Atheism - Paradox

[Gottle_of_Geer]

…more

Besides, in the Western tradition at least, theologies which prize intellectual certainty very highly have a tendency to emphasise the power of reason so highly as to become desiccated forms of rationalism with a Christian veneer. But reason is only one faculty by which we perceive the world around (& within) us - to ignore all others is to be less than human.

What is more, a Christian, one would imagine, would avoid this privileging of reason: St. Paul - to mention no other NT author; let alone those of the OT books - says plenty that does not suggest that reason is as reliable as Christian rationalists seem to suppose. If Christian faith is “religion within the the bounds of pure reason” (as some come very close to implying), then it is a mere philosophy, & as such is worthless rot. If salvation is by faith, reason is excluded, ipso facto. Christ overcome, not by reason, but by the Cross; which was “folly to the wise man of this age” (1 Cor.1). So even by Christian standards, this hyper-inflation of reason is a betrayal of Christian faith.

BTW: theologies which prize intellectual certainty very highly are no good at providing unquestionably certain positions. If they were, they would find universal acceptance. But even philosophers - no: even theologians, of all people - are not all convinced by them. But William James discussed this matter at length in 1902, so there is no need to go over the matter again. So Christian rationalism is no better able to provide absolute certitude than atheism; but then, atheism has no need for absolute certitude; even if some forms of Christian thought do.

As for speaking authoritatively: to do so does not require absolute certainty; only certainty appropriate to the subject at hand, and the competence to speak on it. A professor of Classical Greek need not be infallible in order to pronounce with authority on the fine detail of (let us say) the authenticity of citations of Homer in Plato. Far from it - to speak authoritatively is consistent with debate & difference on these subjects, as is true of any academic matter. Experts are renowned for not agreeing on all matters - they differ because they know what they are talking about, not because they are uninstructed sophomores. Some examples:

• Aristarchus of Samos may or not have been right to reject two lines of Odyssey 11 as spurious;
• the text of the apologist Arnobius of Sicca is full of problems which have prompted very various solutions;
• there are variant versions of the Gettysburg Address;
• whether certain individuals are antipopes or Popes is in some cases not certain.

These difficulties may be regrettable, but they do not destroy all species of certainty, neither do they lead to the conclusion that it is impossible to speak with authority on the problems in question. If, as seems to happen all too often, Catholics were not fascinated by infallibility like rabbits caught in the headlights of a car, they might be less liable to confuse the highest degree of certainty with certainty itself in all its degrees. The mistake is a serious one, for it denies all certainty to anyone but Popes or Ecumenical Councils. The results for theology of this strange confusion are nothing short of catastrophic

 

[happilycatholic]

Here’s the thing,

People put faith in the unknown everyday. Will I actually get the item I ordered on Ebay? Will the chemo work? Will my letter get to where it’s going on time? Will I give birth to a girl as the doctor predicted? Will my rentors pay the rent this month?

None of these things are in our control and yet we have faith in the positive outcome of each, or at least the outcome we want and see as positive for the situation at hand. I suppose the reasoning for this is that there is some tangible aspect of each of these things. But in each of these instances, no matter how much we ‘know’ we cannot predict the outcome. We have to wait and believe in spite of no absolute knowledge of the outcome. Most of this takes belief in the actions of others.

There is no less history on the characteristics of God than there is evidence of any one of these situations having a positive outcome. We see the seller’s track record, therefore we believe we’ll get the item. We see the track record of the U.S. Postal Service, therefore we believe our letter will get there on time. And so on.

What about God? What has God done to prove to us that He exists? Ah, yes, there it is. The Question. “What has God ever done for me?”

I really believe in my heart of hearts that for some reason the only boundry that exists between belief and non belief is choice. I choose to believe that the world and everything in it comes from God. I think we as humans sometime perpetuate the bad, sometimes the good. But in the end God is the Creator of all Life and Truth and everything stems from that creation.

Atheists choose not to believe. It has nothing to do with proof. I’ve said this once before, if God knocked on an atheist’s door for coffee one morning and granted him three wishes, he still wouldn’t believe. There were witnesses to Christ’s miracles who didn’t believe.

Whether an atheist believes it or doesn’t, his/her belief system is a choice. And in that choice lies denial of God. That is dangerous even if you don’t believe it is. I can fathom not understanding God and that’s why we call it a Mystery. But outright denial is something altogether wrong.

Try as they may to justify it with science, denial is denial. When the time comes I would hate to get caught saying something like, “well, I just didn’t know so I didn’t believe” Belief doesn’t require knowledge, it only requires faith.

Why not have faith in the existance of God if you have faith in the actions of other people to get through daily life? Non belief based on no proof is flawed and sounds like a crutch to me. Could it be that the proof is not within the foreseeable future and that’s why? I mean we have to die to actually know God face to face. Is that it?

God isn’t just the current-day myth. God isn’t(edit) going to “go away” or somehow die out. God is here to stay because He’s God.

Some things are true whether we believe them or not.

 

[Aleii]

(When I use the word belief, I mean something that one is pretty confident is true.)

happilycatholic, let me ask you something. Can you, right now, honestly choose to believe that 1+1=3? Can you choose to have honest belief in Scientology? Can you choose to have honest belief in Zeus?

Is 1+1=3? Is Scientology the correct way? If you said no, then how can you say that I have the ability to choose belief in God? As belief means something that one is pretty confident is true, I therefore can’t ‘choose’ to believe any of those because they make no sense to me, and actually seem very wrong. Attempting to rationalize/say it is a mystery, can only go so far. I don’t need proof, I just need it to make sense to me in general, and I’m sorry but too much of it doesn’t. I stopped calling myself Catholic when I realized that to continue to say that was in fact a lie. It pained me greatly but I can’t live a lie.

If you feel like you have the ability to choose to have real, honest belief in any of the above, I’d like to know how you would do it in a way where you would not be lying to yourself, because to me its like asking for a square circle. While I can choose my actions (whether or not I go to Mass, whether or not I pray),I honestly can’t fathom how it is possible to “choose” belief in something your mind doesn’t think is true.

Comparing faith in people to faith in God is very different. I can choose to take the action that entrusts another with a secret or a task or money, but I can’t change the belief that King Abugaribanab in Africa emailing me to transfer his money through me to a charity is a scam. I know not to have ironclad faith in people, as things happen, intentional or not. God is supposed to be different.

While I have hope that I am wrong and that God is real, I can not change what makes sense to me and what doesn’t. If one does all the right actions, (going to church, praying, adoration, retreats, study, talking to priests, etc), and yet they find they still don’t have belief, I can’t see where the “choice” comes from. As a previous poster said, you have to first have honest belief/knowledge of something before you can actively choose to refuse its time/love/etc.

 

[j1akey]

What has God done to prove to us that He exists? Ah, yes, there it is. The Question. “What has God ever done for me?”

I don’t know about anyone else but even if I thought there was a god I wouldn’t expect him to do anything for me since I take responsibility for my own life and my own actions. If you want something then you need to work for it.

Whether an atheist believes it or doesn’t, his/her belief system is a choice. And in that choice lies denial of God. That is dangerous even if you don’t believe it is.

2 questions. First, how is believing or not believing a matter of choice? I didn’t make an active decision and wake up one day and say “Gee, I think I’ll stop believing in god today”. It’s just the way I am. Just like you didn’t wake up one day and say "I think starting to day I’m going to believe. Either you do or you don’t, it’s not really a decision.

Second, I’d really really like to know how and why it’s dangerous to not believe in god.

 

[djeter]

Belief doesn’t require knowledge, it only requires faith.

:

I had an interesting exchange on this the other day:

"We glean from this description that faith is a straining ahead toward realities which are, at best, only dimly glimpsed. It is, necessarily, a walk in the darkness. But we also notice that faith is anything but a craven, hand-wringing, unsure business, for it is “confident” and marked by “conviction” and “assurance.” Consider for a moment great figures of faith from Jacob and Joseph to Mother Teresa and John Paul II: these are hardly people that you’d be tempted to characterize as vacillating and unclear in their motivations. For faith, there is always a paradox of obscurity of vision and strength of purpose.

It is this paradox that the philosophers of modernity couldn’t bear. They tended to see reason alone as the legitimate ground for confidence, and so they saw a resolute faith as a species of foolishness or irrationality. The English philosopher John Locke gave pithy expression to this typically modern sense when he said that there should be a tight relationship between inference (cogent argument) and assent (acknowledging something to be true). If these two moves of the mind are separated — as they seem to be in people of faith — obscurantism and fanaticism follow. It is fascinating to note how often, in the wake of the events of September 11, this Lockcan argument has been reproposed. In the face of the dangers of religious extremism, many commentators are saying, give us cautious and skeptical people of reason rather than superstitious people of faith, willing to act with utter conviction despite the lack of any compelling evidence."

The rest is here:

payingattentiontothesky.com/2009/06/15/the-false-opposition-of-faith-and-reason/

The first comment from a fellow named Rodney was quite good.

Hope you enjoy it

DJ

 

[happilycatholic]

I don’t know about anyone else but even if I thought there was a god I wouldn’t expect him to do anything for me since I take responsibility for my own life and my own actions. If you want something then you need to work for it.

It must be lovely to know that you are in complete and absolute control of your life. That’s awesome. Would you like to share how you’ve been able to accomplish such a feat?

2 questions. First, how is believing or not believing a matter of choice? I didn’t make an active decision and wake up one day and say “Gee, I think I’ll stop believing in god today”. It’s just the way I am. Just like you didn’t wake up one day and say "I think starting to day I’m going to believe. Either you do or you don’t, it’s not really a decision.

Actually, I did just that. I made a choice to follow Christ. Just like a person makes a choice as to what career path they will take. This is sort of my spiritual career path if you will. You absolutely make a choice in what you believe. Otherwise you would go through life not knowing what kind of person you will be or what choices you’ll make. A person most certainly has a choice in their system of beliefs. To claim you don’t is to be in denial of mistakes made IMHO.

Second, I’d really really like to know how and why it’s dangerous to not believe in god.

Well, imagine a person standing on an old seemingly abandoned train track. He doesn’t know he’s in danger, but he certainly could be. There is no certainty a train will come. The only certainty is that those tracks were built for a train that travelled that track at some point. But there are those that simply believe that since the track is present a train could be on it. Now imagine the person suddenly becomes enlightened to the possibility and because he doesn’t see a train or hear a train and senses no indication of a train, he stays on the track.

Denying God is kind of like standing on a train track defying the odds.

 

[j1akey]

It must be lovely to know that you are in complete and absolute control of your life. That’s awesome. Would you like to share how you’ve been able to accomplish such a feat?

Actually what I said is that I take responsibility for my own actions and work for what I want and need. You should re-read what I said.

Actually, I did just that. I made a choice to follow Christ. Just like a person makes a choice as to what career path they will take. This is sort of my spiritual career path if you will. You absolutely make a choice in what you believe. Otherwise you would go through life not knowing what kind of person you will be or what choices you’ll make. A person most certainly has a choice in their system of beliefs. To claim you don’t is to be in denial of mistakes made IMHO.

Well, I’m sorry but I can’t just change what I think willy nilly like that.

 

[Eleve]

Actually, I did just that. I made a choice to follow Christ. …] You absolutely make a choice in what you believe.

There’s a big difference between those two things, though. I would love to follow Christ, but how can I do that when I am not truly convinced that he is the Son of God?

Denying God is kind of like standing on a train track defying the odds.

Is that you, Blaise?

 

[happilycatholic]

Actually what I said is that I take responsibility for my own actions and work for what I want and need. You should re-read what I said.

This was your comment:

I don’t know about anyone else but even if I thought there was a god I wouldn’t expect him to do anything for me since I take responsibility for my own life and my own actions. If you want something then you need to work for it.

Your subsequent response infers that you alone by and through your own actions are responsible for getting what you want and need. That is not implying comeplete control? Sorry.

Well, I’m sorry but I can’t just change what I think willy nilly like that.

 

[j1akey]

Your subsequent response infers that you alone by and through your own actions are responsible for getting what you want and need. That is not implying comeplete control? Sorry.

At the end of the day isn’t everyone responsible for providing for themselves? God certainly isn’t going to pay the rent or make food appear on my table or make sure I go to work so I can get paid.

Being responsible for yourself and your actions doesn’t necessarily tranlate into having complete control over ones life. Hypothetically in today’s economy I could get laid off tomrrow and never see it coming. I don’t have control over that but I’m still responsible for providing for myself if that happens. Now yes I am in control of many things in my life but no one is in control of everything and you’re smart enough to to know that without twisting my words around.

Responsibility and control are not the same thing.

 

[happilycatholic]

There’s a big difference between those two things, though. I would love to follow Christ, but how can I do that when I am not truly convinced that he is the Son of God?

Well, this is where choice comes in. For myself, I choose to believe that Christ is the Son of God and my Salvation. You must make a choice to accept or deny that belief.

Is that you, Blaise?

Why yes, yes it is. What is your answer?

 

[happilycatholic]

At the end of the day isn’t everyone responsible for providing for themselves? God certainly isn’t going to pay the rent or make food appear on my table or make sure I go to work so I can get paid.

I don’t pray to God for the rent or food. I pray for grace, peace and the determination it takes to walk the path that will lead me to those things. That is what God is, not money or things, not even food. I pray for the most simple things. The rest is up to me because those things are of this world, not God’s world (Heaven). IMHO, God is not particularly conserned with whether we can pay our rent, because our salvation does not rely on if we have a place to live and if that place is acceptable to us. God gives the things that cannot be taken away. Hence the Book of Job. Job would not fall to Satan unless he denied God. He did not. He was reduced to nothing in this world but he still had faith in God. That is what I pray for.

The things you mention are the things that force us to choose. They are the things that force us to choose faith in man or faith in God. If God answered all our prayers according to our wishes, what would be the point of having faith in God? We would always choose things over God. We would choose rent money or food money or the new car. Where is the faith in being handed everything?

Being responsible for yourself and your actions doesn’t necessarily tranlate into having complete control over ones life. Hypothetically in today’s economy I could get laid off tomrrow and never see it coming. I don’t have control over that but I’m still responsible for providing for myself if that happens. Now yes I am in control of many things in my life but no one is in control of everything and you’re smart enough to to know that without twisting my words around.

I wasn’t trying to twist your words. I was avoiding assuming anything. Some believe they control their destiny. I suppose you are somewhere inbetween. That’s fair enough.

Responsibility and control are not the same thing.

No, they are certainly not.

 

[StrawberryJam]

People have believed in many different things over time. I am sure all of them were sincere in their belief, and all of them required faith in that belief also. How is simply telling someone to have faith going to assure anyone they have faith in the correct thing?

I’m told that the reliability of the conflicting gospel accounts can be trusted because they conflict. That if they were all the same, then it would be unreliable.
By that logic, I guess christians are reliable because none of them agree to what to believe in, and there are many denominations. So, this makes christianity reliable then.

Its all so circular.:hypno:

 

[happilycatholic]

People have believed in many different things over time. I am sure all of them were sincere in their belief, and all of them required faith in that belief also. How is simply telling someone to have faith going to assure anyone they have faith in the correct thing?

I’m told that the reliability of the conflicting gospel accounts can be trusted because they conflict. That if they were all the same, then it would be unreliable.
By that logic, I guess christians are reliable because none of them agree to what to believe in, and there are many denominations. So, this makes christianity reliable then.

Its all so circular.:hypno:

So we all stand in the middle and wait for something to be thrown at us that sticks?

There are reliable sources. Some choose not to believe them. So be it.

 

[Eleve]

Well, this is where choice comes in. For myself, I choose to believe that Christ is the Son of God and my Salvation. You must make a choice to accept or deny that belief.

This is just an argument by assertion that belief is a choice. You can’t really convince me of that just by restating your own opinion. But we’ll come back to that.

Why yes, yes it is. What is your answer?

My answer is that Pacal’s Wager is many-times fallacious:

1. It assumes the absolute certainty that God will reward people in positive correlation to their commitment to religion, blatantly disregarding the idea that God might reward people for pursuing, e.g, human rights or knowledge unrestrained by religious taboo.
2. It assumes that a binary of [faith in God, disbelief in God] is even claimed to be the condition of salvation by any major faith. In reality, practically every monotheistic religion claims that its own path to God is the correct one, and that others generally lead to damnation. Therefore, Pascal’s Wager has nothing to say to the possibility of Christians going to a Muslim hell, or vice versa.
3. As we were discussing above, Pascal’s Wager is based on the notion that beliefs can be freely chosen, independent of evidence. This is clearly fallacious: suppose, in a rough analogy to the Wager, I held a gun to your head and told you to believe in fairies. Clearly, it would be in your best interest to believe, and especially if I had the power to read minds. But could you genuinely change from your disbelief in fairies by the “evidence” or “persuasion” that you would be killed for not recanting? A realistic view of what it means “to believe” simply does not permit this.

 

[happilycatholic]

This is just an argument by assertion that belief is a choice. You can’t really convince me of that just by restating your own opinion. But we’ll come back to that.

I’m not trying to convince you of anything. This is mere conversation. I’m not trying to convert anyone here.

My answer is that Pacal’s Wager is many-times fallacious:

1. It assumes the absolute certainty that God will reward people in positive correlation to their commitment to religion, blatantly disregarding the idea that God might reward people for pursuing, e.g, human rights or knowledge unrestrained by religious taboo.

I’m sorry but there can be no assumption of absolute certainty in a wager. That does not make sense. If there is no certainty of the existance of God, hence the wager, then there can be no certainty beyond that point, such as reward.

The wager itself suggests a win/win situation. The only loser is the unbeliever, the one who doesn’t wager his certainty and unbelief. You are trading those for nothing less. You can only come out even or gain.

The commitment is not to religion but to the will of God. So yes, on those grounds I would think the reward would be appropriate if the efforts in human rights or knowlege if God’s will was the goal. Such as the abolishment of slavery since God’s will is for us to love one another as He loves us.

I subscribe to the theory that we are all put on this earth at God’s pleasure, not our own. We are here learning (if you will) how to live in Heaven. We are not here just to be on earth going about our business. We are here for a distinct purpose not of our own.

1. It assumes that a binary of [faith in God, disbelief in God] is even claimed to be the condition of salvation by any major faith. In reality, practically every monotheistic religion claims that its own path to God is the correct one, and that others generally lead to damnation. Therefore, Pascal’s Wager has nothing to say to the possibility of Christians going to a Muslim hell, or vice versa.

Pascal’s wager is not a perfect view of faith nor does it speak to the intracacies of faith or religion. It is a suggestion that one path is a better choice. That’s pretty much it. I myself, wouldn’t have brought it up.

1. As we were discussing above, Pascal’s Wager is based on the notion that beliefs can be freely chosen, independent of evidence. This is clearly fallacious: suppose, in a rough analogy to the Wager, I held a gun to your head and told you to believe in fairies. Clearly, it would be in your best interest to believe, and especially if I had the power to read minds. But could you genuinely change from your disbelief in fairies by the “evidence” or “persuasion” that you would be killed for not recanting? A realistic view of what it means “to believe” simply does not permit this.

We may be at an empass here. Beliefs are formed through time, but nonetheless a person chooses a path to belief.

Let’s go with the definition:

Belief:

**1. **The mental act, condition, or habit of placing trust or confidence in another: My belief in you is as strong as ever.
**2. **Mental acceptance of and conviction in the truth, actuality, or validity of something: His explanation of what happened defies belief.
**3. **Something believed or accepted as true, especially a particular tenet or a body of tenets accepted by a group of persons.

All of these indicate a mental choice.

 

[Eleve]

Pascal’s wager is not a perfect view of faith nor does it speak to the intracacies of faith or religion. It is a suggestion that one path is a better choice. That’s pretty much it. I myself, wouldn’t have brought it up.

I’m not a big fan of myself when I get worked up over Pascal’s Wager, so I’m plenty happy to drop that line of discussion — as you said, it’s a simplification, and it’s not like there aren’t other reasons to believe. However, I do wonder what you meant by your train track analogy if not a form of Pascal’s Wager.

All of these indicate a mental choice.

I’m not convinced of that, if for no other reason than that it’s a “choice” I’ve been unable to make. I’d like to believe in God, but if it were only a matter of choice, wouldn’t I already believe?

 

[authenticity]

I think you have it backwards. You are the one that claims the existence of god therefore the burden of proof is on you.

For example I say to you, “We have evidence that a Flying Spaghetti Monster created the universe. None of us, of course, were around to see it, but we have written accounts of it. We have several lengthy volumes explaining all details of His power.”

A logical response for you would be, “Prove it.”

Theists are the ones that can claim no authority because they have no proof. Atheists on the other hand have mountains of peer reviewed scientific data that stands as evidence that many of the beliefs espoused by most of the religions of the world are just plane wrong.

This has become a very popular argument among atheists… “the burden of proof.”

The problem with this argument is that proof denotes an object that is the cause or effect of something. When it comes to proof of God, we aren’t talking about something that is within the universe that is the cause of all other objects.

The atheist believes truth is fact; a summary of a cause/effect relationship. The theist believes truth is being. Since being is self-evident, it precedes all cause/effect relationships, no matter how you slice them up.

This is exactly what the OP is pointing to: the atheist has no ground to stand on… he or she can make no affirmative statement about reality, leading him or her into logical fallacy.

 

[authenticity]

People have believed in many different things over time. I am sure all of them were sincere in their belief, and all of them required faith in that belief also. How is simply telling someone to have faith going to assure anyone they have faith in the correct thing?

There is a difference between having faith and holding certain beliefs.

Until one has faith, one cannot discern what to believe.

As I said in the previous post, my faith is that Truth (the Logos) is Being. From there, I can proceed to understand what Truth is, through both reason and revelation. My reasoning can be proven wrong (it’s the only way I’ll learn) and revelation will never be a final certainty because Truth itself is beyond comprehension or solution. But neither one usurps my faith.

That being the case, we might ask, “why bother?” I am continuously asking forgiveness for my wrongs and digging deeper into a mystery that can’t be solved.

The answer is that by doing so I am a witness to God’s glory. I see the inherent beauty in creation and can find meaning in my life. IMO, that is the only reason to believe anything.

I’m told that the reliability of the conflicting gospel accounts can be trusted because they conflict. That if they were all the same, then it would be unreliable.
By that logic, I guess christians are reliable because none of them agree to what to believe in, and there are many denominations. So, this makes christianity reliable then.

Its all so circular.:hypno:

The main difference I’ve seen between the Catholic Christian and the Protestant Christian is in the idea of the Word of God.

Protestants believe that the Word of God is literally the Bible, a book. You have faith in that book and you are saved. Catholics believe that the Word of God is Jesus Christ and the Bible reveals the Word. The Word is not only a Godman who lived 2000 years ago, but the Being through which all creation proceeds. When you combine the metaphysical nature of Christ with this man Jesus who is the Christ in the sacrament of the Eucharist, you get a profound yet practical way of life. It isn’t stagnant, existing in some past we can never be sure of… it is real and present in our lives today.

 

[swplan76]

Have any atheists read ‘The Great Divorce’ by CS Lewis?