argue that their particular religious text is true because they are able to quote passages from it that claim it is true or prove it true through chronological fulfillment (another self-referential assumption) of prophecy or 'eye-witness' accounts (despite the fact that these accounts were originally written anonymously and recounted in the third-person). This is circular logic, of course, and begging the question, best represented by an example.
If we applied this same argument to a person rather than a thing (in this instance, a “sacred” book not unlike the Bible), then we might clearly see the difficulties inherent in using quotation as sole authority.

 

[quandary121]

Suppose we encounter a man on the street claiming to be the messiah. Should we believe this man's fantastic claims unquestionably simply because we are able to quote him later? Because we are capable of quoting by rote his various speeches is this all the proof we need to accept his claims as undeniable and infallible truth? If this is the case, then all we have to do when pressed by skeptics and unbelievers to “prove” the validity of the man's messianic claims is simply repeat his words to support our arguments: “ Because he said, and I quote, ‘I am telling you the truth when I say that I am Christ reborn' we can know without a doubt that he is Christ reborn. Because he said it, I believe it, and that's good enough for me.” Further questions concerning the man's claims are dutifully answered by apologists who proffer additional quotes or who compile a collection of quotes or who write instructional books interpreting the collection of quotes and on reductio ad absurdum. Only an initial assumption of validity gives credibility to using quotation as a form of argument, but it is this assumption that must be first tested if truth is to be known.

 

[gerryh]

It's called Faith....try it sometime...it's very empowering.

 

[quandary121]

faith

It is not enough to simply parrot what you believe by way of creed or articles of faith or to merely recite without comprehension the often error-prone English translation of long disused languages. Each religion is but a small piece in a very large and intricate puzzle, and the fundamentalists, in refusing to look at the other pieces, even unaware that many other pieces exist, miss out on celebrating the larger diorama that comes with hard work and diligence and industry and exploratory knowledge. And yet it is these very fundamentalists who believe they know god's will, god's plan, and god's design for mankind simply by assuming the validity of their one piece of the puzzle while refusing to acknowledge all the other pieces scattered about the table.
PS: i do have faith

 

[quandary121]

Stated bluntly, faith

Stated bluntly, faith or belief in an after-life is the single-most cause of suffering and stupidity inflicted upon the human race, by the human race, and for several reasons:

• It negates the immediacy and value of human life right here and right now.
• It corrupts the collective unconscious of the species in such a way as to affect behavior. Believing in life-after-death and making the assumption people don't really die, subconsciously legitimizes capital punishment and the death penalty, abortion, territorial wars, religious wars, turf wars, gang wars, terrorist attacks, ethnic cleansing, murder, suicide cults, political assassination, et al, since people aren't really dying after all—they're just continuing on in another stage of existence.
• It allows people to postpone action in this life (whether humane or humanitarian) in favor of the life yet to come, allowing for political and religious boundaries, derision and division, separatism and succession. Hence there remains global hunger, border skirmishes, illiteracy, disease, poverty and pestilence, all because the problems of this world are deemed ultimately not as important when measured against the life yet to come. With the idea of an after-life always simmering in the back of people's mind, they don't try as hard to really instigate change in this world, strive for peace, alleviate suffering, fight for global changes. After all, eternal life starts at death so why should folks get all worked up over sixty or seventy years?
• It offers people hope for a solution to their problems at some future time and enables them to not make a conscious effort to begin making the necessary changes or do the necessary work to make things better right here and now. It allows them to postpone taking responsibility for their own lives or education (since god will enlighten them and fix everything once they get to heaven) and permits them to sit on their hands in ignorance and inertia while life passes them by. Why make a serious search for truth if truth will be revealed on the other side?
• It legitimizes the use of persecution and torture in the name of saving souls for the after-life.
• It allows religious leaders to control their people by offering hope in the next life, promising rewards, threatening punishment, even sentencing eternal damnation (through papal bulls, excommunication) all by invoking interpreted church doctrine.
• It assumes a mind-body (or soul-body) dichotomy, a disembodied spirit that is mystically and temporarily ‘housed' in human flesh while blissfully ignoring the inescapable synthesis of each person's material surroundings, environment, cultural prejudices, parental influences and biases, birth order, sex, physical appearance, shape, size, color, health, biochemistry, electrochemical reactions, stored memory, bones, flesh, blood, eyes, ears, mouth, and steady oxygen supply to shape personality. Everything we think we are we owe solely to the state of our flesh and empirical surroundings, a process impossible to remove from the intrinsic network of matter. With all the above in absence, what would remain exactly to “stand” in judgment before the throne of god, and what mechanisms (or lack thereof) would drive interaction with the divine inquisitor?
• It rewards laziness, complacency, ignorance, superstition, irrationality, religious fervor, and blind faith with promises of an other-wordly victory and assurances of everlasting retribution. No need to accomplish anything of importance here and now—end world hunger, wage global peace, unify polarized religious belief system, teach critical thinking and practical reasoning—since our 'true' lives will start up after we die!

 

[quandary121]

Is Belief Believable?

Is Belief Believable?
Is believing in something, anything, a more noble venture than erring on the side of caution, remaining aloof and skeptical when confronted by fantastic claims, asking questions, seeking answers, consulting a broad variety of sources and viewpoints in order to arrive at the truth no matter the outcome?
Or why should we concern ourselves with belief at all, what other people think or adhere to, whether someone else's beliefs are far-fetched, ridiculous, superstitious, irrational, destructive, wishful, childish, or patently impossible?
Because belief is two-handed. It is capricious and two-faced. It will embrace the invisible, the improvable and extraordinary, then turn around and reject common rocks and strata, the light from distant galaxies, the motion of the earth, mountains, canyons, geodesic time and gravity's rainbow.
Belief will nimbly invoke misdirected terms like "the Will of God," "inerrancy," and “revelation” yet stumble over the hard science of "transposons" and "endogenous retroviruses."
Fussy and particular, stubborn and finicky, belief seemingly picks and chooses whatever it desires and without good reason. Like a child offered candy from a box of chocolates, it samples only what it thinks it wants while assuming what it doesn't want to be inherently disagreeable and unsavory. At first glance this may give the appearance of conscientious decision-making, but it is not. A selective predilection is imprinted upon belief's fickle buds beginning at birth.8O

 

[quandary121]

And so, can belief be trusted?

And so, can belief be trusted? Or is there something else going on, something most people never give much consideration, yet should really, if for no other reason than belief can often time be both a killer and a thief. It can steal our liberty and kill our passion, plunder sensible thought and murder enthusiasm, rob us of precious time and end up denying us our lives. For the sake of belief people often reject (and would reject for all others) the good things in life—spontaneity, physicality, mindful honesty, and personal autonomy. Because of belief people might denounce (or renounce) sexuality, open-mindedness, and spiritual emancipation, then turn around and embrace guilt and denial, doom and gloom, fear, trembling, retribution, vengeance. Sometimes belief will slide in the other direction and assume a stance of self-righteousness and complacency devoid of any compassion, ethical understanding, or moral indignation. For example, belief allows a great many people to casually accept (even callously defend ) the horrible profanity of Eternal Damnation and the Deity who conceived it without their ever blinking an eye, taking offense, or denouncing either as immoral and reprehensible. Belief will excite others still into selling all their possessions and fleeing for the hills to await Armageddon, into crowded restaurants wearing explosives, into cockpits of passenger planes to hasten a Holy War, into the promises of millennial-old writings whose tales of magic and the miraculous violate so much more than the inviolable laws of physics. Given its role in life-altering choices, it is apparent that belief should never be taken lightly but instead rationally and critically examined across many different avenues, deliberately reviewed and tested, probed and vivisected for any and all assumptions, gaping holes, and fatal flaws. This statement is one such deliberation.
You see, belief by itself requires no proof and compels no evidence. Believing whatever you will is effortless and undemanding. You merely have to announce, " I believe in such-and-such and that's good enough for me! " and that's why belief can be so comforting and hard to deny. It alleviates your fears and gives you hope, because it's your belief after all. You allow yourself to believe in the exact thing that makes you happy or gives meaning to your life. It pampers you and allows you to deny all those scary thoughts that always seem to be encroaching, the purposeless of life, the hiddenness of god, the finality of death, nothingness, the long dark void. In the end, belief isn't about you and God, or you and Jesus, or you and Allah. Belief is about you and you, how much you're willing to admit and how much you continue to conceal. Deep down inside we all know what belief is really doing, what's really going on, but very few of us are courageous enough to dig that far. That would require lifting the pick-axe, hacking at the hard-pan, getting dirty, working up a good sweat:?:

 

[quandary121]

Democritus, 400 BCE

A ll that exists is atoms and the Void. Everything else is just opinion.
- Democritus, 400 BCE

 

[Scott Free]

Is Belief Believable?

I was reading an article by Philip Anderson where he points out that the probability of a god is pretty much negligible.

In Ockham's razor, the probability of something decreases exponentially by the number of parameters you ascribe to it. In your OP you mentioned the vast number of different faiths. Each faith has new parameters to add to the thing we call god. There is also the vast number of personal opinions etc that mankind holds about what "god" is, also there are the polytheist faiths etc,. All these have to be taken into account when calculating the probability of his existence. Oddly though, if there were any evidence for god; even the slightest shred of evidence, the number of variables would drop drastically, but that isn't the case; so instead, we have almost as many variations on what god is as there are people on the planet - hence; the odds he exists are very small to say the least.

 

[quandary121]

philosophy

Having determined through cautious inquiry the way the physical world operates, claims of disembodied spirits, angels, demons, miracles, virgin births, resurrected bodies, life-after-death, walking-on-water, levitation, talking animals, heavenly bodies being magically manipulated or halted altogether, a young universe, global floods, prophecies fulfilled, fiery ascensions, et al, can be measured against verifiable data and accepted either as attributes of demonstrable reality or rejected as fanciful myth, superstition, ancient philosophy, fearful or wishful thinking, cultic tales, societal epics, etc. For example, if belief in angelic messengers persists in the absence of any physical evidence of the existence of angels (and contrary to natural law simply because the story of angelic messengers is advocated in an ancient religious text), then tradition has taken precedence over the veracity of truth. The oft-offered argument that just because no one has actually encountered an angel doesn't mean angels don't exist can be applied to a dizzying array of fantastic creatures: unicorns, fairies, ogres, leprechauns, pixies, dragons, even one-eyed one-horned flying purple people eaters, all of whose existence defies logic, common sense, and the way the world works. Perhaps the reason no one has seen an angel is the same reason no one has seen unicorns, leprechauns, or fairies. Words in a book do not a supernatural entity make. Mental concept is no substitute for physical proof, nor does the ability to perceive existence infer existence (as some apologists have argued that the mental construct of god “proves” the existence of god). If it does, then Donald Duck would be a living-breathing being rather than a cartoon character simply because we can consider him intellectually, envision his attributes, argue his personality, or ask ourselves however sincerely What Would Donald Do?8O

 

[dj03]

What Would Donald Do?

I always ask "What would Cthulhu do"

The answer is always surprisingly horrific and evil.

I need a new god.

 

[quandary121]

In short, is adhering to a rigid faith really honest and ethical or is it the exact

If there is no physical evidence for a religious claim or if it is impossible according to the associated mechanics of natural law, then that claim should be considered a myth or superstition until which time it might, however improbable, be validated. Only through validation can something be considered true and not through the hollow assumption of faith or the tenacious advocacy of a religious belief system no matter how stirring. Tradition alone does not an angel make, nor a prophet, nor a messiah, and sincere belief is not enough. Religious doctrine must be seasoned and tested in the hot smithy of the real world and tempered by the fiery hammer-blows of available historical evidence, tales of local heroes, theological discussions and canonical examination. To deny the emergence and evolution of any particular religion separate from its cultural surroundings, environment, local and historical battles, and neighboring tribes each with unique traditions and customs, is to presume incorrectly it was born in a vacuum or sprang full and complete like Dionysus from the thigh of Zeus. All religions are derivative, extrapolated, interpolated. It is in discovering from whence they derived, their history, and the effects of contemporary customs and dissimilar religious beliefs, that the truth can be known. By refusing to acknowledge the broad recipe used to concoct a religious tradition, fundamentalist believers do a disservice to their beliefs and to the very definition of truth itself. :-|

 

[Scott Free]

For fun I'll switch sides and argue for religion.

I would say quandary121 that the proof you seek is no more plausible then the truth you seek to stomp out. Science is man made just as religion is (I have to concede that for this argument or I should look the fool) and there is little evidence that our human logic has anything at all to do with realities logic. In almost every field of science human logic is failing and we find ourselves increasingly becoming spectators instead of predictors. Is that not what we should expect if there is a physically transcendent super intelligence? Is it not predictable that against god's mighty logic ours should fail? That as a created thing how could we expect to comprehend the complexities around us? If we evolved we shouldn't have this shortcoming but as a created creature we should. In this way I should think god is both probable and unknowable. We are faced with so many variables because his complexity surpass our own. He encapsulates us not us him as we are generally used to. Little wonder this should cause so much confusion. Yet here we are, coming up against increased complexity that we will probably never explain. Do we simply write this off as our species being unintelligent or do we admit that there may be something greater than our intelligence and that is, in fact, what we are coming up against?

 

[quandary121]

Ten Atheistic Arguments:

:idea:



Definitions of "God"
Before getting to the arguments, it is important to present the various definitions of "God" that they employ:
D1: God is the eternal, all-powerful, personal being who created and rules the universe. (Being eternal, God cannot come into or go out of existence. Being all-powerful, he can perform any action that is logically possible to perform. Being personal, he has some characteristics in common with humans, such as thinking, feeling emotions, and performing actions. The universe is understood to consist of all the space, time, matter, and energy that has ever existed.)
D2: God is the eternal, very powerful, personal being who rules the universe, loves humanity, and gave humanity its moral conscience.
D3: God is the eternal, very powerful, personal being who rules the universe, loves humanity, and strongly desires that that love be reciprocated.
D4: God is that being which is self-existent, that is, which contains the explanation for its own existence within itself.
D5: God is that being which is (objectively) perfect in every way. (The term "perfect" is here understood in an objective sense, as opposed to a subjective sense relative to individual values, so the term may be used in public reasoning.)

D6: God is the deity described in the Bible as interpreted by evangelical Christianity.

It will be indicated for each argument which of the above definitions of "God" it employs.

Arguments Against God's Existence
1. The Anti-creation Argument (D1, D6):

(a) If X creates Y, then X must exist temporally prior to Y.
(b) But nothing could possibly exist temporally prior to time itself (for that would involve existing at a time when there was no time, which is a contradiction).
(c) Thus, it is impossible for time to have been created.
(d) Time is an essential component of the universe.

(e) Therefore, it is impossible for the universe to have been created.

(f) It follows that God, as defined by D1 and D6, cannot exist.
Discussion: A similar argument might possibly be constructed with regard to the other components of the universe as well: space, matter, and energy. It is very hard to comprehend how a being could have created the universe without existing within space and without any involvement with matter or energy.
- The God of evangelical Christianity (defined by D6) is included here (and for argument #2, below) because of the first sentence in the Bible, which evangelicals take to refer to the entire universe.

2. The Transcendent-Personal Argument (D1, D6):

(a) In order for God to have created the universe, he must have been transcendent, that is, he must have existed outside space and time.
(b) But to be personal implies (among other things) being within space and time.

(c) Therefore, it is logically impossible for God, as defined by D1 or D6, to exist.
Discussion:

It might be suggested that God has a part that is outside space and time and another part that is inside space and time and that it is the latter part, not the former part, which is personal in nature. But the idea of a being which is partly personal and partly transcendent is incomprehensible. Furthermore, definition D1 implies that God, as a personal being, existed prior to the universe, and it is incomprehensible how a personal being could do so.
- Aside from conceptual considerations that have to do with the very concept of "being personal," there are empirical considerations relevant to premise (b). It might be argued that to be personal requires having thoughts and that science has very strongly confirmed that having thoughts is dependent on having a physical brain. For example, since brain damage has always been found to delete, or at least disrupt, thoughts, it can be extrapolated that there can be no thoughts at all in the total absence of a brain. Although the empirical support for premise (b) is very strong, that may not be a factor that would impress people who are not "scientifically oriented" to begin with.


3. The Incoherence-of-Omnipotence Argument (D1, D6):
(a) If God as defined by D1 or D6 were to exist, then he would be omnipotent (i.e., able to do anything that is logically possible).
(b) But the idea of such a being is incoherent.

(c) Hence, such a being cannot possibly exist.
Discussion: Definition D6 is included here because evangelical Christians maintain that the biblical description of God as "Almighty" is accurate. The issue of whether or not premise (b) is true is complicated. Some writers claim that the idea of omnipotence in itself is inconsistent. Also, some writers claim that being omnipotent is incompatible with possessing certain other properties. (For example, an omnipotent being could commit suicide, since to do so is logically possible, but an eternal being, by definition, could not. Hence, the idea of the deity defined by D1 or D6 is incoherent.) Whether or not the given claim is true is here left open. See comments on the concept of "incoherence" made in connection with argument #7, below. (For further material on arguments similar to #3, see Everitt, 2004, Martin, 1990, and Martin and Monnier, 2003, in the bibliography below.)

- The divine attribute of omniscience gives rise to similar considerations, and there is an Incoherence-of-Omniscience Argument that could be raised. (For material on it, see the references above.) That argument, which is omitted here to save space, also has a premise (b) (worded as in argument #3), which introduces issues that are exceedingly complicated and controversial.

4. The Lack-of-evidence Argument (D1, D2, D3, D6):

(a) If God as defined by any of the four definitions in question were to exist, then he would have to be deeply involved in the affairs of humanity and there would be good objective evidence of his existence.
(b) But there is no good objective evidence for the existence of a deity thus defined.
(c) Therefore, God, as defined by D1, D2, D3, or D6, does not exist.
Discussion: The rationale behind premise (a) is that the sort of deity in question, a personal being who rules the universe or who loves humanity (and perhaps wants that love reciprocated), would need to become involved in the affairs of humans and thereby reveal his existence overtly. It might be claimed that God has achieved such involvement just by means of subjective religious experiences, without providing humanity with any good objective evidence of his existence. This assertion could be attacked on the ground that people who claim to have had such experiences are mistaken about the nature and cause of them. It might also be reasonably argued that religious experiences would be insufficient for the given divine purposes, and only good objective (publicly testable) evidence of some sort would do. Argument #4 is a versatile argument that can be widely used by atheists to attack God's existence, given many different definitions of "God."

Another argument similar to #4, sometimes put forward by scientifically oriented atheists, is the Argument from Metaphysical Naturalism, according to which all phenomena ever observed are best explained by appeal to natural causes (Carrier, 2005). Since that premise is a reason to accept naturalism, it provides an evidential argument against God's existence. However, the given premise is an extremely sweeping one and for that reason alone argument #4 would be preferable.


5. The Argument from Evil (D2, D3, D6):
(a) If there were to exist a very powerful, personal being who rules the universe and loves humanity, then there would not occur as much evil (i.e., suffering and premature death) as there does.
(b) But there does occur that much evil.
(c) Therefore, there does not exist such a being.

(d) Hence, God, as defined by D2, D3 or D6, does not exist.
Discussion: This formulation of the argument is a version of what is called "The Logical Argument from Evil." If the word "probably" were to be inserted into steps (a), (c), and (d), then it would be a version of what is called "The Evidential Argument from Evil." Similar considerations arise in connection with the different versions. According to the Free-will Defense, premise (a) is false because God wants people to have free will and that requires that they be able to create evil. The evil that actually occurs in our world is mankind's fault, not God's. Thus, God can still love humanity and be perfectly good despite all the evil that occurs. There are many objections to this defense. One of them is that much of the suffering and premature death that occurs in our world is due to natural causes rather than human choices, and the Free-will Defense would be totally irrelevant to that form of evil. (Drange, 1998.)


6. The Argument from Nonbelief (D3, D6):
(a) If there were to exist a very powerful, personal being who rules the universe, loves humanity, and who strongly desires that his love for humanity be reciprocated, then there would not exist as much nonbelief in the existence of such a being as there does.

(b) But there does exist that much nonbelief.
(c) Therefore, there does not exist such a being.

(d) Hence, God, as defined by D3 or D6, does not exist.
Discussion: As with the Argument from Evil, an "evidential" version of this argument could be constructed by inserting the word "probably" into steps (a), (c), and (d). Similar considerations arise for all the various versions. The argument is directed against the deity defined by D6, as well as the one defined by D3, because evangelical Christians take God to have all the properties mentioned in D3. (For a discussion of the Argument from Nonbelief framed on the basis of definition D6, see Drange, 1993.) Possibly the argument might also be directed against the deity defined by D2, and something like that is attempted in Schellenberg, 1993, though there it would not be quite so forceful.
The rationale behind premise (a) is that nonbelief in God is an impediment to loving him, so a deity as described by definition D3 or D6 would remove that impediment if he were to exist. Defenses similar to those in the case of the Argument from Evil could be raised, and similar objections to them could be presented. (Drange, 1998.)

7. Arguments from Incoherence (D4, D5, D6):

(a) In order for X to explain Y, not only must Y be derivable from X, but the derivation needs to be in some way illuminating.
(b) If X is derived from itself, then the derivation is in no way illuminating.

(c) Thus, it is impossible for anything to explain itself.
(d) God as defined by D4 is supposed to explain itself.
(e) It follows that the idea of "God" as defined by D4 is incoherent.
(f) Furthermore, perfection is relative, and so, the concept of "objectively perfect," as a concept employed in public reasoning, makes no sense.
(g) Hence, the idea of "God" as defined by D5 is also incoherent.
(h) In addition, the Bible contains descriptions of God that are incoherent (e.g., implying both that Jesus is God and that Jesus is God's son, that God is spirit or a spirit and that God is love).
(i) Evangelical Christians interpret those descriptions literally.

(j) Therefore, it might be argued that the idea of "God" as defined by D6 is also incoherent.
Discussion: Unlike the other arguments in this section, these arguments do not aim to prove God's nonexistence, but rather, the incoherence of God-talk when "God" is defined in certain ways. The point is not that theists who employ such God-talk are mistaken about the world, but that they are confused in their language.
The idea of "incoherence" is also sometimes applied to contradictions or other sorts of conceptual incompatibility. For example, arguments #2 & #3, above, could each be regarded as a kind of "argument from incoherence," for they appeal to conceptual incompatibilities between pairs of divine attributes. [This point might also be applicable to definition D5 if theists were to try to combine it with other definitions. For example, if a theist were to claim that God is both perfect (as given in D5) and the creator of the universe (as given in D1), then it might be argued that such a notion is incoherent, since a perfect being can have no wants, whereas a creator must have some wants. Or if a theist were to claim that God is perfect and also loves humanity (as given in D2 & D3), then it might be argued that such a notion is incoherent, since a perfect being can feel no disappointment, whereas a being who loves humanity must feel some disappointment.] However, this notion of "incoherence" is different from that appealed to in the Arguments from Incoherence, for if incompatible properties are ascribed, at least there is a conjunction of propositions there, even if it is a contradictory pair. In that case, it would still make sense to say that the sentence "God exists" expresses a (necessarily) false proposition. But with the sort of "incoherence" appealed to in the Arguments from Incoherence there is no proposition expressed at all, whether true or false. (For more on incompatible-properties arguments against God's existence, see Martin and Monnier, 2003.)


8. The Argument from Confusion (D6):
(a) If the deity described in the Bible as interpreted by evangelical Christianity were to exist, then there would not exist as much confusion and conflictedness among Christians as there does, particularly with regard to important doctrinal issues such as God's laws and the requirements for salvation.
(b) But there does exist that much. (Christians disagree widely among themselves on such issues, as shown, among other things, by the great number of different Christian denominations and sects that exist.)
(c) Therefore, that deity does not exist.

(d) Hence God as defined by D6 does not exist.
Discussion: The rationale behind premise (a) is that the God of evangelical Christianity is a deity who places great emphasis upon awareness of the truth, especially with regard to important doctrinal issues. It is expected, then, that if such a deity were to exist, he would place a high priority upon the elimination of confusion and conflictedness among his own followers with regard to important doctrinal issues. Because of the great abundance of Christian confusion of the relevant sort, this argument is a very forceful one.


9. The Argument from Biblical Defects (D6):
(a) If the deity described in the Bible as interpreted by evangelical Christianity were to exist, then the Bible itself would not have the defects that it has. That is, it would not contain textual errors, interpolations, contradictions, factual errors (including false prophecies), and ethical defects. Also, the canon would have been assembled with less political involvement and would not have original manuscripts or parts missing.
(b) But the Bible does contain those defects.

(c) Therefore, that deity, which is God as defined by D6, does not exist.
Discussion: Premise (a) is based on the point that evangelical Christians regard the Bible to be God's main form of revelation to humanity. So, given that their God exists, it would be expected that the Bible would possess features implied by the motivations which they ascribe to him. Premise (a) follows quite naturally. (For examples of the Bible's defects, see appendix D of Drange, 1998, and Mattill, 1995. For more on arguments #8 & #9, see Drange, "The Arguments from Confusion and Biblical Defects" in the forthcoming Martin and Monnier, 2006.)


10. The Argument from Human Insignificance (D6):
(a) If the deity described in the Bible as interpreted by evangelical Christianity were to exist, then it would be expected that humans occupy some significant place in the universe.
(b) But, both from the standpoint of space (the size of the universe in relation to the size of the earth) and from the standpoint of time (the length of time in which the universe has existed in relation to the length of time in which humans have existed), humans do not occupy any significant place in the universe.
(c) Hence, God, as defined by D6, probably does not exist.
Discussion: The idea behind the first premise here is that the Bible describes God as having a very special interest in humans. Since humans are so important, they should naturally occupy some significant place in space and time. To reject that idea is to reject the evangelical Christian outlook on the nature of reality. (A slightly different version of this argument is referred to as "The Argument from Scale" in Everitt, 2004.)

- There are many other arguments against God's existence. Some are inductive in form (Martin, 1990). Some make appeal to cosmological assumptions (Craig and Smith, 1993). I have here picked just those that I regard to be the main ones.

 

[quandary121]

Unconditional Love?

Unconditional Love?
How much do I love, can I love, might I love?
Am I willing to risk losing my life for another person, even surrender, forfeit, or deliberately reject my eternal salvation, my just reward, my place in heaven, etc. for another person, to take his-or-her place in hell, and ask nothing in return, not even recognition that they are now safe because of me?
If I am not willing to do this, what does this say about me? If I am willing to do this, what does this say about God?
If I, a mere mortal, can give up my life to save another person without demanding recognition or demanding praise, why couldn't Jesus? If I'm willing to take another's place in hell without him-or-her ever knowing I did this for them, without acknowledgment, without a word of thanks, why is God so all-fired-up to send me to hell if I don't acknowledge him first? Isn't God's love suppose to be a higher love, a stronger love, a more perfect love than what we are capable?
If I am willing to sacrifice everything without asking anything in return, why isn't God able to do the same thing for me?
As long as there's a threat of Hell, how can we be satisfied to go to Heaven?
As long as God threatens Hell, is this the kind of God really worthy of worship? :angryfire:

 

[MikeyDB]

Quandary 121

Welcome to Canadian Content!

I've enjoyed reading your contributions, and while it would be convenient to attribute my enjoying these efforts because the message supports my personal perspectives, it is refreshing to read cogent argument devoid of passionate overtone. Would you agree that the only effective instrument in raising first the idelogical structures and in maintaining these structures of doctrine and dogma is manipulation of our emotions? Would it be fair to suggest that precepts leveraged on one's availability to guilt anger and sorrow are the substative "soil" of how "belief" and "religion" come to present as such influential dynamics across the human spectrum? Is the question partially, "How do we find solace and strength to meet the challenges of this existence without applying the rubric of comfort through imagination and deep yearning for answers when logic and common sense appear unable to meet these needs?

Once again thanks for your efforts and I look forward to participating with you on this journey.

Michael

 

[quandary121]

The Purpose of Life

The Purpose of Life
The Purpose of Life is to preserve humanity through the enrichment, empowerment, and improvement of each successive generation (or successions of generations, whether familial, local or global) through philosophy, discovery, or invention; to leave behind an aesthetic, utilitarian, or instructive construct that might act as a “stepping stone” in the on-going advancement (whether subtle or not-so-subtle) of successive generations. Because we all die, our purpose is to aid and bootstrap those who will outlive us, who survive us, who by their very youth must move forward and carry on in our absence, and always thus in a long succession of generation to generation. By doing anything less than this, by thinking only of ourselves, our wants and desires, would mean that we would have both lived and died in vain.
The Purpose of Life may be measured against a backdrop of behavior and belief by asking oneself the following questions:

• Is my current behavior enriching, empowering, or improving life for successive generations?
• Is by current belief system enriching, empowering, or improving life for successive generations?
• Is my life-style and are my actions enriching, empowering, or improving life for successive generations?
• If I were to die today, would I be leaving something behind that could be used to enrich, empower, or improve successive generations?
• Do my moral and ethical choices enrich, empower, or improve successive generations or are they construed instead of purely selfish reasons, fear of punishment, hope for reward, or fanciful and wishful thinking? :idea:

 

[quandary121]

Quotations about Atheism:

[FONT=arial,helvetica]Quotations about Atheism:[/FONT]

[FONT=arial,helvetica]Anon: Almost every American denies the existence of Artemis, Baal, Cybele, Fergus, Thor, Wotan, Zeus, and thousands of other gods and goddesses. The difference between a Christian and an Atheist is that an Atheist either denies the existence of the Trinity or has no belief in the Trinity. The difference is truly insignificant. It is only one part in thousands.[/FONT]

[FONT=arial,helvetica]Isaac Asimov, from the article "On Religiosity" in Free Inquiry magazine: "Although the time of death is approaching me, I am not afraid of dying and going to Hell or (what would be considerably worse) going to the popularized version of Heaven. I expect death to be nothingness and, for removing me from all possible fears of death, I am thankful to atheism."[/FONT]

[FONT=arial,helvetica]Dan Barker, Author of "Losing Faith in Faith:" "I have something to say to the religionist who feels atheists never say anything positive: You are an intelligent human being. Your life is valuable for its own sake. You are not second-class in the universe, deriving meaning and purpose from some other mind. You are not inherently evil -- you are inherently human, possessing the positive rational potential to help make this a world of morality, peace and joy. Trust yourself."[/FONT]

[FONT=arial,helvetica]Annie Wood Besant: "No philosophy, no religion, has ever brought so glad a message to the world as this good news of Atheism." [/FONT]

[FONT=arial,helvetica]George H.W. Bush, as presidential nominee for the Republican party; 1987-AUG-27: "No, I don't know that Atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered as patriots. This is one nation under God." 1[/FONT]

[FONT=arial,helvetica]H. Havelock Ellis: "And it is in his own image, let us remember, that Man creates God."[/FONT]

[FONT=arial,helvetica]Doug Jesseph: "As an atheist, I deny exist of all Gods: those of the Mayans, the Hindu, the Ancient Egyptians, and the God of the Old and New Testaments. If I am right, all of these are fictional constructs invented by clever humans for purposes, a variety of purposes, ranging from psychological comfort to entertainment." 2


[/FONT]<b>[FONT=arial,helvetica]Atheism isn't necessarily a religious belief. However, it is certainly a religious issue because it deals with concepts that are found throughout many religions.
On this site, we define the term "religion" as:

"Religion is any specific system of belief about deity, often involving rituals, a code of ethics, a philosophy of life, and a worldview."
​

Atheism is not a complete religion in the sense that Christianity, Islam, and, Judaism are. Atheism is not generally perceived as offering a complete guideline for living as do most religions. However, Atheists frequently derive their own ethics and philosophy of life and worldview using their Atheism as a starting point. They are generally derived from secular considerations, and not from any "revealed" religious text. Many Atheists now celebrate the Winter Solstice.
Some Atheists, when asked what their religion is, will answer, simply, "Atheist." Others will say that they have no religion, they are an Atheist.
Note that:
[/FONT]</b>

[FONT=arial,helvetica]Atheism relates to a belief in the existence or non-existence of a deity, or whether the person associates any meaning to the terms "God" or "deity."[/FONT]

[FONT=arial,helvetica]Atheism can involve the positive assertion that there is no deity; this is sometimes referred to as "strong Atheism." It is the most common dictionary definition for the term "Atheist," and is probably the definition used by most theists.[/FONT]

[FONT=arial,helvetica]Atheism can be the absence of a belief that there is a deity. This is the belief promoted by the American Atheists group and many individual Atheists.[/FONT]

[FONT=arial,helvetica]Atheism often promote the belief that all Gods and Goddesses (as well as angels, demons, ghosts, etc.) are nonexistent entities created by human minds.[/FONT][FONT=arial,helvetica]In one way, most people in North America are Atheists. Christians will generally deny the existence of the Mayan, Hindu, Ancient Roman, Ancient Greek, Ancient Egyptian, Ancient Sumerian, Sikh, and many hundreds of other Gods and Goddesses, even as they assert their belief in the Christian Trinity. Thus, the difference between a typical Christian and a typical Atheist is numerically small: The strong Atheist believes that none of the many thousands of Gods and Goddesses exist; the Christian believes that one God exists in a certain structure -- a Trinity -- whereas all of the other thousands of deities are nonexistent, artificial creations by humans. Although the numerical difference is much less that 0.1%, the philosophical difference is immense.
There exists massive discrimination against Atheists in the U.S.
[/FONT]

[FONT=arial,helvetica]Part of this may be based on the historical linkage between Communism and Atheism. Most Communists are Atheists. But many people do not realize that most Atheists in North America are not Communists.[/FONT]

[FONT=arial,helvetica]Another reason for this discrimination is the common belief that a person cannot be motivated to lead a moral life unless they hope for the reward of heaven, and fear the punishment of Hell. In the past, this belief had been codified into law. Conscientious objectors opposed to participating in warfare were thrown in jail if their opposition to killing other humans was not based on belief in God. [/FONT]

[FONT=arial,helvetica]Still another cause of discrimination is a widespread linkage between theism -- the belief in the existence of God -- American citizenship, and Christianity.



[/FONT]