Why I Am No Longer An Atheist Part 2

[theculturewarrior]

I will talk about all of this in part 3:  Why I believe: because it feels right.

 

In the meanwhile, I would like to focus on the problem of suffering.

[theculturewarrior]

Those of strong faith won't consider alternatives at all, those of faultering faith will investigate the alternatives.

 

I actually enjoy thinking about the alternatives and having my faith challenged.  I'm special, though.

[stevil]

I actually enjoy thinking about the alternatives and having my faith challenged.  I'm special, though.

 

If you think there are plausible alternatives, then why have you discounted them, why have you choosen only to believe in the god option?

 

Edit: Just seen your post 16, I'll wait.

Edited December 17, 2012 by stevil

[Anastasia13]

I disagree with this.

 

As far as I am concerned faith means optimistically refusing to consider plausible alternatives.

 

E.g. a person involkes faith to choose the most optimistic option (for some this means choosing to believe in god). They then invoke faith in order to discount any evidence in support of the pessimistic options. Those of strong faith won't consider alternatives at all, those of faultering faith will investigate the alternatives.

 

If that is the case, then it is actually the optimistic faith that saves one and not God, nor any particular religion. That is the more broad, easy, optimistic view, not that God saves, because there are so many faithful of so many religions.

[Anastasia13]

Let me just take a moment to tell you what I am trying to do here, in regards your last point.  People reject Christianity and theism for very good reasons.  Whether it becomes irrelevant on an emotional level, which for many is what the problem of suffering really is (nothing wrong with that), or whether they may have very valid intellectual objections to the basic premise, that God created the Universe, they may looked for answers in the Church to only find people who were unable to respond in a satisfying way.  So then you have me, who did the same thing in reverse.

 

I am not trying to convert people.  I just want to come to that one moment when I was walking into the Church and they were walking out, and shake hands and say hi.  Why?  Because it is intellectually stimulating, and because we all might discover new things that will supplement our faith, our lack of faith, or what have you.  My goal here as a Catholic is to demonstrate that there is an intellectual backbone to Christianity, not easily dismissed as intellectually vacant or superstitious.  Why?  Because I believe that.  I will always respect anybody's decision to leave the Church or to stay, before, after, or during this conversation.

 

In regards to using philosophy to prove the existence of God, I can do it if everybody really wants me to but to me it is like listening a song that has been played on the radio way too many and I am even clenching my teeth just trying to type this.

 

So a proper way to respond to the brain drain of proofs is it ignore them in favor of emotional reasoning?

[stevil]

 
In the absence of proof, how can one really be held accountable for one's lack of faith?

Yeah, I don't understand this aspect of religious belief.
There is no proof, evidence of any god.
It is as if the gods are extremely shy creatures, hiding but watching.

Then they have some moral code, of which they don't tell anyone about. They give no feedback what so ever with regards to whether people are adhering to the code or not.

Then the belief goes that if one believed in the god and coincidentally managed to follow the code during the many years of their lifetime then the god will reward them with heaven but if they got it wrong then they get surprised by being sent to hell.

The aspects of crazy in this are:
- The requirement for belief, and being judged on this, as if it is a bad thing to need evidence. If there is an afterlife and the god actually exists and you get to meet it, then belief goes out the window anyway, because you will have knowledge and will no longer require belief.
- The hiding of the rule book
- The lack of feedback
- The surprise judgement (this is the worst kind of manager/leader, one who surprises its workers without providing feedback and opportunity for improved behaviour. It is like setting a trap, legally it would be called entrapment and human judges don't like people being entrapped)
- The need for judgement (why is it important for the god to sort out good souls and bad souls). Is god scared or threatened by bad souls?

[theculturewarrior]

So a proper way to respond to the brain drain of proofs is it ignore them in favor of emotional reasoning?

 

I am saving this discussion for part 3.

[Fidei Defensor]

- The requirement for belief, and being judged on this, as if it is a bad thing to need evidence. If there is an afterlife and the god actually exists and you get to meet it, then belief goes out the window anyway, because you will have knowledge and will no longer require belief.

 

No one has the answer to this, which is precisely what faith is. You are rewarded for you faith by receiving absolute knowledge of His existence after death (in addition to eternal happiness)

 

- The hiding of the rule book

It's not hidden. What is expected of humanity has been clearly presented and reiterated throughout the ages. And even if one has never encountered it, natural law is written on the hearts of men and is part of our nature.

 

- The lack of feedback

Conventional feedback, yes. However, God isn't conventional.

 

- The surprise judgement (this is the worst kind of manager/leader, one who surprises its workers without providing feedback and opportunity for improved behaviour. It is like setting a trap, legally it would be called entrapment and human judges don't like people being entrapped)

It's not a surprise. We know there will be a judgement. We have our whole lives to correct our failings and to better perfect our ability to love and be loved.

 

- The need for judgement (why is it important for the god to sort out good souls and bad souls). Is god scared or threatened by bad souls?

God doesn't expect perfection, for only He is perfect. What he does want, however, is for us to fulfill the reason of our creation, which is to love (our love being the reflection God and his love.)  We are given many choices in life, and if we love as we ought, we are judged "good." "Bad souls," as you call them, are those who made the choice to fulfill only themselves. God isn't threatened by the "bad," but they aren't deserving of paradise because they chose to create a paradise for themselves in life, instead of hoping for the eternal paradise.

 

However, we don't actually know how it all works out in the end, and we won't until we reach it.

[theculturewarrior]

I'm presently reading "The Problem of Pain" by C.S. Lewis. I highly recommend it!

 

Glad to hear it!  It has been years since I finished a book.  The humanities destroyed my desire to read.  I think that since I threw the gauntlet down, I would like to start with the atheist response to CS Lewis, and I would definitely appreciate recommendations.

[stevil]

...they aren't deserving of paradise because they chose to create a paradise for themselves in life, instead of hoping for the eternal paradise.

 

So we aren't to take the initiative and make the most of what we have?

Is it our lot to sit back on our laurells and wait to be given stuff? Hoping, waiting? Like dependant children?

[stevil]

I think that since I threw the gauntlet down, I would like to start with the atheist response to CS Lewis, and I would definitely appreciate recommendations.

Richard Dawkins is the obvious choice.

I haven't read any of his books but I was at a book store and read the first few pages of "The magic of reality" seemed well written, well thought out.

[4588686]

No one has the answer to this, which is precisely what faith is. You are rewarded for you faith by receiving absolute knowledge of His existence after death (in addition to eternal happiness)

 

It's not hidden. What is expected of humanity has been clearly presented and reiterated throughout the ages. And even if one has never encountered it, natural law is written on the hearts of men and is part of our nature.

 

Conventional feedback, yes. However, God isn't conventional.

 

It's not a surprise. We know there will be a judgement. We have our whole lives to correct our failings and to better perfect our ability to love and be loved.

 

God doesn't expect perfection, for only He is perfect. What he does want, however, is for us to fulfill the reason of our creation, which is to love (our love being the reflection God and his love.)  We are given many choices in life, and if we love as we ought, we are judged "good." "Bad souls," as you call them, are those who made the choice to fulfill only themselves. God isn't threatened by the "bad," but they aren't deserving of paradise because they chose to create a paradise for themselves in life, instead of hoping for the eternal paradise.

 

However, we don't actually know how it all works out in the end, and we won't until we reach it.

 

You would have gone to hell had you died a month ago.  Would that have been warranted?  Were you only fulfilling yourself in the time that you lost your faith?     

[Kevin]

Yeah, I don't understand this aspect of religious belief.
There is no proof, evidence of any god.
It is as if the gods are extremely shy creatures, hiding but watching.

Then they have some moral code, of which they don't tell anyone about. They give no feedback what so ever with regards to whether people are adhering to the code or not.

Then the belief goes that if one believed in the god and coincidentally managed to follow the code during the many years of their lifetime then the god will reward them with heaven but if they got it wrong then they get surprised by being sent to hell.

The aspects of crazy in this are:
- The requirement for belief, and being judged on this, as if it is a bad thing to need evidence. If there is an afterlife and the god actually exists and you get to meet it, then belief goes out the window anyway, because you will have knowledge and will no longer require belief.
- The hiding of the rule book
- The lack of feedback
- The surprise judgement (this is the worst kind of manager/leader, one who surprises its workers without providing feedback and opportunity for improved behaviour. It is like setting a trap, legally it would be called entrapment and human judges don't like people being entrapped)
- The need for judgement (why is it important for the god to sort out good souls and bad souls). Is god scared or threatened by bad souls?

 

"Proof" is a funny word. I think there is at least one can proof a la Aristotle that there is a necessary existence, non contingent Existence, since the alternative is an infinite regress.

 

I think the gods of various religions, if any of them are true, put out the way they would like humans to act it various holy texts. No, there is no evidence these are true. To me, since I do feel there is an necessary existence which might be a Mind, I take the idea of what I would do if I were that mind (that is, if I were God) and I see which one matches up. I chose Christianity because I prefer its resolution to the problem of evil in Christ's suffering, since Christ is both God and Man, and since it doesn't dismiss the body, as in the resurrection.

 

A lot of your objections can be answered by appealing to invincible ignorance. If people didn't know about Christianity but they still tried to be good, I think they can be saved. From my view, Hell is for those who know about Christianity and what it is about, and reject it. That's why a judgment is needed, because those "bad" souls are just the souls that rejected God, and in order for their rejection and their will to be complete, they can't be forced to be with the God they don't want.

 

Of course, I may be wrong and there may just be nothing when we die. I hope not, but it may be so. Mostly, I am just working with what seems to make at least a little sense to me, and keeps me from losing hope about life in general.

[Kevin]

Richard Dawkins is the obvious choice.

I haven't read any of his books but I was at a book store and read the first few pages of "The magic of reality" seemed well written, well thought out.

 

No no no no, there are a thousand better choices than this. Dawkins is a polemicists and you don't have to get far into his books to see that everything he says is based on a priori assumptions. Nietzsche is the man you want for the deep dark poison. If you can swallow that and come up unscathed you could probably found a monastic order.

[theculturewarrior]

I stared into the abyss and I saw God staring back at me.  God bless you Kevin.  Please be merciful and do not respond.  I have a real problem.