As a former believer, in some ways I miss believing

[norain]

Marc,

It seems from your comments that being religious, all other things being equal, makes you a better person than an atheist. Pardon me if you think I’m putting words in your mouth again if I’m wrong about that.

If you make the statement however that the observation applies to you personally and ONLY to you, then that is acceptable. You just cannot and should not make generalizations for everyone else.

We are ultimately in control of whether we are or are not good people, and people will judge us by our actions, not our words.

 

[Marc_Anthony]

Marc,

It seems from your comments that being religious, all other things being equal, makes you a better person than an atheist. Pardon me if you think I’m putting words in your mouth again if I’m wrong about that.

Well,you’re obviously making a real effort of understanding me, so I won’t accuse of putting words into my mouth-intentionally at least.

Yeah, more or less. Am I trying to apply it to all people? Well, it’s clearly not true for all people, but I do think there’s a logical underpinning to it.

 

[JDaniel]

Again you are making a superficial comparison between two subjects that use different investigative principles and rest upon different epistemological contexts. Its irrelevant that Metaphysics is a science in the sense of being an organized body of knowledge; it is still not the same thing as modern science, and metaphysics certainly does not use the scientific method as its investigative principle.

Reap:

If the physical is a finite but huge quantity of s-points, i.e. dimensionless particles, immersed in continuous Space, and known to science only as discrete space through an explicate order of arrangement, would you still think it to be really that much different? I’m not so sure it is, myself. Perhaps we should be perceiving being somewhat differently. Perhaps being is only what God implants in our minds, holograms, at the explicate level. Perhaps the real Reality is at the implicate level, i.e., God’s level. Perhaps there is nothing other than the metaphysical.

Thoughts?

God bless,
jd

 

[JDaniel]

Marc,

I do not think there is much of a difference as you claim.

An atheist sets his standard of goodness.
You (and I) set the standard as God’s. But who decides whether God is indeed happy with our work? You and I, just like the atheist.

It all come down to us, no matter how you get there, it is still us who judge ourselves.

Norain:

Actually it is God through Jesus Christ through the Holy Spirit through the Church. It is not you and I. Remember, God causes everything (except our sinful intentions).

God bless,
jd

 

[norain]

Norain:

Actually it is God through Jesus Christ through the Holy Spirit through the Church. It is not you and I. Remember, God causes everything (except our sinful intentions).

God bless,
jd

…possibly God through the atheist as well? He is after all, the atheist’s God as well. They just don’t know it, assuming we are right that there is indeed a God.

 

[WingsOfEagles]

How do you get around the universe existing without a higher power? I’m asking sincerely. I have never understood the belief that we got here out of thin air. Catholicism aside, it would seem that there would need to be something supernatural involved.

 

[Marc_Anthony]

…possibly God through the atheist as well? He is after all, the atheist’s God as well. They just don’t know it, assuming we are right that there is indeed a God.

Very true.

 

[JDaniel]

…possibly God through the atheist as well? He is after all, the atheist’s God as well. They just don’t know it, assuming we are right that there is indeed a God.

Norain:

Yes, through the atheist as well.

If there is no God, then a large but finite quantity of dimensionless point particles somehow expanded into discrete space and by some quirk formed themselves, with space, into extremely lifelike holograms that really look very real, and even appear to have mass, weight, to interact, to think and speak, and to reproduce. Imagine: this illusion formed itself, by itself, and got all of us to buy into it. Unless that, too, is illusion.

It’s one thing to compare all of what we sense with an invisible God. It’s quite another to compare a lattice of s-points and space simulating reality with an invisible God. God exists, but I’m not too sure about us.

God bless,
jd

 

[norain]

jd,

your last comment brings up the Anthropic Principle, such that arrangements happen sometime somewhere randomly, one of them so complex and lucky as to come up with something like us. We observe it precisely because we require it.

Then there’s that “turtles all the way down” argument, where there is merely an infinite regress of causes, not one singular prime mover.

But in the end, it still points to the fundamental question, of why indeed there are such things as questions, turtles, movers, theories, arguments, and ideas. Why there is everything, and anything at all, rather than nothing.

 

[Sair]

jd,

your last comment brings up the Anthropic Principle, such that arrangements happen sometime somewhere randomly, one of them so complex and lucky as to come up with something like us. We observe it precisely because we require it.

Then there’s that “turtles all the way down” argument, where there is merely an infinite regress of causes, not one singular prime mover.

But in the end, it still points to the fundamental question, of why indeed there are such things as questions, turtles, movers, theories, arguments, and ideas. Why there is everything, and anything at all, rather than nothing.

I read (most of, at work) a very interesting article in The Guardian this morning which was basically a discussion between Julian Baggini and Lawrence Krauss about the apparent encroachment of science upon the territory of philosophy - in particular, addressing the “big questions” of existence. It was quite refreshing to see that both tended towards the opinion that the question of why there is something rather than nothing has pretty much been subsumed by science as part of its field of inquiry. What was even more fascinating - and, I have to admit, appealing - to me was Krauss’s comment that “all ‘why’ questions [that is, those pertaining to the origins of the universe and of life] have no meaning, as they presume ‘purpose’ that may not exist.”

 

[tonyrey]

…What was even more fascinating - and, I have to admit, appealing - to me was Krauss’s comment that “all ‘why’ questions [that is, those pertaining to the origins of the universe and of life] have no meaning, as they presume ‘purpose’ that may not exist.”

Surely ‘why’ questions have no meaning - regardless of what they refer to - if purpose does not rather than **may not **exist.

 

[Sair]

If there is no God, then a large but finite quantity of dimensionless point particles somehow expanded into discrete space and by some quirk formed themselves, with space, into extremely lifelike holograms that really look very real, and even appear to have mass, weight, to interact, to think and speak, and to reproduce. Imagine: this illusion formed itself, by itself, and got all of us to buy into it. Unless that, too, is illusion.

So, what’s actually the difference between all of this appearing to have happened and having actually happened? What, of substance, could an immaterial deity (who, by this reckoning, must be even more illusory than we would be!) inject into the process?

 

[Sair]

Surely ‘why’ questions have no meaning - regardless of what they refer to - if purpose does not rather than **may not **exist.

It’s a question of scale at this point - conscious beings who have evolved through natural processes may formulate purpose; that doesn’t mean there was any purpose or intention involved in the origins or development of such beings. There has to be more evidence than our existence to justify belief in such a purpose, when naturalistic explanations are available for this fact.

 

[JDaniel]

So, what’s actually the difference between all of this appearing to have happened and having actually happened? What, of substance, could an immaterial deity (who, by this reckoning, must be even more illusory than we would be!) inject into the process?

Sair:

Your reasoning is way off. This deity must be, if nothing else, none other than the provider of the illusion! We, and all the rest of what we perceive as the illusion from within the illusion, are part of the illusion - we’re within it - so the provider must be outside. Why? Because, one can’t be an illusion and at the same time provide it. (That would be an illusion squared!) At least one thing must exist outside of it capable of providing and sustaining the illusion to appear as it does. What if, within the illusion, we died? That’s the only proper reasoning an illusion can make - one that tends toward the permanence of something. From within the illusion we can only surmise that we’re here at the exquisite whim of something that is not illusory.

God bless,
jd

 

[norain]

The question of purpose existing or not cannot be answered to complete satisfaction. It is what it is.

We can, however start with the assumption that there is, rather than not, and there’s absolutely nothing wrong with that.

I’ll tell you why the contrary presumption (no purpose to everything) does not make sense. Causality pervades everything in the universe, which is why the possibility of God playing dice bothered Einstein so much. We wake up so that we can live the day. We eat so that we have energy to maintain biological processes. We buy flowers in order that our significant others may smile. We read so that we may learn. We look for harmony and consistency in everything. So every little thing has purpose, yet everything does not?

Krauss, like Dawkins, is bothered by the “why” questions precisely because he has no answer to it.

Curiosity always wins. Always.

 

[norain]

One can also look at it like the ontological argument:

I can conceptualize purpose. Therefore, purpose exists!

All the math in the world cannot dissect that statement (not yet, anyway). That’s where philosophy comes in.

 

[Joe_5859]

People say “you just have to open up your heart and God will open up to you” or things like that. In my eyes this is just a way of saying “you just have to be open to believing in God and your brain will do the rest.”

You are correct in a way, but it’s not as anti-intellectual as it can sound. Faith does come first. That first step can seem like a leap. The classical definition of theology is that it is “faith seeking understanding”. St. Augustine (and later St. Anselm) said that we believe that we may understand. That’s how it worked for me.

When I was in college, I had all sorts of questions and doubts. To make a long story extremely short, I eventually found myself in front of the Tabernacle questioning it all when I felt that unmistakable Presence and came to believe. In the following weeks (and months and years), I read every theology and philosophy book I could get my hand on and the Catholic view just clicked like no other worldview ever had for me. Every doubt and question I had was answered.

Since then, I have seen and learned too much to ever doubt. It would take far more “faith” for me to dismiss it all as coincidences and random happenings.

I should say that if the whole of the Roman empire didn’t convert, Christianity would likely not be around today.

That sounds like an assertion of faith for which you have absolutely no evidence.

It’s very easy to fill in the gaps of our worldview with our own speculation on what seems “likely”. Atheists are no more immune to that tendency than Christians. I prefer to look at what actually happened instead of what could have happened.

 

[User124]

I miss feeling comfortable with the way things were going. “Everything happens for a reason” is a mantra that can’t really be reconciled with a world view without some sort of God. It was calming believing that something bigger was always looking out for me. It was nice praying at night as a way to unwind and relay my thoughts to an all loving being.

But believing in God is not something you can just choose to do. I have come to the conclusion that it is very unlikely that there is a God and unless some world changing thing happened, I doubt that will change.

People say “you just have to open up your heart and God will open up to you” or things like that. In my eyes this is just a way of saying “you just have to be open to believing in God and your brain will do the rest.”

But it was nice when everything happened for a reason. Life was a little less stressful.

Welcome to reality, I like a lot of things and can’t get them, our desires do not always fit with the truth.

I don’t think if there is a god he would be that much loving, because of all the cruel and painful natural things happening around.

I truly wish that there is a god who is looking out for us, loving and caring for every creature he created, but facts show this is probably not possible.

If a god exists, I very much doubt he’s all loving and all powerful, besides , about the character of the Abrahamic God in particular in all the three religions, to me, his character doesn’t look very much loving and peaceful, on contrary, if that kind of god exists I would gladly reject respecting him , not only because of the existence of bad things, but also because of his unkind character in holy books.

I didn’t reject any god (wasn’t a choice, just like you and many unbelievers), I just found out by a lot of reasons that religions and personal gods are untrue, my first moments of doubts and unbelief were hard on me, I used to believe and love faith, a lot of atheists I’ve talked to and from all beliefs experienced a big loss once they recognized that what they loved and believed in was a hoax, but then things become better and we get used to it, like when you get used to the death of a dear friend, lover, or family member of yours, same for God, to me God is dead, life continues.

 

[User124]

About the claim that without the conversion of the Roman empire, Christianity would not be the same now.

This is a logical claim related to political and social changes, this claim is not a faith, I would even say that if Arab Muslims discovered America and Australia back then, probably the whole world would be muslim by now.

Just like americans and australians talk english, mexicans talk spanish etc… It would be a great possibility, that if Arab muslims discovered and occupied these two continents, America and Australia would probably talk arabic and Islam would be considered the main religions of it’s people by now.

 

[Joe_5859]

About the claim that without the conversion of the Roman empire, Christianity would not be the same now.

This is a logical claim related to political and social changes, this claim is not a faith, I would even say that if Arab Muslims discovered America and Australia back then, probably the whole world would be muslim by now.

Just like americans and australians talk english, mexicans talk spanish etc… It would be a great possibility, that if Arab muslims discovered and occupied these two continents, America and Australia would probably talk arabic and Islam would be considered the main religions of it’s people by now.

But why the need to engage in speculative history over “what if’s”? It seems like people raise such hypothetical scenarios as “proof” that Christianity isn’t so special and could just as easily be a footnote of history than the main driving force shaping Western civilization over the past couple millenia.

Sorry, there’s nothing logical about that and certainly nothing certain. How can we ever accept a historical “what if” with anything other than faith?