Does it take more faith to be an atheist/agnostic?

[Amadeus]

Hello,

Check out these web articles and tell me what you think.


http://www.str.org/free/commentaries/ap ... belief.htm


http://str.org/free/commentaries/apolog ... uvegot.htm


I would appreciate comments/refutes.

[Amadeus]

ST88 wrote:

"...the purity of one's spirit is more important than maimtaining civil society"

Christians believe that to be true. If one had a soul that was designed for an afterlife, and what one believed in this life affected that afterlife, of course the believer would then live for that afterlife, sometimes at opposition to "civil society."

[Colter]

Here are some thoughts,

How foolish it is for material-minded man to allow such vulnerable theories as those of a mechanistic universe to deprive him of the vast spiritual resources of the personal experience of true religion. Facts never quarrel with real spiritual faith; theories may. Better that science should be devoted to the destruction of superstition rather than attempting the overthrow of religious faith--human belief in spiritual realities and divine values.

Science should do for man materially what religion does for him spiritually: extend the horizon of life and enlarge his personality. True science can have no lasting quarrel with true religion. The "scientific method" is merely an intellectual yardstick wherewith to measure material adventures and physical achievements. But being material and wholly intellectual, it is utterly useless in the evaluation of spiritual realities and religious experiences.

The inconsistency of the modern mechanist is: If this were merely a material universe and man only a machine, such a man would be wholly unable to recognize himself as such a machine, and likewise would such a machine-man be wholly unconscious of the fact of the existence of such a material universe. The materialistic dismay and despair of a mechanistic science has failed to recognize the fact of the spirit-indwelt mind of the scientist whose very supermaterial insight formulates these mistaken and self-contradictory concepts of a materialistic universe.

Paradise values of eternity and infinity, of truth, beauty, and goodness, are concealed within the facts of the phenomena of the universes of time and space. But it requires the eye of faith in a spirit-born mortal to detect and discern these spiritual values.

The realities and values of spiritual progress are not a "psychologic projection"--a mere glorified daydream of the material mind. Such things are the spiritual forecasts of the indwelling Adjuster, the spirit of God living in the mind of man. And let not your dabblings with the faintly glimpsed findings of "relativity" disturb your concepts of the eternity and infinity of God. And in all your solicitation concerning the necessity for self-expression do not make the mistake of failing to provide for Adjuster-expression, the manifestation of your real and better self.


If this were only a material universe, material man would never be able to arrive at the concept of the mechanistic character of such an exclusively material existence. This very mechanistic concept of the universe is in itself a nonmaterial phenomenon of mind, and all mind is of nonmaterial origin, no matter how thoroughly it may appear to be materially conditioned and mechanistically controlled.

The partially evolved mental mechanism of mortal man is not overendowed with consistency and wisdom. Man's conceit often outruns his reason and eludes his logic.

The very pessimism of the most pessimistic materialist is, in and of itself, sufficient proof that the universe of the pessimist is not wholly material. Both optimism and pessimism are concept reactions in a mind conscious of values as well as of facts. If the universe were truly what the materialist regards it to be, man as a human machine would then be devoid of all conscious recognition of that very fact. Without the consciousness of the concept of values within the spirit-born mind, the fact of universe materialism and the mechanistic phenomena of universe operation would be wholly unrecognized by man. One machine cannot be conscious of the nature or value of another machine.

[mrmufin]

I would appreciate comments/refutes.

I'll just make a small few of the many comments that I could make.

In rejecting God, the atheist still has to face evil in the world and explain where it came from.

Evil is a personal assessment. It "comes from" the same place that pretty, tasty, and creepy come from: the mind of the observer. If evil exists in some fashion outside of the mind of an observer, I'd be curious to see some sort of impartial evidence.

You have to have a standard of good and evil that stands outside of us to define what evil and good actually are.

Not unless I want my personal assessments imposed on others, or stated for some comparitive purposes. Good and evil remain somewhat personal evaluations. But suppose that standards of good and evil were established outside of us. Then where do the gods get their standards from? From themselves?

If a person gets God out of the equation, then he has got to say, for example, that everything comes from nothing. He's got to say that life comes from non-life. That order comes from chaos.

I don't have to say that everything comes from nothing. I can just say, "I don't know where everything came from." See? Isn't that easy? I don't know. I am aware of a variety of cosmologocal models, but I am uncertain which one, if any, is accurate. I don't know whether or not life came from non-life, but that concept does not seem entirely unplausible. I'm not sure the boundary between life and nonlife is necessarily a single, clear line... Whether or not order comes from chaos may be dependent upon how the terms order and chaos are defined...

In my humble opinion, Koukl's apologetics are pretty weak. He should prob'ly get out and meet a few more atheists and get to know us. Shake a few hands, kiss a few babies, attend a few pot roast suppers down at the local chapter of the Evil Atheist Conspiracy. Or maybe at least run his routine by a few real nonbelievers for some audience reaction and, possibly, a few questions...

Ya think Koukl might be persuaded to stop by at the DC&R forums?

Regards,
mrmufin

[Colter]

Law is life itself and not the rules of its conduct. Evil is a transgression of law, not a violation of the rules of conduct pertaining to life, which is the law. Falsehood is not a matter of narration technique but something premeditated as a perversion of truth. The creation of new pictures out of old facts, the restatement of parental life in the lives of offspring--these are the artistic triumphs of truth. The shadow of a hair's turning, premeditated for an untrue purpose, the slightest twisting or perversion of that which is principle--these constitute falseness. But the fetish of factualized truth, fossilized truth, the iron band of so-called unchanging truth, holds one blindly in a closed circle of cold fact. One can be technically right as to fact and everlastingly wrong in the truth.

[ST88]

Better that science should be devoted to the destruction of superstition rather than attempting the overthrow of religious faith--human belief in spiritual realities and divine values.

Many of us agnostics consider religious faith to be indistinguishable from superstition. I agree that science can say nothing about metaphysics. But even as it applies to human perception, we as a species can't say anything about metaphysics either. It is a superstitious response to believe that there is are explanations that don't involve natural phenomenon.

Further, science doesn't care about "overthrowing religion." That's not the point. The point is finding out what's going on. There a definition of science for you: finding out what's going on.

There's an old saying about California: San Francisco and Los Angeles have a rivalry, but Los Angeles doesn't know it. I think the same observation applies: science isn't a rival to religion, and it isn't seeking to supplant it. The fact that people like myself (who am not a scientist) would seek scientific answers rather than religious ones does not show that science is anti-religion, only that I am.

The inconsistency of the modern mechanist is: If this were merely a material universe and man only a machine, such a man would be wholly unable to recognize himself as such a machine, and likewise would such a machine-man be wholly unconscious of the fact of the existence of such a material universe.

You're taking the machine metaphor a bit far when you say this, because what you are proposing is that, as humans, we can't see our own humanity. This is not true. What may be true is that as humans, we can't see our own spirituality. This is necessary and logical in order to fit with the mechanist theory of cognition.

But the fact is, machines have the property that they do not realize much of anything, something which can't be said of humans. We recognize, collate, and analyze far more disparate information than any of our machines can (at the present time), and are able to debate our own existence in a way that is far beyond even an analogous mechanist reponse. All the machine can say is "all systems working properly."

But even this does not do the subject justice. If we, as humans, are not able to perceive our spirituality -- which I would argue that we couldn't even if such a thing were to exist -- then we would be left with the trust of others to tell us it's there. All I see telling me that this spiritual world exists is a collection of writings from thousands of years ago, predating understanding of everything from the substance of fire to basic economics. I see no reason to believe it any more than any other text.

The materialistic dismay and despair of a mechanistic science has failed to recognize the fact of the spirit-indwelt mind of the scientist whose very supermaterial insight formulates these mistaken and self-contradictory concepts of a materialistic universe.

Shouldn't we expect that the the spiritual world would remain undetected by science?

But it requires the eye of faith in a spirit-born mortal to detect and discern these spiritual values.

To a hammer, everything looks like a nail.

This very mechanistic concept of the universe is in itself a nonmaterial phenomenon of mind, and all mind is of nonmaterial origin, no matter how thoroughly it may appear to be materially conditioned and mechanistically controlled.

I believe your statement proves that humanity can transcend reason. The mind is a curious thing, isn't it?

The partially evolved mental mechanism of mortal man is not overendowed with consistency and wisdom. Man's conceit often outruns his reason and eludes his logic.

I couldn't agree more. The conceited man would believe the world revolves around him, that everything is done for his benefit, that a higher consciousness would go out of his way to make this man's life better.

The very pessimism of the most pessimistic materialist is, in and of itself, sufficient proof that the universe of the pessimist is not wholly material. Both optimism and pessimism are concept reactions in a mind conscious of values as well as of facts.

I can see how someone who styles themselves as an "optimist" might see those who disagree with them as "pessimists." But this, in itself, is a value judgement about just how opposite the "other" is in this world. If someone is "not an optimist," does that imply pessimism? Or does it just imply non-optimism? There is another choice, non-expectationism. If it is not possible to know the answer to a question, what is the purpose of being optimistic or pessimistic about it? It is just wasted effort.

If the universe were truly what the materialist regards it to be, man as a human machine would then be devoid of all conscious recognition of that very fact. Without the consciousness of the concept of values within the spirit-born mind, the fact of universe materialism and the mechanistic phenomena of universe operation would be wholly unrecognized by man. One machine cannot be conscious of the nature or value of another machine.

I don't think you're setting up this paradigm correctly. The straw man of analogizing man as a machine is all too simplistic and faulty. Man is not a machine. I would argue that, if there were a God, he would be farther above man than man would be above his machines.

I think the correct thing to say is that human machines would not be able to recognize the spiritual existence of another being, which we can't. It can be faked and projected all too easily, which would tend to cause me to believe that those who project it are either faking or in denial, since we are not able to see it.

[Colter]

Hi st88,

Happy Thanksgiving,

The reality of religious experience weather they be revealed religion or evolved religion is that there will be superstition commingled with truth. If God is the first cause and absolute on all universe levels than anything outside of the first source and center can only be relatively right.

Human things must be known in order to be loved but divine things must be loved in order to be known.

Jesus taught of a "spiritual rebirth," not a meaningless statement of creedal belief.
He said unless you be born of the spirit you cannot enter the kingdom of God. He told this to a sincere Pharisee who wanted to be part of the "club" but Jesus made it clear that spiritual living is not a material organization but a fellowship of spirit born believers in God the father. Jesus taught unity NOT uniformity. Religious institutions spend a lot of time trying to make everyone think or believe the same way and then manipulating nonbelievers into guilt about not believing THEIR WAY. They play on peoples fears and insecurity. Jesus liberated man from this ecclesiastical bondage and introduced him to God personally. My favorite quote:

Micah denounced "the rulers who judge for reward and the priests who teach for hire and the prophets who divine for money." He taught of a day of freedom from superstition and priestcraft, saying: "But every man shall sit under his own vine, and no one shall make him afraid, for all people will live, each one according to his understanding of God."

St88 you mentioned several times in your post that man can't know or recognize spiritual things or something to that effect. In my old days I may have said that. There was a time when I argued and picked everything apart just for the sake of it. I used to naturally rebel against authority or anything that resembled authority.

I "know" the presence of the spirit and I can discern the spirit in others, this was not an accomplishment it's the spirit gift that Jesus talked about.

All of us have a special bone in the back of our heads right where our spine connects. If we get kicked in the ass hard enough that bone """vibrates"""" and opens up our minds. Well, that happened to me, not in a holly roller church or revival but sitting in my apartment alone and desperate. I had been so stubborn towards spiritual things. I intellectualized and rationalized everything to my own detriment. When I became willing to believe everything changed.
I've learned that intolerance of other peoples beliefs sagest I entertain secret doubts about my own. I cliped some relevent quotes from my favorate book;

"To the unbelieving materialist, man is simply an evolutionary accident. His hopes of survival are strung on a figment of mortal imagination; his fears, loves, longings, and beliefs are but the reaction of the incidental juxtaposition of certain lifeless atoms of matter. No display of energy nor expression of trust can carry him beyond the grave. The devotional labors and inspirational genius of the best of men are doomed to be extinguished by death, the long and lonely night of eternal oblivion and soul extinction. Nameless despair is man's only reward for living and toiling under the temporal sun of mortal existence. Each day of life slowly and surely tightens the grasp of a pitiless doom which a hostile and relentless universe of matter has decreed shall be the crowning insult to everything in human desire which is beautiful, noble, lofty, and good.


Religion effectually cures man's sense of idealistic isolation or spiritual loneliness; it enfranchises the believer as a son of God, a citizen of a new and meaningful universe. Religion assures man that, in following the gleam of righteousness discernible in his soul, he is thereby identifying himself with the plan of the Infinite and the purpose of the Eternal. Such a liberated soul immediately begins to feel at home in this new universe, his universe.When you experience such a transformation of faith, you are no longer a slavish part of the mathematical cosmos but rather a liberated volitional son of the Universal Father. No longer is such a liberated son fighting alone against the inexorable doom of the termination of temporal existence; no longer does he combat all nature, with the odds hopelessly against him; no longer is he staggered by the paralyzing fear that, perchance, he has put his trust in a hopeless phantasm or pinned his faith to a fanciful error.

Now, rather, are the sons of God enlisted together in fighting the battle of reality's triumph over the partial shadows of existence. At last all creatures become conscious of the fact that God and all the divine hosts of a well-nigh limitless universe are on their side in the supernal struggle to attain eternity of life and divinity of status. Such faith-liberated sons have certainly enlisted in the struggles of time on the side of the supreme forces and divine personalities of eternity; even the stars in their courses are now doing battle for them; at last they gaze upon the universe from within, from God's viewpoint, and all is transformed from the uncertainties of material isolation to the sureties of eternal spiritual progression. Even time itself becomes but the shadow of eternity cast by Paradise realities upon the moving panoply of space."
UB 1955

MMMMMM pumpkin pie mmmmmmm

[ST88]

Jesus taught unity NOT uniformity. Religious institutions spend a lot of time trying to make everyone think or believe the same way and then manipulating nonbelievers into guilt about not believing THEIR WAY. They play on peoples fears and insecurity. Jesus liberated man from this ecclesiastical bondage and introduced him to God personally.

Does this mean that true belief exists only outside religion? If so, does this also mean that there can be no Biblical scholarship? In my experience, Biblical quotes are used to prop up religions and not the other way around, and scholarship tends to help "prove" one religion or another. But I would ask how we can ever decide for ourselves what the Bible actually says without such a history.

St88 you mentioned several times in your post that man can't know or recognize spiritual things or something to that effect. In my old days I may have said that. There was a time when I argued and picked everything apart just for the sake of it. I used to naturally rebel against authority or anything that resembled authority.

I "know" the presence of the spirit and I can discern the spirit in others, this was not an accomplishment it's the spirit gift that Jesus talked about.

All of us have a special bone in the back of our heads right where our spine connects. If we get kicked in the ass hard enough that bone "vibrates" and opens up our minds....

You must realize that this takes a great amount of faith to believe that this bone vibration comes from the God you had previously been exposed to. I imagine that if you were brought up in a different tradition (Hindu, Animism), you would have ascribed these vibrations to different causes. It must have taken a great amount of faith to believe that God was responsible for this. I, of course, would assign this feeling of yours to something different. And this is one reason why it makes no sense to me why people need this kind of faith.

My statements about science and metaphysics followed from this statement of yours:

How foolish it is for material-minded man to allow such vulnerable theories as those of a mechanistic universe to deprive him of the vast spiritual resources of the personal experience of true religion. Facts never quarrel with real spiritual faith; theories may. Better that science should be devoted to the destruction of superstition rather than attempting the overthrow of religious faith--human belief in spiritual realities and divine values.

This I have agreed with, to a point. As humans, we are free to be as irrational as we wish -- to jump to conclusions, to deny facts and scientific phenomenae, to deny ourselves material understanding in order to help make sense of what we have already decided is true. We are free to discount evidence on the slimmest of invisible threads; we are free to lash out at critics who point out our irrationality because belief is more powerful and more desirable than understanding. We don't want to know that any part of our lives has been wasted, so paradigms that validate our lives are much easier to accept.

In short, faith is more important in a religious world-view than in a non-religious world-view.

[Joe]

How can you say it is impossible for the universe to have just popped out of nothing, but believe that a God has existed for eternity?
Science is making headway on proving what may have occurred to start everything, but religion relies on nothing more than faith, even when there is no supportive proof. Much effort is made to discount scientific discoveries by religious groups, while scientific studies continue to examine and freely admit when they are wrong in their theories.
I find it very difficult to get answers to questions on religion, as no one including the clerics seem to have any answers. The most frequent response I have received is "you need to have faith, just in case God exists."
As for life after death, it exists, however not in any form that we will be a cognizant part of. Matter is not totally destroyed it just changes form. All life forms eventually become a part of the food chain providing the fuel to support another life form. Life provides us with but two certainties, death and taxes.

[Joe]

Faith is required only when one believes in something that is not or cannot be proven. As an athiest I neither believe nor dis-believe in a Gods existence. I just have no irrefutable evidence one way or the other. I don't consider myself an agnostic as that would indicate that I would have some questions that would require an answer requiring the existance of a God, which to present I have none. This is not to say that my mind is closed to the possibility of a Gods existence. I just keep searching for information which might prove conclusively one way or the other. This may be an answer for someone else who asked why there are so many athiests/agnostics active on a christian web forum. Maybe athiests/agnostics are more active in searching out the truth? I don't wish to change christians to become non-christians, but do enjoy hearing/reading their opinions on the subject of religion. Maybe I might just stumble on something which might change me into a believer? If someone is a believer, I respect them for their views and beliefs. I have my views and beliefs and as I don't impose them on others they are not harmful.

I might add, the only thing I have faith in is that should a God exist the only reason for any punishment after death will only be my inability to have believed due to lack of evidence, and not because I had sinned, repented and became a believer.