I don’t say that my worldview is better than yours, or more “real”, but simply that religion and science are not equal, and that an objective reality is (as far as is possible) discoverable through observation and logic. I put provable evidence on the point of authority, for nothing else makes sense to me. I don’t see any way for religion(s) to be authoritative about what is real, because all religions contradict, all claim to be the 1 right way, and all have adherents that are equally and contradictorily convinced that their religion is right. By my perception, all religions are equally false, and the only thing that has stood up to the evidence we have all around us is the scientific method, which isn’t analagous to religion, but may well be a replacement in many ways, for religion, especially for the answers about the world religion originally was meant to explain, before we knew what was really going on.

I agree completely that there is more to anyone’s belief system than logic, and for me the main reason I began to seriously question theism wasn’t necessarily because of logic, though it was in the end very helpful, it was because of emotional experiences that told me there was something fundamentally wrong with my belief in a god, which was fundamentally different from your experience, I’m sure.

I respect your belief, and even more that you are content to leave it at your belief and not try to convert or force it on the unwilling.

For that you have my respect.

I’ve been terribly busy, but I finally got my code working that I’ve been tearing my hair out to fix. Now that it’s fixed, I can take a breather.

Craig, I understand exactly what you are saying now when you are talking about circular logic. That may be the case with many people who believe in God, but in my case, its different like xJane guessed. Here’s how it happened:

1. I heard about God (bible, parents, etc.). This was all very nice and not relevant to my life for the first 9 years of it.
2. I met God entirely against my will – I was not looking for him, he showed up and started the relationship. When he showed up, we talked. We continue to talk the same way to this day.

There was no beginning assumption to start from to explain the world around me. I didn’t care about any of this until that fateful day. From that point on, and backed up on nearly a daily basis, the fact the God is real and crazy about people was a stark reality to me. I never believed him because it explained the world around me, I believed him because I met him, a person, personally.

xJane – I think you are absolutely right about the difference between a truth claim/assertion and “proof”. What I am saying (I’m pretty sure) is an assertion – you can either believe it or not. But when I am talking to a fellow Christian, we have standards for proving what is spiritually true and what is not.

This may sound strange, but I’m not interested in going the next step to “proving” God exists to a non-theist. I think God is quite capable of doing that himself, as he did with me. All you’ll probably ever see me doing is just assert that he does, and tell stories about it from personal experience. Part of that personal experience includes knowing truth about him, which is where the authority to talk about him on his behalf comes in.

Crossing the belief divide and using rational argument to prove one’s own worldview superior over another is the job of the apologists. There are some good apologists out there, and if belief systems where actually based entirely on logical and solid proof, this could be done, but none of them are. The reasoning behind a person’s choice in a belief system is far more complicated than just a few good logical arguments. So arguing across them really dosen’t work in my opinion unless someone is in doubt of their own and open to other explainations.

Hopefully, that makes sense… Let me know if there’s some circular logic still in there. There may be…

If someone who has wronged me comes and apologizes, they are asking for me to soothe their egos. I have no interest in withholding that from them. That’s what forgiveness is—having someone tell you “it’s okay”. I have forgiven myself for the hateful things I’ve done &, where appropriate, expressed my apology to those I’ve hurt.

My father is currently dying and many people have told me that I should “say what I have to say” while I still can. There are many things that he has done (and continues to do) that I disagree with. He knows that I do not agree with many things he does (these may not be overlapping sets of actions). Having a final conversation wherein I lay out every way he has wronged me so that he can know that I am hurt by it and ask for my forgiveness and get it is not something that I’m interested in. I have come to terms with the fact that he is an autonomous and moral being who acted as he thought was best in the situations that were presented to him. I can ask nothing more of anyone—I certainly ask no more of myself. I cannot find fault in that. Am I still hurt? Absolutely. But I do not hold it against him. He will not ask me for forgiveness because he does not believe there is anything to forgive. I would rather spend my last moments with him enjoying his presence (we’re currently reading a biography/travelogue that we both enjoy—I read it aloud to him, since he can’t hold a book) than picking fights that have no purpose. If he wants forgiveness, he has a priest. If he wants my forgiveness, he has only to ask. Forgiveness happens in the heart of the wrongdoer, no in the mind of the wronged..

You said, “I think the real Truth of religion is that the Divine is only there in the silence of our hearts—in Beauty, in Love, and in Truth. But never collectively.” You also spoke of Justice in a similar way earlier. I think you are speaking of ideals. Yes? I think that you understand these to be something that you consider to be real, not fictitious. Yes? Things to give hope, to aspire to, and these things actually point “off the map.” Really they are not just found within. For instance, if you extinguished human life and creation, in an instance, Beauty and Truth and Justice and Love would not cease to be real.

Many people consider this to be spiritual language for that reason. If these things are beyond us, and infinite, perfection, and not fictitious, what are we really speaking of?

To know of these things and then to box them down as only infinite, and not powerful enough to be both infinite and also personal, smacks as ironical.

Beside that, I think people do share these ideals between others, not just in the silence of their hearts, but also within them as well. Part of loving someone can involve a deep shared love for these things and increased intimacy that grows between the two. My experience reflects the unity of community toward the divine, I believe, enacting the Trinity, in fact, if done properly.

To forgive really only means to cancel a debt. I’m not sure I understand why you think it is religious. Do you think people should not forgive each other? people should not apologize or offer others forgiveness for wrongs? Maybe you could unpack that for me, I guess I don’t understand your take on that one. I think, “Why carry a grudge? It’s like carrying around poison, no? Forgiving never validates an offense, but it does release the victim from more pain.”

The apology on behalf religionists who cause injury is something that I come across rather frequently and I respect the place from which it comes, but I have to say that I find it rather disingenuous, since I would bet money that the people who apologize participate in the same hurtful actions that those who should apologize do. And as a sister once told me, an apology means nothing if there is intent to do it again.

Forgiveness is a very religious concept; one of many I’m trying to get out of my psyche. I can say that they acted in the way that they thought was right and that, when they stand before their God in the Court of their Heaven, they will have nothing to answer for. This does not make my wounds any shallower, but it helps me in my daily interactions with those who caused them.

Religion as a thing of beauty can exist only in the mind of one of its adherents. As soon as it enters two minds, its beauty is destroyed and it seeks only to cause pain. Jesus once said that he is there, wherever two or more are gathered. I think the real Truth of religion is that the Divine is only there in the silence of our hearts—in Beauty, in Love, and in Truth. But never collectively.

I’m surprised that you say that your atheist friends are made up of people who are just people who been hurt by religion. I should say I’m not surprised, too. I’ve been hurt by Christians too, and churches. Not good ones, though. Problem ones. It is a broken world. Free choice = potential problems, but also opportunity to do good freely as well. It so sad when people fail the God they supposedly love. It does much damage, I agree very much.

I guess to me it just seems like an emotional reason to not believe in God, not a very logical one, though the logical reason I guess get thought of later. I thought your group would be more thoughtful, coming from a more neutral spot. That’s so sad to hear, and my heart goes out to you and your friends. That totally sucks. If I had the chance I would love to speak to those who hurt you and tell them a few things.

I’m so sorry those things happened. They did the opposite of Love. In a community of love, those things are fought against. I experience the best and closest, most beautiful friendship you could imagine. My family was screwed up, but now I get to experience true Love, and I can tell you it’s very life changing. It’s not based on a rejection of another group for bonding and solace though. I truly hope you can find healing for the evils done against you.

Have you forgiven them?

But other than that, I agree completely.

I don’t read Craig as being any less insistent upon his version of reality than anyone else, but perhaps I’m wrong. Each of us experiences the world and crafts our own reality from it. The dinner I just ate was “okay” to me but “great” to my husband. These are, I suppose, competing versions of reality and neither of us will be able to change the other’s mind. There may be no “neutral standpoint”, but that doesn’t mean we can’t discuss our experiences and both come away richer for it.

I’m not sure that science produces elitism any more than any other discipline (talk to any theologian, philosopher, or historian—or their armchair varieties). I’m not certain that science & religion are so at odds, I just think they describe vastly different matters. Just as philosophical logic is ill-suited to maths, mathematical logic is ill-suited to philosophy. Religion and science are similarly compatible but separate. I think a scientific approach to the Divine is idiotic—and a religious approach to science is criminal.

So we’re left with experiences. My experience of the Church of my parents is one of oppression, violence, and hatred. I’ve met wonderful people whose experience of that same religion is uplifting, peaceful, and holy. I’m baffled by that, but I respect it. My experience of atheism has been a community of disaffected ex-religionists who, in community, find solace, comfort, and safety away from the violence that religion has done to us.

Personally, I think it’s irresponsible of AA to preach God as a way to get over addiction. That’s not getting over addiction, that’s replacing a physically damaging addiction with a mentally damaging one.

I agree that there probably isn’t an “absolute truth” or definite answer to life, the universe, and everything (unless it’s 42), but I also think that you can touch truth, beauty, and perfection to know it exists. Sometimes, knowing that Justice is out there is the only thing that gives me hope. But I don’t pray to her, or worship her. I find it difficult to believe that any god needs my worship and adoration, or cares enough about my puny human problems to intercede & change the universe so that I’m happy. I think meditation/prayer are useful tools for me to get a grip on my own psyche and that ritual serves a need for routine. Just about every other aspect of religion (besides community) seems inherently dangerous, disingenuous, and, for want of a better word, evil.

(Still, excited to hear your insights to my questions, Craig.)

well, I look around me and I do see evidence of the Divine. Perspective? Reality? I didn’t always see things this way. But now that I do, the world in like a book that makes sense. Each part is like a page with a message. Not every page is a happy page, and I have to do my part for goodness, but my part of the story plays in with the whole Story. I guess it’s just like having different eyes to see. Not everyone will agree what you see is “REALITY”.

I see beauty in the world a great deal of the time in nature and in people. You and others could look at the same thing, and perhaps see ugliness, emptiness, or despair, or just dry facts on the top layer, or something else. I give you that.

The absolute–weights and measures–proof is neither for nor against the divine… this is the age old argument, of course. I understand this. Sure, no problem.

It may be a matter of experience. It may be a matter of opinion, xJane. But see, Craig obviously posits his way as superior and true reality. This imposition and true assertion denies other’s individual perceptions and experiences, as if they are separate from reality. Yet, these things make up and are integral with reality, including his (and your) own foundations of reality. So, too, there is no true neutral standpoint of judging “real” reality or someone else’s reality cross-worldview.

Science has a knack for producing elitism… even extending to how individuals should experience their world, as if there is just one way. Many things philosophically speaking cannot be measured fully, truly.

Radical positive transformation is most often the evidence people give for the divine. For alcoholics this is the benefit of relying on their “higher power”. It is very hard to see a life so fantastically changed and tell that person it didn’t happen because they gave all their worries and trust to their higher power. (Well, you can still think God didn’t do it, but you’d be a jerk to tell them, huh?) You think it happened for different reasons, but that is only a judgment of what you cannot see to be real, b/c you don’t believe the evidence as such, or dislike the evidence, don’t have the right type etc, not necessarily b/c it is not true or not real reality.

Augustine, which most people who consider themselves properly educated and well-rounded, have read him, cited the survival of the church itself as proof of the divine. The concept of that happening in his time was indeed miraculous. Nothing in history should have made the church survive under that extent of mass killings and persecution. Most people today, say, “Who’s Augustine?” So, reference for this sort of thing gets a bit lost on people who know little of history and literature, I admit.

I know that there are people who have to see something to know it’s there. But some of the best things in the world are things you can’t completely touch, or fully master. Truth, beauty, perfection, love, for a few examples.

I think we are all on a quest for truth, and bettering ourselves. We all have a lot more in common than we do of the things that separate us. Yes, I happen to think truth is a Being, not an “thing” you land on, and “find”. I don’t really think it’s “objective truth” or “absolute truth” in a typical sense for some of the why questions.

Instead of a bunch of data and beakers and scales, isn’t it more like a journey to find all the things you need to know; a path to that will lead to surprising places, and the teachers will be people you least suspect?

[I think, please don't think I'm putting words in his mouth] This is what Craig is saying: we live in a world based upon faith in authority and in evidence. If my friend were lying to me, I would not, in the future, trust him. I took it on faith that he did not, but when I discovered evidence that he did, I changed my mind. This is not worship of science, or even of reason/evidence. This is simply common sense. Even religious families encourage children to discover the world for themselves (to some extent).

So, when atheists say that there is no evidence for the Divine, or that the Divine cannot be proven, it’s not a substitution of reason for the Divine, merely an assertion of reality.

I guess I should tell you upfront that I am no enemy of science. I think it’s very useful. It’s fantastic for inquiry and disovery. Unlike most people (most Christians fall into this category as well) I don’t believe in a divide between faith a reason. This divide shoves belief into a top bracket (into “the mind” and opinion) where it cannot be discussed, but scientists may often have their own agendas they promote as well many times.

I am not uncomfortable with your unbelief in God. Your passion surprises some though sometimes. I would expect apathy, or disregard of the topic perhaps, but that’s okay. Confusion about God is warranted and expected. It’s an odd issue. I’m strange too, b/c I don’t think doubt is not the opposite of faith. In fact, I think, atheism is the hardest to believe, I think Deism may be the easiest to believe. (You may know of former atheist Anthony Flew? Interesting book “There is a God” I already have “The God Delusion”. Not so good. “God is not Great” is a better recommendation, for your belief system I think, FYI. ; ) )

Most people who don’t have a secret beef with God they nurse, or very wild imaginations, don’t think the irreducible complexity in nature, ethics, and everything else about humanity, didn’t just pop up. And they also don’t assign things to humanity illogically, ad hoc, like you do. But, of course, I give you that you are entitled to your beliefs and perspective. No worries. I encouraged you to continue to pursue inquiry of all kinds; you are a true and passionate student of the mind.

What is hard to get over with regards to God is not what of all the bad and suffering in the world… (yes, hard to resolve!) but it’s the terrible conundrum of beauty, love, and goodness. It pops up for (I don’t think) really no reason, no EXTREMELY useful, or no for very logical good in total, (if we are very objective) but we all point toward it, long for it, idolize it. We all call it virtuous…maybe a bit too much to make sense. It’s just something to wonder about. For real, I mean, without quickly dismissing it, out of fear of where it could lead us. True engaged wonder. True inquiry. We have nothing to fear by this, yes?

It’s those “why” questions science never realize too much about. Very unsatisfying answers in those regards, to me. Maybe for you, you remain very satisfied. That’s fine.

If we could…I like to try something much different. If we wonder a little bit about our “higher experiences”… (let’s stop using icky “God” words for a bit). I don’t like to. Too loaded. I think we have some common ground. Now you may attribute “higher experiences” to things I do not, I say, “fine”.

I would like to ask you, “What are some things you love (I do know Sushi…me too btw) and why do you love them?” This is no trick question. I’m just wondering, do we have common ground?

In your longing for love, what do you hope for?

In your times of alienation, what do you wish to “come back to”?

Some of these questions get to thinking differently, not about science, I admit, but about life lived out, for the best (for us and those around us). I’m interested to hear your thoughts.

Pray, give me some examples of these things that people assume or take for granted, and why that means that science is like religion.

I think it is fundamentally flawed to see science as type of religion. I think that science does indeed attempt to investigate (not prove) everything. We may not have the answers to everything yet, and we may not ever, but the point is we don’t just make up answers in science – we investigate, test, hypothesise, test again, etc. Just because we’ve not got the answer to something yet doesn’t mean it is unknowable or uninvestigatable through science.

Just because scientists make mistakes or people misrepresent or misinterpret data doesn’t make it religion. That has to do with humanity’s propensity for error, not science.

I don’t believe that there is anything that you actually know that you don’t know through science, or your direct observations, which is what science is based on.

I do indeed say that science investigates truth, or put another way, reality. To me, truth and reality are one and the same thing. Religion tries to give answers about what is true, but doesn’t base it on reality, on what we can observe and experience. It is based on really old books written by men (rarely women), or on things that people claim, but have absolutely no evidence for. Faith is just that – belief in something that you cannot prove, for which you have no evidence. To me that has nothing to do with truth, because very, very often, religions reject that which is reality when it conflicts with what they claim, even though they have no evidence, and what evidence we have wholly contradicts their claims (take for example young earth creationism – it is not true, it simply cannot logically be, and is at odds with science).

So the truth that I am privy to is simply reality. It is what I observe and experience, coupled with the observations and experiences of millions if not billions of others.

It has naught to do with gods or religion, faith or salvation.

The reason science changes is not because it is like a religion (which rarely change much, and when so, do so over great lengths of time), but what changes is the guess we make about reality. We make a guess, and then see if reality backs us up. Sometimes right away we know we were wrong, other times it takes longer to amass enough information as well as be able to interpret it correctly so that we know whether our guess, our hypothesis or theory is correct or not. I fail to see how this therefore means that science is arbitrary or like religion. It is absolutely the opposite of arbitrary. It relies on facts and reality, absolutely unlike religion. In no way does it make sense to say that science is equally arbitrary as Christianity. That simply seems absurd to me.

Our scientific understanding is flawed and imperfect, this is true, but not because reality is changing, but because we have an imperfect intellect and a limited capacity for understanding. It takes time.

If you had read the previous posts you’d see what guides my ethics, and the ethics of many atheists: humanism, which is based partly on evolutionary morality. Ethics are not totally arbitrary, because they are based in our biology, even our genes. However, I do ascribe to a certain type of cultural moral relativism, simply because complex ethics are most often culturally conditioned and have nothing to do with gods or anything objective. Even the part of ethics and morality that are biologically driven are there because those behavioural genes gave us an survival advantage over those humans and pre-humans that did not have those genes and did not survive. So we have the genetic component of ethics added to the cultural, or subjective element, and together that gives us our varying and often contradictory ethical systems. I am not borrowing any one else’s ethics, but I have my own, which are driven by my genetic make-up, as well as the experiences that I’ve had so far in my life that have shaped the way I think and perceive, and judge.

Gods are not necessary for ethics, for I don’t believe that even your ethics are based on what you think they are. Very, very few people, Christians especially, actually base their morality on the Bible or on their religion (and thank goodness for that!). A good book for you to read to understand these ideas more would be The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins. I’m not saying you should be an atheist by any means, but it is, I think, false to say that science or atheism is in any way analogous to religion, or that we require any sort of religion or god to have ethical systems that aren’t entirely fantastic or uselessly arbitrary.

What I’m saying is that you posit science as a way to know truth, say as Christians do. It’s a funny modern irony to claim authority this way-the same way. We all realize science cannot attempt to prove many things most people assume, believe, and take for granted each day. It’s not so cut and dry. Lots of people put belief in knowledge, and knowledge changes all the time. It’s still religion. It still has fanatics. Science can easily skews the results to make its presuppositions fits. Ever take a statistics class? What do polls do, I mean, of course, what do they REALY do, or are they meant to do? (you get the idea)

I just question your assertions of truth. You assume you are privy to it. Science is very flawed. Your religion of science is just as arbitrary, I posit, as Christianity. So, I would just throw out there… what guides your ethics? And why. If there is no God, are you not just borrowing someone else’s ethics? Are not ethics are rather arbitrary, or mere fantasy, (it would seem logical) without being inherently imbued?

Science and reason are necessarily on the point of authority because of evidence. Religion has no evidence. There is no real logic or reality to it. All religions are entirely invented non-reality based claims that are non-verifiable. The only way any of us knows how to get information about anything is through science, trial and error, evidence, hypotheses, etc. The only way you know exactly how to cook a pot of rice is because either you learnt how to through trial and error, or you learnt it from someone else who already did know. Actual, reality-based knowledge. That is science. Everything is science – science just means knowledge.

I don’t necessarily disagree that true neutrality is a myth, but trying to compare my acceptance of science to someone’s belief in a religion is comparing apples to something that isn’t even fruit.

Please point out specific logical fallacies for us to address.

Science is not my god. I have no god, nor (I assert) does anyone else. God(s) do not exist. There is no point in believing something totally unbounded by reality, where there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever, where no affect can objectively be seen in the real world. That is my view of god/religion. I know that billions of other humans disagree. But the point is, science is no more my god that it is yours or anyone else’s. There is a categorical difference between gods and religion – things that cannot be proven, tested, or experienced because they don’t exist (if they did exist, they would be subject to scientific tests, as the existence of god is a scientific hypothesis), and science, reality, reason, knowledge, logic, which exist, which we all have experience with, regardless of our religions beliefs or lack thereof.

Did that address your concerns?

It sounds like you are putting science / reason in the spot of authority, but yet this authority is not able to be verified by its own definition as it requires of anything else.

Would this indicate that you have an experiential belief in “science/reason” as your God? (Sort of like “Christian way” you’ve been criticizing?) Okay, no. : ) no?

I’m not saying it’s entirely circular… but I think you have a few logical fallacies strewn in there. You are not a neutral observer anymore than Jon. Neutrality is a myth.

Interesting conversation. btw.

Yeah, there is a marked difference between circular reasoning and an assertion. Either way, I can’t really argue from either viewpoint though, as neither make sense to me, logically. Perhaps that’s a flaw I have.

Unfortunately, it seems that the Divine is the Ultimate Rorschach: we see in it what we want, what we are, what we aspire to be, or what we fear. I would submit, Jonathan, that you look at the Divine and see a loving, respectful, beautiful being because you are a loving, respectful, beautiful being. I see a strong female essence that is profoundly welcoming because I want to be strong and welcoming. Others see a vengeful and angry God because they fear vengeance and anger; perhaps because it consumes them (and this might be reinforcing: they see it because they fear it, they fear it because they are told that’s what God is, and so on).

Without an argument to start from, it can be hard to critique an argument. But the theist argument generally goes (please feel free to present another): the Bible tells me that God exists; I believe the Bible because God wrote it; therefore, God exists. Perhaps your argument is more along the lines of: I have been in the presence of God and so God exists. This is not a circular proof, it is an assertion. If everyone admitted that their “proofs” were “assertions”, I think we’d all get along much better. There is no logical need to “believe” an assertion.

Now some theologians offer much better reasoned arguments (some of which boil back down to the above). Most notably Aquinas, who famously presented five. Personally, I’ve always found them to have logical holes, but have never taken the time to pick them apart. Perhaps I shall dig out my copy of the Summa and have at it

In science, however, you may have an assumption or hypothesis, but if the results disprove the hypothesis, you can make a new one, and test again, and over and over. It doesn’t require an assumption that never can be challenged else it become meaningless, like a theistic worldview does.

Basically, you believe in God, and therefore your experiences are from God, and they’re from God because you believe in him/her/it, etc. There’s no way to attack the problem from the outside and still get the same result.

Whereas, I believe in x. I do some test and I get result y. That may or may not mean that x means y. It may tell me that x is false and that z–> y. That is not possible with theism. There is no way to test either the existence of God or the veracity of whether s/he/it has caused something unless you make an assumption that you cannot challenge, as I was unable to in our discussion.

You claim that your version (the true version) of Christianity is unsexist. I state that there is logically no such thing as a true version of any religion, the bible, god, etc. You claim that you have authority to make that claim, and therefore it is real and substantive. I again give reasons why that claim is useless and cannot be applied to anything or by anyone else but you, as it is inherently subjective. We are arguing from two different worldviews, but yours in unverifiable, untestable, and relies on an unchallengeable assumption, whereas mine does not.

Does that make sense?