My point there was that love, being so subjective, is impossible to prove even when we accept that person A and person B exists. It also goes to the point I make often that all people, including atheists operate on some level of faith. Whether their belief system is more justified or reasonable is another discussion. If you’re going to remove the protected status of religious beliefs and challenge them then you must be willing to have your own belief system with it’s elements of faith and emotional attachments, put under the microscope as well. I think that’s a good thing. It’s interesting to me to see how some atheists enjoy offhandedly dismissing religious beliefs but react in the same human way when their own belief system is questioned.
That may be an interesting notion but it’s not my notion. I think the journey is about what we value and whether we embrace a certain concept of God or not is irrelevant.
Oh, what episode was that. I’m not a Trekkie, but I enjoyed the show.
As long as we’re supposing God and certain qualities of God, if we suppose God has has perfect love, compassion, mercy and justice, let’s suppose God has perfect empathy as well. That way he experiences everything his creation experiences. That’ll teach him!!
Does he have perfect apathy too? Perfect greed? Perfect lust? If god doesn’t have any of the ‘negative’ qualities then how can he experience what his creations experience? Every time someone lusted it would be a new experience to god, something alien that he couldn’t identify with.
I stand by my earlier assertion that love is not too subjective to prove (except perhaps experientially, but we don’t have a good scientific model for qualia yet). The real issue is that it refers to different things (has more than one definition) and to prove it in a given situation, you have to clarify which definition you are using. Asking a question in a vague way says more about the person asking the question than the nature of the issue they are investigating.
Again, like “love”, “faith” refers to many different things. Please clarify what you mean by “faith” in this scenario.
I actually think “faith” is a bad word to have gotten into the whole religious argument arena. When I think of faith, it means to me either 1) having trust in someone or something because they have acted trustworthy or 2) giving the benefit of the doubt to someone or something, letting them have free will because even if they make a mistake, you feel that inherently they have value, and that they will either make the right choice because of your fatih in them, or else learn from the mistake and change for the better.
I think faith in this sense is fine for spirituality. If your beliefs are working for you, it’s fine to feel positive about them and trust them. Whereas people having arguments about Religion tend to use the word “faith” in a much different sense, which I think is better served by the word “loyalty”. That is, defending, often stubbornly, something just for the sake of belonging to it.
I think it’s fine to have faith in the sense of (passive) trust in science, or even some sort of religious doctrine, in that we need some sort of working mental model of our existence in order to take action. But the difference is that the working faith is usually contingent in science on the model continuing to work. When it starts to fail, the person changes the model to incorporate the new information. Whereas in dogmatic religions the other kind of (active) faith - blind loyalty - kicks in instead and reinforces the model, no matter how badly it starts to fail in light of the new information.
I’m curious what kinds of questions cause the most emotional reactions in athesists. Enlighten us!
Fine, then say that. But to say “that’s an opinion, not a logical argument” suggests that those are opposed to each other. They’re not, that’s all I’m saying. “That’s an opinion that isn’t logical” would hit the nail more on the cross…er, i mean head.
"I’m not interested in any extended analogies but I know that my kids clearly knew I existed , believed I loved them, believed my warnings and advice were born from this love, and still had to find their own way and make mistakes. I think no matter how perfect my love and advice might have been it was their nature to find out for themselves. Sometimes my love for them meant I had let them have the experience and learn for themselves. Interfering with that experience, even to prevent suffering, isn’t necessarily an act of love."
They had to find their own way and make mistakes, but they knew you existed.
I think the other side is suggesting it’s not reasonable to expect them to have been able to find their way – even with mistakes – if they didn’t know you existed.
Knowing you exist doesn’t make life easy, as you rightly point out.
But it doesn’t follow that not knowing of your existence – when it’s a metaphysical question of the basis of all reality and the cosmos, unlike the real-world parent example where they still know that there are such things as ‘parents’ – is a loving act. Unless you posit that coming to know you exist is the point of the love.
"Interfering with that experience, even to prevent suffering, isn’t necessarily an act of love. "
But someone buried under molten lava can’t be said to have learned anything from that experience that will be applied in the mortal world. They’re not a part of it now.
Preventing that molten lava from engulfing them would avoid suffering (on earth).
Which means, as near as I can figure it, that we end up with either:
1 - “Their being buried under molten lava teaches them something that they’ll benefit from in heaven” (if we’re going with the “experience/suffering teaches something” idea) or
2 - “Their painful death is still an act of love – keeping in mind that their death wasn’t a result of any failure on their part about life lessons to stick to the natural disaster examples – because you’ve gotta figure in afterworld benefits and death isn’t a bad thing per se when you figure they’re going to heaven now” or
3 - “Others will have learned to appreciate each other more in the face of that disaster so those humans will have improved their journey through his death, and his death isn’t really death because he’s going to heaven now. His agonizing suffering while screaming and being melted? Oh well, don’t sweat it cuz it’s temporary (or his suffering is worth it to teach others something, which would be a pretty breathtaking POV IMO and begins to strain definitions of love/suffering)”
Those seem to be the 3 options to me. Am I missing one, given that example?
"IOW, if we can’t find the will to act, can’t believe our actions can really make a difference, can’t believe that love, truth and compassion as ideals are worth pursuing, then I don’t see why sudden god belief would clearly make things better."
A very succinct, well-expressed explanation of why god is moot. Don’t need it, thanks.
"Most people claim to believe now and yet the world is as it is. Belief alone is not enough. "
May seem a quibble, but it isn’t: there’s a difference between belief and knowledge.
Even believers ultimately claim it’s an act of faith, not proof. Belief not knowledge.
And that may, in fact, make a difference.
Kids knowing their parents exist doesn’t provide some huge paradigm-shifting insight into the cosmos for them like knowing god exists would for humanity, obviously.
"I try to point out to believers that our commitment to the truth should be more important than denominational doctrine or dogma and that means embracing science as one path to the truth. The commitment to truth requires that we are willing to question and explore. It’s not a lack of faith to question a tradition or what some other person taught you."
Sounds Jewish. That’s a part of their tradition way more than it is in xianity.
"My point there was that love, being so subjective, is impossible to prove even when we accept that person A and person B exists. It also goes to the point I make often that all people, including atheists operate on some level of faith. Whether their belief system is more justified or reasonable is another discussion. If you’re going to remove the protected status of religious beliefs and challenge them then you must be willing to have your own belief system with it’s elements of faith and emotional attachments, put under the microscope as well. I think that’s a good thing. It’s interesting to me to see how some atheists enjoy offhandedly dismissing religious beliefs but react in the same human way when their own belief system is questioned."
Well, that’s true and a good point.
I think it’s because atheists feel that they’re leaps of faith are more justified and reasonable (and, as you noted, that’s “another discussion”) but it’s why I believe you end up with them acting that way; because the amount of non-corporeal-based evidences of divine love jumps the shark for them in terms of faith.
It’s because, I think, there are basic premises that they’re working with that are based on what I can see and hear and feel; which leaves open to interpretation the motives of the entity which sent them my way.
But it doesn’t also leave open to interpretation whether or not the entity that sent them my way exists or not and isn’t proof one way or the other of that.
But yes, I’d agree that in terms of “proving” love it’s hard to do even when we know someone exists.
**"That may be an interesting notion but it’s not my notion. I think the journey is about what we value and whether we embrace a certain concept of God or not is irrelevant.
Oh, what episode was that. I’m not a Trekkie, but I enjoyed the show."
**
Cool, then once again I don’t need god to discover what I value. Animals do that.
Me neither, but it was that one movie where they’ve got the dude that can touch your temples and make you re-experience some long-ago emotional pain, etc.; and he believes that god is at a particular location beyond this particular part of space that has been previously thought to be beyond human ability to reach; so, he hijacks the ship and forces them to go there and they land and they see god face to face (a massive floating light type of thing) and Kirk is still skeptical; they blend emotional stuff with religious stuff and basically there’s a part where Kirk says “no! i need my pain, i want my pain, it makes me who i am” in an analogue to saying that i don’t need or want god’s invasion of my soul, I like myself the way I am (at least, that’s how I chose to read it )
I understood that to be the xian’s view, ultimately literalized with jesus on the cross experiencing all the suffering of the results of sin that have ever happened, were currently happening, and would ever happen into the future for all time; for which, he then atones and is punished on its behalf and suffers the death that it deserves.
I can already tell you where that’s heading LOL One version of the other POV will say that all those feelings (apathy, greed, etc.) are illusions and god has the ‘real’ versions of them that aren’t manifested that way. I know, I know.
"I think it’s fine to have faith in the sense of (passive) trust in science, or even some sort of religious doctrine, in that we need some sort of working mental model of our existence in order to take action. But the difference is that the working faith is usually contingent in science on the model continuing to work. When it starts to fail, the person changes the model to incorporate the new information. Whereas in dogmatic religions the other kind of (active) faith - blind loyalty - kicks in instead and reinforces the model, no matter how badly it starts to fail in light of the new information."
Wow, you just summarized the whole religious/secular problem. I agree.
Not what I had in mind (it was a movie, not episode as I mistakenly said :smack: ) but I just read that one; pretty cool, it goes to a central ideological thread in that series about the triumph of science over mysticism.
