I'm starting to doubt my lack of belief

Post Reply New Topic

This is an interesting piece of advice because I get the impression that neither Ruevyn or any of the people agreeing with him think the heart is any more than a blood pump. However, the way Gina-gettoprincess used the word she seemed to be referring to a spiritual essence of herself. If she believes such a thing exists, I would say it should be heeded.

But what is it? Some say the “self” is a part of the brain or another word for the brain, others say it doesn't exist and has no will of its own. If that is so this discussion is moot for whatever choice the OP will make has been predetermined and the only reason for having it is that has been predetermined. But if you acknowledge that you do have a choice to make, my suggestion would be to use your heart to guide the operation of your brain,

To me, religion is simply a group of people who agree to agree on an image of God or Gods. The possibility exists that they are all wrong yet a such a being still exists and none of them described him accurately. Listen to your heart (if it has more to say than bo-boom bo-boom) and use your brain to process the information. I would also recommend trusting the assumption that if there is a God that is worthy of your worship, He will lead you to himself.

Umm.... DeaconBlues, the same criticism exists for the "laws of nature", which is why I did this based upon the comparison.

The truth or falsity of a law of thermodynamics cannot be demonstrated, not without an exhaustive knowledge of every single phenomenon in the Universe, so if it is to be used, its value must be assumed.

The issue is that just as much as we see things follow thermodynamic laws, we also notice that the only consistent picture of the universe that we encounter is a physical one, and that's the thrust of my point.


I don't think the phrasing is problematic once you notice the comparison that I am trying to make.


I suppose it is possible in the raw sense of logical possibility, but it does not seem very likely. Why a spirit? And if the spirit, then why doesn't the consciousness have more access to the brain activity? It is a fact that the brain has activity, and makes decisions, but that these decisions aren't things we are conscious of until later, however, if there is a spirit, then why wouldn't it know more and have more access? There is no reason for it to have the epistemic limits.

Even further, if human beings evolved from simpler creatures, why would it be that we would have a spirit? Bacterium do not have spirits. But, y'know, an advanced enough combination somehow summons a magical force? Well, this is possible, but it doesn't seem likely. Particularly given how absurd these processes are, as the mind is not deeply tied to truth itself, it continually is subject to cognitive biases, optical illusions, even massive self-deception.

A theorist on consciousness that I would recommend is Daniel Dennett.
http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/dan_ ... sness.html


Well, ok, my point is that we have prolonged observation of phenomena, but we can't prove either as absolute.

The person I was talking to was arguing that the laws of thermodynamics disprove ALL POSSIBLE perpetual motion machines, to claim that the dismissal of these things is different than dismissing spirits. The problem is that this doesn't work, particularly given that you even admit to the possible violation of this rule. Now, to say that ontology and epistemology are different than physics is all well and fine, but it is sort of to miss the point, and that point was that the perpetual motion machine comparison was not really so invalid.

"Heart" is a common reference in our culture. Ruveyn and the people agreeing with him also know what it symbolizes.

I don't think it is used to refer to "a spiritual essence of oneself", at least not more than the mind. Instead, the heart refers to one's emotions and perhaps intuitions. I think urging that it should not be heeded is good advice, regardless of whether one believes in spirits. Having some level of honesty towards oneself is better.

That being said, while I can understand on some level that a person can reconcile a Judeo-Christian notion of God with their hearts, I can't help but fail to. What does God do when watching all of our sufferings? We can say that He feels bad. That He performs minor miracles that nobody can prove have happened. All sorts of other things, but nothing that significant, so it leaves us to wonder, how is it really much different than laughing?




Umm..... NobelCynic, your reasoning doesn't follow. The OP's choice being determined does not mean that the discussion doesn't help determine it. The strange human aversion to determinism, and against coming to a reasonable relationship with it is just weird and deeply perverse. If everything is determined, that does not mean that nobody can take an action that has causal influence on the future, in fact, to hold that our actions CAN have causal influence on the future to some extent requires the assumption of some determinism.

Belief in God, for me, is non-rational. In other words, it is possible that my belief that God exists is true since knowing such a thing is outside the scope of human ability, but I have no proof one way or the other that God exists. Belief in God, for me, is a matter of life and death.

I, for one, could not believe in a God that would be so unwise as to allow humanity to prove God's existence. Giving solid proof to humanity would be like handing over the keys to the kingdom. What truly loving God would allow us, the people who carelessly are completely destroying our world and each other, have access to something so precious.

Are you a parent by any chance?

Imagine that you came home and the house was flooding because of a backed up and broken toilet. a cloth was burning on the stovetop, and one of the kids was bleeding profusely. You take one look at that and say to the kids "I'm a loving parent, so I'm going to just let you guys keep doin' your thing. I dont approve, but this is the best way for you to learn. By the way, that wound looks nasty, but you bleeding to death is all part of my great plan as a parent."

This is like a god who does not interfere. It is your duty to follow in gods loving examples. Is this how you raise your kids? Or would you say "s**t! I gotta help my babies! Quick!" THAT is love.

I don't understand the reasoning you give.

Only a fraction of Protestants hold that faith alone is needed and that saving faith does not necessarily inspire personal improvement. A lot of Protestants hold that faith inspires works. Orthodox and Catholic Christians emphasize works even more than that. So, yeah, I just don't understand your reasoning given all of the possible theologies that get around the problem I am interpreting you as putting forward.

Using the God/parent analogy, I would say that God gives us the wisdom to handle those situations. God equips us with the knowledge to fix the toilet, to keep flammable materials away from fire sources, and the ability to keep pressure on a wound until either we can stop the bleeding on our own or get help from someone else who can.

My family and I at one point lived in a two-story house. When our son had just gotten past the crawling stage, which was fairly early on, he discovered the stairs. That didn't take long. Once on the stairs, he didn't know how to climb back down, so fear of being stuck on the stairs compelled him to climb upward. About halfway up, he'd start crying until he reached the top, and then he'd scream until one of us came to help him. But instead of simply picking him up and bringing him back down, we'd take his legs and force him to crawl backwards down the stairs. We did this over a period of 1 or 2 weeks, after which he went up and down the stairs on his own with no supervision at all. He NEVER ONCE fell.

God, in principle, is a parent. And God does rescue and discipline those who believe in Him. It COULD be that many problems within humanity are not the result of a God who doesn't care; more likely, it is that more often people do not acknowledge God's power and ask for help. And people cannot ask for help from someone in whom they do not believe.

We also have a daughter. She's just beginning to copy our speech, but she doesn't have a working vocabulary with which to communicate. We're perfectly comfortable with our children doing pretty much whatever they want. But we also know what it means when a tiny voice yells "MOMMY!! ! DADDY!! !" Most often, instead of directly and immediately intervening, we check to see whether she's frustrated with a toy, her brother is somehow involved, or if she's hurt. Depending on the situation, MOST of the time we wait to see if she can work things out on her own. She's very bright and knows enough that if she follows her brother around enough, she can figure things out by watching him. They have each other to lean on--she can even comfort her brother when he's in trouble, so as "low-functioning" as she is in comparison, even she knows the value of a hug. It works both ways, of course, and we do intervene when it is necessary to.

We have tough kids, and I think that's partly the point of parenting.

God gives us each other, likewise. If it seems that God is uncaring or inactive, it is perhaps also that He has already provided us what we need. I can't explain why, but I also think that God gives equal but different kinds of respect to His children. I've seen this in my own life. I've never broken a bone or had any kind of serious injury--jumped out of a barn once, been in two car accidents, chased away a funnel cloud, missed deadly storms by minutes (and recently by seconds--actually drove through part of a tornado over a mile wide). Storms fear me, and for some reason I always feel a compulsion to be right in the middle of them. My daughter, born premature, was born out of a complicated pregnancy and somehow made it just long enough to only need a few short weeks in the NICU, and really didn't need anything more than observation until she outgrew her apnea. People ask us all the time whether our children are twins because of how fast she's grown. We don't know why we're so special that we've been taken care of. However, we also feel that perhaps if no harm can come to us, perhaps we should use that kind of providence to help others who are not so fortunate (HOW is another issue).

Perhaps I should have been a firefighter.

Anyway... It is recorded that God has appeared at various time in various ways to various people. God appearing NOW would not be very useful for us or Him because it would amount to little more than a ghostly magician performing parlor tricks for our amusement. God cannot be manipulated that way (or in any way, for that matter). He has done all that He SHOULD do, to the point He came in the form of Jesus (the Son of God). Believers know that God speaks to them, something unbelievers cannot claim. So saying that God does not reveal Himself at all or maintain a presence in this world is false. Because God is just and merciful, He does not FORCE unbelievers to acknowledge Him. Believers CAN spread the message among unbelievers, but ultimately a choice is made to accept revelation or not. All a believer can do is keep trying to persuade those who don't believe. Beyond that, those who refuse to believe ultimately take the decision out of God's hands.

Back to the "burning house": Suppose there are two houses--you're own and your neighbor's. In the VERY END, who do you choose to rescue, your own children or your neighbor's children? If you believe the Bible, it seems that God for one moment in time chose to rescue those who did not believe at the sacrifice of His own Child. The resurrection is proof of this in that Jesus showed us that there is life after death. I think it points two houses in the future, perhaps at the "end of time." God's house represents a point of safety. The burning house is the rest of the world. If we know at some time the house we are in will burn down, would it not make sense that being in God's house, adopted into His family, would be preferable than in a state of danger? We can choose to run from the house for a house of safety. God will not rescue those who do not belong to Him, and He has made it clear that there IS a way out, to become one of His children. For me, MY children are my #1 priority if both houses are burning down. All I can do after making sure my own children are safe is pray that my neighbor's children either have enough sense to get out or that they can hold out until I can do something about it.

AngelRho, while I didn't read half of what you wrote because you are long-winded with very little to actually say, the problem is still that we don't see behavior befitting moral perfection, or even existence from God. I mean, for starters, what kind of parent feels so distant that children don't even consider them present? What parent leaves their children to play with the threat of eternal damnation? We all know that individuals are challenged beyond what they are capable of handling, we hear about the suicide notes, we know about the people who get by on a therapist's bed and a few pills, and we know about the people for whom "God's provision" never comes, and what? Should we just make the unfalsifiable claim that these people died because they didn't "believe enough"? At what point are their beliefs sufficient? At what point is this not a dogma to strip these people of even their last dignity?

God knew from the beginning every death and agony, every failing and horror that would emerge out of creation. God saw all of this, and accepted it. I can't even understand that. How could a being be morally perfect but drown out the endless screams of agony? How could he be said to be wholly loving but let a single child born whom he knew would suffer such horrors? Wouldn't a miscarriage be better? Wouldn't anything be better? This world isn't the best logical possibility, and anybody can see this, but we are supposed to say that God, the perfect being, created a crapsack world? I can't believe it for a second. The fact that Jesus Christ died proves nothing as well, the entire claim gets killed if one believes a Penal Substitution view of the atonement, as then we have a God who is such a jerk that he needs to kill His "only begotten son" just to appease himself.

As for all the fideism, I'm just going to call this BS. Why? Because this same nonsense could be invoked for anything, from leprechauns to Santa, from Allah to Krotjan the baby-crusher. Is this really a matter of "God wanting faith" or "the lack of wisdom in allowing proofs of God"? Or is this really a matter of all of the proofs of God in the past failing, and believers frantically lying to themselves and the world to protect their emotional crutch? I think the latter. When you want medical care, you want it from a guy who has done the research, and has solid evidence. When you want an auto-repair, you want a guy who knows what he is doing, not one with faith. Just imagine that theories of why the dinosaurs went extinct were treated the same way that people treat religion. Heck, you don't have to imagine as Richard Dawkins has talked about that.
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EYigmGyN2RQ[/youtube]

I think we all identify this as BS, and the issue isn't that this is "science", but rather because this is a matter of truth. Well, religion and God are matters of truth, so why the BS? I mean, I am not agnostic on the possibility of a unicorn flying through space, so why on this?? It seems plain and evident to me that answers are possible in religion, and that the correct answer is atheism.

AG: You are unrelentingly hung up on science. If that is your view, I'm not going to argue about it anymore. If all you want to believe in beyond the physical universe is nothing, then all you'll ever know is nothing.

Perhaps I'm long winded. But there are LARGE numbers of people--many more than hard scientists--that for SOME reason that YOU can't explain believe in something that YOU can't see nor want to. Those of us who DO believe for the most part have no desire to explain it in some scientific way. We don't even all agree among ourselves, hence why Protestants are broken up into so many diverging groups. I happen to be SBC (which is NOT necessarily a tight, cut-and-dry group, but there are a few small core values we hold in common. It's a lot less "traditional" than it might have been even as recently as 20 years ago). But I have Christian friends who are Pentecostal, various COGs, Missionary Baptist, Methodist, and even Catholic, not to mention other friends who are Mormon, Moslem, Hindu, Buddhist, and Wiccan/neo-Pagan--and those are just the ones with whom religion even came into the conversation. Most of my acquaintances in New York held at least loosely to some kind of faith, whether it was simply a habit to sit through church or whether they were genuinely active. I even dated a U/U girl who held faith in some kind of Supreme Being like God, even if she was unsure exactly of His nature.

You retain a lot of faith in "the majority of scientists." Well, that's fine. But if we want to talk about consensus, you still have to contend with a greater majority of those, even many scientists themselves, who believe and practice their faith. Making this a personal attack against Christians and other people of faith that you don't like is unnecessary. Just because YOU are blind to the truth doesn't mean you should stand in the way of those who seek it.

Now this might not be what you'd always expect to hear from a Christian, but I believe that if God is leading you, He will take care of you. I am not sure that everyone realizes necessarily who is leading them, who it is they are serving, but I do think God may count more than we realize towards Him. I do believe it is Christ who saves. But I think that there is more going on than fundamentalists might be comfortable with.

(A better illustration of this occurs with the case of Emeth in C.S. Lewis' last book for the Narnia Chronicles, The Last Battle. Most Protestants I don't think realize that's in there. Catholics or Orthodox Christians would be less likely to take issue with it as it comes closer to their own doctrine.)

EDIT: Sorry for not being able to go into a long response on the other material...it would take me way, WAY too long to do so in anything I would consider an adequate fashion and believe me, when I get going it is VERY detailed.

If I lack knowledge, then why don't you prove I have a gap and that I have a problem. It should be a mere matter of logic if you really know something, at least, so I would think.


Ummm.... AngelRho, I have an explanation, and that explanation is that human beings are full of cognitive flaws. The fact that other human beings are subject to a particular cognitive flaw favoring religion does not mean that it still isn't a logical flaw. If it was a matter of truth, then you'd think that they would have solid arguments and reasonings.


Apologists tend to explain it all in the background of analytic philosophy, which includes scientifically oriented natural philosophy as engaged in by figures such as William Lane Craig and Richard Swinburne. So, I don't see the real problem. It is true that theologians tend to avoid analytical philosophy, and mostly because their concern isn't about truth so much as expressing an experience, but still.

That being said, I know about the diversity of religions, I referenced the Bhagavad Gita earlier and the ongoing differences between religious beliefs.


Actually, I haven't referenced the "majority of scientists" in this thread much that I can tell. it just isn't relevant. I've referenced scientific studies, which are.

Well, to even invoke this "greater majority" as relevant, you have to show why this greater majority actually has a better epistemic position than the majority of philosophers who don't believe, and the elite scientists who have facts irreconcilable with the traditional religious worldview. Frankly, I am more of a philosopher than a scientist. Even further, if this great majority has access to some truth, then why do they all radically disagree on its nature? If this was a matter of truth, it seems to me that we could sort this all out pretty easily, but if this was a matter of cognitive biases, then there is no way to find a definite answer. I think it is the latter. If you disagree, then how about this deal: You all get together, try to work out your differences and come up with a unified answer on the nature of the divine so that way I can refute it or fail to do so. If you can't ever come close to doing that due to fragmentation, then why on earth should I believe that the divine is guiding you to truth? Preserving you from such errors seems like one of the first things to do.

Actually, my argument is clear. You people are blind to the truth. Period. Is the God of scripture a God who holds that "showing that he exists" is a major problem? Obviously not. How would you explain 1 Kings 18 from a God who hates proof? The resurrection appearances of Jesus if proof is such a problem? The earthquake at the cross that caused one onlooker to say "this was truly the son of God"? Doubting Thomas touching the wounds of Christ? The plagues of Egypt? The mana to the chosen people? The sun stopping in the sky? The miracles of Christ? I mean, all of those things seem to constitute proof to any modern mind if they could be clearly documented, but, somehow we read now that God does not care about proof, despite even the efforts in good faith of Catholic theologians of the Middle Ages, and ongoing efforts of apologists to this end. To me this seems clearly absurd, a reading of theology just to fit the current problem facing us, with its own ad hoc excuses.

Should I stand in the way of those who seek truth? No, I should and will stand in the way of those who will deceive themselves and place their eyes in darkness as you seem to have clearly done to yourself. If this means ridicule, fine, that might be what is really needed to clear up some heads that they worship an invisible man who grants magic wishes, based upon their faith in a Jewish zombie. I am hoping that all that is needed is that I make my points and I make them pointedly to this end.

Oh, please... You don't know what you're talking about. One who lacks faith is not one to instruct others in it. More people operate on faith than those who don't. It's amazing that you so casually disregard that.

But on the other hand, I guess everyone is gullible to an extent. Even you've fallen in with what seems to be a cult following of Dawkins. You make enough references to him, as though he were some kind of deity or, at the least, some kind of prophet. And if you are in a cult, it should come as no surprise to anyone that you'd so aggressively proselytize for it.

You could start your church: the most holy Messianic Society of Dawkins. You and others would be free to worship and indulge in your own delusions.

Just like everyone else, right?

AngelRho, you've been consistently worse in the "don't know what they are talking about" department than I ever have been.


Ok, that's why I am instructing them against it.

Umm.... ok, but the issue is that I don't care about majorities so much as factors relating back to the truth of something. I've made that clear as well. As it stands, I see problems with the "operating on faith" element given that it clearly *won't* lead to truth given the amazing diversity of religious opinions.


Not really. I address the matter multiple times saying "Look, they all disagree! If this was a matter of truth, then how could they disagree so massively? It makes little to no sense!"


Umm..... sure. I cite Richard Dawkins because some of the stuff he says is actually worth citing on these issues, as he is an evolution scholar, and a public intellectual opposed to religion. A cult though? I've made a few citations that were relevant for a few things he has said, but I don't regard him as one of the greatest or brightest thinkers.

I don't make references to him as if he were a deity or prophet though, if that were the case, I wouldn't cite so many other thinkers, and I cite a lot of other sources.

AngelRho, do you like astounding people with how massively stupid you can be? I make a LOT of references over the past few days, and a few happen to have Richard Dawkins, therefore I must be WORSHIPING him??? I mean, that's the opposite of an intelligent interpretation. Especially because, I dunno, given that he is one of the best known public intellectuals on the matter, exactly how often *should* I cite Richard Dawkins when I am making a large number of citations? The kind of poor analysis that has to be involved with this kind of perpsective is absurd.

As for my "aggressive efforts", the underlying reason is obvious. 1) I perceive you and others like you as engaging in a fundamentally dishonest practice in an effort to deceive others. 2) I perceive the culture that results from not challenging your beliefs as one that will stifle and oppose my interests. 3) I perceive the culture within conservative Christianity to be perverse. 4) I perceive your beliefs as absurd, disturbing, and fundamentally wrong on everything. 5) My experience with Christianity leave me a lot to be very pissed off about.


The problem is that I am not deluded. I see a person who lies about the entire body of science, who asserts a faith that cannot be falsified, and who continually spews out streams of utter BS that is offensive to not only me but other people, and yet I am the "delusional one".

AngelRho, you are completely deluded. You don't make any sense, and my hope is just to put the pressure on with argumentation so that the world sees that you and others like you have a deep psychological problem, so that they can put the pressure on to end such things for the good of future generations.

Only because you've already closed your mind off to it. I could go on about logical arguments/etc., but the only thing you seem interested in is refuting things that suggest things you don't like.

I pity you.

No, because you are full of nonsense. You have shown the fact that you are full of crap, time and time again.

AngelRho, I pity you. I have my doubts that you are really *that* stupid, but you act it. You have artificially become this stupid, and the possibility is horrifying to contemplate. Think about it, any human being could have become infected with a mind-virus at some point, and afterward, it would dominate their lives, stifle their intellectual vitality, and continually deceive them. I mean, you clearly represent that.

Well... AG actually does know what he's talking about. He used to be religious, so he has the perspective from both sides, which I doubt you have. He also has a much more thorough understanding of theology than most Christians do, certainly more than I have and more than you seem to. I disagree with his stance here, but asserting that he is completely ignorant on the subject is just stupid.


I don't understand how that's an argument. The single largest religious grouping is (depending on how you count) either Sunni Islam or Roman Catholicism. Do you belong to either?

I would guess that in the developed world at least, most people do not actually operate on faith. There are millions upon millions of nominal Christians who do not attend church (and even some who do attend church) and for whom religion is not really a significant component of their life. The developed world is largely secular in its practice.