What do we know, and what can we judge?

[cnorman18]

I've been on the record for a long time in saying that I don't think the existence of God can be objectively proven either way; and also in saying that I won't play that particular boardgame. I think it pointless and inevitably inconclusive, and more likely to result in ill feeling and rancor than in anything like mutual learning and the understanding of each other's points of view. I've seen it degenerate to mere name-calling more times than otherwise, and that's just not my cup of tea.

What inarguably DOES exist is belief itself--and in that I include ALL varieties of belief, from total unbelief in anything outside the material realm to the most supernaturally-minded fundamentalist. Again; the truth or falsity of those beliefs is not provable and is not the issue I am addressing here.

I am also on the record in saying that belief in God is invariably a subjective belief; it has to be, since there is no objective evidence.

At one time I maintained that atheism is just as subjective, but I no longer think that reasonable; I have to admit that the position, "belief if not warranted since there is no evidence," is about as objective as it gets. Absent subjective experiences and/or perspectives that might influence the individual to think otherwise, that does seem to be an entirely rational and logical position to take.

I do not think that, even then, it is the only one. For example, one may choose to take the subjective experiences and perspectives of others seriously (hopefully with an awareness that no one else is obligated to do the same) and believe on that basis. Or one may choose to permanently table the question on the basis of "sufficient data not available," and take an agnostic position. Neither of those options seems to me to be irrational, as in "involving no thought," though either or both might be objectively wrong. Still, unbelief on the basis of there being no evidence remains itself a thoroughly rational and logical conclusion.

That said, there is still no guarantee that that position is correct. Argument will of course continue ad infinitum, but as far as I am concerned that matter is permanently moot. We may as well deal with that which we know inarguably DOES exist and IS real, and that is belief itself, without regard to the objective reality of that which is believed.

And can we judge another's beliefs, or lack of same, as to either their spiritual or religious sincerity or acceptability, or their rationality, as in whether they involve actual thought? I doubt that too.

Where spiritual matters are concerned, I frankly doubt that one can say whether the train of thought that leads to another's belief or unbelief is itself objectively rational or valid anyway, any more than one can say whether a given food objectively tastes good or bad. The spiritual is by definition not the material, and it's hard to think of anything that is more deeply personal and dependent upon internal perceptions and experiences that are neither communicable nor probative to anyone else.

It's rather clear, after hanging around this place for the better part of a year or so, that the internal mental processes that lead atheists to conclude that there is no God are just as opaque to most theists as the processes that lead theists to conclude the opposite are to most atheists. I also suspect that the details of those processes are not the same for any two individuals, and that the standards of what may or may not be considered "real," as in experience and perception, are not often the same either.

The error, it seems to me, lies in anyone attempting to dictate or telepathically know the nature and meaning of the internal perceptions and thoughts of anyone else, or attempting to impose objective (or religious) standards upon matters that are not necessarily objective (or religious) in nature to begin with. It is just as illegitimate for an atheist to condemn a theist as "irrational" as it is for a theist to condemn an atheist as "spiritually blind" or "obstinate." In both cases, one is making assumptions about the workings of another's mind that one has no warrant to make.

How can any theist claim to know, as some apparently do, that a given atheist has actually had an internal encounter with God or the "Holy Spirit" and consciously rejected it out of obstinacy or "sinfulness"? How can any atheist claim to know, as some apparently do, that a given theist's beliefs are based on no more than gullibility, a slavish and unreflective devotion to childhood instruction, or an emotional need for comfort and security? When has either ever crawled inside that other person's head and watched his thoughts unfold? Been privy to his subjective and internal perceptions and experiences? Seen through his eyes or thought with his brain? That sort of thing is just as illegitimate as claiming to know the internal motivations behind anything another person does.

In any case: Whether a subjective belief is true, or even rational or valid in any problematic objective sense is, in my ever-so-humble opinion, far less important than what the people who hold them DO.

We may not be able to definitively determine whether a belief is true or false, or have a right to judge whether it is moral or immoral or rational or irrational; but we are certainly able and have a right to judge it by its effects, on an individual person's attitudes and behavior as well as in the larger society. And one of the things we notice is that those effects vary not only according to beliefs, but according to the individual's attitude toward those beliefs and toward the beliefs of others.

If one's belief results in one's being devoted to a bizarre supernaturalist view of the world, resisting science, medicine, and psychology in favor of miracles, mythology and "evil spirits," there is something wrong with it. If the highest priority of your faith is seeing that the beliefs of others are proper and correct, with little interest in their behavior (or your own), there is something wrong with it. If the chief interests and motivations of your religion have more to do with seeing that people go to Heaven than with making the world they actually live in NOW a better place--as in feeding the hungry, comforting the afflicted, fighting for justice and freedom and against oppression and bigotry--there's something wrong with it.

Similarly, if one's unbelief results in one's being contemptuous of and hostile to other people, condemning their intelligence, good will and maturity on account of their belief in God alone, and dismissing their thoughts and perceptions as always and everywhere no more than mere gullibility and delusion, there is something wrong with it. If your unbelief assumes that all varieties of religious belief are equally pernicious, superstitious, anti-intellectual and stifling of the human spirit, then there is something wrong with it. If your unbelief leads you to doubt all standards of right and wrong, to sneer at any interest in the spiritual and/or metaphysical, and to approach all moral teaching with cynicism and disdain, there is something wrong with it.

I am a Jew. I don't much care what anyone else believes, and I care even less whether or not they agree with me. As I said elsewhere, if you believe that God is a sacred orange tree and your sacrament is drinking Screwdrivers until you fall flat on your face in a holy stupor, I'm OK with that if you're otherwise about making the world a better place.

On the other hand, if your theological beliefs are precisely the same as mine, but you're about self-aggrandizement, condemning others and forcing everyone else to believe just like us--well, you're full of crap no matter what you believe.

Don't TELL me about how correct and true and right your beliefs or lack of them are and how they make you a better person. SHOW me.

And you can start by treating the other members of this forum with the respect, courtesy and dignity they all deserve, until they demonstrate otherwise--by their behavior and not their beliefs.

[OnceConvinced]

Some very good comments there.

[JoeyKnothead]

I'm guilty of quite a bit of that, and through these forums, and posts like that I'm learning a lot, and I hope to learn more.

I started coming here mostly because I crushed my right leg, and I think my anger about being shut in has come through. I apologize for my bad, and give credit to some of those here for my good.

Thanks for the post CNorman, and I appreciate it.