are you an atheist?

ha I kinda forgot about this til now...being 11 and having a very religious best friend, going to his church a couple times due to sleepovers, then going bowling with him and his fam and testing out prayer by asking the Lord for a strike or 2. Didn't help my score at all, so that was the end of that.

...the modern idea of "belief" as separate from knowledge...

Where mysticism comes in handy is that it rests on personal experience, rather than some system of belief acquired through tradition, teaching or intellect. It doesn't so much confirm anything you can point to as it does disrupt, disconnect from and evade tradition, teaching and intellect. Which experience has positive value, even if it is hard to express apart from negatives.

Doesn't say spit about god, though.

hurting i saw something on the history of the word 'believe' which i can't recall properly which i think maintained that the old, original sense of belief was as in "i believe in you" & that the empirical sense is modern & this was to inform yr reading of ancient texts &c.

The idea of God as default is alien to me cos even as a seven year old i was grilling my mom about why people believed. Not out of skepticism but due to genuine curiosity.

I was raised religious and was also skeptical early, but even into my late teens or early twenties I think I had a sense of God as "default" where even my skepticism was against the backdrop of a possible God figure out of the old testament. I think it just takes a long time to overcome the emotional weight of that concept when you are raised with it. But now that I (think) I have, it's very hard to go back to that state.

I had it briefly due to being forced to go to Fundie church and i have "whats it all mean" moments now and then...having it rubbed in your face does make it harder to eradicate.

I think a big turning point is when you realize you don't ALWAYS auto-pray when there's turbulence on a plane.

i think something like prayer would be really good for me, but i'm not sure i could force myself to believe even if i was sure that's what i wanted. also, what God would i believe in? i was raised catholic and have an affection for the rituals and imagery but ideologically it's not an institution i see eye to eye with. i think it's tough.

one of the main things that pisses me off about the "new atheists" is that they disparage god as an "imaginary friend", implicitly accusing people who look there for solace of weakness and disdaining them for it. fuck that. people want to feel connected to something. i think that belief in god is a way for people to feel connected to humanity in general, to be one link away from everyone else. i guess this is like what feuerbach and later marx said, that god is just man's alienated essence and after the revolution, when society is a harmonious, cohesive totality, there will be no need for him.

I Think where most of this falls down is the supposition that an argument is needed in the first place.

― tsrobodo, Monday, February 10, 2014 6:29 PM (Yesterday) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

that's the whole reason I don't get the apologetic movement. Well, I mean I 'get' it but I think it's the wrong angle. In the end, nobody's stance on religion is going to be wholly based on holistic data (shaky or not). I get that it's a response to the 'yay science' crowd but like, I have plenty of intelligent believer friends who present arguments that are internally sound (just not for me, personally).

― Lesbian has fucking riffs for days (Neanderthal), Monday, February 10, 2014 6:30 PM (Yesterday) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

These are pretty obvious defense mechanisms though. If rational justification doesn't suffice to ground your beliefs, it's highly convenient to be able ground them somewhere else where arguments can't affect them. Apologetics at least makes itself open to discussion.

What's wrong with a simple admission of "this is not rational, but I believe it anyway"? Why does that have to be a "defense mechanism"?

^This. I would say this right away. I wouldn't have it any other way. God shouldn't be a rational thing imo. If he was, then he would be part of science.

How do you judge whether the concept is legitimate?

What do you mean by "legitimate"?

Well that's up to each individual person. Here's where the "personal God" comes in. It doesn't mean God is a person you talk to, it means it's a personal experience.

How can a particular explanatory concept of our universe not be part of science?

It's not explanatory.

Unless you are a Young Earth Creationist.

What do you mean by "legitimate"?

― Burt Stuntin (Hurting 2), Tuesday, February 11, 2014 10:04 AM (1 minute ago)

As in what would drive you to subscribe to it.

It is explanatory. YEC is just a particular belief in how.

I guess what I really mean is a utilitarian approach to belief. I'm fine with any belief that doesn't interfere with a person's rational interactions with the material world. In other words, if a person says "prayer will help me get through my cancer treatment," I have no objection to them praying, and I recognize that that may on some level be a true statement. If they say "prayer IS the best cancer treatment" that's where I get off the train. When otherwise logical, rational people "believe" in God, this is often the kind of belief they have. The belief in an immaterial "spirit" or "soul" that transcends the body does not necessarily interfere with a person's ability to otherwise function rationally, and if it provides a source of comfort and meaning, then why not? Same with the abstract idea of an eternal God, as long as you don't think you can ask God to move objects for you or put the $100 in your wallet that you owe and don't have.

If you want someone to move objects for you and give you free money you should probably just be less selfish for a start.

Yeah, it should have very little to do w the material world. Particularly politics!

tend to agree with Hurting and AB. there are rational reasons that I don't believe in gods (or at least, not the Judeo-Christian one), but the crux of it is based on underwhelming personal experience while actively seeking out religion in my youth.

also think Hurting's summation above is good. there's a diff between someone having a comforting belief, and there's also the brain-dead girl's family and their attorney who don't accept "death".

It is interesting that in debates the theist holds their beliefs to different standards of evidence than they do with things in daily life. But to Hurting's point that is often a good thing.

also completely unrelated, but when someone's having a rough time of it, and you know they're not particularly religious, best not to immediately reply with the consolation "You know there's someone called God that can help you out." HOW ABOUT "I'M SO SORRY TO HEAR THAT!" INSTEAD.

used to get that all the time from one of my hyper-religious friends and...ugh.

People being patronizing sucks whether God is invoked or not.

I thought the most telling part of the Nye/Ham debate was a question from the audience directed at Mr Ham: "what evidence would be necessary in order for you to change your beliefs?". His answer...nothing would ever change his mind. So why go thru the pretense of debates, couching your faith in science/rationality, claiming to just not be convinced by the vast amount of evidence to the contrary, etc etc??

WLC, though far more intelligent than Ham (then again, who isn't) said something similar. His five points always end with "it all boils down to the warm fuzzy feeling inside your chest".

for you that's God. for me that's acid reflux.

It is interesting that in debates the theist holds their beliefs to different standards of evidence than they do with things in daily life. But to Hurting's point that is often a good thing.

― Evan, Tuesday, February 11, 2014 10:20 AM Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

I think most people have some things in their daily life that do not withstand rational scrutiny.

Agreed. But I mentioned debates because that's where they try to justify religious belief much more intellectually than one might casually participate in a superstition for instance.

How can a particular explanatory concept of our universe not be part of science?

― Evan, Tuesday, February 11, 2014 7:06 AM (5 hours ago)

science is a means of explanation. it is not the only conceivable means of explanation. other means of explanation may not pass scientific scrutiny, but that doesn't mean they've failed on their own terms.

I am always amazed that reading animal entrails to discover clues to the intentions of the god(s) ever caught on. The movements of birds being read as omens, ok, it's not so far a leap, but the entrails of eviscerated victims, hoo boy, that's some mighty craziness.

WLC, though far more intelligent than Ham (then again, who isn't) said something similar. His five points always end with "it all boils down to the warm fuzzy feeling inside your chest".

for you that's God. for me that's acid reflux.

― Lesbian has fucking riffs for days (Neanderthal), Tuesday, February 11, 2014 1:50 PM (2 hours ago) Bookmark

i suspect you've never suffered from acid reflux if you'd describe it as a warm fuzzy feeling

How can a particular explanatory concept of our universe not be part of science?

― Evan, Tuesday, February 11, 2014 7:06 AM (5 hours ago)

science is a means of explanation. it is not the only conceivable means of explanation. other means of explanation may not pass scientific scrutiny, but that doesn't mean they've failed on their own terms.

― CANONICAL artists, etc., etc. (contenderizer), Tuesday, February 11, 2014 3:50 PM (8 minutes ago)

Like what?

fwiw the principle of sufficient reason does not withstand rational scrutiny.

that aside, it's interesting to me how "creationism" has sort of manifested itself as a sort of (materialist?) ideological formation within Christianity. it almost feels like they've ceded the terms of the game before even playing.

like, this "debate" is basically a political con job and a joke.

Like what?

The brain works with symbols in ways that are not limited to language, logic or math. An explanation that makes no sense when viewed factually or logically can still satisfy that part of the brain that interprets life through such symbols.

Well, would that be an example of something we cannot yet measure scientifically?

Before we get off track, I was saying how can a God, who is attributed with creating the universe, not be an element of scientific concern if he is the cause of everything material? How could God be separate from science if he is such an important variable in the material origins and behavior of the universe?

God shouldn't be a rational thing imo. If he was, then he would be part of science.

― Emperor Cos Dashit (Adam Bruneau), Tuesday, February 11, 2014 10:00 AM (6 hours ago)

Responding to that.

Well, would that be an example of something we cannot yet measure scientifically?

I don't think so, unless you're assuming that once we have a scientific explanation for everything, we will describe everything in scientific terms. I mean if you could identify some kind of neurochemical process relating to humor, would you no longer use the unscientific descriptor of something being "funny"?

I may have mentioned this somewhere on this thread already, but the book A Secular Age by Charles Taylor is an interesting attempt to understand how the default position switched from belief to unbelief over the past few hundred years. His answer is complicated, but he talks a lot about how our experience of the world shifted from one of "embeddedness" in a matrix of meaning, where the boundaries of the self are fluid, to one of the lone ego trapped in a depersonalized material shell. He says that this shift is inculcated at such a fundamental level that it affects everyone, believers and unbelievers alike, so that belief nowadays require a conscious effort to resist the default position that it didn't used to.

there's a tendency for theists/spiritualists to retreat to the subjective experiences of the brain, eg "explain consciousness...it's magical, isn't it" or "well I've had personal experience with God" or, as I mentioned above, "nearly all cultures have developed a concept of god(s)". I'd have thought we have learned enough about the brain by now to not put stock in the games it likes to play, or to think they are an accurate reflection of objective reality.

we actually don't know that much about the brain

Well, would that be an example of something we cannot yet measure scientifically?

I don't think so, unless you're assuming that once we have a scientific explanation for everything, we will describe everything in scientific terms. I mean if you could identify some kind of neurochemical process relating to humor, would you no longer use the unscientific descriptor of something being "funny"?

― Burt Stuntin (Hurting 2), Tuesday, February 11, 2014 4:23 PM (5 minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

I'm merely saying that it is perfectly sane to assume we'll be able to scientifically understand it in a more and more precise way. I don't know what you're getting at- of course we will still be human and be able to subjectively find something "funny".

at what level of brain complexity does it become ~magical~? does a grasshopper's "beliefs" contain a nebulous metaphysical element to them as discussed in that NYT article? or does that require a cerebral cortex?

we know enough to have entire fields of academmia devoted to the knowledge we've gathered about the brain, be real

we actually don't know that much about the brain

― Burt Stuntin (Hurting 2), Tuesday, February 11, 2014 4:32 PM (25 seconds ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

We know enough to observe how physical change of the brain affects consciousness and personality.

A lot of academics in those fields would tell you that we don't actually know very much, and some would tell you that it is logically impossible to fully understand "consciousness"

I mean obv there a some big gaps in our understanding of it, that's why people retreat within its subjectivity

lol yeah we don't know shit about the brain. funny thing I learned yesterday while reading some article on neuro research - all of the synaptic connections in the brain are at 90 degree angles.

xp