Can an atheist experience 'the spiritual'.

[peter]

Surely to the truly faithfull the 'proof' of Gods existence [or indeed the negative proof] would be neither here nor there; the clue is in the word faithfull . Why then would a believer even bother to atempt such a proof, especially to an individual who so failed to understand the underlying requirement for this faith that they demanded a proof in the first place. Belief is not knowledge, but no less relevent for that; I cannot know that my parents loved me - but I believe it.

[SerScot]

Michaelm, F&F,

Here's the key, trying to "prove" a supernatrual being exists is wasted effort. If I believe it I'm not demanding everyone else believe it and if people choose to mock that belief with the "Flying Spagetti Monster" more power to them. If I can't take a little mockery of my faith my faith isn't particularly strong, is it.

The bottom line is that I accept that I cannot prove that God exists. That doesn't mean I don't believe God exists just that I'm taking Kierkegaard's "Leap of Faith". I'm not trying to present rational proof of God's existence.

[michaelm]

Here's the key, trying to "prove" a supernatrual being exists is wasted effort.

I don't think it's wasted effort at all - I think it's a very worthwhile effort. If we simply dismiss the existence of a deity and don't make any efforts, that's blind faith isn't it? Effectively the same kind of belief system as most religions where the existence of a godhead is postulated.

[aliantha]

Hang on, guys. I'm almost out of popcorn. (runs to get more)

[Orlion]

No one here can disprove that The Great Bunny of Ultimate Peace and Hyper-Wrathfulness exists.

I think my cat hunted that particular bunny down last week...ergo, he no longer exists

Proof or rational argument of supernatural force comes in two forms: the kind that convinces you personally and the kind that would be used to convince (or convert, if you will) others. There is some overlap, but often in discussion one is confused with another. If you believe in the afterlife because of a personal experience, that might convince you but I will probably respond with a "big deal".

As far as the other kind, it assumes that the supernatural can be understood and acts in a humanly rational matter... and experience shows this generally is not the case.

Without the personal experience and using arguments that do not hold up to the non-believers idea of rationality will lead inevitably to that non-believer saying, "So what? Why should I accept your version of events (and potentially make massive life changes) when there is no convincing evidence to do so?"

But it helps you make sense of life! Congratulations! But for me, it needlessly confuses the matter for me to believe in an omnibenevolent being that created and allows evil, so I don't.

It gives you purpose! That's great. Everyone should have a purpose in life. Unfortunately, belief (in this case) does not give ME any purpose... I have to look for that elsewhere.

Noticed the point yet? It's the personal "evidence and rationalizations" that convince, not our "cleverly" constructed apologeticks. And it is exactly that personal evidence you can not provide for anyone else but yourself.

[Ananda]

No one here can disprove that The Great Bunny of Ultimate Peace and Hyper-Wrathfulness exists.

I think my cat hunted that particular bunny down last week...ergo, he no longer exists

[SerScot]

Michael,

God exists whether I can offer tangible proof or not. That's what a "leap of faith" is. Accepting something without tangible proof.

[Dondarion]

Michaelm wrote:

I don't think it's wasted effort at all - I think it's a very worthwhile effort. If we simply dismiss the existence of a deity and don't make any efforts, that's blind faith isn't it? Effectively the same kind of belief system as most religions where the existence of a godhead is postulated.

The effort is definitely worthwhile, but faith in the end is what puts the believer over the top, the things that are not necessarily rationally explained, the coincidences life brings, the graces that move people to do wonders, the overwhelming thankfulness I feel when I am with my family, or when I pray, being in communion with the Lord and others, and I can't explain it, but it changed me, and it has changed others. So many martyrs, so much history. Are we just "drinking the cool-aide"? Is that all it is? Because we can't scientifically prove everything to the satisfaction of the skeptic (and no matter what kind of rational argument is put forth, it can never be enough exactly because of the element of faith).

Of all my attempted arguments, the comment that I would most wish to take back is that atheiets aren't called to disprove the existence of God. Of course I understand the rules of debate and apologetics, and I would not expect that. It was simply a statement of frustration, because as Fist states, "you have to do better". I do care, and I woluld love to make that proof somehow work for him. It's age-old and it's worth the trying. At this point in my journey, however, this is what I currently have to offer. Reason and logic are indeed possible to coexist with faith. It helps add to what I need to put me over the top, but key to my faith is that I don't need them. The experiences I have had, my struggles, and my reconciliation and forgiveness given/received, has shown me that I am someone beyond flesh and bone. If I go into a church, share with others, confess my sins, receive communion, watch the light go on when a poor or sick person is visited by a church volunteer, quit gambling and become a no better steward of the gifts I have been given (due to nothing I have done on my own), resurrect my life, my marriage, my family, all because I opened my heart one day, listened to someone share their story with me, read about the lives of others who have done similar, discovered why, and then consented to let it change me, and it did.

Admittedly, this is not proof in the rational sense, and so it is dismissed as a non-starter, don't even bring it up, it's a "who cares" moment (in the evidentiary sense). These kind of faith-based arguments, as well as those more rational notions I have mentioned, are obviously not enough to sway the atheist. These things cannot be seen, and they apparently must be seen or else they are pointless to bring up. But, I don't think we should insist that "unless you explain it in my terms, I'm not buying it". Why shouldn't we defer to terms that just may be beyond ourselves? And I like the JRR Tolkien argument that finally converted CS Lewis....to,paraphrase: "But, what if it's true, Jack?". And so CS Lewis left Tolkien that day an atheist, and arrived home a Christian. I think he saw how "what if it's true" explained a lot about this world, maybe not that what he could see and touch, but more of what he couldn't. I don't think empiracally provimg something has to be the beginning and end of the discussion. I think we need to look around us, look around and see what perhaps we couldn't see before. Sometimes, you'll hear someone say, "take a look at it from his/her perspective for a moment", and you wait a moment, and then they get where you're coming from. And "ahah" moment, if you will. Now, I know that's just what the other person will then call on me to do, but I think by attempting to make these rational arguments, that's what I have been doing. I think it's fair to at least suggest that we each try and do likewise, if we can, if we think it's worthwhile.

[Ananda]

I think anyone can convince themselves of anything. And, when the belief is shared by friends, family and community, it only makes it easier.

I have tried a little experiment on myself over the last few years.

One day, I decided that we have a hustomte living in our basement at the laundry room. A hustomte is a house elf that lives around people, but you never see them. They will be kind and helpful if they like the type of person you are and how you treat animals, guests and so.

I began by talking to it every time I did the laundry. When I walk down there, I greet it saying who I am and hello. I don't bother it with a lot of chat, but I do praise that the laundry machines work, that things hanging are dry and so. I also bring things down to the room that I think it might like and leave them there.

It is a game I have been playing with myself for a few years.

The funny thing is that I reflexively say hello now and, if it happens that I am rushed and forget to say hello, I do return down and apologise for being rude and say hello. When the washer thingie broke, my first thought was that the hustomte was mad about something. I have begun to act as though it is real even though I *know* it is an experiment I am doing on myself!

Anyone can convince themselves of anything.

[Fist and Faith]

Michaelm, F&F,

Here's the key, trying to "prove" a supernatrual being exists is wasted effort.

Preachin' to the choir! If it could be proven, we wouldn't have had centuries of disagreement, from debates to wars, about it. Many believers believe that it's supposed to work this way. "You must believe without proof. That's how God wants it." All well and good. I'm just saying, if anybody wants to convince me, certain ideas aren't going to do it. If you don't want to convince me, then all is well.

As far as it being wasted effort, yes and no. Yes, if converting many like me was important to you. No, if delving into your faith in various ways while trying to prove it is a good thing. Which I believe it is.

I consider the endless thought and reading on the subject I've done to have been extremely useful. I've come to learn what I think and how I feel about some important issues. Also, some of the things I've read have been incredibly beautiful, moving books. I've mentioned Fools Crow: Wisdom and Power, Eknath Easwaran's translations of the Bhagavad Gita and Upanishads, and Conversations With God before. I learned a lot about accepting different ways of viewing things, and it helped me see beauty and intelligence in faith. (I don't bother with things like Dawkins. Reading the other side of the issue is more valuable, imo.)

[Ananda]

Bhagavad Gita and Upanishads

These are a couple of my favourites. Although, with the upanisads, I feel like they could reduce the volume a bit and just write 'om' on a few pages and be done.

[Fist and Faith]

Yeah, I agree. Actually, I should have said, it's Easwaran's introductions to the works that I particularly love.

[Dondarion]

Ananda wrote:

When the washer thingie broke, my first thought was that the hustomte was mad about something.

Easy now... I know a back handed trivialization when I see one. And I was the one being called out as having "scoffed" at the beliefs of others. As my "scoff" comment was not intended that way, I will assume neither was yours.

I am not trying to convince myself of anything. And because I engage with like minded people as a result of turning my own life around does not allow one to conclude that "Oh, that explains it. He's just been brainwashed by his encironment. Fine for him, but others in a different environment are just as easily experiencing reality, their reality, and who says what's more real?" It can never end, this double talking logic. If one makes a point of merit, it's only because some factor/experience exists in his/her world that allowed it to manifest itself. Doesn't make it real/true for anyone but that person, etc., etc. All very easy and convenient to explain away almost anything. But until you actually see the people who give of themselves so mich for the poor, who visit the sick day in and day out in the hospitals, who welcome and comfort strangers and friends alike in times of great need, when society could care less otherwise, then it's hard to imagine the reality of this kind of faith in action. Those people do this because they have a model who showed them that doing this is what gives human existence it's true meaning. And that person backed it up by going to his death for it, beacause he knew our human natures and skepticism would require nothing leas before seeing the light. Now I wish I could do a thimble full of what I see these people doing. But, I know what they do is somehow what it means to be human, and that if it is real, I will be expected to have at least tried to be like this the best I can, and so I must "act as if". And it is not possible without the example I referred to, we are not capable of giving over ourselves without the grace given to us from the outside, from God.

I have tried to make many points along these lines in this thread, but they are generally dismissed as being "applicable to only me", or not evidentiary, or not even addressed at all. What is addressed are the trivial things, which are then ballooned into new side-bar threads that veer away from many salient points that I would welcome comment/rebuttal. I feel as if I am trying to steer the conversation into the "no spin room", but either others just don't want to enter, or worse, they accuse me of trying to get them to come and join them in my fantasy world filled with heffelumps and woozles....and hustomte house elfs.

[Ananda]

Ananda wrote:

When the washer thingie broke, my first thought was that the hustomte was mad about something.

Easy now... I know a back handed trivialization when I see one. And I was the one being called out as having "scoffed" at the beliefs of others. As my "scoff" comment was not intended that way, I will assume neither was yours.

A hustomte is known to be mischievous when it is angry about something. I guess you need to know what a hustomte is. Breaking our washer thingie would be in keeping with the behaviour of one.

[Fist and Faith]

Dondarion, I suspect you would enjoy the Stephen C. McKinney Memorial Thread.

So might any of you who haven't read it.

[I'm Murrin]

My problem with the idea that you should just have faith, without evidence, is that it's telling you that you should take up an idea that has no source. What reason is there to believe this one thing and not something else?

If I have never been given any evidence that something exists, why should I give credence to the idea it might? I've been given no reason to consider it at all.

[michaelm]

Michael,

God exists whether I can offer tangible proof or not. That's what a "leap of faith" is. Accepting something without tangible proof.

But don't forget that equally applies to the Flying Spaghetti Monster as it does to Zeus, Odin, Vishnu, Santa Claus, the Tooth Fairy, Yahweh, etc.

[SerScot]

Michaelm,

And? Why do I need proof of God's existence to have faith that God exists?

[I'm Murrin]

Because it calls into question why you choose that thing to believe in and not the infinite variety of other things you have no evidence for that you could choose to believe instead. If you have no evidence something exists, you have no reason to believe in it. The belief is essentially arbitrary.

(I want to make it clear here that my intent is questioning belief, not criticising it.)

[michaelm]

Michaelm,

And? Why do I need proof of God's existence to have faith that God exists?

If you don't want it that's your prerogative, but for me it makes no sense to ignore the logical inconsistencies of that kind belief system.