RoR: Forum

The Emperors of Religion have indecently exposed themselves for millennia and few have had the effrontery to call them on their naked offenses. That needs to change, especially in the United States where people have enough education, knowledge and maturity to know better.

Amen. I have never understood how people could believe in god past the age they stop believing in Santa Claus. And the insane thing is that most people believe. It is one of the reasons I don't believe in most people. They are simply delusional about the world they live in. Sure its nice to want to believe in something bigger than life, but wake up--and stop blessing me Goddammit.

Post 21

Monday, July 11, 2005 - 8:47pm

Gods were initially given as analogies - but then taken as actualities, for it was then easier to control those who believed...

Post 22

Monday, July 11, 2005 - 9:20pm

Adam: Excellent article, very clear and quick to the point. Surely I'll remember this one for a reference in debunking claims about God in the future.

Joe, Erik: Again, what reason do you have to think such a being exists?

Mike wrote: Seems about half of the people questioned missed the question "which is faster, the speed of light, or the speed of sound."
I'm guessing at least 10% of people know that light is faster than sound. So that means what, 10% of people "know" that sound is faster than light, and then 80% don't have a clue... to make the total 50-50? hehe. Hmmm... maybe the people doing the survey were not taking a random sample?

(Edited by Dean Michael Gores
on 7/11, 9:26pm)

Post 23

Tuesday, July 12, 2005 - 7:47am

Dean,

I'm guessing at least 10% of people know that light is faster than sound. So that means what, 10% of people "know" that sound is faster than light, and then 80% don't have a clue... to make the total 50-50? hehe. Hmmm... maybe the people doing the survey were not taking a random sample?

Maybe it's just American schools, but in my experience with students with limited science backgrounds that sounds about right. Some physics professors give a "test" (not for credit) at the beginning of a semester on basics like Newton's laws of motion in layman's terms. Most students fail miserably.

Sarah

Post 24

Tuesday, July 12, 2005 - 9:32am

Luke: Rich, perhaps you can tell us why you believe in God. If you knew with certainty that no God existed, would you live any differently? If so, why? If not, then why accept "His" existence on faith in the first place?

For me, belief is not the issue. What I acknowledge is the existence of (and the right to) individual religious consciousness. There are two distinct and powerful understandings that are common to all people. One is the knowledge of the fact that they will someday die- that they will be leaving this; that they arrived here not by their own hand, and that nothing in their hand will prevent the ultimate conclusion.   The other is that they see this is true for all of their kind, it has been so through all of history, and that those before them have left behind a global legacy of myths, symbols, stories, and systems of thought that represent their ideas and portrayals of what their experience here meant to them. Within all this lie commonalities, being that it all came from man.

You ask me if I believe in God, yet I have not said I believed nor disbelieved in God. I believe the only thing I made clear is that I am not an agnostic. Under certain conditions and people, I might be referred to as an atheist, or a theist. One reason I do not comprehensively discuss God is because it involves a great deal of statistical density and agreement to terminology that I am not sure is appropriate for here,  The word God encompasses meanings far past that of the conventional usage in Western culture; in fact, God-knowledge beyond he narrow range of definitions I believe you and some others here can be diametrically opposed to how you use it. It is possible to believe in God and be an atheist. I frequently share Sunday services with a number of them (and, for that and other reasons, it is frequently put to me that my demonination does not represent a true religion!).

You might also notice that I will not argue for the existence of God, nor have you or will you ever see me attempt conversions to my way of experience. That is not out of politeness, although I consider it a polite policy as well- it is because it is not purposeful- an individual religious consciousness (or, perhaps you would call it sense of life, even) is exactly as the name implies. It is a part of what is a pluralistic condition. That concept creates enough difficulty for traditional theists, much less Objectivist atheists.

As for the matter of attributing religious belief, practice, or conversion being attributed mostly to conditioning, fear, or trauma (the nature/nurture thing), I would say yes, this is often the case. It is not my case. Bear in mind that I came from the opposite direction, having rejected religion (as I knew it), and having subsequently found great peace in Objectivism, and other systems of thought. I am not sure at all whether I came from atheism or agnosticism. My belief is that I did not have an evolved state of either. The bottom line is that I am my own man, and I trust my own mind. I was not traumatized nor bred into my particular state, which bears very little in common with the religious upbringing I had, such as it was.

The religious viewpoint (I will call it that, being broad) is an optional one, and it is unique to each person. I do study many things done by people that are associated with religion in one way or another. I have studied gnostic scripture because historically, I needed to in order to accurize my understanding of Christianity and the teachings of Jesus. I am very far from confined in my study of world religion, and the individual religious experience.

Now, Adam has come forward with what he represents to be a logical proof that God does not exist. This represents a stunning breakthrough achievement, never before accomplished by any great thinker or group in the history of mankind. I think that within his very narrow confines, he has done so, but it is not much of a feat. It is really a very simple matter to go to the literature, and the history, and understand that the God he is disproving is one that, as always, represents a straw man. It is a product of taking myths literally, and that is not their purpose-and it's like reading a poem as if it were prose. To assume that all religious folks are literalists is simply a mistake based on lack of experience, it is an assumption that makes the logical proof against the existence of "God" a bit easier.

Post 25

Tuesday, July 12, 2005 - 10:00am

Rich, I will attempt to simplify your statements in my own words as I found yours quite lengthy and somewhat convoluted:

There exist great mysteries of the universe to which we currently have no answers and which arise due to forces we do not yet understand.

Would that concisely restate your view? If so, then I agree with it. Benjamin Franklin also voiced respect for the "Great Mystery" although I think he attributed that to the Creator rather than to Nature.

In any case, I have little beef with your statements politically. You support a free and pluralistic society where each person can follow his own conscience. You and I share a disdain for the Religious Right who claim to "know" things based on faith and not reason and then try to force those views onto all others.

Epistemologically, I find some of your statements muddled and untenable, but if the thrust of them amounts to the aforementioned statement in bold, then I will end the discussion here. I would only suggest using the term "the unknown" in place of "God" to ground your propositions in reality.

Post 26

Tuesday, July 12, 2005 - 10:59am

Adam, You wrote,

�On the one hand, the concept of a God includes the idea that God is consciously aware. But awareness is necessarily awareness of something, and therefore information identifying that of which one is aware is indispensable for consciousness. On the other hand, the concept of a God includes the ability to exist independently of matter or energy, and at the same time, to exist throughout space and across time. But to get information through space or time requires matter or energy.�

Aquinas would have no problem dispatching your supposed objection to the existence of God. God does not know like we know. Aquinas writes, (using �sees� for �knows�) �He sees other things not in themselves, [which would fall to your objection] but in Himself, because His essence contains the likeness of things other than Himself.� (ST I, 14, 5)

So there is no problem getting the information across space and time. God (at least Aquinas� God) is not in space or time.

In a funny way, Objectivism has something like this conception when it claims, in answer to the question when did the universe begin? that �Time is 'in' thje universe; the universe is not 'in' time.�
(Objectivist Newsletter, May 1962 p. 19)

But I do believe this leaves us with �soft atheism� intact.

Fred

Post 27

Tuesday, July 12, 2005 - 12:19pm

Luke stresses out his PC's microprocessor doing a giant, reductionist edit... :)

There exist great mysteries of the universe to which we currently have no answers and which arise due to forces we do not yet understand.

If there is any constant point where there is universal agreement within civilized mankind, it better be that one. It is The Great Given.

I said more than that, whether I had edited down, or not. There was a good bit there about how each individual identity experiences existence. True religions provide particular ways of enhancing and deepening that experience.

My present concerns are more about exclusionary practices and treatments of folk that express various types of non-atheistic perspectives by some Objectivists. I am disappointed when I see the superior and patronizing tones come out, on the whole they are no different than something you could see coming out of a fundamentalist. In the end, I am as resigned to finding it in this community, as in any other. And even on the kinder side of civility, it's a very maudlin experience when someone says something like:

(Mike E.): I have a question for the non-atheists: Would you have even thought of the idea of "god" if a bunch of self serving people hadn't spent an awful lot of time trying to drum the idea into your head in the first place? Figure out where the idea came from in the first place {in YOUR life] and it'll probably be easy to just walk away from it. Do yourself a favor. There are too many interesting things to think about than fairy tales.

or

(Sharon): One day when you have the courage, and the energy to have that fierce conversation with yourself, and you do just that; you might ask yourself , afterwards, "Why did I want to believe that there was a God?"

It is paternal, it is patronizing, and it assumes I just fell off the turnip truck. Oh, and, I lack courage. That kind of talk seems more like recycled self-talk from the writer's past. Certainly not mine.

The cartoons were, I am sure, in the spirit of lightheartedness. But still, polarizing. Christians viewing atheists as demons reading Darwin, and well, the Christians as pathological.

As far as my epistemology being convoluted, well, if you say so, Luke. I think not- the topic of circumspection is very unfriendly to language, and within the confines of forum writing, I'm sure I exceed economy too much anyway.

The goodness, though, is yes- on the big pieces, we are in alliance. That's important.

Post 28

Tuesday, July 12, 2005 - 1:23pm

I thought about God a lot when I was a boy. I thought about God a lot when I was a teenager. I thought about God a lot when I was in college. I thought about God a lot when I went to Catholic church and studied to convert. I thought about God, thought some more, thought some more. These days, I think about God whenever someone brings up the subject, but I don't dwell on it. I've got baseball games to go to, some golf to play, theater to see, my life to enjoy -- you know, all sorts of reality to play in. For Christ in a wet sack, I'll dead in 50 years or so. Don't want to look back on my life and say, "Wow, I could have had so much more sex instead of wasting my energy thinking about some nonexistent being."

Post 29

Tuesday, July 12, 2005 - 1:55pm

I also hope the SOLO community is accepting of me since I believe in Santa Claus.

Post 30

Tuesday, July 12, 2005 - 4:19pm

Fred,

Even (?) Aquinas was capable of writing nonsense. I see no possible way of grounding the statement you cited.

Post 31

Tuesday, July 12, 2005 - 6:51pm

Rich,

I wasn't directing my comments to you but to anyone in general who might care to read them. Yes, I may be a little patronizing:

"patronizing - (used of behavior or attitude) characteristic of those who treat others with condescension"

And/or paternal:

pa�ter�nal Pronunciation (p-t�rnl)
adj.
1. Relating to or characteristic of a father or fatherhood; fatherly.

Being that I've always thought of belief in god as either evidence of mental illness or a childlike clinging to a "blankie".

You may be interested to know that I've NEVER believed in any god, even though I was compelled to attend several church services a week from 9 years to 14 years old. I argued about "faith" and the existence of "god" then, with whoever cared to talk about it. [Very few actually]. I am happy with the universe exactly the way it is, with all it's complexities and wonders. I won't fuck it up with foolish crap like "god". I don't care how many little shit's like you don't like it. As far as your being "in alliance with the big pieces", I don't trust irrational people to stick to their principles no matter what they state they believe in.
(Edited by Mike Erickson
on 7/12, 7:25pm)

Post 32

Tuesday, July 12, 2005 - 7:38pm

The problem lies in the fact that many atheists will not acknowldege even the possibilty that higher levels of consciousness may even exist. Or maybe that beings of a much much higher evolutionary existence can actually be real (like UFO's). But let's get real folks, in terms of knowledge, we as humans have not even scratched the surface of understanding consciousness, multiple universes, other dimensions and realities existing on different quantum planes, not too mention the whole UFO debate. THe universe is HUGE and there are infinite mysteries that are yet to be discovered .For atheists to assume that there is absolutley NO god or ID or creative force, or whatever is nothing less than asinine. knowledge constantly expands and grows with time (as long as there is freedom of the mind, of course). We DO NOT have all the answers! In my studies as a pharmacy student I constantly wonder and am amazed at the incredible design and intricay of the chemical world. Personally, I believe in a creative intelligence. Not like the god portrayed in the Old Testament, but rather as a grand unifying reality of consciousness that exists at a non-local primal level. A lot of people rebel against any concept of a creator, because they are bitter against religion due to any of several reasons. But, do not let your quest for knowledge and understanding of the universe and the world around you be stuck in a rut because of bitterness or ignorance. Remember the story of the US patent official who closed the US patent office because he believed that everything that can be invented was already, and that there was nothing left to discover and invent....

Post 33

Tuesday, July 12, 2005 - 8:31pm

Mike,

See, I told you so.

Erik,

Regarding acknowledgment of higher levels of consciousness/evolution, I think you'll find that, for the reasonable atheist, it is not a question of if but rather when and where. Given the size and time scale of the universe it is entirely probable that organic life has popped up or will do so extraterrestrially. However, given the lack of evidence, the chances that a higher evolution or consciousness, e.g. UFOs, is here and now or has been present since the existence of our planet is negligibly small.

If you're talking about gods or creative forces with the only useful definitions, i.e. as supernatural forces, I've already discussed that elsewhere.

If you're attempting to speak about such things in a non-supernatural context you'll lose to good ol' Occam's razor. You may as well start talking about little invisible gnomes sitting on peoples' shoulders controlling the weather.

Your "grand unifying reality of consciousness that exists at a non-local primal level" is reminiscent of Hindu brahman. You'd trade Western theism for Eastern mysticism apparently? Why does one form of nonsense appeal to you more than the other?

Sarah

Post 34

Tuesday, July 12, 2005 - 8:37pm

Adam, your article is very interesting, and the general point you make is valid.

However, you are mistaken about Ayn Rand: she was a hard atheist. If you listen to the lecture on God in Basic Principles of Objectivism (a course given in the late fifties and the sixties by NBI), you will see that the concept of God is demonstrated to necessarily contain contradictions, and therefore to be an impossible one. For instance, the idea that God is both omniscient and all-powerful is a logical contradiction: if He knows everything, then the future is already determined; but if He is all-powerful, then he can change the future. One of the crucial points of the lecture is that no definition of God can be given that does not contain logical impossibilities, and that therefore we are asked to grasp and to believe in an impossibility.

We are asked, in effect, to believe in, to pray to, to seek union with .....????.

Barbara

Post 35

Tuesday, July 12, 2005 - 8:54pm

Hi Erik, you wrote:

A lot of people rebel against any concept of a creator, because they are bitter against religion due to any of several reasons.

A lot of others simply do not agree with the concept of a creator without being bitter at all. I don't know why the concept of a serene happy atheist is always so difficult to imagine for believers in a divinity.

There is, of course, nothing wrong with keeping an open mind for things we do not know yet, including a possibility of human beings expanding their mental faculties through evolution and science.

There is a great deal wrong with positing any existence (like lies, doublethink or an omnipotent timeless and spaceless God who governs time, space and life - sort of) that require that we negate our form of cognition to accept it as truth.

The comprehension of whatever is out there and has not yet been discovered must be built on human cognition, not abolish or substitute it (such as through the use of faith).

If God or UFOs or even Uga-Ugas exist, they will ultimately make themselves available to the five senses for starters, then go on from there. Never the contrary. Ignoring our conceptual human design for understanding things would be a tremendous act of metaphysical sabotage and especially metaphysical ingratitude - for lack of a better phrase.

But knowing that, if you still want to posit such speculations as facts, almost anything at all will do - like Barbara Branden's little green man in a tuxedo (at least he's kinda cute).

Michael

Post 36

Tuesday, July 12, 2005 - 9:19pm

Sarah, actually your line of reasoning would lose out to good old Occam's razor, not mine.

Sarah you said, "However, given the lack of evidence, the chances that a higher evolution or consciousness, e.g. UFOs, is here and now or has been present since the existence of our planet is negligibly small."

Are you kidding me? Look, I used to work with an older gentleman when I lived in Utah, who was a former CIA agent. His name was Bill Baine. He had been to the now famous Area 51 in the Nevada desert, also known as Dreamland. I asked him once at lunch if UFO's were real. He looked at me and said 'They're is defintiely other life out there, that's here.' That's all he ever said about that, no matter how much that I grilled him on it.
Of course, you don't me from Adam, so you'll just have to believe me when I tell you that this is factual story, which It is. I think that the problem that many atheists may have with extra terrestrials actually being real is that it means a higher being of intelligence is superceding the human mind and intellect. A kind of 'there can be no other gods before me' attitude or belief. But remember, Sarah, people used to think that the earth was flat and that the continents of the western hemisphere didn't even exist.
I am not saying to believe all of this point blank, but what I am saying is WE DO NOT HAVE ALL THE ANSWERS, and trust me that there will be some big surprises in the future, just like history has done in the past.

Post 37

Tuesday, July 12, 2005 - 9:27pm

Erik,

Sarah, actually your line of reasoning would lose out to good old Occam's razor, not mine.

Care to back that up with something more substantial than, "Nuh uh, you lose."

I'm not claiming we have all the answers, just that we need to follow reason, not invisible gnomes.

As for your Area 51 claim, [sarcasm] clearly you've compiled enough evidence to show that I'm wrong. [/sarcasm].

Sarah

(Edited by Sarah House
on 7/12, 9:28pm)

Post 38

Tuesday, July 12, 2005 - 9:45pm

Erik,

Some people believe other people when they lie. Some people mis-hear or mis-tell stories. Take yourself for an example.

But enough about that. I just heard something that has a tremendous impact on how we should live our lives: God exists. I know this observer of objectivism who told me so. He even backed it up by giving examples of things we don't know and things that he can't explain without there being a supernatural intelligent being. That's all he ever said about that, no matter how much I grilled him on it.

Post 39

Tuesday, July 12, 2005 - 10:24pm