By the way, if you want to play the dictionary game, my trusty Oxford American Dictionary here at my desk says:
“a person who does not believe in the existence of a god or gods.”
So that leaves us at an impasse. So much for the dictionary game…
The point is, you can’t always go by dictionary definitions describing people.
The dictionary definition of “Atheist” does indeed imply an active disbelief of God (or, to out it another way, a belif in the non-esietnce of God). Most people who call themselves “atheists,” however, do not claim any such active belief in the non-existence of God – they just feel that nobody has yet proved his existence satisfactorily and there is therefore no reason to believe in him.
So, perhaps these people would better be called “agnostics,” right? Well, the dictionary definition of “agnostic” is somebody who believes that the existence of God is impossible to prove or disprove, and is therefore unknowable. Most so-called atheists, however, don’t think that it is impossible to know whether God exists or not – they think it would be ridiculously easy for God to prove his existence, and the fact that God hasn’t done so is rather telling.
So, maybe we’re all just “skeptics,” right? The dictionary definition of “skeptic” is someone who denies the possibility of attaining knowledge of reality as it is in itself, apart from human perception. That certainly does apply to many people who call themselves atheists, but is overly broad in that it applies to all knowledge and not simply that relating to God’s existence. One could easily be skeptical of God’s existence, yet a firm believer in all sorts of other supernatural phenomena such as psychics, UFOs, healing crystals, etc. And, since so-far nobody has come up with a term meaning “skeptical as to God’s existence,” the word “atheist” is the best we have.
Hmmmm… What do people think about the word “theoskeptic”? Think I could trademark it and charge for its use?
For these reasons, many people make a distinction between “strong atheism” (which claims that God does not exist) and “weak atheism” (which simply claims that there is no reason to believe that he exists).
I’m not sure what, if anything, this has to do with my original post, but I just thought I’d pass it along anyway…
Regards,
Barry
godzilla temple, I assume that by ‘valid’ you mean logically sound, rather than worthwhile?
If not, then I can think of a few ‘valid reasons’ for believing in God.
Well, as I said a few posts earlier, by “valid” I guess I mean logically defensible or justifiable. And yes, I think that an argument that religous beliefs are “worthwhile” could be a valid reason. That’s what I alluded to at the end of my original post, in fact.
Personally, I think that anybody who considers himself to truly be intelligent, well-educated and skeptical must admit that, in all likelihood, there is no such thing as God, at least not a God in the classical sense of the word. And this is regardless of anything that the person in question has personally seen, felt, or otherwise experienced, since (a) there are always simpler explanations that do not involve supernatural entities and (b) the posited existence of God contains many internal inconsistencies.
And yet, I still think that a belief in God may be perfectly defensible and justifiable because of the effect it can have on people’s lives. If a belief in God gives somebody comfort in times of grief, or leads him to treat his fellow man with love and respect, etc., then maybe this is reason enough to believe in God and it doesn’t matter if he “really” exists or not.
My concern with this, as I stated, is that a belief in God can also lead people to do all sorts of horrible things, such as killing “infidels,” discriminating against those who do not share their beliefs, etc. And some people, unfortunately, are not content with simply taking comfort in their beliefs; they feel compelled to convince others that their beliefs are correct to the point of telling others that they will burn in Hell for eternity if they don’t believe the same way. Other people try to apply their religions beliefs in real world situations where they don’t belong, such as when parents refuse to provide medical care for their children in the belief they the children will be healed by faith. And it’s at THAT point that I think these people need to realize that God is, in all likelihood, nothing more than a figment of man’s collective imaginations, and that he did not “command” anybody to do anything.
Regards,
Barry
Well, I consider myself of average intelligence and reasonable (Western) education, but a die-hard skeptic! I would also describe myself as an agnostic when considering the wider definition of God/Supreme Entity but an atheist when considering the narrower, classical, old testament definition (but don’t want to join in the agnostic/atheist definition debate).
I’m not sure what you hope to achieve by demonstrating the weakness of arguments for belief. Belief often requires a leap of faith in spite of gaps in logic and evidence. Those who have made that leap are generally unlikely to be swayed by logical arguments, however sound, implying that they are wrong.
In my mind and personal philosophy I draw a strong distinction between faith/belief in God, which I consider relatively benign, and religion, which I consider potentially dangerous. I think atrocities that are sadly perpetrated in the name of God are done so through some warped interpretation of religious doctrine, rather than because of personal belief in the existence of God (of course religious purpose has often merely been a convenient excuse for the wielding of power in pursuit of some material gain). Therefore, FWIW, I think if your goal is to reduce the negative consequences of theism it would be more worthwhile attacking adherence to religious indoctrination than attempting to undermine the logic behind peoples’ beliefs.
(p.s. point taken about ‘validity’)
Well then, unless I’m missing something, it sounds like we believe the same things (or disbelieve, as the case may be).
I guess I want to show that there are valid reasons for belief that don’t require the believer to (a) try and convert everybody else to their beliefs, (b) condemn others for not sharing those beliefs, and © abandon logic in order to cling to the belief. Any belief that “requires a leap of faith in spite of gaps in logic and evidence” is, in my opinion, potentially dangerous in that it is explicitly anti-science (creationism in the classroom, anyone?) and also justifies others in believing in psychics, ghosts, UFOs, etc. My point is that it may be possible for somebody to acknowledge that God doesn’t “really” exist but that there are still valid reasons for believing in him nonetheless. I see this as the only way somebody can simultaneously claim to believe in God and debunk other claims of the supernatural, without being a hypocrite.
I would tend to agree with you, except that religous institutions have been powers for good as well as evil. Plenty of hospitals, charities, and institutions of higher learning have been established by religions, none of which would have likely been established by individuals who believed in God.
Having said that, I think what I’m trying to do is to attack adherence to religious indoctrination. There’s nothing wrong with people getting together to worship the God of their choice in the way they see fit (i.e., religions), as long as the individual members of the religion don’t come to believe that their beliefs “must” be true (and therefore everybody else’s beliefs must be false). If people can acknowledge that their belief in God derives primarily from the sense of comfort those beliefs give them, and not because those beliefs have any logical or empirical validity, perhaps they can also acknowledge that other people’s beliefs are just as “valid” as theirs.
Regards,
Barry
I will disagree with “A”. If the belief in God is defensible and justifiable (and therefore worthwhile and/or valid) because of the comfort and hope it provides an individual, it would provide reason to convert anyone in need of that comfort and hope. I will agree that not everyone needs to be converted and certainly it is indefensible to forcibly convert anyone.
I will agree to “B” with exceptions to semmantic interpretation. Condemnation of a soul to hell for lack of belief is part of a belief. Believers may not be able to send souls to hell but they may point out that a non-believer is headed there.
I may agree with “C” but for a few conditions. I think that abandoning all logic to believe may in most times be foolish but if there are gaps in logic that is filled by faith, then that is not really abandoning logic. A skeptic might postulate that it is an arguement in question that is waiting for a conclusion one way or another.
Assuming, that is, other people actually need or want such comfort. If somebody is perfectly happy being an atheist or a member of a different religious faith, then what valid reason would one have to try and convert them to your own faith?
I grew up in an evangelical religion that taught that each member had the duty to convert as many souls as possible, on the assumption that it would be inexcusable for somebody to have found “salvation” and not share it with everybody he met. Once you realize, however, that religious beliefs are actually about comfort and not “salvation,” the imperative to constantly “witness” pretty much disappears.
But that contradicts the whole notion of belief bringing comfort. If I am already comfortable with my life, whether as an atheist, a Jew, a Mormon, or what have you, what extra comfort does it bring me to be told that unless I change my life I will suffer the pains of eternal damnation?
Yes, condemnation of a soul to hell may be part of a particular religions doctrine, but I submit that it need not (nay, should not) be an intrinsic part of a belief in God. Those who would tell others they are condemned to Hell for not believing the way they do need to be reminded that the only valid reason for believing in God in the first place is because of the comfort that belief brings. They can choose to add all sorts of things to that core belief in God if it makes them happy, but that’s not a valid excuse to try and make other people unhappy or uncomfortable.
If that’s true, then, why is it “wrong” for people to believe in psychic powers, or UFOs, or the healing power of crystals, or that God has instructed them to hijack an airplane and fly it into a crowded building full of “infidels”? If faith is nothing but an irrational belief in that which cannot be proved, then it can be used to justify just about anything.
Thanks, BTW, for the good discussion on the issues I’ve brought up!
Regards,
Barry
There is none.
Salvation does bring comfort. Let those who want to follow Jesus, come follow him.
It would be inexcusable to allow someone who was in need of comfort, hope and salvation to be ignored or turned away. It is the “in need” portion that some christians get confused or overzealous about. Certain christians translate anyone who is not of their faith to be “in need” of salvation. I lament the history of christianity and the destruction that they bring upon the many cultures of the world. I pray for their enlightenment and the wisdom to allow well enuf alone.
Well heres the thing. If youre an atheist, you dont believe in God, therefore you cannot believe there is a heaven and ergo there isnt a hell. How much real discomfort can you really have to be going to an imagined place?
If you are of a different faith, chances are there are similarities to heaven and hell but with different sets of criteria to get there. If that is your faith, why would the condemnation of a different faith be uncomfortable?
If you had no need of the comfort of faith, then the discomfort of pusnishment in the afterlife is not going to be a bother because it makes no sense. Its like someone giving you the “evil eye”. If you dont believe that works, why does it bother you?
Some skeptics are unsure of what they believe. They cannot be made to believe in God but are sometimes swayed by the fear of God. carrot and the stick. So long as the discussion stays within the confines of theism and philosophy, i find that acceptable. But if it trespasses into reality such as being tortured or persecuted for a dissimilar belief, then that is categorically wrong. I will let God convince the staunch atheist.
well, if faith overrides what has already been proven as wrong, then we are in the mental health discussion. If God told someone to go against God’s own teaching and nobody else heard it, then someone needs a white jacket with extra long sleeves and a lot of buckles. If you believe in UFOs or Bigfoot because of a particular photo which was subsequently proven as a hoax, then someone needs to cash a reality check. If you believe in the healing powers of crystals and magnets but the friend you bejeweled with them still died of cancer, then something is amiss in that faith.
There is a possibility that life exists on other planets (sue me, I am a star trek fan). That they congregate here in our piddly planet in the pisswater arm of the milky way galaxy, abducting white trash and geeks is a tad far fetched. I used to believe in UFOs, now I am more skeptical. I am skeptical about ghosts even when I tell my kids my house is haunted. God is nowhere in that category for me. So I believe in God because there hasnt been substantiated proof that God doesnt exist, but I will wait for some proof on UFOs, Bigfoot and ghosts.
BTW. Point of order here. The terrorists in 9-11 were not told by God to kill american infidels. They were told by a man who said God told him to have them go do it. The man is crazy, the terrorists were gullible.