Research on Belief in God

[ChewbaccaD]

Recently came across this interesting opinion article by Dinesh d'Sousa, mainly about Peter Singer, writen just after the two had debated eachother in Australia. http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/medical_ethics/me0132.htm



Deviating from the likes of Hitchens and Dawkins, Singer takes on Nietzsche's position and acknowledges that there is a danger in living in a total atheistic society, that Christian values are part of the West and that atheism, unless there is a 'transvaluation of values', will indeed lead to nihilism. In his mind, Christian values represent the core of Western morality, though he thinks that the notion of anthropocentrism must be dropped and replaced with that of a natural darwinian order, which is animal life on par with human.



I think he comes as a Christian atheist. To that he adds his philosophy off animal rights and constructs his moral code. Point: He's an atheist, though understands the importance of Christianity in our society. Question: can we live morally on a fully secular world? Individually, yes. As a community, I'm not that sure. At least for now, I think we're not ready.

Back to Nietzsche. You as atheists, I taking a similar approach, we may not fall in the abyss. But I think we can acknowledge that nihilism is inherent to atheism, i'ts then up to each person to avoid it. Dangerous nevertheless as it is not controlable. Mainly to the individual i'd say. I think that once you consciously reach the state of existencial nihilism, the only line separating you from suicide is the fear of death, and, quite ironically, nihilism itself. So again, I'm not sure we're ready for atheism. I'm certain of one thing, though. If we are, in the future, to live in a full atheistic society, it must be society to meet atheism, not the other way round. So while I think that religion is not harmful to the individual, I say atheism is dangerous. This should not be the base from one's judgement, mainly because not always the truth is good nor what's right is pleasent, and for some it would be pure intellectual dishonesty to act according to this. The point is, to me, that anti-theism is wrong. Atheism is good, for now. But I fear that future generations, if brought up in such environment, won't take long to find some disconnection between being an atheist and adhering to certain values, and eventually fall in the nothing. Is it bad? I'd say yes. But perhaps it's the inevitable future that awaits us. Either way, it seems certain. It looks contraditory as I deny the existence of God myself, but certainly won't campaign against religion. At least not argue that it is harmful. Not anymore.

It's a though position this. Would like to know what's it that other atheists think.

Very thoughtful post. As one who believes in a creative intelligence, capable of providing guidance on issues of morality and interaction with my fellow man, I appreciate the dialogue you present. What I see is that in my shunning of any organized religion, I am susceptible to a similar devolution of principles or morals as describe. With no organization or community of thought, I can attach morality to any action, attitude, or practice. I can do this on a continuum, and progress in either direction, though I am progressing to fewer and fewer attachments of morality to human action. The danger in that is very similar in that I can also detach morality in any way that I choose.

I certainly don't have an answer to the riddle of all of this. I do however believe that the rigid constraints of organized religious thought are not particularly beneficial to me or mankind. I am a floater right now, but am finding that meditation and prayer bring me into harmony with more people, and I spend less time forcefully extracting energy from others. I'm certainly not perfect at that, but progress is progress.

Thanks for the post. I appreciate the ideas that are developing because of it.

 

[ChewbaccaD]

I did have a thought a couple of weeks ago that I found interesting, and would like to have some conversation on if anyone wants to engage.

The thought was this: Why did creative intelligence, as practiced by mankind and all other animals, come into existence in a universe started by something devoid of creative intelligence? Of what purpose in the evolutionary scale was the force of life or creativity? It is wholly unnecessary, and was not a component of the original elements or building blocks that exploded into the creation of our universe. Why are we not simply a universe of rocks? Why the need for creative intelligence and life? If everything in the universe is born of something/s, then why is the creative intelligence shown by mankind not a child of a larger creative intelligence? Why did it develop with no parent? Going further, why did the force of life come into existence? Why the need for entities that sense the world around them? Amoebas sense the world around them. All entities with a life force sense the world around them. Why that development?

 

[Netserk]

Creative intelligence, like free will, is an illusion, just like there being a start.

...

On another note (in relation to MB's post that was recently quoted): I don't think society needs religion to have universal morals. See Kant's categorical imperative.

 

[Maaaaaaaarten]

If everything in the universe is born of something/s, then why is the creative intelligence shown by mankind not a child of a larger creative intelligence?

Indeed I don't see why it shouldn't be.

 

[RetroActive]

I did have a thought a couple of weeks ago that I found interesting, and would like to have some conversation on if anyone wants to engage.

The thought was this: Why did creative intelligence, as practiced by mankind and all other animals, come into existence in a universe started by something devoid of creative intelligence? Of what purpose in the evolutionary scale was the force of life or creativity? It is wholly unnecessary, and was not a component of the original elements or building blocks that exploded into the creation of our universe. Why are we not simply a universe of rocks? Why the need for creative intelligence and life? If everything in the universe is born of something/s, then why is the creative intelligence shown by mankind not a child of a larger creative intelligence? Why did it develop with no parent? Going further, why did the force of life come into existence? Why the need for entities that sense the world around them? Amoebas sense the world around them. All entities with a life force sense the world around them. Why that development?

The questions you're asking are beyond reason. This is the world of mystics and philosophers. The short answer that emerges across all religious traditions through all time is that much abused concept we call love.

Non-dualists are the most interesting, as that cuts to the core and is expressed one way or another in all traditions.. Pythagorean number mysticism is probably the easiest access. Plotinus, Spinoza, Advaita Vedanta.
Matthew 6:22
The light of the body is the eye: if therefore thine eye be single, thy whole body shall be full of light.

 

[ChewbaccaD]

Creative intelligence, like free will, is an illusion, just like there being a start.

...

On another note (in relation to MB's post that was recently quoted): I don't think society needs religion to have universal morals. See Kant's categorical imperative.

Well, let me be as dismissive and say that the idea of "universal morals" is just as much an illusion...

 

[ChewbaccaD]

Creative intelligence, like free will, is an illusion, just like there being a start.

...

On another note (in relation to MB's post that was recently quoted): I don't think society needs religion to have universal morals. See Kant's categorical imperative.

It's an "illusion" that I have the ability to use my intelligence to create?

Okay, you don't like "creative intelligence," they why life force...or is that too an "illusion?"

Last question, do you really believe "universal morals" is any less of an "illusion?"

As for Kant's categorical imperative, it isn't the morals that are the question, it is the imperative that not everyone will agree on, thus defeating anything "universal" about them...

 

[Netserk]

It's an "illusion" that I have the ability to use my intelligence to create?

Okay, you don't like "creative intelligence," they why life force...or is that too an "illusion?"

Last question, do you really believe "universal morals" is any less of an "illusion?"

It's not about liking. You don't create, you react. Simples. Feel free to disagree (which I'm sure you do).

What is not universal about Kant's categorical imperative in your opinion? EDIT: You don't have to agree with it. It's simple objective reasoning. You can't kill another human being if someone else did that to you first. Ergo it's wrong to kill another human being. Simples.

 

[ChewbaccaD]

The questions you're asking are beyond reason. This is the world of mystics and philosophers. The short answer that emerges across all religious traditions through all time is that much abused concept we call love.

Non-dualists are the most interesting, as that cuts to the core and is expressed one way or another in all traditions.. Pythagorean number mysticism is probably the easiest access. Plotinus, Spinoza, Advaita Vedanta.
Matthew 6:22
The light of the body is the eye: if therefore thine eye be single, thy whole body shall be full of light.

I think the friction point is that I want someone who relies solely on reason to answer my questions.

Netserk's 1 second dismissal of "it doesn't exist" is expedient, but really seems to show an inability to address the point. I was kind of hoping for something more salient.

Though I too would add "love" to my question, as you so rightly do.

 

[Netserk]

Perhaps you could then expand on what you mean by 'creative intelligence'. Or creation itself. That you create something from scratch? That you're able to produce an output without inputs? Or like everything else it's just an effect based on a cause?

 

[ChewbaccaD]

It's not about liking. You don't create, you react. Simples. Feel free to disagree (which I'm sure you do).

What is not universal about Kant's categorical imperative in your opinion?

I certainly create artistically. Sure, the ideas or impetus are gathered from various stimuli or experiences, but the metamorphosis of those things into an expression is a creation within my biological process.

As for Kant, it is the imperative that is not universal, as we will never all agree on the imperative to pursue. Or are you unaware that there are some who believe that the killing of another for x is or is not in line with the greater good of humanity? (just one example). No, the number of ways that theory fails is infinite.

 

[Netserk]

I certainly create artistically. Sure, the ideas or impetus are gathered from various stimuli or experiences, but the metamorphosis of those things into an expression is a creation within my biological process.

As for Kant, it is the imperative that is not universal, as we will never all agree on the imperative to pursue. Or are you unaware that there are some who believe that the killing of another for x is or is not in line with the greater good of humanity? (just one example). No, the number of ways that theory fails is infinite.

It's called categorical for a reason. You argue like it's called (objective) hypothetical imperative. It's not. It's based on basic objective reasoning. You can disagree with it, but that doesn't mean it's not universal.

 

[ChewbaccaD]

It's called categorical for a reason. You argue like it's called (objective) hypothetical imperative. It's not. It's based on basic objective reasoning. You can disagree with it, but that doesn't mean it's not universal.

It can be called "categorical," but define for me the categories that we all must agree upon for it to be "universal." Because inherent in your suggestion is that we all must agree, for if we do not, then there is a thing within the universe which does not fall into line, thus defeating universality.

You can disagree with it, but that doesn't mean it's universal.

 

[ChewbaccaD]

There is, and never will be, a singular universal moral. It is impossible for universality to exist.

But if you'd like proof, name a universal moral, and I will then defeat it.

 

[RetroActive]

I think the friction point is that I want someone who relies solely on reason to answer my questions.

Netserk's 1 second dismissal of "it doesn't exist" is expedient, but really seems to show an inability to address the point. I was kind of hoping for something more salient.

Though I too would add "love" to my question, as you so rightly do.

When you start trying to understand your experience for yourself you're truly all alone. Scary and liberating. Reason has limits, it reduces. How and why can we conceive of an eternity yet to define it is pointless.

One of the most reasonable men of recent times to explore all of this, the good, the bad and the ugly was Manly P. Hall.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M9mEck2m7Tg&list=UUv7dC56YgGgmOm8xB-m1ccw

John Michael Greer has many interesting reflections on our contemporary times and the timeless as well to ponder. Challenging.

The Scheduled Death of God
http://thearchdruidreport.blogspot.ca/2013/06/the-scheduled-death-of-god.html

 

[ChewbaccaD]

It's called categorical for a reason. You argue like it's called (objective) hypothetical imperative. It's not. It's based on basic objective reasoning. You can disagree with it, but that doesn't mean it's not universal.

I thought about your statement again, and you defeat universality without my help at all. I underlined the salient point.

EDIT: Now, none of this addresses my point, so I think I will end this particular discussion, because it isn't the one I was looking for.

 

[ChewbaccaD]

When you start trying to understand your experience for yourself you're truly all alone. Scary and liberating. Reason has limits, it reduces. How and why can we conceive of an eternity yet to define it is pointless.

One of the most reasonable men of recent times to explore all of this, the good, the bad and the ugly was Manly P. Hall.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M9mEck2m7Tg&list=UUv7dC56YgGgmOm8xB-m1ccw

John Michael Greer has many interesting reflections on our contemporary times and the timeless as well to ponder. Challenging.

The Scheduled Death of God
http://thearchdruidreport.blogspot.ca/2013/06/the-scheduled-death-of-god.html

I don't disagree in any way, and thank you for the links.

 

[Jspear]

It's called categorical for a reason. You argue like it's called (objective) hypothetical imperative. It's not. It's based on basic objective reasoning. You can disagree with it, but that doesn't mean it's not universal.

If one disagrees then it is not universal. Think of any "moral evil" and there is someone who thinks it is okay to do. This categorical imperative theory still leaves the question how do we determine what is morally right and wrong.

 

[Maaaaaaaarten]

What is not universal about Kant's categorical imperative in your opinion? EDIT: You don't have to agree with it. It's simple objective reasoning. You can't kill another human being if someone else did that to you first. Ergo it's wrong to kill another human being. Simples.

If only it were that simple......

It's an obvious question of course but do you think it's wrong to kill another human being when it is necessary to protect the lives of yourselves and/or others?

 

[Netserk]

If one disagrees then it is not universal. Think of any "moral evil" and there is someone who thinks it is okay to do. This categorical imperative theory still leaves the question how do we determine what is morally right and wrong.

No it doesn't. That answer has already been given.

"Act only according to that maxim whereby you can, at the same time, will that it should become a universal law"

 

[Netserk]

If only it were that simple......

It's an obvious question of course but do you think it's wrong to kill another human being when it is necessary to protect the lives of yourselves and/or others?

According to my own moral belief, yes. According to Kant's categorical imperative, yes as well.

 

[Jspear]

According to my own moral belief, yes. According to Kant's categorical imperative, yes as well.

And what about those (pacifist and others) who would say it is morally wrong. Doesn't the fact that they would disagree hinder it from being a categorical imperative? Since humans as a whole will never completely agree on morality, I'm finding that this theory really doesn't work.

 

[Jspear]

No it doesn't. That answer has already been given.

"Act only according to that maxim whereby you can, at the same time, will that it should become a universal law"

But just because I will that something should become a universal law doesn't mean someone else will wish for the same thing to be a universal law.

 

[Netserk]

But just because I will that something should become a universal law doesn't mean someone else will wish for the same thing to be a universal law.

It's not about wishing or wanting, it's about self-contradictory acts/maxims being objectively immoral.

As an example: It's objectively wrong to cheat in front of a line when you're waiting for something, as there would be no line for you to cheat in front of if everybody did so.

 

[RetroActive]

A Question of Values
http://thearchdruidreport.blogspot.ca/2013/06/a-question-of-values.html

That is to say, the belief in progress and in apocalypse are both matters of faith, not fact. The same is true of every set of beliefs about the future, however, or about anything else for that matter. No system of logical inferences, however elaborate and exact, can prove its own presuppositions; dig down to the foundations, and you’ll find that the structure rests on assumptions about the nature of things that have to be taken on faith. It probably has to be pointed out that this is just as true of rationalist beliefs as it is of the most exotic forms of mysticism. To say, as science does, that statements about the universe ought to be based on observation assumes, has to assume, that what we observe tells us truths about the universe—an assumption that the old Gnostics would have considered laughably naive. To claim that there are many gods, a few gods, only one god, or no gods at all is to insist on something about which human beings have no independently verifiable source of information whatsoever.

It’s tolerably common these days, outside of the surviving theist religions, to affect to despise faith, and you’ll find plenty of people who insist that they take nothing on faith at all. Of course they’re quite wrong. None of us can function in the world for five minutes without taking a galaxy of things on faith, from the solidity of the floor in front of us, through the connection between another person’s words and their thoughts, to the existence of places and times we will never experience. Gregory Bateson pointed out, in a series of papers that have vanished as thoroughly from the literature of psychology as Spengler and Toynbee have from that of history, that an unwillingness to take anything on faith is at the core of schizophrenia; that’s what lies behind the frantic efforts of the paranoiac to find the hidden meaning in everything around him, and the catatonic’s ultimate refusal to have anything to do with the world at all.

Faith is, among other things, the normal and necessary human response to those questions that can’t be answered on the basis of any form of proof, but have to be answered in one way or another in order to live in the world. The question that deserves discussion is why different people, faced with the same unanswerable question, put their faith in different propositions. The answer is as simple to state as it is sweeping in its consequences: every act of faith rests on a set of values.

We’ll probably have to spend a good deal of time talking about the difference between facts and values one of these weeks, but that’s material for another post. The short form is that facts belong to the senses and the intellect, and they’re objective, at least to the extent that anyone with an ordinarily functioning set of senses and no reason to prevaricate can say, "yes, I see it too." Values, by contrast, are a matter of the heart and the will, and they’re irreducibly subjective; to say "this is good" or "this is bad," or any other statement of value, does not communicate an objective fact about the thing being discussed, but always expresses a value judgment from some irreducibly individual point of view. More than half the confusions of contemporary thought result from attempts to treat personal value judgments as though they were objectively knowable facts—to say, for example, "x is better than y" without addressing such questions as "better by what criteria?" and "better for whom?"

The prejudices of modern industrial culture encourage that sort of confusion by claiming a higher status for facts than for values. Listen to atheists and Christians talking past each other, as they normally do, and you have a classic example of the result. The real difference between the two, as the best minds on both sides have grasped, is a radical difference in values that defines equally profound differences in basic assumptions about humanity and the world. Behind the atheist vision of humanity as a unique but wholly natural phenomenon, in the midst of a soulless universe of dead matter following natural laws, stands one set of value judgments about what counts as right and true; behind the Christian vision of humanity as the adopted child of divine omnipotence, placed temporarily in the material universe as a prologue to eternal bliss or damnation, stands a completely different set. The difference in values is the heart of the matter, and no amount of bickering over facts can settle a debate rooted in that soil.