I saw an interesting program on Horizon (BBC documentary series) about this. There is this guy that claims he can induce religious feelings but applying strong magnetic fields to certain parts of the brain. Furthermore, some people seem to be more receptive to this than others. So it seems like religion may in some way be hard wired into the brain. Of course atheistics like myself will see this as evidence that god is a product of man. Believers will say god deliberately designed our brains that way…
The synopsis of the program is here if you’re interested.
First off, Lobsang, I hope you don’t take offense at this, because I certainly don’t intend it, but I’ve come to expect a more zany thread from you. I look to you for laughs, not introspection, damn it! Now get drunk and post something silly.
That said, I completely agree with the OP, unzany as it is. I’d love to believe in God, I really would- but my brain rejects the notion. If I could take a pill that made me live the rest of my life truly, and I emphasize truly, believing there was some higher plane of existence waiting for me, I’d jump at it. Makes the mundane of this world easier to stomach, I imagine. Such a pill does not exist, and so here we are. My intellectual makeup does not, and I suspect can not, accept the existence of God.
I must echo the sentiment of 'punha, though- I’m certainly not an atheist, and I hesitate to call myself coward. Ex Machina, you seem to be defining “atheist” as “one who does not believe.” I think there is a further distinction to be made- there are those who do not believe in God, and there are those who believe in no God. In other words, there are believers in God, believers that there is not a God, and a third category- those who do not truly believe either statement. I call those in the third category agnostics. You call them “cowards on the fence,” but I don’t see why a lack of belief is cowardice. It’s just like the question of extraterrestrial intelligence- some believe it is out there, some believe there is none to be found, and there never will be. Others, because they have not been convinced by evidence supporting one side or another, acknowledge their ignorance, and believe nothing, for nothing is proven. Surely this is not due to cowardice on their part, but logic, don’t you agree? Why pick a side if that side hasn’t shown any signs of superiority?
I’ll use myself as an example- I find it bizarre that there would be some kind of divine being in charge of such a disturbing world, and this I count as evidence against the existence of God. However, I also find it incredible that there is a planet full of reasoning beings who can communicate with each other and solve complicated problems, and these beings simply sprung forth and became sentient through years of biological developments. This I count as an argument for God’s existence. I’m not scared of saying there isn’t a God- I find the world inexplicable without some driving force. Like I said before, though, I have problems with accepting that there is someone omnipotent in charge of this faulty planet. Agnosticism is to me the term that describes my entrenchment at this intellectual impasse. Cowardice has nothing to do with it, but more importantly to this argument, neither does “the impossibility to disprove.” I don’t care if it’s possible to disprove or not- the existence of God is as good an explanation of the world’s existence as I’ve got. And incidentally, I’ll take
Iampunha said *“I’m not especially afraid of anything; if God exists as Christians purport, then He will, by all they know, forgive me as long as I’m sorry.” *
This is essentially saying “I am not afraid but I choose to believe that God will forgive because I am afraid.”
If you were born a believer you will believe. If you were born a disbeliever you will disbelieve. If you try to override your fears because of disbelief you will only step into the world of dementia.
No one chooses to believe. People only choose to hide from unpleasant reality. And that is merely frightened self-preservation. Every day you can meet people who claim to be believers but have a profound fear of annihilation. These people are just the “agnostics” from the perspective of the opposite end of the spectrum. In other words they are the frightened believers while agnostics are the frightened atheists.
**Jimmy Chitwood ** said *“It’s just like the question of extraterrestrial intelligence- some believe it is out there, some believe there is none to be found, and there never will be. Others, because they have not been convinced by evidence supporting one side or another, acknowledge their ignorance, and believe nothing, for nothing is proven. Surely this is not due to cowardice on their part, but logic, don’t you agree? Why pick a side if that side hasn’t shown any signs of superiority?” *
I don’t agree that “it’s just like the question of extraterrestrial intelligence”. Some conjecture is more rational than other. I don’t believe this can be disputed. The idea that other conscious beings could arise under similar circumstances is much more rational than the idea that a magical being created a world out of nothing but will.
And, contrary to Jimmy’s suggestion, I believe that one side has shown total rational superiority over the other.
It is interesting to note that agnostics choose a certain point to begin saying that they “don’t know”. Why do they believe they can believe anything?
The statement ‘I don’t know’ is a simple statement of fact, mere words and pedantic trivia. It is not an invitation to believe that every absurdity conceived by the minds of men is a possibility.
This analysis is completely inaccurate … actually, that’s not true. “Inaccurate” implies, to me at least, that there is any modicum of truth to it.
Since you seem to be so fond of telling people what they are, what they believe, what that means about them, etc., perhaps you should take a step back, examine the possibility, the mere chance … that you are NOT, contrary to what must be a fervently held (but ultimately error-riddled) belief, the ultimate arbiter of this, or any, thing.
I do not choose to believe any particular thing about God. If you examine my statement, you will find that I do not choose to believe in God at all. I am, as I have said before, both here and elsewhere, agnostic. This means, to me (and contrary to your previously stated assertion that one can only believe or not believe), that I do not know if God exists and, to me, further, that I do not know if there is sufficient evidence to either prove or disprove the existence of said God.
I do not know if God exists. I do not know if God does not exist. I have precious little to tell me either way credibly. So in the mean time, unless and until something changes, I remain agnostic.
By the way, what is this great deep-rooted hatred you have for agnostics? It seems rather irrational.
Some day you simply must teach to me this great skill of projecting your meaning onto every other creature that on Earth does dwell. When I say, for example, “I don’t know”, in response to the question “Does God exist?”, that means “it could be, or it could be not; I do not know. Either is possible”. Is it a possibility that God exists? Surely, to me, it is possible. Do I know it for a fact, or to a reasonable degree? Nope. Is it a possibility that God does not exist? Surely, to me, it is possible. Do I know it for a fact, or to a reasonable degree? Nope. It is at least as possible to me that God exists as it is possible that God does not exist. I simply do not know. So it is, to me, that “invitation to believe” or not believe.
Really. Truly. Don’t presume to speak for me or down to me on this.
And I will remind you, once again, of the forum containing this thread. If you are going to blanketly insult religion, we have the BBQ Pit for that. Unless it takes some Herculean effort merely for you to type responses, I can’t imagine that it would be such the utter strain on your being to post an OP detailing what you have said here.
The notion that you are born and atheist or a theist strikes me as a bit silly. You’re born with no knowledge or opinion on the subject whatsoever. It’s possible that you’re born with your brain configured in such a way that you’re more likely to be one or the other (or neither) later in life, but that’s different.
I was not born an atheist, I became one. I’m not sure if you can characterize it as a choice or not. I met my first atheist, we talked a little, and I realized that the religion didn’t make any sense to me. Doesn’t seem like a choice, but I chose to listen, chose to think about it, and the conclusion I came to was not unrelated to other things in my life.
To me, the way your brain works and the way you think are (at least somewhat) genetic. The conclusions your brain brings you to are basically not, although your brain being wired a specific way may make some conclusions more likely.
I think the correct response to him would be “Well I sure do now, uh, Sir.” I do agree with you, belief is not a choice or some decision you make. Belief is a product of need and emotion. I’m not trying to imply that it’s a weakness, either. I believe, but don’t recall it being a conscious choice. It wasn’t fear. I don’t even believe in hell. There is an aspect of believing in something without any proof, that is vaguely embarrassing. So, take your pick; it’s either a disparity in hard-wiring, which can limit perception or increase misconception, it’s all part of “The Plan”, or we believer’s are benignly wacky. I like the second choice, of course.
Because there is confusion about the word. We can expect the same to happen in ANY minority where there is no central organization to keep it defined, and many many hostile people who wish to define it in a way that aids them in equivocation.
I don’t know that this is what he said at all. He attacked strong agnostic theism (i.e. god exists but is unknowable): he didn’t say that agnostics were theists. In fact, he laid out the idea that agnosticism (which conerns knowledge) was independant of atheism/theism: the same idea that you suggested.
I’m not sure I see the difference. By “knowable” we obviously mean “knowable by us.” If God is not knowable, then how can you know anything about it, including whether or not it is knowable?
This actually is the position that Smith criticizes, in part. He points out that you cannot know that you are incapable of knowing something: that would constitute knowing at least something about it, a self-contradiction. If you know nothing about God, then you cannot know whether or not he is knowable. Indeed, to know that God is unknowable, you’d have to both
A) Know all about God and B) Know the limits of human knowledge
Only then could you be able to say that God lies outside those limits.
But A you’ve already rejected, and nobody seriously claims to know B.
You can believe that God is unknowable, certainly, though this still involves a contradiction (since God’s unknowability counts as “something I know about God,” and indeed would require knowing quite a lot about God)
The weaker version of agnosticism: simply, “I dunno” makes more sense, and tempts no contradiction.
Depending on how you define atheist, you may be right, but certainly all people are born as non-theists, without a belief in god, since as far as we know, we are born without the ability to hold conceptual beliefs at all. They may later develop beliefs, and indeed maybe the very first belief they develop is a belief in god, for all we know. But babies are most certianly non-believers.
I agree completely. It does depend on how you define atheist. If you go with the normal “one who does not believe god exists” definition, than babies technically fit. But I don’t think it makes sense to count someone as a believer or non-believer if his/her mind is literally not capable of belief.
I agree with the OP; to say that we choose to believe would imply that we do so regardless of what we perceive to be the actual truth of the matter; I know elephants are grey, but I choose to believe they are pink. Alternatively, the belief that elephants are grey isn’t a choice, it’s just an acknowledgment.
This is one of the key reasons why arguments based on Pascal’s wager are so ridiculous - the assumption that God would accept your feigned belief which is nothing more than a hedged bet, when in fact that might be exactly the sort of lack of integrity that really pisses him off.
I’m one more hard-core Christian who believes Lobsang is right (of course, as a hard-core Christian, I believe all sorts of strang things;)).
I can’t explain things adequately without venturing off into that New-Age, La-La Land which renders all explanations in adequate, but there are things which have happened to me which make it extremely difficult for me not to believe in God. The more my faith has grown, the more obvious and frequent they’ve become. How frequent? Would you believe the last one was on Thursday night, less than 36 hours ago? Atheists, your answers are noted and recorded.
On the other hand, I have a friend in real life who has actually been searching for evidence that God exists. He’s looking, but is unwilling or unable to find what he seeks, even though he’s had a couple of experiences which the friend who’s been aiding him in his search has presented to me as evidence. It may be his brain’s not wired that way. I don’t know.
We human beings are built in an astonishing variety of ways, and religion is a subjective experience. I don’t know of anyone who can build a machine which can detect presence, absence or degree of faith, although one could be useful in investigating televangelists. I had a boss once who, on hearing Handel’s Hallelujah Chorus in the background when she called into the office, said, “Turn it off! It’s awful!” Her idea of good Christmas music was the Backstreet Boy’s Christmas album. I can easily see how a person could not experience what I do during a church service on an emotional and spiritual level. As I said, people are wired differently, and Lobsang and I would probably experience football games involving Manchester United and the Pittsburgh Steelers equally differently.
I have a hard time admitting anything’s impossible, so I will content myself with saying, “It would be extremely difficult for me not to believe in God.” If I weren’t so pig-headedly in favour of free will, I’d also say that “For me, belief in God is not a choice.” On the other hand, it would be easier for me to choose never to voluntarily listen to music again than to stop believing in God. By the same token, I believe Lobsang when he says he didn’t choose not to believe in God. His life and mine have been and will continue to be very different. That doesn’t change my enjoyment of his posts or my appreciation of the opportunity to hear his side of things.
Conversely, of course, is the possibility that he is looking for evidence that does not exist, and that friend sees what s/he believes in all sincerity and belief to be evidence, but which is not evidence at all:)
This might or might not help you, but I have had the same feeling in Church that I’ve had at dopefests and other places (some similar, some very different). Of course I haven’t had the feeling in a church in a while (mostly because it’s no longer a source of happiness and because I don’t go anymore).
I’m sure you’ll be terribly surprised, CJ, to know that I experienced that feeling at DaW back in October (and partly when we spontaneously broke into that one song whose name escapes me:D). It’s so wonderfully confusing…
I believe this notion can even be taken a step further (bravo, Spaceman Spiff). As an athiest agnostic, I deny the existence of an omnipotent creator god, but believe that if there is some other sort of higher order, it is either not possible for us to understand in this life or only knowable through Enlightenment (therefore, I will remain agnostic until I reach Enlightenment). How does this make me weak in my convictions and secretly sneaking God into my life?
I don’t see any evidence, however, for people being born theist or atheist. We all come to our personal conclusions through our thought processes. Some of use do choose to rely solely on logic to reach our conclusions, but we all come to our own personal decision based on the criterion which we value. For some it is indeed cold hard logic alone. But for most, it is a combination of logic and our desires and teachings. For some, logic may not come into it at all. They were taught something at an early age and never questioned it. All of this points to our religious choices being logical, social, behavioral, and academic, but not congenital. I may not have been born an atheist, but I cannot arbitrarily change my value system to allow myself the belief in God.
Ex Machina, agnotics are not by definition “split down the middle and conflicted.” Maybe your experience is limited to a few individuals who call themselve agnostic and really do choose not to take a side, but that is not the only possibility of an agnostic viewpoint. My husband, for example, is the quintessential dictionary agnostic. While he does refuse to commit to the existence or non-existence of a higher power, he asserts that either way he is not meant to and not capable of knowing, and ultimately it is irrelevant.
The human belief system is far too complicated to be summed up neatly into catagories. How can one be an atheist agnostic Buddhist? Isn’t it contradictory? No, because you’re looking at one (figuratively). We do not choose our catagory; we define our beliefs then try to identify with the catagory that closest fits our beliefs.
“Not knowing” is a universal epistemological given. “I don’t know” can be said about anything. But agnostics selectively apply their cosmic ignorance in a way that assuages their fears.
The “fear” that I speak of is manifested in many ways. One is the fear of commitment. If a person entertains even the slightest possibility of God’s existence he is compelled to believe. Pascal’s Wager is really Pascal’s Imperative. An agnostic feels the compulsion but fears the commitment. Sanity draws them towards their natural atheism but fear pushes them towards the whacky world of agnosticism. And this is where they remain, in a logical limbo, thinking they have arrived at intellectual solid ground. “I’m just being honest!” is the cry. But the truth is they are just afraid to get off the fence and make a commitment.
The bottom line is that agnostics live in a dementia where God exists and doesn’t exist at the same time.
Religion is a great and necessary thing. Mankind would never have acheived its level of civilization without it, regardless of the horrible things it has sometimes led to. Religion provides answers, gives hope, provides solace to sufferers, inspires, leads to social order, and it instills a purpose which so many need to aspire to betterment and accomplishments. I know that it is essential and I don’t believe a word of it. I don’t hate religion or the religious. Agnostics, on the other hand, are the pits. They add nothing to the discussion (unless it is a transitional stage which is good for an exercise in reason) with their submission to ignorance. They perch on the fence like little goblins spouting absurdities like “I don’t believe in God but that’s all right because God will understand.”
I agree very much with the stance of Ex Machina, except I’d maybe allow the possibility that some agnostics are not craven, but merely lazy.
Ex Machina says it so well here:
and
Perhaps some agnostic could point to a reason for their non-committal on the matter of the existence of a god that doesn’t apply to every other belief that they have?
I do agree with you, belief is not a choice or some decision you make. Belief is a product of need and emotion. I’m not trying to imply that it’s a weakness, either. I believe, but don’t recall it being a conscious choice. It wasn’t fear. I don’t even believe in hell. There is an aspect of believing in something without any proof, that is vaguely embarrassing. So, take your pick; it’s either a disparity in hard-wiring, which can limit perception or increase misconception, it’s all part of “The Plan”, or we believer’s are benignly wacky. I like the second choice, of course.