What would you do if it were proven...?

[samiam1611]

prmerger:

…it seems to highlight the paradigm that truth does not matter then to atheists? Is this a correct assumption based on your premise?

To be honest, I don’t think that’s an unfair assumption. Can’t speak for others of course.
I can’t say with any certainty that God does not exist, which is why it was not particularly hard to answer the hypothetical question of the OP. But I will never accept that the Catholic Church contains the full truth or whatever. I would not follow certain rules of theirs. So if it was proven to my satisfaction that everything the CC says was true, and those rules had to be followed in order to go to heaven, I would not care enough to change certain behaviors that I do which are against church teaching. I could say this about almost any organized religion.
Not to say I would not change at all. It just “does not matter” enough to change certain things.
If I found out there was a guy in the sky who created us but has a passive role now, I’d say ok cool, now I understand how we came to be, and I’d go on my merry way. If I was convinced without a doubt that He was super strict like the CC (among other religions) say He is, I’d say screw You, You’re mean and unfair and not worthy of my obedience.

P.S. no offense. I just think life’s unfair, and currently have no one to blame for that. If I did, I would.

 

[PRmerger]

To be honest, I don’t think that’s an unfair assumption. Can’t speak for others of course.
I can’t say with any certainty that God does not exist, which is why it was not particularly hard to answer the hypothetical question of the OP. But I will never accept that the Catholic Church contains the full truth or whatever. I would not follow certain rules of theirs. So if it was proven to my satisfaction that everything the CC says was true, and those rules had to be followed in order to go to heaven, I would not care enough to change certain behaviors that I do which are against church teaching. I could say this about almost any organized religion.
Not to say I would not change at all. It just “does not matter” enough to change certain things.
If I found out there was a guy in the sky who created us but has a passive role now, I’d say ok cool, now I understand how we came to be, and I’d go on my merry way. If I was convinced without a doubt that He was super strict like the CC (among other religions) say He is, I’d say screw You, You’re mean and unfair and not worthy of my obedience.

P.S. no offense. I just think life’s unfair, and currently have no one to blame for that. If I did, I would.

Fair enough, samiam.

You are certainly free to live your life with this paradigm that truth doesn’t really matter (or, that it doesn’t matter enough).

But I propose that you are like the Emperor who has no clothes. The truth of his situation doesn’t really matter to him does it? He thinks he looks fab-u-lous.

Sadly, though, the truth always comes back to bite us.

 

[Candide_West]

I’m pretty sure atheists regularly come up in stats as more suicidal than theists, so it’s hardly surprising - just realistic, surely?

You don’t happen to have a source for this by any chance do you? I’ve heard plenty of people making reference to suicide rates amongst various groups (to make various claims both like yours and contrary to it) but never yet seen a source for it. Would be very interested.

Personally I’d be quite surprised if atheists come up more suicidal (to a statistically significant extent). But would make for interesting reading either way.

 

[Candide_West]

Ah, I think I understand now. Thanks for clarifying.

This may be true, but it seems to highlight the paradigm that truth does not matter then to atheists? Is this a correct assumption based on your premise?

Hmmm, no don’t think I’d agree with that one. I think I’d say that atheists are probably less emotionally and psychologically committed to their position. By which i mean it is easier to change his mind about the subject than a theist.

For example, I’m not committed to being an atheist. I am simply because I see no compelling reason to believe in any of the available religions. If someone presented me with compelling evidence or reasons tomorrow, I expect I would adopt that religion. I know others who have done exactly that.

Theists (in my experience at least) generally are committed to a given position. Thus it is much harder for a Christian to say “oh, looks like I was wrong, Hindu’s seem to be right”. Than for an atheist to do the same.

I don’t think there was anything in the premise which suggested that truth doesn’t matter to atheists. It certainly does to me.

 

[PRmerger]

Hmmm, no don’t think I’d agree with that one. I think I’d say that atheists are probably less emotionally and psychologically committed to their position. By which i mean it is easier to change his mind about the subject than a theist.

This sounds more like agnosticism than atheism, don’t you think?

I don’t think there was anything in the premise which suggested that truth doesn’t matter to atheists. It certainly does to me.

Fair enough.

Then, if it were proven that God does indeed exist, and you are living your life as an atheist, would the truth of this Supreme Being’s existence not change your paradigm?

If so, then truth matters.

If not, then it would seem that truth does not matter.

 

[samiam1611]

Originally Posted by **Candide West **
I think I’d say that atheists are probably less emotionally and psychologically committed to their position. By which i mean it is easier to change his mind about the subject than a theist.

This sounds more like agnosticism than atheism, don’t you think?

Not really. They’re not mutually exclusive. “Agnostic atheists”.
I like to think of it as atheism + humility. I (we?) acknowledge that existence of a deity is not falisifiable. So we are not as attached to our beliefs/as stubborn as many theists. Don’t get me wrong, I am very very convinced. Very. But if I was shown overwhelming, empirical evidence that there was a God, I would abandon my faith in atheism bc that is the rational thing to do. Theists seem less willing to abandon their faith. Just a generalization of course.
Case in point:

if someone proved God didn’t exist…i would all of a sudden be selective hearing and walk away… and pray hard that i wouldn’t throw a bible at that person

 

[PRmerger]

Not really. They’re not mutually exclusive. “Agnostic atheists”.
I like to think of it as atheism + humility. I (we?) acknowledge that existence of a deity is not falisifiable. So we are not as attached to our beliefs/as stubborn as many theists. Don’t get me wrong, I am very very convinced. Very. But if I was shown overwhelming, empirical evidence that there was a God, I would abandon my faith in atheism bc that is the rational thing to do. Theists seem less willing to abandon their faith. Just a generalization of course.
Case in point:

Well, then it seems that Candide would fall into the “soft atheist” classification.

Which, according to the same source you cited, is the same as agnosticism.

Incidentally, your source also maintains this: “most agnostics see their view as distinct from atheism”.

 

[PRmerger]

But if I was shown overwhelming, empirical evidence that there was a God, I would abandon my faith in atheism bc that is the rational thing to do.

Heh. Be careful what you wish for.

Theists seem less willing to abandon their faith.

Well, theists (that is, Christians) subscribe to the words of Paul, as already delineated earlier in this thread. If Christ is not risen, then our faith is in vain, and we are the most pitiable of folks.

And, as a general rule, atheists seem to be less interested in the truth.

Case in point:

Originally Posted by samiam1611
It just “does not matter” enough to change certain things.

 

[Candide_West]

Do you really want to claim that “restrictions on freedom,” simply as such, are bad?? Maybe you could explain what you mean by that?

Interesting point, are restrictions to freedom by nature a bad thing, if only in that they are required? Perhaps as P.J. O’Rourke said, “There is only one basic human right, the right to do as you damn well please. And with it comes the only basic human duty, the duty to take the consequences”.

I’m not entirely sure that I’d sign onto that point of view, but it is something I think I’ll take away and think about. In any case this wasn’t my point here, I should have been more specific. By “all such limitations” I was referring to limits those like the one which was under discussion. Specifically in this instance freedom of religion, but I’d consider under the same heading freedoms relating to political ideology, freedom of thought and opinion etc.

1. Don’t you think it might be a little naive to take the statements of believers here about suicide as being simple statements of fact about what would actually occur if such and such situation were to obtain? That is, do you really think that Roly would go ahead and commit suicide if he became convinced that God doesn’t exist?

Perhaps, it is naive, it sounds from Rolypoly’s follow up post as it I would have been wrong in any case. However, I tend to be cautious when someone who I don’t know talks about committing suicide. It’s difficult to judge how serious someone really is even in person and pretty much impossible from a short piece of text on an open forum. Caution seems an appropriate response.

1. Admittedly your statement seems like it might be more an expression of how you feel than an assertion of a claim that you think is actually true, but if you were to claim that it is actually true that suicide is a “waste,” then it seems you would be saying that suicide constitutes an objective failure to fulfill some objective end. I would then be curious to know: what is this objective end, in light of which you judge suicide to be a “waste”?

Indeed it was entirely a personal opinion. That’s what MoM2 seemed to be asking for.

As for why I consider it to be a waste, no this isn’t in relation to a specific objective end. It is merely that I find that most people enjoy most of their lives, even those who have felt suicidal at various points in it. Therefore in committing suicide they have lost the opportunity of that additional happiness. Secondly suicide tends to cause a great deal of misery for those friends and family who are still alive. Something which is difficult to recover from, hence time spent in misery instead of the happiness which I think everyone would (subjectively) prefer.

All of this is purely subjective of course (from my subjective viewpoint )

 

[Candide_West]

This is an interesting paradigm.

Do you feel that eating healthy is a limitation and restricts your freedom, Candide?

This question is not meant to be provocative; I ask it to consider the nature of your paradigm.

Hey PRmerger, food is probably a useful example here actually, do I consider healthy eating a limitation…? Well not really because I’m free to do it or not (and of course take the consequences thereof). If I were to know that eating unhealthy food would be immediately fatal, then yes I’d consider that a limitation.

A friend of mine has a very dangerous nut alergy for example, he has to be extremely careful what and where he eats to avoid a impromptu trip to the hospital. I consider this a limitation to him because he can’t just call in a takeaway or buy and eat whatever he pleases.

There are a multitude of limitations and restrictions to our freedom that are, essentially, good for us. (As well as some that are just to promote common decency. To wit: waiting in line is a limitation vs simply bursting into the DMV and announcing that it restricts your freedom to stand in line and you demand that you renew your driver’s license this minute. )

But in most of these cases you know you really **could **do the thing you’re talking about, it would just be a bad idea. As per the quote I wrote to Betterave above, you’d have to take the consequences. In response to you examples below…

Examples of limitations and restrictions to our “freedom” that are good for us:
-not eating 2 bags of Easter candy - you can but you’ll probably feel sick
-not having sex at the moment the urge hits - you can but depends on the moment but in general it’s likely to result in a great deal of social embarrassment trying.
-not pointing out our spouses’ spare tire (my honey has a 6 pack, BTW . ) - you can but it’s likely to make the previous example difficult for a starter.
-not sleeping in when it’s time to go to Mass - you can but you’d probably feel guilty
-not walking out on the rude client - you can but you’d lose clients…
etc etc etc.

Something to consider when one objects to “such limitations to his/her life”. ​

consider if the above items were actually enforced by law, would you consider them limitations then? If for example if it was illegal miss a Mass, or illegal to have sex any time outside set hours in the evening? I’d certainly consider that a limitation. Wouldn’t you?

 

[Candide_West]

refuted does not equate to disproven. Neither the cosmological nor teleological arguments have taken much of a battering in real terms for centuries.

Indeed refuted is different to disproven. Not sure that you can disprove a proof, surely you can only demonstrate that it fails, hence is refuted? Perhaps I’m wrong in this.

With regards to the cosmological and teleological arguments. They were refuted (as proofs) a long time ago, once this has been done surely little further “battering” can be delivered. I know they are still used in discussions regularly, but they remain unconvincing.

Which is more than can be said for any arguments for our existence occuring “by chance” or specifically “without God”, none of which generally last past lunchtime…

Depends what you’re talking about here really, science can obviously explain a lot about where we came from. I personally haven’t seen anyone posit “chance” as a argument for our existence. For those areas where we still don’t know X (ie the universal “constants”) scientists generally say that “we don’t yet know why they are that way”. Theists tend to say that they were set up that way because God/Allah/Other made it so. But there again people used to believe that Gods cast lightning bolts, if our modern scientific method had existed then science would have said “we don’t know yet why lightning happens”.

Still, there is very little that is provable, to an absolute level, so in an absolute degree, it’s just that we have no rational alternative to God as a possible exaplanation… (that lasts past lunchtime)

To me if all I have is a suggested explanation for why something is the way it is and no way to know if it’s right or not. I’d say “I don’t know”, perhaps you’d say “Well I’ve got no other explanation so it must be right”…?

 

[PRmerger]

Hey PRmerger, food is probably a useful example here actually, do I consider healthy eating a limitation…? Well not really because I’m free to do it or not (and of course take the consequences thereof). If I were to know that eating unhealthy food would be immediately fatal, then yes I’d consider that a limitation

Heh. Then this is the same paradigm the Church uses to “limit” our freedom.

We are certainly free to do it or not (and of course take the consequence thereof.).

Thus, certain “limitations” proclaimed by the Church are the theological equivalent of cautioning folks to eat healthy.

 

[PRmerger]

But in most of these cases you know you really **could **do the thing you’re talking about, it would just be a bad idea. As per the quote I wrote to Betterave above, you’d have to take the consequences. In response to you examples below…

I find this comment very curious. It seems perhaps that you are under the misapprehension that the Church does not propose but rather dictates morality?

consider if the above items were actually enforced by law, would you consider them limitations then? If for example if it was illegal miss a Mass, or illegal to have sex any time outside set hours in the evening? I’d certainly consider that a limitation. Wouldn’t you?

Only in the same way that I consider it a limitation that I have to stop at red lights.

Do you find that a limitation, Candide?

 

[samiam1611]

If Christ is not risen, then our faith is in vain, and we are the most pitiable of folks.

Amen to that!
jk

Well, then it seems that Candide would fall into the “soft atheist” classification.
Which, according to the same source you cited, is the same as agnosticism.
Incidentally, your source also maintains this: “most agnostics see their view as distinct from atheism”.

One can be fully atheist or fully agnostic or a blend of the two. I think we’re on the same page here, just making sure. Anyway.

And, as a general rule, atheists seem to be less interested in the truth.
Case in point:

Originally Posted by samiam1611

It just “does not matter” enough to change certain things.

I sort of-not really retract that statement I made. In a way, the truth matters more to me than a theist, in the sense that you accept the Catholic Church as being the true church: even when you disagree with one of the Church’s teachings, your church tells you you must be obedient anyway. In other words, you doubt certain teachings, but tell yourself “if the Church says it’s true, it must be.” I, on the other hand, do not readily accept anything supernatural (and by extension, teachings that are supposedly God’s word) - I demand evidence that this or that is true. Lacking such evidence, I will default to the more reasonable, believable, down to earth, natural, observable alternative. I think the fact that theists emphasize faith as necessary to believing in God and the truthfulness of the Church is evidence, if not proof, that they are not as concerned with the truth as me - because I require evidence, I do not rely on faith. (Granted, there is some faith involved, otherwise I’d be a true agnostic.)
On the other hand, I cannot fully retract my statement bc while I would not deny the truth if shown proof, I would not embrace it either. It really depends on the nature of the god that was proven to exist. So it’s not exactly that the truth does not matter to me - I do want to know the truth, for sure. But what would I do, how would I change, given this information? Let’s just say, if it’s the god described by the Catholic Church, yikes! my soul would be in big trouble.
P.S. I said “you” but of course I don’t mean you personally, you have not said those things. I’ve just read that sort of thing on here numerous times. Seems to be pretty common thing to say when you [guys] wrestle with a teaching of the Church - just have faith, pray to God and He will show you why it’s true, etc etc

 

[Candide_West]

This sounds more like agnosticism than atheism, don’t you think?

Hmmmm, open to consideration I’d say. For example many atheists say that they are as dubious about God as they are about fairies, magic flying elephants, goblins and santa claus, because they all fall into the category of unsupported propositions. If someone actually located and could present an levitating pachyderm for inspection (or a flock / herd of them flew into London tomorrow). Then we’d all presumably believe they can exist.

Fair enough.

Then, if it were proven that God does indeed exist, and you are living your life as an atheist, would the truth of this Supreme Being’s existence not change your paradigm?

If so, then truth matters.

If not, then it would seem that truth does not matter.

Of course it would, further if someone proved to me or presented what I would consider sufficient evidence or reason for believing a given religion. Then I’d join that religion.

I don’t believe in Gods for the same reason I don’t believe in ghosts - I’ve got no compelling reason to.

 

[PRmerger]

Lacking such evidence, I will default to the more reasonable, believable, down to earth, natural, observable alternative.

As is, of course, your right.

Except you do know that this paradigm is not proven by empirical data? Thus, stating that you will believe in only “natural, observable” data is, in fact, faith-based.

 

[PRmerger]

Of course it would, further if someone proved to me or presented what I would consider sufficient evidence or reason for believing a given religion. Then I’d join that religion.

I don’t believe in Gods for the same reason I don’t believe in ghosts - I’ve got no compelling reason to.

'Tis good that you are here on the CAFs, then, Candide. For if you are truly open to searching for Truth, you will find. Of that, I have no doubt.

As there is no compelling reason not to do this, why don’t you ask this, “God, I am not certain you exist, but if you do, please show me.”

Then study, investigate, chat on this forum, and see what happens!

 

[Candide_West]

I find this comment very curious. It seems perhaps that you are under the misapprehension that the Church does not propose but rather dictates morality?

Ah, perhaps you are under the misapprehension that I said that being Christian is a limitation? Not the case, I said that being unable to be anything but a Christian (or dead) is a limitation. In the same way it would be a limitation to be able to only be an atheist, or only a democrat. If you aren’t free to change your opinion then yes I think it’s a limit on your freedom.

 

[PRmerger]

Ah, perhaps you are under the misapprehension that I said that being Christian is a limitation?

My apologies. Perhaps you *didn’t *mean Christianity is a limitation in this post below?

If correct it means that Rolypoly has a limitation applied to his/her life. Ie he/she can only be Christian. I find all such limitations a little unfortunate as they restrict our freedom.

At any rate, we are agreed that limitations are, indeed, good. (Provided we are free not to respect the limitations.)

This is, of course, very Catholic!

 

[kaid100]

Hi,

I’m new here on CAF but thought I’d post a question which interests me.

For those who are theists - “What would you do if it were proven to your satisfaction that God does not exist”

For those who are atheists - “What would you do if it were proven to your satisfaction that God does exist”

Thanks for taking the time.

I’m an atheist. If it was proven that God existed (example, if he manifested on Earth today a thousand feet high and performed a few miracles, like turning all the worlds weapons into bananas or raising a new continent out of the Pacific in ten minutes flat) then easy- I would believe in Him. I don’t know that it would automatically follow that I would join any major religion in particular, but I’d be interested to hear more about what “sort” of being He is, where He came from, whether there are others like Him, can He reproduce, that kind of thing.