• In total there are 2 users online :: 0 registered, 0 hidden and 2 guests (based on users active over the past 60 minutes)
    Most users ever online was 709 on Tue Mar 19, 2024 1:09 am

Does this book# deny afterlife/God?

#64: Mar. - May 2009 (Non-Fiction)
User avatar
DWill

1H - GOLD CONTRIBUTOR
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame
Posts: 6966
Joined: Thu Jan 31, 2008 8:05 am
16
Location: Luray, Virginia
Has thanked: 2262 times
Been thanked: 2470 times

Re: The existance of god

Unread post

geo wrote:
Dan Barker wrote: Those atheists who want to go beyond zero, who want to actually put some money in the bank-and most of them do, I think-will embrace a positive philosophy such as humanism, feminism or another naturalistic ethical system. Or they will promote charity, philanthropy, learning, science, beauty, art-all those human activities that enhance life. But to be an atheist, you don't need any positive philosophy at all or need to be a good person. You are an atheist if you lack a belief in a god.
I'm glad you posted this again. I sometimes get the impression that atheists feel that just by chucking belief, everything will be OK, that there needs to be no substitute for what religion, at its best, supplies a person and a culture. I have a critique of religion but also sympathy for it. I think that holding back from wherever the culture may want to be going is necessary, and that religion has been the most effective vehicle for this holding back--for better and worse, it is true. But there needs to be some strong positive philosophy, as Barker says, if it isn't to be religion. The job of those of us who are atheists would seem to be to match the positive effects that religious groups do have. This is actually a tall order.
User avatar
Interbane

1G - SILVER CONTRIBUTOR
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame
Posts: 7203
Joined: Sat Oct 09, 2004 12:59 am
19
Location: Da U.P.
Has thanked: 1105 times
Been thanked: 2166 times
United States of America

Unread post

Suzanne: "If there may be a god, you are looking for material evidence. If my expression encompasses what you think is the only paractical choice for a belief, you are in essence saying that god may in fact exist, you are looking for material evidence to support that gods existance. The "he" you refer to as begging is yourself."

The infinitesimal chance I give to there being a god is due entirely to my philosophy and has nothing to do with evidence. On the other hand, and not to be mistaken, my belief that there is no god is reliant upon the evidence(the lack thereof). The evidence does not need to be merely physical. Any evidence will do. The problem is that there is no compelling evidence for the existence of a god.

Suzanne: "If religions, through out the world, are based on some form of entity of higher power that can be dismissed as false, am I not using critical thinking to wonder if those religions may also be dismissed as false."

Some people would argue that the truth value of religion isn't as important as it's meaningfulness and healing value. Novels don't need to be true to have a lasting and meaningful impact on a person. So while the basis for religion may be false, who doesn't like to dance?

Suzanne: "The premise of religion, is that god infact does exist. Please provide examples that this is not true, otherwise, you are incorrect in stating that this premise is false."

You can enforce reality upon logic, but can you enforce logic upon reality? Religion may be based on the idea that god exists, but if they have that wrong, the house of cards doesn't fall down. The state of affairs is that... they are simply believing in a falsehood. The fact that they are wrong about god doesn't suddenly doom their religion to non-existence!

Suzanne: "The non existance of a god is central to Atheism, but god is still a presence, making Atheism a religion."

No, god is not still a presence. Any chance he exists is despite my beliefs, not in lieu of them.

Suzanne: "This is my logic in asking is it possible to have religion without god."

Your logic is that religion can only exist because there is no god, or at least if there is a god, it is utterly invisible, both physically and metaphysically.

Robert: "For example, I believe absolutely in the existence of the universe as described by astronomy, and am happy to be arrogant in debating anyone who disagrees."

Okay then, tell me the universe as astronomy describes it. Be sure to give detail, so the description becomes synthetic rather than analytic.
User avatar
Robert Tulip

2B - MOD & SILVER
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame
Posts: 6497
Joined: Tue Oct 04, 2005 9:16 pm
18
Location: Canberra
Has thanked: 2717 times
Been thanked: 2659 times
Contact:
Australia

Unread post

Interbane wrote:tell me the universe as astronomy describes it. Be sure to give detail, so the description becomes synthetic rather than analytic.
Thinking about the distinction between synthetic and analytic judgements as applied to astronomy, I'm not sure how increased detail makes a statement synthetic. Recalling Kant, we have four classes of judgement combining a priori (necessary) and a posteriori (contingent) with analytic (answer contained in premise) and synthetic (answer not contained in premise)

A priori analytical: where answer is necessarily contained in the terms
eg 2+2=4, a triangle has three sides

A priori synthetic: eg God is Love, the future will conform to the past. These arguments are believed to be necessary truths by faith

A posteriori analytic: information from direct observation: eg the sun came up today, the sun is on the main sequence, the expansion of the universe is accelerating

A posteriori synthetic: Inference from observation, eg California is in the USA, the cosmic background microwave radiation is the signature of the big bang, life evolves by natural selection

I am not sure if the level of inference involved in empirical observation correlates to the analytic/synthetic distinction. However, a key set of synthetic judgements is those that predict the future through the a priori faith that the future will be conformable to the past. For example, discussing if the sun will rise tomorrow, the chance it will not is so vanishingly small that we must proceed as if we know absolutely (recognising that the term sunrise is a distortion, as it is caused by our movement rather than that of the sun). This example extrapolates to broader predictions, with the comparison between the sun and other main sequence stars indicating its expected future life around five billion years before going nova.

We need to apply the a priori synthetic faith that the future will be conformable to the past as a basis for confidence in any prediction. I don't think this is really very arrogant, but refusing to countenance it seems a form of false humility. Remember, we are talking cosmos not economy, and the variables affecting questions about the cosmos can often be identified with a high level of certainty.

In terms of politics, if scientists say they are not sure about things that they are sure about, they leave open room for those with base motives to influence the gullible, as occurred in the corruption of scientific politics by the Bush administration.
User avatar
Interbane

1G - SILVER CONTRIBUTOR
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame
Posts: 7203
Joined: Sat Oct 09, 2004 12:59 am
19
Location: Da U.P.
Has thanked: 1105 times
Been thanked: 2166 times
United States of America

Unread post

RT: “For example, discussing if the sun will rise tomorrow, the chance it will not is so vanishingly small that we must proceed as if we know absolutely.”

The key words above are “as if”. Of course that’s how we should proceed, but when critical thinking is concerned, it is imperative that we recognize it is not absolute, regardless of how we choose to proceed.

RT: “We need to apply the a priori synthetic faith that the future will be conformable to the past as a basis for confidence in any prediction. I don't think this is really very arrogant, but refusing to countenance it seems a form of false humility.”

It would be more arrogant if you were to say we should have “certainty” that the future will be conformable to the past. Of course, that isn’t the case, and all we can have is faith. That is not an absolute, even if within the eyes of the beholder it appears that way.

RT: “Remember, we are talking cosmos not economy, and the variables affecting questions about the cosmos can often be identified with a high level of certainty.”

There is a different between an extremely high level of certainty and absolute certainty.

RT: “In terms of politics, if scientists say they are not sure about things that they are sure about, they leave open room for those with base motives to influence the gullible, as occurred in the corruption of scientific politics by the Bush administration.”

That’s irrelevant, although I also find it disgusting that idiots take advantage of what they don’t understand of the nuances of the philosophy of science and spin it for public favor.
User avatar
johnson1010
Tenured Professor
Posts: 3564
Joined: Mon Mar 23, 2009 9:35 pm
14
Location: Michigan
Has thanked: 1280 times
Been thanked: 1128 times

Unread post

We are dealing with infinite probabilities here. Or numbers so large that in comparison to our life-span, they may as well be infinite. we can safely behave as though the sun will rise tomorrow because the odds are astronomically high that it will.

This applies to Interbane's stance on a god. He does not believe in the god's that have been presented to us because none of the lanes of argument used to support them have ever born fruit. Those gods, under scrutiny always fail to produce to their own claims.

The probability of a god's existence, as defined by most religion, is infinitely improbable. That a relative certainty, but certainly enough for us to act on. We design cars, baby rattles, and nuclear weapons with less statistical certainty.

Stepping down from this level of debate to another which i think was touched on briefly, and has bearing to discussion about religion.

You see on CNN all the time where the get two people and put them in little windows right next to each other, then the overtalking begins and we are all treated to a "debate".

Often times one argument is CLEARLY the correct one, and the other is a blatant partisan attempt to sow confusion in the un-educated. Re: any discussion involving Ann Coulter.

Because someone has the right to their opinion does not mean it is as valid as one with mountains of evidence in it's support. Mediators should feel free to call down idiocy where they see it.

Valid arguments cannot be arrogantly dismissed. New and interesting takes on old data cannot be dismissed either. Arguments such as the pink unicorns sited by Frank can be dismissed with ease based on what we know about unicorns and the other planets in our solar system, along with other arguments making outrageous claims with no support.
User avatar
johnson1010
Tenured Professor
Posts: 3564
Joined: Mon Mar 23, 2009 9:35 pm
14
Location: Michigan
Has thanked: 1280 times
Been thanked: 1128 times

Unread post

Geo wrote:
Quote:
God's existence cannot be verified, but religion obviously exists. It does not follow that without one the other cannot exist. That's a false premise.


The premise of religion, is that god infact does exist. Please provide examples that this is not true, otherwise, you are incorrect in stating that this premise is false. Atheism must be an example of this premise if Interbane's words are to be considered. There is no existing god, but there may be one. The non existance of a god is central to Atheism, but god is still a presence, making Atheism a religion. There is a differance between belief and religion.

Suzanne: "If religion is based around the idea of a higher power, and that higher power can not be proven, does religion itself exist?"

Yes. Certainly. It exists despite the absence of a god throughout all of history. I don't think Geo is saying that that is not the basis of most religions. He is saying that the practices surrounding the worship of a particular god can persist weather the god actually exists as described by the religion.

you can dismiss the ideas of religion as being incorrect, but you cannot deny that they (the ideas, the dances, the books they read, the songs they sing, the buildings they erect, the people they kill, the lives they oppress, or the homeless they shelter.) exist.
User avatar
Robert Tulip

2B - MOD & SILVER
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame
Posts: 6497
Joined: Tue Oct 04, 2005 9:16 pm
18
Location: Canberra
Has thanked: 2717 times
Been thanked: 2659 times
Contact:
Australia

Unread post

johnson1010 wrote:
Geo wrote:
Quote:
God's existence cannot be verified, but religion obviously exists. It does not follow that without one the other cannot exist. That's a false premise.


The premise of religion, is that god infact does exist. Please provide examples that this is not true, otherwise, you are incorrect in stating that this premise is false. Atheism must be an example of this premise if Interbane's words are to be considered. There is no existing god, but there may be one. The non existance of a god is central to Atheism, but god is still a presence, making Atheism a religion. There is a differance between belief and religion.

Suzanne: "If religion is based around the idea of a higher power, and that higher power can not be proven, does religion itself exist?"

Yes. Certainly. It exists despite the absence of a god throughout all of history. I don't think Geo is saying that that is not the basis of most religions. He is saying that the practices surrounding the worship of a particular god can persist weather the god actually exists as described by the religion.

you can dismiss the ideas of religion as being incorrect, but you cannot deny that they (the ideas, the dances, the books they read, the songs they sing, the buildings they erect, the people they kill, the lives they oppress, or the homeless they shelter.) exist.
Johnson, you can't just say all the ideas of religion are incorrect. You can point to specific religious theories about God as being incorrect, but there are symbolic ideas in religion which may connect to an absolute reality. Granted, "the absence of a god throughout all of history" is a true call regarding impossible gods, but maybe there are other valid interpretations of the presence of god in history? For example, if God is identified with fate, and fate is present in history, then God is also present.
User avatar
johnson1010
Tenured Professor
Posts: 3564
Joined: Mon Mar 23, 2009 9:35 pm
14
Location: Michigan
Has thanked: 1280 times
Been thanked: 1128 times

Unread post

I was not saying that all the ideas or principals of religion are incorrect, i was saying that you could say particular ideas could be dismissed, but you could not say that religion does not exist, simply because you disagree with it.

This was an argument against "If god does not exist, then the culture in support of it does not exist."

Certainly many of the individual thoughts in religion are valid. Love your neighbor, don't steal, tell the truth... etc.

RT.

What does it benefit us to link fate, or causation, to the concept of god? Or love for that matter? Can't these function by themselves, independent of weighty connections to divisive fiction and still be fulfilling?
User avatar
Interbane

1G - SILVER CONTRIBUTOR
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame
Posts: 7203
Joined: Sat Oct 09, 2004 12:59 am
19
Location: Da U.P.
Has thanked: 1105 times
Been thanked: 2166 times
United States of America

Unread post

johnson: "What does it benefit us to link fate, or causation, to the concept of god?"

Those are intangibles, so serve well as an anchor by which to tie god in the attempt to make him real. If you're intelligent, and believe in god, such a connection is really the only option a person has left to hang onto a belief in god. The last hope, if you will.
User avatar
Robert Tulip

2B - MOD & SILVER
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame
Posts: 6497
Joined: Tue Oct 04, 2005 9:16 pm
18
Location: Canberra
Has thanked: 2717 times
Been thanked: 2659 times
Contact:
Australia

Unread post

johnson1010 wrote:What does it benefit us to link fate, or causation, to the concept of god? Or love for that matter? Can't these function by themselves, independent of weighty connections to divisive fiction and still be fulfilling?
Hello Johnson, You are right the Bible is divisive, but it might be truer to call it faction than fiction, ie fiction based on true stories. The extent of this truth is much smaller than is imagined by the orthodox, and includes deliberate efforts to rewrite the mythology of other religions to include their gods in a subordinate capacity to Jesus. Stalin's use of massive fraud and lies for political gain, with Lenin as icon, has a strong precedent in the tawdry establishment of Christianity.

So where is the germ of truth? I think Spinoza got it right in equating God and nature, that is, seeing God as a name for the ultimate reality which determines our fate. Nature is omnipresent and omnipotent. Regarding omnibenevolence or love, we see that nature, in the context of life, evolves into steadily more complex systems in which all parts are interdependent and symbiotic. I think of love as a name for the symbiosis of natural systems, including hidden links operating at subtle unknown levels. For humanity, our planet is a symbiotic cocoon enabling our evolution, as described in the Gaia hypothesis. The natural thermostats that keep our planet liveable are, on this interpretation, manifesting the love of God for our planet, not as an intentional anthropomorphic entity, but as a description of a natural system.

Complex systems can break down in catastrophe, but this is not evidence of a lack of love in nature, only that either (a) the entities in the system evolved away from a sustainable condition, or (b) an external event such as asteroid strike or foreign invasion destroyed the ecosystem. A broken system grows steadily more complex, as in the evolution of mammals since the destruction of the dinosaurs. This idea of natural love as the tendency towards complexity also links to what scientists have postulated as the anthropic principle, the observation that our universe provides the conditions which enabled humanity to evolve.

We now have the opportunity to destroy our complex system by piling carbon into the air and blowing up atoms. Taking such action would not be evidence against a loving God, but rather that humanity has lost authentic vision of the nature of love, falling out of the complex web of love that sustains life on earth. Human fate is to some extent in human control, but understanding how our future is determined by a broader context can usefully be conceptualised in terms of a God of love and fate.

I find it helpful to use the Bible in support of a natural theology of fate and love. Clearing away the dross, the story of Jesus can be reinterpreted as a basis for dialogue about the large contemporary problems of the world, including how the dominant society lacks understanding of the nature of love, creating a blindness towards fate.
Post Reply

Return to “God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything - by Christopher Hitchens”