• The Secret Garden has won the Dec. 2008 Jan. 2009 Fiction book poll!
• Thank you Ophelia!!! Your donation is MUCH appreciated!
• Thank you for your very generous donation Interbane!
• 5 members are now enjoying the new "Email Digests" feature. Click on the digests link on the right at the top of every page to learn more. This is a great feature for keeping updated on forum activity.
• Regular casual chats are back on the menu! Check out the calendar for the schedule.
Gentle: "When we get to that place where our capacity to understand, to control, to make right, or even to see the good in what is, is exceeded, the vastness of our powerlessness overtakes us and overwhelms us."
I would like to follow the train of thought that this state is necessarily human. The relevance to the debate of God's existence is that this feeling leaves a person wanting a conclusion. I had a proposal a few years back on this forum that in gaining sentience and becoming self aware, part of the influence in our evolution was a deeply seated desire for conclusion or finality.
If we were to compare a person who had the desire for closure of the questions he asked versus a person who had no desire for closure, I think it's reasonable to assume that the genes of the former would result in a person more capable of surviving.
The problem is that at some point, our curiosity will develop questions that deal with infinite proportions, such as the end of reality, is life eternal, is there somewhere out there an absolute meaning? When we seek closure to questions of infinite proportions, and our only tool is a finite mind, only an answer of infinite proportions will bring that closure. The existence of a higher power seems to me to be the best answer, and would suffice even if, unknowingly to us, it were completely false.
DH, have you considered that your ultimate concern in this respect might not be a byproduct of human evolution?
The theologian Dietrich Bonhoeffer, in The Cost of Discipleship said we should live in "the insecurity of the infinite". I think this is relevant here, in that atheism often tries to live in finite security, while theology recognises that our ground, as creative moral beings, is infinite, and that authentic response to this infinite ground of being produces an insecurity which is an essential source of creativity. A study on The Cost of Discipleship explains how Bonhoeffer relates this theme of the insecurity of faith to a critique of the common Christian assumption that grace is not costly.
Further to this costly grace idea, last month I wrote a letter to my state church magazine, Uniting Church Insights, in which I commented that the cross is a symbol of the failure and death of God, rather than a symbol of triumph. This month they published five letters in response, including arguments that the cross was 'the greatest triumph' and that God does not fail. I find it interesting that Christians have such strong capacity to hold contradictory, impossible and paradoxical views.
RT
The theologian Dietrich Bonhoeffer, in The Cost of Discipleship said we should live in "the insecurity of the infinite". I think this is relevant here, in that atheism often tries to live in finite security
Can you explain this further… How is it that atheists try to live in finite security?
Do you mean that atheists do not believe in an afterlife? If so you would be wrong… there are many beliefs that lack a deity that still allow for the eternal life of a soul, some versions of reincarnation and nature worship are atheistic.
Do not be too hasty to lump all atheists into a single bundle. Our beliefs are varied; some of us still lead a very spiritual life. Our one common denominator is that we do not believe in a god or gods.
I think it would serve you well to explore what it means to be an atheist a bit closer… In fact many people on this site misuse the term regularly.
We might start a new thread to better explore the topic…
Gentle: This is what the whole point of human beings' concept of God is about at its heart.
I think concept of God is a shaky notion: kind of like mercury once it escapes the termometer...but when trapped and contained, it can be useful: it measures heat. I think our concepts of God are really thermometers of sorts, and faith is a kind of fever: and lovers of God are on fire. So, at heart it is a matter of heat: and discussions about God become heated exchanges about what really burns us up...the fire in the belly sort of thing that fuels our ambitions and enflames our aspirations.
I think if we can get to the heart of the matter, (which is quite a journey, considering God is the best word we have for what matters), then perhaps atheists and theists can find a common fuel and shared fire that no name can contain: a burning God-knows-what that even the word God can't hold...a fiery something-or-other that proves impossible to capture?
Interbane: DH, have you considered that your ultimate concern in this respect might not be a byproduct of human evolution?
Sure. And if we follow that thread, then human evolution is the by-product of geological evolution, which is the by-product of solar evolution, and galactic evolution, and universal evolution...chasing the alpha point to God-knows-where! Calling it (and it meaning God ) the by-product of human evolution doesn't really get to the point...and I am not sure what the point really is...but perhaps if we can get closer to that curiosity, ingenuity, excitement and passion for God-knows-what that fuels the search for origins in our combobluated minds...well, perhaps what?
Tulip: "I think this is relevant here, in that atheism often tries to live in finite security, while theology recognises that our ground, as creative moral beings, is infinite, and that authentic response to this infinite ground of being produces an insecurity which is an essential source of creativity."
HA! Bullocks!
It is far more attributable to atheists that they in fact don't live in finite security. I, for one, don't attempt to answer metaphysical questions by shoving the 'infinite' into a bottle so that I may have closure. I understand that I cannot understand the infinite, so there is no closure, thus no security.
Theists, on the other hand, have a finite explanation for infinite questions, thus the security of finite closure is seen far more readily in a theists beliefs. In defining a higher power, infinite attributes are given to an entity. Then to answer questions of infinite proportions, a three letter word suffices. Belief, having closure as a mental state, serves to eliminate the unease in theists that most atheists have in admitting that there are infinite unknowns. I can tell you personally that there is a severe lack of 'security' in my beliefs. Don't take that sentence out of context, I'll scowl at you again!
EDIT: DH cut in line! I'll respond in a new post since on this edit page I can't see the previous posts.
Interbane
Theists, on the other hand, have a finite explanation for infinite questions, thus the security of finite closure is seen far more readily in a theists beliefs. In defining a higher power, infinite attributes are given to an entity.
This is a good point Interbane, I totally agree, those of us who do not believe in mysticism and do not answer hard questions with god have far less security than those who do… and it does not hamper our creativity.
I also think it is important to define what atheist actually means, because there is so much misuse of the term on this site lately.
I was re-watching this small piece on You-Tube about the Estonian composer Arvo Part...in this segment, he discusses a few notes from his piece Fur Alina . Near the end, as he is trying to explain the mechanics of conducting and composing the piece...he discloses how it really is a complicated story that he can't really describe. I think it is an extraordinary window into the challenge anyone faces when trying to describe things of beautiful, precious importance.
DH: "Sure. And if we follow that thread, then human evolution is the by-product of geological evolution, which is the by-product of solar evolution, and galactic evolution, and universal evolution...chasing the alpha point to God-knows-where!"
No, if we followed that thread you'd realize I was talking about the Biology connotation of evolution, which is a scientific theory. The evolution of our universe and it's constituents is similar, obviously, but the distinction between these connotations is critical to avoid the mistake you make with your post.
So as it applies, you responded that you have considered your desire for believing in an ultimate concern is actually a byproduct of Evolution. Such a deeply ingrained motive as I've explained it for that desire would cause sentences like this to manifest:
"...a mysterious provocation that sets existence on edge...an evocative discombobulation that delivers unbelievable imaginables: opening the imagination to possibilities once considered impossible."
Such rhetoric doesn't surprise me at all. That is what I'd expect when an Evolved desire for belief in an ultimate concern is embattled by the encroaching refutations and counterarguments of science and philosophy. With nowhere to turn, the mind looks to the impossible in the hopes that it can become possible in order to alleviate the pressure against a firmly held belief. The belief is firmly held against all reasoning due to the Evolved desire for closure of infinite questions.
DH: "I think our concepts of God are really thermometers of sorts, and faith is a kind of fever: and lovers of God are on fire. So, at heart it is a matter of heat: and discussions about God become heated exchanges about what really burns us up...the fire in the belly sort of thing that fuels our ambitions and enflames our aspirations."
You are so abusive of words! In the same paragraph, you throw out three or more definitions of the word 'fire' to fuel your nonsense. So, since I see fire as a mostly nonphysical ambiguous phenomena, I think it could in some way be synonymous with nonsense. Then ignoring the flatulence of God, I should find a hypothetical impossible fire(nonsense) extinguisher and spray it at you using words! (Typing nonsense is fun!)
I also think it is important to define what atheist actually means, because there is so much misuse of the term on this site lately.
I haven't read every post so I'm not sure where the term atheist has been misused. Give me an example please.
Atheism = without the belief in a God or gods
The next question is...
How do you define God? What is God?
Over the years I have seen people here on BookTalk.org attempt to define "God" in all sorts of vague and meaningless ways. I've never understood why they feel the need to avoid straight answers about their God.
Where is God?
How do you know your God is wherever you think they are?
Is God a conscious being?
Does God listen to prayers? ...does he answer them?
Is heaven a real place? ...is it another dimension? How do you know?
Why would a good God allow innocent men, women and children to be struck by lightning or get cancer or stub their toes?
Does God eat and sleep?
Was God lonely before he created humans? Can a perfect God feel loneliness?
If God is indeed perfect and all-knowing how is it that he created imperfect humans?
Chris
I haven't read every post so I'm not sure where the term atheist has been misused. Give me an example please.
Earlier in this thread we find...
Quote:
TH
The theologian Dietrich Bonhoeffer, in The Cost of Discipleship said we should live in "the insecurity of the infinite". I think this is relevant here, in that atheism often tries to live in finite security.
And the whole thread about Fundamentalist Atheism is a tribute to the ignorance of the term.
Statements like these show that the writers deeply misunderstand or are intentionally misrepresenting atheism.
What I notice is that people seem now to be struggling to claim the ground of the Infinite, a willingness to embrace it without security or closure, and a resulting creativity that results -- either for the atheists ( a much mis-defined and misunderstood, diverse group, says Frank, and I am curious about that; I don't want to malign anyone) or for the theists, who have been trying to claim this ground for a while. It appears that they have made it look so good that now the atheists want it. I don't know whether to credit the eloquence of Robert Tulip for that or the poetic fervor of D.H.
What I want to know is, in light of this development, what happened to the contention (by Interbane) that those who want closure are better fitted to survive in the evolutionary struggle? (Forgive me if these words are not quite right; I'm having to look and remember because I can't figure out how to cut & paste on this particular computer:)
Quote:
If we were to compare a person who had the desire for closure of the questions he asked versus a person who had no desire for closure, I think it's reasonable to assume that the genes of the former would result in a person more capable of survival.
First of all, why should we assume this? Are you going with Burton's thing about being decisive before the charging lion? I thought that was simplistic, kind of a cliche' and beneath him. Secondly, are you saying that as a rationalist you want to espouse the belief in the creative infinitude of atheism even though those who seek closure are better fitted to survive? How does it fit in with your philosophy to believe the above-quoted statement about the evolutionary value in wanting closure and also claim a Way of Embracing the Infinite for atheism? I'm sure I've misunderstood something and you will now clarify it.
Also, what's "cutting in front of" someone in a thread? Have I been doing it? I didn't know there was such a thing.
GentleReader9
What I notice is that people seem now to be struggling to claim the ground of the Infinite, a willingness to embrace it without security or closure, and a resulting creativity that results -- either for the atheists ( a much mis-defined and misunderstood, diverse group, says Frank, and I am curious about that)
I will be as straight as I know how in this answer.
Atheism is simply a lack of belief in God/gods. It is not a positive belief of any sort; it by itself harbors no ill will towards any particular religion and has no fundamental values or core beliefs associated with it.
But lack of belief in a god does not necessarily mean the lack of belief in spiritually or religion. Wicca and other similar religions do not worship a deity and are atheistic by their very nature.
I do not hold to those beliefs but I do recognize them as atheistic.
Some people who post here would have you believe that atheists are cold, analytical and compassionless, they cannot see beauty or love equally… in short they insinuate that atheists are lacking in some important manor.
We are not…
Many of us do have the capacity to shelve our emotions for practical debate but we are not emotionless, we can and do love and we have equal capacity for compassion we live moral fulfilling lives with joy and hardship just as any other person does… many of us do this without the need of gods or religion… which seems to greatly disturb many theists.
Those same people who see us as lacking spiritually would also have you believe that we hold other beliefs (science for one) as dearly as they hold their religion.
This is again false.
I suspect that a number of atheists hold some beliefs as irrationally as theists do, but this is not a phenomena true of all… or even most atheists.
Whatever people here say, atheists do not equate science with god and we do not hold the methods and claims of science at a level equal to their religious zeal.
Those of us who understand science also understand that it is always incomplete, the universe (as far as we can tell) is infinite and that always leaves the door open to new evidence. (Even the existence of a god being) and unlike our religious counterparts we can and do accept changes in theories when new evidence is presented.
I personally view my atheism as freedom… Freedom of thought, freedom from dogma and ridiculous church rules, freedom to decide what is right and wrong for myself without dependence on obsolete and badly told tribal stories.
Lastly…
The idea of an infinite undefined god is a relatively new idea to Christianity… one that became necessary as science striped away the falsehoods of dogma and started explaining the probable truths about the nature of our universe.
I'm getting bumped off this computer in 2 minutes. If you Read down from Robert Tulp's October 12 post for the next five or so posts you will, I am sure understand what I meant.
GentleReader9
How does it fit in with your philosophy to believe the above-quoted statement about the evolutionary value in wanting closure and also claim a Way of Embracing the Infinite f
your nonsense. So, since I see fire as a mostly nonphysical ambiguous phenomena, I think it could in some way be synonymous with nonsense. Then ignoring the flatulence of God, I should find a hypothetical impossible fire(nonsense) extinguisher and spray it at you using words! (Typing nonsense is fun!)
