Okay...let's see...where was I...

Wandel

Earlier you made a statement that I let slide.

But the statement was really a question without a question mark at the end...and I have decided it deserves a response...and will now do so.

You wrote:

Quote:

I am sure I don't have to tell you that "fear of the unknown" is not the only reason for theism.

Well...I think "fear of the unknown" is such a huge part of the reason for religion....that it might just as well be considered the ONLY reason.

Take "fear of the unknown" out of the equation...and I think religion, especially religion as we currently know it, would cease to exist. Take "fear of the unknown" out of the equation...and I doubt religion would ever have existed.

I'm willing to discuss this with you....or with any of the other religious folks in the forum.

But I'll tell this: It has been my experience talking with theists...that the vast majority of them suppose "fear of the unknown" plays almost no part in religion.

I think that denial is a result of their great fear of the unknown...and their even greater fear of the gods they worship and attempt to propitiate.

0 Replies

Frank,

I agree that historically fear of the unknown had a lot to do with religion especially before modern science. Modern science has answered many mysteries which at earlier times had only religious explanations. Now after having been given scientific explanations, people still feel there is something that transcends physical reality. (And these are not people who reject science.)

0 Replies

wandeljw wrote:

Frank,

I agree that historically fear of the unknown had a lot to do with religion especially before modern science. Modern science has answered many mysteries which at earlier times had only religious explanations. Now after having been given scientific explanations, people still feel there is something that transcends physical reality. (And these are not people who reject science.)

Okay...I'll buy that.

And the people who "...still feel there is something that transcends physical reality"j...still seem to pick religions that fawn and scrape before gods who are almost pathalogical in their needs to be offended and to punish humans who do the offending.

Wandel...I agree with what you are saying in this post...but that does nothing to argue against a fear of the unknown being a driving force for religion. The "something that transcends physical reality" still has to be propitiated!

0 Replies

BBB wrote:

Quote:

Frank, sorry for being such a grump. But if you think back the last three months, you will understand why I'm finding it harder to tolerate doctrinaire religious zealots.

Thanks for the clarification/explanation, BBB. I'll check that book out next time I'm in Borders.

Frank wrote:

Quote:

wandeljw wrote:
Frank,

I agree that historically fear of the unknown had a lot to do with religion especially before modern science. Modern science has answered many mysteries which at earlier times had only religious explanations. Now after having been given scientific explanations, people still feel there is something that transcends physical reality. (And these are not people who reject science.)

Okay...I'll buy that.

And the people who "...still feel there is something that transcends physical reality"j...still seem to pick religions that fawn and scrape before gods who are almost pathalogical in their needs to be offended and to punish humans who do the offending.

Wandel...I agree with what you are saying in this post...but that does nothing to argue against a fear of the unknown being a driving force for religion. The "something that transcends physical reality" still has to be propitiated!

Wandeljw: I'll agree with your logic, but you've taken it a step too far. While many of the mysteries formerly attributed to religion have been revealed as scientific events, all that has really happened is that religion has lost many of its foundations. The only real mysteries left have to do with the afterlife, and that is probably the single greatest "feared unknown" in existence. So, while you're right about people relying less on mysteries to rationalize their faith, there is still a great deal of fear in existence.

As far as the fortunate few who don't fear death, but still sense the presence of "something that transcends physical reality" go, if they are perceiving something I'm not, my two statements are "prove it" and, having proved it, "sign me up!" :wink:

I look forward to your response.

0 Replies

Hey Tal....

I certainly feel there is a lot more to REALITY than meets the eye...which, of course, could easily be restated as...I certainly feel there are things that transcend physical reality.

I have a name for that stuff.

I call it...the unknown.

I don't even know that any of it exists (although I do have a sense that there IS MORE to existence than what I perceive)...and I do not know anything about its qualities.

I do not know if I will survive in some form after my death.

There is an awful lot that I do not know.

I do not let it bother me....and I am not willing to accept one possible (of the many possible) scenario over any of the others.

I DO NOT KNOW.

And I am comfortable with that.

0 Replies

Frank wrote:

Quote:

I have a name for that stuff.

I call it...the unknown.

I don't know why, but that made me laugh.

I am (once again) hearing a great number of similarities/congruities in our philosophies. The only difference I can see is your expectation that there will not be proof one way or another vs. my optimistic hope that there will, which I'm sure will degrade after 5-6 decades. :wink:

Again, it's good to have you back.

0 Replies

Frank Apisa wrote:

Here is a statement of my agnosticism as regards the "existence of gods" question:

I do not know if a God exists...

...I do not know if no gods exist...

...I do not have enough unambiguous evidence upon which to base a reasonable guess.

What problem do you have with that?

Well the problem with that is that if I told you that the earth was created last week (complete with false memories and everything) by a giant snail, who wanted to make it look like he hadn't done it, then you are saying that you don't have enough evidence either way to make a decision as to whether I might be right. Surely you would expect more of me and my claim before you agreed it was equally probable as any other prospect.
..or do you really think that it IS just as probable?

Your logic is flawless as always Frank, I just see your position as a fully defendable but somewhat toothless because you could be expected to accept the demands of the religious due to your acceptance of the possibility of their beliefs.

0 Replies

Having read and contributed to these threads for the last few years I have come to the following conclusion concerning Atheism, Agnosticism, and Theism.

An atheist has had a negative experience during childhood with religion and there is no way in hell they will ever consider there is an all-loving God who watches over us all. I wouldn't either and I think there is no harm in being an atheist if one lives in kindness.

An agnostic likes to contemplate both sides, probably, of anything. There is just so much room for argument for agnostics, and it doesn't matter to them what is the final answer. It is the argument that is alive, that keeps them alive, and they enjoy it immensely and intensely.

Theists have experienced a reality beyond the physical, or have allowed parents, teachers and other "authorities" to pound their own ideas into their heads. There are two kinds of theists! One has experienced and the other "hopes" yet has no "faith" that the first is telling truth.

What a quandry! We all have a right to be where we are, but we don't have a "right" to annoy and drive others crazy talking about "where I am is the only place to be." But, also, why is everybody so sensitive, why should anyone care what others thought of their opinions or experiences.

This is only my opinion and I fit in somewhere. I wouldn't be surprised, either, if God didn't turn out to be Dog. People are absolutely doty over their dogs anymore, and look what's going on with horses! Horse whisperers, dog whisperers. These creatures know everything, they merely waited for humans to ask them. Why are there no human whisperers?

Why is this stuff so serious? What I enjoy is the mystery of it all. Beats fiction.

0 Replies

sunlover wrote:

An atheist has had a negative experience during childhood with religion and there is no way in hell they will ever consider there is an all-loving God who watches over us all.

Why is this stuff so serious? What I enjoy is the mystery of it all. Beats fiction.

On the contrary. I would love that it were so...an all loving god, life after death....wonderful. I just have not seen anything to make me think it's true and I'd hate to convince myself that it were true by wishfull thinking....for that would make my whole life a waste.

...and it's serious for many reasons....like when religious lunatics are trying to have the definition of "science" changed to include non-science so that science teachers are forced to teach stupidity as science.

0 Replies

Eorl wrote:

Well the problem with that is that if I told you that the earth was created last week (complete with false memories and everything) by a giant snail, who wanted to make it look like he hadn't done it, then you are saying that you don't have enough evidence either way to make a decision as to whether I might be right.

Really?

Well that is because you are stuck in the mistaken mindset that an agnostic, because he claims not to have enough evidence to make a reasonable guess about one thing...does not have enough evidence to make a reasonable guess about anything.

I've already pointed out that you are mistaken in that "beleif"....but you simply ignored that...and now you are mistakenly asserting it again.

In any case, I would have a very difficult time "proving" that the world was NOT "created" yesterday complete with all memories...so I would NOT assert that it is a definite fact that it was not.

For the atheists asserting there are no gods...the problem arises for him to establish how he knows the true nature of REALITY...so as to be able to dismiss one of the possible REALITIES.

Quote:

Surely you would expect more of me and my claim before you agreed it was equally probable as any other prospect.
..or do you really think that it IS just as probable?

Why are you continuing to assert that an agnostic thinks all things are equally likely? What is there about that mistaken notion that makes you comfortable?

Quote:

Your logic is flawless as always Frank....

Thank you.

Quote:

...., I just see your position as a fully defendable but somewhat toothless because you could be expected to accept the demands of the religious due to your acceptance of the possibility of their beliefs.

It is far from toothless....and is much, much, much more likely to present an effective alternative to theism than atheism.

Your reasoning in this sentence is truly illogical. Look at it (the reasoning) and attempt to put it into syllogistic form. You will see that it does not work. The conclusion you attempt to derive simply does not follow from the premises (such as they are.)

0 Replies

OK I'll give it an amatuer try......

This is how I see the position you could find yourself in....

1. Gods may or may not exist.
2. Other people may or may not know a gods will.
Conclusion: I cannot know if a god expects me to obey it's will as expressed through others who claim to know it's will.
(edit > simplified)

Quote:

In any case, I would have a very difficult time "proving" that the world was NOT "created" yesterday complete with all memories...so I would NOT assert that it is a definite fact that it was not. .

Yes, this is where I see the weakness of the position, not a logical weakness but a practical one. I'm not asserting that you think all options are equally likely but rather the fact that you accept the possibility that I may be correct when I claim to KNOW for a fact that the Giant Snail is real gives my claim more credibility than it deserves.

Quote:

For the atheists asserting there are no gods...the problem arises for him to establish how he knows the true nature of REALITY...so as to be able to dismiss one of the possible REALITIES

Why can one not take a practical position on the matter and say "it seems from every observable aspect of the universe that no supernatural power was or is required for it to function as it does and therefore when I build a rocket to fly to the moon I will discount the likelyhood of supernatural intervention and I will not factor gods into my calculations."

(Note: JLNobody pointed out that I seem to be suffering from absolutism, that may help to explain my obstinacy Smile

)

0 Replies

taliesin,
sorry i did not respond earlier but i accept frank's reponse that "the unknown" is a good name for anything beyond physical reality.

(by the way, my only fear is wondering how frank will respond to one of my posts)

0 Replies

I know what you mean wandeljw.

I gotta be in for a helluva beating any minute now!

I'm OK...I'm in the brace position..... Neutral

0 Replies

Eorl wrote:

OK I'll give it an amatuer try......

This is how I see the position you could find yourself in....

1. Gods may or may not exist.
2. Other people may or may not know a gods will.
Conclusion: I cannot know if a god expects me to obey it's will as expressed through others who claim to know it's will.
(edit > simplified)

This does not direct yourself to the question you raised that caused me to ask you to evaluate it in syllogistic form...but, let's deal with the three statements. (It is not a syllogism)

And let us suppose each of the three statements is correct.

Fact is, Gods may or may not exist.

Fact is, Other people may or may not know a god's will.

And, fact is, I DO NOT KNOW (I prefer not to use "cannot")...if a god exists and I DO NOT KNOW (if a god in fact exists) what it's expectations are of me or of anyone else.

I really do not give a rat's ass what other people say about the existence of gods...or about what they suppose the gods expect of me.

So....?????

You quoted me saying: "In any case, I would have a very difficult time "proving" that the world was NOT "created" yesterday complete with all memories...so I would NOT assert that it is a definite fact that it was not."....and then wrote:

Quote:

Yes, this is where I see the weakness of the position, not a logical weakness but a practical one. I'm not asserting that you think all options are equally likely but rather the fact that you accept the possibility that I may be correct when I claim to KNOW for a fact that the Giant Snail is real gives my claim more credibility than it deserves.

Huh???

I cannot prove that the Giant Snail does not exist....and I acknowledge that.

How is that a weakness?

I think it is a bunch of horseshyt....and if you ever asserted it to me with any degree of real conviction, I would laugh at you and tell you I considered it a bunch of horseshyt.

I do that very thing with the theists I argue with all the time.

I CANNOT PROVE the Bible is bullshyt...and I cannot prove that the god described in it does not exist...but I sure as hell can point out all the evidence that indicates that the Bible is primarily a book devoted to a rather self-serving, fanciful history of the ancient Hebrew people....with a comic book quality mythology intertwined.

So where is the weakness you perceive in being honest? Please explain that.

You quoted me saying: "For the atheists asserting there are no gods...the problem arises for him to establish how he knows the true nature of REALITY...so as to be able to dismiss one of the possible REALITIES"...and then wrote:

Quote:

Why can one not take a practical position on the matter and say "it seems from every observable aspect of the universe that no supernatural power was or is required for it to function as it does and therefore when I build a rocket to fly to the moon I will discount the likelyhood of supernatural intervention and I will not factor gods into my calculations."

You can do whatever you want.

But....simply because "...it seems from every observable aspect of the universe that no supernatural power was or is required for it to function as it does..." does not mean there is no supernatural force at play....and it certainly is no argument for asserting that it does not exist.

This makes as little logical sense as asserting there are no gods because we cannot see any....or that the theists cannot produce any.

The bottom line is: It seems from every observable aspect of the universe that we do not know if a supernatural power exists...and it further seems there is no way right now that we can determine one way or the other on the issue...

...so why not take the practical position on the matter and simply say "WE DO NOT KNOW."

Why on earth do you suppose that simply guessing in the opposite direction of theists on the question makes more sense...or is in any way superior to simply acknowledging the obvious?

Quote:

(Note: JLNobody pointed out that I seem to be suffering from absolutism, that may help to explain my obstinacy )

Bizarre as it may seem....some people have accused me of being obstinate also. So I simply discount any of that stuff.

0 Replies

Wandeljw wrote:

Quote:

taliesin,
sorry i did not respond earlier but i accept frank's reponse that "the unknown" is a good name for anything beyond physical reality.

(by the way, my only fear is wondering how frank will respond to one of my posts)

HA! Well played.

On the serious side: If not fear, what, then, is your reason for being a theist? What's your rationale? Thanks.

0 Replies

Taliesin,
I lean towards theism simply on a belief that there must be something superior to us human beings.

0 Replies

wandeljw wrote:

Taliesin,
I lean towards theism simply on a belief that there must be something superior to us human beings.

I would shyt my pants if there is not "something" superior to us human beings.

In fact, if there is not something superior to us...perhaps the best thing that could happen to the universe is for a huge meteor to strike our planet totally annihilating us....allowing for a new start.

But why, Wandel, does this lead to theism for you?

Why must the superior thing....be a god?

And....as an aside....are you of the opinion that the object of your potential theism should be worshipped and propitiated?

0 Replies

Frank,

Good question. It may not be anything "divine" but I like to think of it that way. I am not one who worships but I do like to contemplate. I will never attain sure knowledge about anything "divine". But having not settled on an answer one way or another, I will continue to ask questions and maybe understand more.

(If I say any more I will start to sound like Keanu Reeves in those goofy "Matrix" movies.)

0 Replies

wandeljw wrote:

Frank,

Good question. It may not be anything "divine" but I like to think of it that way. I am not one who worships but I do like to contemplate. I will never attain sure knowledge about anything "divine". But having not settled on an answer one way or another, I will continue to ask questions and maybe understand more.

(If I say any more I will start to sound like Keanu Reeves in those goofy "Matrix" movies.)

Not at all, Wandel....and I understand how difficult it is to explain complicated things like the issue you are trying to explain right now.

My point was that I appreciate your feelings that there may be something superior to humans (I am convinced there is)....but I do not necessarily suppose that the "something" is a god.

I certainly am not saying IT CANNOT BE A GOD....because it may be just that.

But I still see the superiority of simply acknowledging that we do not know....and any guesses we make are really based on very, very, very inconclusive evidence.

0 Replies

Frank wrote:

Quote:

wandeljw wrote:
Frank,

Good question. It may not be anything "divine" but I like to think of it that way. I am not one who worships but I do like to contemplate. I will never attain sure knowledge about anything "divine". But having not settled on an answer one way or another, I will continue to ask questions and maybe understand more.

(If I say any more I will start to sound like Keanu Reeves in those goofy "Matrix" movies.)

Not at all, Wandel....and I understand how difficult it is to explain complicated things like the issue you are trying to explain right now.

My point was that I appreciate your feelings that there may be something superior to humans (I am convinced there is)....but I do not necessarily suppose that the "something" is a god.

I certainly am not saying IT CANNOT BE A GOD....because it may be just that.

But I still see the superiority of simply acknowledging that we do not know....and any guesses we make are really based on very, very, very inconclusive evidence.

Well put, Frank and Wandeljw.

For myself...I see the "something more" as the collective potential of humanity, vis-a-vis the collective unconscious...but, as Frank said, I have the humility to admit that I'm just hypothesizing.

0 Replies

Okay...let's see...where was I...

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know