A lot of thoughts I don't even know what to title this.

[Locke_]

Hey chums. I haven't been to the board in forever, and I always feel so overwhelmed to try to catch up reading the threads in this section of the forum, but I'm just going to post some thoughts I've been having. If they're redundant, sorry. What more can I say? Lemme know of course. Anyways, I've also got another paper to write from a spring class, so I figured I'd follow Forrester/Sean Connery's advice "The first step to writing is to write."

An idea that has intrigued me more and more (AND more) is each of our single individual personal stories. Charles Dickens is quoted so much everywhere, that it seems dumb to cite him here, but I'm a growing boy who recently fell in love with his work so give me a wee bit of leeway. Dickens writes (and this is what led me to start thinking about our individual stories):

"A wonderful fact to reflect upon, that every human creature is constituted to be that profound secret and mystery to every other. A solemn consideration, when I enter a great city by night, that every one of those darkly clustered houses encloses its own secret; that every room in every one of them encloses its own secret; that every beating heart in the hundreds of thousands of breats there, is, in some of its imaginings, a secret to the heart nearest it!... it is the inexorable consolidation and perpetuation of the secret that was always in that individuality, and which I shall carry in mine to my life's end."

Sometimes I daydream that every person had their own biography on their life, and we'd all pick and choose whose to read, etc, etc. Infinite options. When we realize we want to know someone more in depth, we wonder about where they've been, what they want outta life, what they think, how they think, why they think. etc etc, and to different degrees depending on the relationship with the person. But it occurs to me... I can never really know everything about another person. I wasn't there for anyone else's life but my own. I can share my story with someone, and they still won't know me. That's kind of the intrigue of a good relationship I think. If we ever got to know all about someone, we might just run out of stuff to talk about.

Individually, different influences combine to shape our personalities, emotions, passions. Upbringing, location, culture, etc etc. And yet, in a world that seemingly celebrates and scorns its variety at the same time, we take our personal beliefs, that arise from the personalities and emotions that also arise from the individual influences that shape who one person is, and generalize them. And now I ask, why?*

All of this in mind, all this mystery that surrounds every individual but yourself (myself), we feel the need to have people try to justify their beliefs to others. Why theist? Why atheist? Why agnostic? Etc Etc. Proof for? Proof against?**

This is for all, and this is my question, and I hope HOPE I get responses, because it's the first place I've realized might be decent to ask. How do you personally react to people with opposing beliefs (whether within your religion or not, for the theists)? Why are you personally afraid of different beliefs? Are you afraid? Is a defensive Christian so defensive because he feels like an atheist might jeaprodize his beliefs system? Is he afraid he may doubt? Same with an atheist, does he get defensive because he feels threatened by theists? Does one challenge the other to give proof just to make sure he's right, or is it really to make the challenged doubt himself?
Do conversations have to get so heated even though whatever has brought each individual to where he is can never be fully explained?
When you think about it, the line between theist and atheist seems thin. It seems like the same reason theists are theists and atheists are atheists. It seems like a theist is a theist for the exact same reason an atheist is an atheist.

Why do we have to convert or convince, rather than understand? Are we capable? Is there a difference?

*Ironically, on a side note, at this point I suppose the sources of who we are goes back in time throughout a humanity that has a history of generalizing.

**It's difficult enough in person much less on a message board.

[suminonA]

When you think about it, the line between theist and atheist seems thin. It seems like the same reason theists are theists and atheists are atheists. It seems like a theist is a theist for the exact same reason an atheist is an atheist.

Well, what would that "exact same" reason be? Until we clarify that, let's call it "reason X".
Have you ever heard of people that were theists and then became atheists or vice-versa? If they exist, there must be some reason for their change of opinion. Now what reason could make you change your opinion but still use the same "reason X" to support the new one?:shock:

From my experience:

A typical answer from a theist is : “I believe because I don’t need proof”.
A typical answer from an atheist is : “I don’t believe because I need proof”.

Do you see TWO different reasons there?

When I think about it, there isn’t a mere “line” between theists and atheists, there is a huge gap.

A.

[Locke_]

But both sides are offered the same "evidence" (not proof). Scripture, doctrine, tradition, and the ideas of faith, etc. Then it's up to an individual to decide whether to embrace such evidence as proof enough, or reject it as not enough. Does a theist apply his personal experience to a religion better than an atheist? Doesn't seem like the right word for it.

My point is, the thin line is the same aspects of a religion that one side embraces and another rejects. I think that too often we try to bring one side over to another because we forget that a person has chosen a side for personal reasons.

[21BRAVO]

Maybe we disagree so much because we can't understand, and we'd like to understand. So, in frustration, we try to make others understand us. I have this problem every time I discuss gun control (almost a religion within itself). I can't understand the logic of the opposition. My logic is so clear (in my mind) and yet they can't understand me. Maybe our brains all work differently in our own "secret" little lives.

[Boothby]

It's more than just trying to get the other person to understand us. It can also be trying to understand the other person in terms WE can deal with.

And "evidence" means different things to different people. As an atheist, i demand a higher level of "traceability" in evidence in order to accept it. Theists tend, as a whole, to require far less traceability. Once it comes from the bible, or other "holy" source, they are typically satisfied. The old "Because the Bible tells me so" approach. That is insufficient traceability for me. Theists also tend to ignore logic in theological discussions, because it gets in the way of their beliefs, and because it also is not supported by the bible. I require traceability and logical progression of ideas. I also use logic to refute ideas (whether they are my own or my "opponent's").

So, when I enter into a theological discussion (debate), I try to look at the information my debate partner presents from a standpoint of traceability and logic. Many times (most times, really), there is not much to be found. So, it's not that I'm trying to force my understanding of the matter on them, but I am trying to fit their approach into my paradigm. After all, if i were to adopt the religious paradigm for belief, then all I would need to do would be to "feel in my heart that it's true." How would you like me to design and construct an apartment building, or a major roadway or bridge, and all I was going on was that I "felt in my heart" that it was good? My paradigm works.

[Eddie Pinz]

I think it just has to do with the evidence. Theists believe the holy texts are truth, atheists don't. When two sides differ on the validity of the ecidence, it is going to be a lot harder for the sides to come to an understanding. For example, a typical debate:

Theist: This is what I believe and why.
Atheist: That's not good enough I need better evidence.
T: Tries to provide better evidence.
A: Still not good enough because of this, that and this.
T: Well you can't prove God doesn't exist.
A: Tries to prove that God doesn't exist.
T: That doesn't prove anything.
A: Well you can't prove he does exist.

Bickering ensues. And usually little shots like the one below are said/posted, then the discussion promptly ends or just becomes mud slinging.

After all, if i were to adopt the religious paradigm for belief, then all I would need to do would be to "feel in my heart that it's true." How would you like me to design and construct an apartment building, or a major roadway or bridge, and all I was going on was that I "felt in my heart" that it was good? My paradigm works.

Of course roles can be reversed and the template can be used in many a debate. But the bottom line is that in some discussions, namely religious and political, boths sides already know what the other believes and why and it just ends up becoming a flame war trying to get the other person to admit they are wrong, which is never(well, almost never) going to happen.

That's why I think debates about beliefs are pretty pointless.

[21BRAVO]

Of course, I always operate with an open mind, and what that means is that if someone can convince me, I will believe it. But we all know there are some (from both sides) who refuse to even listen to the opposition. They don't want to even admit their minds can be changed. Does this do anybody any good?

[Eddie Pinz]

I don't think anyone who truly believes something will change their mind just by someone else telling them something. If that is all it takes for you to change your beliefs, then you probably didn't truly believe it. Once someone is set in his/her beliefs, they are very hard to change, even if the person listens to the opposition.

[Boothby]

Eddie,

But the Theist hardly ever has "better evidence." He (or she) just keeps harping on the Bible as irrefutable proof, or as "existence" itself as irrefutable proof, or other such nonsense. And, when push comes to shove, the theist resorts to semantics ("You're not really an atheist...here, let me prove it: you're really an agnostic"), or they resort to emotion or trickery. Ever watch the Kirk Cameron piece with Ray Comfort (it's the one that starts with the Banana = God proof)? After the bit with the banana, they go on to show how to trick atheists into "believing" in Christ--I'm not kidding!

So...no better evidence, no traceability (save for the Bible), and no good logic.

I have an open mind, but not so open that my brains fall out of it. And I have better self-esteem (pride) than to let just anyone fill it up with nonsense and miscellaneous drivel. I'll listen to the opposition, but they have to make sense to an intelligent and rational person (NOT just any guy on the street, some "JayWalk All-Star" sort of character). They have to make sense to ME. Then we can start talking about changing my mind about something.

[Eddie Pinz]

First off let me state that I really wasn't saying either side has better evidence. But people whom believe, think that the bible is valid evidence. They can't prove it is valid. And they can't prove the existence of God. And by the same token, you can't prove he/she/it doesn't exist. Both sides believe what they believe and are almost always going to continue to believe what they believe no matter how long you debate. So, I was just stating that I believe (HA!) that debates about religious beliefs are pointless, because essentailly neither side can prove anything. Therefore, most debates end the same way. Which is: agree to disagree or mud slinging.

[Boothby]

Yeah, but I'm saying that the atheists DO have better evidence.

And, given the chance, and an intelligent person to discuss things with, I can prove that there is no reasonable, functional, meaningful, non-self-contradictory definition of God. Therefore, since there is no description or definition of the thing, and no way to show that it exists, its existence becomes meaningless. We might as well be talking about Paul Bunyan, or giant Invisible Pink Unicorns.

I barely accept the theory of "Dark Matter," and what little I accept, I accept only because scientists (physicists) claim that its effects are measurable.

None of "God's Effects" are measurable in any meaningful, non-solipsistic way.

[Amka]

Hrm...

I don't think the Bible alone constitutes good evidence because it has gone through too many heads to get to us.

I don't believe existance itself is proof because we don't have a control. This world is exactly what it would be if there were a God, or if there weren't. We cannot see what existance would be like in a God/No God existance other than our own.

I do believe, though. I could go into detail about why, but I'm not sure that is what you really want nor is it what this topic is about.

As for 'religious' people attempting to trick people into belief, I think it is wrong on many levels. I call that kind of behavior psuedoreligious. Psuedoreligion is to religion, what alternative medicine is to evidence based medicine.

The error I think most atheists make is lumping all religious people together. I actually heard a skeptical commentator be stunned when interviewing an author about Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, a Jesuit scientist who studied evolution and believed in God. It was clear that this skeptic had believed in the "All religious people are irrational creationists" school of thought.

This is highly irritating. It makes for a lot of garbage to be mucked through before a rational, skeptical religious person can be taken seriously by a rational atheist skeptic. Indeed, this very strong slant towards atheism and even so far as religious intolerance in critical thinking circles makes me so uncomfortable that I generally choose not to hang in those communities.

[Boothby]

Hey, Amka! How goes it!?!

I like your phrase "rational, skeptical religious person" some of my best religious friends are exactly that!

But would you say that represents the majority of religious thought in this country? In any country?

[Boothby]

a) I know where you're going, but I'll still respond...

b) The "Supreme Being" is, by definition, undectable. The existence of a non-detectable object is, at a minimum, questionable. Did you hear the one about the dinosaur that left no fossils or footprints? Can you prove that it never existed?

c) Everything that exists requires a creator. The "Supreme Being" is defined as not having a creator. Therefore, it does not exist. (Certain modifications to this point must be made for the Mormon's "Supreme Being")

But since the existence of a "Supreme Being" is such an outlandish and un-natural claim, perhaps you'd like to prove to me that it exists? You might want to start by telling me exactly what this thing is...

[Eaquae Legit]

Hrm...

I don't think the Bible alone constitutes good evidence because it has gone through too many heads to get to us.

I don't believe existance itself is proof because we don't have a control. This world is exactly what it would be if there were a God, or if there weren't. We cannot see what existance would be like in a God/No God existance other than our own.

I do believe, though. I could go into detail about why, but I'm not sure that is what you really want nor is it what this topic is about.

As for 'religious' people attempting to trick people into belief, I think it is wrong on many levels. I call that kind of behavior psuedoreligious. Psuedoreligion is to religion, what alternative medicine is to evidence based medicine.

The error I think most atheists make is lumping all religious people together. I actually heard a skeptical commentator be stunned when interviewing an author about Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, a Jesuit scientist who studied evolution and believed in God. It was clear that this skeptic had believed in the "All religious people are irrational creationists" school of thought.

This is highly irritating. It makes for a lot of garbage to be mucked through before a rational, skeptical religious person can be taken seriously by a rational atheist skeptic. Indeed, this very strong slant towards atheism and even so far as religious intolerance in critical thinking circles makes me so uncomfortable that I generally choose not to hang in those communities.

I just feel like quoting this because I like all of it so very much.

seamuzs, I'm going to ask that you start a new thread entirely, because we're actually getting a decent discussion going, and posts like yours tend to derail things really fast. Thanks.

[Boothby]

Good call, EL.

We're discussing how we go about solving the problem, not the actual problem itself.

[Amka]

Do I represent the majority of religious thought?

For people who take their religion seriously enough that they study it for themselves, yes.

This is where my definition of pseudoreligious comes in. Many people don't seem to want to get to the truth, but they want to gain comfort, a community. Religions that seek first to gain or keep membership in order to recieve donations cater to that. Religious capitalism. Snake oil religion.

"You can pretty much do anything you want. As long as you thrown in a good word to the man above, you're fine. But those people who believe the world is billions of years old are the true evil ones."

We won't change these people's mind. They have been given a very comforting definition of good and evil. Science can be very difficult for many to understand. By demonizing it, this also comforts people. "Not only do I not have to understand it, but I would be committing sin if I did!"

How do we solve the problem? That is really, really hard.

I think part of the problem is our tribal nature. No longer are we in geographically limited, family based tribes. But that is the behavior that our ancestors had for millions of years. It is part of being human.

Our tribes now derive from ideas, I think. Religious, political, sports, academic leanings, literature leanings, etc. So when someone from one tribe questions the ideas of the other tribe, the knee jerk reaction is that their tribe is being attacked and must be defended.

Nothing is more reassuring to your idea when someone from another idea tribe decides your ideas are correct and converts to your tribe.

All of this describes why some religious people act in ways that are contrary to their scriptures in order to gain members or retain them.

The solution is to start young. Several things must be taught to our children.

• Love your fellowman. No human is better than another, no matter how intelligent, beautiful, rich, famous, etc. they are. No matter what they believe. Every preventable death is a tragedy, and we hold some of the blame for many of them.
  
  Critical thinking skills and logic from infancy.
  
  We must learn to be comfortable with not knowing some things, because some things we will never know in this life.

[Eddie Pinz]

Yeah, but I'm saying that the atheists DO have better evidence.

And, given the chance, and an intelligent person to discuss things with, I can prove that there is no reasonable, functional, meaningful, non-self-contradictory definition of God.

Steve,

I think the problem is right there. You say that if you discuss this with an intelligent person you can PROVE that basically there is no God. Then assuming that anyone that doesn't come to the same conclusion is unintelligent.

Now, I'm just nitpicking. But I think that is the problem, that before the debate even starts, there is anomosity on both sides. Atheists, for the most part (I know, generalizations...bad me), come across as condecending. And theists are always quick to become overly defensive and claim they are being attacked.

How do we sovle that? I don't know.

Edit:
Amka,

I like your statements about the tribes, I think that is true. I just don't like the groupings. I like the religious and political. The sports and the others, not so much. I feel religion and politics are almost intrinsically part of who we are. So, when someone questions it, it is almost as if they are questioning who the person is and not just the idea he/she believes. It is almost like questioning someones sexual orientation or race, things that cannot be changed. Where with the other groups you list, people are more open to discuss things and listen to opposing views without knee jerk reactions.

[Rei]

seamusz, we are seeking helpful dialogue, here. Telling others that their position does not make sense undermines this goal, in this case. If you would like to discuss that more thoroughly, feel free to start another thread, as EL advised.

[seamusz]

I really don't see how I am derailing this subject, or telling boothby his position. My intent was to respond to the original comment and also to boothby's. Boothby's comment was that the difference between what and atheist and a theist believes is that an atheist has proof and a theist does not... I hope I didn't read him wrong. I disagreed, as I stated above.

Anyway, I think that it all comes down to the human need to feel understood. And some people go about being understood by trying to convince... Personally, I try to convince people of my views and beliefs because I feel that they bring great happiness.

[Eaquae Legit]

Well, it kinda comes down to the fact that I asked you to make another thread if you wanted to talk about it. This is the voice of a mod, and the voice of long and painful pweb religion forum experience.

Please start a new thread and I will graft the posts you made here onto it.

[Eaquae Legit]

Then please do. I don't feel challenged, just mildly exasperated that we're still discussing it over here.

[Boothby]

Personally, I try to convince people of my views and beliefs because I feel that they bring great happiness

Everything else is fine. If you want to do that, create another thread.

(Steve AS MOD)

[seamusz]

Why do we have to convert or convince, rather than understand? Are we capable? Is there a difference?

Just trying to answer the question man.

[Boothby]

Seamusz,

It's like if someone were to ask you, "How do you drive a car?" and you grabbed them, against their will, forced them into the passenger seat, and proceeded to drive them to all your favorite places (because, of course, you "knew" that those places would bring your passenger "great happiness.")

1) You haven't answered the question,

2) You've gone and kidnapped someone (or, in our case, derailed a thread)

and 3) You've just pissed everybody off.

Do you get it yet?

[seamusz]

Wow, are you always this nice to new folk?

Sorry about the thread thing, I thought I was contributing. I didn't realize my comments were disruptive.

[Eaquae Legit]

The religion forum is modded very carefully. This is because matters of belief and religion are usually very sensitive, and discussions turn very easily into debates and then flame wars. It's really important to most of us that things stay civil in here. That's why there's the rules post at the top of this forum, and I suggest you check them out to avoid any further confusion. Hopefully things will move a bit more smoothly as you settle in.

[Eaquae Legit]

I think it comes down to proof. Both sides need to stop demanding "proof" from the other. I don't think it's possible for any of us to have 100% rock-solid proof, either way. We each have a body of experiences and suppositions and extrapolations which we cram into a coherent story that accounts for the world we experience. Many atheists, like Steve, demand proof of God (and many theists demand proof that there is no God).

The problem is, many theists don't have proof, nor do they pretend they can. They have that collection of experience that they believe is evidence of a God, but in the end there is that cliche "leap of faith." This doesn't mean they have no basis for belief, or that their belief is wishful thinking or self-delusion or a security blanket of sorts. It's that the evidence has convinced them far enough that they're willing to take that last step on their own.

This isn't good enough for many atheists, who seem to see anything less than 100% proof of God as insufficient, at best. It's a very fundamental misunderstanding, and I think both sides would do a lot better to remember that the other has perhaps very solid reasons for believing as they do.

[Boothby]

EL,

I've yet to see anything even approaching 10% "Proof." And the "evidence" is always very, very subjective, unrepeatable, or (in the cases of the recent "prayer tests" at medical centers) fabricated by biased observers/examiners.

[seamusz]

EL, I agree. Very well put.

[Eaquae Legit]

But we're talking not about proving or disproving, I thought, but rather how we can actually communicate with each other. Assuming the other person is a fool is a bad place to start. That's what I was trying to get across.

Maybe I'm misreading the thread. I'm kind of loopy tonight.

[Amka]

Steve,

Well, it looks like we are getting off anyway and I would rather discuss how to come together in a world where we hold such different views. However, I couldn't let this one go.

Those prayer tests made some assumptions that are not necessarily correct, and they left out some basic assumptions about God that are fairly universal across religions:

First mistake: you cannot equate a sentient interaction with a drug action. God is sentient, and therefore unpredictable by scientific standards.

Basic assumptions left out:

1. God knows more than we do. God may not answer prayers the way we want.
2. Do you think God would think it would be ethical to intervene simply because a random person was prayed for by another random person neither of whom knew each other? And the other group did not have that benefit? No, I don't think so.

Faith of the person being healed is an essential ingredient. Another important missing ingredient was that the patient personally sought intervention from God.

Now, some patients may have done so, but they did so in their own personal manner. So any outcome involving intervention from God would have appeared random and had no correlation with anonymous prayer.

This randomness and inability to replicate is easily explained by three factors:

1. The unpredictability of sentient humans.
2. The personal and unknowable to others, inner self. (A person may claim great spirituality and closeness to God, but is lying.)
3. The unpredictability of an all knowing God. (Perspective. For instance, God is eternal, and so are we. God knows us before and after our mortal existance. Death is a 'welcome home' event to God. As mortals, we have a difficult time putting God's actions in this context.)

I had it thought out at some time, that if you could guarantee certain factors, then the questioning God experiment could be replicated. But on a statistical scale, this kind of thing is more or less impossible. It was years ago and it's late, I'll try to retrace my thoughts and post later.

But one more shot: theology is not about responding to 'rational thought' or trying to prove itself. It is a vigorous school of thought in which ideas are formed and dismissed or kept if proven viable. It has been rational since it began. Religion only appears irrational when it leaves true theology behind.

[suminonA]

But one more shot: theology is not about responding to 'rational thought' or trying to prove itself. It is a vigorous school of thought in which ideas are formed and dismissed or kept if proven viable. It has been rational since it began. Religion only appears irrational when it leaves true theology behind.

-- emphasis added --

Have you ever heard about a guy called Giordano Bruno? I kind of suspect that what happened to him was because of the “true theology” of his time.

A.

[Amka]

A priest burned at the stake by the Roman inquisition is a poor example of making theology out to be irrational. Religion + Politics is a far cry from theology. Bruno (an interesting fellow I'd like to learn more about) was the one engaging in theology.

[suminonA]

Bruno (an interesting fellow I'd like to learn more about) was the one engaging in theology.

Are you saying that in this history, Giordano Bruno is the one defending “true theology”, while the church is the politically corrupt “bad guy”? Either way, by his sacrifice, the added rational knowledge to the public conscience, he removed a great deal of ignorance, the same ignorance the “school of thought” of the Church was based on.

A priest burned at the stake by the Roman inquisition is a poor example of making theology out to be irrational. Religion + Politics is a far cry from theology.

AFAIK, Giordano Bruno wasn’t a priest at the moment he was “invited” to get on the stake. The Pope himself previously excommunicated the “heretic”.

My “poor example” is here to challenge the claim that what you call true theology was as rational as it is today since it began. (Note that it’s just a relative statement, the absolute level of rationality in either case is another debate, depending on your definition of true theology).

You can wash away the fact that Giordano Bruno was burned at the stake for his ideas and beliefs as a result of Politics (a mismanagement of the competition between schools of thought), but the IDEA he was punished for is the point. He wasn’t excommunicated because he voted on the wrong color of the Pope’s hat, but because the idea of the Earth NOT being the center of the Universe was “heretical”.

The theory of geocentrism was part of the DOGMA because it was nicely agreeing with the scriptures that suggested that the puny planet we inhabit is somehow special in this huge Universe. The heliocentric model, which came about as a result of rational observation was diminishing somehow the importance of the Earth and indirectly the validity of the scriptures referring to its creation.

Now, this context being present, please define a little bit more what “true theology” is.
Is it the search for the answer(s) for the fundamental questions like: “where we come from / where we are going /etc”?
Does theology include the religious dogma or is it the other way around?

And just to be sure, when did “true theology” begin?

A.