The atheist bus

[Lord Mhoram]

We wouldn't want to shatter preciously held reactionary beliefs, would we, rdhopeca?

[rdhopeca]

Since the truth is in high demand in this thread, I'm glad to provide it where appropriate

[rusmeister]

Donaldson is a victim of the common modern view (see my education posts)

Considering that most of Donaldson's education occurred in India where he spent most of his childhood, I don't think you can equate his issues with anything revolving around the education system of this country. His beliefs were a byproduct of his witnessing of Presbyterian missionary work in India...not anything here.

I agree as far as that goes (and wasn't saying otherwise). But I don't see the view as being conferred exclusively by schooling per se. After one generation of any implemented systems you will have adults formed by the system running the media, the government, businesses, and well...everything. The message bombards from all sides that religion is something for nutcases - that if their IS any good spirituality or morality, it is to be found outside of religion. So Star Trek, The Kingdom of Heaven and the selected items for soundbite news ultimately continue the presentation of a particular worldview - the producers of the media, the business, etc. In a word, what we call "political correctness" - and THAT's what I meant by "victim of the modern view". Without a firm ideology, faith or dogma, you have no particular defenses against it.

It would also be good to define exactly what is meant by "reactionary beliefs". As is frequently pointed out here, perception can sometimes be mistaken. And labels can be quickly applied, carry false implications and be hopelessly wrong. On the other hand, never mind - it's just another distraction.

[Fist and Faith]

I realize it's only intellectual and nothing can replace personal experience or living examples (rather than words).

Possibly true. But I'm holding out hope that someone of great faith will say something that challenges my beliefs in a way that I can't easily refuse. And I wouldn't mind if I couldn't refuse at all. As I've said, if God is out there, I want to know about it! I won't refuse to believe in something that agrees with the principles and ideas I espouse just because it points to God's existence.

This would be the one reason why it would seem to me to be worth staying. However, as I said in the limiting factors,

saying that someone is wrong and you won't discuss why

makes discussion/debate impossible. In other words, we are back to talking about the weather.

No, you can still tell me what you think about anything. I'm not even remotely opposed to Chesterton quotes. The thing is, you and I are not going to get anywhere. We've tried. Our ground-level beliefs are different. As I've said, it seems impossible for a universe to exist without cause, and it seems impossible for a creator to exist without cause. However, clearly, at least one is true. And I know the universe exists, but I have no reason to believe a creator exists. Until I have reason to believe otherwise, I'm going to assume the uncaused universe is the seemingly impossible thing that happened.*

Now, if you want to address that. Give me a reason to believe a creator is more likely? Or necessary? Or, approach the whole thing from another angle; rather than my "which is more likely; which is an absolute fact" thinking?

*Also, I see this kind of thing as evidence against. It seems to me that the be-all and end-all; the alpha and omega; creator; ultimate being; etc etc - should be approachable through any number of ways. Logic; evidence; direct experience; whatever. Not only through direct experience. Especially if I don't get any!

[Mortice Root]

Fist wrote

The reason I have read the things I've mentioned is that I do want my beliefs challenged. There is no value in those of us who share my beliefs sitting around, patting each other on the back, saying, "Well done! We're so smart!" The value lies in being challenged

Absolutely. Well said, Fist. This is the enitre reason I read what's posted in both the Close and the Tank. Because it does challenge my beliefs, in many ways. And the challenges force me to think more about why I believe what I do. Occasionally I come to different conclusions than I had before, but more often reading the posts in these forums helps be to better define my own beliefs.

(Of course, I don't post much at all here or in the Tank, cause I'm a pretty piss-poor debater - but I do enjoy the intellectual challenge in reading the posts. )

[Gadget nee Jemcheeta]

After spending some years observing Fist, I feel like he sort of ebbs and flows... At first, it's all very genial and "Be and let be" but as it goes on he starts getting revved up and throwing down the more direct statements.
-It seems impossible for a causeless universe to exist.
-It seems impossible for a causeless creator to exist.
-I know there is a universe.
-I do not know there is a creator.
-I will believe in a causeless universe.

BAMF! Elegant and fatal. You're my hero!

EDIT: I guess the be and let be thing never really stops, it just becomes more of a "Be and let me be"

[Fist and Faith]

Well, "be and let's let us all be" sounds good to me. But, by all means, let's put all our ideas out there, and see how they look to each other.

[rusmeister]

There is really only one honest way to avoid a challenge to your ideas - and that it to (openly) hold the given belief as a mystical dogma.

As I said, the approaches used here to avoid said challenging of ideas, however, boil down to
1) a refusal to tackle ideas unless they are original thoughts of the poster ("We want to read what YOU have to say (and not Aristotle, Aquinas, Chesterton, etc...")

2) the necessity of limiting them to a paragraph or two - while this is not an intentional dodge, it is a product of computer use and the general shortening of people's attention spans.

3) saying that someone is wrong and you won't discuss why (which is the 'we won't agree at the root, so let's not talk about it', only we do still talk about it)

make it impossible to discuss the differences. They cut off debate (which among other things, has people taking positions with the aim of proving them right or wrong).

One huge thing I've learned in my life is that merely depending on my own knowledge to figure things out and refusing wisdom passed down in the form of tradition, classics, etc (this is characteristic of modern thought) limits us horribly to attempting to reinvent the wheel in our short life spans. And so we repeat all of the mistakes that our ancestors made - this is, for example, what neo-paganism does - it is repeating the wheels of old paganism (with a few variations, perhaps, but on the whole...) This is why I reject Protestant/Evangelistic Christianity, much of which is heavily based on the principle of 'Sola Scriptura' (which many of you would correctly see as "me + the Bible" or "Jesus and me" type theologies). It's also why I reject this first dodge used here in the Close. If I can't find somebody wise, who I find says things that I find to be true and clearly knows more than me (an authority), in order to learn from him (it), then I just ain't gonna know much.

The second dodge should need no comment at all. An intelligent person would recognize laziness or lack of interest in arriving at or proving truth.

The last dodge is how pluralism entangles itself around truth, until we can't see any truth anymore. It's motto is "Let's agree to disagree". Yes, it enables people with different worldviews to live together in an artificial peace (and is a boon for empire, for people who would rule large numbers of other people; ie, it ultimately works against genuine democracy) - because it says that the truth is not important. If we suddenly decided that life and death, and the truth about them, really do matter, we would reject applying this principle to the search for truth.
(In your case Fist, a willingness to discuss details but not the root differences is what GKC was talking about in that intro to Heretics:

It is foolish, generally speaking, for a philosopher to set fire to another philosopher in Smithfield Market because they do not agree in their theory of the universe. That was done very frequently in the last decadence of the Middle Ages, and it failed altogether in its object. But there is one thing that is infinitely more absurd and unpractical than burning a man for his philosophy. This is the habit of saying that his philosophy does not matter, and this is done universally in the twentieth century, in the decadence of the great revolutionary period. General theories are everywhere contemned; the doctrine of the Rights of Man is dismissed with the doctrine of the Fall of Man. Atheism itself is too theological for us to-day. Revolution itself is too much of a system; liberty itself is too much of a restraint. We will have no generalizations. Mr. Bernard Shaw has put the view in a perfect epigram: "The golden rule is that there is no golden rule." We are more and more to discuss details in art, politics, literature. A man's opinion on tramcars matters; his opinion on Botticelli matters; his opinion on all things does not matter. He may turn over and explore a million objects, but he must not find that strange object, the universe; for if he does he will have a religion, and be lost. Everything matters--except everything.

www.cse.dmu.ac.uk/~mward/gkc/books/heretics/ch1.html

And so as long as these dodges are used, we really can't talk.

[rdhopeca]

Donaldson is a victim of the common modern view (see my education posts)

Considering that most of Donaldson's education occurred in India where he spent most of his childhood, I don't think you can equate his issues with anything revolving around the education system of this country. His beliefs were a byproduct of his witnessing of Presbyterian missionary work in India...not anything here.

I agree as far as that goes (and wasn't saying otherwise). But I don't see the view as being conferred exclusively by schooling per se. After one generation of any implemented systems you will have adults formed by the system running the media, the government, businesses, and well...everything.

But in Donaldson's specific case, which you are calling out, the "Everything" is the work of Presbyterian missionaries which he experienced first hand...not the media, the goverment, businesses, etc etc. His world view comes from a rather unique environment which, as near as I can tell from everything he has said about the experience, was all about religion...and led him to a completely different conclusion.

[rdhopeca]

The last dodge is how pluralism entangles itself around truth, until we can't see any truth anymore. It's motto is "Let's agree to disagree".

So basically, me allowing you to stick to your beliefs and you allowing me to stick to mine is a "dodge of the truth"? Who's dodging? The person who is right or wrong? The person with a different interpretation of facts and events?

My truth is mine. Your truth is yours. The real truth, no doubt, lies somewhere in between and is open to discussion and interpretation. And that's not a dodge of anything.

[Avatar]

There is no truth.

--A

[Loredoctor]

I seem to recall that Rusmeister said a few weeks ago that anyone who claimed to know absolute truth was being dishonest. Well, I made that claim and he agreed with me.

[rusmeister]

Considering that most of Donaldson's education occurred in India where he spent most of his childhood, I don't think you can equate his issues with anything revolving around the education system of this country. His beliefs were a byproduct of his witnessing of Presbyterian missionary work in India...not anything here.

I agree as far as that goes (and wasn't saying otherwise). But I don't see the view as being conferred exclusively by schooling per se. After one generation of any implemented systems you will have adults formed by the system running the media, the government, businesses, and well...everything.

But in Donaldson's specific case, which you are calling out, the "Everything" is the work of Presbyterian missionaries which he experienced first hand...not the media, the goverment, businesses, etc etc. His world view comes from a rather unique environment which, as near as I can tell from everything he has said about the experience, was all about religion...and led him to a completely different conclusion.

Again, regarding his childhood formation, acknowledged. No argument. But the two modifying factors are 1) a frequent tendency of youth/young adults to abandon the faith of their fathers, so to speak. In a traditional society, most gradually return to it, whatever it is. That's why we can think of any geographical area as being predominantly Buddhist, Christian or whatever.
The second is the influence of the surrounding culture, even as an adult. That culture , for SRD, was/is modern US culture. It's hard to imagine it didn't influence him - and that influence would only support/encourage the departure from the faith of his father. There may be specifics in his case where I'm wrong, but there can be no doubt of the general result - it is reflected in his presentation of faith - and again, it surely is related to his childhood experience, and of a faith that I only defend to a certain point.

[rusmeister]

The last dodge is how pluralism entangles itself around truth, until we can't see any truth anymore. It's motto is "Let's agree to disagree".

So basically, me allowing you to stick to your beliefs and you allowing me to stick to mine is a "dodge of the truth"? Who's dodging? The person who is right or wrong? The person with a different interpretation of facts and events?

My truth is mine. Your truth is yours. The real truth, no doubt, lies somewhere in between and is open to discussion and interpretation. And that's not a dodge of anything.

No. What it means is that we ultimately refuse to examine the root of the disagreement. And there is plenty of doubt as to where the truth lies. I deny that it is in between. I'm saying that the discussion is usually terminated when the roots from which beliefs spring are examined, and I described the usual methods of doing so above.

[rusmeister]

I seem to recall that Rusmeister said a few weeks ago that anyone who claimed to know absolute truth was being dishonest. Well, I made that claim and he agreed with me.

This looks like a misquote and a misunderstanding, which means that what I meant to say did not get across. I may have been speaking about individuals without special revelation. You have to produce the quote and context for me to know what you mean, though.

[Fist and Faith]

No. What it means is that we ultimately refuse to examine the root of the disagreement. And there is plenty of doubt as to where the truth lies. I deny that it is in between. I'm saying that the discussion is usually terminated when the roots from which beliefs spring are examined, and I described the usual methods of doing so above.

OK, let's examine the roots of my belief. JemCheeta summed up my position nicely:

-It seems impossible for a causeless universe to exist.
-It seems impossible for a causeless creator to exist.
-I know there is a universe.
-I do not know there is a creator.
-I will believe in a causeless universe.

In what way would you like to examine that? I'm game.

Now, what are the roots of your belief? We can examine them, too. If you give me the roots, I might have some thoughts to share.

But it seems you only want to examine Chesterton. I am not dodging the issue of God, the universe, creation, or religion, I'm just not interested in arguing about Chesterton. Are you seriously telling us that you cannot discuss the root of your belief before we come to some sort of agreement regarding Chesterton? That's extremely difficult to believe. I don't come to the Close to discuss Chesterton; I come here to discuss religion, philosophy, etc. If I think any particular writer from the past says something better than I can, I'll quote him/her. But if you don't think much of, say, Richard Bach, I will not insist that you discuss him with me, and refuse to discuss the topic itself until you do. I'll continue to discuss the topic. I might still throw in a Bach quote, too.

Now, what do you want to discuss: God or Chesterton?

[aliantha]

Me too! Me too! Rus, I'd love to hear the specific mistakes of the past that you believe Neopagans are repeating.

My main bone of contention with you -- and this is where the charge against you of arrogance comes in -- is your refusal to consider that anybody who's not Christian might be right. I'm not talking about winning debate points. I'm talking about your repeated assertions that you and the Orthodox Church have the only Truth.

I'll say again that I'm glad you have found a religious tradition that speaks to you. Others have found wisdom in other traditions. You and they are *both* right.

When I joined (warning: shameless intelligence exhibitionism ahead! ) Mensa, I expected that since all of us were certified experts at logical thinking, we would all pretty much agree politically. And we didn't! We were conservatives and liberals, Dems and Republicans and anarchists and disaffecteds. And there was no agreement on religion, either. We had Judeo-Christians of every stripe, devout, lapsed and disaffected; atheists, agnostics, and pagans; and probably some other stuff, too. Here we were, all card-carrying smart people, and yet we disagreed on almost everything.

I suppose you could explain that away with your assertion about the programming we all received via the US education system , but I think that's spurious. Better: Different people are different. Different truths make sense to different people.

I realize, Rus, that the head space you're in right now makes it impossible for you to acknowledge the truth of that. Which is why I've pretty much quit commenting on your posts.

[rdhopeca]

I will gladly add the roots of my belief as well, which are very similar to Fist's. I've had numerous discussions with a colleague who is very religious, and this is basically the summary of what I end up telling him.

My beliefs go something like this, which can basically be categorized as secular humanistic:

I have never had any experience, emotional, logical, or otherwise, that would lead me to believe in a Creator or God. There has been no "a ha" moment, no speaking to me, on any level that I can remember. I believe that all people are generally good inside and want to do well and treat each other well, and love and be loved, and don't require a Bible to tell them how to do it, or a God to protect themselves from themselves so that they will do it.

Most of my contact with people in my past who are heavily religious basically revolved around being told that if we did not confrom, we were all going to hell. I refuse to believe in any system whereby someone can commit murder and go to heaven while someone who harmed no one gets banished to hell, simply because the murderer "believed" and the innocent did not.

But I am not prejudiced against belief systems in general; my wife is Catholic and my son will be raised Catholic until such time as he can make his own decisions. I think we are each entitled to our own personal truths.

I am willing to concede on a logical level that someone with a great sense of passion and charisma walked this Earth 2000 years ago. I am even willing to concede that he affected enough people that stories and parables and tales of grandeur were told about him for years after the fact. I am NOT willing to concede that this man was the son of God any more than I am that David Koresh was a Messiah to his disciples in Waco.

If, after living my life based upon the same basic set of humanitarian principles that Christians do, and I pass on, and there is a heaven, and a Ted Bundy walks by on the way in simply because he repented and believed, and I am not allowed in because I did not, I will simply mutter an obscenity, be grateful that I stuck to my principles more than Mr. Bundy did, and accept my punishment. If there is a God and he is a God that Christians speak of, he will forgive my ignorance and see the worth of my life and allow me entrance, should that be appropriate.

However, that's not going to happen, so I feel relatively safe in that regard, in both cases.

That's my truth. And while you may rail against me and tell me how wrong it is, that's too bad. To me, it's RIGHT.

[Zarathustra]

If, after living my life based upon the same basic set of humanitarian principles that Christians do, and I pass on, and there is a heaven, and a Ted Bundy walks by on the way in simply because he repented and believed, and I am not allowed in because I did not, I will simply mutter an obscenity, be grateful that I stuck to my principles more than Mr. Bundy did, and accept my punishment.

You and me both, brother! Well said.

JemCheeta, I liked your succinct statement argument about the causeless universe, too.

My suspicion is that a "causeless" universe isn't impossible. Or perhaps it was self-caused. Or perhaps possibility and actuality aren't so different after all. Whatever the solution, the problem is in our concepts, not the universe.

[Fist and Faith]

I'll copy & paste this:

There's a fantasy book, The Kundalini Equation, by Steven Barnes, where one character is doing a lot of searching, questioning, etc, about life, God, etc. During an appearance, a woman in the audience asked, "Mr. Patanjal, how does it feel to know that you are going to burn in hell?" And he answered:

"Madame, the divine force which you believe in and the one in which I believe are obviously two different beings. If in a sincere quest for understanding and knowledge I have erred, I am deeply sorry, and await a sign from the Almighty that will teach me the error of my ways. I simply believe in the virtues of sincere intellectual curiosity. An eagerness to use the mind and feelings that God himself gave me to inquire into mysteries rather than merely accept the explanation othat other men have passed down through the years. If for this I will be cast into fires everlasting, then God is indeed the malign thug of which Mark Twain wrote, and his hell could certainly be no more insufferable than his heaven."