Visitor “randyloubier”who, using what may be his name, and linked it to a website “HeART for God”, tried to add a comment on a nine-month-old post, “American unbelief on the rise”. I thought it was worth highlighting because it discusses the importance (or lack thereof) of faith (my bold):
I see this is an old thread, but better late than never. I was an anti-Christian for 50 years–I know every argument against Jesus and the Bible. But it turns out, I was wrong. And, John, I wish someone had just stopped me on the street and said, I know some things you don’t. Not some emotion, but some facts. I would have been curious enough to at least listen. Jesus told the unbelievers that they did not and could not know the things of God. He repeatedly pointed out that if we knew the gift of God and who Jesus is, we would want His gift. Not knowing something doesn’t make it unreal. And there are a few facts that unbelievers are missing–facts I wished I had known all those years of unbelief. Faith does not come by facts, but faith may never come if the head is missing facts and stubbornly wont let the heart go where it wants. Our free will–our head that is missing facts, or worse, full of lies–will keep us from being open to the things of God. God will let us continue down a path of ruin, giving us little nudges here and there, but will never force us to love Him. May the peace of God well up in all unbelievers a desire to lay down their emotions of self-righteousness and be open to the humbling facts of Jesus life and free gift to them.
Let us leave aside the clear notion of dualistic free will here, ignore the basic incoherence of the comment, and concentrate on the distinction between “faith” and “facts.” Those of us who argue for the incompatibility between science and religion often concentrate on the observation that science relies on reason and observation, and religion on faith—with “faith” defined as some version as “belief in the absence of evidence.” (For one specimen, see Hebrews 11:1: “Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.”)
That notion of faith is dismissed by many Sophisticated Theologians™, who say that faith is more complicated, more nuanced, than that. But it isn’t. All the Grounds of Being, the Being Seized by the Universe’s Inexhaustible Depth, the Basic Beliefs—in the end, they all come down to accepting things without any good reason for doing so.
What I think randyloubier expresses above is the tension between religious people wanting good reasons to believe (i.e., facts), but then, when those facts aren’t forthcoming, to believe anyway, extolling that unsupported belief—faith—as a virtue. When the believers are more sophisticated, they pretend that faith is something more than belief without evidence. But it isn’t, and don’t let anybody tell you otherwise. In their hearts people realize the deficiency of a worldview in which terribly important consequences rest on unevidenced beliefs, and so are consciously seeking “other ways of knowing” to fill the lacunae.
I think a lot of the mental gymnastics of theologians and apologists, as well as the anger of believers when their faith is questioned, comes from this internal conflict. Part of our evolutionary heritage is to look for reasons for what we accept as true (or what we’re taught as true), and when we don’t have them we become uncomfortable. That, I suspect, is behind a lot of the tremendous anger evinced by religious people when New Atheists point out the evidential weakness of their beliefs. How many times have we pressed believers to explain why they believe as they do, and then have the conversation end in anger and a claim that they don’t need reasons?
There is reason and observation, and there is faith. There isn’t anything in between.
I kept waiting for him to reveal the facts that I’m missing, but I never saw them. Was it the stuff about what Jesus said in the Bible? This is what passes for facts these days?
The fact is his emotional high.
Agreed. My definition of faith it that it is language and/or logic brain center(s) attempting to explain the upsurging of non-logical decisions from emotive and/or emotional centers. This is very evident in the way in which Christians regularly divide the issue between the head and the heart.
His ‘factual’ message is that you don’t need facts to accept Jebus into your heart.
That’s a fact, Jack. In fact, with Jesus that is the de facto position.
Does he actually, like, tell us what the facts are?
He won’t. He can only spout the rhetorical assertion that there are facts and will cry out that we are being self-righteous for asking for them. It is the most egregious example of how religious faith creates psychological dysfunction.
Agreed.
That Jesus loves us.
:-þ
/@
Oh – posted before I read #3!
/@
Fascinating…he declares that his lack of faith got in the way of his learning the “facts” about Jesus.
But never mentioned a single “fact” about Jesus that either faith or non-faith would impact. Not a single “fact” at all.
And now, I’m curious. What “fact” about Jesus are we supposed to learn that we can only learn through “faith”?
No…don’t tell me. I can guess already. The “fact” that this Jesus fellow loves us — even though he’s been giving the Earth a cold shoulder for some 2000 years (gad, I hope I’m dead by 2033 – the End of World wankers surely will be out in full force.)
Evidence required.
How about this — how about first proving that he actually lived and wasn’t a myth? That would be a handy “fact” to have on hand.
Jesus loves you and Jesus saves. And prayer works. You want evidence? Just look at how prayers were answered finally in Cleveland so the three women kept in the basement for 10 years are finally free! Praise Jesus!
You made me laugh!
Hell-elujah!
And I thought one of them rescued herself (and the others) by kicking out a screen door. Seems I was giving her too much credit and it was Big J all the time? Awww.
“And there are a few facts that unbelievers are missing–facts I wished I had known all those years of unbelief.”
But he chose not to include those facts in his comment? How odd. It seems to be a reversal of the usual schtick (i.e. your lack of faith is preventing you from learning the facts), a reversal I wholeheartedly support. It is indeed only a lack of facts that stops me having faith in Jesus or any other imaginary being. All I need are the facts, and I will have faith. And this can be solved so much easier than the Catch-22 of faith-first Christians. All Randy has to do is present one or more of the facts he mentions, for examination. But he chooses not to do that. His single blog post from 2010 is no more helpful.
And yet he provides no facts. This is a common Evangelical tactic (and for those of us who used it to brainwash others and were brainwashed by it, quite an infuriating one). The “facts” he touts probably amount to nothing more than exploitation of some emotional hurt a person is suffering leveraged to the benefit of a particular church community. The emotional belonging amongst a congregation becomes a “self-evident” proof to the, “path of ruin” we were on outside of the protective community. It is emotional reasoning writ large by the communal agreement to its power. There is no there, there and when one’s human troubles meet problems that the emotional reasoning can’t address, the individual who was welcomed will be perceived as apostate.
The thing is, the only “fact” that he’ll likely be able to supply is something mind-numbingly stupid about Jesus rising from the dead so that anyone who believes in him can have the nice kitchen upgrade in their after-death apartment.
I’m vacillating between thinking this is a “true” conversion experience, or if he’s just lying for Jesus. Liars for Jesus will often start with this tactic — “I used to be just like you”.
But – no. I’m not like him at all. I’m not “anti-Christian”. I’m anti-Christianity. At least in part because it fosters incredibly poor thinking like this guy’s.
And the sad thing is — this guy probably votes. And votes against his own economic and social interests. Because baby Jesus weeps every time two gay people hold hands.
Well said!
Hmm… didn’t baby Jesus grow up? I’m sure I’ve heard some stories about an adult Jesus… maybe a different one.
/@
Yeah I wondered that too – what gave him his revelation? Did he experience and emotional pain or did he wake up one day and felt like he felt all this “love” – which maybe was just a mini stroke or something?
This guy has been anti-Christian for 50 years, and finally his rationality has weakened with age, and now he has overcome his skepticism and completely deluded himself. Congratulations! I guess.
Your reply needs to be made into a Hallmark card 😀
body{font-size:10pt;font-family:arial,sans-serif;background-color:#ffffff;color:black;}p{margin:0px;}
well said.
A little too black and white for me
Ha ha
Is someone font-trolling now? I don’t get it.
It takes all types.
/@
On the face of it, that would seem to be true, but it’s still a bold move.
It shows some spine, I guess, and it’s hard to counter.
Let him without sans cast the first stone.
/@
I’ve always wondered if the extreme reactions of Muslims to non-beleif reflects a deep-seated (subconscious) insecurity about their faith. Why else impose death on someone who decides they no longer believe? If Muslims were as confident about their religious beliefs as scientists are about, say, electromagnetism, they would not feel the need to impose death. The theory of electromagnetism works so well that only a fool would disbelieve it. There is no need to threaten death. Islam (like other religions) is so obviously a man-made product of its narrow time and tiny place that mortal threats are deemed necessary to help preserve belief and prevent skeptical discussion (= ‘insult’).
But, I hesitate to make such arm-chair psychological generalizations! Is this one even testable?
One only need to see the arguments for faith, like Dr. Carson’s in a previous post, to hear psychological projection screaming from the Evangelical. It is quite obvious they are not operating with a healthy set of emotions.
You’re hardly the first to entertain that thought. 🙂
Western Christianity was much the same until it was house-trained.
What we need to remember about apostasy is that people who believe in Hell are bound to be terrified at the idea that those they love might be contaminated – especially their children. Death (or in the case of fundamentalist christians, social exclusion) is an entirely logical response to such a perceived threat.
Also, I think that in Islamic cultures apostates are seen as insulting the “honor” of God, and deserving of death for that reason.
You guys missed the best part, and it was in the bolded section!
“And there are a few facts that unbelievers are missing–facts I wished I had known all those years of unbelief. Faith does not come by facts, but faith may never come if the head is missing facts and stubbornly wont let the heart go where it wants.”
He claims he was missing facts which, when found, led to faith: he says that “faith does not come by facts,” but that “faith may never come” without certain “missing facts”.
Theists are astoundingly skilled in the art mental gymnastics, are they not!? I find their skill in this regard as humorous as the greatest comedians, if not more so. I laughed as hard as I ever have at a comment directed at Richard Dawkins following a conversation/debate at Oxford in which a woman told a “story” about a group of geneticists at a philosophical conference: she said that this group of geneticists were having a problem that they could not solve, so one of them prayed about it and found an answer, then it happened again later… You have to see it for yourself:
(It’s the video between the two climate change charts at the top. Go to 1:07:18)
https://twitter.com/EppurSiMuoveJW/media/grid
First I laugh, and then I cry. Because prayer studies shows intercessory prayers don’t work.
Speaking of facts…
I am a firm believer in that your syntax and grammar often betrays you – that right there is a good example. I don’t think he’s too sure about his facts 😉
Twitter says the page doesn’t exist. Is the video on YouTube?
My apologies. I had to switch my account name due to being harassed by a crowd of angry tea baggers after a few Tweets regarding climate change… You can find it here now: https://twitter.com/jakejwest/media/grid
It’s the video in the top right corner with the two guys sitting down.
Thanks.
Is it bad that this actually depressed me a bit? I don’t understand how people could think that this is significant. Does chance mean nothing to them?
They simply haven’t been taught logic. This is a sublime example of a cum hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy which every child should be taught about, but isn’t…
Bertrand Russell said it best (this is my favorite quote of all time about anything…) when he said:
“If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts [or beliefs], he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence. The origin of myths is explained in this way.”
The only way we can influence minds is by upping the standards of education. Until then, we do the best we can!
A quote from ‘The History of Western Philosophy’ by Bertrand Russell:
Jesus told the unbelievers that they did not and could not know the things of God. He repeatedly pointed out that if we knew the gift of God and who Jesus is, we would want His gift.
I’ve met car salesmen like that. The difference between the car salesman and Jesus is that the car salesman actually existed.
Exactly the point I was thinking of making. The second anyone starts off with “Jesus said…”, the immediate question that pops into my brain is – how could you possibly know that he ever said anything, never mind verbatim quotes?
The verity of an opinion is inversely related to the degree of defensiveness with which it is proclaimed.
He sounds like my sons 25yr old friend who just recently found Jesus.He is posting a ton of stuff on facebook ,but reading it seems like he is losing his mind everything is just out there.He wants to be a UFC fighter has had a few fights and is actually pretty good. Think I should ask him if Jesus would want him in that profession.
For some reason, mixed martial arts is just chockablock full of the pious fundamentalist Christians.
With lots and lots of tattoos.
Turn the other cheek, then choke hold the bastard til he turns blue.
Maybe he has just been punched in the head to many times?!?!!?
“Faith is believing in something when common sense tells you not to”
Miracle on 34th Street
Yeah, but when Natalie Wood believed in Kris Kringle she got a house! I’d definitely consider becoming Christian if real estate was one of the perks.
Ask Benny Hinn or Jimmy Swaggart, or the Pope. Lots of real estate.
Not to sidetrack too much, but because the good analysis is already covered:
How very arrogant and self-righteous all around!
On one end randyloubier is a godbotherer and tells his gods what to do. Because he doesn’t present any facts that lets anyone observe what his gods do.
On the other end randyloubier is a personbotherer and tells everyone else that their faith or non-faith is not worthy of the respect his own is.* And again he doesn’t present any facts that lets anyone judge against other belief or non-belief.
Luckily the peace of observing that there are still, after millennium, no fact for faith and every fact against, wells up in the reader of this excrescense to the main theme of acknowledging just that.
* Just to be clear:
– Atheists claim that religious belief is not worthy of the same respect that science is. But most atheists have access to clear evidence for why that is so.
– Scientists are in an elitist field, using the market of ideas. But we shouldn’t confuse elitism with arrogance.
I disagree strongly with the last point.
Everyone uses the tools of science all the time.
Asking the used car salesman to open the hood and start the engine is using the tools of science — gather data to justify or reject an hypothesis (in this instance, “I should buy this car”).
It’s pretty simple and very non-elitist. The reason it gets termed elitist is when scientists use specific words to convey something highly specific about their discipline.
The language of science is elitist — by design and necessity.
The thought processes of science? So simple everyone can do it.
You’re confusing science with scientists. Sure everyone can do some simple science passably well, but only scientists can do complicated science really well.
People believe in god (or jesus) because they want him to exist, not because he actually exist(ed). It’s all wishfulthinking, and they are distressed when they are confronted with the fact that reality contradict their beliefs. As a result of congitive dissonce they will flee into all kind of psychological mantras in order to maintain their beliefs.
Isn’t this the good ol’ everyone has a ‘god shape hole that needs to be filled in them’ fallacy? I’ve heard this story before in a different way but same concept.
To me if this person is even telling the truth about his conversion then they had no rational thinking behind them at all. I’ve learnt way too much in the last decade to ever believe that Jebus came to free us from a sin that two people who never existed committed. Oh and what was that sin? Being human.
Not to mention that the Garden of Eden story has nothing to do with the beginning of time either.
It’s a little boring haring the same stuff over and over.
We should make a game… have we done Fallacy Bingo yet? We need a game board.
So what happens when “fact of faith = Jesus” meets “fact of faith = Allah”? A fight to the death, I suppose.
Baggini on Kierkegaard:
The “fact”, perhaps, is the goad or stressor that forced Randy (and those like him) to take that “leap of faith” and leave reason and evidence behind.
/@
Years ago someone recommended to me that I read Kierkegaard to understand Christians. Well, I dunno, since Kierkegaard struck me (and still does) as the most *internally consistent* Christian. Believes *because* the belief is so absurd. So the debate is then at the metalevel, about why one shouldn’t believe absurd things (and there’s the ontological absurdity stuff, which is absurd in the other sense, but one thing at a time) …
As someone who has been struggling with attempting to reconcile faith with science, I completely concur with Professor Coyne’s comments here about the level of discomfort that comes when faith is questioned.
I have felt the tension internally.
I have lived the last 10 years of my life as a devoted Christian. I have had opportunities to speak at Churches and I even went overseas because at the time I felt “called.” For me to start reading and researching topics that dismantle much of what I have viewed for years is extremely painful.
One topic that I started researching was women and why most Churches did not find them adequate to be pastors (because of verses written in 2nd Timothy). Why could a man teach and a woman not? Did God really create women to be 100% submissive and subservient to men? Was 2nd Timothy even a letter written by Paul to a leader in the Ephesian Church?
Another topic that I researched was homosexuality. Did God really abhor homosexual behavior? The argument seemed pretty cut and dry in accordance to Leviticus. However, with some current research showing that homosexuality is not a “learned” behavior does that change one’s viewpoint? After all, why would God create someone with inherent desires he hates? Also, in understanding context is homosexuality understood today as it was in Ancient Israel (and Rome)?
Of course, the biggest topic that I have been researching has been evolution. Again, it is an issue that brings about many questions. If evolution is true—as all evidence points, creation is not. What ramifications does that have for Christianity? Is man descended from one couple? How does original sin come into play? What role does Jesus have because evolution is true?
That tension that Professor Coyne speaks of was also faced externally.
My first step when researching was going to pastors and elders at various Churches I was associated with. In every case, I was told that the Bible is plain and makes God’s will known to man so the answers were black and white (as if it were that easy). In most cases, I was told that I would be prayed for (as if using my mind was the irreconcilable sin). In some cases, I was told that I needed to pray more and God would change my heart accordingly (as if I wasn’t praying enough). And in a few cases, I was given reading material (books and articles) that were completely supportive of the traditional stances Churches took (when looking at the credentials of many authors; these views became almost laughable without reading them—though I read them anyway).
The sad thing is that my thoughts were disregarded before they were even heard. People I had trusted for years (who still are “good” people in my mind) began to look down on me instead of regard me as a peer because my views differed from theirs. If I continued asking questions or tried participating in discussions with them, I was met with anger or disdain and at times completely ignored.
In my research, sometimes the answers I have been finding are extremely painful(which has to do with identity as my faith has been so closely intertwined with my life). The discontent that comes with some of my research is nauseating and sickening to me. However, discontent is not a reason for me to completely ignore what is made plain before my eyes. It is a worse evil to ignore what is true to believe in a falsehood for self-contentment than to learn what is true if it means discontent because what I believe may be false.
That’s where I am at now.
I wish you well on your journey.
The thing is, it’s pretty easy to find a non-judgmental church. One that ordains women, supports gay rights, and a woman’s right to personal autonomy. And all the rest.
And if that’s what gives you peace, by all means, stick with it.
However, please realize that from our perspective, the foundation upon which that church is built is an untruth. All churches are based on this same untruth. That being: there is someone watching over you, and that there is some sort of after-death experience of either pleasure or pain.
Once you realize neither of those statements can possibly be true, your life will get a lot simpler. And way more peaceful.
Look up Dan Dennett’s project for preachers who have lost their belief in god. The Clergy Project, I think. It might help.
Courage, jpete! You’re well on your way to replacing the comforts of belonging and not having to think for yourself with the enormous satisfaction of knowing that neither you nor anyone else is succeeding in deluding you. And that even if the data tell you something you don’t particularly want to hear, not living a lie is its own reward.
In addition to the sciences, you might want to investigate some of the humanist movements. You may find the community you’re seeking there.
Congratulations on your journey jpete, please continue learning and questioning. Remember, reality is usually the best place to live. The only exception I can think of was my aunt Gert. Dementia allowed her to live her remaining years on a cruise ship married to a handsome doctor instead of the reality of a nursing home.
Your Aunt Gert was pretty lucky. My grandfather’s dementia had him back in the Korean war as a chef serving terrible food and getting in fights for it.
My sympathies, I too have experience with the downside of Alzheimer’s and dementia. It is heartbreaking for everyone involved.
jpete79,
One of the most common reports of those who have left religion behind is that, at least by the end of the process, there is despite their fears during the journey, there tends to be much relief at the end. Exactly what kind of relief will depend on the ex-theist’s conception of God. For instance, finally realizing that there’s no reason to think there is a possibility of you or anyone else suffering some eternal fate at the hands of a Judging God, can be a massive relief.
But the main relief that runs through almost all de-conversions is simply the relief of meeting reality on it’s own terms. The relief of Things Finally Making Sense. You no longer have to go around fitting the square peg of the God Myth you’d believed in with the round hole of reality. Once you clear the cobwebs of faith from your eyes then things just fit. For instance, all the suffering in the world and apparent injustice is bad whether you are a Christian or an atheist, except when you are Christian yo have the additional mental task of squaring things with a God who is supposed to be Benevolent and Loving. It can actually be easier when you can face reality without placing false expectations on it.
To the thinking person, such belief is often an albatross around the neck as much as anything else, as you seem already to have experienced.
I like to bring up both my mother and my father in law’s experience after each lost their other half. My father in law, an atheist, simply accepted this is the way life is, spent no time wondering why a God would treat anyone this way, and got on with his life in a very well adjusted, ultimately happy manner.
My mother appealed to her Christian-lite faith that her husband was still “there” somehow, able to listen to her. People in my mother’s position often think “I would not have got through these tough things in life if it weren’t for my religious faith.”
But the thing is typically this is simply the assumption they hold, one drilled into them BY their religion. They don’t consider that if they rather had the attitude of accepting reality as it is, they could have got along just as well, if not better.
It’s just a myth that religions like Christianity are automatically all gain in terms of providing more fulfilling experience. Those who deconvert typically find that at the end of their process not only has the initial obvious stress been relieved that caused their questions, but they came to realize all sorts of other downsides their beliefs had that they had simply assumed as part of the burden of their religion.
You know that feeling when you learn something you want to know? When something suddenly makes sense to you? It’s both a relief and it’s a natural pleasure for human beings. That’s the type of pleasure and relief that awaits you, when you can finally say goodby to your religious belief.
Vaal
I feel you, jpete! I spent over three decades as an ardent Evangelical. I was a deacon in my former church (chairman twice), a Bible study teacher of four different age groups and a chairman of a pastor search team. I was the model Christian. Of course, I had lived my whole life in constant tension because I knew the things I professed publicly couldn’t possibly be true. At 42, I finally decided to let go and live my life for myself instead of for the expectations of others. It was stressful at first, but I have finally found peace in rejecting Christianity as a ruse just like any other organized religion. There may be a God, but if there is, he certainly is not the God of the Bible and he’s been hiding for all of human history. If and when he decides to show his face I’ll believe in him, but until then, there is no good reason to practice religion and hundreds of reasons not to.
There is nothing more freeing than letting go of a lie and accepting reality for what it is. Yes, there’s no afterlife, but you are better off knowing and accepting that now so you can choose to live your life to the fullest instead of waiting for the next one that will never come. The people to be pitied are those who live unhappy and unfulfilled lives waiting for “treasures in heaven”.
Congratulations on questioning what you were taught. It’s not an accomplishment to be taken lightly; many people never will (I’m not excluding atheists from that statement – there are other cultural “truths” than religion).
As a lifelong atheist, maybe I can’t directly empathise with where you are emotionally. (But I can offer advice anyway, because this is teh interwebz, amirite?) It sounds like you are worried that if you drop the label of your religion you will lose the good things you associate with it – without Faith, do I get to keep Hope and Charity? All I can say is, that’s entirely up to you. There is no cosmic referee to tell you no.
Dan Barker of FFRF had been a fundamentalist minister. He decided that he wanted to try converting atheists so he started reading some of the best arguments for atheism he could find so that he might understand and learn how to approach them. As you might guess, this course of study didn’t have the expected effect.
What surprised him so much when he ‘came out’ as an atheist was that none of his friends (or former friends) wanted to hear why he changed his mind. They didn’t ask and if he began explaining they changed the subject. These were people with whom he had had many deep discussions on truth and meaning and scholarship of the Bible, of religion, of the world. They’d explore ideas together, had a ‘rational faith.’ But suddenly — it was as if a wall came down.
All they wanted to talk about was what had “hurt” him. Was it a church? Did someone disappoint him? Is he depressed? All his attempts to talk through his intellectual process were swept aside. No. He had been hurt. He was sad.
Only one person tried to make a feeble attempt to reason him back — by pointing to a flower and asking “if there is no God, then how did that get here?” And then didn’t listen to the answer.
When atheists hear that someone “used to be an atheist” we’re usually very keen on hearing WHY the person changed their minds. Yes, we will try to pick it apart — but we take it seriously. Ironically, sometimes the reason converts give for believing in God is along the lines of “I got hurt.”
Unless, of course, you count the threat of eternal torture…
Ther is nothing like Woo Woo to explain “facts”.
Well, I’m pretty sure there are some facts in neuroscience that this guy is missing out on. What he’s describing here seems a lot like the neurological feeling of knowing/certainty. The feeling of certainty is an emotion, much like anger or fear, and we have no control over it. And just like fear, or anger, or love, we feel first and then rationalize our feelings after the fact.
Check this out. I’ll give you the feeling of certainty right now:
One of the most difficult things about faith — the feeling of knowing/certainty — is that it feels good. The flip side of this feeling of certainty/faith is doubt. Emotional doubt feels bad. So it’s no wonder this fellow gravitated towards faith. There are, undoubtedly, other reasons why he became a Christian after 50 years of unbelief: fear of death, a new social circle/peer pressure, marriage, etc. But not having all of the facts isn’t one of them.
What an excellent illustration. I’ve not seen it before, but it makes the point beautifully.
“A newspaper is better than a magazine. A seashore is a better place than the street.”
etc…
This is very odd. I read that as a series of random statements, so experienced no cognitive discomfort. They almost all, taken individually, potentially made sense. “A newspaper is better than a magazine” – is an entirely supportable statement of preference. “A seashore is better than a street” – yes, I know where I’d rather be. And so on. I considered them as statements of preference relating to a person e.g. myself, the reader. There were a couple that didn’t quite fit, but my mind just skipped over the mild incongruity.
So the word ‘kite’ when you introduced it appeared as a big non sequitur. My mind balked in the other direction.
Curious.
Yes, the first two statements can stand well on their own, but thereafter it starts to sound surreal. The first two statements lulled me into a false sense of understanding, so my mind was increasing stretched to make sense of the following ones in that context. The word “kite” was a great relief.
On it’s own the paragraph sounds a bit Deepak Chopra!
The books advertised on Debunkingchristianity and Exchristian websites can blow faith to kingdom come, especially Victor J. Stenger; ” God the failed hypothesis “, ” God and the folly of faith “, Randal Helms; ” Gospel fictions “, Robert M Price; ” The christ myth theory and it’s problems ”
On BBC Radio 4, 13th May, ” Start the week, Music and the mind “. Richard Bentall; Professor of Clinical Psychology at the University of Liverpool, author of “Doctoring the Mind: Why Psychiatric Treatments Fail ” was
in debate with Tom Burns; Professor of Social Psychiatry at Oxford University, author of “Our Necessary Shadow: The Nature and Meaning of Psychiatry ”
Richard argued that conventional diagnosis like the DSM5 of USA is often unhelpful / doesn’t work well. Often no one asks the person suffering angst what has gone on to lead them to that point, what troubles them.
Tom argued that there isn’t a germ theory of why people suffer periods of mental illness.
I think folk like Randy worry about the uncertainty of what happens at death. They focus on the threats of hades – the germ / virus floating in society – which seem supported by a mass of people including presidents, doctors, professors & written as if fact in reference books. They fear the threat so fall in line thinking that if they tick the ” I believe ” box then they will be safe. Going with the flow.
On the idea of cognitive behaviour therapy it is quite a positive idea to trust that if there was a god it would either take everyone to happy ever after or let them cease to exist at death.
There are many ideas in the religious restaurant, some people focus on the ones which fit the ” Everything is going to be ok for me ” box and others focus on ” Ruin for me unless I tow the orthodox view “. As R.M.Price says, ” It is just mind games “, ” but often culture already has you half way along the yellow brick road by claims that the stories in Bible & Koran are mostly historical ” I think there is very little reality in either. Read both and it appears the Koran is only a jumbled summary of the Bible, written at least 500 years after it. How would it have needed an angel to reveal it?
Time for a quote! This is from Animal Farm
“The power of holding two contradictory beliefs in one’s mind simultaneously, and accepting both of them… To tell deliberate lies while genuinely believing in them, to forget any fact that has become inconvenient, and then, when it becomes necessary again, to draw it back from oblivion for just as long as it is needed, to deny the existence of objective reality and all the while to take account of the reality which one denies – all this is indispensably necessary. Even in using the word doublethink it is necessary to exercise doublethink. For by using the word one admits that one is tampering with reality; by a fresh act of doublethink one erases this knowledge; and so on indefinitely, with the lie always one leap ahead of the truth.”
Doublethink would be a good metaphor to resurrect (:)) to use for the rationalizations, protestations, machinations, and so-called explanations that the accomodationists, fatheists, Templetonians, sophisticated theology spouters, etc., devise.
Not 1984?
/@
Doh! 1984. Confirmed.
As Ant as indicated, it is 1984.
I was sure it couldn’t be Animal Farm, much too ponderous. My favourite quote from Animal Farm is “All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others”. Sort of epitomises doublethink, when you think of it. 😉
I find the idea that there is no supernatural realm comforting. I feel a wonderful sense of relief to think that the majority of the human race isn’t going to suffer after death, because hades never existed.
I wonder if there would maybe be a lot less mental illness in the world if the vast majority would come out and agree that the primitive myths or our ancestors are failed hyoptheses. We can give better answers now to why things happen. The only real demons are things like ignorance, superstition & fraud.
Agreed.
If the God of the bible actually existed it would be just about the worst thing I could imagine to befall humanity.
Vaal
This sounds to me like the usual “I was an atheist butt” story. Like his religion, his story is a load of bullshit.
“Now faith is the substance of things hoped for…”
Praying is not just wishing…
It’s wishing really, really, really hard.
“There is reason and observation, and there is faith. There isn’t anything in between.”
In trying to make sense of the hard problems and the soft ones, it becomes apparent to me that we’re considering the problems the wrong way around.
When you’re a blind man the chances are fairly high that you’ll have to get intimate with an elephant’s testicles before you figure out what you’re ‘looking’ at.
Faith is a concept (right?) that we consider as a ‘whole thing’ so to speak. You have it or you do not, as if it exists in absentia yet like pain it cannot be possessed by plants or rocks and things without a consciousness.
If we can see it as qualia, the thing becomes a state of mind. As a state of mind it is subject to objective experience and the rules by which our conscious mind determines things about the world. When we consider that we experience the world through a simulation of it in our brains which is informed by our senses and those rules we learn either through primary experience or vicariously, we can begin to see the rules of emulating the world and how it behaves in such a way that where our rules don’t explain what we experience we can substitute magic and other rememdies for rules we do not have in order that the simulation work without failing.
Facts, as this commentor used it, means the rules of the simulation. Gravity is a fact which explain the behavior of many objects in our simulation. Once we have formed a rule we can believe it as strongly as the rule for gravity and give it as much weight when we are making decisions about what we experience. Confirmation bias comes from this incorrect weighting assigned to one possible set of rules to explain what we do not intimately understand. Twisting the rules a bit based on currently held knowledge is easy enough. Knowledge is the god killer. The more you know, the better your rules are and the less weighting you can afford to give the faith rules in your simulation. We see this evidenced in thought about evolution. When forced to admit the truth of evolution the theist will take to describing micro and macro evolution etc. in order to accept a new fact and not have to deny a whole set of rules.
We cannot “feel” inside our brains and the processes of thought but having to replace entire rule sets without knowledge needed for those replacement rules necessarily induces the equivelant of pain without the sensations. Since it is the internal representation of pain inside our simulations that we try with all effort to avoid, change becomes pain to avoid. Apply this to generational gaps/bands in acceptance of new scientific fact and decrease in religiosity.
The sad plain fact is that this commenter has admitted that they could not acquire the information required to build the replacement rule sets. Without the knowledge to ditch the faith rule sets or motivation to replace them, the pain will cause us to accept what is wrong thinking as though it is right. He even talks of it this way – that we are missing facts (without mentioning them) that keeps us from believing in god. Those facts are the rules of simulation that use magic instead of good science to explain the world and questions that science cannot yet answer or perhaps will never answer.
Free Will, btw, happens at this rule set level. The decision to use this rule over that one, this ‘fact’ over the other ‘fact’ is a very good working definition of free will.
“I was an anti-Christian for 50 years–I know every argument against Jesus and the Bible.”
He knows *every* argument? Every argument ever made in the history of arguments?
Some humility he’s got on display there!
Many theists lack this quality of humility, many theists are drunk of their belief in their own superiority.
Reality check “randyloubier”, you don’t know this argument (your lord is a false prophet):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CbBYLQxC7z0
🙂
He confuses atheist with anti-Christian… which suggests to me he starts with a lie.
I am no more an anti-Christian than he is an anti-Muslim or anti-Scientologist. Religious people just like to feel personally persecuted when people dismiss their magical beliefs as readily as they dismiss the magical beliefs of others. (If they can imagine themselves suffering for their faith it feels more real I suppose.)
I don’t believe in magic and I think all religions involve people claiming to know things they don’t know. I see no reason to take today’s myths more seriously than religious believers take myths past. If I’m anti-anything, I’m anti-nonsense. But I can see why believers in magic like to imagine this is persecution of them.
The fact that these god-botherers always believe in these needy gods who “want” to be “believed in” but are chronically unable to achieve this desire– gives me some pretty good insight into the manipulations that were used to sucker the god-botherer into his faith. Although they spin their wheels trying to convince themselves they believe in their particular brand of crazy for “good reasons”– I think they claim faith because they secretly fear that a crazy invisible universe creating megalomanic will torture them forever if they don’t.
I don’t believe the letter writer was ever “anti-Christain”… I think he thought that might hold sway in a group of atheists because some of his indoctrinators filled his head with such nonsense. Although, many of us might consider ourselves anti-religion or anti-bullshit… I’m not sure any of us would describe ourselves as anti-Christian (although we might consider Christianity to be both religion and bullshit). It doesn’t even sound like something a true anti-christian (whatever that might be) would call themselves. Any anti-Christians here?
More of an a-Christian, myself. 😉
Here’s some arguements I bet he hasn’t heard, because I never get good answers from theists.
If scientists cannot distinguish real invisible beings from imaginary ones– why should we think you and your indoctrinators have? How do we distinguish a real god from a false one or from a demon or ghost or super advanced alien or a fairy or an invisible penguin? How can immaterial things be 3-in-1? What’s the difference between 0 immaterial beings, half of one, or an infinite number of them?
If a god wants to be “believed in”, does he have anyone other than himself to blame if he’s disappointed? What if you want to be “believed in”?
If there were any real evidence for souls (or any other material being), why aren’t scientists testing that evidence for their own benefit and to find out more? If our collective eternities were at stake, nothing could be more important right? And if we had evidence, no one would need to be manipulated into belief.
And finally: How would god need to manifest to you if he wanted you to kill your son like he asked of Abraham? How would you be sure it was god and not a voice in your head or a demon or a trick or misperception? Do you think Abraham had the level of evidence you would require? Would you do it with the hope of a last minute reprieve like Abraham got? Does this sound godly to you? How about if Jesus wanted you personally to give all your possessions to the poor like he asked (twice) in the bible. What would you standard of evidence be for Jesus then– what would make you believe it was really Jesus asking it of you? Would you do it? What would it take for you to believe in Xenu? Fairies? Gypsy curses? Or any other invisible being supernatural force that you don’t believe in now? What sort of evidence would you require to believe that god was testing your faith by asking you to drive airplanes into buildings to gain paradise? How about the evidence you’d require to kill a purported witch (as your good book instructs)?
Why shouldn’t the atheist require THAT level of evidence before buying into YOUR brand of crazy? (Why didn’t you?)
Way off topic. A catholic website is trolling for atheist bloggers and commenters to hash out the vagaries of their faith. For anyone with a desire for self- flagellation…
http://www.strangenotions.com/atheists-help/
I have no personal stake in this site, but as an ex-Catholic I find the debate compelling (this week at least).
Because of my upbringing, I have always heard the argument, “If atheism is true than there is no morality.” Where can I read about developmental studies in the areas of ethics and morality?
Thanks all!
Maybe Peter Singer’s The Expanding Circle will be of interest.
/@
“The Bonobo and the Atheist: In Search of Humanism Among the Primates” by Frans de Waal. It discusses the evolutionary basis of our morality, and shows moral behaviour in chimpanzees and bonobos that is derived from primate social emotion.
Morality is a side product of evolution. What creationist do not understand or do not want to understand, is that morality may help a species to survive.
Actually creationists cannot explain why morality is as important at all. From an evolutionary perspective the emergenge of morality among social animals makes perfecly sense, whilst a creationist has still to explain why god should value morality.
BTW. humans are not the only species with moral attitudes. The idea that non-human animals should lack morality is mostly due to arrogance and ignorance.
I think I know where randyloubier is coming from. His claim of being an ‘anti-Christian’
for 50 years would make him about my age. At this point in my life, my brain is clogged
with regrets & bad memories. It would be tempting to think that there is one simple mental remedy, one easy step to get rid of all this detritus, just accept Jay-EE-zuss into your heart, &, like pouring Draino into the sink, all your troubles go away. Unfortunately, if life is a song, it is being sung by Willie Nelson, not George Beverly Shea.
Unless it’s a long song.
Then it’s sung, written, and played by Ian Anderson (Jethro Tull)..
When you’re falling awake and you take stock of the new day,
And you hear your voice croak as you choke on what you need to say,
Well, don’t you fret, don’t you fear,
I will give you good cheer.
Life’s a long song.
If you wait then your plate I will fill.
As the verses unfold and your soul suffers the long day,
And the twelve o’clock gloom spins the room,
You struggle on your way.
Well, don’t you sigh, don’t you cry,
Lick the dust from your eye.
Life’s a long song.
We will meet in the sweet light of dawn.
As the Baker Street train spills your pain all over your new dress,
And the symphony sounds underground put you under duress,
Well don’t you squeal as the heel grinds you under the wheel.
Life’s a long song.
But the tune ends too soon for the song.
“Mental Gymnastics” struck a chord. I meet, for fun and torture, with an evangelical seminary student about 20 years older than me every few months. Once, he shared his paper on “inerrancy” because I couldn’t understand what he meant by that if there are clearly mistakes. Here’s what I got:
“Since Scripture is inspired and wholly and verbally God-given then it is inerrant.
Inerrancy means that when all the facts are known the Scriptures, in their autographs, are without error or fault in all of its teachings. ‘Inerrancy is a claim for the truthfulness, for the trustworthiness, for the accuracy, for the reliability, infallibility and incorruptibility of Scriptures and does not demand exact adherence to rules of grammar, chronological, historical, or scientific precision, or direct quotations in the statements of others.'”
In other words, inerrant means it’s inerrant – even if it’s factually…in error…
Whenever I’ve had a believer start out with this, I stop them and ask: ‘ok, name three.’
That is usually enough to at least put the lie to what they are saying. At best, they offer poor highly flammable strawmen that shows they are either lying, or never really were non-believers.
The rest of it is poppycock and gobbledygook as well.
Ah, the old promise something new but never deliver it tactic. Back when I used to post on IIDB, a Christian sent me a private message that started off saying he was going to use Pascal’s Wager, but with a twist. There was no twist – it was just Pascal’s Wager. I guess they hope that by the time you’ve read to the end, you’ll have forgotten what they promised in the beginning.
“I was an anti-Christian for 50 years”
I’m sorry, but I don’t believe him.
There are two types of religious people who say this, and it’s very easy to tell when they’re being honest and when they’re blatantly lying:
The one telling the truth is most likely a “moderate” Christian who still accepts evolution by natural selection, is still pro-choice and pro-homosexual marriage and pro-social justice and so on, and they’re very introspective about their own faith and are not the kind to try and “convert” atheists because they get it.
The one lying looks and sounds a lot like VenomFangX… and this guy. Claims of “knowing all the arguments” (no you don’t), closing the heart (this is the nice version of “atheists are immoral), etc.
I don’t believe he used to be “anti-Christian”. I suggest he’s lying.
There is no way to know if he is lying or not.
But if he wasn’t a Christian, I guess he would have been someone who believed in some sort of spiritual nonsense.
The on real way to tell would be for him to come back and describe what he means by “anti-Christian”. If he just means an unbeliever, then fine. But if he’s more like VenomFangX (claims of abusing drugs [including alcohol], hiring prostitutes, etc), then I suggest that, like VenomFangX, he’s lying.
The way Jerry’s email reads, this does not sound like someone who was an unbeliever or otherwise “anti-Christian”. He just doesn’t… not too me.
He bothered to post on a nine month old thread, but can’t be bothered to interact here. I think he thinks he’s sowing seeds hoping they’ll take root somewhere. Seems no one is buying.