Why don't we believe?

[WorldlingWatcher]

No, because I admit I could be wrong.

And I admit not only could I be wrong, but I probably am on a some points. The question here, though, is not who possess better knowledge, but whether materialistic naturalism can answer--or even considers--all the important questions.

...(actually, being in a vast complicated dream is precisely what we are in a theistic existence-- we are in god's dream.)

Can you give an example of a theist or theistic system that holds to this view. I can't think of any, but I'm in Hawaii and I've had a beer (or two).

The difference between Reasonists and theists really seems to circle around absolutist mindsets. I can live in a world where things are not known utterly and absolutely for sure, and I'm quite at home with this. Theists however, make such sweeping statements about these supernatural beings -- and act as if they know these things must be true, that we have these ideological clashes. And when pressed, theists lay claim to "faith" -- which in and of itself means they don't know for sure, but they only believe "for sure" -- which is different.

I can't agree with the sweeping nature of the opening statement, but I would agree some Reasonists and some theists fall into absolutist mindsets. With respect to your comment about faith, again some theists act that way, but it's generally inconsistent with the mainstream of historical Christianity. Faith is not synonymous with belief, but refers to the trust we place in a being we believe to be there. Were we to have absolute knowledge about how that god will behave in any given circumstance, trust would be unnecessary.

[WorldlingWatcher]

Actually yes. We know...So this makes me scratch my head. Why is someone who claims that Jesus Christ rose from the dead and that God of the Jew is the one true god really care about the philosophy of ultimate truth when in fact they already claim absolute knowledge of God and Jesus Christ?

This seems to all flow from the topic in the new thread, so I'll address it there.

[Keep The Reason]

And I admit not only could I be wrong, but I probably am on a some points. The question here, though, is not who possess better knowledge, but whether materialistic naturalism can answer--or even considers--all the important questions.

It depends of course on what you want to use as the standard to measure, but in a contest -- what can the immaterialist worldview demonstrate, and what can the materialist world demonstrate?

As a coda to this question, what does "all the important questions" even mean? I don't consider an important question to be, for instance, "What is my purpose?" I'm quite comfortable making my purpose be what my choices are, and frankly, I'm pretty satisfied with life. But not so satisfied as to sit back and stop living it.

Can you give an example of a theist or theistic system that holds to this view. I can't think of any, but I'm in Hawaii and I've had a beer (or two).

I doubt many theologians have stopped to consider it. But let's step away from all the Abrahamic religions, and come to some logical conclusions.

According to the 3 big religions:

Where would existence be without Yahweh? (Nowhere. Nothing would exist without Yahweh)
Is Yahweh of this dimension? (No -- according to the prevailing view, Yahweh is spirit, incorporeal)
Does existence exist in the mind of this Yahweh? (Yes, it has to in order to have been created)

Thus, we are merely an expression of Yahweh's psychology. Without Yahweh, nothing would exist except Yahweh. Ergo, existence is a solipsism with Yahweh the solipsist. We are, effectively, the product of god's dream. If god chose to stop the dream-- our existence would vanish. It has to. If solipsism is absurd, then the theistic worldview must therefore be absurd as well. Only in a materialist worldview is existence contingent on matter and nature. Hence, the materialist worldview avoids the trap of solipsism, whereas the theistic worldview is chained to it.

I can't agree with the sweeping nature of the opening statement, but I would agree some Reasonists and some theists fall into absolutist mindsets. With respect to your comment about faith, again some theists act that way, but it's generally inconsistent with the mainstream of historical Christianity. Faith is not synonymous with belief, but refers to the trust we place in a being we believe to be there. Were we to have absolute knowledge about how that god will behave in any given circumstance, trust would be unnecessary.

I won't disagree that there are some militant atheists who claim they "know there is no god" but they really are a small minority, and actually, they are not Reasonists because their claim cannot be demonstrated, hence they are making it on faith, not reason (belief in the non existence of god despite not demonstrable evidence). But again, in the Dawkins scale of Belief-to-Unbelief where #1 = Theists who know god exists, and #7 where atheists know god doesn't exist, there are vastly more people who will cite their position as #1 (they "know it") and a minority of atheists who would cite #7. Most atheists cite #6, that they don't know for absolutely certain, but are very comfortable believing god probably does not exist. By far, theists are quite a bit more absolutist in their religious beliefs.

Faith is not being used synonymously with belief -- faith is being used as the alleged "tool of belief". Faith is not a path to knowledge-- knowledge does not need faith in it, knowledge is accepted and known. This is not the behavior being placed under analysis, but the categories of tool leading to belief or knowledge. Reason leads us to knowledge unless one consciously abandons it mid-stream (Reason brings you the scripture, which tells you to have faith, and you suspend your reason in favor of faith).

[WorldlingWatcher]

It depends of course on what you want to use as the standard to measure, but in a contest -- what can the immaterialist worldview demonstrate, and what can the materialist world demonstrate?

As a coda to this question, what does "all the important questions" even mean? I don't consider an important question to be, for instance, "What is my purpose?" I'm quite comfortable making my purpose be what my choices are, and frankly, I'm pretty satisfied with life. But not so satisfied as to sit back and stop living it.

For instance,

Is there a God?
Do we cease to exist when our bodies die?
How ought we behave towards one another?

I doubt many theologians have stopped to consider it. But let's step away from all the Abrahamic religions, and come to some logical conclusions.

According to the 3 big religions:

Where would existence be without Yahweh? (Nowhere. Nothing would exist without Yahweh)
Is Yahweh of this dimension? (No -- according to the prevailing view, Yahweh is spirit, incorporeal)
Does existence exist in the mind of this Yahweh? (Yes, it has to in order to have been created)

Thus, we are merely an expression of Yahweh's psychology. Without Yahweh, nothing would exist except Yahweh. Ergo, existence is a solipsism with Yahweh the solipsist. We are, effectively, the product of god's dream. If god chose to stop the dream-- our existence would vanish. It has to. If solipsism is absurd, then the theistic worldview must therefore be absurd as well. Only in a materialist worldview is existence contingent on matter and nature. Hence, the materialist worldview avoids the trap of solipsism, whereas the theistic worldview is chained to it.

Not precisely. I think you've made an error in your third question and are not using "exist" and its forms univocally throughout all three. I know of no Christian theologian (or philosopher of religion) who would argue that "existence exist[s] in the mind" of God. Can you clarify what you mean by that?

With respect to your comment on the materialist worldview, if existence is contingent on matter and nature, what are matter and nature contingent upon, or are they necessary?

Faith is not being used synonymously with belief -- faith is being used as the alleged "tool of belief". Faith is not a path to knowledge-- knowledge does not need faith in it, knowledge is accepted and known. This is not the behavior being placed under analysis, but the categories of tool leading to belief or knowledge. Reason leads us to knowledge unless one consciously abandons it mid-stream (Reason brings you the scripture, which tells you to have faith, and you suspend your reason in favor of faith).

Scripture also tells us to trust in our ability to reason--"examine all things and hold on to what is good". How is that principle discredited by one or more people failing to apply it?

[Keep The Reason]

Is there a God?

Doesn't seem like it. There's no evidence of, nor even a need for, a god to exist in order to explain existence. I have seen no compelling reasons to think there is, and mythology explains far better these stories of gods (and instantly resolves and and all alleged "paradoxes" within these mythological models; fiction can break logic and remain consistent), all of whom seem to be very much as limited as men who existed at the time these gods were created. That goes for Zeus, Yahweh, and Xenu, who apparently flew around in DC10 airplanes. 75 trillion years ago.

Is it an important question? Maybe. Frankly, I'm fine with it being answered ("No."). If there is one, there's absolutely nothing I can do about it.

Do we cease to exist when our bodies die?

If you mean our personalities, there's nothing to indicate that we continue. If you mean our atoms, yes, that continues after we die. Mildly important. I'd rather focus on finding more resources, and maybe extending human lifetimes, and indeed, developing bio mechanics for a shot at real longevity. I've probably missed that boat-- it's a bit off in to the future, but that's okay. If I could be transferred into a robot and with other robots be a part of a far flung mission to another solar system, that would be awesome. That's the kind of "infinity" I want. not the dreary boredom of the christian Heaven. ZzZZZzzzzz.

How ought we behave towards one another?

Kindly, but why does a question we already know the answer to rate as "important". Okay, so let's play anyway:

Here's a few reasons why:

1. Sapient, sentient humans are self aware and have complex personalities that are utterly unique in all of existence. Any individual is, as best as we can tell, utterly one of a kind -- this means they are immeasurably valuable, hence have the right to live full and happy lives.

2. There is demonstrable common ground between any two individuals that shows that each can have a measure of happiness without stealing from one another; this means that while we cannot invite limitless freedoms (this is an evolutionary / survival tactic), we can grant a great number of freedoms to one another wherein happiness can be found. Therefore, coexistence is possible and maximizes the greatest amount of good for the greatest number of people with the least amount of cost. Rogues will pop up but they tip the balance of the competitive / symbiotic dynamic of survival, and so are isolated and removed, such as criminals or tyrants. Killing them is not necessary; they can be imprisoned which would allow them to continue to live, therefore not violate principle #1, while at the same time remove them from being able to take advantage of others and their happiness.

3. Reciprocal altruism. If we act kindly towards others, they will act kindly towards us and that's a quid pro quo. We benefit form this because a secure and cooperative collective is in our best interests and the best interests of those who carry on our genetics.

Reverse any of these three principles, and you (i.e., the species) will go extinct. Knowing that is the important part of the equation. If you don't realize that cooperation is essential, we all die, and then it's not only no longer an important question, it's not even one that gets asked.

Not precisely. I think you've made an error in your third question and are not using "exist" and its forms univocally throughout all three. I know of no Christian theologian (or philosopher of religion) who would argue that "existence exist[s] in the mind" of God. Can you clarify what you mean by that?

Sure. I am simply turning the theistic claims of the immaterial nature of "mind" back on the theist; I am using the theistic ground rules they use when appealing to spiritual loopholes.*

So, let's play theist for a moment: To create, one must first conceive. For god, an omnipotent and eternal being, there is no difference from "conceiving" and "creating" since god is 100% of everything that is, or even can be. God's thoughts are reality since god and gods mind cannot be divorced form one another. An omnipotent being also cannot have wants or desires of be lacking in anything-- anything that exists, the god is the author of, so must already have within the god for it to be conceived or created. Hence, if conception and creation are one and the same to an immaterial and spiritual god, we exist as a direct product of god's mind. Remove god's mind-- and we vanish.

*Theists claim all sorts of things under the "spiritual nature of god", and this is simply using the exact same "rules" they grant themselves. If they can come up with endless loopholes for god based upon his "spiritual nature", then the floor is open for everyone else to do likewise. There is nothing contradictory in my model of the spiritual nature of god and the idea that if he conceives of something, it must be extant because of his omnipotence.

With respect to your comment on the materialist worldview, if existence is contingent on matter and nature, what are matter and nature contingent upon, or are they necessary?

Matter is contingent upon energy, and energy is necessary. What forms it may take varies, but that it is necessary is self-evident.

Scripture also tells us to trust in our ability to reason--"examine all things and hold on to what is good". How is that principle discredited by one or more people failing to apply it?

Because it's also defined as limited and not enough. By far the scriptures insist that belief is far more important than anything else. Do we really need to go through the tedious exercise of posting c&v wherein Jesus extols belief over all else, faith over reason, and from the OT, that those who say there is no god are fools?

I hope not. The bible really has been made tedious by its adherents. Once it was a noble and epic book of poetry and mythology which offered an inspiring message that people could use to combat their feelings of inadequacies, but after 2,000 years of the misguided insisting it's true, it's magic has been drained and left to whither like an olive branch in the desert.

[humanguy]

Is there a God?
Do we cease to exist when our bodies die?
How ought we behave towards one another?

I'd like to see your answers to those questions, WW.

[Brad]

Here's an article with a thoughtful take on the subject:
Why did God create atheists?

IIRC, I started a thread some time ago about this article, which IIRC, too, had the primary effect of giving Mitch a hemorrhoid.
But I think it's quite a good and thoughtful essay...

[Spectrox War]

Why don't we believe?

Religion has not met its burdon of proof with me sufficient to justify that it is true and that God exists. In fact I would go further and say that the Bible provides good evidence (moral, scientific, logical) to definitely not believe it!

Moral - It's not God the Father. It's the Godfather! He's a cosmic mafia boss (fictitious too).
Scientific - miracles, creation story, tall tales
Logical - numerous contradictions in the New Testament.

I think the best way of turning rational people into atheists is to get them to read The Bible and ask questions! It works wonders!

[mitchellmckain]

Moral - It's not God the Father. It's the Godfather! He's a cosmic mafia boss (fictitious too).

LOL I have made the comment to several chrisitans here that the god they describe sounds more like a mob boss than anything else.

I think the best way of turning rational people into atheists is to get them to read The Bible and ask questions! It works wonders!

And I have no problem with that. For me this does not even contradict my belief that the Bible is the word of God because I have no difficulty with the idea that God wants some people to be atheists and guides them in that direction.

This thinking goes all the way to the root of my theology. For it is my belief that what went wrong in garden was that a belief in God becames something that was not necessarily of benefit to people but could actually do them harm.

[WorldlingWatcher]

For it is my belief that what went wrong in garden was that a belief in God becames something that was not necessarily of benefit to people but could actually do them harm.

How so?

[WorldlingWatcher]

Is there a God?
Do we cease to exist when our bodies die?
How ought we behave towards one another?

I'd like to see your answers to those questions, WW.

Were I to provide what I think the answers are here, it would inevitably drag the thread further off topic. The answers aren't what's important to this thread; what's important is how one goes about deciding whether they are important questions, and if so, how one goes about getting to the answers.

[Keep The Reason]

Were I to provide what I think the answers are here, it would inevitably drag the thread further off topic. The answers aren't what's important to this thread; what's important is how one goes about deciding whether they are important questions, and if so, how one goes about getting to the answers.

Tsk tsk. That was avoidance, plain and simple.

[tirtlegrrl]

Hm, I don't think it's avoidance, because the question at hand goes beyond superficial reasons for belief and disbelief to how people think and process evidence. Exrev says he doesn't believe because of X,Y, and Z, but why are those reasons sufficient for him to disbelieve and not for someone else? Why those particular objections, and why his rejection of the answers provided? I think there are deeper answers to the question of why people do or don't believe, and I think that level of question is more interesting than people just comparing their laundry lists of objections to a particular religion and the laundry list of answers. The actual items on the laundry lists aren't as interesting or relevant as the question of why each person has a different laundry list.

[Keep The Reason]

Hm, I don't think it's avoidance, because the question at hand goes beyond superficial reasons for belief and disbelief to how people think and process evidence. Exrev says he doesn't believe because of X,Y, and Z, but why are those reasons sufficient for him to disbelieve and not for someone else? Why those particular objections, and why his rejection of the answers provided? I think there are deeper answers to the question of why people do or don't believe, and I think that level of question is more interesting than people just comparing their laundry lists of objections to a particular religion and the laundry list of answers. The actual items on the laundry lists aren't as interesting or relevant as the question of why each person has a different laundry list.

HG asked him point blank to answer those questions, just like WW asked me point blank to answer them (and I did). It's simply a case of quid pro quo.

[WorldlingWatcher]

HG asked him point blank to answer those questions, just like WW asked me point blank to answer them (and I did). It's simply a case of quid pro quo.

Well, I'm sorry if I created confusion, but I didn't intend to ask the questions of anyone, I merely intended to list them as examples of what I meant by "important questions".

If you really want to get a sense of how I would answer them, start another thread.