Why Do Atheists Care About Religion?

[LNC]

You know what LNC, I just sat and read all of Hebrews chapter 1 with your interpretation in mind. Setting aside all of the Greek word justifications you're trying to use which Oddbird already address very well to my satisfaction, setting aside all that, just reading the chapter with your spin about faith based on evidence I will say it simply flies in the face of it.

 

With what set of eyes do read this??

 

I will grant that a "blind faith" is not what this is talking about, but it certainly is not a faith that is build upon an objective evaluation of the evidence, as you would like us to believe! No. Simply no. This is speaking of an evidence of the heart, not of the tools of reason. But you don't get that, I can see.

 

None of these have anything to do with a conviction of the mind based upon a careful weighing of objective evidence. I've tried to point this out to you before that you are forcing our modern mindset of the importance of objective evidences in determining epistemological truths back onto these people of the first century. That is an error on your part. They were not thinking like us.

 

And I understand your motives. You are an apologist who is trying to use the tools of deductive reason that the atheist does in challenging the modern mindset of the literalness of the Bible in objective scientific terms. You are trying to make it about reason, and evidence. And in so doing, in my opinion, you gut it from being about something that is by definition, different than just reason.

 

I understand what the Bible is getting at, I understand it's language. And it is not the language of an objective evidence evaluation sort of act of 'confidence' which you call faith. You are not reading it for what it is, nor seeing it IMO.

 

Now you are twisting what I said. I said that faith is trust based upon persuasion, that is the meaning of the word pistis. Now we have to ask why these people trusted. You can go down the list of people in Hebrews 11 and you will find that each had some personal encounter with God, not a subjective experience, but one that was objective. God was still personally communicating to his people even after they left the Garden as is evident when Cain killed Abel and God confronted him. Noah personally communicated directly with God, as did Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Moses, Gideon, Barak, Samson, Jephthah, David and Samuel and the prophets. The people of Israel saw the manifestation of God in the plagues and the pillar of cloud and fire, and they also crossed through the Read Sea on dry ground. Rahab most likely heard of the conquests that Israel had had up to that point and that they trusted in Yahweh, who was the reason for their success. In other words, each had a good reason to trust God, an objectively good reason at that. But, as you said, they were simply expressing a blind faith, and that is ultimately my point.

 

However, I don't see how you justify your statement that these people didn't have a conviction of mind in putting their trust in God. On what do you base that assessment? Being persuaded doesn't always involve a weighing of various evidences. It only means that the evidence that one sees is persuasive enough to be convincing. For example, if my boss said that he was giving me a raise, I don't weigh evidence in my mind as to whether he has the authority to make such a decision, whether the company has the money to pay the raise or whether I deserve the raise. I simply trust that my next paycheck will be larger than the previous ones. His word is good enough at that point for me to trust that it is true.

 

Yes, I am an apologist for my convictions, just as you and many others here are apologists for theirs. I'm not sure what that has to do with anything. It is not me who determines whether something is true or false, the evidence has to speak for itself. I don't ask anyone to simply take my word for it, nor do I take the word of any atheistic apologist here when they make an assertion. I, like many here, am a skeptic and I check the facts. Sure, we all have motives and are driven by them, but we all have to make the case with evidence and that evidence has to be considered carefully and with fairness.

 

I understand that you have your point of view and that your point of view influences the way that you look at the evidence; however, I guess I would expect that you would make a case as to why you reject it. If you have a case against the use of pistis as I have presented it and given evidence for that presentation, I hope you will present it.

 

I notice that thrice I've asked you to engage in a discussion of your faith with me beyond all your external evidences arguments which you seem to build your 'confidence' (which you call faith), on. Not once have you stepped beyond your tirelessly constructed tower of reason and exposed what is on the inside, hidden behind that 'confidence' built on 'evidences'.

 

Is this what your faith is for you? This sort of belief is no different in nature than that of the materialist you attempt to compete with and appeal to. It is to put a point on it, a materialistic faith. Not one that begins from the inside.

 

I'm not sure to what you are referring, so refresh my memory. Listen, hopefully we all build our convictions on some evidence and when someone asks for a reason for why we are convinced of what we believe, it only seems right to refer to that evidence. In what way does one step beyond that evidence? Do you want me to say that I believe blindly or for some irrational reasons? Maybe you can clarify what you mean here and what your intentions are.

 

LNC

[Ouroboros]

You can go down the list of people in Hebrews 11 and you will find that each had some personal encounter with God, not a subjective experience, but one that was objective.

Uh? What? Personal encounter as an objective experience? What does the word "subjective" mean to you? Or the word "personal"?

 

I suspect you didn't mean exactly the way it sounds like. A personal experience is subjective. That's the way I understand the word "subjective."

[LNC]

Are laws and rules really objective though? They don't exist without the minds of humanity. If humanity was gone, the laws and rules would also disappear. This is what I was trying to get at about the bible. It's a book of laws and rules that only exist because humans made them. What is true objectivity then? Wouldn't it be something like gravity that needs no interpretation and does the same thing over and over...in other words, mind-independent (if that's possible)?

 

First, I'm not sure what that has to do with whether morality is objective. If morality is meant for humanity and humanity were to go away, then there would be no further need for morality. However, it doesn't mean that morality originates with humanity, that doesn't logically follow. You simply assume that the Bible is of human origins, you have not proved that point. Besides, the Bible is, in part, an expression of what the morals are, it is not the source of the morals. You confuse the arguments of origin (ontology) versus understanding (epistemology). Just because someone were to do something over and over again, wouldn't necessarily make it good, nor would it make it objective. If we all agreed that killing people of a certain ethnic background was good, would it be good? Suppose that we did it consistently every time we encountered someone of that ethnicity, then would it be good because it was done consistently? I hope we wouldn't come to that conclusion.

 

LNC

[Shyone]

Well, the confusion may be in what LNC believes. He believes all people are bad and religion makes them good. He starts off with an ad hominem and goes from there...backwards.

 

You are quite wrong in assessing my beliefs. I don't believe that all people are bad or that religion makes them good. I believe that all people were created good and that God actually said, very good; however, through man's rebellion, we became corrupted in our nature and separated from God by doing so. Because of the we have the tendency to do evil acts (which explains the existence of evil in the first place, since if people were inherently good by nature and not corrupted, we would not see evil acts being committed).

 

Religion doesn't make people good. In fact, most religion is just a mask over the sin problem that we do have. People use religion as a way of appearing to be good, when in their hearts, they really aren't. Only God can resolve our sin problem and change our hearts and minds.

 

So, you are quite wrong in your assessment and wrong in your application of logic as I have committed no ad hominem.

 

LNC

The part about being "created good" was apparently before my time (like Adam and Eve, right?). According to what you just wrote, we are now corrupted and "tend to do evil" which is another way of saying "bad." So the criticism was valid.

 

And when we say religion, we mean a bag of doctrine, or dogma, or beliefs or actions that are prescribed by people who believe (like you) in order to remove the evil spirits and "change hearts and minds." So you would say "religion" (yours, to be specific) makes people "sinless" (good).

 

So the second observation was correct. You like to weasel out of things though, don't you? Never let us be right even when we repeat what you say in summarized form.

 

The problem is that we are not inherently sinful, and you are not sinless. We have no corruption that needs fixin' and our tendencies are human ones - for better or worse.

 

We just don't happen to believe your bag of bullshit.

[Mriana]

Well, the confusion may be in what LNC believes. He believes all people are bad and religion makes them good. He starts off with an ad hominem and goes from there...backwards.

 

You are quite wrong in assessing my beliefs. I don't believe that all people are bad or that religion makes them good. I believe that all people were created good and that God actually said, very good; however, through man's rebellion, we became corrupted in our nature and separated from God by doing so. Because of the we have the tendency to do evil acts (which explains the existence of evil in the first place, since if people were inherently good by nature and not corrupted, we would not see evil acts being committed).

 

Religion doesn't make people good. In fact, most religion is just a mask over the sin problem that we do have. People use religion as a way of appearing to be good, when in their hearts, they really aren't. Only God can resolve our sin problem and change our hearts and minds.

 

So, you are quite wrong in your assessment and wrong in your application of logic as I have committed no ad hominem.

 

LNC

 

Excuse me, but um... I heard this crap before. How is a child guilty of what adults do them? Why do those religious people who do something to a child that is bad try to say that God died for their sins when the child wasn't the one who did something wrong? It was done to the child, yet they are fed this very same bullshit.

[LNC]

You can look at it as objective reality, in that individuals interact with it and it acts as an influence upon its participants. In other words, it has objectively measurable effects. Culture has an objective reality, even though it is entirely created by thoughts. It is not measurable as a physical property of the universe, but it can objectively be pointed to as existing. But here, because it's not physical, it has to be understood through interpretation only, not through measuring its effects like gravity.

 

You can point objectively to the effects of culture (language, style, custom), but none of those are culture itself. The only way to understand culture is to participate in culture and subjectively experience and interpret it. It is an inter-subjective reality, and it can only be understood subjectively, as a participant with others. I can hear the language of another culture, but the meaning of those words can only be understood participating in that culture and interpreting it through that experience.

 

So to the apologist's argument that "God's Word" provides an external and independent witness to the moral laws of the Universe, I can only say without human participants, these laws have no meaning to anything else. They have no context, like gravity interacting with the physical properties of matter. Morals are part of human culture. Rules that we use could not exist without us. They are a product of being human in the world. Someone could argue that they are expressions of an evolved moral conscious in tune with the universe, but that is not how the Christian intends it. They see it as dictated rules from a god with a book.

 

That is simply to confuse ontology with effect. Yes, culture is a subjective existence and, in fact, was an idea that derives from Immanuel Kant in response to ideas of Rousseau regarding the bourgeois. So, it becomes obvious that culture is not an objective idea; however, as you indicate, culture can have an impact that we can see objectively (we all see the same impact or result independent of each other). But that does not mean that culture is an objective idea.

 

Regarding the existence of the moral code, it is irrelevant as to when it was codified since the laws are tied to God's eternal nature. It is the ontology of the code that is in question not the codification of that moral ontology. God's nature is not dependent upon human existence, so I think your point doesn't hold up here.

 

LNC

[Antlerman]

You know what LNC, I just sat and read all of Hebrews chapter 1 with your interpretation in mind. Setting aside all of the Greek word justifications you're trying to use which Oddbird already address very well to my satisfaction, setting aside all that, just reading the chapter with your spin about faith based on evidence I will say it simply flies in the face of it.

 

With what set of eyes do read this??

 

I will grant that a "blind faith" is not what this is talking about, but it certainly is not a faith that is build upon an objective evaluation of the evidence, as you would like us to believe! No. Simply no. This is speaking of an evidence of the heart, not of the tools of reason. But you don't get that, I can see.

 

None of these have anything to do with a conviction of the mind based upon a careful weighing of objective evidence. I've tried to point this out to you before that you are forcing our modern mindset of the importance of objective evidences in determining epistemological truths back onto these people of the first century. That is an error on your part. They were not thinking like us.

 

And I understand your motives. You are an apologist who is trying to use the tools of deductive reason that the atheist does in challenging the modern mindset of the literalness of the Bible in objective scientific terms. You are trying to make it about reason, and evidence. And in so doing, in my opinion, you gut it from being about something that is by definition, different than just reason.

 

I understand what the Bible is getting at, I understand it's language. And it is not the language of an objective evidence evaluation sort of act of 'confidence' which you call faith. You are not reading it for what it is, nor seeing it IMO.

 

Now you are twisting what I said. I said that faith is trust based upon persuasion, that is the meaning of the word pistis. Now we have to ask why these people trusted. You can go down the list of people in Hebrews 11 and you will find that each had some personal encounter with God, not a subjective experience, but one that was objective.

You know LNC, my perception is really shifting. I've always admired the strength of your mind and will in presenting arguments for what you believe to be working for you. What I am seeing now is a disintegration of your edifice in your hands, and in sincerity I feel compassion towards you. I hope it doesn't completely crush you when this comes crashing down, as it is one of the natural hazards of building your beliefs on a tower of logic arguments. However I suspect you will rebuild anew in whatever form that takes. You have a strong Will within you.

 

That said, to your arguments. I honestly can't fathom what you mean as a "personal encounter with God" not being a subjective experience. Of course it's subjective. It's something that they experience on a personal level. That defines subjective.

 

I've had very powerful, personal experiences of "God" to use that inadequate word. Is it real to me? Oh, absolutely. Is it "objective"? No. Who but the one encountering it can possibly understand it, except others who subjectively encountered it? It is not like hunting down and measuring a Bigfoot, analyzing it's composition, it's structure. That is what defines objective. Something, some object, that can be examined. How in the world can you possibly conceive of "God" as an object, a "thing"?

 

Answer that.

 

As I've said, you reduce the Divine to a Yeti in your efforts to defend your cultural connection through religious traditions. That is not the Divine. Not close.

 

God was still personally communicating to his people even after they left the Garden as is evident when Cain killed Abel and God confronted him. Noah personally communicated directly with God, as did Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Moses, Gideon, Barak, Samson, Jephthah, David and Samuel and the prophets. The people of Israel saw the manifestation of God in the plagues and the pillar of cloud and fire, and they also crossed through the Read Sea on dry ground. Rahab most likely heard of the conquests that Israel had had up to that point and that they trusted in Yahweh, who was the reason for their success. In other words, each had a good reason to trust God, an objectively good reason at that. But, as you said, they were simply expressing a blind faith, and that is ultimately my point.

Did you read the words I said? I absolutely did not say they were expressing blind faith. Perhaps you missed the words I said in the quote you posted within the body of your response. Let me draw your attention to it.... it's there a mere 70 some words up above. Here they are again....

I will grant that a "blind faith" is not what this is talking about

, but it certainly is not a faith that is build upon an objective evaluation of the evidence, as you would like us to believe! No. Simply no.

See them now?

 

Maybe you just couldn't follow what I meant and blotted them out in your reading?

 

To clarify, "evidence of the heart". It was the subjective truth of it to them. Some event, some experience, some perspective that carried significance, that spoke of meaning, that motivated from within. This has zip to do with "objective evidence".

 

You don't get that.

 

However, I don't see how you justify your statement that these people didn't have a conviction of mind in putting their trust in God. On what do you base that assessment?

Subjective evidence. That and understanding that these stories about some internal perception crafting into external terms, that cannot be taken literally.

 

Being persuaded doesn't always involve a weighing of various evidences. It only means that the evidence that one sees is persuasive enough to be convincing.

And what of belief without evidence?

 

For example, if my boss said that he was giving me a raise, I don't weigh evidence in my mind as to whether he has the authority to make such a decision, whether the company has the money to pay the raise or whether I deserve the raise. I simply trust that my next paycheck will be larger than the previous ones. His word is good enough at that point for me to trust that it is true.

So God is to be reduced to a man now? Are you to equate God with your boss at work??????

 

I hope I'm making a strong point here to you.

 

Yes, I am an apologist for my convictions, just as you and many others here are apologists for theirs.

Oh, I don't consider myself an apologist at all. I used to be as a Christian. All I do now is present arguments to test conceptions to myself in an effort to expand my thoughts about it all. I'm not married to any of them, and if they don't hold strong for me, I modify them. My only marriage is to growth: Light, Life, Love.

 

How about you?

 

I'm not sure what that has to do with anything. It is not me who determines whether something is true or false, the evidence has to speak for itself.

Our perceptions of the natural world, of evidences our eyes behold, our reasoning grasps at understanding with the mind, are not eternal. I value reason and the rational mind, but I also fully embrace the nature of truth that lives from within the heart. That to me is our core of being.

 

I understand that you have your point of view and that your point of view influences the way that you look at the evidence; however, I guess I would expect that you would make a case as to why you reject it. If you have a case against the use of pistis as I have presented it and given evidence for that presentation, I hope you will present it.

My case against it won't be on an academic level. Oddbird did a stellar job of that so I need not. My case is that you speak out of words, not the heart. I only hear logic arguments. How many times have I said this to you? They ring completely hollow.

[Antlerman]

continuing....

 

 

I notice that thrice I've asked you to engage in a discussion of your faith with me beyond all your external evidences arguments which you seem to build your 'confidence' (which you call faith), on. Not once have you stepped beyond your tirelessly constructed tower of reason and exposed what is on the inside, hidden behind that 'confidence' built on 'evidences'.

 

Is this what your faith is for you? This sort of belief is no different in nature than that of the materialist you attempt to compete with and appeal to. It is to put a point on it, a materialistic faith. Not one that begins from the inside.

 

I'm not sure to what you are referring, so refresh my memory.

I too have a long memory. For your reference.....

Of course, your reading of the Bible and your understanding of it is what this all depends on. We're not talking experiential knowledge here, in the case of those who hold the Bible up as authority for Truth with a capital T. Those perspectives of necessity change, and as above, those who seek to preserve their understanding of what it says through the denial and even persecution of other perspectives, are not anchored, nor ground in Truth at all.

 

Certainly, I will enjoying going there with you. But let's not do that in this thread as it goes way outside the topic. Please take some time to scan over this thread here:

http://www.ex-christian.net/index.php?/topic/34759-the-love-of-jesus/

I see that as a good place for a discussion like this.

 

I look forward to talking about reality, as understood from the inside.

 

 

 

Now to work on addressing some of these points you've raised in response to the model of emergence I presented and tie them into the non-reductive nature of consciousness, which then believe it or not, will tie into that other thread I hope to see engage with on that level with me.

 

Never heard word one from you.

 

 

Listen, hopefully we all build our convictions on some evidence and when someone asks for a reason for why we are convinced of what we believe, it only seems right to refer to that evidence.

It has never occurred to you that might have nothing to do with "verifiable, objective evidence"?

 

In what way does one step beyond that evidence? Do you want me to say that I believe blindly or for some irrational reasons?

I would say that you try to force fit something that has nothing to do with the empirical sciences to something within it.

 

My criticisms of the system have nothing to do with it being verifiable or falsifiable scientifically. You seem stuck there, and thus never even hear the beginning of my arguments.

 

Maybe you can clarify what you mean here and what your intentions are.

 

LNC

Hopefully I've maybe added some clarification. My intentions? That's an interesting question for you to ask. Would you honestly like to know? Perhaps I could explore the reasons with you.

[agnosticator]

If morality is meant for humanity and humanity were to go away, then there would be no further need for morality.

 

Who else is morality "meant for"? God? How does God need it?

 

 

Bernard Gert

The term “morality” can be used either

 

1. descriptively to refer to a code of conduct put forward by a society or,

a. some other group, such as a religion, or

b. accepted by an individual for her own behavior or

 

2. normatively to refer to a code of conduct that, given specified conditions, would be put forward by all rational persons.

 

What “morality” is taken to refer to plays a crucial, although often unacknowledged, role in formulating ethical theories. To take “morality” to refer to an actually existing code of conduct put forward by a society results in a denial that there is a universal morality, one that applies to all human beings. Recently, some comparative and evolutionary psychologists (Haidt, Hauser, De Waal) have taken morality, or a close anticipation, to be present among groups of non-human animals, primarily other primates but not limited to them.

 

 

“Morality” has also been taken to refer to any code of conduct that a person or group takes as most important.The following definition of morality incorporates all of the essential features of morality as a guide to behavior that all rational persons would put forward for governing the behavior of all moral agents. “Morality is an informal public system applying to all rational persons, governing behavior that affects others, and has the lessening of evil or harm as its goal.”

 

 

However, it doesn't mean that morality originates with humanity, that doesn't logically follow.

 

Yes it does. If morality is about human behavior and interactions, then it rests upon the physical/mental/emotional existence of the human animal. God is not human, and nothing human can originate from the immaterial supernatural.

[oddbird1963]

Now you are twisting what I said. I said that faith is trust based upon persuasion, that is the meaning of the word pistis. Now we have to ask why these people trusted.

 

Who's doing the twisting? It can't be Antlerman. I remind you again what YOU wrote, what YOU failed to support and what YOU are conveniently trying to ignore.

 

The proper understanding of the word is conviction or assurance and flows from the evidence that gives that conviction or assurance.

 

 

 

I see you have dropped the part of the definition of the word which you plucked from thin air.

 

If you had done that from the start, you would have been okay.

 

But you insist that faith "flows from the evidence . . . " when , in fact, from the very citations you have provided, one can only ascertain that persuasiveness by any means is all that is required to elicit New Testament faith.

 

 

Jn. 6:69 - Peter's confession of faith. Based upon what? Words - the persuasiveness and inpirational quality of Jesus' speech.

 

 

Jn. 17:8; 1 Jn. 4:6 - Words that lead to a sense of conviction. Not evidence. Persuasion. Like a motivational speaker. Like a political candidate. Like one of hundreds of thousands of cult leaders that capture the hearts and minds

of people everyhere. Faith is a communcations phenomenon. It is a sociological phenomenon. But the bible does not require it be based on evidence.

 

Jn. 4:42 - they heard Jesus speak. They were persuaded by a speech/dialog. They were influenced by the personality of a charismatic leader.

 

That is the least objective approach to making life decisions possible. They may have been persuaded. They may have gained a sense of conviction, but it was not based on evidence.

 

Of course if you can cite the passages quoted in Hebrews as providing "evidence" for faith, then your definition of evidence is so unique and skewed to yourself that it is no longer useful to be used in a conversation about anything.

[Shyone]

That is the least objective approach to making life decisions possible. They may have been persuaded. They may have gained a sense of conviction, but it was not based on evidence.

 

Of course if you can cite the passages quoted in Hebrews as providing "evidence" for faith, then your definition of evidence is so unique and skewed to yourself that it is no longer useful to be used in a conversation about anything.

While I think it's a very poor kind of evidence, even for eye witnesses, miracles might be considered "evidence" to support their faith. I seem to recall a church father that said he believed because of the miracles.

 

Ironically, testimony of miracles is nothing more than "persuasion". Either you believe the person telling the tale, or you don't. And it goes right back to not having any "evidence."

[Antlerman]

Now you are twisting what I said. I said that faith is trust based upon persuasion, that is the meaning of the word pistis. Now we have to ask why these people trusted.

 

Who's doing the twisting? It can't be Antlerman. I remind you again what YOU wrote, what YOU failed to support and what YOU are conveniently trying to ignore.

 

The proper understanding of the word is conviction or assurance and flows from the evidence that gives that conviction or assurance.

 

 

 

I see you have dropped the part of the definition of the word which you plucked from thin air.

 

Yes, I wanted to call him hard on that one, but it was outside the focus of what I was driving at. Glad to you see nailed this one. My response when I read that was a shaking of my head. That's in part why I opened my response observing how his tower of arguments is disintegrating. I can find instance after instance of him in response to you, in trying to persuade another poster, etc of him repeating this statement that faith "flows from the evidence" and that that is the meaning of pistis. Now he is backpedaling.

 

BTW, good form in debate would to issue a retraction of one's argument, a conceding of the point. That would be good form. I'm just saying.

 

 

 

So.... would you say that I have faith in the theory of evolution because of the strength of the evidence supporting it, or that I simply just accept it as true? I would say I simply accept it as true. So then, logically speaking, if someone accepts the strength of the evidence for the Bible Narrative tales as being historical facts, is that really faith, or is it likewise simply accepting it as factual?

 

I can hear Jesus saying to the woman who touched him to be healed (in the LNC's version of the story). Says Jesus, "Woman, by your accepting of the evidence you have been healed". Ridiculous.

[Ouroboros]

BTW, good form in debate would to issue a retraction of one's argument, a conceding of the point. That would be good form. I'm just saying.

That would be the day when global cooling reaches Hell...

[LNC]

Yes, LNC is trying to make 1st Century Christianity speak to post Enlightenment Western culture. Absurd. Nothing more to say.

 

You seem to be committing chronological bias and nothing more. Just because later Enlightenment figures developed certain presuppositional limitations to their epistemology, doesn't mean that none before them looked for evidence to support beliefs. They simply didn't limit evidence to the five senses as did later Enlightenment figures. However, the only reason that these people did was that they developed a naturalistic presupposition, one that wasn't based in the five senses, but was simply a presupposition. In other words, one cannot prove via the five senses that all knowledge only comes through the five senses, therefore, it is a self-defeating epistemological belief. Pre-Enlightenment thinkers simply were not as narrow and limited in their scope of knowledge as later Enlightenment and many post-Enlightenment figures were and are.

 

LNC

[Galien]

LNC do you actually know what a pompous git you are?

[Ouroboros]

You seem to be committing chronological bias and nothing more. Just because later Enlightenment figures developed certain presuppositional limitations to their epistemology, doesn't mean that none before them looked for evidence to support beliefs. They simply didn't limit evidence to the five senses as did later Enlightenment figures. However, the only reason that these people did was that they developed a naturalistic presupposition, one that wasn't based in the five senses, but was simply a presupposition. In other words, one cannot prove via the five senses that all knowledge only comes through the five senses, therefore, it is a self-defeating epistemological belief. Pre-Enlightenment thinkers simply were not as narrow and limited in their scope of knowledge as later Enlightenment and many post-Enlightenment figures were and are.

Okay. I'm not sure I quite understand what you said. Are you saying that the believers in the first century used presupposition as evidence? And that a simple presupposition can be the same as a naturalistic presupposition? I'm not sure exactly what you're saying.

 

I'll try to paraphrase your argument:

 

The first century people used a non-naturalistic presupposition as evidence for certain knowledge that could not be reached through natural senses.

 

Is that fairly correct?

[dB-Paradox]

I have a question relating directly to the question in the title of this thread. Do all atheists care about religion, or just those who used to be religious or are surrounded by religious people?

[oddbird1963]

I have a question relating directly to the question in the title of this thread. Do all atheists care about religion, or just those who used to be religious or are surrounded by religious people?

 

I suspect that most fall into the second category, but any atheist who is aware of the impact of religion on society can show a concern and interest in religion.

[LNC]

Collective subjectivity is a good way to put it. What is 'objectively true' is what we can mostly agree on using whatever means is appropriate to the task. Is there a fully independent objective reality beyond our perceptions? Yes, but to know it is literally to know the mind of God. It would only be objectively true freed from our means of perception, beyond reason. Which to me, defines the transcendent experience, where truth is beyond anything conceived or understood. It is the Incomprehensible.

 

The words in the Bible ain't that.

 

That is not what is meant by objective truth. You are redefining terms to suit your worldview. Objective truth means that something is true independent of whether anyone believes it to be true. What you call collective subjectivity is merely subjectivity writ large. Just because most people agree that something is true doesn't mean that it is necessarily true. Suppose that we were conquered by an evil dictator who convinced everyone in the world that killing certain minorities was true (as I have illustrated earlier), would it make it morally right and true? I hope your answer would be no. Yet, that seems to fit your definition of collective subjectivity, which you say is now "objective reality."

 

Now, you also seem to fall into the way of thinking of Kant and others who believed that we cannot perceive a thing in itself, yet, even Kant believed that morals were knowable reality. Why is it that you believe that God cannot reveal truth to us and that we cannot perceive and understand that revelation? It seems that you would have to have some knowledge of God to know that we could not understand him, but then that becomes self-refuting as you claim to know what you claim cannot be known. Whenever someone says that God is incomprehensible, it is to commit this same error. Therefore, you cannot say that the words in the Bible are not God's word.

 

LNC

[LNC]

I think what LNC is doing, in claiming to know the mind of God like you stated, is in the realm of b not 3a. If this is so, it isn't objective at all if he has knowledge and perceptions of it as you and AM stated. So, why is he claiming knowledge of what these morals are if he is claiming they are objective in the b sense? How does one claim knowledge that is free of individual thought? Dictation?

 

If it's perceptible by all viewers (I'll use an analogy that I used in another thread), then two dogs smelling bacon would recognize what it is. We wouldn't have one smelling bacon and one smelling dirty socks as is true with so-called objective morality because it has nothing to do with individual thought and perceptions. But, we all know that people and morals are just like the dogs and bacon when it comes down to it. For one it's bacon and for the other it's dirty socks (which would mean the bacon isn't objective in the B sense. Ok, not a good analogy, but go with it anyway!)

 

I don't have to know God's mind exhaustively to know meaningful expressions of God's mind. For instance, God can reveal to us a moral code that is tied to his unchanging nature without explaining in exhaustive detail every aspect of his nature. My professors can teach me truth without telling me exhaustively everything that is in their minds. You seem to want to make it an either/or, either I know God's mind exhaustively (which is impossible) or I don't know it at all, and that doesn't logically follow.

 

God did reveal the moral code verbally to Moses on Mt. Sinai and through Jesus (who claimed to be God and died and rose to confirm that claim) in his Sermon on the Mount and other places. These were both perceptible and recorded events and, in fact, the Law was recorded on stone tablets not once (Ex. 20), but twice (Deut. 10).

 

Again, you seem to be confusing the inherent nature of morals (ontology) with how we know them (epistemology). Morals can be ontologically objectively real, even if every person interpreted and understood them incorrectly. It is important to keep these two conversations separate and distinct so as not to conflate them. You seem to be jumping from ontology to epistemology to disprove ontology and that is a category mistake that many seem to be making here. Maybe we could stick with ontology before jumping to epistemology. Because, if morals are not ontologically objective in nature, it has serious implications that I believe that many here would not want to live with.

 

LNC

[LNC]

He is claiming an Objective Authority, in this case the Bible (or God). And in that case, yes it is via dictation. But again, unless that information can be injected into the consciousness of the believer bypassing any of the individual's interpretation of an outside instructor entering that person's mind through all those faculties which affect how something is understood, then his point is utterly moot.

 

At the best he could say God directly instructs the individual, bypassing the normal means of learning, but then that pretty much makes the Bible non-authoritative, or really any sort of "God said it, I believe it, that settles it," claim meaningless. It makes his argument about an objective truth to be had through proper interpretation of scripture null.

 

The only kind of truth that would be truly objective, would be direct intuition within God. But then, is that understanding reality objectively? Not really. Because there is really is no longer object nor subject. It simply is all. It simply is what IS.

 

This whole arguing that a book can decide truth for you, is extraordinarily limited in range and depth. It's a frustrated substitute for genuine apprehension.

 

Again, as I said in my last post, let's not jump the conversation past the objective basis of morals. What I am claiming is that if God doesn't exist, then there is no basis for objective morality. Sure we can call morals objective because everyone agrees with them, but there is no basis for them really being objective, we have simply attached a meaningless term to them. But I am surprised that so many here are promoting post-modernist believes in claiming that we cannot get past our perceptions and interpretations to grasp external reality. Do you claim the same for science? If not, why the difference? You cannot rely on empiricism as the answer to that dilemma as empiricism would be just as tainted by perception, no matter how many tests you did to verify a certain principle or claim. Either a person has access to the external world directly or one does not.

 

You also seem to conclude that God cannot communicate to his creation, but I'm not sure on what you base that belief. Maybe you could elaborate.

 

I've been struggling with this analogy. I think the problem is that you are talking about dogs who reason on a very rudimentary level. Close enough to bacon is effective enough to communicate content to the dog. But to the human, that smell of bacon has an unbelievable swath of meaning that comes flooding in: Memories of childhood; relationships of life circumstances; pains and joys; value systems, taste preferences, economic concerns, health considerations, and on, and on, and on, and on. We function in incredibly subtle ways, impacting a myriad of thoughts and feelings and memories in an instant. Much, much beyond the dog simply smelling meat and processing the thought "food".

 

When it comes to things like values, well that's hardy a food/non-food variable. It's tied with notions of truth, social values, personal values, philosophical considerations, etc. Looking at that one thing, brings tremendous subjective realities with it in processing what it is. Even a simple rock, which doesn't have a tremendous amount of abstractions associated with its existence, will be interpreted in many ways to the individual human. "It speaks of the age of the earth". "It is useful for a decoration". "It can be skipped across water". "It reminds me of my trip to Arizona". "It's just a dumb rock". And so on. To the dog, it is likely interpreted as "Mark territory" or "Ignore".

 

The complexity, the depth of our consciousness opens our minds to the vastness, the infinity of possibilities, and hence why question of meaning, of value, or truth, are incredibly less, and less, and less so easily answered in linear terms. To me, the religious dogmatist is about making us 'dogs' in our thinking. "Right/Wrong". "Food/Ignore". That is not freedom. That is not depth. That is not Spirit.

 

If there is this fact/value distinction that you discuss, why is it resolved merely by adding up subjective entities to form these moral beliefs. It seems that no matter how many subjective entities you add up, you still end up with a subjective result and subjective results don't necessarily equate to objective reality. I gave an example of the evil dictator who brainwashes every person on earth to kill certain minorities. Does it make it right because everyone is now convinced that it is right? Regarding the religious dogmatist claim, well, we all end up being dogmatists in the end, it is just a difference as to what we are dogmatic about and whether our dogma has a solid foundation. We all believe in something called virtue and morality, we only differ as to what is virtuous and moral and why. Believe me, I run into a lot of very dogmatic atheists. If you don't believe me, listen to Hitchens and Dawkins when they get on their moral high horses, there are not many more dogmatic and indignant than they.

 

LNC

[LNC]

It may not exist totally for the individual, but I think some moral principles are based upon the human makeup (which are the facts morals should be based upon). We (collectively) know what unnecessary harm to a human is, so we say "do no harm". To a certain extent, we can use reason objectively in assessing what is to be done or not done in some situations. Take dashing babies on rocks...

 

Which human's makeup is the right one and why (on what do you base that assessment)? How do we know what unnecessary harm is? Who is to say that one person's assessment is right and another's is wrong? That seems to require an objective standard outside of even group subjective standards. Reason only works when it has an objective basis against which to measure. For example, tell me how heavy the number 2 is? Can reason tell you? How about telling me how loud the letter J is? We don't have objective measures for these so applying all the reason in the world cannot tell you. Yet, if I ask how many feet are in a yard, you can quickly tell me as we do have an objective standard by which to compare feet and yards.

 

Yep, that's what LNC is doing. He has no knowledge but the scriptures...A-man answered this better than I could.

 

Wow, I didn't know that so many people attempted mind-reading as a hobby on this site. I wouldn't suggest it as a profession for you as you are not very good at it. Still, none of you has established an objective basis for morality given naturalism; would you care to give it a try or are you satisfied that morals are subjective in nature? Again, it is important to establish whether morals can be objective if God doesn't exist before discussing how we know what they are.

 

LNC

[Galien]

LNC do you actually know what a pompous git you are?

 

Nope, doesn't look like it. When will people who think they know it all ever learn to take a step back and see that it is their arrogance and belief they have all the answers that turns people off. That's why some of us left the church in the first place. All his big words mean absolutely nothing. The existence of god cannot be proven or disproven, and that is all there is too it. Oh the time we waste waffling on about it.

 

Just more talking heads with big mouths. Yawn.

[agnosticator]

Again, as I said in my last post, let's not jump the conversation past the objective basis of morals. What I am claiming is that if God doesn't exist, then there is no basis for objective morality. Sure we can call morals objective because everyone agrees with them, but there is no basis for them really being objective, we have simply attached a meaningless term to them.

 

Human intelligence, language, math, art, technology, and morals stem from the human animal's physical/emotional properties and capacities. These properties and capacities are the basis.

[Mriana]

I have a question relating directly to the question in the title of this thread. Do all atheists care about religion, or just those who used to be religious or are surrounded by religious people?

 

I don't know. Have you looked at the Jesus Seminar? CFI has a section on it AND they are currently or going to do something similar.