F
Fran65
Guest
Others are unable to accept authority - however legitimate. 
- Status
B
buffalo
Guest
I got that all people have a moralilty written in their hearts. Very consistent with Cahtolic teaching.
A
Andrew_Lorimer
Guest
Thank you for your book suggestion. I have just purchased the book and believe that readers of this thread may appreciate these lines written by the now Pope Benedict XVI:
ââŚthe believer and the unbeliever share, each in his own way, doubt and belief, if they do not hide from themselves and from the truth of their being. Neither can quite escape either doubt or belief; for the one, faith is present against doubt; for the other, through doubt and in the form of doubt. It is the basic pattern of manâs destiny only to be allowed to find the finality of his existence in this unceasing rivalry between doubt and belief, temptation and certainty. Perhaps in precisely this way doubt, which saves both sides from being shut up in their own worlds, could become the avenue of communication. It prevents both from enjoying complete self-satisfaction; it opens up the believer to the doubter and the doubter to the believer; for one, it is his share in the fate of the unbeliever; for the other, the form in which belief remains nevertheless a challenge to himâ.
from pages 46-47; âIntroduction To Christianityâ by Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger; Ignatius Press, San Francisco; ISBN: 1-58617-029-5 .
F
Fran65
Guest
I find this to be a very important statement. I develop my own faith, knowledge and understanding in response to doubts and questions posed in this forum, and I believe this to be healthy. I have faith. I also have doubts - sometimes expressed by those who call themselves âatheistsâ or state that they have no religion - having worked through them I am able either to answer them satisfactorily or to set them aside as things that I donât know or understand.
However, I often meet on this forum people who have no doubt at all that there is no God and that faith is nothing but superstition and fairytales. The only challenge in faith to this type of âdoubterâ is that of how to destroy and belittle it, not as something to learn from and to develop in response to - and I donât mean by this that the only thing to learn is faith. What I have in mind is the ability to accept otherâs faith without resorting to ridicule, insult and/or fear. To my mind a mature doubt is that which says as conclusion to discussion, âI donât know, but I donât think it is like that. However, I accept your faith as it is.â
S
Solus_vistor
Guest
Very well put.
Perhaps the following quote is also to the point:âThe (atheists) who are most likely to go in front of an audience to proselytize their atheism seem to fall into two camps. One group are Brits. What is it about being raised in Britain that turns so many people vehemently against religion? The other group are those who have rejected a faith ⌠I get the feeling that they are desperately trying to distance themselves from roots that they feel somehow embarrassed by, to try to fit into what they see as the mainstreamâif not the mainstream of popular society, then at least the mainstream of the âscientificâ society they desperately want to fit into. ⌠Iâm not saying this is why they are atheists; there are plenty of good reasons to be an atheistâor not to be one. But this may be why it is so important for these proselytizers to be aggressively public about their lack of belief.
We can all recognize that, of course, as the flip side of religious fundamentalism. Itâs when you fundamentally lack faith in Godâs salvation that you insist on saving yourself by following the minutiae of the law. ⌠It is exactly when you are insecure about your own holiness that you most feel the need to parade it, aggressively, in front of everyone else. That is what motivates a few of our more publicly outspoken co-religionists to heap abuse upon science, even as they show how little they understand it. Sadly, they are trying earn brownie points with God by scorning the study of the handiwork God loves.
Likewise, what I find in many of the proselytizers of atheism is a very naive understanding of religion. If religion were anything like the rigid brainwashing itâs often caricatured as, I would have no part of it either. ⌠People donât want debates full of fireworks; they want an understanding of the complexities of good and evil that we all struggle to live with every day. Clearly, the atheists arenât providing that. But just as clearly, most of our pastors arenât, either.â [From âThe Heavens Proclaim: Astronomy and the Vaticanâ by Guy Consolmagno, Our Sunday Visitor, 2009]
C
Charles_Darwin
Guest
On almost every matter in life i would i agree with you, and in repsect to certain peopleâs religiosity i also agree. However there are many people, that due to their religiosity, have a negative effect on others and society in general.
On this level i see religion on a per with politics. So while i whole heartedly agree with you that what you believe in the privicy of your own mind is your own business, when your beliefs start to infinge on others (For example Creationists) then they become open to attack.
S
Solus_vistor
Guest
Are you sure there are no people who due to their âirreligiosityâ (i.e. some world-view that does not involve what is classically called religion), have a ânegative effect on others and society in generalâ?
What about those who intentionally confuse i.e. equate creationists (supporters of the pseudoscientific ID or Young Earth creationists) with all Christians who believe in a Creator in the biblical or metaphysical sense (not subject to âscientific verificationâ)?
Who instead of just wanting to have the pseudoscience of creationism removed from the teaching of science, call all religion instructions âindoctrinationâ, or even âchild abuseâ thus making it potentially unsuitable as a subject to be taught at all even in privacy?
I think there are tolerant as well as intolerant people among religious as well as irreligious people, although the âdriving forceâ behind the intolerance is different in each case.
T
tonyrey
Guest
For better or for worse, whatever we believe or disbelieve, as soon as we make a statement about the nature of reality, morality, justice, freedom, love or the purpose of life we are bound to have a ânegative effectâ on some one who disagrees with us. By its very nature philosophy is confrontational because it is concerned with everything we cherish. But at least we should voice our opinions objectively without casting aspersions on those who disagree with us. Otherwise we reveal our lack of self-control and inability to restrict our attention to the issues at stakeâŚ
It is impossible for our beliefs (or disbeliefs) not to infringe on others at some stage. Then the solution is not to indulge in an emotional outburst of indignation but to use the cold, clear light of logic to explain why we consider the other personâs views to be not only irrational but also unjust. One solid argument is more effective than all the tirades in the worldâŚ
C
Charles_Darwin
Guest
I agree that nonbelievers can be negitive aswell. However nonbelieverse donât belong to any sort of group, they donât have a set belief system.
I hate the word athiest, it is redundant. People should be grouped by what they believe not what they donât believe. Its like me calling everyone that is not from the UK a nonbrit. While the description is accurate. It tells me nothing about where they are from.
So while the athiest description is accurate, it tells me nothing about what the person actually does believe.
C
Charles_Darwin
Guest
Of course.
Im not talking about ranting, though we all do from time to time. What i dont agree with was the comment about âability to accept otherâs faithâ. I agree withnot ranting, however i will never accept YECâs due to the drastic effects they would have on society if they had their way.
S
Solus_vistor
Guest
I agree, therefore I wrote that people can act intolerantly âdue to ⌠some world-view that does not involve what is classically called religionâ. When I wrote about the âdriving forceâ behind the intolerance of some people, I did not spell it out, but obviously just not being a theist, a Christian, cannot be that driving force, but being anti-Christian, anti-theist can. The same as just being a Christian does not make you intolerant, but some Christians might feel the need to parade their Christianity in an intolerant âanti-non-believerâ way. Again, the same as some atheists feel the urge to parade thus their âunbeliefâ.
Unfortunately, some world-views - compatible or incompatible with a belief in God - can be held in such a way that their adherents need to attack those they do not agree with.
I also agree that there are many definitions of atheism, and I am afraid, even atheists cannot agree on that (see e.g. moses.creighton.edu/JRS/pdf/2009-4.pdf). I understand an atheist as somebody who believes in Carl Saganâs maxim âthe Cosmos (investigable by science) is all that there isâ.
C
Charles_Darwin
Guest
The simplest and most complete definition of atheist, and the one i fall under, is someone without theistic beliefs, hence A - Theism. âIn the broadest sense, it is the absence of belief in the existence of deities.[3]â
One could be an atheist and believe in much more than the cosmos. My pet hate is people that think atheism means you believe there is NO god. While many atheists do believe there is no god, not all atheists do. They lack a believe in god, due to their agnosticism.
Thats another thing donât agree with, when people have agnostic next to their religion. Many theists are infact agnostics. Agnosticism does not deal with belief, it deals with knowledge. Its is fine to say i donât know for 100% certain there is a god, but i believe there is. That would make one an agnostic theist. So if iasked if you believe in god and you reply âi am agnositicâ, then all you have done it avoid the question. For agnosticism says nothing about belief.
The easiest way to put it is this. If asked if you believe in god, and you say anything other than yes (including i donât know), you are an atheist. Atheism says nothing more about a person, other than they lack a belief in god.
F
Fran65
Guest
C
Charles_Darwin
Guest
Just because one lacks a believe in something does not mean they positively believe that thing does not exist.
For example if you asked me if they was an asteroid shaped exactly like a chicken in the asteroid belt i would say i donât know, this deals with my knowledge of the situation (agnosticism).
If you told me there WAS an asteroid shaped exactly like a chicken in the asteroid belt, i would ask for evidence. Until i had seen said evidence i would lack a belief in the asteriod, however i would not positively assert that there was not an asteroid shaped exactly like a chicken in the asteroid belt, for my knowledge of the subject is âi donât knowâ.
So while i reject your cliam there is and asteroid shaped exactly like a chicken in the asteroid belt, i do not claim 100% that there is NOT an asteroid shaped exactly like a chicken in the asteroid belt. I cannot come to any real conclusion on the matter for i donât have the knowledge (agnosticism) to do so. I am in a state where i lack belief (atheism), not a state where i assert there is definitely no asteroid shaped exactly like a chicken in the asteroid belt (which would also fall under atheism but not encompass it).
S
Solus_vistor
Guest
The Saganâs maxim is not about believing in something (e.g. in being frugal, polite, tolerant) but about what one believes exists, provided the terms (physical) âcosmosâ and âexistsâ have been understood beforehand. Because of that I can understand Sagan even if I do not agree with him. The same about the belief âGod existsâ when the words âGodâ and âexistsâ are universally understood (as it was the case a centuries ago within the closed Western cultural context): you either agree (theist), disagree (atheist) or are not sure (agnostic).
You are right that today the term âGodâ is not universally understood (though neither is the term âdeitiesâ that you mention). Nevertheless, in my dictionary, atheism is âthe theory or belief that God does not existâ and agnosticism as the position of âa person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God or of anything beyond material phenomena; a person who claims neither faith nor disbelief in Godâ. These are classical definitions. You can redefine atheism into what used to be called agnosticism, and use perhaps the term anti-theism (as some already do) to express what used to be atheism. If you look at the link I gave you, you will see that the contemporary terminology on this is neither clear nor unique.
I have had many discussions with atheists who claimed their atheism meant âabsence (or lack) of beliefâ full stop, which would not even include Richard Dawkins, who states very explicitly what he believes. Your âabsence of belief in the existence of somethingâ is clearer, provided you define that something. I think Saganâs statement makes it for you: he in fact claims âabsence of beliefâ in the existence of anything that is not reducible to the physical world which, I suppose, he defines as anything that can be perceived through senses, instruments and physical theories, (sometimes even beyond observational verification, when the mathematics of these theories requires it, like the multiverse, if ever physicists should decide that universes, besides ours, exist).
C
Charles_Darwin
Guest
âagree (theist), disagree (atheist) or are not sure (agnostic).â
Yes this is the common understanding, however it is incorrect. Theist and atheist deal with belief, agnostic deals with knowledge.
As for dictionarys there not always the most detailed. It is better to look at the structure of the word to get proper meaning.
Atheism A-theism [Greek a- without + theos god].
Agnosticism [Greek a, meaning âwithoutâ, and gnosticism or gnosis, meaning âknowledgeâ]
S
Solus_vistor
Guest
You can suggest an âuncommon understandingâ without calling the common one incorrect, since it is all a matter of definition.
You are right to distinguish between belief (a mental state taking a proposition as its content, i.e. agreeing or disagreeing with it) and knowledge (an intellectual attainment studied by epistemology, called also gnoseology). You can agree or disagree with a proposition or remain undecided either because you do not understand it (the concepts have not been clearly defined), or you understand it but do not see enough reasons to commit yourself one way or another. These reasons might be related to this or that definition of knowledge that you accept. This is independent of the etymology of the third alternative, which you rightly point out comes from the Greek word for knowledge.
Let me repeat, in the culturally closed West of the past, the basic statement that everybody understood was âGod existsâ today, I suggest, the basic statement that everybody understands, and agrees or disagrees with (or is not sure), is the Saganâs maxim that I spelled out in my first entry into this thread.
The relation between religious faith, religious belief systems (not the same thing) and knowledge is more complicated, and depends, I suppose, on what school of epistemology you start from. One cannot go here into that, let me just say that I personally like the slogan âEpistemology models Ontologyâ coined by John Polkinghorne, the quantum physicist and Anglican priest (see e.g. aril.org/polkinghorne.htm).
C
Charles_Darwin
Guest
I understand what you are saying about sagan maxim, however in answer to the point⌠The same about the belief âGod existsâ when the words âGodâ and âexistsâ are universally understood (as it was the case a centuries ago within the closed Western cultural context): you either agree (theist), disagree (atheist) or are not sure (agnostic).
There are not three options. When dealing strictly with belief, there is only to options you either believe or you donât. If i ask you if you believe in something and you answer âi donât knowâ then you have failed to answer the question, for âknowâ specifically deals with knowledge. Theist and athiest are mutually exclusive terms. Theist and agnositic are not, and athiest and agnositc are not.
If asked ones position on a god, it is perfectly ok to say âi donât know that god exists, but i believe he doesâ making one an agnostic theist. I would suggest anyone with intellectual honesty falls under then term agnostic (for nobody can know 100%), and then decides on belief.
I am and agnoistic atheist. I donât know for certian there is no god, such a claim would be absurd given the lack of knowledge on the subject. However i donât have a belief in any gods. Therefore i am an agnostic aheist.
agnostictheism.com/
S
Solus_vistor
Guest
First of all, thank you for the link. I read only the first paragraph, but I shall certainly read it all. Any educated theist, e.g. Christian, will believe in the Divine but would not claim to be able to understand how It âworksâ. It takes another belief to accept that some sacred textsâ accounts, authoritative teachnings or metaphysical speculations give a more adequate (than others) modelling of this Reality which a priori is beyond direct human comprehension.
So I think the adjective in the term agnostic theist is somewhat superfluous, but if you like you can use it to describe those who believe the negation of Saganâs maxim, and stop at that (i.e. ignore sacred texts and refuse to follow metaphysical speculations).
Let me repeat, one should not mix belief and knowledge. In your example, the third alternative (to I belief A or I believe nonA) is not âI donât knowâ but âI see no reasons to believe one way or anotherâ. For instance, if A stands for the statement âthe next President of the USA is going to be Mr XYâ, you might say you believe so, or that you believe that it will be somebody else, or that you see no reason to believe one way or another. The answer âI donât knowâ is irrelevant here, since obviously nobody knows until the elections are over.
I know that there is a desk in front of me etc., but when it comes to less trivial matters, one cannot claim such a direct knowledge. I know something from maths (because my mind has a direct access to it), but I do not know much about the essence and structure of the physical world I live in, I only know what I have learned and read, what scientists tell me about it, and I believe that is the best way to understand physical reality.
If I understand you properly, you believe the Saganâs maxim but you donât know for sure. Well, as I wrote, it all depends on what you mean by âknowâ which is a more complicated concept than a simple belief, or âintellectual assentâ, that a given statement is true. When considering statements from within science, you can use evidence to distinguish what we believe from what we know (though it is not always that simple). Obviously, you cannot expect âscientific evidenceâ to support or falsify Saganâs claim.
So I would say again that the adjective agnostic in describing yourself as an atheist (believing what Saganâs maxim says) is superfluous, though, of course, it is up to you how you name the basic presupposition of your world-view.
(There still remain those who believe neither Saganâs maxim nor its negation but claim to be uncommitted. I tend to believe that these people are not sincere, that they actually believe Sagan and conduct their lives accordingly, since I do not see how you can build a world-view on this non-commitment to the basic question of human existence.)
C
Charles_Darwin
Guest
We will have to agree to disagree. âAgnosticâ deals with my knowledge of the subject, it is due to my agnosticism that i lack a belief in a god (which falls under atheism), if you removed my agnosticism i would not lack a belief. I would ethier be a theist, or i would assert that there definitely is no god (which also would fall under athiesm but as i said before does not encompass it).
The fact that i donât claim there definitely is no god means that, far from being superfluous, my agnosticism is infact key to my atheism.
All atheist tells you is someone is not a theist. It does not mean the positively believe there is no god, it just means they donât accept theism, i.e the claims there is a god.
The conception that agnosticism it is a sit on the fence stance its commonly held, but im afraid to say it is just not true.
atheism.about.com/od/aboutagnosticism/a/theism.htm
- Status