Kurari Posted July 2, 2012 Posted July 2, 2012 I'm trying to sort something out in my head and wondering if you can help me solidify it. I was engaging in this discussion with a Christian commenter on YouTube. Please let me know what you think. Me: If I see verifiable and testable proof of the existence of a god, then of course I'm going to believe in it. When it comes to an eternal, infinite god, you'd think we'd have seen something tangible to suggest this thing exists. Instead we don't even have a concrete definition of what a "god" even is. Random Christian: The problem with atheists is you think there has to be a simplified scientific answer to everything, some things just cannot be explained about God's infinite nature, we can come to know and learn of his presence, but cannot comprehend him. believe to see, don't see to believe. Me: Why would having a scientifically tested answer be any sort of a "problem" to a GOD? If anything, it'd would immensely deepen personal relationship with a deity. No, the only thing that science is a problem to is religion, and what you've said renders religion as a totally pointless exercise. If there is a god, then S/He is clearly uninterested in whether or not we worship or even believe. My way of life and my position doesn't change. ************************ Did my answer make any sense at all? I'm not sure the last part did. I always thought of religion as a method of explaining how to worship and connect with the object of worship. If the object is inexplicable, incomprehensible, or unknowable, then how or why would you bother trying to worship it at all? I'm not sure if my thinking there is at all logical or if I'm missing something. Help me sort out my thoughts? Thanks for your help!
Kaiser01 Posted July 2, 2012 Posted July 2, 2012 Well simplified answers for things build up into a theory for something, so you could of told him we should be able to create a theory about the existence of God but we cant becuase nothing can be proven about him, he isnt detectable in anyway. Theory in science is an explanation, make sure you point that out.
Thurisaz Posted July 2, 2012 Posted July 2, 2012 ...If there is a god, then S/He is clearly uninterested in whether or not we worship or even believe... Either uninterested, or passive about it (arguably there might be a difference there). Divine powers can surely exist in this universe but if they do they meddle with our affairs only very very subtle, if at all. Of course that does positively rule out the existence of a rabidly interventionist deity like the ones of the abrahamic cults.
Lilith666 Posted July 6, 2012 Posted July 6, 2012 I get it, but the random Xian might not have understood what you said because to them, religion is also about getting themselves and other people into heaven. So as long as they can pretend their god is real, they can worship him, and everything is good.
Guest wester Posted July 7, 2012 Posted July 7, 2012 That all-powerful boss o' the universe is one cagey and reclusive cat, ain't he?
skepticalme Posted July 7, 2012 Posted July 7, 2012 "Believe to see." What a load of BS. You should point out that such a thought process would justify to that person any reality they imagined. Whether that reality be that a god exist or that a certain race should be exterminated. Believing something "should" be, does not make it so.
Shrek7 Posted July 8, 2012 Posted July 8, 2012 Hi Kurari, I think maybe the reason the last part of your exchange feels wrong to you is because you each seemed to be talking about different things, that are nevertheless related. That person obviously meant there is a problem with you, because you can't bring yourself to believe without verifiable evidence. And there is an implicit assumption in that kind of statement, that somehow your life is less than it could be if you could only bring yourself to believe. You didn't quite respond to that implication. Instead, you placed the problem with God because he can't or won't engage on a human level, or else with religion because it can't stand up to scientific scrutiny. You left open the question of whether your life is indeed better or worse without faith in God; indeed, one could even assume that you think it is worse because if God did provide evidence, then you could at last have a deep personal relationship with him. Personally, I think my life is better without faith in God, but I am actually quite sympathetic to christians who sincerely believe in their faith, as long as they don't actually try to justify it or to argue that others should accept it. In other words, I have no problem with agnostic theists, people who believe while acknowledging they don't have solid reasons for believing, and who acknowledge they could be wrong in the end. We all ultimately have to take similar stands in life, though the specifics will differ, of course. If you don't belive that, ask yourself this: What would you die for? What is that important? The answer could be anything: it could be a person, or a committment to an ideal, or something else. You may not even know at this point what the answer is for you, but I'm willing to bet that at some point, you will. I am also willing to bet that when you know what that is, you will be able to describe it but not necessarily provide a fool proof defense of it. And that's ok. So a better response might have simply been something like this: No, the problem is not with atheists who demand proof. Their thirst for knowledge is precisely what enhances their lives and gives them purpose, and it is what makes it possible for them to adapt to changing conditions. The problem is with people who want to enjoy the benefits of the feeling of purpose that their faith gives them, but who are unwilling to admit that there is no legitimate basis for their faith. Instead, they feel it necessary to defend what is inherently indefensible, and the cognitive dissonance that causes renders any benefits their faith provides null and void.
Recommended Posts