How can unbelievers come to believe in God?

[river]

the thing is people that if you back to the Sumer Ancient time this is where ALL this religion and the reality of the gods started , like it or not and none of you are talking about it

neither the religious are , of what ever denomination nor the so called " realists "

from his book " The Stairway to Heaven " by Zecharia Sitchin

quote from pg # 117;

" Let it be clarified here that neither the Akkadians nor the Sumerians had called these visitors to Earth gods. It is through later paganism that the notion od divine beings or gods has filtered into our language and thinking. When we employ the term here , it is only because of its general acceptance and usage that we do so. "


further

at the tower of babal , enlil , he didn't like the fact that Humanity was reaching for heaven , so he made it so that all that was making the tower couldn't understand each other

hence different civilizations appeared

is this the kind of god anybody would worship ?

 

[Crunchy Cat]

The argument from novelty is all you have got going here.

You mean the argument I didn't make? If you want to debate something then let me know. It is certainly better than making non-existent things up.

If you agree that you are 1. subject to delusion, and that 2. you suppose that a continual reassessment and correction of your beliefs can and does take place,
the the only thing that stops you from falling into the abyss of paranoid skepticism and debilitating insecurity,
is precisely your conviction that that which is newer, is also truer and better.

If information is encountered that corresponds to actual reality then it is correct information. If information is encountered that does not correspond to actual reality then it is false information. I think you are under some bizarre assumption that when my beliefs are corrected, I am correcting it with information based solely on the criteria that it is newer. It's as if in your mind, belief correction with correct information isn't a possibility.

 

[wynn]

If information is encountered that corresponds to actual reality then it is correct information.

Are there things that you once believed to be true, but now don't believe to be true anymore?



IOW, if you believe that all your beliefs are under continual scrutiny and can be changed, how can you at any one point be sure that you have beliefs that are correct, in correspondence with actual reality?

If anything that you now believe to be in correspondence with actual reality, is subject to change, how can you have any certainty?

 

[Arioch]

I used to believe that my father was invincible. Sadly I've come to realize that that belief was false.

 

[wynn]

Variety within a specific religion means there is disagreement. That means one or many or all parties are misinterpreting.

Why do you think this follows?

For example, there are many languages - English, German, Russian, etc. Does that mean that one, more, or all languages are wrong?

No so with God. (Granting the premise that he exists and created Mankind) no human can choose not to be judged by Him.

What do you believe are the implications of this?

Nope. Never suggested it was easy. Simply saying that, however hard it is, it's easier to hear it from someone else than to to invent it for yourself.

But even atheists hear it from others, even atheists don't invent it for themselves. Atheists don't grow up in vacuums.

 

[Balerion]

Why do you think this follows?

For example, there are many languages - English, German, Russian, etc. Does that mean that one, more, or all languages are wrong?

Logical fallacy. One language does not claim authority over another, whereas religions tend to make claims of being "the one true faith," or promises of eternal life/salvation to its followers. Schisms within a faith require two or more parties to reach different conclusions based on the same texts, meaning that both parties are claiming authority over the other.

Stop comparing apples to oranges.

 

[DaveC426913]

What do you believe are the implications of this?

Are you just trying to keep me talking?

But even atheists hear it from others, even atheists don't invent it for themselves. Atheists don't grow up in vacuums.

No they don't, but they don't have an authority (a figure demonstrably and incalculably superior to themselves, who .. well ... who created them, to follow the advice of. All they have is other humans - equals.)

 

[Arioch]

@wynn --

Why do you think this follows?

For example, there are many languages - English, German, Russian, etc. Does that mean that one, more, or all languages are wrong?

You're comparing apples and cars here. A language is a system designed to pass information(of one form or another) from one person to another while religion is a codified set of beliefs about the way the world works. There aren't enough points of commonality for a valid comparison to be made.

But even atheists hear it from others, even atheists don't invent it for themselves. Atheists don't grow up in vacuums.

False, atheists do "grow up" in a vacuum of ideas, unless you're saying that we're socialized in the womb. We're all, by definition, atheists when we're born.

 

[wynn]

Are you just trying to keep me talking?

I am exploring varieties of the argument

"Given that they disagree or say different things, not all religions can be right, and one, more or all are wrong."

It's not clear why that should follow, and I'm interested to see what those who believe it does follow have to say.

No they don't, but they don't have an authority (a figure demonstrably and incalculably superior to themselves, who .. well ... who created them, to follow the advice of. All they have is other humans - equals.)

That would be so if theists would readily and easily get to talk to God.
As it is, they just have texts which they hold to be from God, but they generally don't actually have personal, private revelations from God.
For the most part, theists rely on other humans just like atheists rely on other humans. Some theists (and there is probably a lot of them) rely exclusively on other humans.

So your line of reasoning barely ever applies.

 

[wynn]

You're comparing apples and cars here. A language is a system designed to pass information(of one form or another) from one person to another while religion is a codified set of beliefs about the way the world works. There aren't enough points of commonality for a valid comparison to be made.

Logical fallacy. One language does not claim authority over another, whereas religions tend to make claims of being "the one true faith," or promises of eternal life/salvation to its followers. Schisms within a faith require two or more parties to reach different conclusions based on the same texts, meaning that both parties are claiming authority over the other.

Stop comparing apples to oranges.

I presented the comparison to see what Dave would have to say in reply.

In some ways, the variety of languages is not comparable to the variety of religions. But in some other ways, the two are comparable.

 

[Balerion]

That would be so if theists would readily and easily get to talk to God.
As it is, they just have texts which they hold to be from God, but they generally don't actually have personal, private revelations from God.
For the most part, theists rely on other humans just like atheists rely on other humans. Some theists (and there is probably a lot of them) rely exclusively on other humans.

So your line of reasoning barely ever applies.

The salient point is that there is no discussion in religion. Whether the moral code comes from a literal interpretation of the bible, or as the result of discussion and debate at the highest levels of the church, it is always disseminated to the masses as law.

Meanwhile, a person without superstitious beliefs must make moral determinations for himself. There are schools of thought and ideologies, but ultimately nothing is presented as concrete and none of it (this is important) is tied to any promises of eternal life or threats of eternal damnation. Even if a religious person at their core does not agree with a tenet of the faith, they can throw their hands up and say "Well, God said so, and He works in mysterious ways."

Non-theists do not have this crutch.

 

[wynn]

The salient point is that there is no discussion in religion. Whether the moral code comes from a literal interpretation of the bible, or as the result of discussion and debate at the highest levels of the church, it is always disseminated to the masses as law.

Meanwhile, a person without superstitious beliefs must make moral determinations for himself. There are schools of thought and ideologies, but ultimately nothing is presented as concrete and none of it (this is important) is tied to any promises of eternal life or threats of eternal damnation. Even if a religious person at their core does not agree with a tenet of the faith, they can throw their hands up and say "Well, God said so, and He works in mysterious ways."

Non-theists do not have this crutch.

Apparently think you just haven't spent much time with a variety of people whom you consider religious, but rather with just one kind. Which is how you operate with an incomplete idea of religiousness.

Against this, nothing else can help but to broaden your horizons by pursuing association with a greater variety of religious people.

 

[Balerion]

Apparently think you just haven't spent much time with a variety of people whom you consider religious, but rather with just one kind. Which is how you operate with an incomplete idea of religiousness.

Against this, nothing else can help but to broaden your horizons by pursuing association with a greater variety of religious people.

I was only commenting within the scope of your own comment. Did you forget what you wrote already?

That would be so if theists would readily and easily get to talk to God.
As it is, they just have texts which they hold to be from God, but they generally don't actually have personal, private revelations from God.
For the most part, theists rely on other humans just like atheists rely on other humans. Some theists (and there is probably a lot of them) rely exclusively on other humans.

So your line of reasoning barely ever applies.

You had no issue generalizing, so why is it wrong when I do it? :shrug:

 

[Arioch]

@JDawg --

Because when you do it it interferes with Wynn's arguments, and such disagreement isn't allowed in Wynn's world.

 

[Yazata]

The salient point is that there is no discussion in religion.

That's going to come as a shock to theologians, philosophers and religious studies scholars, let alone countless religious laypeople, who believe that they've been discussing religious ethics for years.

Whether the moral code comes from a literal interpretation of the bible, or as the result of discussion and debate at the highest levels of the church, it is always disseminated to the masses as law.

Religions aren't all concerned with the Bible, nor do they all have a 'church' that defines doctrine for them. (There's Buddhist ethics, for example.) Perhaps you should be directing your remarks at a certain simplistic kind of theistic moralism, and not at "religion" in general. If you did that, many religious people might agree with you.

Meanwhile, a person without superstitious beliefs must make moral determinations for himself.

It often isn't clear how religious virtues should best be translated into choices. There's lots of thought that goes into it, and lots of discussion. Religious people typically aren't just following a list of rules by rote, nor do they always agree with each other about what should be done in particular situations.

 

[Balerion]

That's going to come as a shock to theologians, philosophers and religious studies scholars, let alone countless religious laypeople, who believe that they've been discussing religious ethics for years.

Fair enough, but what are they discussing? How to apply the laws of their faith to modern issues? Okay, but that isn't an actual discussion of ethics, it's only a discussion of how to apply the ethics that have already been dictated to them.

Religions aren't all concerned with the Bible, nor do they all have a 'church' that defines doctrine for them. (There's Buddhist ethics, for example.) Perhaps you should be directing your remarks at a certain simplistic kind of theistic moralism, and not at "religion" in general. If you did that, many religious people might agree with you.

This is true so far as it goes, but there are more Christians in the world than there are all of the Eastern religions combined, so in practical terms generalizing the major Abrahamic religions as "religion" is true enough.

That "certain simplistic theistic moralism" applies to about 3.6 billion people. And in all cases the theist accepts that the teachings of the deity or the prophet or whatever the case may be is the Truth (with a capital "T") and infallible. The question is then not a question of what is ethical, but how to apply the ethics dictated to them. I won't say this is a useless exercise, but at the end of the day we're still comparing apples to oranges.

It often isn't clear how religious virtues should best be translated into choices. There's lots of thought that goes into it, and lots of discussion. Religious people typically aren't just following a list of rules by rote, nor do they always agree with each other about what should be done in particular situations.

Again, I won't contest that, but that isn't really what non-theists do, because theists already have a set of rules that is considered law, and the question is never "Is this moral/ethical" but "how do we apply this moral/ethical idea to our situation?"

 

[Yazata]

Fair enough, but what are they discussing? How to apply the laws of their faith to modern issues? Okay, but that isn't an actual discussion of ethics, it's only a discussion of how to apply the ethics that have already been dictated to them.

What are they discussing? One of the things that religious ethics often discuss are virtues.

Virtue ethics often play down the importance of mere external conformity to moral rules, and argue instead that morality should be understood in terms of developing the virtuous inner traits that motivate external behavior (and ultimately might even make the rules unnecessary).

The Platonic strand in virtue ethics argues that the goal in ethics isn't the ability to perceive what is independently right or noble to do, but rather to come to have independently noble motives and inner states that, when expressed, result in right and admirable action. Aristotelian virtue ethics goes so far as to argue that lists of rules are incapable of capturing matters of right and wrong, arguing instead that real ethical discernment comes in the ability to act ethically in new and unique moral situations.

Medieval Christian theology devoted a great deal of attention to virtues. The point to notice is that attention to virtue transforms ethics from being a matter of mere external conformity to commands into an inner work, a path of spiritual transformation. That was a prominent theme in high medieval literature. (Think of the grail-quest stories for example.)

This is true so far as it goes, but there are more Christians in the world than there are all of the Eastern religions combined, so in practical terms generalizing the major Abrahamic religions as "religion" is true enough.

No it isn't.

It happens that just a couple of days ago, I read a 19'th century author (a famous European professor in fact) writing that what he called "true religion" must acknowledge the one true God, creator of the universe, God's coming judgement, heaven and hell, and so on. Then he blythely announced that Buddhism is not, and cannot be, considered a 'religion'.

It's kind of ironic to read an atheist writing what is effectively the same thing -- that the word 'religion' is to be equated solely with Hebrew myth and with nothing else.

That "certain simplistic theistic moralism" applies to about 3.6 billion people.

Only if you look at theists through a legalist fundamentalist lens that ignores everything that doesn't fit, things like religio-ethical virtues and the work of inner self-transformation that they represent.

 

[Balerion]

What are they discussing? One of the things that religious ethics often discuss are virtues.

Virtue ethics often play down the importance of mere external conformity to moral rules, and argue instead that morality should be understood in terms of developing the virtuous inner traits that motivate external behavior (and ultimately might even make the rules unnecessary).

The Platonic strand in virtue ethics argues that the goal in ethics isn't the ability to perceive what is independently right or noble to do, but rather to come to have independently noble motives and inner states that, when expressed, result in right and admirable action. Aristotelian virtue ethics goes so far as to argue that lists of rules are incapable of capturing matters of right and wrong, arguing instead that real ethical discernment comes in the ability to act ethically in new and unique moral situations.

Medieval Christian theology devoted a great deal of attention to virtues. The point to notice is that attention to virtue transforms ethics from being a matter of mere external conformity to commands into an inner work, a path of spiritual transformation. That was a prominent theme in high medieval literature. (Think of the grail-quest stories for example.)

Well that's great, but that's not religion, that's a kind of veiled secularism. The idea that ethics or morality comes from within is not a Christian one.

No it isn't.

It happens that just a couple of days ago, I read a 19'th century author (a famous European professor in fact) writing that what he called "true religion" must acknowledge the one true God, creator of the universe, God's coming judgement, heaven and hell, and so on. Then he blythely announced that Buddhism is not, and cannot be, considered a 'religion'.

It's kind of ironic to read an atheist writing what is effectively the same thing -- that the word 'religion' is to be equated solely with Hebrew myth and with nothing else.

I'm not saying that at all. I'm simply talking about practical application. Do you know any Shintoists? Are Hindus trying to get their creation story added to biology textbooks in Alabama?

In the Western world, the practical definition of "religion" is the Abrahamic mythology.

I admit I am not as familiar with Eastern philosophies as I am with the modern monotheistic ones, but I'm not really talking about them anyway.

Only if you look at theists through a legalist fundamentalist lens that ignores everything that doesn't fit, things like religio-ethical virtues and the work of inner self-transformation that they represent.

One doesn't have to be a fundamentalist to draw a line. If a Christian claims to get their values from within, then they're Christians in name only. What is a Christian that does not subscribe to Christian tenets?

 

[Yazata]

Well that's great, but that's not religion, that's a kind of veiled secularism. The idea that ethics or morality comes from within is not a Christian one.

"Make a tree good and and its fruit will be good, or make a tree bad and its fruit will be bad, for a tree is recognized by its fruit. You brood of vipers, how can you who are evil say anything good? For out of the overflow of the heart, the mouth speaks. The good man brings good things out of out of the good stored up in him, and the evil man brings evil things out of the evil stored up in him." Jesus, Matthew 12:33-35​

Apparently the basic point is purity of heart.

"Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets. I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them." Matthew 5:17​

I think that a case can be made that Jesus was trying to spiritualize (or as we might prefer to say, psychologize) the Jewish law, making it less a matter of outward performance, and more a matter of inner motivation.

As Paul says,

"For the letter kills, but the spirit brings life." 2Corinthians 3:6​

It's significant that there isn't any specifically Christian law, as there is Jewish and Islamic law. But nobody can accuse Christianity of being uninterested in ethics.

The history of Christianity is filled with discussions and debates about Christian virtues. Augustine and Jerome exemplify it in Latin late antiquity. Aquinas formulated Christian ethics on the model of Aristotle's 'Nichomachian Ethics', and Thomism in turn has been the mainstream philosophy of the Roman Catholic church down to today. The majority of the world's Christians are Catholic (and not the Protestant fundamentalists that atheists love so dearly).

One doesn't have to be a fundamentalist to draw a line. If a Christian claims to get their values from within, then they're Christians in name only. What is a Christian that does not subscribe to Christian tenets?

Whether good flows ultimately from God or whether it can somehow be derived from nature, one can still argue that it still needs to be internalized psychologically in the form of virtues.

 

[Balerion]

"Make a tree good and and its fruit will be good, or make a tree bad and its fruit will be bad, for a tree is recognized by its fruit. You brood of vipers, how can you who are evil say anything good? For out of the overflow of the heart, the mouth speaks. The good man brings good things out of out of the good stored up in him, and the evil man brings evil things out of the evil stored up in him." Jesus, Matthew 12:33-35​

Apparently the basic point is purity of heart.

I never said concepts of innate good and evil are not Christian, I said innate ethics and morals are not. Otherwise, what would be the point of the Commandments? Would be the point of moral teachings if it were considered inherent?

"Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets. I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them." Matthew 5:17​

I think that a case can be made that Jesus was trying to spiritualize (or as we might prefer to say, psychologize) the Jewish law, making it less a matter of outward performance, and more a matter of inner motivation.

But as he says, he's fulfilling the existing law. He doesn't challenge the law itself, he only seeks to give people motivation for following it. This is not the same as an ethical discussion.

As Paul says,

"For the letter kills, but the spirit brings life." 2Corinthians 3:6​

It's significant that there isn't any specifically Christian law, as there is Jewish and Islamic law. But nobody can accuse Christianity of being uninterested in ethics.

Never accused them of not being interested in ethics. I simply said that there is no true discussion of what is right and wrong, but compulsion to accept what has already been deemed so from on high.

The history of Christianity is filled with discussions and debates about Christian virtues. Augustine and Jerome exemplify it in Latin late antiquity. Aquinas formulated Christian ethics on the model of Aristotle's 'Nichomachian Ethics', and Thomism in turn has been the mainstream philosophy of the Roman Catholic church down to today. The majority of the world's Christians are Catholic (and not the Protestant fundamentalists that atheists love so dearly).

Again, "How do we implement this law" is not the same as "Is this law good?"

Whether good flows ultimately from God or whether it can somehow be derived from nature, one can still argue that it still needs to be internalized psychologically in the form of virtues.

Well, we know it doesn't come from the god figures of mythology. The evidence for this is the secular society in which we live today that is considered morally superior than those to come before it, yet in so many ways runs counter to the teachings of any of the major Abrahamic faiths (hey, you said "God" with a capital "G").

So, yes, it clearly needs to be internalized, but non-theism does not inherently have a set of values and morals, and so one must make these determinations for themselves. And not simply how to apply the agreed-upon rules to society, but what those rules are. The latter is not a question in Abrahamic faiths, because the rules have already been decided upon.