Athiest for Others

[Grantywanty]

In debates between atheists and believers it seems to me that there are two possible kinds of atheists:
those who do not believe in God
those who do not think that God can possibly be a rational belief.

The second kind of atheism assumes that no set of experiences could give one a solid foundation for belief in God. (I think it also says something about the possibility of intuition noticing certain things which are hard to prove)

Of course many theists base their belief on faith and this opens the door for atheist to merge the above two types of athiesm. I think also that exclusionary beliefs in God - like there is no Muslim God, but there is a Christian God muddy the waters also.

But there are believers who base their beliefs on experience - not authority, not faith, not tradition, not for moral reasons.

 

[greenberg]

Not to make light - but I think the issue is moot.

 

[Grantywanty]

Not to make light - but I think the issue is moot.

How so?

 

[greenberg]

It depends vastly whose perspective we're looking from -
Are we talking about atheists from their own atheist perspective?
Are we talking about atheists from a particular theist perspective?
Are we assuming it is possible to speak about all this from a neutral, objective perspective?

 

[Grantywanty]

I'm speaking about it from a pagan's perspective. I look at the battles between athiests and theists - most of whom seem to be monotheists, some significant % base their beliefs on faith - and think that in a sense a straw man is being burned up.

Even mystics in the monotheisms: say, Buber, Rumi, Thomas Merton - do not nail down the nature of that God in the ways that many believers do. In other words many of the arguments of athiests against the beliefs of theists - even monotheists - miss the mark. The beliefs are not necessarily faith based, or even belief in the supernatural - rather a belief that some of what is natural is accessible to (some of) us but not currently verifiable by science.

I don't base my beliefs on faith. I do belief in God. I don't disbelieve in the Christian God, but I doubt that God hate homosexuals, for example. Some Christians would assume this meant I don't believe in the Christian God, but nevertheless, I do believe that some Christians are reaching contact with what I call God. They use certain metaphors and practices that have led them to certain experiences and vice versa.

I do recognize that the objection you are raising to my OP is a good one. I am trying in a way to get some objectivity in there. But I think at least in part I am pointing out something obvious. Most athiests assume that theist believe because they trust a book, were told to by their parents, are brainwashed ETC. AND do not base their beliefs on experience. Apart from the fact that this is not true it also focuses on only a portion of theists - however dominant they are 'out there'.

 

[greenberg]

I do recognize that the objection you are raising to my OP is a good one. I am trying in a way to get some objectivity in there. But I think at least in part I am pointing out something obvious. Most athiests assume that theist believe because they trust a book, were told to by their parents, are brainwashed ETC. AND do not base their beliefs on experience. Apart from the fact that this is not true it also focuses on only a portion of theists - however dominant they are 'out there'.

I think that especially in cases like these, it is wise to remember that this is actually about general issues of human cognition as such, and not simply about atheism or theism.

How do people think? How do they make decisions? How do people develop beliefs? What is rational? - such questions are the subject of research of philosophy and especially cognitive science. In the recent decades, much attention has been devoted to these issues.

And as that research shows, these things can be very complex.

 

[Baron Max]

It's very difficult to get along with different people if one consistently denigrates their beliefs. I think tolerance is, perhaps, a better approach, don'tcha' think?

Baron Max

 

[greenberg]

I think tolerance is, perhaps, a better approach, don'tcha' think?

Not discussing an even better one.

 

[SkinWalker]

In debates between atheists and believers it seems to me that there are two possible kinds of atheists:
those who do not believe in God
those who do not think that God can possibly be a rational belief.

Could there not be a third type of atheist? One whose atheism is a result of rationalism? I view the world with scientific naturalism and the lack of evidence and a good reason to accept the various gods presented by the many extant and extinct religions of the world give me no reason to favor one over the other. Indeed, the rationalist in me quickly accepts that of the hundreds of extant religions who all think they are the correct religion, only 1 or less than 1 can be actually correct. $$ n \leq 1 $$

Nor do I think that a god cannot possibly be a rational belief. A god can most certainly be rational as a belief if sufficient evidence is presented to show one exists or that one cult's god should be favored over another's. Lacking this, I see no good reason to accept the god of any given cult of humanity until such time as evidence is presented.

It's very difficult to get along with different people if one consistently denigrates their beliefs. I think tolerance is, perhaps, a better approach, don'tcha' think?

Very often, those who complain that their "beliefs are being denigrated" confuse inquiry and fair criticism with denigration. Perhaps to them those that dare question their public claims of the supernatural is denigrating. I don't really care what people believe until their beliefs are presented as facts I'm supposed to accept. Or until those beliefs are presented as facts that my government or my daughter's school is supposed to accept as facts. Or until the progress of science and education is interrupted by superstitions.

I find that denigrating. Why do the superstitious not respect the beliefs of the rational? At least their beliefs are grounded in that which can be observed, tested, replicated, and reasonably inferred.

 

[Baron Max]

I find that denigrating.

Good. Then you probably know how it feels, so you won't do it anymore, right?

Baron Max

 

[SkinWalker]

There are those for whom it is one's duty to offend. If the superstitious find their irrational claims questioned and criticized offensive or denigrating, then perhaps they aren't as sure about them as they think.

I most certainly will not discontinue criticism and inquiry of religious superstition. If you or anyone else finds it "denigrating" they have the choice not to read in the Religion subforum of a Science forum.

 

[Sarkus]

But I think at least in part I am pointing out something obvious. Most athiests assume that theist believe because they trust a book, were told to by their parents, are brainwashed ETC. AND do not base their beliefs on experience. Apart from the fact that this is not true it also focuses on only a portion of theists - however dominant they are 'out there'.

Possibly - but in order for the theist to show otherwise they must surely be able to explain their experience to the atheist. Otherwise the atheist will merely be appealing to the authority of the theist - which is the same logical fallacy they accuse the theist of in trusting a book.

Also, in these instances it is not experience that is the issue but the interpretation of the experience that is the issue - an interpretation that is brought about, in the majority of cases, precisely because they "trust a book, were told to by their parents, are brainwashed ETC".

So I am not sure how you would be able to separate the subjective interpretation of the experience from the source of the subjectivity - and thus reach an objective interpretation - especially if the person who had the experience is unable to explain the nature, observations etc of that very experience.

 

[Grantywanty]

Could there not be a third type of atheist? n \leq 1 [/tex]

Nor do I think that a god cannot possibly be a rational belief.

That puts you in group 2.

A god can most certainly be rational as a belief if sufficient evidence is presented to show one exists or that one cult's god should be favored over another's. Lacking this, I see no good reason to accept the god of any given cult of humanity until such time as evidence is presented.

Evidence can be experienced that perhaps cannot be presented to another. In other words sometimes it is rational to believe in things based on one's experience despite not being able to prove something to someone else who lacks those experiences. I think this is a common confusion. That I must be irrational if I cannot prove to you this or that is true and yet I believe in it.

I should not confuse telling my experience as proof.
At the same time it should not be assumed that all true things can be proved.

Very often, those who complain that their "beliefs are being denigrated" confuse inquiry and fair criticism with denigration.

This is a beef you have with someone else. I have never complained about my beliefs being denigrated.

I find that denigrating. Why do the superstitious not respect the beliefs of the rational? At least their beliefs are grounded in that which can be observed, tested, replicated, and reasonably inferred.

I don't know, but I would guess you can minimize your reading and listening to their denigrating comment.

 

[Grantywanty]

Possibly - but in order for the theist to show otherwise they must surely be able to explain their experience to the atheist. Otherwise the atheist will merely be appealing to the authority of the theist - which is the same logical fallacy they accuse the theist of in trusting a book.

they can describe their experience, perhaps. But neither side should assume that we can always convince others of our own accurate interpretations of experiences even if our interpretations are correct.

Also, in these instances it is not experience that is the issue but the interpretation of the experience that is the issue - an interpretation that is brought about, in the majority of cases, precisely because they "trust a book, were told to by their parents, are brainwashed ETC".

I agree. In the majority of cases. Or I should say. That is my guess. But you know. I would think that most people who believe in evolution would give very sloppy and inaccurate explanations of it and that their belief has a lot to do with their families, their circles of acquaintances and so on. They trust their intuition to know which experts are right. Evolution sounds right when they read it. (and to be very clear. I believe in evolution and I am not putting the forward as a proof against evolution or that one can't be solidly grounding in the theory. my point is that most believers in evolution would have hard time answering challenging questions about evolution. they got a general idea.)

So I am not sure how you would be able to separate the subjective interpretation of the experience from the source of the subjectivity - and thus reach an objective interpretation - especially if the person who had the experience is unable to explain the nature, observations etc of that very experience.

Here's a test. Can you think of a phenomenon that some people experienced, were told it was not possible and that they were misinterpreting their experience that later turned out, in the end, to be backed up by scientific research?

An honest look at scientific discoveries will find examples where people believed in things that seemed unlikely given current science and or technological ability. These people could relate their experiences and were told they were not correctly interpreting. Later these conjectural dismissals were seen to be false.

An honest scientist must allow for the possibility that some people, right now, are experiencing something - whatever it is, I am opening up the context - that doesn't SEEM to fit with current science and SEEMS unlikely or impossible, but will later turn out to be correct.

Give it some thought and I am sure you can come up with past examples.

 

[SkinWalker]

That puts you in group 2.

Perhaps. And to that I can concede. I don't believe in any gods, so if #2 includes that I'm not making a positive claim that gods do not exist, I agree.

Evidence can be experienced that perhaps cannot be presented to another.

Do you have an example of this type of "experience?" If an experience cannot be quantified or qualified scientifically, is it really useful as an experience? Not in reality. It might be an experience that gives personal comfort or consolation (or even the contrary if the experience was unpleasant), but the moment that the experience predictably or noticeably affects the real world (such as statistical demonstration of the efficacy of prayer; noticeable health benefits; etc.) then it becomes quantifiable and qualifiable using science.

This is a beef you have with someone else. I have never complained about my beliefs being denigrated.

Nor have I suggested or implied that you did. This was a response to Baron Max whom I quoted very carefully.

 

[greenberg]

Do you have an example of this type of "experience?" If an experience cannot be quantified or qualified scientifically, is it really useful as an experience? Not in reality. It might be an experience that gives personal comfort or consolation (or even the contrary if the experience was unpleasant), but the moment that the experience predictably or noticeably affects the real world (such as statistical demonstration of the efficacy of prayer; noticeable health benefits; etc.) then it becomes quantifiable and qualifiable using science.

Have you ever been into sports?
Have you ever mastered a skill - be it in sports, playing a musical instrument, handiwork ...?
Have you ever figured out your own training regimen?

These things can be quantified and qualified only partly, and even then, they are of direct use only to you, in your situation at the time.
Most of it is about "getting the right feel for it".

It is, for example, impossible to measure or explain to a newbie runner how much muscle pain is too much, and how much is such that he should endure if he is to make progress. They'll have to do it by trial and error, trial and success, and then play it by ear a lot.

And yet all these experiences are crucial, they are of crucial use.

 

[greenberg]

Possibly - but in order for the theist to show otherwise they must surely be able to explain their experience to the atheist. Otherwise the atheist will merely be appealing to the authority of the theist - which is the same logical fallacy they accuse the theist of in trusting a book.

Exactly.

Also, in these instances it is not experience that is the issue but the interpretation of the experience that is the issue - an interpretation that is brought about, in the majority of cases, precisely because they "trust a book, were told to by their parents, are brainwashed ETC".

Yes, exactly. And all this and the above would not matter were it not that God is often claimed by monotheists to be knowable for all, that all are subject to God and that all must obey God or they will be sent to hell.

IOW, we could satisfy ourselves with the subjective experiences and the subjective interpretations - were it not for the declared seriousness of the consequences should we fail to have the right kind of experience and the right kind of interpretation.

 

[(Q)]

In debates between atheists and believers it seems to me that there are two possible kinds of atheists:
those who do not believe in God
those who do not think that God can possibly be a rational belief.

The debate is quite clear, to question the CLAIMS of theists. It doesn't really have anything to do with atheists believing or not believing in a god, it all boils down to the UNDEMONSTRABLE CLAIMS of believers.

 

[Grantywanty]

The debate is quite clear, to question the CLAIMS of theists. It doesn't really have anything to do with atheists believing or not believing in a god, it all boils down to the UNDEMONSTRABLE CLAIMS of believers.

Athiests tend to go beyond this position. They tend to say that the believers are irrational. This may not be the case even from the athiests' perspective. They could have experiences that make their belief rational but are these experiences are not demonstrable to you.

A theist claiming that their beliefs should somehow be proof for you is not correct - not do I see any proofs of God as very convincing.

However one can, in general, belief in something that is true and is not demonstrable. They are many examples of this, phenomena that did not fit with scientific or other general beliefs at a certain time and were poo pooed by those not having the experiences. Later it was shown that these were true.

An honest scientist would say they cannot know for sure if there is a God or not or if a believer is making a rational decision to believe.

I see a confusion (on both sides) of these debates between
what is demonstrable or provable
and
what is convincing for the experiencer

 

[Grantywanty]

Do you have an example of this type of "experience?" If an experience cannot be quantified or qualified scientifically, is it really useful as an experience? Not in reality. It might be an experience that gives personal comfort or consolation (or even the contrary if the experience was unpleasant), but the moment that the experience predictably or noticeably affects the real world (such as statistical demonstration of the efficacy of prayer; noticeable health benefits; etc.) then it becomes quantifiable and qualifiable using science.

You are assuming that every real and causal phenomena can be tracked or measured by the technology and scientific perspectives (which would help us know where to look at with what) we CURRENTLY HAVE.

The existence of rogue waves and elephants ability to communicate over long distances were both poo pooed by scientists - who thought the former could not exist and that there could be no mechanism for the latter. Experiencers nevertheless were rational in their belief which EVENTUALLY was supported WHEN TECHNOLOGY and scientific interest changed.

Nor have I suggested or implied that you did. This was a response to Baron Max whom I quoted very carefully.

yes, you did. sorry.