How are long-time agnostists made?

[wcknight]

MichaelLewis:

…, but I want a happiness built upon honesty. At this point, I can’t have such happiness as a theist.

… We aren’t all running away from a ‘restrictive’ lifestyle, nor are we willfully denying the obvious.

I don’t know that talk of arrogance should come into play at all here, but one might argue that it is arrogant for us to assume that the universe was created for and by conscious beings. It is beyond humbling to contemplate a universe completely indifferent to us.

I think we all want happiness built on honesty. No one wants to live or believe a lie. I’m sure many folks can deceive themselves for an entire lifetime, but given a real choice and knowing the real truth, does anyone really what to continue deceiving themselves ? It’s the same question asked in the Matrix movie.

Even us believers wish God would be more obvious. We all want to see the miracles, and visit Heaven before hand. No one wants to go through death to find out what is true and what isn’t.

Someday that may be the case but for now we only have the hearsay word of a few who witnessed someone who claimed to have died and returned. There are others who have first experience on paranormal events, but are they delusional or outright lying.

I was never sure about UFOs or extra terrestrials until about 15 years ago. I saw something that was totally out of the norm for what is possible with our technology. It was only a brief incident less than 5 seconds total but prior to that I could have accepted either premise that there were or were not UFOs.

Sure I figured they must exists because so many reliable sources had claimed to have experienced them, not all of these folks could be lying or delusional. But there was that remote possibility until I experienced something first hand. Now I can say I know 100% for sure, they are out there. And of course, there will be a boatload of people whoi think I’m off my rocker.

That’s the same sort of thing with God, there are a bunch of folks who have had first hand experience, the evangelists, prophets, and more recently certain saints and people who have encountered God first hand. I don’t know 100% yet, but there are too many sources to be all wrong, all lying or all delusional.

I’ve read up on a lot of the saints and there are some real eye opening stories, are they all fake ? I don’t think so. A few or maybe even a bunch may be bogus, but all ??? not likely as in some cases hundreds if not thousands were eye witnesses.

Being from a mathematical background (and a little of philosophy added), I find it interesting that in both that the only absolutes boil down to the simpliest of terms, either “it is or it is not”. I also find it interesting and quite appropriate, that the Hebrews version of God calls Himself “I Am” or simply “I exist”.

From this simple basic choice, so much of our existence either becomes totally meaningful or totally meaningless.

I find it is so much easier to live a life that I consider totally meaningful… but is it the red pill or the blue pill ???

regards, Wes

 

[wcknight]

How many more worlds are out there ? … friendly as in ET or hostile as in Independence Day ?

( I like the Far Side picture that shows earth like a squashed bug on a giant spaceship’s windshield, with caption “ohhh, gross”

If God exists, isn’t it grand that He cares enough to pay attention to our wants and needs ? … tiny humans in this humongous universe. Why would He pay any attention to us ?

IF He does not, then once we’ve spend our 100 years or so, we will all be an after thought, maybe some of our grandkids might remember. But certainly after 10,000 or 100,000 or 1 million years, all trace of anyone today will have long been forgotten.

The awareness that we call ourselves, will have disappeared forever, recycled forever in the ‘cosmic soup’. That’s pretty sobering and pretty depressing. This is what Carl Sagan believed, a pretty smart fellow by most peoples standards. Personally, I hope he’s wrong, don’t you ?

regards, Wes

 

[caroljm36]

I think some timidity and fear of appearing foolish (i.e. intellectual vanity) enters into it as well. People slam “ignorant fundies”…well, I know some pretty ignorant agnostics who have no grasp of the Christian world view, or of its competing world views, and their knowledge of history and philosophy is nil. So they will uncritically believe the most hackneyed of old religion substitutes like Freudanism or Darwinism or socialism, or devote themselves to hedonism while popping antidepressants in order to function. Like Chesterton said, those who don’t believe in God will believe just about any other foolishness. Why not go with God? Pascal’s Wager is as good a reason as any.

Work on recovering your faith. Better yet, become a Catholic!

 

[MichaelLewis]

reen12:

Dear MichaelLewis,

Thanks for taking the time to respond to my post.
As to the dog only being humorous from our
evaluation of same, i.e. not “intrinsically” humorous,
that argument reminds me of the ol’ canard of “If a tree falls
in the forest and no one hears it…” It is a pseudo,
language created construct, the end result of a
life lived in radical “subjectivity.”
By that ordo, there is no beauty, or no way of
assessing same, because what is beautiful for
me [subjectivity] may not be beautiful for you, or,
it’s beauty lies in it’s mere existence…which
may be a construct that works for you?
May I recommed Tom Wolf’s The Painted Word.
And, if not Tom Wolf, how about just looking
around in the universe, maybe smelling some
lilacs and perhaps petting a basset hound.
Radical subjectivity, for me, is the finest recipe
I know of for radical loneliness.
I look forward to the possibility of a response to
this post, because in my estimation, you are
very, very good at presenting your position.
Best wishes,
reen12
PS It’s been 35 years since I engaged regularly
in discussions on “subjectivity”, so I’m enjoying
same.

Reen12,

In my response to you, I wasn’t quite supporting a radical aesthetic subjectivism; I was just opposing the view that humor, lavishness, beauty, etc. are intrinsic to objects. It may be that all (or almost all) conscious beings (or humans) are bound, upon consideration, to appreciate certain features of things as funny or beautiful, but even if that were so, such qualities would be the response of consciousness to the features of objects or sets of objects, and would not exist apart from consciousness itself. It isn’t obvious to me that this need be planned; it could just be a part of what it is to be conscious (or human). There is evidence that we have in inborn preference for symmetry, for example, probably because it correlates with heath. Also, it makes sense that we would take special notice of things that are out of the ordinary, such as ‘excesses’ of variety or what seem to be exaggerated human features on animals. Perhaps this is subjectivism, but it is at least intersubjectivism, which isn’t quite so lonely. Frankly, I don’t know what it would mean for something to be inherently funny; funny irrespective of what anyone thought.

        But perhaps you just meant something like ‘Why would anything *strike us* as funny or lavish, unless something created *us* to appreciate things in that way.’  Well, perhaps those responses are simply adaptive, or are side effects to features of our minds that are adaptive, or we just got really lucky.

        If you were referring to my response to 4 mark, I only meant to deny that just because one object or quality is greater than another in terms of its importance to US, it is also chronologically (or ontologically) prior to that thing, and can not be dependent upon it.  There **may** even be a *universal* subjective order of importance or ‘honor’, but we should not draw metaphysical conclusions from that.  It doesn’t seem to me that we have such a great grasp of the nature of mindless matter and energy that we can dismiss it as the mother of consciousness out of hand.

        Thank you for the complement.  I enjoy corresponding with you too. :)

 

[reen12]

Points for you, MichaelLewis, for bringing up

“intersubjectivity.” I honestly thought I could

slide that one by without having to detour

into that reality. Read a dandy book many

years ago on just that subject and learned a lot,

still, I’m holding firm on the wreck that

subjectivity wreaks in many realms.

And I wasn’t being at all flippant about just

looking at the basset hound. I was in my

early fifties before that occurred to me as

a possible ingredient in interfacing with

metaphysical realities. Pahhhh-thetic on

my part.

To say that a rose is “intrinsically” beautiful

means that, whether or not a person views

a given rose, still, it is beautiful in and of

itself. The rose doesn’t have to wait until

human beings establish canons measuring

it’s beauty. It’s…simply…beautiful, aesthetics

aside. Man discovers, acknowledges the

beauty of a rose, but the rose doesn’t care.

It was there, being beautiful. If you hold to

the point that it’s only beautiful because of

a subjective assessment on the part of a

conscious subject, that seems to me a

crabbed view of reality. [crabbed in the sense of constricted.] Truely.

If man *is

*the measure of all things, then I say:

Beam me up, Scotty, I’m ready to go.

But of course I don’t at all believe that man is the

measure of all things.

All best wishes,

reen12

 

[siamesecat]

ive been an agnostic for only a few years. By agnostic I mean that I am not ready to rule out the possibility of there being some kind of god as i dont know how the world was created otherwise. However, i also understand why poeple are atheists. i dont believe any religion ive ever discovered is the ‘right’ one. I was not converted, it was just a decision i made. no one ever told me there was no god. my parents have become the same way. when i was little we went to church more out of tradition, as my parents were raised very catholic. my dad feels that something had to create the world but doesnt believe in any real god and my mom says she doesnt know what to believe. in my house, we dont worship at all, but not because we are converted.

 

[MichaelLewis]

Wcknight wrote:

“That’s the same sort of thing with God, there are a bunch of folks who have had first hand experience, the evangelists, prophets, and more recently certain saints and people who have encountered God first hand. I don’t know 100% yet, but there are too many sources to be all wrong, all lying or all delusional.”

That is what keeps me from atheism Wcknight. The problem is that people from all sorts of traditions report miracles and revelations (including Buddhism, an arguably non-theistic religion). There doesn’t seem to be a consistent message. You say you believe in aliens, why not suppose alien technology or contact is responsible for ‘encounters with God’? Perhaps this-worldly non-human creatures or psychic powers are responsible. Or maybe they are all either deluded or deceitful or a little of each. From what I’ve learned of the findings of contemporary experimental psychology, our memories and perceptions are anything but reliable. But, as I said, reports of miracles and extraordinary religious experiences are what keep me from atheism.

“From this simple basic choice, so much of our existence either becomes totally meaningful or totally meaningless.
I find it is so much easier to live a life that I consider totally meaningful… but is it the red pill or the blue pill ??? ”

Is it a choice then? Of course it is all right to choose how to live, but what to believe? I’m not suggesting that there is anything wrong with saying “I believe” if one is, say, 75% certain that something is true, or even (perhaps) 51% certain. But one should not mislead others into believing that one is more certain than one is, and should not allow oneself to become more certain that is justified, if one wants to be a person of integrity. (I’m not being accusatory here, Wcknight, you obviously aren’t overstating your certainty. I wonder though, how much and what sort of belief is required of you as a Catholic? In particular, what is required of you if you are to receive the Eucharist?)

 

[MichaelLewis]

wcknight:

…This is what Carl Sagan believed, a pretty smart fellow by most peoples standards. Personally, I hope he’s wrong, don’t you ?

regards, Wes

I do hope that he’s wrong. I just don’t want to be corrupted by my hope. I read that Sagan’s wife was asked if, when he was dying, he had wanted to believe. She said “Carl never wanted to believe anything. Carl wanted to know.” I have alot of respect for that.

Thank you for your thoughts.

Michael

 

[MichaelLewis]

Reen12 wrote:

“To say that a rose is “intrinsically” beautiful means that, whether or not a person views a given rose, still, it is beautiful in and of itself. The rose doesn’t have to wait until human beings establish canons measuring it’s beauty. It’s…simply…beautiful, aesthetics aside. Man discovers, acknowledges the beauty of a rose, but the rose doesn’t care. It was there, being beautiful.”

If you mean that it always had the capacity to evoke a particular sort of reaction from beings like us, whether it was DOING that or not, I would agree. But if you mean anything more than this by “beauty”, I don’t know what you have in mind. Would intersubjectivity be all that bad anyway if God does exist? If he made the rose with our psychology in mind (and perhaps His as well), wouldn’t that give you what you are after?

Michael

 

[MichaelLewis]

caroljm36:

I think some timidity and fear of appearing foolish (i.e. intellectual vanity) enters into it as well. People slam “ignorant fundies”…well, I know some pretty ignorant agnostics who have no grasp of the Christian world view, or of its competing world views, and their knowledge of history and philosophy is nil. So they will uncritically believe the most hackneyed of old religion substitutes like Freudanism or Darwinism or socialism, or devote themselves to hedonism while popping antidepressants in order to function. Like Chesterton said, those who don’t believe in God will believe just about any other foolishness. Why not go with God? Pascal’s Wager is as good a reason as any.

Work on recovering your faith. Better yet, become a Catholic!

Pascal’s Wager assumes a Christian conception of God. As a philosophy professor of mine once suggested, why not postulate a “God of the Epistemologists” who will punish those who hold beliefs without good reason, and reward those who are reluctant to believe? There certainly are a lot of temptations to be epistemicly unchaste; but for those who resist, a skeptic’s heaven awaits.

 

[reen12]

Dear MichaelLewis,

I’m not talking about the capacity of the rose to
evoke anything. “Evoke” requires an “evokee”,
if you will, and is simply another way of elevating
subjectivity to an unwarrented place in the scheme of things.
Let me try this from an Aristotelian perspective.
An object exists. It has substance those
irreducible elements that make it a rose],
and accidents…a red rose, a small rose etc.
It is the substance of the rose that I’m talking
about. The substance of a rose is there
whether human beings ever get to call it
beautiful by their own aesthetic sense or
not. The fact that those elements exist and
pre-date, if you will, our assesment of them,
is the critical point. The rose is
beautiful, because it is what it is.
If there is a flower somewhere in this world
that we will eventually discover and decide
that it is beautiful, it is beautiful right now
because of it “x-ness”, if you will.

And from my perspective, God saw His
Creation and found it to be good. [Genesis]

The problem with thinking that
intersubjectivity is a jewel to be sought
after, is that it can
leave God out of the equation. God doesn’t
call us to intersubjectivity. He calls us
to relate to one another as His sons and
daughters, acknowledging that He is the
source of all fine interrelationship, indeed
the source of the existence of the beings
that interrelate.
I can appreciate that that is not the position
taken by many. It just happens to be the
belief I hold, inconvenient though it is to
any Promethean stances I may have held
as a youth.
Thanks for your response to my post,
reen12

 

[reen12]

Of course, there’s no need to postulate the

existence of such a god, because the God
who said: “I am Who am” already holds us
accountable for intellectual integrity.
reen12

 

[MichaelLewis]

reen12:

Of course, there’s no need to postulate the

existence of such a god, because the God
who said: “I am Who am” already holds us
accountable for intellectual integrity.
reen12

Ok, but the God of Pascal’s Wager doesn’t hold us accountable for breaches of intellectual integrity. I realize that many theists reject this argument for believing in God, but caroljm36 wrote that it was “as good a reason as any”. I was just responding to her post.

Michael

 

[reen12]

Dear MichaelLewis,

A workable definition of God is the supreme being who made all
things, and Pascal knew that. The maker
is empowered to hold
us accountable… especially for
intellectual integrity.
I expected a more insightful reply.
And please don’t discount the reality that even
philosophy professors can occassionallly say
something sophomoric. I can’t believe the stuff
I had to go to the mat with, with some of my
philosophy professors. I guess I just figured they weren’t
coming down from the mountain like Moses
with the last word on any subject, that mere
cleverness should be sorted out from profundity. But then, I had
seen a lot by the time I was 22, and ivory tower
cleverness just didn’t cut it.
reen12

 

[reen12]

Dear MichaelLewis,

In heaven’s name, where did you get the idea that
the God of Pascal’s Wager, by defintion, wouldn’t
hold us accountable?
I’m fascinated,
reen12

 

[MichaelLewis]

reen12:

Dear MichaelLewis,

In heaven’s name, where did you get the idea that
the God of Pascal’s Wager, by defintion, wouldn’t
hold us accountable?
I’m fascinated,
reen12

Pascal’s Wager:

You should believe in God, even if you doubt his existence, because it is prudent to do so. There are four possibilities:

1. There is no God, and you don’t believe in God. You gain nothing.
2. There is no God, and you do believe in God. You lose nothing.
3. There is a God, and you don’t believe in God. You lose Heaven (and are Damned)
4. There is a God, and you do believe in God. You gain Heaven.

So you have nothing to gain by **not believing **in God, and everything to lose. You have nothing to lose by believing in God, and Heaven to gain. Pascal realized that this is an ignoble motivation (because it is so blatantly selfish and does not result in genuine belief) but he hoped that it would give the hardest hearts an incentive to try and condition themselves to really believe.

The Wager works if you assume that there are only two possibilities. 1) There is a God who rewards believers and/or punishes unbelievers OR 2) There is no God at all. (or at least no God or system that will grant any sort of afterlife)

It also assumes that either that God is indifferent to what a believer believes about him, or that he is the Christian God (As Pascal was Christian) and the choice is between Christianity and atheism (or at least a universe that provides no afterlife). It doesn’t allow for the variety of gods that one might believe in, any one of whom might be more offended at the worship of other gods than complete abstention from worship. It also assumes that God will not be offended by someone who comes to believe in him by reasoning as Pascal suggests.

Now suppose there is a God who is not offended by atheism, but is offended by those who try to believe things, not because they think them true, but because they think it prudent to do so. Those who base their beliefs solely on reasoning from evidence (as best they can) are rewarded with Heaven. Those who believe things for prudential reasons are damned. If this were the nature of God, clearly it would be disastrous to believe in him for the reasons that Pascal gives.

That is what I meant by “the God of Pascal’s Wager doesn’t hold us accountable for breaches of intellectual integrity”. I take it for granted (perhaps some would disagree) that trying to believe something for prudential reasons amounts to a breach of intellectual integrity. The god of Pascal’s Wager will accept someone on those terms, but it isn’t hard to imagine a God who would not. The skeptic has no reason to assume one god over another, and so no reason to bet as Pascal suggests.

Michael

 

[wcknight]

MichaelLewis:

Wcknight wrote:

“That’s the same sort of thing with God, there are a bunch of folks who have had first hand experience, the evangelists, prophets, and more recently certain saints and people who have encountered God first hand. I don’t know 100% yet, but there are too many sources to be all wrong, all lying or all delusional.”

That is what keeps me from atheism Wcknight. The problem is that …You say you believe in aliens, why not suppose alien technology or contact is responsible for ‘encounters with God’?.. But, as I said, reports of miracles and extraordinary religious experiences are what keep me from atheism.

…

Is it a choice then? Of course it is all right to choose how to live, but what to believe? I’m not suggesting that there is anything wrong with saying “I believe” if one is, say, 75% certain that something is true, or even (perhaps) 51% certain. But one should not mislead others into believing that one is more certain than one is, and should not allow oneself to become more certain that is justified, if one wants to be a person of integrity. (I’m not being accusatory here, Wcknight, you obviously aren’t overstating your certainty. I wonder though, how much and what sort of belief is required of you as a Catholic? In particular, what is required of you if you are to receive the Eucharist?)

I pondered the same question years ago (more than 20 actually). For about 10 years, I believed only the very basic idea of God existing, and even that was a huge uncertainty. I wanted proof or the certainty that Sagan wanted. I too wanted to know, as close to 100% as possible. Short of experiencing something miraculous first hand, I don’t think such proof is available to most of us.

It got to the point where I had to decide to believe none of it, some of it, or all of it. I finally got to the point where I would never know 100% unless I experiecend death first hand. In my twisted state of mind I tried the unthinkable.

Partially driven by an obsession to find out, probably mainly due to some heavy stress at work, and sleep deprivation, I almost got my wish. My last thought was of accelerating towards a huge tree, not even a twitch towards the brakes. The last second I ducked, maybe out of cowardice, maybe fear pain or whatever. (maybe my guardian angel nudged me aside). I clearly did not expect or intend to survive.

It was a few months after this that I reconsidered my faith or lack of faith. I looked at other options, but felt the Catholic Church was where I belonged. I had to examine what I disageed with and how I would accept or reconcile the differences. I came to the conclusion that the teachings of the Church was correct and my personal view of things was just that, a different view but my own and not necessarily valid.

I guess it boils down to whether one thinks the ‘Magisterium’ or teaching body of the Church has authority to decide what Catholics should believe. When I decided that the Catholic Church was right for me, I also decided to accept 100% that its main authority is correct and appropriately represents Christ or Christ’s wishes for His Church on earth.

IF you wish to be Catholic, accept Catholic doctrine 100%. IF you wish to receive Communion, believe as close to 100% as possible that the host and wine become the literal Body and Blood of Jesus Christ. To do otherwise would be wrong. St. Paul says " to eat or drink the Body and Blodd of CHrist unworthily is to invite judgement upon oneself ". I take that to mean if you receive Communion without believing, or if you are in the state of serious sin while receiving, then you are committing a very serious sin.

Some very interesting miraculous items: In Mexico city is the cloak of St. Juan Diego, on it is an image made from roses in pigments not available hundreds of years ago. On the image the eyes of Mary in microscopic detail reflect an image of Juan Diego.

Could aliens have created many of the miraculous items or occurances documented ? yes, it is a possiblity. Maybe some far off technology would have the ability to perpetrate mass illusions, visitations, and miraculous events. But why would they ? I would think they would have far better things to do than to deceive some primitives that a deity exists.

I can just imagine, some alien teenagers plotting to go down to the local yokos world, just to yank our chains ! Yes it is possible but probably not likely.

 

[wcknight]

wcknight:

ICould aliens have created many of the miraculous items or occurances documented ? y.

I too still would like to 100% certain. The more I read about the saints the closer I get to that. The life of Padre Pio (very very recently 1920s to 1960’s) and both St. Anthony’s (hundreds of years ago) are classics. The miraculous to them was almost everyday. Padre Pio exhibited the stigmata for almost 50 years, it disappeared the day he died. He was examined by many doctors. He bled profusely while he was saying mass.

One interesting story about St. Anthony, some protestant folks were heckling him about the Eucharist, until he got so upset that he said he would no longer preach to them but he will preach to the fishes instead. He called the fishes in a nearby river or lake and they lined up by size to listen to him. (I wonder what the protestant folks thought then.)

Another is: he was ordered by his superior NOT to perform any more miracles, he was attracting too much attention. A worker was falling off a building under construction, and yelled for St Anthony’s help. St. Anthony halted him in mid air, and ran off to get permission from his superior to save the man. After getting permission, he lowered the man safely to the ground. Was this alien assistence or from God. I really tend to think it is the latter.

regards, wc

 

[wcknight]

Other miracles in other faiths:

Yes, I believe there are miracle in other faiths, and I believe most if not all come from God. All humans are assigned a guardian angel, and we all can have contact with God, even non-Catholics and non-Christians.

Are prayers of non-Christians heard ? Yes, I believe they are. Are these faiths as valid as Christianity ? I think that is for each to decide for themselves. A good muslim or a good Jew or good Buddhist is every bit as acceptable to God as a good Christian, and certainly far better than a bad Christian.

A recent joke: A man dies and is let into Heaven, he is led by St. Peter down this long hall away, he tells the man to be very quiet as they pass each room. The first room is filled with Muslims and on down the second room is filled with Bible belt Christians, and finally they reach a room where St Peter says, it’s okay to talk now. The man asks why did they have to be so silent passing the other rooms. St Peter replys, because the muslims and Christians think they are the only ones there.

Do I think Catholicism is the right religion ? Absolutely. Do I think other Christians and non-Chirstians are saved ? Yes, it doesn’t make sense for God to condemn anyone just because they were born and raised in some other culture. My opinion, but also mentioned by the Pope unofficially.

 

[4_marks]

4 mark,

It doesnÕt really matter who made the point first, does it? I certainly wasnÕt trying to imply that my response to your argument for theism was sound because David Hume had made it. I just think it is a good response. If it isnÕt, please tell me why; how would a Thomist reply? (ÒCartesian ErrorÓÑwould that be his mind-body dualism? )

Michael

You may want to sift through some of the work of Jacques Maritain. I can also recommend to you a book entitled “The Silence of Saint Thomas” by the late Joseph Pieper.