Are atheists rationalizing the world they see?

[QED]

Rationalize: To find false reasons for irrational or unworthy behavior.

I see a world in which all life is fleeting. Both on the level of the individual as well as entire species. All evolution is interested in is making sure that an organism lives long enough to pass on its genes to the next generation before important bits start dropping-off. Even this process falters eventually and inevitable extinction ensues. That road-kill litters the pavement is obvious. But is this all just the morbid invention of atheists?

[Bro Dave]

All evolution is interested in is making sure that an organism lives long enough to pass on its genes to the next generation before important bits start dropping-off.

So, "evolution" has a consciousness, and a "plan"??? Gee, for an atheist, you show some real promise!

Bro Dave

[QED]

So, "evolution" has a consciousness, and a "plan"??? Gee, for an atheist, you show some real promise!

Hello Dave, I appreciate you coming to keep me company in this thread. It's been mighty lonely here since Saturday

Actually, you've hit the nail on the head -- but not quite in the way you were imagining! I would suggest that our 'higher' attributes of human consciousness and planning etc. are all one and the same as those to be found in natural processes like feedback loops and evolution. We are a product of these processes and hence we represent a magnification of their fundamental properties. No wonder then that the same language applies to both!

Thus I suggest it is a misconception that gives rise to your humorous observation. You thought that by using the inevitable language that I did to describe evolution, I was imbuing the the cosmos with the same 'magical' properties that fill our heads, when it is quite obvious to me that it's the other way around and the magical becomes the mundane.

[Bro Dave]

So, "evolution" has a consciousness, and a "plan"??? Gee, for an atheist, you show some real promise!

Hello Dave, I appreciate you coming to keep me company in this thread. It's been mighty lonely here since Saturday

Actually, you've hit the nail on the head -- but not quite in the way you were imagining! I would suggest that our 'higher' attributes of human consciousness and planning etc. are all one and the same as those to be found in natural processes like feedback loops and evolution. We are a product of these processes and hence we represent a magnification of their fundamental properties. No wonder then that the same language applies to both![/quote}

I hope you didn’t “hurt-anything” coming up with that convoluted dance to get around conscious intelligence being present to direct evolution.

Seriously, why is it such a NO-NO for God to be that intelligence? After all, if God DID create a universe, and populate it with intelligent beings, is it any stranger than declaring the universe created itself out of nothing, or that it has “always” existed, and therefore requires no creator?

Thus I suggest it is a misconception that gives rise to your humorous observation. You thought that by using the inevitable language that I did to describe evolution, I was imbuing the cosmos with the same 'magical' properties that fill our heads, when it is quite obvious to me that it's the other way around and the magical becomes the mundane.

Magical is as magical does. It seems more “magical” to insist the question of origin just goes away if you ask it right. Atheists are stuck with NO explanation for the universe, where theists not only have a Source for it all, they have a reason! (as well as personal experiences which you will dismiss since they are not YOUR experiences…)

Bro Dave

[QED]

I hope you didn’t “hurt-anything” coming up with that convoluted dance to get around conscious intelligence being present to direct evolution.

Hardly convoluted, it was a simple inversion. Those are easy!

Seriously, why is it such a NO-NO for God to be that intelligence? After all, if God DID create a universe, and populate it with intelligent beings, is it any stranger than declaring the universe created itself out of nothing, or that it has “always” existed, and therefore requires no creator?

It is a NO-NO precisely because of what I said in my previous reply - that our 'higher' attributes of human consciousness and planning etc. are all the product of a painstaking accumulation of the natural process known as evolution. This process is inordinately simple in its operation (note how we can readily employ it to solve design problems using genetic programming) but after it's been at work for a few billion years in flesh and blood, we see a gross magnification of the fundamental characteristics through which we are able to carry out our own plans and designs using our own selection criteria (not just survival).

In order for something else to pull off this trick, I see no shortcuts available, I want to see the hard graft otherwise -- yes, it's a NO-NO.

Magical is as magical does. It seems more “magical” to insist the question of origin just goes away if you ask it right. Atheists are stuck with NO explanation for the universe, where theists not only have a Source for it all, they have a reason! (as well as personal experiences which you will dismiss since they are not YOUR experiences…)

I've never had a magical moment that couldn't be verified as something natural. Perhaps you'd be good enough to share with me one of yours!

[Bro Dave]

I've never had a magical moment that couldn't be verified as something natural. Perhaps you'd be good enough to share with me one of yours!

Okay, you asked; First, God is not “pushy”. If you do not ask, He will not intervene in any way. Even for those who ask, that intervention is usually quite subtle, and requires making the effort to be quiet enough to actually listen.
In my case, I had tossed out everything. I had decided the pieces that had been “given” to me, simply did not make any sense, and I needed to start over. Well, with NO foundation whatsoever, I was shall we say philosophically wobbly. One day, while wire wrapping a circuit board, and actually not thinking of anything else, I suddenly was presented with a LOUD,(if you will) “bulletin board” sized message in my head! It said, “Truth is not facts. It is a state of realization”. I darned near fell off my stool! But, it was exactly the information I needed! Instead of searching for an “absolute truth” to use as a new foundation, I simply needed to gather the best, most reasonable explanations, as a starting point. Because, as I grew in my understanding, “truth” would also appear to “grow” as well. This formula has been working for me for about 34 years now.

There was another time, when my Dad had just died. It was just prior to the above experience, but also had an impact on me. I was in a state of agony and bewilderment. It seemed like my internal spring had been over wound, and I was quite literally “losing it”. At the point where I no longer knew which way to turn, I opened my heart to God, and just said the words “peace and love”. Instantly, I felt a sensation of release and a cleansing wash down over me, and I was indeed at peace.

These experiences were highly personal, and I offer them not for dissection or debate, but only as examples of a couple of times of spiritual guidance. There are many more, but most are a sort of continuous background to life. A sort of nudging that suggests a better way...

Bro Dave

[Cathar1950]

Hello QED I thought I would come visit and keep you company too.
I am rereading this book by C. Heartshorne "The Divine Relativity:A Social Conception of God" it is interesting. He thinks that the traditional argument for God and some of the divine attributes given to God have created many an atheist. But here is a little something he wrote;

"To say, on one hand, that God is love, to continue to use poplular religious terms like Lord, divine will. obedience to God, and on the other to speak of an absolute,infinate, immutable, simple, imassive deity is either a gigatic hoax of priest craft, or it is done with the belief that the social connotations of popular language are ultamately in harmony wit these descriptions. Merely to speak of the "mysteriousness" of God is not sufficent. If he escapes all the resources of our language and analysis, why be so insistent upon the obviously quite human concepts, absolute infinate, perfect immutable? These are our concepts and terms, fragments of the English or Latin languages. Perhapes after all it is not correct to say God is absolute. How shall we know, if the subject is utterly mysterious and beyond our power?"p.26

I am reminded of when I hear people who have a personal relationship with God or Jesus. What would that be if God is outside of time, unchangeable, and the unmoved mover? Even if they use Jesus as the go between how would this make him equal with God? Heartshorne would say God is relative and moved by all his Creatures. That God only did that which is required to give his creature the ability and opportunity to do that which they can do for each other and themselves. This includes humans. I think the breakdown between God and Nature may be a mistake on theists part. I am sort of a Panentheist so I don't have a problem. I am also nondualist so off the hook there to. This might be why I often find my self in closer agreement with agnostics and atheist. We see the world in a way that is almost indistingishable. While I wonder if Bible believers see the world at all. My back is hurting and I just had to take a vicoden and a muscle relaxer so I hope I am still making sense.

[Bro Dave]

I am reminded of when I hear people who have a personal relationship with God or Jesus. What would that be if God is outside of time, unchangeable, and the unmoved mover? Even if they use Jesus as the go between how would this make him equal with God?

If you will indulge me, Christianity made several really bad misinterpretatation, one being that Jesus was the second person of the Trinity. He was not. He is a Creator Son,(one of many), and we are a part of the His universe, containing some 10 million inhabitable worlds.

Heartshorne would say God is relative and moved by all his Creatures. That God only did that which is required to give his creature the ability and opportunity to do that which they can do for each other and themselves.

This is pretty darned close to the UB's saying that we were created for God to be able to share in our growth, something He otherwise could not do.

This includes humans. I think the breakdown between God and Nature may be a mistake on theists part. I am sort of a Panentheist so I don't have a problem. I am also nondualist so off the hook there to. This might be why I often find my self in closer agreement with agnostics and atheist. We see the world in a way that is almost indistingishable. While I wonder if Bible believers see the world at all. My back is hurting and I just had to take a vicoden and a muscle relaxer so I hope I am still making sense.

Not to be a pain, but the UB really does make sense of all this...

Bro Dave

[QED]

Hello QED I thought I would come visit and keep you company too.
I am rereading this book by C. Heartshorne "The Divine Relativity:A Social Conception of God" it is interesting.

Thanks Cathar, I'll have a look into that book. I've had a look into bits of Bro Dave's learned tome as well. I can't take anything away from that as I can find nothing to distinguish it from the bible or the lord of the rings for that matter. The former two books describe a world that is based on our own but introduce additional elements that are never seen but assumed. With these few additions the world becomes a far more intriguing place and gives us plenty of scope to imagine all sorts of fantastic things going on 'behind the scenes'. But we must not lose sight of the fact that all this has been based on (no doubt appealing, but unjustified) assumptions in the first place. One must always set out their assumptions and justify them if they are to base further work on them. I don't see this vital step being taken.

Getting back on-topic, we are discussing the question of whether or not Atheists are rationalizing the world they see. I would suggest that for them to be doing this it must be demonstrated that it is unreasonable for them to hold beliefs such as the following:

1) The universe may be one of many (i.e. evolution plays a role in the development of spacetime and matter as a precursor to its more familiar role in the development of life).

2) Man is not the pinnacle of evolution.

3) Random things happen (i.e. no Gods step-in to avert tragedies).

If it can be shown that any of these are obviously faulty then it would be possible that Atheists are skating on thin ice.

[Cathar1950]

What if only one is true? Or Two? Or none or all. I personally think they are reacting to an impossible idea of God. I am not sure we all don't live and work with rationalizations. I tend to like Whitehead and Heartshorne because of their natural organic theology. I am not trying to get any one to see my point of view. It is all I can do to make sense of it myself.
But if it makes any sense I enjoy Kurt Vonnegut, Eric Fromm. Marvin Harris, Jung and many more. Quantum Physics and time travel are fun.
What I do have problems with is an infallible bible. I am a strong evolutionist and think it might be a good evidence for a God. But that is just a watch maker teleological view with it's own problems. I try to avoid dualism.