jenny Posted October 22, 2003 Share Posted October 22, 2003 i think it is a sign of developing humility to post one's own dearly held beliefs out for plunder; i think the religious often have divine cahones in this regard. they are brave; i admire courage. so, here is one argument for atheism that i enjoy, but should, for the advancement of my soul and edification, learn the valid arguments against. attack, babies, i'd like to see if it could be done: 1. even a famous scientist believes in god! apart from the obvious false authority fallacy, here are the other arguments against this one: (Moderator's Note: The copyrighted material originally presented here by the poster may be found at: http://css.peak.org/has/newsletter/2002/october/article1.html The copyright notation is at the very bottom of that web page.) (any thoughts? there are a bunch more arguments, but this one pleases me most to repeat, so i thought i should start with the one that would most destroy my self-satisfaction were it demolished, as there is nothing i hate more than self-satisfaction. hence i must examine tendencies towards it in my own daily life. ) Link to post Share on other sites
Tony T Posted October 22, 2003 Share Posted October 22, 2003 The material contained at: http://www.ctinquiry.org/publications/torrance.htm suggests that Einstein's concept of God evolved over the years. However, Einstein nor any other scientist or person living or dead has ever proved that God does or does not exist. The material contained in the website noted by jenny contains mostly Einstein's thoughts and opinions as does the one above herein. I think what Einstein thought about God is no more relevant to any argument here than ones I or the corner bag lady might toss around for scrutiny. Einstein was a scientist and would insist on absolute proof one way or the other as to the existence of God or any number of them. My personal opinion is that if the human mind constructs a God, there is a God for that person. If Einstein didn't have a good handle on this, who could? There can be thousands of definitions and concepts of God. Joseph Campbell did a great job of expounding on this in "A Hero With A Thousand Faces." Some people make money their god. Some people make work their god. Some give greatest devotion to pornography or drinking. But most invoke divine forgiveness at the end of the earthly journey...just in case. A hurricane rips through Homestead, Florida (Hurricane Andrew) killing dozens of people and causing billions of dollars of damage and it's an act of God. I walk into a bar and kill one person and it's murder one and a death sentence. What goes? What's the point of a debate on this? The only conclusion to any debate here will be the end of a thread. Link to post Share on other sites
moimeme Posted October 22, 2003 Share Posted October 22, 2003 Einstein was a scientist and would insist on absolute proof one way or the other as to the existence of God or any number of them Not necessarily, Tony. That would only hold true if all scientists believed that humanity now knows everything there is to know. Every time foolish humans thought they knew everything (remember when the sun was thought to revolve around the Earth), time has proven that they were dead wrong. Still, generation after generation illogically believes that its scientists have reached the apex of all knowledge! I've read about plenty of scientists who believe in God. One friend of mine is a theoretical physicist; he told me that, in his estimation, more physicists believe in God than do not. Scientists, of all people, must understand the limits of science and human knowledge and that just because science has not 'proven' the existence of God at this point in human development does not mean that it will not someday. Link to post Share on other sites
Tony T Posted October 22, 2003 Share Posted October 22, 2003 So very sorry for the mistake....and, Einstein, please forgive me as well!!! Link to post Share on other sites
moimeme Posted October 22, 2003 Share Posted October 22, 2003 Gee - no need to be sorry, Tony! Lots of people think along those lines. Link to post Share on other sites
Iamhappy Posted October 22, 2003 Share Posted October 22, 2003 Quote from jenny's link: "I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with fates and actions of human beings." Not too well versed with works of Baruch Spinoza, but if I'm not mistaken Spinoza was taken with the idea that God is the only thing - everything that exists, exists as a part of God (see Ethics). So everything that happens, happens because it is caused by God. Kinda contradicts the second half of the statement though doesn't it? Re: fates and actions of human beings - if something exists and happens because of God then doesn't it concern God? Judging from the article supplied by Tony, it looks like Einstein is leaning more towards scientific pantheism than to atheism. "Pantheism asserts that Reality - the visible, audible, touchable, tasteable world of nature and the universe - is divine. That is, it possesses most of the qualities that believers in God claim for God... and therefore should be revered and celebrated. A scientific pantheist on the other hand is so called not because science endorses pantheism but because it adopts a scientific approach to reality which becomes better understood through prolonged encounter and study." (paraphrased, courtesy of Paul Harrison, "Principles of Scientific Pantheism") Link to post Share on other sites
moimeme Posted October 22, 2003 Share Posted October 22, 2003 I love this (quote from Tony's link): Although I am a typical loner in daily life, my consciousness of belonging to the invisible community of those who strive for truth, beauty, and justice has preserved me from feeling isolated. The most beautiful and deepest experience a man can have is the sense of the mysterious. It is the underlying principle of religion as well as all serious endeavour in art and science. He who never had this experience seems to me, if not dead, then at least blind. To sense that behind anything that can be experienced there is something that our mind cannot grasp and whose beauty and sublimity reaches us only indirectly and as a feeble reflection, this is religiousness. In this sense I am religious. To me it suffices to wonder at these secrets and to attempt humbly to grasp with my mind a mere image of the lofty structure of all that is there. 5 He said it so much better than I've ever managed Link to post Share on other sites
quankanne Posted October 22, 2003 Share Posted October 22, 2003 Seems to me that Einstein was not refuting the idea that there is a divine force behind creation, but the idea of a set religion that explains it all, because there are so many different religious viewpoints to consider and each one claims Truth to as basis for what it teaches ... It's much much easier to comprehend (and agree to there being) a Someone or Something involved in creating the world in all its complexities, than it is to embrace the tenets of a religion. I've met a small handful of people who profess atheism, but my experience with them leads me to believe that they believe in God all right, but are so pissed at him that they prefer to deny his existence. Link to post Share on other sites
quankanne Posted October 22, 2003 Share Posted October 22, 2003 So everything that happens, happens because it is caused by God. kind negates the qualities of free will, which Christians are taught has been given to us by God ... The most beautiful and deepest experience a man can have is the sense of the mysterious. this, to me, is faith: a sense of something deeper and mysterious that isn't cerebral, but visceral. When the author of the above statement talks of it in terms of "religiousness," it conjures up a vehicle that does its best to divide, not unite. How can an experience like this -- call it being in tune with God or something else -- retain its beauty when it is confined by definitions imposed by any given religion? (speaking in terms of Christian religious beliefs, which there are a ton of) boy ... I just took a big left turn from Jenny's original post, didn't I? Link to post Share on other sites
Author jenny Posted October 22, 2003 Author Share Posted October 22, 2003 no, it's very cool - i looooved what you said about some atheists believing in god but being really pissed at 'em. i was just trying to open up another avenue for discussion :) Link to post Share on other sites
novascade Posted October 22, 2003 Share Posted October 22, 2003 Jenny you seem to be intrested in God, is it becuase you want to know a perpose in live, or just want to know,just thouht ask. Link to post Share on other sites
Tony T Posted October 22, 2003 Share Posted October 22, 2003 To me it's not nearly so important that I believe in God...it's that God believes in me. Link to post Share on other sites
novascade Posted October 22, 2003 Share Posted October 22, 2003 If you believe that he believes he believes that you believe. i guess? Link to post Share on other sites
VASH THE STAMPEDE Posted October 22, 2003 Share Posted October 22, 2003 Originally posted by Tony To me it's not nearly so important that I believe in God...it's that God believes in me. What do you mean??? That you'll make the right decisions?? Link to post Share on other sites
moimeme Posted October 22, 2003 Share Posted October 22, 2003 this, to me, is faith: a sense of something deeper and mysterious that isn't cerebral, but visceral. Kind of like love, which becomes impoverished if relegated to the cereberal. How can an experience like this -- call it being in tune with God or something else -- retain its beauty when it is confined by definitions imposed by any given religion? Beautiful, Jo. Unfortunately, it can be difficult to retain that sense, that experience, in one's day-to-day life. I think religions were created to serve as stopgaps to keep people coming back - hopefully to have such experiences. But I don't think many people have had them and if they haven't, what is there for them? boy ... I just took a big left turn from Jenny's original post, didn't I? Right smack dab into mysticism, which is where I hang out LOL. Link to post Share on other sites
Author jenny Posted October 22, 2003 Author Share Posted October 22, 2003 lol, what is mysticism, exactly? and how is it tested and demonstrated? <i'm making fun of myself, but i'd still like an answer, giggles> Link to post Share on other sites
novascade Posted October 22, 2003 Share Posted October 22, 2003 Look faith or no faith (to those that don't believe) if God is real we seriously angered him, we took a chance and goofed. and those devout fools who tried to change a gospel to religion (3000+) for there own use to gain anything out(money sex etcetera you know where your going. just my thought don,t take it to the heart Link to post Share on other sites
moimeme Posted October 22, 2003 Share Posted October 22, 2003 Geez, I can't do enough for you people, can I? 'Teach me about blow jobs, Merry', Find 'Mysticism in Google for me, Merry'. I'm pretty sure you can manage without me on this one, Jenny. Link to post Share on other sites
VASH THE STAMPEDE Posted October 22, 2003 Share Posted October 22, 2003 Everything was going in a straight line but suddenly crashed into a crossing point and everyone took different routes. Link to post Share on other sites
novascade Posted October 22, 2003 Share Posted October 22, 2003 Insanity is itn't great. Link to post Share on other sites
Author jenny Posted October 22, 2003 Author Share Posted October 22, 2003 i have had too much of the 'unexamined life is not worth living' stuff growing up, i suppose. i think einstein was splendidly rigourous in his explication of the unknown. to me, that is the beauty of atheism. but i have much to learn. i find religion beautiful and classical, well defended, strong, and exciting, but mysticism straight-up flaky and without rigour. this is my failing, i'm sure. if someone has the generosity to explain it to me, i will listen. Link to post Share on other sites
HokeyReligions Posted October 22, 2003 Share Posted October 22, 2003 Tony - your "God believe in me" line reminds me of a line from one of my favorite books, talking about the two great humans sins, Pride and Hate. "To remove pride and hate is to say that I must change for the good of the word, is it not more noble to embrase them and say that the world must change for the good of me?" Well, that's not it exactly (dont have the book in front of me) but the characer in the book was a murdering sociopath! Anyway, you reminded me of that. Then I saw the name "Spinoza" and my mind jumped to Arsnic and Old Lace and one of the bodies was Mr. Spinoza. Okay, off base here. sorry. I met some folks a while back and we were chatting about religion, etc. They said they were athiests. The believed that not only was there no God of any kind, but that the propagation of a diety was an illness or corruption in the human being and it was very sad and weak that people had to believe in something, but they could be corrected to the betterment of the individual, but "becoming" atheist. Something along those lines (I'm not thinking clearly right now -- my first work break this week -- already have plus-40 hours!) I remember they said "becoming". Well, wouldn't that be the same as becoming catholic, or jewish, or whatever? I remarked that they seemed very adament about their non-belief, and very vocal - trying to explain to others how it's impossible that there is a God, and saying all of this in an effort to "better" people. I said their belief and faith in no God was as strong, and they were as devout, as any religious zealot I had met, and their preaching just as voicerferous as a Jehovas Witness. I said that it sounded to me like their belief was that there is no God, but it's still a BELIEF and no different than a religious person's BELIEF. An atheiest BELIEVES in no God, and a religious person belief in God. The act of belief is still the same, only the target or subject of the belief is different. They didn't like that. I've met the 'pissed-off athiests' too. Link to post Share on other sites
moimeme Posted October 22, 2003 Share Posted October 22, 2003 mysticism straight-up flaky and without rigour. You are far from where rigour exists. If you insist upon it, might as well not venture anywhere near mysticism because it will disappoint. As for mysticism itself, the term has been coopted by a lot of new-ageists. You have to weed through the dreck to find its original forms. However, it is a pointless exercise, I think, for anyone who does not wish to free him/herself from the shackles of the cerebrum. Maybe somebody else is up to the generosity of explaining it to you. My head aches and I have other things to attend to. Jo - over to you! Link to post Share on other sites
Author jenny Posted October 22, 2003 Author Share Posted October 22, 2003 You are far from where rigour exists. what does that mean? again, this is never personal for me. i'm just trying to understand. Link to post Share on other sites
novascade Posted October 22, 2003 Share Posted October 22, 2003 Understand what ? Not trying to be cocky, just need to know what you want to know Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts