A question on faith (for atheists)

[glo]

Hi all

This thread is prompted by a conversation I had with an atheist friend.
You never quite know how these threads run, but personally I am interested in hearing the opinions of atheist posters, rather than discussing or debating them.

So, here goes ...

I can understand that non-believers look at the wars, the in-fighting, the atrocities committed in the name of religion, and shake their heads in despair.
I can understand that non-believers might come to the conclusion that without religion the world might be a more peaceful place.

You see, I too see those atrocities committed in the name of religion, and I too am horrified.
But I also see the good that comes from people who are driven by religion.

Having this kind of conversation with my atheist friend, I came to realise that his concerns are not just around people doing bad things in the name of God - but that in his eyes the very idea of believing in a supernatural being without any underpinning scientific evidence is what he rejects and disagrees with.The very idea of believing without proof is what disturbs him - regardless of whether this idea prompts the believer to do good, bad or whatever ...

Do any of you have any thoughts on this?
I don't really know what it is I am trying to ask, because I cannot get my head around his thinking at all!
Perhaps one of you can enlighten me ...?

Peace

 

[Gator]

I'll start with the usual caveat that each atheist has different ideas and outlooks, so the responses will be all over the map. The only thing we agree with is that we think god does not exist.

I think I see what you got out of your discussion. The "very idea of believing without proof (or evidence)" bothered him, or believing based on faith.

My views are based on what I think are reasonable due to how I perceive the world and how it works. When I don't have enough evidence of something, I have to make deductions on my own.

Christians, Muslims, Sihks, Hindus, etc. do the same thing (although there are some that feel they have been given proof through a feeling they have). Your friend has to do the same as he comes to a conclusion based on the incomplete facts that he has.

So, I'm not disturbed by a theist believing in something without evidence as they look at it and see it as a reasonable description of how the world is. With incomplete information you have to use your mind and take your best shot.

I don't know if I answered your question, but those are my thoughts sparked by your post.

Thanks.

 

[wilberhum]

Glo,
As you know, I am not an atheist; I’m about as close as you can get without crossing the line.
I believe there is a god but not a god that has much concern about my existence.

I do find the evil committed in the name of god a problem.
More importantly I find logical fallacy and contradictions in very religion.
So I am not anti-god, but I am anti-religion.

I truly believe that all religions are man made and were created to serve the creator.
That’s the creator of the religion, not the creator to the world. :thumbs_do

I don’t take issue with there being no proof, because there is no proof either way.
But, I do take issue with those that claim to have proof. :hiding:

Now I will revert to my agnostic ways and state emphatically with total resolve.
“I don’t know”.

Peace
Wilber

 

[glo]

Thanks, Gator and Wilber

Can you relate to the concept that believing in a supernatural being/god/deity of any kind would be disturbing in itself? That only trusting in what can be scientifically demonstrated or evidenced is the only true way?
Is that how you feel?

 

[Gator]

glo, I'd just refer to my previous post where I say I don't have a problem with someone believing in something if even if you can't "scientifically demonstrate" it.

No I can't relate to being disturbed by someone believing in something with a total lack of proof. It how far the person carries it is what would disturb me.

The question is oddly worded. if on the other hand you Are asking me whether I'd be disturbed if i believed in a god, to that I'd say yes, because it goes against my thought process and contemplation that resulted in my being an atheist. (I'd be believing in something I truly don't believe. an odd situation).

Thanks.

 

[wilberhum]

Of course I can relate to belief. Every one has some belief. Even if it is only the belief that the Seahawks will win the Super Bowl this year.

I find it frightening that many believe in a god that rewards them for harming others,
A god that conceders them superior and demands they force there beliefs on others. :thumbs_do

I find it disturbing that so many; accept so much, with such little evidence.
But I also find it disturbing when people claim alien abductions.

Scientifically demonstrated or evidenced is the only true way for proof.
We can look at the evidence and evaluate it, but there is no Proof.

 

[Trumble]

I have no problem in any religious belief without 'proof'. I have no 'proof' for mine. It's a vaguely absurd idea; if you think about it we rarely have 'proof' for anything we believe. For example, some Americans may always vote Democrat rather than Republican because they think Democrats will do a better job for country - but where is the 'proof' that they have or will? I 'believe' my dog has eaten the food I left in the kitchen for him.. but I'm sitting here typing this, not looking at the empty bowl.

I can understand that non-believers look at the wars, the in-fighting, the atrocities committed in the name of religion, and shake their heads in despair. I can understand that non-believers might come to the conclusion that without religion the world might be a more peaceful place.

They may, or may not be, right (I somehow doubt it), but again I don't really see it as an "atheist" issue. If anything it's an argument for total religious freedom and tolerance, not no belief at all. You can't decide what you believe, you either believe something or you don't. The best you can do is make a conscious decision to try and examine all the facts. If, for example, you believe that there is but one God, and Mohammed is his Prophet I don't see how you can be anything but a muslim. You can't just say "well, there have been bad things done in the name of religion so I just won't believe any more" - it doesn't work that way.

The "atheistic" argument is rather different. Something on the lines of "of there really was an omniscient, omnipotent, benevolent God, how/why would He allow 'the wars, the in-fighting, the atrocities committed in the name of (His) religion' to happen?" It is that question that has to be answered to justify belief.

Scientifically demonstrated or evidenced is the only true way for proof..

I'd suggest that science has never 'proven' anything. All it has done, because it is all the scientific method allows, is disprove things.

 

[Isambard]

I never liked the whole "religion is the reason for war!" arguement. Namely, because you get all sorts of battles and wars having little or nothing to do with religion. Religion is just tacted on.

If you want to be technical, politics is the reason for war. Religion is an earlier form of politics meshed with a bunch of other stuff.

If you want dig even further, the ability to de-humanize and de-personalize is the force behind any sort of crime. Think about. Atrocities done in the name of religion are commited because the opposing group as seen as animals, same goes with wars over nationalism, same with someone being stabbed in a bar. The rage blinded and removed the ability of perspective taking.

That said, religion is responsibile for a lot of naughty things in the world, even if not directly at fault. Especially in the abrahamic traditions, youll see the 'us vs. them' indoctrination making it easier to kill your neighbour. This is what I believe most atheists have a problem with, that faith may blind you to the humanity of another where as science or at least the ability to cooly and logically think out a problem prevents over-stepping of bounds and mischaracterization.

This is my 0.02$

 

[- Qatada -]

That said, religion is responsibile for a lot of naughty things in the world, even if not directly at fault. Especially in the abrahamic traditions, youll see the 'us vs. them' indoctrination making it easier to kill your neighbour.

I don't understand what you mean by that concept. Isn't it the Abrahamic religions which call to kindness towards your neighbor? No matter what religion they belong to? The answer is yes.

The issue of 'Us v Them' is also something strange since many people split up into groups outside religion anyway, infact there are many groups when one doesn't take religion into consideration. Yet when religion does come into it, then there are only two main parties - those who believe and those who disbelieve. Whereas outside this concept, there are much more, i.e. the low class, high class, racism, the wealthy and the poor etc. and Islam calls to break these barriers and to unite upon brotherhood no matter what differences you have. Your faith unites and binds you together for the better.





Regards.

 

[wilberhum]

Your faith unites and binds you together for the better.

Yes, for the better of the group.

As far as humanity, it is one of the great deviders.

 

[- Qatada -]

Yes, for the better of the group.

As far as humanity, it is one of the great deviders.

I think you forgot to quote this part too;

The issue of 'Us v Them' is also something strange since many people split up into groups outside religion anyway, infact there are many groups when one doesn't take religion into consideration.

Whereas outside this concept, there are much more, i.e. the low class, high class, racism, the wealthy and the poor etc. and Islam calls to break these barriers and to unite upon brotherhood no matter what differences you have.

 

[wilberhum]

I think you forgot to quote this part too;

No, I think we have different concepts of "one of the great deviders".
To me "One Of", does not mean the "Only One".

But all of this is Off Topic.

Glo said:

I am interested in hearing the opinions of atheist posters, rather than discussing or debating them.

 

[- Qatada -]

No, I think we have different concepts of "one of the great deviders".
To me "One Of", does not mean the "Only One".

Okay kool. That to me is a great unifier.




Peace.

 

[Scruffy]

Glo, one of the aspects that may upset your friend is the imposition of religous beliefs on others within a society. If believers are setting policy, the non-believers in that society would be inclined to insist (and entitled IMO) on reason and evidence behind a policy - not just some vague, fuzzy indescribable feeling that is claimed as devine truth.

Isambard, I like to think of religion as an antique form of government, diminished now in many places, reduced to a political tool that dusted off and used by incompetent, lazy politicians who don't have better capabilities.

The atheist says everyone's free to practice whatever brand of religion they choose provided it doesn't impinge on those who are unconvinced. Same as theistic proponents of church/state seperation.

 

[Abdul Fattah]

Hi all
in his eyes the very idea of believing in a supernatural being without any underpinning scientific evidence is what he rejects and disagrees with.[/I]The very idea of believing without proof is what disturbs him - regardless of whether this idea prompts the believer to do good, bad or whatever ...

Do any of you have any thoughts on this?
I don't really know what it is I am trying to ask, because I cannot get my head around his thinking at all!
Perhaps one of you can enlighten me ...?

Peace

Yes definitely true, as a former atheist I can concur that that is actually a major problem. Good for your friend that he at least realizes the core of the issue, since a lot of people have this inclination without realizing it. Well the view is obviously biased. To deny something by lack of proof makes no sense. Such a line of thinking suggests that it is impossible for something to exist without leaving proof of it's existence. Which is a rather narrow-minded view.

Basically what this means is that he is a "disbelievers" in the sense that he is incapable of believing. You made the distinction of "believing without proof". But there is no "believing with proof"; if it's proven it's no longer a belief but a fact. So if he cannot believe without proof then that means he is not able to believe at all.

There are a broad varieties of ways to respond to this.

1.You could show that this person actually does believe in things he doesn't have proof of by asking questions like:
Do you believe your wife hasn't cheated on you? Do you have proof? Do you believe you have a brain? Have you ever seen it? etc..
Most likely he'll respond he believes those on probability whereas he finds religion improbable. The only way to counter that is debating probability of religion, which brings you back at square one.

2. Forget step one and skip to probability right away. Ask him:
"Can you Imagen for a second -just for the sake of argument- that there is a true religion among all the earthly religions, what would it take for you to recognize this truth."
This will probably get the person to state whichever objectives, restrictions or false concepts he holds that keep him from believing, at which point they'll be out in the open and easily refuted.

3. Argue by hypothetical. Ask him the following:
"Again if we imagen -for the sake of argument- that there is a true religion, but that there are no clear proofs for it, only debatable indications. If in that hypothesis you reject the idea because of the lack of proof, have you then not rejected reality?"
The idea behind this question is that by asking the person to indulge in thinking about a certain paradigm he will understand the bias of atheism better and might at that point nurture an inclination towards agnostisism (which is already closer to theism as opposed to atheism).

4. You cold use a one liner, like someone signature around here:
"For an atheist no amount of proof is sufficient, for a theist none is required."

5. Psychological approach, tell him:
There is a fine line between criticism and paranoia. Criticism leads to the truth by filtering out falsehoods; paranoia does not. Paranoia objects the acceptance of anything, even the truth. so rather then leading to it, it objects it. The same goes for not accepting anything without proof. While looking for proof might help in finding the truth, rejecting something by lack of evidence restricts the amount of "truth" one can find to "provable truths" and leaves out "unprovable truths".

 

[Isambard]

I don't understand what you mean by that concept. Isn't it the Abrahamic religions which call to kindness towards your neighbor? No matter what religion they belong to? The answer is yes.

The issue of 'Us v Them' is also something strange since many people split up into groups outside religion anyway, infact there are many groups when one doesn't take religion into consideration. Yet when religion does come into it, then there are only two main parties - those who believe and those who disbelieve. Whereas outside this concept, there are much more, i.e. the low class, high class, racism, the wealthy and the poor etc. and Islam calls to break these barriers and to unite upon brotherhood no matter what differences you have. Your faith unites and binds you together for the better.Regards.

Well it falls under the problem I am now coining, "problem of the first commandment" :happy:

Its basically this, God says worship him and him alone. No ifs or buts. This is fine until a person or group within the community start to see things a little bit differently. (This is something that happens whenever a pop. expands past a certain size and can be fueled by movement in location)

After a certain point and changes with this individual or group, they are regarded as 'others'. In all three major branches, you find God doesnt like unbelievers and he has a special place for them...

The society then gets divided because they view the other as blashphomus because from their perspective, the other group is promoting lies.

So you see, its not that being religious makes one inherently violent, its just the mindset of "there is only one way" leads folk to tunnel-vision. You see the same problem and mentality in some ideologies like Hittler's vision of an Aryrian nation, America during the red scare, Stalinist communism, even liberalism in extreme forms where you can be villified for not agreeing with their vision (ironic isnt it? lol).

I think though that a persons mindset also contributes too. If someone is more fundamental in their faith, they are more likely to ignore alternative modes of thinking on the simple pretext that it disagrees with their mindset. This can lead to some dangerous outcomes.

 

[ranma1/2]

I think what i find disturbing is when it becomes a source of authority.
Similar to the Kissing hanks bumm idea.

 

[Pygoscelis]

Well it falls under the problem I am now coining, "problem of the first commandment" :happy:

Indeed. It is the primary inherent problem of monotheistic religion.

As soon as you have people claiming to have the ONLY god and the ONLY way, trouble will always be close behind.

 

[Pygoscelis]

Glo, I can relate to your atheist friend.

I too am bothered by people believing in fantastic claims on "faith" - especially when their groundless beliefs then lead actions and non-actions with serious consequences for not just themselves but others as well. Picture a man who has faith that he can fly, so he jumps off the roof of a building, above a busy pedestrian area, people who may be crushed by him if his belief is indeed untrue.

Accepting fantastic claims on "faith" alone IS bothersome. Absolutely. And what could be more fantastic than religious claims?

It is one thing to say that there may be some creator being out there somewhere or there may be some supernatural beings we're not aware of. It is quite another to give them names, histories, and to claim to know that they forbid us to eat pork and forbid us to have sex with certain people or in certain ways.

 

[wilberhum]

Well Glo,
Did you find the answer you were looking for?