Yes, people have a right to SELF-define, but a single word is not going to be a very effective way of doing so. We used to think people were either gay or straight. How’s that working out?
The struggle you speak of is people who were raised with a specific concept of God, and they have doubts about it, but if they decide once and for all that image was wrong–it’s like saying that once you’ve decided there are no little green men from Mars, you’ve answered the question of life elsewhere in the universe. You’ve done no such thing. You’ve just redefined your own personal horizons, and probably put some other form of deity in its place, the truth of which you can’t prove either.
The perch is very imaginary indeed, since you must of course define me as somebody worthy of your dislike. Speaking for myself–
Its probably the best one minute in all of AvT debates, imho. Dawkins is not a great debater, with his laid back and apologetic style. But the Rabbi calls Dawkins anti-Semitic then goes on to read the passage from Dawkins’ book in a tone that is much more combative than Dawkins could ever muster. What he reads (you all can listen to the 23rd minute of the above YouTube) seems pretty damning and pretty accurate to this atheist!
As far as talking with family, I will not discuss religion. They have personal stories of faith and healing straight from the Lord God Jehovah. What Am I to tell them?
FocusMyView said
As far as talking with family, I will not discuss religion. They have personal stories of faith and healing straight from the Lord God Jehovah. What Am I to tell them?
I was an Episcopalian. After desperately trying for two solid years to give up smoking, I got on my knees and prayed for help. From that moment, I knew I would never smoke again. For months afterward it was as though I had hold of an electric wire but the sensation was not painful. (I knew what that felt like as my father had cattle and electric fencing.) It was an empowerment never known before or afterward. What I experienced isn’t all that rare. Perhaps there is much more going on in our lives than we can even imagine.
The human mind is susceptible to hallucinations. 😛
I get the same witnesses from my family. My sister was sick with Lupus for over a decade before getting a kidney transplant. My parents prayed all that time. So God must have healed her. My brother in law got married with kids. Found God and they both stopped drinking. I am glad my sister is alive and well. I am glad my brother in law stopped drinking. Statistically, I find no evidence that God answers prayer. Anecdotally, singing Krishna, Krishna, Krishna is a healing tonic for all.
FocusMyView said
The human mind is susceptible to hallucinations. 😛
Who knows? My husband was not a believer but he saw the advantage of a wife who was. He attended church throughout the years we were bringing up our sons as he wanted them to have faith, too. All I know is that for me it is a lovely way to live.
FocusMyView said
Its probably the best one minute in all of AvT debates, imho. Dawkins is not a great debater, with his laid back and apologetic style. But the Rabbi calls Dawkins anti-Semitic then goes on to read the passage from Dawkins’ book in a tone that is much more combative than Dawkins could ever muster. What he reads (you all can listen to the 23rd minute of the above YouTube) seems pretty damning and pretty accurate to this atheist!
As far as talking with family, I will not discuss religion. They have personal stories of faith and healing straight from the Lord God Jehovah. What Am I to tell them?
Well yes, atheists tend to agree with other atheists. That’s very convincing evidence.
Do you agree with Dawkins that child sexual abuse isn’t a big deal?
** you do not have permission to see this link **
I doubt there’s any belief system that doesn’t have a fair share of idiocy in it, but why only focus on the idiocy of others? Why not be a bit more critical of people in your own camp? Jews criticize other Jews constantly, Catholics definitely call out other Catholics, Muslims probably take the biggest risk speaking out against the minority among them who are extremists–but atheists have a tendency to circle the wagons and refuse to admit that some of them are–well–assholes.
Dawkins is not an expert on anything other than evolutionary theory. His views on religion are simply not convincing at all except to those already convinced. Preaching to the choir, I believe it’s called.
Judith said
FocusMyView said
The human mind is susceptible to hallucinations. 😛
Who knows? My husband was not a believer but he saw the advantage of a wife who was. He attended church throughout the years we were bringing up our sons as he wanted them to have faith, too. All I know is that for me it is a lovely way to live.
There is no reason belief and disbelief can’t co-exist.
But the problem is, there are as many intolerant atheists, relative to numbers, as there are intolerant theists.
Truthfully, most people in both camps just want to get along. But the goats always infiltrate every herd.
The fact that Dawkins did not want to make a big deal about being groped in school was, according to him, because he did not want to overshadow those who 1) experienced much worse 2) or were affected much more by their experiences. When asked about his experience as a victim, he said it was no big deal. I really cannot understand why people heap on him because he called his victimhood no big deal. Is it to color atheists as unhinged? Perhaps.
Religionists and atheists can co exist in this world. We shall see. So far the evidence is not too promising. There have been mass exterminations from both viewpoints.
I am not sure religion can coexist with religion, really.
Or atheism with other kinds of atheism, as some disastrous attempts at atheist conventions have shown. Many atheists are reasonable decent people who want to work with like-minded religious. And other atheists think that’s heresy. The religious must be purged from our midst!
The same divides exist in all groups. It’s ridiculous to think being an atheist makes you any more or less rational than you’d be otherwise. It’s just another belief system, but based on unbelief (which is silly–you don’t need an ‘ism’ to say “I don’t believe in this.”)
As to Dawkins, how on earth is he NOT overshadowing those making these claims by going out of his way to say he himself was abused and he doesn’t think there was anything wrong with it? Did you read the article?
He’s a narcissist. Addicted to publicity, always looking to grab the spotlight. We should all know the symptoms by now.
** you do not have permission to see this link **
Found this little nugget today. Its academia.edu, which has a pay option but I use the free option and got this just fine. Its a poll on philosophers on the arguments for God and the arguments against God.
2 things I noticed.
1) Agnostics seem to be closer to Atheists than Theists in judging arguments for God (Theism) . Agnostics tend to be closer to Theists than Atheists in judging arguments against God (Atheism).
2) The argument from evil reigns supreme.
Thanks for this survey – interesting.
It isn’t surprising, but I nonetheless still find it interesting how statistically theistic Philosophy of Religion is. It was precisely in my first philosophy of religion course that my prior religious views began to unravel. There’s likely a correlation to passion about the subject matter – I’ll bet that if there were a poll of those who focus predominantly on the philosophy of science, that would skew deeply non-theistic.
I wish this study had fractionated theism, atheism and agnosticism into their weak and strong versions (weak and strong in terms of minimalist and maximalist claims, not the staunchness of the position holder). The distinctions at the borders become pretty rarified. A weak agnostic and a weak theist look a lot alike (ask Kierkegaard), as do a strong agnostic and a weak atheist.
The problem of evil is truly a mind-bender for the traditional 4-Omni theistic position. Taking a bit of leaf out of Feynman‘s book, anyone who thinks they have an adequate 4-omni theistic answer to the problem of evil, then they haven’t adequately understood it.
My definition of Atheism is a philosophical one because that’s my academic background. I do not use a colloquial definition. (And I have no interest in telling other people that their definition is “wrong”. I’m not trying to convert anyone. Just to clarify my own position.)
Atheism is the provisional assertion that no god(s) exist. I am making an assertion about the world not merely cataloging my own feelings on the matter. However, all such assertions are provisional, meaning they are subject to refutation, alteration or clarification. In a scientific/philosophical sense absolute certainty is impossible. No one who values philosophical rigor should say they believe in god without any doubt any more than they should say they do not believe in god without any doubt. Colloquially do as you will.
This is why I’ve always been a tad peeved about Thomas Huxley’s invention of the word Agnosticism. He created the concept to critique those religious believers who claimed to know things they couldn’t possibly know. In the Huxleyan sense agnosticism is a way of saying that ‘the existence of god is unknowable’ (not just ‘I haven’t made up my mind’ or ‘I haven’t seen enough evidence one way or another’.) But if the existence of god is unknowable then how is that different from atheism? What is the difference between the unknowable god and no god at all? In the Huxleyan sense the concept of ‘Agnosticism’ seems superfluous. And indeed in later writings Huxley used the two words more or less interchangeably.
Now I don’t have any problems with the colloquial definition of agnosticism as ‘I haven’t made up my mind’ (a lot of folks find themselves in that place) but I would ask we consider what having made up your mind might mean. In a philosophical sense you should always have room for doubt and critique so that making up your mind is never going to involve certainty. To me belief is thought manifested in your actions. As an atheist I live as if god does not exist. A believer is one who lives as if god does exist.
Make sense?
So finally, I do not believe in god(s) because I see no compelling reason to think such entities exist. I identify as an atheist because I live my life as if such entities do not exist. But all valid systems of thought should contain within them their own self-critique so if anyone thinks they have a compelling reason I would love to hear it.
Makes sense to me. I myself may have staked out a slightly different position (it is more fleshed out in the miracles thread). As long as no one begrudges me agnosticism (considered, not colloquial), I will not begrudge their considered atheism or theism. And, again, the distinctions at the borders become pretty rarified…
What is the difference between the unknowable god and no god at all?
Doesn’t this go to falsifiability? Especially Omni-gods are by definition unfalsifiable. Thus Hebrews 11:1
“Now faith is confidence in what we hope for and assurance about what we do not see. 2 This is what the ancients were commended for.”
In that verse we see a choice (conscious or not) to leave scientific rigor for ancient rites and tradition. This chapter enumerates those in the past who lived by faith, some of whom had serious doubts at times. So Huxley’s tip of the spear here is that no one CAN really know, I guess. ( I am truly out of my depth in philosophy)
(And I have no interest in telling other people that their definition is “wrong”. I’m not trying to convert anyone. Just to clarify my own position.)
I try not to get hung up on what others think, and I leave Atheist arguments at the door when visiting family. I am an anti interventionist above all. Do we have a responsibility to share the Truth for the betterment of all? I have three kids and lots of nieces and nephews. I certainly have skin in the game.
Is it derogatory to convert others to my position? Is it saying your POV is less than mine?
Hello. I’m a newbie and this is my first comment. I found this question fascinating and thank you for posing it. None of us I think we can agree whether Christian, Jewish, Muslim, Hindu, Pagan, or —— is born consciously actively atheist. So the question arises by what process, in response to what circumstances, do we identify as atheist. I suggest that there must first be some model of theism to which we have been introduced and to which we are responding. It may then perhaps matter if that model is Chriistian, Jewish, Muslim, Hindu, Pagan, or ____ because it is in response to that model which we assert our atheism.
Welcome!
So the question arises by what process, in response to what circumstances, do we identify as atheist.
I agree. The process we use to arrive at our conclusions is as fascinating to me as the conclusions themselves.
For me it wasn’t a moment of illumination but a years long process involving experience, education and a lot of thinking. I didn’t so much become an atheist as realize one day that I already had. An important part of that process has been reconciling myself to that fact. It’s important to ask not only what does “atheism” mean but also, what does it “mean” to be an atheist.
I suggest that there must first be some model of theism to which we have been introduced and to which we are responding. It may then perhaps matter if that model is Chriistian, Jewish, Muslim, Hindu, Pagan, or ____ because it is in response to that model which we assert our atheism.
Good point. I was born and raised in a hardcore rural fundamentalist environment (“we’re right and everybody else is going to hell”) and there’s no doubt that affected my later development. For one thing it was a very insular community, you were either all in or all out, so even going away to school was a major shock.
My girlfriend is a Hindu, born into a Brahmin family. She regards herself as pious but her piety mostly expresses itself in ethnic tradition rather than in doctrine. My background was all doctrine. What tradition there was, was very attenuated. I can see the fascination with ritual and formal observance in a community. Atheism can be rather lonely sometimes.
Stephen said
Atheism can be rather lonely sometimes.
So very true for me, too. This is my spiritual community as there is no one in my family, among my friends or even acquaintances who are not alarmed at the mere mention of Dr. Ehrman’s name if they know of him. Fundamentalism is IT here in this small southern city! (There is a cousin in NYC 🙂
New here, but I have read a number of Bart’s books and listened to his Great Courses topics. They’re honest and thought-provoking.
As an agnostic, I know Bart does not believe in an anthropomorphic God. But I am interested in his possible views of the nondualistic doctrines where the Universe is Consciousness and we are ultimately part of Consciousness. As such, on our physical death, we ‘dissolve’ back to Mind-at-Large. So in this teaching, there is no death.
I have been reading Dr Bernardo Kasrup’s books, which take on what is called the hard problem of consciousness, and debunks the materialistic notion that consciousness is emergent from the brain. Rather he makes the case for the opposite, that consciousness comes first. I also found his use of quantum mechanics in explaining the important role of the observer in influencing observed matter to be in align with nondualism’s emphasis on the perceiver when viewing objects. ‘Objects’ are rendered only when viewed.
It is true that on the surface, nondualism’s description of the world is very counter intuitive to us during our waking moments. But scientists like Kasrup is marshaling the evidence in its support. There is a very articulate teacher of Advaita Advanta, Rupert Spira, who can be found on youtube. His explanation on God Consciousness is very good.
Finally, as Bart is now writing a book on Armageddon, I am wondering whether its scope could include the eschatology of nondual Judaism, as expressed in Kabbalistic and Hasidic sources. Michael
I identify as a classical-theist, with a leaning toward Thomism (a Thomist is someone who largely ascribes to the thought of Thomas Aquinas). I am a fan of Dr. Ehrman, because of his rigorous scholarship and critique of fundamentalist evangelical approaches to scripture that I find refreshing. I also find him to be intellectually honest and likeable.
Where I disagree with him, and presumably many others who follow his blog, is that I think: the Aristotelian-Thomistic worldview is true, metaphysical naturalism is false, and that certain “first-cause” style arguments for God’s existence succeed. And nothing in Bart’s writings really threatens any of this, since the above are philosophical positions not historical ones. In general, I think that the atheism/theism debates involving people like Dawkins, Hitchens, Harris, WLC, John Lennox etc. are philosophically lacking and out of date. I think the three most important living theistic philosophers are Edward Feser (I post on his blog as well), Brian Davies, and David Oderberg and the most important living atheist philosopher is Graham Oppy (with a shoutout to the late J.L. Mackie, who was very formidable).
BDEhrman
FreedomBen
evgendob
Robert
1 Guest(s)