.jpg)
"Are you ready?! Are you ready?! Let's get it on!! C'mon!!"
In the first round of this ongoing discussion, LA Atheist Examiner, Hugh Kramer and Methodist Examiner, James-Michael Smith will each offer their own answer to the question "Whis the main reason you reject the opposing view as a valid worldview?"
---------------------
"What is the main reason you reject theism as a valid worldview?"
Hugh's response:
Theism, is belief in the existance of a god or gods. In the West it has a more specifically monotheistic interpretation: belief in the existence of one God viewed as the creative source of the human race and the world who transcends yet is immanent in the world. Still, the monotheistic interpretation is a subcategory of theism. The actual number of gods is immaterial. Hindus, pagans and others who worship multiple gods are theists too.
So why do I reject theism as a valid worldview? Well, let's put aside for a moment the good or bad things people claim religion inspires; the killings, the savings, the moral guidance or the skewing thereof, the assertions of superiority of this one over that one and all the other divisive little things theists do in the name of being inclusive for the whole human race. This debate is limited to just the major reason I reject it so let's just examine it's validity as a worldview.
At one time it was the best view mankind had to offer. In earliest times people looked at the world and wondered what made the tree give shade, or why a rock chose that particular moment to fall off a ledge, or what gave a fox his cunning. They decided it was because everything, animate or non-animate, has it's own will. The idea that spirits or god-force infuses everything survives in certain cultures such as some American Indian tribes and, if you don't mind stretching the point a teeny-weeny bit, those Star Wars fans who think "The Force" is something real.
As humankind's knowledge of the world expanded, religious ideas evolved to encompass what was known and offer explanations for it. Eventually, it was the turn of the monotheistic faiths that so many subscribe to today to come into being and offer their explanations for everything. The process involved in this evolution of ideas is fascinating but not within the scope of this essay to go into further. If you're interested though, Richard Dawkins goes into the subject pretty thoroughly in The God Delusion. For my purpose, I just want to make three points. The first is that humanity's knowledge of the world around it didn't stop expanding when the holy books of the monotheistic faiths were written. The second is that there is absolutely nothing in any of the holy books of any of them that arguably couldn't have been conceived of or known by people living at that time; so a claim of "divine inspiration" or "special knowledge" is definately open to question. I'll explain the third point in my conclusion.
The accuracy of the first point should be self-evident. If it's not, you might want to get in your ox-cart, go to the nearest lending-temple and check out a scroll on the history of science and technology. The second point requires a closer look though. The claim of divine inspiration is not unquestionably evident anywhere in the holy books I've read. Take morality for instance. The Golden Rule is common in some form or other in all three of the great monotheistic faiths. It's also common to even older religions that no longer have adherents. So are rules against lying, killing and stealing. Since it should be evident that no society can last long if rules like these aren't followed, isn't it possible that could think of them themselves and see the necessity of enforcing them through law... or maybe even by promising divine reward or punishment by the gods too? If you admit this is possible, then you have to decide which scenario is more plausible; that God(s) inspired and enforce moral laws, or that men thought of them and by claiming that God was on the job would help with the enforcement of them. After all, it's easier to evade a policeman's eye than that of a god watching you and taking notes on your infractions. It's actually irrelevant to the effect the holy rules have as to whether or not the people who wrote them down thought they were divinely inspired. It only matters if you think so.
And we needn't examine whether all these rules are truly moral or not; or whether they sometimes contradict what we think is moral today, such as whether it's an unalloyed good to be willing to kill your own child to please God as Abraham and Jepthah were; or whether God was making some profound moral point by sending a bear to kill children who were teasing a bald man. These things may not help the case for God's moral authority but they don't say anything about who wrote the Bible: divinely inspired men or just men. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence to be considered seriously. Where is the extraordinary evidence for divine inspiration or special knowledge?
Where does Jehovah say, "No, no, no, King Hiram. 3 is not the best value to use for pi when you build my temple. Use 3.14159 and the structure will be more pleasing to me." If God had given the value of pi to five or more decimal places, that would have shown special knowledge unavailable at the time. As it happens, the Egyptians already had calculated pi to two decimal places but the "divinely inspired" Hebrew who wrote about the First Temple wasn't even aware of that. Similarly, wouldn't it be nice if Jesus said, "Hey, I raised Lazarus from the dead but here's a miracle you can perform even when I'm not in town; a cure for cancer." And isn't it too bad that the angel Gabriel never says, "Hey, Mohammed! Here's a real revelation for ya! Mass is just a special state of energy and you can determine the relationship between them with this simple formula, E = M*C (squared)." Unfortunately, there is nothing in any of the holy books that could not plausibly originate from the minds of the people of the time. Even the verses that some claim predict future events, as Deuteronomy 28:64 and Luke 19:43-44 are supposed to do for the Jewish Diaspora, aren't written with the kind of specificity one would expect from an all-knowing deity. If they were, they might read, "66 years after the Savior's birth and again 132 years after it, the Jews will rebel against their Roman overlords, be defeated after terrific struggles and be scattered across the face of the Earth. Not until 1,948 years after the Savior's birth will they have a homeland again." (author's note: most of these examples were taken from or inspired by Sam Harris's wonderful little book, Letter to a Christian Nation. I recommend it for its concise, easy-to-read explanations of most of the critical thinking vs faith arguments.)
Finally we come to my third point. Despite the fact none of monotheism's holy books can be unequivocally shown to originate anywhere other than the minds of people of the times they were written, each is claimed to be the repository of absolute truths. The effect of this is a tendency to freeze that time's worldview into dogma and retard the acceptance of any new knowledge that's at odds with it. It skews understanding as people of faith try to pound the square peg of reality into the round hole of their dogma. Almost all the social, material and scientific progress of the world has been held back rather than assisted by theists. It isn't just Galileo's sun-centered view of the solar system or Darwin's theory of evolution that they've rejected and tried to suppress; it's Edward Jenner's smallpox vaccine, Benjamin Franklin's lightning rod, emancipation of women and a whole host of other things. I suppose I've mentioned a couple things I think are wrong with the theistic worldview rather than just one. Even so, they aren't the only reasons I reject theism as a valid worldview. They are, however, a couple of the major ones.
-------------------------
"What is the main reason you reject atheism as a valid worldview?"
James-Michael's response:
There isn’t one specific reason that I reject atheism; there are many. Rather than a linear argument against nonbelief being what leads to my faith, it’s more like number of lines of evidence that come together into a sort of web of faith. But for the purpose of this dialogue I will highlight one reason in particular why I reject atheism as valid: in my opinion, atheism lacks sufficient explanatory power to answer the most fundamental questions of life.
Atheism denies that there is a creator, designer or originator of the universe that is apart from the universe. This means that the origin of the universe (not to mention our little neck of the galactic woods called biological life) must be explained from within. The universe either came to being out of nothing, with no reason or purpose behind it, or it has always existed with no explanation necessary for why it does in the first place, or it created itself through an unidentified quantum event involving the inversion or reversal of spacetime (which differs depending on which theoretical physicist one reads). There are numerous arguments which have put forward to show the implausibility of each of these options—the one I believe carries the most weight would be the Kalam cosmological argument. But regardless of which particular argument for a theistic, deistic, pantheistic or panentheistic universe is considered the strongest, the argument for an atheistic universe lies at the bottom of the stack when it comes to explanatory power.
Atheism denies that humanity has any intrinsic teleological purpose. In an atheistic universe, there is no intrinsic difference, existentially speaking, between people and particles; between mankind and meteorites. We have no ultimate purpose—just whatever ‘purpose’ we choose to believe we have. This renders life meaningless—despite some atheists’ claims to the contrary. Many atheists simply aren’t consistent enough in (or choose cognitive dissonance in order to avoid) following the worldview to its logical conclusions. Those, like Nietzsche, who have, are often brushed aside as mentally or emotionally troubled, rather than embraced as true models of atheistic thinking. However, if there is no external supreme creator, then there logically cannot be any objective meaning to existence. This is inescapable, it seems. It doesn’t mean atheism is false, of course. But it does mean that intellectually honest atheists need to live consistent with their worldview and stop trying to embrace intrinsic objective purpose to life.
Atheism denies an ultimate objective source of Justice and Morality. Let me be clear at this point in what I’m NOT saying. I’m not saying atheists aren’t Just or Moral! Atheists often have a keen sense of Justice and Morality—many times trumping even those who adhere to various religions! However, I believe this is a case of atheists living better than their worldview. Notions of Justice and Morality are intrinsic to humanity. Even though humans have often disagreed as to the CRITERIA in judging whether something is Just or Moral, they have always, at all time, universally recognized the EXISTENCE of these concepts and their binding nature over all humanity. While there may be differing frameworks of Morality or notions Justice, there is no question that an ultimate, true, objective standard exists among humanity—as C.S. Lewis thoroughly demonstrated in the opening chapters of “Mere Christianity.” If atheism is true, then this becomes extremely difficult (I would say impossible) to account for rationally.
Atheism cannot plausibly explain the near-universal innate tendency toward belief in a god, God, gods, etc. among humanity. Many evolutionary and anthropological arguments for the existence of religion have been offered, from “religion was created to keep the ruling class in authority” to Freud’s “religion is the projection of inner longings for parental love” to “religion is wishful thinking that gives people a crutch to get through life.” These arguments usually sound reasonable at first, but I believe they fall apart once actual religious belief among humanity’s various religious worldviews is looked at in greater detail.
While one can’t “prove” or “disprove” atheism or theism in a scientific sense, at the end of the day, the arguments in favor of theism are much stronger and the explanatory ability of atheism is extremely weak in dealing with humanity’s deepest and most profound questions.
(The best way to do this is to SUBSCRIBE BY EMAIL to each of their profiles! Just click the link next to their bio at the top of their pages!)
Comments
James-Michael has again trotted out the tired old cliche of "no god no morals." We have morals because they were evolutionarily selected for, ultimately leading to improved survival of our species! The evidence for our moral values having been determined by natural selection through evolution grows stronger by the day, particularly when one studies the behavior or our nearest primate neighbors, chimps and bonobos, which show remarkably similar moral behavior to humans, e.g. reciprocity, empathy, sympathy, collaboration etc. There was even a very recent study showing that these animals share many of the same laughter traits as humans and that laughter may go back as far as 10 million years ago (google 'apes and laughter' for a synopsis of the study). Evolution provides a far more realistic, and testable, explanation of the commonality of moral values across all religious and ethnic traditions than the assertion that God gave us morality. People are moral because its in their genes!
Before beginning a debate on 'atheism' I would always stop and ask: Wait, do you wish to debate the position which lacks a belief in a deity? Or, do you wish to debate the position which holds a belief in no-deities? The latter is easily irrational on the same basis as theism, while the former - the vast majority of atheists - is often ignored or unknown to the non-atheist.
DT Strain,
Houston Humanist Examiner
DT,
Hugh is definitely in the former (see his recent article defining atheism that he holds to). The latter is indefensible, as you correctly note.
Cheese,
You've only noted that primate behavior and human behavior are similar in some aspects. Yet there is no demonstrable "morality" entailed in animal behavior, nor is the universal morality that we all innately possess in any way conducive to basic evolutionary thought. Some altruistic notions may have beneficial effects on humans as a species, but the majority actually have negative effects from a survival of the fittest approach. This is why an evolutionary-reductionist explanation offers no solution to the problem of morality.
I'm certain James-Michael will respond in due time but I submit that his opening statement goes beyond simply "no god no morals" but is rather hitting on a fundamental theme of "no God, no nothing."
Morality and justice are certainly profound issues in human existence but, for the theist, wouldn't be the end game in dealing with "intrinsic objective purpose to life." They would simply point back to the creator who revealed these aspects of his character to humanity - the one out of whom which we would begin to derive purpose.
On that note: Let's say that I wholeheartedly agree with the idea that evolution best accounts for the commonality of moral values accross the human spectrum. That's great. But peaking a step further behind the curtain, so to say, still does not reveal an intrinsic objective purpose for life. If honest, I would still need to embrace the lack of purpose that this suggests or instead do further searching/seeking regarding other views of existence. (Continue)
(Continue) As James-Michael noted, this doesn't mean atheism is false. It's just a solid foundational place, in my mind, to begin honestly considering our raison d'etre. Which way offers the most sufficient explanatory power to answer the most fundamental questions of life?
I love these debates because they allow all of us to expand our perspectives. As a believer, I don't want to "put God in a box." As a former atheist, I find it hard to accept pat answers to questions of faith. There is a lot of mystery to God.
godless cheese head
I do not want to take this debate in a different direction but your entire argument is based on the idea of the natural selection of morals. Well, I would argue that everyday in America we see a clashing of your evolution of morals. To a gang member in South Central LA it is moral and within his/her right to kill anyone that threatens his "family." Where does that fall in the evolution of morality? We are influenced by the world around us in our views of morality. I bet that gang member thinks that the people in Arizona that have multiple wives is pretty immoral. There was an incident recently in Philadelphia where some men beat up another man because he was accused of raping a child. Which party is moral? Wouldn't it all depend on where in the world that person was located? I see the argument that our belief system and society clouds our morality, but where is there a culture that is so uninfluenced by the outside world as to put your theory to the test?
I would like to comment that if I built a robot to worship me, and I knew that it was going to hack up my family with spears, stakes, and crucifixion, I would stop him. But hey, that’s just me. I’M NOT GOD. I don't butcher my kids, burn people alive, and commit mass genocide on women and children (flood). But I’m still supposed to feel guilty about Jesus getting slain, and sign up for his program because now I owe him. If God is actually real, I don't care to know him.
Martin Luther King had a dream, and so do I.
I dream of a day when we will not need God anymore.
I dream of a day when we can look to each other and within ourselves for Truth.
And certainly I dream of a day when Human Beings, as intelligent, creative, and wonderful as we all are, will no longer depend on a fairytale, about an imaginary friend named Jesus Christ.
For the record, I am a Heathinistic Agnostic – An unconverted member of a Nation or People who do not acknowledge the God of the Bible.
Thank you.
Jeff, I'll give you credit for being honest. But you're assuming all kinds of things in your moral indictment of God...including your unique interpretation of the Biblical texts you reference! ;)
@James-Michael
"Some altruistic notions may have beneficial effects on humans as a species, but the majority actually have negative effects from a survival of the fittest approach. This is why an evolutionary-reductionist explanation offers no solution to the problem of morality."
Have you read "The Selfish Gene"? It has a whole chapter dedicated to the question of morals, and it tackles that apparent problem quite nicely.
Etienne,
Is it the chapter "Nice guys finish first"? I don't have the book so I can't check (I only have his "God Delusion" and "Blind Watchmaker").
"Atheism denies that humanity has any intrinsic teleological purpose." -um, so does theism. If you're looking outside of humanity to find humanity's purpose, then it isn't intrinsic. (intrinsic - belonging to a thing by its very nature.) Also, by the same argument, theism denies that God has any intrinsic telelogical purpose, rendering God's existence meaningless (despite some theists' claim to the contrary.) As such, any meaning assigned by such a being would have no foundation.
"Atheism denies an ultimate objective source of Justice and Morality." - Again, so does theism. Theism has God as its source of justice and morality - and God is a thinking subject! Morality remains subjective under theism. (subjective - existing in the mind; belonging to the thinking subject rather than to the object of thought.) God is not a mindless thing, and any morality with God as its source would therefore be subjective.
Kalam argument? ::snicker:: Surely, theists can do better than that: an argument that is based, mostly, on misunderstanding of modern physics and cosmology...
Or perhaps not?
You might want to check out "the God's arn't angry" by Rob Bell - a christian minister who shows how a view of God or Gods could come about.
I did Theology for 2 years so i'm pretty glued up on the arguments FOR and AGAINST the existence of a creator. Rather than go into masses of detail cos nobody can be bothered reading a drawn out post. Here is a list of reasons why i don't, and never will, follow a belief system other than my own set of morales. (which on the subject, didn't come from above, nor did it come from some apes 2 million years ago, but simply from education, trial-and-error and general observations of the world around me) The list goes like this...
1. Evolution is a plausable explanation, whereas creation isn't. e.g; The rocks became that shape because of years of erosion, not becuase some wizard zapped it that way.
2. The problem of evil, natural disastors, disease, the old 'good things happen to bad people and bad things happen to good people' argument.
3. It's just not functional in the modern day world, simple as.
running out of characters dammit... this ends here, list would go on.
I dont get the popular idea that atheists dont have purpose.. What about the purpose of just being human and doing human things?
My dog fullfills his purpose and is happiest just being a dog and doing dog things.
Why not humans? People need to learn to enjoy and embrace their humanity, the rest will fall in place. Life is wasted always paranoid about the afterlife. I never existed for 12 billion years, yet I feel no sadness or loss over my lack of existence.
Be human- thats our universal purpose.
We are human for only a blink of an eye, learn to enjoy it with all of its drama, its pain and joy and stop demonizing it, because it ends soon enough.
I really would like something more from theists than the standard "I can't come up with a better answer so I'm sticking with the 2000 yr old superstition". I mean, it's basically saying they are too lazy or afraid to go looking for answers and would rather just keep their security blanket. I've been looking for years for a reason people can believe these fairy tales as truth, and I'm banging my head against a wall here. Basically what I see here is writer one sees no evidence to support the other view and at same time recognizes a pattern of humans making up deities to answer the unanswerable.
Writer two seems to think life without a creator is meaningless. And since life can't possibly be meaningless there must be a creator. (Is there a message there besides this circular logic that I missed?)
Belief in a god is not necessary for moral, why do theists think a god is necessary? Besides, have you read the bible? This god character seriously needs to get his morals checked
I really hate it when theists make the claim that we atheists say the universe came from nothing. Most atheists agree with science and science doesn't say the universe came from nothing. Once a theist makes that remark though I loose any interest in reading the rest of what the theist has to say. If they're that ignorant about that point the rest will most likely be the same diatribes and nonsensical bull we've heard before.
Soulless - JM didn't say that all atheists think the universe came from nothing. He actually listed 3 different scenarios which atheists use to explain the origin of the universe (see his 2nd paragraph). Please, don't stop reading this debate.
@James-Michael - I told you so. You are already talking past one another.
FAIL
Okay Selah I read it and he's still wrong and one point in particular I'll touch on here. The existence of the concepts of justice and morality alone are not enough to claim there must be a absolute justice or morality even if we can't decide on what that is. All morality comes from intention both individually and collectively. Intention for ourselves, our culture, or our society. Things that are contrary to our intentions will automatically be deemed "wrong" or "immoral". Justice was created as a deterrent and to instill conformity to collective intentionality. We should not mistake vengeance for justice. They are not the same thing and they are often convoluted. Nothing about the concepts of morality or justice is in any way supernatural including the existence of the concept itself. Humans have evolved to be social species because we discovered early on that if we stuck together we would be more likely to survive.
Richard, I have that talk on DVD and I think it's excellent. However, Bell doesn't explain the origin of all religious view, he explains the development of innate knowledge of the divine and how it got twisted based on lack of revelation and human sin and exploitation. The entire discussion presupposes the existence of God and the person of Jesus. If you watch his NOOMA videos and read Velvet Elvis you can see this theme throughout Bell's work, I believe.
"The God's Aren't Angry" is however a great presentation and I encourage everyone to check it out. Thanks for posting.
My atheist friends,
I plan on addressing much of your criticisms in my response to Hugh's initial answer as well as my rebuttal to his critique of mine.
Patience, Grasshoppas, patience... ;)
Brent,
How are we "talking past each other", when we haven't interacted yet? We've both given our starting points only.
Your smug comment = fail ;)
James-Michael: I pretty much have to disagree with your assessment that "there is no demonstratable morality entailed in animal behavior" as would most evolutionary biologists. It is clearly observed and can and does lead to individual and group survival which is the whole point of evolution. You seem to argue that atheism offers no way of answering the big questions and that only the notion of a god(s) can do that. You have committed a huge non-sequitur by presupposing that life (and by extension the universe) should have a purpose. But why should it? As far as any atheist I know, we give purpose to our own life. I have a family, and I love them dearly and do what I can to make their life happy and meaningful. I enjoy my job and work hard to do it well. Nowhere in all of this do I need a god(s) to give it meaning. So, I will certainly admit, from my point of view, there is no ultimate point of life. But so what? I don't need one. It's great to be alive and enjoy the ride.
James-Michael says:
"...atheism lacks sufficient explanatory power to answer the most fundamental questions of life..."
First, atheism never claimed such explanation. These questions are for science to investiagate.
Second, theism ALSO lacks such power to answer those questions, but nevertheless all known brunches of theism CLAIM they have answers. Unfortunately for theism all these claims so far found to be lacking any kind of substantiation, factual or logical.
@godless cheese head
Thank you for saying that. I would also add that if the rest of the animal kingdom doesn't need or worry about an *objective* purpose or meaning then we don't need those either. In my opinion, the attempt to discern some objective meaning in an otherwise intrinsically meaningless universe will inevitably be nothing more than projection. Which is precisely why and how every religion's adherents projects their particular version of what they say are "objective" meaning and purpose upon existence coming to various and sundry conclusions.
No need to reply other than saying the more theists explain themselves the more atheist I become.......
Soulless and Godless, you are both examples of what I said above about atheists living better than their worldview. If you claim life has no meaning, you certainly live as if it does I would be willing to wager. Subjective meaning is just another term for delusion (as, I readily admit, belief in God is if He does not in fact exist).
Strontium, that's odd because that's precisely how I feel regarding atheistic arguments. That just shows that this isn't a purely intellectual issue; it's also an emotional one. Otherwise great thinkers from the beginning of recorded history wouldn't disagree on God's existence or lack thereof. This more than anything is what I hope to get people to see who are so dogmatic in their beliefs.
While they don't agree there is an external force giving meaning to their lives, I'm willing to bet that they would agree that we, as individuals, make our own meaning for our lives. Love of family, friends, life are common meanings, believers just add a couple of others and say it all comes from God.
SAS,
Yes, precisely. The question we will have to explore as this dialogue continues is "Why is this the case?"
Looking forward to great discussion and honest debate to come!
@James-Michael says:
"The question we will have to explore as this dialogue continues is "Why is this the case?"
Fear. Fear is the strongest of motivators. In this case it is undoubtedly the fear of non-existence, fear of the unknown, and one fear that so many people overlook, the fear of actually living.
Religions appeal to so many people because it justifies their already inherent fears. That of course in no way means that the justification provided by religions are valid. Theism also tends to provide alleviation of those fears by some means or another. This is the security blanket that many are seeking.
I would suggest, and from my own experience, that atheists let go of those fears and therefore do not require justification for them or a security blanket to alleviate them.
Soulless, I appreciate your point, but that argument cuts both ways. For instance, fear also drives people who don't want to believe that they will be accountable to an ultimate authority for everything they've done in this life to reject the idea of God and cling to nonbelief. Or fear of the unknown leads another to reject anything that hints of the spiritual a priori for the sake of maintaining the illusion of control. For every example of someone irrationally embracing theism there is another of someone irrationally embracing atheism. That is why this isn't a compelling line of argument.
@James-Michael
That might be true, but then why aren't Christians afraid of being held accountable to the God of Islam? Or to Karma? Or to the feather of Maat? Fear is part of what it is to be human, but when one fears without justification one will either eliminate the fear or seek to justify it. The elimination of fear is hard so it is only natural that most people will seek to justify it instead. Once the fear is justified they oddly do not fear similarly alternative justifications for fear. Why do you think that is? I'll end this post with an alternative version of a quote by Steven Roberts, "I contend we all live with a certain level of fear. Atheists just fear fewer things than you do. When you understand why you do not fear the gods of all the other religions, you will understand why I do not fear yours."
@James-Michael
As for fear of the unknown is concerned. The only thing I admit that I readily fear is the dying process. I've never experienced that and not everyone experiences it in the same way. I can imagine it's not too pleasant, but I do not fear anything that comes afterward since I fully expect it to be the nothingness I didn't have an opportunity to experience before my birth.
I enjoy reading these comments...en"joy." That is an emotion isn't it? Why does this debate always stay within the realm of the intellect? Not saying the intellect doesn't speak loudly and clearly, our cognitions are key! Theist or Athiest, do we not exist with multiple faculties of our being? Not only reason, but emotion, body, experience, etc..I love how you can hear and sense the tone of each argument and statement. For those of you who study emotion, I am sure you know that fear (coming under the umbrella of "worry") is a future oriented emotion, usually stemming from a perceived threat. Anger, which is most apparent too...is mostly a present oriented emotion...stemming from an injustice. What is everyone so angry about? What is the injustice? I've always loved the quote, "I've never met an athiest that wasn't angry." Has anyone ever refuted that one? Just curious. So my question in this is ultimately, are we throwing out all faculties of our being, except "reason" here?
I see, the words are there, but no one is addressing them precisely...fear, experience, think, "looking for a reason"...answer...etc.
@just curious
When reading the intonation is far too often a projection of the reader, however it could be as in the case of those who read the comments of atheists, an expectation. If one expects an atheist to be angry one might read all comments from atheist with that intonation.
Just a thought.
What is the main reason you reject _______ as a valid worldview?
I admit to being simple so I have to ask "Why did you phrase the discussion question that way?" Because "valid" could be construed as "viable", "appropriate", "justifiable", "relevant", "meaningful", and so I could accept both worldviews as "valid". If you want "valid" to mean something else, please make that clear. And I look forward to a continuing discussion.
Can atheists remove themselves from such faculties in order to be purely objective in such discussions? Is there pure objectivity here? Humans are never separate from the universe they observe, but instead participate personally in it, and thus cannot develop purely "objective" (e.g., unbiased) knowledge. Human skills, biases, and passions are not flaws but play an important and necessary role in guiding discovery and validation. One observes that the mark of a great scientist is the ability to identify for investigation those scientific questions, which are likely to lead to successful resolution. This ability derives not only from the scientist's ability to perceive patterns and connections, but also from personal interests and biases. In turn, these biases fuel the scientist's willingness to risk his or her reputation by committing to a hypothesis and advocating it....
...What saves the claim that all knowledge is personal from relativism is his belief that our tacit awareness connects us with objective realities. Our tacit awareness however relies upon assumptions acquired within a local context, so we cannot simply assume that they have universal validity; we must seek truth but accept the possibility of error. Any process of articulation inevitably relies upon that which is not articulated. Indeed, reliance upon what is not articulated is how words become meaningful, i.e. meaning is not reducible to a set of rules; it is grounded in our experience - where experience is not something that can simply be reduced to collections of sense data.
@Just Curious
Most humans are not scientists and that includes most atheists so why should there be pure objectivity here? Is honesty not enough? This topic is, after all, about ourselves. Is that not automatically subjective?
@Soulless
It is subjective in that respect and I agree...most are not scientists, but for those who try to "reason"(or rely on intellect alone) their way through a discussion often have to rely on the objective and scientific to ground their claims. I like the honesty here...and that is exactly why I am advocating for more of an integrated (and honest) approach to discussing "how" we conclude why we hold to one worldview or the other. Honestly, consider the other elements of who we are and how we reach our conclusions...I like theological discussion, but equally like social (science), psychological, mathematical, philosophical, biological, etc., and I "personally" get the sense (believe, think, feel...) that we rely way too much on one aspect of who we are when coming to our conclusions. I'm just challenging others to broaden themselves as they answer "why" they hold their worldview.
Okay, so I'm not as technical and well-studied as you all seem to be, but one particular thought stands out in my mind:
Survival of the fittest says only the strong will survive. So whoever does whatever it takes, regardless of morality, will be top dog.
But most of us do not do whatever it takes. Why? We have a conscience and a set of morals that stop us. Survival of the fittest says that the guy who looks out for just himself will take advantage and dominate those who show restraint. So why is it that we all still have morals after so many generations? Shouldn't those with no morals be the ones advancing through time? Shouldn't morality have fallen out of the gene pool long ago?
Human nature says, "I'm going to do what's best for me regardless of who it hurts. I'm going to do it my way." To me, this means those morals have to come elsewhere, and the only other option is God.
@Soulless
your q: "When reading the intonation is far too often a projection of the reader, however it could be as in the case of those who read the comments of atheists, an expectation. If one expects an atheist to be angry one might read all comments from atheist with that intonation. "
a:... precisely! It could be a "projection," I admit..but more so a countertransference as I read the meaning of the words discussed here through "my" eyes, experience, studies, training, etc....it's good to be aware of that which strikes the chords of CT. And I am aware of all (as far as that which is conscious and not unconscious) the ways that support my conclusion of holding a theistic worldview. So, for me, there is more than just "reasons" why I hold a theistic view.
Tim,
That's a good question that I want to address. The reason the question is phrased this way is to leave a bit of ambiguity in order for both Hugh and I to take it in whatever initial direction we wanted to answer in. "Valid" to me means "not in accordance with how things actually are" or "erroneous". That is how I am approaching it. Hugh seems to be approaching it in a similar manner, but I don't want to put words in his mouth.
BTW, we will share our respective critiques of the other's initial answer within the next few days. Mine will be posted here and Hugh's will be on his examiner page. Stay tuned... :)
Thanks for great discussion everyone!
@Just Curious
I understand about wanting objectivity yet through an integrated approach rather than reason alone. For myself though, I was Christian for most of my life. At that time, I was also someone who was almost solely driven by my emotions. I did not reason. I simply allowed the programming I received as a child, some positive but mostly negative, to drive my actions and reactions. As I've gotten older I have come to realize that is no way to live. You would have to read my deconversion from theism to understand why my theist experience was so negative. Today, I tend not to rely on my emotions very much because I do not entirely trust them. My deconversion from theism was a long and difficult process. Although it is too long for this forum, I have made a short fairly concise description of my experiences that led me leave theism and I'm willing to email it to you if you are interested. If not, that's fine as well.
Tyler,
Actually, our social behavior did develop through evolution the same way it developed in other social species. Consider early humans, living out in the wild. They weren't the strongest, fastest creatures in the world, but they had to kill prey for their meals, and avoid predators that wanted to kill them. They had to work together to do either very well. Those that worked together well survived. Those that killed others or treated others badly were either killed themselves or expelled from the group, and usually didn't survive alone. It didn't take long before they started setting down a set of rules that became early morals. We still get our morals from the groups we're a part of; from our family, our friends, our community, even church groups. But if you read the old testament, you'll see some rules set down there (such as stoning a rebellious child) that you can't accept as moral today.
Hi James-Michael,
Let me try to correct some of the rather blatantly unfounded suppositions that evolve suddenly into your rather lengthy straw man argument.
Atheism is merely the disbelief in the existence of any of the purported deities as claimed by assorted religious adherents due to a distinct lack of evidence for any of them.
Atheism, in short, is a conclusion after an assessment of claims and not an ideology or philosophy.
Atheists can derive and assert their own philosophical perspectives along with moral and ethical standards that they abide by.
This is observable in the varied approaches that people who do not believe in God(s)ess(es) express in popular media and on internet blogs around the world.
We can all love a mystery and not be obligated to fill the gaps in our knowledge with the gods and monsters.
That said, the opposite of atheism isn’t “religion” or “morality” or “Christianity”.
The opposite of atheism is “theism”.
Neither of these words have anything to do with morality or ethics or their perceived “sources”, they are simply defined as either a belief or disbelief in deities respectively.
A “source” of morality is a different issue altogether and applies to everyone equally.
All people get their morality from the same place, their own human minds, based upon practical personal experience and the successfully developed human tendency for empathy.
The only difference is that religious adherents assert a purported divine right for their perspective in order to promote representative authority for their claims and behavioral standards.
Pages
Got something to say?
Examiner.com is looking for writers, photographers, and videographers to join the fastest growing group of local insiders. If you are interested in growing your online rep apply to be an Examiner today!