I’m going to have to disagree with you here Gobear. The problem is that the rationalist and the theist are not talking with the same base set of definitions. The rationalist claims that there is no God because there is no physical evidence or proof of God. A fair minded theist would agree with him wholeheartedly, because by definition God exists outside the boundaries of reality as we can perceive it and as our senses define it. The beauty of the system is that they can both be absolutely right ( and if there is a God, they are. )
Santa Claus, OTOH, is supposed to be a magic man who lives at the North Pole. That’s not quite as grandiose as God, and since Santa is supposed to be a part of the physical world, not vice versa, given the lack of evidence as to his existence it’s a pretty fair bet to call him a myth.
But it’s a bad analogy. Your sexual preference is idiosyncratic to you and has no relevance to anyone else, any more than a preference for Yoo-Hoo or the White Stripes does. But belief in God is not merely a preference, but an objective statement about the real world and as such ought to stand up to rational scrutiny.
But theists don’t claim that God exists outside the boundaries of reality; rather, they insist that he is immanent in the fabric of reality and that he (or He) interacts constantly with the real world, vide the post-tsunami claims that God miraculously spared some people but not others. Santa is disproved because his claim to physical existence is limited to the North Pole. God was supposed to live in the sky, but when we went to the sky and saw no God, theists cleverly retreated into saying that God exists everywhere, you just can’t see him. I’m sorry, but I can’t respect that POV anymore than I can claims of leprechauns hiding in my Lucky Charms. They’re there, I just can’t see them.
I am not an atheist; but I do like reading Christopher Hitchens. My impression is that atheists who embrace rationalism have a similar kind of faith as the religious: they are completely convinced that nothing exists beyond what we can experience empirically. They have no way of proving this: they can’t prove that there is nothing beyond the material plane any more than you can prove there is something.
I had a discussion with our Hamish a while back that discussed this. It’s not that we don’t believe that natural phenomena can be explained by science etc., we’re not divorced from reality. We believe in “reality plus”, that humans have experiences that are beyond what can be measured and analysed. This is a position that many atheists ignore when they are in their “anti-” stance.
Probably because they see us as mentally ill, delusional, or just plain liars, if not to others than at least to ourselves. They want to save us from ourselves; much like the fundies who “just don’t want to see you burning in hell dear, so accept Jesus NOW!”
Dude. I’m a Scotsman. I don’t believe God had a thing to do with the tsunami. I don’t believe God lives in the sky. I never did.
There are almost as many theologies as there are religious people. I’ve been reading your posts for years and frankly, I’ve never seen you address any theology but Christianity in your refutation of religion. Maybe you should work on some more inclusive material.
Say huh? I’m addressing the idea of God in general. How much more inclusive can I get? The idea of God or gods is not exclusive to Christianity. I’m anti-Islam, anti-Judaism, anti-Hinduism, all forms of paganism, and any other form of faith in the supernatural.
Dude, I’m a theist, and I make no claims to an activist God, in fact I very much doubt one exists. You’re making the mistake of branding all theists with the stripe of a few different religions (altogether another kettle of fish). It’s treading dangerously close to a No True Scotsman fallacy.
And yet; “Belief in the supernatural is ridiculous” is the best you can come up with? Pfffffft.
Your heavier ammo, like “Religious people are hypocrites” followed by descriptions of Crusades etcetera don’t apply to me. Neither does “An Omnimax God wouldn’t allow tsunamis”. Can’t you come up with anything meatier?
Asserting that there is “something beyond the material plane” and that no proof exists to dispute that fact still says nothing about the nature of that something. Frankly I find the assertion to be nonsensical; for even if such a thing does exist how could you know it without perceiving it? And if you do perceive it it must necessarily exist within the material plane. But granting that it does exist, and that it is called “God”, why would one description of God take precedence over any other? Why could I not postulate with just as much validity as you that God hates homosexuals, or God only lets white people into heaven, or God wants America to free the world? If the possible descriptions of God are infinite then any definitive statement concerning his nature are meaningless.
That’s not “faith” it’s the only rational, default position. If you can’t prove something exists there’s no reason for us to give it any consideration. Why should Yahweh be given any more credence than Zeus or Kokopelli? Does it take “faith” not to believe in vampires?
Aand if something can’t be experienced empirically, it can’t be experienced period, since the only experience possible, by definition, is that which can be experienced with the senses.
“Reality plus” is a logical contradictiom. If anything exists, it exists in reality. If it does not exist in reality, it does not exist, by definition.
Now you’re impugning atheists as having sinister motives for simply not believing something without proof.
Personally, I think that very few theists are liars (and if they’re liars, they’re not really theists). I think that most are simply enculturated and comfortable. I think that some have had internal experiences which convince them of God’s existence (but I also think that there are natural explanations for these experiences). I suspect that most of them struggle with doubt and I also think that most of them are perfectly sane and decent people. Some of my best friends are theists. Some of the smartest people who have ever lived believed in God. My wife believes in God and she’s smarter than me (and I’m hella smart myself).
I am not convinced of the existence of anything beyond the material. I am psychologically and congenitally incapable of believing anything without proof. That doesn’t mean I can’t like, respect or even marry people who do.
It only has to be meaningful to the person who holds the belief.
It all comes down to the fact that atheists believe that if it can’t be explained using reason, it’s not worth knowing. Some people don’t consider reason to be the be all and end all of existence. Meh.
“Few different religions”? Most religions believe in an activist god. You may not. But that raises the question of telling the difference between the universe created by a non-active God and one created by no god at all.
I’m going to rephrase a point that several others have made to try to convey to the theists why START’s comments were inappropriate.
Imagine the reverse of the situation: the grieving child is Christian and the teen is an atheist. The child says that he’s worried about his Daddy because he knows that not everyone who dies goes to Heaven. What if his Daddy isn’t in Heaven but in Hell? The teen says that he shouldn’t worry because Heaven and Hell aren’t real … .
If you’re a Christian, ask yourself, would you be okay having your child told this in the midst of his grief – even if the comment were offered in the spirit of easing the child’s suffering and calming his fears?
START, you meant well. But despire your good intentions, through an error of judgment you’ve unfortunately caused additional pain to an already grieving family.
Regardless of whether START’s beliefs are truth or fiction or somewhere in between–
When you don’t know what the religious beliefs of the person are, steer clear of bringing religious (or overtly atheistic) messages into offers of consolation. Otherwise, you risk making things worse (grieving and spiritually confused OR grieving and angry, instead of just grieving). This is true if the person you’re comforting is seven or seventy.
There are plenty of comforting, non-religious things to say in this kind of situation. It’s the polite and considerate thing to do to reach for those instead.
Of course, if you are familiar with the person’s spiritual views, it’s usually OK to reference them in a comforting way.
