Can claims about God be supported without reference to sacred texts?

[newnar2004]

To actually speak of "proof" when dealing with a religious problem is already in the basics, wrong. They are meant to be psychological support. People don't believe in God because they believe that he built the universe and created all living things. It's the teachings of love, care, concern and various other moralities that really capture a believer. So to scientifically, or even logically prove that a certain deity or god exists is simply illogical.

[GeminiBrian]

[QUOTE=Ken Carman;594070][QUOTE=GeminiBrian;594038]

Quote by: Ken Carman this (is) a position I have thought through, arrived at, then rethought through many, many times: over closing in on 60 years here on planet Earth.) ... Atheism neither scares me nor tempts me. Agnosticism does somewhat... tempt. But I am simply being honest about what I sense regarding what is and isn't.

Some would call that terminally indecisive.

Not that there is an onus on you to decide one way or another, it's just that I can't empathise with your prevarication, particularly if you have been debating religion with yourself for over half a century.

It's somewhat akin to saying you have thought of going vegetarian for sixty years - there must come a time when you owe it to yourself to take the plunge and see whether it suits you or not.

Similarly with one's deeper attitudes and responses. Speaking personally, I never had much difficulty in this regard, as I'd already come to my conclusions during my teens -- and I don't think I was hasty. I have, like you, given religion endless thought over the years, and never had cause to change my mind in the slightest.

Again, I fail to see what it is about belief in an improbable god you find so difficult, as an intelligent person, to renounce. I still read the bible and other 'holy books' on a fairly regular basis, and I have to say with the greatest conviction that the more I scrutinise the contents, the more confirmed I become in my original decision. The implausibility of the whole thing is so glaring, I would have thought.

And not just the grotesque absurdities of the old testament, but the very central premise of the new - the vicarious atonement - as I outlined recently in rather satyrical terms on another thread.

On reading through what I had written, I was struck afresh by the preposterousness of it all, and I didn't need to exaggerate in any way to demonstrate how unacceptable that particular doctrine has to be to any rational mind.

So I remain perplexed by your wavering stance, Ken, because you are clearly a deep thinker, IMO. I would love to understand, as I said, what binds you to belief despite your obvious misgivings. You have already assured us that it is not the infantile need for a protective father figure, but you failed to enlighten me with regard to what psychological factors are at work in you exactly that make it so hard for you to let go.

You must have pondered these things at great length during those 60 inconclusive years, so what's the blockage?

[Ken Carman]

Quote by: Jack Quantum theory? I thought Extreme Copenhagen was extra-strength chewing tobacco.

Great come back. Give the man a drum roll, "Brum da dum." Or would that be more like a oompawpaw band: "Chaw da chaw?"

[Jack]

So I remain perplexed by your wavering stance, Ken, because you are clearly a deep thinker, IMO. I would love to understand, as I said, what binds you to belief despite your obvious misgivings. You have already assured us that it is not the infantile need for a protective father figure, but you failed to enlighten me with regard to what psychological factors are at work in you exactly that make it so hard for you to let go.

I recently blogged the same sentiment, where I asked the following questions of those who say they're agnostic about gods.

If you consider yourself agnostic in matters of theology, and if you believe that as an agnostic you have no opinion on whether or not gods exist, what would you accept as evidence one way or the other?

If you’re theistically agnostic, do you consider miracles, signs, predictions and religious visions possible?

Would you be just as comfortable having someone pray over you for a healing as you would visiting an emergency room if your appendix burst?

If you don’t use skepticism in order to reach defensible conclusions (not absolutely right answers, though) then what good is it doing you?

My conclusion, "Agnosticism isn’t an endpoint, it’s not a goal. It’s a means of reaching those."

[Ken Carman]

[QUOTE=GeminiBrian;594387][QUOTE=Ken Carman;594070]

Quote by: GeminiBrian Some would call that terminally indecisive.

Which I have absolutely (or as absolute as one really can be) no problem with. What is this drive people have that we must decide and then stand on our forts built out of such decisions and defend them? I understand the more fundamentalistic theist who thinks their very soul and life depends upon it. Yet they're not happy if others differ. They HAVE to attempt to force others to agree. To me its a sign of disrespect they have for the very "free will" they blather about.

I have also argued with Atheists who seem to have the same drive. That... I don't understand.

Not that there is an onus on you to decide one way or another, it's just that I can't empathize with your prevarication, particularly if you have been debating religion with yourself for over half a century.

I ask no one to "empathize." I simply declare my right to "be so."

It's somewhat akin to saying you have thought of going vegetarian for sixty years - there must come a time when you owe it to yourself to take the plunge and see whether it suits you or not.

Ah, we disagree. I have always wanted to parachute and hang glide. Given my physical condition at this late stage: unlikely to happen. But I can dream, can't I? And if some day I see a path to which I might make such dreams come true, don't be surprised if I leap at the chance: literally.

Similarly with one's deeper attitudes and responses. Speaking personally, I never had much difficulty in this regard, as I'd already come to my conclusions during my teens -- and I don't think I was hasty. I have, like you, given religion endless thought over the years, and never had cause to change my mind in the slightest.

Mine change and shift here and there. But major changes? Mostly: not. I'm happy where I am. If I'm wrong, well, as Grandpa Carman used to say; "Anyone can be wrong. I was: once."

Again, I fail to see what it is about belief in an improbable god you find so difficult, as an intelligent person, to renounce. I still read the bible and other 'holy books' on a fairly regular basis, and I have to say with the greatest conviction that the more I scrutinize the contents, the more confirmed I become in my original decision. The implausibility of the whole thing is so glaring, I would have thought.

I believe scared texts to be of human origin. That doesn't rule out divine inspiration in them and elsewhere. I find them fascinating because it is an attempt to make contact with whatever may... or may not... be out there. Plus there is some history, as well as scientific impossibilities and many, many contradictions. And blood spent for stupid, arrogant reasons: many attributed to God. I view that like people who pray to win a football game. If they won, God listened and loved them more, right? Hogsnot.

And not just the grotesque absurdities of the old testament, but the very central premise of the new - the vicarious atonement - as I outlined recently in rather satyrical terms on another thread.

Oh, I agree. I trust the Old even less than the New. Written by people who lived in very, very superstitious times: even more so than the New.

So I remain perplexed by your wavering stance, Ken, because you are clearly a deep thinker, IMO. I would love to understand, as I said, what binds you to belief despite your obvious misgivings. You have already assured us that it is not the infantile need for a protective father figure,

My father, who I loved very much, was the opposite of "very protective." Mom, who died when I was young and spent most of her years with cancer affecting how she related to us, was a bit too protective. I rebelled against that, not realizing it was the cancer doing it because we weren't told. I really didn't know her.

...but you failed to enlighten me with regard to what psychological factors are at work in you exactly that make it so hard for you to let go. You must have pondered these things at great length during those 60 inconclusive years, so what's the blockage?

Blockage? I don't see it as a blockage in any sense. And what, you're expecting me to psychologically analyze myself? (Ever notice that "anal" is part of the word "analyze?") It's not "hard" at all. Don't feel a need to. However, taking a stab at it, being quite creative... (if I have any single mantra in life, it would be "be creative.") ...I see there are always possibilities. And I do sense something is out there. It's a feeling. It's observation for almost 60 years. I don't expect anyone else to follow or agree. We all have our experiences and what we sense. Doesn't necessarily make it real. (Hence: theist with agnostic tendencies.")

Once again, I simply don't feel the drive, or understand the absolute need, that one "must" sit absolutely firm: in concrete, on one side of the theistic/atheist divide. With some theists I can see that their interpretation of sacred texts; and their non-sensical belief that these are the absolute words out of some deity's mouth interpreted purely and correctly (in all the different versions of said text), gives them "drive" and "a need." But, to me, the very concept is balderdash.

[GeminiBrian]

Quote by: Jack I recently blogged the same sentiment, where I asked the following questions of those who say they're agnostic about gods.

Your article was spot on, and beautifully expressed - I share your sentiments 100%.

Let's wait and see whether any of our resident agnostics pluck up the courage to address all the salient points you make, just as I am looking forward to reading Ken's response to my post on the same subject.

Thanks for the link - I'm planning to check it out from time to time from now on.

[GeminiBrian]

Quote by: Ken Carman Which I have absolutely (or as absolute as one really can be) no problem with.

Ken, forgive my bluntness, but you are exasperating at times (IMO).

It's obvious from reading these fora how much people differ in their take on life, and some are, to my way of thinking, quite a bit beyond the pale in terms of reasonableness.

You, however, are more tantalising, since, as I said, your thinking tends to run very deep, as a rule. That sounds patronising, I realise, but it's honestly the way I feel when I read your posts.

What is this drive people have that we must decide and then stand on our forts built out of such decisions and defend them? I understand the more fundamentalistic theist who thinks their very soul and life depends upon it. Yet they're not happy if others differ.

I take it, then, that is how you interpret my witterings on religion? If so, I would hasten to disabuse you of such a misconception. Maybe some of us are driven, as you suggest, to pontificate on our forts, but I hope I haven't given you any grounds for accusing me of doing any such thing. The only 'dogma' I am personally prepared to defend as an atheist stems directly from my conviction that it is beneath us to abuse our powers of reasoning - whatever conclusions they may lead us to.

Not that my powers of reasoning are of a superior quality to the next person's, necessarily, but I am highly conscious of the need for total honesty when it comes to analysing any proposition, particularly the most difficult and perplexing ones. I daresay you would say exactly the same thing for your honesty, and I don't doubt it for a second.

The difference between us lies, as far as I can make out, in how high we set our respective bars when it comes to belief. Sticking to that analogy, I instinctively push the bar higher, as required, whenever I encounter new theories. The end result being that very little, if anything, of a dubious nature passes that test. And once raised, the bar cannot ever be lowered again.

They HAVE to attempt to force others to agree. To me its a sign of disrespect they have for the very "free will" they blather about... I have also argued with Atheists who seem to have the same drive. That... I don't understand.

I don't see things as a winnable contest between two opposing sides, there being no victors or losers when it comes to absolutes. The challenge is to present the most cogent case for and against belief, I guess. Looked at in that (admittedly simplistic) light, I would say that your defence of agnosticism is ultimately non-productive, since it makes no effort to sufficiently deconstruct or destabilise either theism or atheism

Agnosticism may be an admirably impartial position to take, but, I have to say, a rather sterile one.

I ask no one to "empathize." I simply declare my right to "be so".

By empathise, I meant that I can't concur with your ambivalence, that's all.

Ah, we disagree. I have always wanted to parachute and hang glide... But I can dream, can't I? And if some day I see a path to which I might make such dreams come true, don't be surprised if I leap at the chance: literally.

If I was standing behind you in the plane, I hope I wouldn't have to push you out, since I have a malevolent suspicion that you would find it well-nigh impossible to take that leap into the unpredictable without a hearty shove.

Mine change and shift here and there. But major changes? Mostly: not. I'm happy where I am.

Fair enough, but any journey of discovery must have an ultimate goal, I would say, and opting for the static is a complacent sort of cop-out.

I believe scared texts to be of human origin. That doesn't rule out divine inspiration in them and elsewhere. I find them fascinating because it is an attempt to make contact with whatever may... or may not... be out there.

There is no such thing as divine inspiration - if holy scriptures were so inspired I think we could expect far more wisdom than there is in evidence. Rather we see, above all, conflict, contradiction and plain silliness in such scriptures, without exception... Fascinating they undoubtedly are, I grant you, but strictly in terms of what they show us of the development of human consciousness through the ages, along with much literary beauty, and the very occasional gem of insight, (if you disregard the context).

Plus there is some history, as well as scientific impossibilities and many, many contradictions. And blood spent for stupid, arrogant reasons: many attributed to God. I view that like people who pray to win a football game.

Then again, when you spot such contradictions, unless you are a fully-fledged non-believer, you are very much obliged to account for these glaring discrepancies, (rather than lamely dismiss them), if you possibly can (which, of course, you can't).

Oh, I agree. I trust the Old even less than the New. Written by people who lived in very, very superstitious times: even more so than the New

So why give them your credence?

Blockage? I don't see it as a blockage in any sense. And what, you're expecting me to psychologically analyze myself? (Ever notice that "anal" is part of the word "analyze?") It's not "hard" at all. Don't feel a need to.

That's just me - old habits die hard, I guess. As for analysing, anal is only the first component - but to sing - is a very healthy occupation IMO... (sorry... I'm a bit too 'mellow' after my lunchtime wine to come up with anything less feeble).

(if I have any single mantra in life, it would be "be creative.") ...I see there are always possibilities. And I do sense something is out there. It's a feeling.

No need to apologise - I often get it too, but I put it down, rather more prosaically, to the appropriate parts of my brain, where such feeling are now known to originate spontaneously. (It's said to be in our neurological hard-wiring).

Doesn't necessarily make it real. (Hence: theist with agnostic tendencies.")

I guess you've answered yourself there.

Once again, I simply don't feel the drive, or understand the absolute need, that one "must" sit absolutely firm: in concrete, on one side of the theistic/atheist divide.

No-one's sitting firm - apart from fools... Like I said though, adopt the stance you are most comfortable with, as dictated by your reason. if you ignore that, you are not being honest with yourself, and risk disappearing into a terminal vagueness. (I nearly said up your own fundament, but that would be too impolite of me).

We are emotional creatures, so we accumulate a lot of baggage; but clinging to that baggage purely because it is comforting and familiar is, frankly, synonymous with deluding ourselves.

[Ken Carman]

Quote by: GeminiBrian Ken, forgive my bluntness, but you are exasperating at times (IMO).

My wife agrees. So does one of my brothers. The other understands a bit more, but because he lives so far away that's not quite a fair comment.

It's obvious from reading these fora how much people differ in their take on life, and some are, to my way of thinking, quite a bit beyond the pale in terms of reasonableness. You, however, are more tantalising, since, as I said, your thinking tends to run very deep, as a rule. That sounds patronising, I realise, but it's honestly the way I feel when I read your posts.

Doesn't seem patronizing to me at all. It's an honest response.

I take it, then, that is how you interpret my writings on religion?

Oops. I was ranting a bit. More directed at Fundies.

but I hope I haven't given you any grounds for accusing me of doing any such thing.

For the most part, no, though I found it odd you seem to think I have to come down solidly on one side of the theistic... or not... divide.

Not that my powers of reasoning are of a superior quality to the next person's, necessarily, but I am highly conscious of the need for total honesty when it comes to analysing any proposition, particularly the most difficult and perplexing ones. I daresay you would say exactly the same thing for your honesty, and I don't doubt it for a second.

Yes, I agree.

The difference between us lies, as far as I can make out, in how high we set our respective bars when it comes to belief.

I tend to be a bit of a "libertarian" when it comes to theism, yes. I rarely raise bars others must meet, except in how they react to me. Otherwise any kind of relationship, especially a digital-blog-based one, can become abusive and one sided. No, not you. I'm ranting.

I don't see things as a winnable contest between two opposing sides, there being no victors or losers when it comes to absolutes. Looked at in that (admittedly simplistic) light, I would say that your defence of agnosticism is ultimately non-productive, since it makes no effort to sufficiently deconstruct or destabilise either theism or atheism

If you have read my many other writings you'll find I do deconstruct certain versions of, and concepts common to, theism; such as what Fundies offer. But I have no desire to deconstruct or destabilize either theism or atheism. I can understand how someone arrives at either conclusion, except when they become evangelic as in "you must agree." That's annoying as hell. (Ranting again.)

Agnosticism may be an admirably impartial position to take, but, I have to say, a rather sterile one.

How do you find it "sterile?" I find that portion of my exploration of the topic exciting. I don't shut either concept (God or no God) out and consider possibilities on both sides. It has helped me come up with some analogies and such that encourage either to understand how one can come to a different conclusion.
I'll share one.
The theist often looks at the end result of where we are and claims everything fits together so well there must be "God." But we are looking at a succession of events so long that the observation isn't valid. If a methane breathing being of some sort were in our place: it would probably make the same claims and have little reason to do so.
Notice the argument doesn't deny the possibility of God, but explains how our logic can be flawed.

By empathise, I meant that I can't concur with your ambivalence, that's all.

I wasn't trying to be snippy: just explaining how I felt about it.

If I was standing behind you in the plane, I hope I wouldn't have to push you out, since I have a malevolent suspicion that you would find it well-nigh impossible to take that leap into the unpredictable without a hearty shove.

Chuckle. I do it all the time. I started touring the east coast with my own kid shows on a shoe string budget in 88 and spent many years touring Louisiana to Maine... culling new clients and rebooking old, designing new shows and educational activities. For more...

HOME

As of late I'm home more and I admit risk is a bit more bothersome. I have a lot of clients locally now and the body gets cranky as age bites us just about everywhere: especially private parts.

I suppose we'll have to disagree on this though, because I tend to view those who are far more firm in their theism and atheism as the ones who are afraid to leap. They'd rather have the firm ground of "it has to be this," or "it has to be that" under their feet than willingly taking leaps.

Again: observation; not accusation or specifically pointed at you.

Fair enough, but any journey of discovery must have an ultimate goal, I would say, and opting for the static is a complacent sort of cop-out.

The goal is learning all I can with the tools I have, or capable of using at the moment. If I miss something (and we always do) then maybe later I'll have an "ah ha" moment. Love those.

I reach the goal and the goalpost moves. I find reaching the next exciting: not frustrating. To use another analogy: I am the man who build his house on the sand; one who believes there really isn't much of anything but sand. Every time my "house" washes away a little I rebuild and learn more. Others who think they have built on rock find their houses wash away too: but they just blame others. The more fundamentalistic theist often blames the atheist, or Satan, or a demon, to provide one example. Then they use the "I'm a sinner but forgiven" get out of my own lack of logic pass. It's circular reasoning that damages them, and others. And it always winds up the same: blame someone or something else. My fav is a demon or Satan. Might as well blame it on gremlins.

Damn gremilins.

I hate them.

There is no such thing as divine inspiration - if holy scriptures were so inspired I think we could expect far more wisdom than there is in evidence. Fascinating they undoubtedly are, I grant you, but strictly in terms of what they show us of the development of human consciousness through the ages, along with much literary beauty, and the very occasional gem of insight, (if you disregard the context).

I disagree. I think there is divine inspiration, and it's not necessarily theistic in nature... though I don't totally discard the possibility. I'm a generalist by nature. I look over a forest surrounding an Adirondack lake while listening to a loon and write a song, a poem, or am inspired to write another column. That's "divine" in a larger sense. Without even the possibility of God the simple fact that everything led to that moment, that creation... is "divine," as I typed "in the larger sense." That "gem" and that "beauty" to me is divine: and not necessarily deity driven at all.

(I actually tend to think "not." This goes back to my watchmaker and marionette analogies.)

Then again, when you spot such contradictions, unless you are a fully-fledged non-believer, you are very much obliged to account for these glaring discrepancies...

I disagree. If you believe sacred texts are of human origin and filled with error, though parts may be inspired by the divine (however you define it)... then you're not "obliged" at all. And I don't think all of this was devious. I believe they truly believed God was speaking to them and inspiring them. Doesn't mean he was. Doesn't even necessarily mean he wasn't, though I tend to be a bit more skeptical there.

So why give them your credence?

I'm not sure how to answer this. Some parts I do... at least a little, some I don't. So to say overall I "give them credence" isn't quite accurate. I do give them is a respect for the attempt to record the times and what they believed, what they thought God was trying to say to the, or what Jesus said/did. I don't necessarily agree. Parts of the Bible and claims about what Jesus said were inserted and altered after the fact. Many were rejected at Nicaea. Bart Ehrman has done an excellent job explaining what parts in his many books like Misquoting Jesus.

I also respect people's views, generally, yet to me the atheist who claims there absolutely can be no God: not possible, is as wrong as the theist who claims the absolute opposite. It's simply something we cannot know for sure. Now I do respect "most likely not."

That's just me - old habits die hard, I guess. As for analysing, anal is only the first component - but to sing - is a very healthy occupation IMO...

Chuckle. Good come back.

I guess you've answered yourself there.

I tend to do that. I do? Yes, I do. Are you sure? Well, I'm never quite... wait, who was I responding to? Oh, Gemini. That's right.

No-one's sitting firm - apart from fools... Like I said though, adopt the stance you are most comfortable with, as dictated by your reason. if you ignore that, you are not being honest with yourself, and risk disappearing into a terminal vagueness.

Agreed.

[GeminiBrian]

[QUOTE]

Quote by: Ken Carman My wife agrees. So does one of my brothers. The other understands a bit more, but because he lives so far away that's not quite a fair comment.

Just ONE of your brothers?

For the most part, no, though I found it odd you seem to think I have to come down solidly on one side of the theistic... or not... divide

Let's just say you have theistic sympathies, that's more than enough to get my juices flowing. (But not, hopefully my bile).

I tend to be a bit of a "libertarian" when it comes to theism, yes.

Maybe we should revive this debate in another 60 years time, just to see how things have crystallised for you by then! And I thought I was a patient sort of guy...

... But I have no desire to deconstruct or destabilize either theism or atheism. I can understand how someone arrives at either conclusion, except when they become evangelic as in "you must agree." That's annoying as hell.

I call it the Bunker Mentality of a doctrine under threat, myself.

How do you find it "sterile?" I find that portion of my exploration of the topic exciting. I don't shut either concept (God or no God) out and consider possibilities on both sides.

I think the agnostic position is sterile in the sense that it is, by definition, a transitional stand... I mean, as soon as an individual has the courage to face the possibility that religion might be a big lie - the courage to admit doubt - the natural progression is invariably towards total non-belief, sooner or later, unless the questioning faculty isn't deliberately stifled, or courage fails.

I admit that there might be a degree of recidivism in some cases when the austerity of non-belief fails to emotionally sustain, but that is, as I keep saying, wilful intellectual dishonesty. Yes, I agree, exploration is exciting, but as with all exploration, it can only lead to a broadening of our horizons.

It's simply not possible to push new insights back into a dark box once they have emerged, and in this case, any conflicting or unstable religious beliefs are always the first casualty. Maybe you are trying to do exactly that - sitting tightly on the lid of the metaphorical box for fear of releasing chaos - at least it seems a possibility to me.

Notice the argument doesn't deny the possibility of God, but explains how our logic can be flawed.

Agreed: but that is no excuse to give up on logic altogether. It is, after all, the sharpest tool in our bag of tricks.

... now and the body gets cranky as age bites us just about everywhere: especially private parts.

Definitely no comment.

I tend to view those who are far more firm in their theism and atheism as the ones who are afraid to leap. They'd rather have the firm ground of "it has to be this," or "it has to be that" under their feet than willingly taking leaps.

As a seasoned atheist, what leaps are you suggesting I am reluctant to take?

then maybe later I'll have an "ah ha" moment. Love those.

I'll keep my fingers crossed for you, Ken.

I reach the goal and the goalpost moves. I find reaching the next exciting: not frustrating.

In my experience, goals of all sorts are a mirage. The more I learn, the more I realise I don't know. That may be a cliché, but oh! so true.

Every time my "house" washes away a little I rebuild and learn more.

Best not to keep re-building then... all mental constructs are prone to collapsing given enough time: in the end, it is arguably more constructive to learn to live without such constructs. The best alternative, paradoxically, as Zen Buddhism maintains, is to simply ditch our carefully maintained preconceptions and go with the flow. (but much easier said than done, IMO).

Anything short of relinquishing all the burdensome theoretical conceits we have constructed for ourselves is a diversion from reality - reality being something that defies any attempt to quantify it, or to comprehend it through intellectualisation... but I digress.

The more fundamentalistic theist often blames the atheist, or Satan, or a demon... Might as well blame it on gremlins. Damn gremilins. I hate them.

Me too. I just deleted the last part of this post, and I have no will to type it all again.

Never mind - that should be enough to be getting on with, you'll agree - and the cat is getting fractious, wanting his supper.

[Ken Carman]

Interesting comments, all. After this exchange, perhaps we should get back on topic? I'm enjoying it, no doubt, but we are supposed to stay on topic a bit. We've strayed quite a bit.

The following were the only ones I had to add my two cents (more like hapenny?) to...

Quote by: GeminiBrian Just ONE of your brothers?

One is semi-sort of Liberal. The other from various comments over the years is pretty Conservative, but likes to play the "I can see both sides objectively" card... when it's obvious what the skew is. This is an age old game started when we were both young that goes beyond politics. Faith-wise we semi/sort of agree, though I think he is more of an atheist. We have few disagreements there.

Conversations usually wind up with my eyes skyward while I'm being lectured "what you don't understand" when 99.9% of the time I'm being lectured on what I already have heard and assessed. Almost all controversial discussions; or discussions he considers controversial, quickly wind up this way. For instance he's done a lot of great work on the family tree and I sent him a name of someone who had been married to a Lincoln, wondering if she was related in some way. The response back was as if I was trying to piss all over his work. SIGH.

Maybe we should revive this debate in another 60 years time, just to see how things have crystallised for you by then! And I thought I was a patient sort of guy...

I'll be the guy with the jet powered wheel chair and a battering ram. Be ready. It's a date. (NO, not THAT kind.)

I think the agnostic position is sterile in the sense that it is, by definition, a transitional stand... I mean, as soon as an individual has the courage to face the possibility that religion might be a big lie - the courage to admit doubt - the natural progression is invariably towards total non-belief, sooner or later, unless the questioning faculty isn't deliberately stifled, or courage fails.

I don't find that part transitional at all. To me, and perhaps to others, it's a matter of admitting the truth: none of us really know. Despite all our observations we're guessing at best. It's so easy to get sidetracked, think illusion is reality, look at what is and think that's all there has to be. I try my best to admit that despite running a controversial weekly column off and on for over thirty years.

I do admit all of it, any of it, could be untrue. "A lie" to me seems to indicate intentional deception; often with a less than desirable (for the one expected to accept it) intent. I'm not willing to go that far 100% of the time. I find organized religion... especially ones with the strictest creeds... often (not "always") comes closer to that perception, but otherwise I think most believers may seem deluded; even delusional, from time to time. But lying?

A lot of the accepting of obvious falsehoods ("All we know has only been here a few thousand years," for example.) is intellectual laziness. Why do some people think that thinking should be avoided like it's a good spanking or harsh whipping? As one who enjoys the flow of thought, I doubt I'll ever fully understand: except some parents punish creative thought, and the child who is obviously going to be smarter than them. That explains some: not all. I do believe many of them are sincere, no matter how deluded they may be. Circular reasoning often keeps them afloat.

I tend to rant: an old columnist's habit, in part. Have you noticed?

As a seasoned atheist, what leaps are you suggesting I am reluctant to take?

You? I have no idea. There's a person somewhere at the end of this digital divide and I have no idea what's in your head. From what you have typed I have guesses: at best. I can give you examples, like the friend I had for years who was an atheist who claimed everything could be proved, scientifically. When it came to the subject of proving if he loved his wife he kept bring up "proof" and I kept batting it away with examples of how people stay together who didn't love each other and did that.

If one is a true atheist; and we're going back to my definition, then the leap that kind of person would normally refuse to take is that there is the possibility: no matter how slight, that they could be wrong about an absolute stance: no God. We all can be wrong, and the possibilities of what "God" might be are so limitless, so vast, to claim them all impossible is really a bit of a stretch. I suspect that you don't quite fit into my definition, as in 99.9% sure, perhaps? Just a guess.

Instead conversations in society seem to get stuck between one orthodox version of belief... or none. It's a false dichotomy that doesn't even include agnosticism, and acts as if the official story as told by standard Christian fare' is the only story. Hell, it barely includes Judaism. Christianity has been taken over by the Marcionites who act as if the person referred to as Jesus wasn't even Jewish, or only Jewish as a matter of convenience.

In my experience, goals of all sorts are a mirage. The more I learn, the more I realize I don't know. That may be a cliché, but oh! so true.

Perhaps, but they do help me to focus.

[Athena]

Is something wrong with the following logic?

"As motion exists always and unintermittingly, there must be something eternal-whether one thing or many-that is the basic producer of motion; and this prime mover must itself be motionless. It is irrelevant to our present inquiry to ask whether each individual unmoved mover [i.e., each living soul] is eternal. That there must, however, be something capable of producing motion in other things while not possessing, either directly or incidentally, any motion or change of its own, will be clear from the following argument."

[Athena]

[QUOTE=GeminiBrian;594593]

Just ONE of your brothers? Let's just say you have theistic sympathies, that's more than enough to get my juices flowing. (But not, hopefully my bile). Maybe we should revive this debate in another 60 years time, just to see how things have crystallised for you by then! And I thought I was a patient sort of guy... I call it the Bunker Mentality of a doctrine under threat, myself. I think the agnostic position is sterile in the sense that it is, by definition, a transitional stand... I mean, as soon as an individual has the courage to face the possibility that religion might be a big lie - the courage to admit doubt - the natural progression is invariably towards total non-belief, sooner or later, unless the questioning faculty isn't deliberately stifled, or courage fails. I admit that there might be a degree of recidivism in some cases when the austerity of non-belief fails to emotionally sustain, but that is, as I keep saying, wilful intellectual dishonesty. Yes, I agree, exploration is exciting, but as with all exploration, it can only lead to a broadening of our horizons. It's simply not possible to push new insights back into a dark box once they have emerged, and in this case, any conflicting or unstable religious beliefs are always the first casualty. Maybe you are trying to do exactly that - sitting tightly on the lid of the metaphorical box for fear of releasing chaos - at least it seems a possibility to me. Agreed: but that is no excuse to give up on logic altogether. It is, after all, the sharpest tool in our bag of tricks. Definitely no comment. As a seasoned atheist, what leaps are you suggesting I am reluctant to take? I'll keep my fingers crossed for you, Ken. In my experience, goals of all sorts are a mirage. The more I learn, the more I realise I don't know. That may be a cliché, but oh! so true. Best not to keep re-building then... all mental constructs are prone to collapsing given enough time: in the end, it is arguably more constructive to learn to live without such constructs. The best alternative, paradoxically, as Zen Buddhism maintains, is to simply ditch our carefully maintained preconceptions and go with the flow. (but much easier said than done, IMO). Anything short of relinquishing all the burdensome theoretical conceits we have constructed for ourselves is a diversion from reality - reality being something that defies any attempt to quantify it, or to comprehend it through intellectualisation... but I digress. Me too. I just deleted the last part of this post, and I have no will to type it all again. Never mind - that should be enough to be getting on with, you'll agree - and the cat is getting fractious, wanting his supper.

I wish the quotes remained when we quote a poster. Anyway- the subject of this thread is not the existance of God. The question is " Can claims about God be supported without reference to sacred texts? " and the answer is obviously yes.

GeminiBrian, and others, can you work with the answer to the question?

[spukmeyer]

[quote=Athena;594744]

Quote by: GeminiBrian The question is " Can claims about God be supported without reference to sacred texts? " and the answer is obviously yes.

Not at all obvious to me.

It reminds me of my calculus teacher that after scribing one blackboard full of calculations for solving a particularly complicated integral, skips one last step and says: "And then the result is = 1/4PI, OBVISOUSLY".

Nothing is obvious before it is proved, made understood (with reason, mind you). I can accept that claims about God can come up spontaneously (so to speak) without a reference to a Holy Book, but about being SUPPORTED... well that's a different matter, OBVIOUSLY.

[Electric Hermit]

Quote by: Athena Is something wrong with the following logic?

What "logic"?

[Electric Hermit]

Quote by: Athena The question is " Can claims about God be supported without reference to sacred texts? " and the answer is obviously yes.

Then feel free to make a start. You can begin with the claim that god sent his "son" to live and die among mortals.

[minorwork]

[quote=Electric Hermit;594760]

Quote by: Athena Then feel free to make a start. You can begin with the claim that god sent his "son" to live and die among mortals.

Whew. I thought you were gonna' go after Odin.

[Electric Hermit]

[QUOTE=minorwork;594771]

Quote by: Electric Hermit Whew. I thought you were gonna' go after Odin.

He's on my list.

[brisbane buddy]

Quote by: Jack I recently blogged the same sentiment, where I asked the following questions of those who say they're agnostic about gods. 1:If you consider yourself agnostic in matters of theology, and if you believe that as an agnostic you have no opinion on whether or not gods exist, what would you accept as evidence one way or the other? 2:If you’re theistically agnostic, do you consider miracles, signs, predictions and religious visions possible? 3:Would you be just as comfortable having someone pray over you for a healing as you would visiting an emergency room if your appendix burst? 4:If you don’t use skepticism in order to reach defensible conclusions (not absolutely right answers, though) then what good is it doing you? My conclusion, "Agnosticism isn’t an endpoint, it’s not a goal. It’s a means of reaching those."

I would say very well written from an Atheist perspective, and many atheists in the world would support your words and in all probability come up with similar preconcluded answers to your questions.

1: Having no belief one way or the other, is having a belief and no different to the theist or atheist either side of the agnostic. Facts would convince any agnostic one way or the other. Blind Faith and the power of suggestion has no effect on the agnostic.

2: Miracles need to be defined. A person surviving an operation where there is less than 5% chance of success is a miracle. It doesn't happen often, but it does happen.

3: Whilst in hospital waiting for life saving treatment, I would have no problem if a person or group of people prayed for me. I don't have any mental issues pertaining to theism or religions. I wouldn't have an issue with an atheist wishing me all the best either.

4: Honesty and truth give many benefits. However the same benefit can be derived by justification as used by some theists and atheists.

Cheers.

[Ken Carman]

Quote by: Athena I wish the quotes remained when we quote a poster. Anyway- the subject of this thread is not the existance of God. The question is " Can claims about God be supported without reference to sacred texts? " and the answer is obviously yes. GeminiBrian, and others, can you work with the answer to the question?

I agree Athena. Edited out was this comment I made right up front of that post...

Interesting comments, all. After this exchange, perhaps we should get back on topic? I'm enjoying it, no doubt, but we are supposed to stay on topic a bit. We've strayed quite a bit.

But the curious question I labeled this post with...

"Why edit that out?"

...also takes us off topic.

So... back to the topic.

[Ken Carman]

[QUOTE=minorwork;594771]

Quote by: Electric Hermit Whew. I thought you were gonna' go after Odin.

Pronunciation guide please.

Is that "O din it's your turn now?"


Or a more Paul Simon-ish "Ooooooo din you think you're foolin?"


Damn, there I go off topic again!