Go to Religion in the Modern World
- Add a comment
- Go to That's a pretty big catch when you think about it
WhiteJedi,
well, I tried. It's just that I think sometimes logic is more important than faith, even when talking about faith, and
especially when talking about faith...
posted by
Nautikos
on June 29, 2006 at 4:43 AM
| link to this | reply
Nautikos,
I am trying to make the point that an Atheist does not have absolute denial of God's existence. What do I mean when I say that? Well, the refusal to believe in God comes from a lack of evidence. If God provided the world with proof tomorrow I would immediately believe in his existence. To me Atheism should be seen more as a choice based on careful examanation. Denial is usually seen as an act of defiance, of rebellion. Atheism is neither. I really am tired of beating this particular point into the ground so I'm going to stop debating. I've said what I wanted to say.
Ariel,
I have thought about your point on spirituality. I do agree that one can be spiritual. Spirit means "breath of life." Since humans have life we are automatically spiritual. Most of the time when people say spiritual they mean believing in spirits, the paranormal and faith healing. Or something along those lines. Unless someone clarifies their idea of spiritualism that is what I assume they mean.
Gnomedome-
I agree. There are many chemical substance within the brain that are far from understood. Many of our so called spiritual reactions are simply the brain's interpretation of a stimulus.
posted by
WhiteJedi
on June 28, 2006 at 7:03 AM
| link to this | reply
WhiteJedi
before we go on, we gotta straighten out a bit of faulty logic here. You say 'to deny something's existence requires knowledge that it existed in the first place. Since there is no knowledge of God's existence, there is nothing for an Atheist to deny.' Let's forget about God for a moment, and talk about Unicorns. I think we both deny the existence of Unicorns. But you claim that 'something's (in this case the Unicorn) requires knowledge that it existed in the first place.' But Unicorns have never existed in the first place, yet you deny their existence (I would hope!)
My point is that you engage in a very strange form of contradictory reasoning. You say that something has to exist before you can deny it's existence. But, I ask, if it exists, how can you deny it's existence?
The solution to your problem is this: like any atheist, you do not believe in God's existence, plain and simple. You do not 'reject the existence of something that reqires knowledge of it's existence in the first place', which makes no sense!
posted by
Nautikos
on June 27, 2006 at 11:11 AM
| link to this | reply
Gome
Soreee! I knew what you meant, but Ariel's mischievous spirit got the better of him. I'll cut and paste your post, and read it properly later.
posted by
ariel70
on June 27, 2006 at 9:11 AM
| link to this | reply
ariel70 - I'm dissapointed in that last comment of yours
I am not speaking of the use of hallucinogens. I am speaking of a scientific endeavor that is much more sophisticated and controlled.
HERE is a link to one of the many researchers in this field.
posted by
gomedome
on June 27, 2006 at 9:09 AM
| link to this | reply
Gome
ER ... yeah. Whacky baccy does that too. So I'm told of course! Obviously, I have no personal experience of such halucinogenic substances.
One would be called to account by the redoubtable Lady Ariela in short order!
posted by
ariel70
on June 27, 2006 at 9:03 AM
| link to this | reply
ariel70 - there is certainly more to our existences than can be defined
physically.
But many of the answers to what we sense and experience are not necessarily derived from traditional definitions of a spiritual realm. We are complex beings, inherent with an intricate genetic coding which includes an electronic signal processing system at the sub molecular level. The key to understanding our abilities to transmit and receive these signals begins to be understood within our ability to artificially induce in a consistent manner, many of the same reactions that have been traditionally accorded to the spiritual realm.
posted by
gomedome
on June 27, 2006 at 8:59 AM
| link to this | reply
Gome, White Jedi et al
It's always been a mystery to me why people will believe in ghosts, the id, the ego and all the other phantasmic creations of Herr Freud, and yet deny the existence of human spirituality.
Talkk about believing what you choose to believe!
posted by
ariel70
on June 27, 2006 at 8:47 AM
| link to this | reply
ariel70 -I tend to agree; the spiritual realm is not limited to divinity
This is true at least within common belief. Most religions do hold notions of a dark or bad spiritual realm outside of their divine realms. In a practical sense; many people that do believe in the spiritual realm make no distinction aside from good and evil, between ghosts or experiences of the paranormal and the mythical spirits of religious domain.
posted by
gomedome
on June 27, 2006 at 8:42 AM
| link to this | reply
White Jedi again
My apologies to you ; I have clearly misread your comment, in stating that you are a Christian.
However, I still take issue with your disbelief in humans having a non-divine sirituality.
posted by
ariel70
on June 27, 2006 at 8:36 AM
| link to this | reply
White Jedi
I think you are being somewhat disingenuous here. For one thing, I challenge your strict, dictionary interpertation of spirituality, and your assertion and belief, common to all Christians that there is but one form of of it ; that which they allege to derive from God, or a divine spirit.
Altho' I believe that sirituality is an integral part of the human personality, I can no more prove this than you can that it derives solely from God, or whatever.
You appear to want people to accpet you version without proof ; but for me, and others who share my disbelief, to offer proof of ours. It's called having your cake and eating it.
posted by
ariel70
on June 27, 2006 at 8:32 AM
| link to this | reply
WhiteJedi - in recent years I have been studying the effects of certain
types of stimuli on the human brain.
Appreciate that in my case this is a layman's study, relying on the research of others of appropriate discipline but one thing becomes obvious, even to a non professional in the field. The spiritual realm, whether it be of a religious nature or not, is defined solely by human reaction to it. As these reactions in many cases can be artificially induced by the use of naturally occurring stimuli of many different types, a reasonable hypothesis can be developed. There is no spirit realm, there is only the human brain's reaction to certain natural or induced stimuli. Though my mind is still open on this, I become more and more convinced of this every day. The most interesting results are yielded in the study of the human brain's reaction to electromagnetic field fluctuations. We are creatures of chemical, fluid and electrical composition. Where this avenue of study does not provide all of the answers, it does begin to debunk a great deal of what people commonly hold as beliefs about the spiritual realm, including ghost sightings and religious icon manifestations.
posted by
gomedome
on June 27, 2006 at 8:27 AM
| link to this | reply
Oppps, sorry Ariala,
I meant Ariel.
posted by
WhiteJedi
on June 27, 2006 at 8:14 AM
| link to this | reply
Nautikos,
I agree with Gnomedome that you have stretched the meaning of "faith." In fact, it appears that you have reinvented the word's definition to fit your opinion. To deny something's existence requires knowledge that it existed in the first place. Since there is no knowledge of God's existence, there is nothing for an Atheist to deny. Atheism is not an act of denial, it is refusing to believe in something unseen and, therefore, unproven. You are right that without belief there is only knowledge. I fully embrace the power of reliable knowledge. I don't believe-I know. I don't know if God exists, therefore there is no reason for me to believe. I apply this same reason towards any number of unproven concepts.
Arialia-
You are right that as an Atheist I place trust in the corporal world. For me spritual is connected to divinity. The term spiritual refers to sacred, divine, theological teachings-it all leads beack to God in one way or another. I don't see humans as having spirits in the traditional sense either. Yes, we all have a unique personality that makes us who we are. But there is nothing to prove a divine presence that outlasts death.
posted by
WhiteJedi
on June 27, 2006 at 8:08 AM
| link to this | reply
gd
to me this is a far more interesting and fun debate than the endless and pointless one about whether or not God exists.
I grant you that my understanding of ‘faith’ is not entirely ‘conventional’, but it does not stray all that far from the dictionary! (By the way, we must not have too much ‘faith’ in ‘dictionary’ definitions! If you are intersted in the ‘creation’ of a dictionary, in this case the OED, I can highly recommend Simon Winchester, The Meaning of Everything, Oxford University Press)
Faith as “confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing” already embraces a variety of possibilities. Without belaboring the point,‘faith’ in an idea is an entirely different matter than ‘faith’ in a thing.
But here I am concerned not with the object of faith, but about the nature of faith itself, not about ‘a faith’, but the psychological state, the particular attitude we adopt when we say ‘we believe’ and mean it, in the sense that we have no doubt whatsoever! I cannot detect a distinction between saying ‘I am certain that x is’ and ‘I am certain that x is not’, nor has anyone else, to my knowledge. It is totally irrelevant what x is, or whether it is or is not 'in fact'. It is the certainty of one’s conviction, which makes a statement a statement of ‘faith’. Whenever we are making statements of absolute certainty we either know (or think we know) or, in the absence of such knowledge, we believe. And if it shocks atheists that their position is one of ‘faith’, so be it…
posted by
Nautikos
on June 27, 2006 at 6:05 AM
| link to this | reply
Nautikos - I think that you are stretching the definition of "faith"
Though it is commonly used as a word associated with religious belief, the definition of the word "faith" as seen below does not really fit completely in describing atheism.
faith (fāth)
n.
Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing.
Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence. See synonyms at belief, trust.
Loyalty to a person or thing; allegiance: keeping faith with one's supporters.
The theological virtue defined as secure belief in God and a trusting acceptance of God's will.
The body of dogma of a religion: i.e.;the Muslim faith.
A set of principles or beliefs.
Where I hesitate to agree that atheism or the belief that there is not a God can be called faith; is in that having faith that something exists without physical evidence does not necessarily have a converse. In plainer English; it takes faith to maintain a belief that something unseen actually exists, it does not necessarily take any degree of faith to hold a belief that something unseen does not exist.
posted by
gomedome
on June 26, 2006 at 8:58 PM
| link to this | reply
Ariel,
I think one could cure them very quickly of their delusions, if they
really only believed in the corporeal...
posted by
Nautikos
on June 26, 2006 at 7:09 PM
| link to this | reply
gd,
I am not sure that the distinction between 'believing that there is not a God' and 'not believing in God' is meaningful. It would somehow require that we could accept that there is a God, but without 'believing' in Him. Aside from that I largely agree with you. May I quote you?
'There is no uniform set of doctrines [I didn't say there had to be] from which to draw life guiding precepts from in this non belief. There is only the certainty for some that there is not a God. [Precisely! And that's their faith!] Atheism is an individualistic mindset where non belief itself is the sole defining characteristic.' [Absolutely correct; they may, of course, have a set of precepts to guide their lives, as do I. The only difference between them and me, the agnostic, is that they 'believe', and I don't...]
posted by
Nautikos
on June 26, 2006 at 7:06 PM
| link to this | reply
WhiteJedi,
This has all the makings of a possibly interesting debate, but we must be very clear about our terms. When I said atheism is a faith I meant it, and you have not refuted it. I did not speak of a belief system, but one item only: the firm unquestioned belief in the non-existence of God. That’s all that faith is: a firm, unquestioned belief. I do not, as you suggest, ‘define faith as questioning belief’, but on the contrary, ‘as the incapacity or refusal to question one’s belief.’ (Check out what I wrote.)
The mistake most people make is between ‘faith’ or, if you wish, the ‘attitude’ of faith and a faith’s ‘content’, as it were. The content can be, as Ariel suggests, simply the ‘faith’ that we are ‘spiritual’ beings, or an entire ‘system, a ‘religion.’.
You tell me that an atheist will not believe in anything that has not been proven.
But I must tell you two things: first, to ‘believe’ in something that has been proven is nonsense. If it’s proven, you don’t believe in it, you know it. Once you know it, saying you ‘believe in it’ doesn’t add anything meaningful. But consider my second point: you are an atheist; God’s non-existence has not been proven; you believe in God’s non-existence…How does that square with your assertion that an atheist does not believe in anything that has not been proven? (You might also want to take a look at my posts on Belief and Knowledge.)
Looking over your comment again, you say that ‘Atheists really don't regard themselves as disbelieving God's existence. To them there is no God to deny belief in.” In the first sentence you say you don’t disbelieve God’s existence, in the next one you do… Or are you somehow deviding this whole business into two parts, the ‘existence of’ and then the ‘belief in’ God? And what is the point of that, if it is the point?
posted by
Nautikos
on June 26, 2006 at 6:39 PM
| link to this | reply
WhiteJedi
" nor" of course
posted by
ariel70
on June 26, 2006 at 1:21 PM
| link to this | reply
WhiteJedi
Really!?? Are you really saying that to be an atheist means that one does not have faith in spiritual matters?
This is tantamount to saying that atheists believe only in the corporeal ; a most remarkable, and most remarkably insulting view.
I can assure you that, although I am an atheist, I am a very spiritual person. One does not have to believe in God, gods, or the Holy Spirit to believe in spirituality, not to possess it
posted by
ariel70
on June 26, 2006 at 1:20 PM
| link to this | reply
Gnomedome-
That is the point I was trying to make. Atheism itself is often viwed differently by both Theists and Atheists alike. You are right that Atheists do not have a set system of beliefs to draw from. Fith is the action of believing in something unseen. Not having a doctrine also means not having faith in spritual concepts.
posted by
WhiteJedi
on June 26, 2006 at 1:14 PM
| link to this | reply
WhiteJedi and Nautikos - I'm in between on this one
Where atheism can be described as believing that there is not a God as easily as it can be described as not believing in God, this subtlety does not make it a faith system. There is no uniform set of doctrines from which to draw life guiding precepts from in this non belief. There is only the certainty for some that there is not a God. Atheism is an individualistic mindset where non belief itself is the sole defining characteristic, there is no commonality in ideals or principles amongst atheists, which makes it impossible to describe as a faith system.
posted by
gomedome
on June 26, 2006 at 8:18 AM
| link to this | reply
I disagree Natuikos,
I think in saying Atheism is another form of faith you are mistaken. First of all, Atheism is a term assigned to non believers by Christians. Atheists really don't regard themselves as disbelieving God's existence. To them there is no God to deny belief in. An Atheist will not believe in something that has not been proven. Second of all, by your own admission you define faith as questioning belief. This definition of faith cannot be applied to Atheists since they have no belief to question in the first place. Atheism means absence of belief. Since an Atheist has no belief system and therefore no God, he or she has nothing to place faith in.
posted by
WhiteJedi
on June 26, 2006 at 7:58 AM
| link to this | reply
gd,
an excellent post! As I said in my answer to your comment to my post (whew, ), I think we pretty well share the same 'bias'...pretty well, but not quite. 'Not quite', because, in the end, I dunno. (And if I did one day 'believe', the object of my faith would not be what Thomas Huxley ('Darwin's bulldog') once called the 'gaseous vertebrate'.) I regard atheism, i.e. the firm belief in the non-existence of God as just another form of faith. (Faith, after all, is among other things the incapacity or refusal to question one's belief.) And I am not 'opposed' to religion in general, although I may be opposed to specific forms of it. For example, I consider the current trends in Islam as fatally dangerous!
And I am interested in the verifiable fact that religion, in whatever form, has played such a large part in any and all societies we have ever known. But that will be the topic of a future post.
posted by
Nautikos
on June 26, 2006 at 6:38 AM
| link to this | reply
Good points...
All of the points you made are truthfull. Believers tend to explain away the lack of miracles and physical evidence by using faith. God is testing our faith. Why leave doubt if love is your motivation? Thanks for the read.
posted by
WhiteJedi
on June 26, 2006 at 5:27 AM
| link to this | reply
GD, Regarding your paragraph one, despite my earlier comment, I could not agree with you more wholeheartedly! (The world is full of baloney.) I had previously scanned your blog on e-books and while I think that I have sufficient intelligence, skill, competence to pull of some rudimentary scripting, etc. I simply don't have the time or patience. Maybe I am insufficiently motivated. Time may or may not tell. Thank you much for the links. I will keep them for reference. Blog on!! And fearlessly at that!! Samhain_Moon 
posted by
syzygy
on June 25, 2006 at 11:00 PM
| link to this | reply
Samhain_Moon - your words are too kind concerning my technical skills
As for writing a blog with religion as the subject matter, I have to agree that the likelihood of changing anyone's mind is remote and that is not my goal here. I just feel it important to present another perspective, if for no other reason than to show those who would run roughshod over everyone else with their religious beliefs that there are some people in this world that won't be bullied into submission. But enough of that.
The "Little Furry Bloggers Rising into Heaven" is done with a Javascript. I've always felt that static links are ignored by blog readers at least much more so than something that moves. Anyone can do it, this particular script is also good for rolling archived blog postings. Considering that the Blogit interface has no archive utility, I made my own. HERE is an example of it in use. There is also a fledgling script library for a few Javascript effects that work on the Blogit interface found HERE with full instructions for how to install them. If you have any thoughts of organizing your writing into an eBook, my latest project in this regard is found HERE. . . . I can't help myself. I sometimes find the code and scripting behind the blogs more interesting than the blogs themselves . . is that normal?
posted by
gomedome
on June 25, 2006 at 10:52 PM
| link to this | reply
GD (I'm sure you'll appreciate the tongue in cheek there) I'm not a regular reader of yours, however, I do scan occasionally but, I have never (I don't believe) commented (for many reasons, not the least of which being that I am not interested in debate of any kind and esp. not religious or political debate - essentially, I couldn't give a flying fuck what people think or don't think - why waste my time? - who cares? - life is short - and it IS IMHO a waste of time - no one will ever convince anyone of anything - but, hey, that is just my opinion and everyone should go on doing whatever it is that they like to do). {ok, i think i commented once?} Also, admittedly, another big reason I don't comment is because I don't want to be on your 'radar screen.' 
So.....(with that intro)......something attracted me to your blog tonight and I clicked but had not read more than 2 or 3 sentences when movement caught my eye - I glanced to the right and found your "Little furry bloggers rising into Heaven". My eyes widened, my jaw dropped, I sat mesmerized, spellbound. I could not take my eyes off your creation. You are a genius.....creative and technical. I'm more than impressed. I laughed my ass off. Well done. 
I am slightly disappointed that the "hell" counterpart did not have people descending into hell. That would have been superlative icing.....anyway....KUDDOS.....I'm going to have to come back to your blog later....I've got to stop laughing....try to recover....and compose myself. Samhain_Moon
posted by
syzygy
on June 25, 2006 at 10:17 PM
| link to this | reply
JanesOpinion - yes we are all entitled to an opinion
I am speaking in a much broader context than the pleasant familiarity of a church gathering. The planet I live on has one major religion declaring war on another and all manner of religiously motivated agendas attempting to impose their will on the rest of society. Referring to these things as being in a "religious stupor" is being kind.
posted by
gomedome
on June 25, 2006 at 10:01 PM
| link to this | reply
to each his own -- I don't see religion as being a shackle, but obviously
you do (certainly not a new realization either). Nor do I consider myself (and others I met in church today) to be in a "religiously induced stupor," but realize you may have your own opinions on that. You're entitled.
posted by
JanesOpinion
on June 25, 2006 at 9:37 PM
| link to this | reply