Personally as a theist or an atheist I have never wanted anything but the truth. Because I have always found that even “comforting” lies make things in reality harder. Then again I have always felt that believing in an afterlife is harder than believing death is the end:)
How do you know you aren’t still blind?
Too bad statements like that just show how childish you are.
Ohhhh, GREAT! I go through my whole life a happy little theist, all fundie and everything, and now that I reason myself out of it, I have to admit that I still might have some learning to do?! Sheesh! When does it end??
Right or wrong, for me it’s just impossible to believe in something because I want to. Choosing to believe is not what I call believing. That would be “make-believe.”
But I do relate. I sometimes miss God, even though I’m immeasurably happier as an atheist. When I’m in a “lost child” mood, I miss the comforting (if somewhat unconvincing) thought that someone bigger and stronger will make everything okay. When I’m in a cynical mood, I miss having God to blame all the world’s problems on. But that isn’t enough to make me believe all those incredible stories.
When ya die.
I would have to disagree with this too. I am an Athiest, and I have not grown up yet. Of course I just shift my adult burdens on the invisible, intangable, floating pink dragon that sometimes lives in my garage [sub]but only when I am not paying attention to it[/sub]
To a certain extent, being a nonpracticing recently agnostic Jew, I miss religion. I have taken on a new, more cynical air at the family gatherings which are centered around religion (Friday night prayers, Passover Seder, breaking of the Yom Kippur fast). I miss the “safety net” offered by eternal salvation or life after death or being a Chosen Person or having the Lord lift me up out of Egypt. Also, I miss the comfort offered to those with faith in times of trouble. My agnostic friend says that on his deathbed (he is also Jewish kind of) he will say the Shema, take last rites from a Catholic priest, and ask Vishnu, Allah, and Jesus for personal salvation. Just to cover his bases, and piss off his kids.
On the other hand, I don’t miss useless hours wasted in synagogue. I don’t miss the “logical” justification of the laws of Judaism. I don’t miss the denigration of women. I don’t miss the hypocracy practiced by anyone except the most Ultra Orthodox Jews. I don’t mind following a stringent behavioral code while having no faith whatsoever.
All in all, I will keep on being agnostic.
Absolutely not. Being an atheist is liberating. Once it dawned on me that I really, truly, deep down do not believe in god(dess)(e)(s), I stopped wanting he/she/it/them in my life.
Yeah, it’d be great if there was a Sky Pixie who loved me unconditionally and perfectly, but it’d also be nice if there were little lepruchauns to do my laundry for me. Wishin’ for it ain’t gonna scrub the stains out of my undies.
Not in every case. I know too many decent, kind, thoughtful religionists. They’re doing it because they think it’s right. Religion offers a great deal, but I think it demands a great deal, as well.
There are some people who want all the benefits but none of the uncomfortable bits–the type that don’t live very Christian lives but still feel that their lip service to God guarantees them a place in Heaven and gives them the right to judge others. And there are some who make a hodge-podge out of all the happy reassuring parts of any number of sects and creeds, and design themselves a little religion of their very own that gives them great comfort in times of trial! That soft-headed crap is the very definition of self-indulgence and hedonism.
I’ve been an agnostic leaning toward atheism since I was about 13. (That’s over 30 years by this time.)
Most of us don’t get to be 45 without losing a few people along the way, and I’m no exception. But there have been three times when the loss was particularly hard: my fiancé, my father, and my mother.
As I coped with these events, especially the first, which happened suddenly with no warning, I was tempted to fall back on my childhood religion as a comfort. Her family, who were all very religious, expressed the belief that they would be reunited in a life after this one. However I still couldn’t bring myself to believe.
When my father died, one of my older brothers said to me, “He’s still around, can’t you feel him?” I wanted to, but I couldn’t. As near as I could tell he was just gone.
But these are very seductive thoughts. To think that your loved ones, who were alive (and possibly well) just a few minutes ago, are not actually gone but just somewhere else and waiting to see you again is a powerful inducement to believe.
In my opinion, these feelings are the driving force behind religions. Before I experienced these losses first hand, I thought the old saying that there are no atheists in foxholes was about people being afraid to die. And while for all I know whoever said it first may have meant it that way, to me it points out our difficulty in dealing with the loss of someone else. It’s hard to believe that someone (especially someone you love) who existed a second ago, is now just gone. The wish to believe something else, anything else, is extraordinarily powerful.
But as much as I wish that it were true that I could see those loved ones again, I just don’t believe it.
I’m happy with my world view. The universe (and even my little corner of it) is a strange and wonderful place, and my place in it is a good one. I love and have people who love me. So I don’t hate being (or at least leaning toward being) and atheist. But there have been a few times I almost wished I could deceive myself.
Ugly
RJKUgly, very well put.
On a different note, another thing I miss sometimes is some religious music, especially in the right setting, with the stained glass all around. I didn’t grow up in particularly majestic churches, but I’ve been in several. I have to admit, those church people know how to set a mood. I still listen to some religious stuff–Gregorian chants and pipe organs and Buddhist temple music, for example. But my apartment lacks the acoustic properties and accoutrements of a cathedral.
Also, I do think that ritual has a place in life. I think there are other rituals that serve the purpose better than religious rituals, but those that grow up with religious ritual as a part of life might miss that aspect of religion. Not exactly on topic, unless focusing too much on ritual, or placing too much value on it, might be a form of self-indulgence.
My thoughts are based on two possibly wrong-headed assumptions:
A bunch of people said that they couldn’t believe in God even if they wanted to, but MrO, I think refuted my assumption best by distinguishing between belief and “make-believe.” A distinction that basically insists true belief is not a choice. And one that (maybe I’m dense) I hadn’t really thought about. (I’ve always just assumed I had a certain amount of free will in deciding my beliefs).
So I’ll leave the question open - can people choose to believe something or is it somehow pre-destined?
This is all shades of the “truth is beauty and beauty truth” mantra. Always seems to me another act of faith, another pretty little delusion. Yes, I love cosmology, science, philosophy… And yes, they are sublime occasionally. But I dont’ think it’s too anti-intellectual to admit I’d rather be contemplating the mind of God than the origin of the universe. Or even better - contemplating both.
Isn’t it possible that believing a lie may be more fulfilling, engaging, sublime, and better for you than believing the truth? (I’d mention Jakob the Liar as an example, but I don’t think I could forgive myself for bringing Robin Williams into the discussion).
So maybe I’ll appeal to evolution: One idea I’ve been toying with the idea that religion might be a beneficial (necessary?) adaptation. Every culture has it. I speculated somewhere in another thread that there must be some reason that even the most isolated hunter gatherer societies spend so much time/energy engaged in religious reitual. And there are supposedly little bits of evidence that parts of the brain that seem to be devoted to regulating religious feeling or at least religious ecstasies…anyway you get the idea where my train of thought’s going. Maybe religion is something we are neurologically wired for. And maybe there’s a good reason for it. I’m NOT arguing that exactly. I’m playing with the idea. And I don’t like the idea.
Yeah, but there’s always the Unitarians.
now THAT is definitely puritanical. The idea that if you’re going to have a religion, you must suffer for it. But I guess that’s the inevitable conclusion of my saying that religion is hedonistic. It CAN’T Be hedonistic if you suffer for it, can it?
You choose all your beliefs, even if you don’t remember making them, or do this unconsciously.
If you go ahead and start thinking that things are predestined, you’re gonna be absolutely miserable with your life. (aside-- I think the best portrayal of this in fiction is the way Philip Jose Farmer describes Sam Clemens in his Riverworld novels-- and it’s probably the only valid reason for reading those books.)
A great reason for religion is that it’s a good way to convince people to follow laws.
I think we *are * wired to believe in something bigger than us, but the only way to check is completely immoral.
Let me explain. As babies, these great big friendly people take care of all our needs. We get a little older, and they turn out to know everything too.
Then our parents die, and most of us are still left wishing that the larger-than-life beings that took care of us, cuddled us when we were scared, and had a valid reason for everything were still around. Hence religion.
PS I still think of you by your old name
Sure, you choose your beliefs, but let’s put that into perspective:
The atheist who can find no evidence (tangible or subjective) for the existence of God could (determinedly and against reason) believe that there is a God.
The theist who has experienced (what they consider to be irrefutable, albeit perhaps subjective) evidence supporting the existence of God could (determinedly and against reason) convince themself that it was all imaginary.
OK, so the atheists here are going to say that there’s a difference; the theists can’t produce evidence of the type or quality that they would like, but personally, I’d say that’s because of the inherent nature of spiritual things, they could only become tangible by changing in nature and then they wouldn’t be spiritual anymore.
Certainly for myself, I have two choices:
-Accept that the (subjective) evidence I’ve seen and experienced has some basis in truth.
-Or consider myself completely insane and unable to reliably percieve the basics of reality.
[sup](and yes, I know what sort of comeback to expect from having said that)[/sup]
Of course, were I to present my compelling evidence to an atheist, it would fall at the first hurdle, however, I can’t prove something if the only methods of proof are summarily disallowed.
I said above, ‘you give me any unambiguous physical evidence that your great grandmother existed?’
You: Sure, here’s a photo of her
Me: Hey, c’mon, this could be anybody
You: But you can see the striking resemblance between her and my mother
Me: Probably coincidence, after all, it’s a big universe; bound to happen sooner or later
You: OK, here’s her birth certificate
Me: Forged
You: And here’s a letter she wrote
Me: Counterfeit
You: I could introduce you to some people who knew her
Me: Deluded
You: I REMEMBER SITTING ON HER LAP!!!
Me: Subjective, but of course I can understand why you really want to believe it’s true
and so on
The plain fact is that I can’t make someone believe anything that they have firmly decided to reject (even if I wanted to), but by the same standard, no amount of clever talk about the IPU is going to make me suddenly discard what I have personally experienced.
[sup](although I’m happy to re-examine it in the light of any ‘natural’ explanations)[/sup]
I think this is a false dichotomy along the lines of C.S. Lewis’s “lord, liar or madman” false trichotomy. There are other available explanations that fall somewhere in between the two.
In re: my great grandmother, we can perform DNA tests which will demonstrate that we are related. This is true whether she is alive or dead.
Also, the argument that Mangetout brings up really doesn’t apply, because even simple evidence such as was presented isn’t the “evidence” that most religionists bring forward as proof. They don’t show us photographs of a god, a recording of her or his voice, or videotape of an unexplainable miracle. They don’t say,“But I saw HIM yesterday! H*E was about 300 feet tall, with red hair and green eyes, and he was carrying a fistful of lightning bolts!”
Their “evidence”(stretching the definition of the word to the point that it can mean anything, and thus now means nothing) is usually a emotional reaction to either a highly-charged religious situation such as a group meeting or an intense event in their lives, or a decision made after a long mental discussion. When people say that a god spoke to them, they usually mean that they feel religiously justified in a decision that they have made, not that they actually heard a voice. If you are saying that you actually heard the voice of your god, please tell me if your god is male or female, has a low or high pitched voice, speaks with an accent, and how loud she or he spoke. If you could include a direct quote, please do so.
If anyone else has evidence as straightfoward as a photograph, which might be refuted but at least actually exists, please tell me about it. If what you have is only a feeling, no matter how good a feeling it is, please don’t refer to it as evidence.
I’m not sure that it is; I’m not unaware of the Lewis ‘trilemma’, but it’s not what I had in mind, for example; I can’t think of any ‘middle ground’ explanation for, say, hearing the voice of God - either it was real or I’m deluded.
Me: DNA?! Pffhh, you don’t really believe in that do you?, you’ll be telling me you believe in electrons next.
[sup](By which I mean to illustrate that if I want to be hard-nosed about it, there’s no way you can ever satisfy my criteria for proof, because I’ve decided in advance that proof is impossible)[/sup]
I see your point, but I would personally avoid using emotionally loaded words like “real” and “deluded.” If we’re going to limit things to two options, I would offer that, if you’ve heard the voice of God, it either originated from inside your head or outside your head. That avoids the value judgements inherent in concepts like “delusion.”
If it originated inside your head, you’re then presented with several choice:
–You are insane/schizophrenic/otherwise mentally “damaged”
–You are experiencing a normal “inner voice” which you are misattributing to God.
–You are experiencing some other normal mental process which manifests itself as a voice in your head.
If it originated outside your head, there are also several choices:
–It really is the voice of God.
–It is the voice of some other supernatural entity that you are misattributing to God.
–It is the voice of Opal
–It is some sort of telepathically received message from another human.
There are probably other possibilities for both categories that I am missing, but do you see my point?
I don’t disagree with you that there are some people who simply exclude, a priori, all possible categories of evidence. But I can’t completely fault them for it, either–without some way to plug into each other’s brains, subjective experiences of the sort you’re putting forth simply cannot be shared; and the nature of the claim being made requires that each person experience that subjective evidence for him- or herself.
I’ve experienced subjective evidence in my life also, but I’ve come to the conclusion, after careful self-examination and analysis, that it did not represent anything originating from outside myself, nor did it represent anything “real” in the universe. Therefore I cannot simply accept other people’s subjective experience as “evidence.” I’m sure there are categories of proof that I would accept, but I can’t tell you what they would be.
And in so doing, show yourself to be as closed minded as the sterotypical believer.
I don’t believe in a god (or goddess, or whatever.) If, however, you were to show me proof of the existence of a god then I would (I hope) be able to accept the evidence of my senses and admit to his existence.
By the way. Doesn’t saying that you have experienced god imply that you have some evidence for his existence? And having evidence, is your belief in him no longer based on faith but rather observation? Acceptance of an observed fact is not belief based on faith. So, given that and “Whosoever believeth in me shall not perish but have everlasting life,” then you would seem to have talked yourself right on out of salvation.
OK, I was lying on the sofa, reading a book when I heard a [male*] voice say: “Mike(that’s my name), go into the garden and hug your sister, tell her that I hear her and everything is going to be OK” - I nearly soiled my underwear from fright (I thought that I was alone in the house, I didn’t even know my sister had come home and was sitting out back - she didn’t live at home with us)
I went out and found her there, I did and said what I’d been told; a look of shocked amazement broke across her face, as it turned out, she had broken up with her long-standing boyfriend several days earlier and was on the verge of suicide; she had been wandering about, completely alone and had returned home in desperation and wanted to talk to me about God/life (this in itself was very unusual), but had not plucked up the courage, so she was sitting in the garden asking (silently to herself) “God, if you’re there at all, can you send Mike out here to tell me everything will be OK”
If this happened to you, what would you be thinking?
*[it was a male voice with no particularly striking distinguishing characteristics, perhaps a little older-sounding than my own voice, and more of an Oxford accent (though not overly formal or stiff), to be honest though, remembering the precise sound of the voice wasn’t the top priority in my mind at the time]
Like I said, everyone has their own definition of what is evidence of an acceptable standard, it’s just that some people think their standards are universal, certainly I’d never try to present my subjective experiential ‘evidence’ as ‘scientific’, but I gave up trying to reconcile science and faith/spirituality a long time ago; they deal with different domains.
Oh, I didn’t mean to be refuting anything. I think your position makes sense too.
But yes, I do sort of insist that true belief is not a choice, and that the kind of belief that is a choice is something less than true belief. Maybe a step above pretending, but still not belief. I wouldn’t say that belief is predestined; that has a sort of superstitious ring to me. I just think it’s inevitable and spontaneous. As Mort Furd said, “Acceptance of an observed fact is not belief based on faith.” Of course faith can be chosen, but is that belief? I don’t know.
But I’ve beaten that to death in other threads, and I’ll try to refrain from doing so here. It brings back too many memories of grad school, and my professors’ blank stares whenever I suggested that belief was not a voluntary activity. The stares could have been blank because what I was saying was so obvious that it need not be said, or because what I was saying was so ridiculous that it couldn’t be answered. Either way, they never answered.
If you read the posts again, you’ll see that I’m merely demonstrating how it feels from my side.
**
**Yup, that’s what I did; accept the evidence of my senses, can’t show that evidence to you in tangible form though, sorry.
Hmmm, I think you’re adding apples to oranges here; I’m not aware of anything (in the Bible for example, since that’s what you’re quoting) that suggests belief must exclusively have no basis in experience.