Root of Christian/Atheism disagreement

[ryanatau]

Morality Games:

From all appearances you seem to be out of the analytic school of philosophy and thus should be familiar with logical positivism. You said there is a fundamental difference in the logic atheists and theist use but that is not necessarily the truth. If anything logical positivism has shown us that logic is only a method of finding what follows from certain propositions. The problem logical positivists faced is that if pure logic is to find truth it must start with certain axioms. Since axioms are hardly ever self-evident (even if they are it does not show they are true everyone at one time though the Euclidean axioms were self-evident) and logic cannot tell us which axioms we must somehow and somewhat arbitrarily choose axioms which cannot be rationally discussed because they are fundamental and are prior to reason (reason assumes certain axioms to be useful).

So the problem with the atheist/theist debate isn't that one side is close-minded or that they use a different sort of logic, but rather that the fundamental axioms chosen prior to reason are different. Thus the theist phrase "Credo ut intellegam [I believe in order to understand]."

Also, not all theists believe God exists because he is imaginable (some do Augustine, Anselm, etc.). Many philosophers have said God is empirically demonstratable (Aquinas, Hugh, etc.). I think you are looking at the atheist position incorrectly. I sometimes ask myself what would God have to do to convince me of His existence? I have realized that almost nothing would be convincing. And its not because I would ignore the evidence but rather because my mind is made up. I would immediately try to find a natural answer to the phenomenon I witnessed. If God touched me on the shoulder right now I would not conclude God exists but try to find a way to show "given this data how can it be possible God does not exist?" Most people view the human mind as something that simply interprets data. But really we problem solve. We say "This is the truth. How do I make the data fit the truth?" Thus the William James quote "A great many people think they are thinking when they are merely rearranging their prejudices."

[ryanatau]

EDIT: sorry I guess it did post but ill leave this because I am not sure how to delete it

Ok well I wrote something but it didn't post:

Basically what I said is that Morality Games is wrong. The logic of atheists and theists are not different. Rather the axioms that they choose are different.

MG, you seem to come from the analytic tradition in philosophy so I assume you are familiar with logical positivism. What we found out at the destruction of logical positivism is that axioms are create somewhat arbitrarily as prior to reason. As such they are fundamental. The difference in atheists and theists is their axioms from which logically follows what they believe.

I think I am a good example of this. I think of myself as fairly open-minded (you may disagree). However, when I ask myself "what would God have to do to convince me He exists?" I realize that nothing is convincing. If God taped me on the shoulder and said "I exist" I would immediately try to find a nature solution to the phenomenon. I would not accept that God exists.

The problem is that we are not strictly data interpreters. We are problem solvers. We see data and try to fit it into our existing set of beliefs. Fundamental and prior to these beliefs are fundamental axioms that are unprovable because they are created prior to reason (reason depends on them). Thus the William James quote "A great many people think they are thinking when they are merely rearranging their prejudices."

[gela]

This is my main problem with Christianity.

It teaches that you are either with god (meaning you are protected from anything bad, and that you will spend eternity in heaven).

Or you are manipulated by Satan, and are thus evil.

Generally, within the christian religion, this ideal breeds arrogance, and hatred towards anyone who isn't one of 'them'.

Life is not about black and white. There is not a huge group of 'good' people, and another group of 'bad' people. We all have reasonable reasons for thinking how we do.

"ignore that logical opinion, his being manipulated by the devil. Gods word is the only truth"

"we have an all powerful god on our side, they have nothing"

"we have our completely perfect god on our side, we can do what we want. Our word is law"

I wont claim that every christian user on this forum has this attitude, but it is the attitude that christianity seems to promote.
That is why I prefer Buddhism - It promotes understanding and respect towards every belief that isn't they're own. It doesn't promote misunderstanding and hatred between different beliefs.

[ryanatau]

Quote by: gela This is my main problem with Christianity. It teaches that you are either with god (meaning you are protected from anything bad, and that you will spend eternity in heaven). Or you are manipulated by Satan, and are thus evil. Generally, within the christian religion, this ideal breeds arrogance, and hatred towards anyone who isn't one of 'them'. Life is not about black and white. There is not a huge group of 'good' people, and another group of 'bad' people. We all have reasonable reasons for thinking how we do. "ignore that logical opinion, his being manipulated by the devil. Gods word is the only truth" "we have an all powerful god on our side, they have nothing" "we have our completely perfect god on our side, we can do what we want. Our word is law" I wont claim that every christian user on this forum has this attitude, but it is the attitude that christianity seems to promote. That is why I prefer Buddhism - It promotes understanding and respect towards every belief that isn't they're own. It doesn't promote misunderstanding and hatred between different beliefs.

Christianity, in general, does not teach what you said above though some sects might. Many of the greatest thinks have been Christians.

Buddhism is not any better than Christianity. Christians teach understanding and so do Buddhists. Christians are intolerant and so are Buddhists. According to Christopher Hitchens in God is Not Great, in Sri Lanka Buddhists and Hindus are constantly at war over religion. The problem that I have with religion is not that one religion is bad or good. My problem is similar to Dennet's. And I think this atheist hostility towards theism is only making it harder to study religion in a meaningful way.

[Morality Games]

Basically what I said is that Morality Games is wrong. The logic of atheists and theists are not different. Rather the axioms that they choose are different.

Axioms are part of logical activity because they can be expressed as propositions. My use of the term logic was valid, especially because 'axiom' is esoteric (has little meaning outside non-philosophically inclined circles).

MG, you seem to come from the analytic tradition in philosophy

I don't affiliate myself with analytics because there are several pervasive trends in that philosophy I don't agree with.

so I assume you are familiar with logical positivism.

Passing knowledge.

I think I am a good example of this. I think of myself as fairly open-minded (you may disagree). However, when I ask myself "what would God have to do to convince me He exists?" I realize that nothing is convincing. If God taped me on the shoulder and said "I exist" I would immediately try to find a nature solution to the phenomenon. I would not accept that God exists.

I don't doubt your receptiveness to information, but I wonder if that would really be your emotional reaction if a God-like entity was in your presence.

The problem is that we are not strictly data interpreters. We are problem solvers. We see data and try to fit it into our existing set of beliefs. Fundamental and prior to these beliefs are fundamental axioms that are unprovable because they are created prior to reason (reason depends on them). Thus the William James quote "A great many people think they are thinking when they are merely rearranging their prejudices."

I agree we are problem solvers, but axioms can be part of the problem. While certain axioms are a genetic consequence of being human, others are acquired through experience and can be misleading. Shifts in reasoning can alter some of the axioms working in the background, so the relation between reason and axioms is not one-sided -- in many cases, both depend on each other, not just one on the other.

[gela]

Buddhism is not any better than Christianity. Christians teach understanding and so do Buddhists. Christians are intolerant and so are Buddhists. According to Christopher Hitchens in God is Not Great, in Sri Lanka Buddhists and Hindus are constantly at war over religion. The problem that I have with religion is not that one religion is bad or good. My problem is similar to Dennet's. And I think this atheist hostility towards theism is only making it harder to study religion in a meaningful way.

War is directly against buddhist teaching.

If they are at war, then they are disobeying their religion.

Christianity, in general, does not teach what you said above though some sects might.

I don't doubt that christians are good people. They just tend to arrogant and intolerant.

[ryanatau]

Quote by: Morality Games I agree we are problem solvers, but axioms can be part of the problem. While certain axioms are a genetic consequence of being human, others are acquired through experience and can be misleading. Shifts in reasoning can alter some of the axioms working in the background, so the relation between reason and axioms is not one-sided -- in many cases, both depend on each other, not just one on the other.

I think we are probably in agreement.

I would say however, that analytics and analytic philosophy are different. Both Rorty and Russell are analytic philosophers (historically).

[Winter wind]

Quote by: gela I don't doubt that christians are good people. They just tend to arrogant and intolerant.

Ouch.

where do I fall?

War is directly against buddhist teaching. If they are at war, then they are disobeying their religion.

Well that means Buddhists are just as hypocritical as Christians, but this is just a depressing argument.

But don't forget, just as there is a bad side to Christianity and Buddhism, there is also the moral side to it. The kind side to it. (and maybe only in my dreams) an intellectual side to it.

Both need to be recognized by both theists and atheists.

[Jack]

Well that means Buddhists are just as hypocritical as Christians, but this is just a depressing argument.

Oh, I don't know. It merely shows that our humanity (for good or ill) is stronger than our philosophy.

[Sonart]

.

Quote by: Winter wind Again, you seem to dump Christians into one big pile. I'm not like that am I?

You spoke of common practices, one of which is that if an individual happens not to be guilty of a vice common among their peers, they don't think anyone should be complaining. If you're not guilty of being bigoted against atheists, then good for you. but that doesn't change the reality.

I suppose I could compare it to life with my Japanese-American wife. As long as we lived in Hawaii, everything was cool... race was never an issue. But when we moved here, she began to feel, for the first time in her life, bigotry from a racial majority directed against her, some sublte, some not so subtle. Within 5 or 6 years it had made her very angry and radicalized politically. Worst of all, whenever she needed to vent, there I was, the symbolic White Man. But using your argument, Winter, never worked... that being, hey, I'm white and I'm not like that and I'm not the problem.

At times she'd see the dilemma I was in, so I'd ask her... "I'm white and that's not going to change...What would you have me do?" With sad understanding in her eyes, she'd say, "Just try to stand up to racism wherever you see it."

Which, as those of you who know me on this board, is what I've steadfastly tried to do. And that's all I can tell you, Winter Wind.

Quote by: HelioPrime Do theists proselytize much on this forum?

What's the topic of this thread, Helio? "Root of Christian/Atheism disagreement". Well, I just told you the root... at least from my perspective. We don't see much proselytizing here because we all accept that it's a forum for open debate. Outside of this board it's a whole different world, and I am very careful with whom I share the fact of my atheism, even with members of my own extended family.

Quote by: Morality Games Atheists and theists disagree because there is a sizeable difference in the logic behind their standards of truth, at least on the subject of God.

Methinks it goes beyond that... some atheists feel that Christians base their harsh judgements on rigid dogma that is, to say the least, out of date.

For example, among most Christians, discrimination against gays is, or certainly was, considered a moral family value, for no more logical reason than it's in the Bible. I consider discrimination against gays, who harm no one, to be unjust, cruel and deeply immoral.

Likewise with the concept of Death with Dignity. Christians see life as sacred above all else. I find it cruel and immoral to force people to endure, through artificial means, lingering deaths of pain, suffering and indignity.

I see embryos and fetuses as proto or potential humans, with no self awareness or soul. I think it's cruel and immoral to force women to bear the burden of children they're either incapable of loving, or incapable of raising properly. Humans have surpassed the dogmatic need to "Be Fruitful and Multiply" simply because God says to.

Etc. etc.

.

[Rainbow]

Quote by: Captain Cardio Root of Christian/Atheism disagreement

That is an individual's approach.

[Morality Games]

Methinks it goes beyond that... some atheists feel that Christians base their harsh judgements on rigid dogma that is, to say the least, out of date. For example, among most Christians, discrimination against gays is, or certainly was, considered a moral family value, for no more logical reason than it's in the Bible. I consider discrimination against gays, who harm no one, to be unjust, cruel and deeply immoral. Likewise with the concept of Death with Dignity. Christians see life as sacred above all else. I find it cruel and immoral to force people to endure, through artificial means, lingering deaths of pain, suffering and indignity. I see embryos and fetuses as proto or potential humans, with no self awareness or soul. I think it's cruel and immoral to force women to bear the burden of children they're either incapable of loving, or incapable of raising properly. Humans have surpassed the dogmatic need to "Be Fruitful and Multiply" simply because God says to. Etc. etc.

All the ideations (perceptions, thoughts, emotions, feelings, memories) which cause these opposing behaviors proceed from differences between the logic governing our respective mental activities. We are talking about the root, so that is all I felt merited mention.

[Winter wind]

Quote by: Sonart You spoke of common practices, one of which is that if an individual happens not to be guilty of a vice common among their peers, they don't think anyone should be complaining. If you're not guilty of being bigoted against atheists, then good for you. but that doesn't change the reality.

I know. I don't really represent the whole of Christian thought. However, I think I can show that Christianity itself may not be the problem, rather that the people who follow it can and will be flawed. It's like an exclusive club, and being snide to those who aren't a part of it. That's human's problem, not the religions.

[Morality Games]

I know. I don't really represent the whole of Christian thought. However, I think I can show that Christianity itself may not be the problem, rather that the people who follow it can and will be flawed. It's like an exclusive club, and being snide to those who aren't a part of it. That's human's problem, not the religions.

The value of an ideology can be found in its potentiality for encouraging physiological and psychological healthiness and its potentiality for encouraging unhealthiness of the same types. What are the chances Christianity can produce more health than not?

[Jack]

I think I can show that Christianity itself may not be the problem, rather that the people who follow it can and will be flawed.

For me it's the exact opposite. Until I joined Volconvo, I hardly ever debated theism with believers. I have no quarrel with those who want to believe and aren't trying to engineer my life according to their beliefs. My sole objection is to the institution of the church and theistic belief itself. I obviously have no dislike for the gods, since I consider them imaginary beings. Further, I have no animus toward believers. It's what theistic thought and philosophy have done to humans throughout history until this day that I argue against.

[Winter wind]

Quote by: isherwood It's what theistic thought and philosophy have done to humans throughout history until this day that I argue against.

Cool. So what's the root of the philosophical disagreement?

Quote by: Morality games The value of an ideology can be found in its potentiality for encouraging physiological and psychological healthiness and its potentiality for encouraging unhealthiness of the same types. What are the chances Christianity can produce more health than not?

I don't know. I'm just trying to make the odds better.

[lsbskins1]

I think the root of the problem is human ego (for lack of a better term). A discussion on theistic v. atheistic world views seems to always devolve into a "You're stupid! No, you're stupid!" shouting match. It may be justified with appeals to different logical perspectives, but in the end, it comes down to the need to feel some sense of victory. The more insecure you are, the more you need to win. Some atheists insist on talking down to believers and some believers insist on claiming moral superiority. When two or three from each camp start snarling at each other, reasoned debate goes out the window and people start protecting their sense of self in ugly ways. The debate becomes a fight to protect the ego from being damaged. The theist "needs" to win because something so central to their self-perception can not be allowed to fall and the same can be said for the atheist. It gets there so fast because some people are less secure than others, but in the end, we all end up picking our side and entrenching.

[Winter wind]

The theist "needs" to win because something so central to their self-perception can not be allowed to fall and the same can be said for the atheist. It gets there so fast because some people are less secure than others, but in the end, we all end up picking our side and entrenching.

Hahaha. This is a problem with all debate. You need to win. People rarely change their mind. All it comes to is looking the best at the end.

[lsbskins1]

Quote by: Winter wind Hahaha. This is a problem with all debate. You need to win. People rarely change their mind. All it comes to is looking the best at the end.

I agree on a certain level, but when you are debating, say, "Who is the best boxer ever", your sense of self is not nearly as entwined with the issue. It all exists on a continuum. The closer you get to issues that involve self-defining propositions, the nastier and more heated it becomes and the less likely you are to ever effect some one's position.

[Winter wind]

Quote by: isbskins1 I agree on a certain level, but when you are debating, say, "Who is the best boxer ever", your sense of self is not nearly as entwined with the issue. It all exists on a continuum. The closer you get to issues that involve self-defining propositions, the nastier and more heated it becomes and the less likely you are to ever effect some one's position.

True.