The absurdity of atheism

[Bradski]

You are restricting yourself to subjective values, Brad.

At the moment, yes. Let’s keep it here for a while, shall we? You are well known around these parts for ignoring questions you don’t like and substituting questions of your own to change the direction of the discussion. So let’s keep on track.

You have said:

If objective values don’t exist all values are wishful thinking because they don’t correspond to reality.They are fantasies and there is no reason wny a cynic or criminal should respect them.

Well I value my mug. It’s obviously a subjective value. I assume that you consider things to have subjective value as well. I want you tell to tell me if you think that those values that we share are real or whether they are fantasies. And please…no questions until you answer that one.

 

[Pallas_Athene]

‘I haven’t seen any evidence of the supernatural that would convince me that it exists. I have been presented with many examples and none of them are remotely believable. I am quite prepared, up to a point, to listen to anyone who thinks that they have credible evidence. I say ‘up to a point’ because I am generally a busy man with work and family matters to deal with. But I am prepared to be convinced. Until such time that credible evidence is produced, I will assume that it doesn’t and make my way through life on that basis.’

You are “mistaken”. It is your prideful attitude that prevents you from seeing the “obvious” proofs which will demolish your misguided view. When you look at the smile of a bay-bee, you refuse to understand that it comes from God’s “love”. When you look at a sunset, you refuse to acknowledge that awesome colors come directly from God. Your reason to refuse it is due to the fact that you are not willing to give up your “sinful” ways. You want God to be your beck and call, to jump at your request, instead of “humbly” waiting for God. Shame on you!

You are well known around these parts for ignoring questions you don’t like and substituting questions of your own to change the direction of the discussion.

Don’t forget the copious use of “exclamation points”. Shouting is a way of life, so it seems. And a post like this will be declared as an “ad hominem”, oops an “ad hominem!!!”.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

Got it, so you see atheism as synonymous with “philosophical materialism.”

Yes. Essentially, that’s what it is.

It’s not. But I think you and I are working from two different theories of motivation.

minus the philosophical part. It is my experience that atheists don’t read up on philosophy.

I get the impression that most people in the USA in general don’t read on philosophy. It’s not part of the core requirements for achieving a high school diploma. Some might take a philosophy course or two to meet a humanities requirement before being done with it. Few major in philosophy.

But I also get the impression few do much reading on the studies of human behaviour; try to have this same conversation in terms of expectancy theory and behavioural models and I think that far less would be able to participate.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Ah, but Tony said ultimately valueless. He seems unable to grasp that life for an atheist has value to that individual, but that individual generally considers that they live in an uncaring universe.

In a few generations no-one will remember Tony or myself. Life will drift on as if we never existed. Atheists have no problem with this fact, but it seems to frustrate Christians no end. I was going to say terrify them, but that would only be if they had some doubt in their belief.

Kinda funny. Christians will embrace the concept of eternal torment but will recoil in horror at the thought of an uncaring universe.

These are empty assertions about the mindset of Christians, Bradski.

Why do you believe that Christians are terrified by the idea that 100, 1,000 or 1,000,000 years from now, no one will remember them?

I’m a Christian. I don’t expect anyone on earth to remember me at some distant point in the future, and I’m not frustrated by this in the least. Since several billion people have already lived and died in relative obscurity, why should I expect to be any different?

However, as a Christian, I fully expect that I will live forever with God and the saints in heaven…and my life here on earth will be recalled there. EVERYTHING I do here (good and bad) has eternal significance.

Perhaps atheists - who have absolutely no expectations of any afterlife - are the one who are more concerned with making some sort of lasting impression in this life since they are convinced that it is all they have. Without hope for life after death and destined to be forgotten by the uncaring universe, the idea that nothing really matters is a logical conclusion of the atheist position.

 

[Randy_Carson]

You had a lot right in your post. I agreed with almost all of it except the quote above. People who are atheists don’t ignore any evidence. It’s that they have examined it and found it to be unconvincing. Well, I’m speaking personally here.

This is a significant statement, Bradski, so I want to be sure that I have not misunderstood.

Are you saying that, yes, there IS evidence for the existence of God, but it’s not strong enough to convince you personally?

Or are you saying that having examined what theists call “evidence”, you have concluded that no, there really isn’t any evidence at all?

These are two different positions.

 

[Pallas_Athene]

This is a significant statement, Bradski, so I want to be sure that I have not misunderstood.

Are you saying that, yes, there IS evidence for the existence of God, but it’s not strong enough to convince you personally?

Or are you saying that having examined what theists call “evidence”, you have concluded that no, there really isn’t any evidence at all?

These are two different positions.

Sorry to hop in, but this is a VERY important question. It is about the problem of “evidence”. For many people (skeptics) evidence must be objective. It must be independent of the preconception of the experimenter. In chemistry, the litmus test fulfills these criteria. No matter what the experimenter “believes”, the test will prove the alkalinity or acidity of the solution. Important disclaimer: I do not say that physics or chemistry could be used to verify religious claims. But the method must correspond to these methods.

Hearsay is NOT evidence on its own right. Some people (believers) are content that an authority (or perceived authority) said something, and as such they believe it. (As the bumper sticker said: “Jesus (or the church) said it, I believe it, that’s the end of it”.) Listening to authority is not an epistemological method, it is an epistemological shortcut. Generally we do not have the expertise or the time to verify everything for ourselves, so we rely on the testimony of experts.

This brings up the question: “who is an authority?”. Answer: “someone who can DEMOSTRATE his position without appealing to some other authority”. And that is missing from the religious claims. The chain of appealing to authority does not end. Not even the pope or the church in general can present a “litmus test”-type of experiment to show that God exists, or that we all have an immortal soul.

So the answer is: for those who accept sheer authority about a claim, there is evidence. On the other hand, for those who need objective evidence (comparable to the litmus test) there is NO evidence".

 

[Della]

Della;13444769:

You lost me. What does that have to do with philosophical materialism, which is its basic premise?

There have been (and perhaps still are) atheists who believe the mind is independent of the body.

Okay, but I still don’t see the connection. No doubt my fault, lack of education?

Pope Francis like his recent predecessors has stated that “evolution of nature is not inconsistent with the notion of creation because evolution pre-supposes the creation of beings which evolve.” It is reasonable to believe there was a time when our remote ancestors were more akin to the apes than to us. The existence of cannibals supports that explanation.

I’m not disputing some aspects of evolution may be true, only that you so definitely stated that primitive man had no concept of values. My point was that we can’t know what primitive man understood about that and a great many other things. We can only speculate.

How could I disagree? The problem is that many people cannot see the wood for the trees because we are so used to preoccupation with details that we tend to neglect a panoramic view of reality. A classic example is Steven Weinberg who stated that “The more the universe seems comprehensible, the more it (also) seems pointless”. It must have come as a shock to him to consider the whole picture rather than its parts because the scientist is more intent on analysis than synthesis and atomism rather than holism. His method of approach is retrospective and his explanations are generally restricted to the past and present omitting the future. “How” replaces “Why?” with purposeful activity being reduced to mechanistic processes. No wonder Weinberg failed to grasp the richness and significance of the universe! He is at the other extreme from Pascal’s recognition of the power, primacy and superiority of reason which are evident in our knowledge that the universe exists whereas the universe is unaware of anything, let alone our existence. But as well as being a mathematician Pascal was a philosopher and a Christian which gave him deeper insight into the point of life whereas love doesn’t come into the Weinberg’s scheme of things. In fact persons are not taken into account at all…

Indeed, seeing the big picture is essential to understanding the fullness of reality. Many concentrate solely on physical things, as if they are the end all and be all of everything. But this approach leaves out many things that cannot be explained by it. Adherents say that one day science–the study of physical reality, will answer all such questions. That is a leap of faith, not a reasoned position. Therefore faith is still needed even if such persons don’t want to admit it.

 

[Bahman]

Atheism is the dogmatic belief that** everything** is ultimately valueless yet that belief presupposes its own value! What is your view?

I am wondering how theism is ultimately valuable. In fact I can think that nihilist is true even if you believe in God. How existence of God could make everything valuable?

 

[tonyrey]

There have been (and perhaps still are) atheists who believe the mind is independent of the body.

Not at all, Della. It simply means atheists need not be materialists even though the majority undoubtedly are. To reject religion doesn’t necessitate rejecting spiritual values but it nearly always does…

Pope Francis like his recent predecessors has stated that “evolution of nature is not inconsistent with the notion of creation because evolution pre-supposes the creation of beings which evolve.” It is reasonable to believe there was a time when our remote ancestors were more akin to the apes than to us. The existence of cannibals supports that explanation.

I’m not disputing some aspects of evolution may be true, only that you so definitely stated that primitive man had no concept of values. My point was that we can’t know what primitive man understood about that and a great many other things. We can only speculate.

Perhaps “our ancestors” would solve that problem because the question wouldn’t arise - although cannibals still make us wonder to what extent they are human. It does seem unthinkable they don’t have a soul but as you say we can only speculate and that leads nowhere…

How could I disagree? The problem is that many people cannot see the wood for the trees because we are so used to preoccupation with details that we tend to neglect a panoramic view of reality. A classic example is Steven Weinberg who stated that “The more the universe seems comprehensible, the more it (also) seems pointless”. It must have come as a shock to him to consider the whole picture rather than its parts because the scientist is more intent on analysis than synthesis and atomism rather than holism. His method of approach is retrospective and his explanations are generally restricted to the past and present omitting the future. “How” replaces “Why?” with purposeful activity being reduced to mechanistic processes. No wonder Weinberg failed to grasp the richness and significance of the universe! He is at the other extreme from Pascal’s recognition of the power, primacy and superiority of reason which are evident in our knowledge that the universe exists whereas the universe is unaware of anything, let alone our existence. But as well as being a mathematician Pascal was a philosopher and a Christian which gave him deeper insight into the point of life whereas love doesn’t come into the Weinberg’s scheme of things. In fact persons are not taken into account at all…

Indeed, seeing the big picture is essential to understanding the fullness of reality. Many concentrate solely on physical things, as if they are the end all and be all of everything. But this approach leaves out many things that cannot be explained by it. Adherents say that one day science–the study of physical reality, will answer all such questions. That is a leap of faith, not a reasoned position. Therefore faith is still needed even if such persons don’t want to admit it.

I have never understood why people think our physical senses give us a better guide to reality than our thoughts, feelings and decisions. Without a mind we wouldn’t even know the material world exists! We would be aware of sensations and associate them with events and situations but we would lack insight and understanding. There would be no such thing as introspection or self-awareness because there would be no self to be aware of! Conditioned reflexes would virtually sum up our behavior - and free will would of course be a fantasy… Machines without a ghost! A theory which leads us to believe animals have a mind but less advanced than ours.

 

[Della]

Not at all, Della. It simply means atheists need not be materialists even though the majority undoubtedly are. To reject religion doesn’t necessitate rejecting spiritual values but it nearly always does…

Well, since atheists reject the supernatural what do they base values on if not on materialism? I’ve never read one yet who believed in any spiritual dimension of any kind, but maybe my reading has been too limited.

Perhaps “our ancestors” would solve that problem because the question wouldn’t arise - although cannibals still make us wonder to what extent they are human. It does seem unthinkable they don’t have a soul but as you say we can only speculate and that leads nowhere…

Well, cannibalism doesn’t preclude being human. They eat those they conquer or those they conquer that they admire–at least that’s what I understand about them. They have values, but they are deeply skewed–just like many other cultures have been and will be.

I have never understood why people think our physical senses give us a better guide to reality than our thoughts, feelings and decisions. Without a mind we wouldn’t even know the material world exists! We would be aware of sensations and associate them with events and situations but we would lack insight and understanding. There would be no such thing as introspection or self-awareness because there would be no self to be aware of! Conditioned reflexes would virtually sum up our behavior - and free will would of course be a fantasy… Machines without a ghost! A theory which leads us to believe animals have a mind but less advanced than ours.

Rejecting mind is a radical stance, I agree. Not all materialists do. They simply see the mind as a projection of the brain’s chemical reactions to stimuli. Again, as I understand it.

 

[Bradski]

This is a significant statement, Bradski, so I want to be sure that I have not misunderstood.

Are you saying that, yes, there IS evidence for the existence of God, but it’s not strong enough to convince you personally?

Or are you saying that having examined what theists call “evidence”, you have concluded that no, there really isn’t any evidence at all?

Both. Some people come up with evidence that could indeed lead to God, but I don’t find it convincing. The universe had a beginning, fine tuning, the historicity of Jesus etc.

And some people offer evidence that I don’t consider to be evidence at all. Beautiful sunsets, miracles, warm woolen mittens and whiskers on kittens etc.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Sorry to hop in, but this is a VERY important question. It is about the problem of “evidence”. For many people (skeptics) evidence must be objective. It must be independent of the preconception of the experimenter. In chemistry, the litmus test fulfills these criteria. No matter what the experimenter “believes”, the test will prove the alkalinity or acidity of the solution. Important disclaimer: I do not say that physics or chemistry could be used to verify religious claims. But the method must correspond to these methods.

Hearsay is NOT evidence on its own right. Some people (believers) are content that an authority (or perceived authority) said something, and as such they believe it. (As the bumper sticker said: “Jesus (or the church) said it, I believe it, that’s the end of it”.) Listening to authority is not an epistemological method, it is an epistemological shortcut. Generally we do not have the expertise or the time to verify everything for ourselves, so we rely on the testimony of experts.

This brings up the question: “who is an authority?”. Answer: “someone who can DEMOSTRATE his position without appealing to some other authority”. And that is missing from the religious claims. The chain of appealing to authority does not end. Not even the pope or the church in general can present a “litmus test”-type of experiment to show that God exists, or that we all have an immortal soul.

So the answer is: for those who accept sheer authority about a claim, there is evidence. On the other hand, for those who need objective evidence (comparable to the litmus test) there is NO evidence".

God does not have any grandchildren. Those who believe are His sons and daughters.

What I’m saying is that we don’t believe just because someone else believes…we can have direct experience of God ourselves. That is why my experience of God will not necessarily convince you…you must have interaction with him for yourself.

So Christians don’t just accept the claims about Jesus made by Matthew, Mark and Luke, etc…or even those made by the Pope or the pastor of their local assembly. They (and you) need to meet the Lord personally.

However, it is also true that the circumstantial evidence for God’s existence and the resurrection is sufficient to move an objective and open-minded person from a position of doubt or uncertainty to being somewhat certain or even very certain.

But it is not so overpowering as to prevent you from resisting if you so choose.

God respects your free will.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Both. Some people come up with evidence that could indeed lead to God, but I don’t find it convincing. The universe had a beginning, fine tuning, the historicity of Jesus etc.

And some people offer evidence that I don’t consider to be evidence at all. Beautiful sunsets, miracles, warm woolen mittens and whiskers on kittens etc.

Well, that’s actually hopeful.

You acknowledge that there is evidence to be offered in support of the existence of God, but what you’ve seen SO FAR is not strong enough to convince you that he actually exists.

We’ll keep trying.

 

[Aloysium]

. . . (skeptics) evidence must be objective. It must be independent of the preconception of the experimenter. In chemistry, the litmus test fulfills these criteria. No matter what the experimenter “believes”, the test will prove the alkalinity or acidity of the solution. Important disclaimer: I do not say that physics or chemistry could be used to verify religious claims. But the method must correspond to these methods. . . .

Actually, knowledge is all about preconceptions.
Thinking about what it means for something to be considered objective the evidence. Clearly the object has to be discerned in accordance to what one believes to be the objective world.
One must have a theoretical framework in order to detect and understand an event or process.
Your example of a litmus test is in fact an example of how it is necessary.
We must understand the processes that are at work when the paper turns pink or blue.
Staying with the field of chemistry, we not that long ago thought in terms of the phlogiston.
We went on to formulate the ideas of atoms and elements such as oxygen are much better at explaining combustion.
As part of an ongoing process of aquiring knowledge of the material world, more comprehensive understandings about the behaviour of matter were developed along with concepts regarding molecular architecture, subatomic constituents, etc.
What we see happening over time is the failure of a current theory to explain what is being observed, being supplanted by one which is different or more comprehensive.
What I am trying to get at is that you need to know at least the possibility of something before you can find it.

As you rightly state, if one is attempting to understand the totality of existence, which includes the Divine, the physical sciences will fail in their capacity to explain it all.

There would be many reasons why an individual might see only the mundane.
It is partially a result of the person’s own doing; i.e. failing to lift one’s eyes.
God also turns His face away. He does this I would surmise to protect us given that most of us want to possess knowledge.
Fact is that we don’t need to know how it all works to be good persons, which is the whole point of all this.
The other aspect to this has to do with the fact that while the knowledge, more or less exists within us, it is gained when we surrender to it.
With respect to religion, it is in giving oneself to God, that one comes to know Him.
The problem is that the sacred is very powerful stuff. It will destroy the unprepared.

Imho, better a Pallas who growls on the forums, than one beating on my door, trying to shove his beliefs down my throat.

Sorry for any typos and incoherence,; had to write and run.

 

[Aloysium]

Made the train, and there’s little more time. Pardon the self-absorption.

The point of the earlier post was that one needs some sort of cognitive structure that organizes the world in order to experience anything.
Theories are sophisticated mental maps of reality which assist us in seeing and understanding what it is that is being seen.
To be objective does not mean operating with a blank slate.
It requires an underlying world view which dictates what is possible.
That is the whole point of an education.

We can say that there is an objective physical world, one which is psychological and another, spiritual.
These are categories into which we can sort the various constituents of our nature and the cosmos in which we participate.
There is much discussion here as to whether morality is created by the individual, by society perhaps, or maybe a collective mind. The Abrahamic view is that it was given to us by God to assist us in recovering our destiny in paradise. Morality has to do with the meaning of our actions, and as such it is of the realm of the mental and spiritual.

Applying a “litmus test” to spiritual matters involves a determination of validity based on what is known spiritually. With respect to religious beliefs it boils down to the degree to which it conforms to revealed truth.

 

[robsully]

Is this to mean that any animal that has morals, a sense of “fair” play, and is self aware, has a spirit?

 

[Pallas_Athene]

God does not have any grandchildren. Those who believe are His sons and daughters.

Does this mean that those who DON’T believe are NOT his sons and daughters?

What I’m saying is that we don’t believe just because someone else believes…we can have direct experience of God ourselves.

Are you aware that there is very strong correlation (about 95%) between the individual’s religion and the prevalent religion where he was born? Most people believe because they have been very strongly influenced in their formative years. (Happened to me, too… I was a Christian, but I got over it.) And as for “direct experience” of God, let me express my strong skepticism.

However, it is also true that the circumstantial evidence for God’s existence and the resurrection is sufficient to move an objective and open-minded person from a position of doubt or uncertainty to being somewhat certain or even very certain.

But it is not so overpowering as to prevent you from resisting if you so choose.

I doubt it. Real evidence cannot be “resisted”. A litmus test will turn red, no matter what your predisposition might be.

God respects your free will.

And that is (probably) the most derogatory thing you can say about God. To “respect” the free will of the psychopaths is the sign of total indifference, if not outright viciousness. To allow evil actions is giving (tacit) approval of those actions.

 

[Bradski]

Well, that’s actually hopeful.

You acknowledge that there is evidence to be offered in support of the existence of God, but what you’ve seen SO FAR is not strong enough to convince you that he actually exists.

We’ll keep trying.

Go for your life, Randy. Although I will be very surprised indeed if you can offer me anything at all that hasn’t already been proffered. But who knows…you may surprise me.

In passing, if you were looking for some answers to life’s problems and you regularly debated the matter with people who thought that what you believed was wrong, how long would you keep listening if they kept coming up with the same arguments which you had already, in good faith and after a reasonable amount of investigation, rejected?

I could say that I’m 95% certain of my position (an arbitrary number, so don’t hold me to it). After discussing a particular aspect of religion with someone, I might think: good point…and it will drop a point or two. Then someone mentions Mary on a Taco. And I go up to 97%.

I think we’re all like that. I call it The Flywheel of Belief. Once it gets up to speed , it’s quite difficult to even slow it down, let alone change its direction.

How fast is yours spinning? Most Christians will not admit to anything less that 100%.

 

[inocente]

How can an atheist not be a nihilist?

I know very wonderful atheists whose lives are not nihilistic in their actions nor their lives.

In many ways I can respect that.

But when I try it on for size, the emptiness of atheism always speaks to me of nihilism. I can not live like that.

It seems to me that when I wear atheism, I tread a path around the edges of a black hole.

I run away from that knowing that I am nothing, nothing at all without the Love of Christ.

I can’t argue for or against atheism, or for or against the existence of God. But, for me to live, I need His love.

Some believe what they find comforting, and that includes atheists (I know one who believes in heaven but not in God, and two who believe in angels). Others prefer to believe what they think is objectively true, and that includes Christians.

I think though that the OP is making a value judgment, and this type of thread can only be about personal value judgments. The other day the radio played the song: “Whatever gets you through your life / It’s all right, it’s all right / Do it wrong, or do it right / It’s all right, it’s all right”. (John Lennon, youtube.com/watch?v=vjWebKavfuI). Ultimately that may be what we all do, whatever we believe .

 

[Della]

Go for your life, Randy. Although I will be very surprised indeed if you can offer me anything at all that hasn’t already been proffered. But who knows…you may surprise me.

In passing, if you were looking for some answers to life’s problems and you regularly debated the matter with people who thought that what you believed was wrong, how long would you keep listening if they kept coming up with the same arguments which you had already, in good faith and after a reasonable amount of investigation, rejected?

No one can convince another of spiritual things. That is the “job” of the Holy Spirit, and he, being the gentleman that he is, will not force anyone to respond to his promptings. Faith in God is not unreasonable–we’re all reasonable people here. So, it’s not a matter of collecting enough facts to believe–because there is plenty of evidence for belief. Rather, faith is trust in a Person not in a system of beliefs. Christ called people to “take up your cross and follow” him, not to study theology or pursue facts until one is convinced. Those who follow him do so in response to the Spirit’s urging in their souls. That is where faith begins.

I could say that I’m 95% certain of my position (an arbitrary number, so don’t hold me to it). After discussing a particular aspect of religion with someone, I might think: good point…and it will drop a point or two. Then someone mentions Mary on a Taco. And I go up to 97%.

Of course, Mary on a taco is not part of revealed doctrine or dogma, so such things mean nothing at all. If they prompt people’s faith, it’s not a bad thing, but we certainly don’t put our trust in such things. Our faith is in the risen Christ, and him alone. The fact of his resurrection drives Christianity. Why? Because it is the power of God manifested in him. “If Christ be not raised from the dead,” St. Paul wrote. “Our faith is in vain.” The risen Christ empowers the Church and her members to acts of charity, to teach and to preach. That’s the hub of it all.

I think we’re all like that. I call it The Flywheel of Belief. Once it gets up to speed , it’s quite difficult to even slow it down, let alone change its direction.

Actually, that applies more to people with mere human understanding that to those who are living their faith by the power of the Holy Spirit. It’s like a marriage not like being convinced of something and having to hang onto it in the very teeth of contrary evidence. In a marriage we grow in love with our spouses who are persons not merely propositions or beliefs or ideas. Christianity is a relationship, a growing in union with the Beloved. I am no more convinced of my faith now than when I was a child and first loved Jesus. I still love him, only now I love him with better understanding and a clearer vision of who and what he is and what that means, not only for me, but for all around me and everyone who ever lived.

How fast is yours spinning? Most Christians will not admit to anything less that 100%.

We humans like to quantify everything, especially those of us who like to be in control of everything in our lives–like me. But it doesn’t work like that. Jesus said that the way to gain life is to give it up. A paradox, isn’t it? Are we 100% sure of all we believe? Not always. We can only see just so much and just so far. 1Cor.13[12] For now we see in a mirror dimly, but then face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall understand fully, even as I have been fully understood. We have put our confidence in a person, not a collection of data or proofs–confidence based on love–the strongest force in the universe.