4God

Ok. I am Christian(sorry no "x") and I have been scrolling through some of your postings on evolution, historical veracity of Jesus, etc., etc. etc.

I have a question for those of you out there, but let me first preface this by stating where I'm from.
I am in my mid-twenties, have been a Christian(w/Pentecostal persuasions, for nearly 10 years), and specifically went to an Ivy league school so that my ideas of the world could be tested with fire(Brown to be specific). And if anyone has attended or visited this place you'll quickly note how secular a world it is. But again, to me, truth is truth. It's not relative and I thought, "if this Jesus is real, then if I test Him against the greatest minds of the world-He'll either pass or fail....but I will have gained the truth."
I did test Him out(not the point of this thread, but feel free to ask) and He proved Himself beyond measure. I say all of this to preface this thread in order to avoid such comments like, "go back to school xian, you're just following what your parents told you to do" and the like.

That said, here's my question

Assertions:
1. We all have faith in some thing
2. Humans have a natural desire to know the world about them inside and out.

Hypothesis: Given that humans do exhibit faith in a variety of ways and they also are curious little buggers, then it stands to reason that if the natural world is the only world, and that there is no supernatural world, then the human population will cast off any illusions of a supernatural world-because it simply does not exist.


Please feel free to attack any of the assertions and/or the hyposthesis.......

....but I draw a couple of conclusions from the hyposthesis:

1. We do not have an end-all understanding of the world around us, so currently it is an empirical impossibility to say yes this theory(religious and/or secular) is correct. Too many questions still exist. For example, I can tell you of countless times I have prayed and have rec'd an answer. And not the "Lord please give me 5 dollars" and I find 5 dollars-garden variety illustrations.

2. I have found it very interesting that many athiest exhibit religious fanaticism in expousing their particular strain of "the truth". What they are saying, is not as important me as why they are saying it. In other words, if there is no supernatural world, then "self" is the penultimate being in the universe(notwithstanding any alien lifeforms). So the discovery of self-the perfection of self-is the true religion of its adherents.
Let me pause. When I say perfection, I'm implying a more whatever slice of human perfection you desire(ex. a buddhist style(w/o buddha of course), or an intellectual style(utilizing those brain powers to be professor X)).

However, from conclusion #2, I think I've found an interesting dillema(sp?) for the athiest. As a Christian, I feel perfectly content to claim:all humans seek a higher than self because higher than self is what has created human life. As an athiest, that's purposterous. Yet, the search for perfection of self seems to be to be the same search, previously stated, only in a slightly different form. That leads me to believe that it is athiests and not even the agnostics that have it completely wrong. Denying that there is greater than self-all the while seeking just that. For instance, if the big bang theory is correct, then the greater than self are the many chemicals that so happened to come together at the perfect time to spawn life here, against infinite odds. But, let's suppose there are infinite universe's-then we are the anomaly.

But I digress. I'd like someone to take a hard nosed look at what I am saying and try and tackle it.

Like I said we all have faith in something. Be it, evolution/creation/or aliens. It's something we have not seen but have determined that the evidence set before us cleary indicates the substance of what we hope(err...believe) to be true.

-thanks for your time.
D.

Steven Carr

Your conclusions are not justified by the facts.

People have created thousands of gods, and personified Lady Luck, Mother Nature and the Grim Reaper.

We are predisposed to presuppose agency in things which do not have minds. It's safer to avoid dark woods because of a belief they are inhabited by demons, rather than investigate them and be eaten by real bears.

Anti-scientific, magical thinking is inherent in Homo sapiens.

Just look at the believers in cold-reading who remember all the hits of the medium and forget the misses. When asked why they believe they say that their beliefs have been tested, time and time again. The misses have been wiped from their brain and only the coincidental hits are remembered.

Bookman

Can you describe or define more specifically what you mean when you say that we all have 'faith' in some 'thing'?

Specifically, tell me how you define faith in such a way as to say we all have it.

Thanks!
Bookman

Amaleq13

Indeed. This is, I think, the by-product of our generally successful efforts to solve problems through pattern recognition combined with our "storyteller" nature. Who hunts the best? The guy who can recognize the pattern of the game in the land. Who is a success socially? The guy who can tell a damn fine story. We got where we are today because we like to figure things out and then tell other people about it.

The problem is twofold: 1) we don't have any built-in error correction mechanism and 2) exciting stories are better. We don't miss many patterns but we do see patterns that aren't there. We don't tend to just recall what actually happened, we tend to add details. We fall prey easily to false perceptions and we love to exaggerate.

It takes conscious effort to recognize potential errors but, for the most part, the errors don't kill you so the successes "outweigh" the failures and the effort doesn't seem justified. "So what if I believe 50 absurd things, I probably believe at least 7 that are right!"

braces_for_impact

I think this depends on where specifically you are talking about. I live in the Northern U.S. and this is hardly a secular world. Just flip through tv channels on Sunday.


I won't tell you to go back to school. But I will say, those interested in truth never stop seeking it. I think if you stick around here and keep an open mind, you'll see what I mean. Welcome by the way!

I agree with Bookman on this, you must clearly define faith. No offense to you, but I see this word being equivocated more times than I care to count. We all certainly have beliefs. They are necessary for our existence as we know it. For instance, I just got home an hour ago, and I believe that my car is still where I left it. This is necessary for me to be able to find it again later. I think you'll find that most animals even have this kind of belief. But this is not faith.

I agree with this on the whole, although I have met some folks who couldn't seem to care less. Worse, I have met plenty that seek an easy answer to their questions about the world, with nary the tiniest does of skepticism.

I don't see how you can justify this hypothesis from your premises. It seems obvious to me that a great many humans delight in self deception or gullibility. Look at how many people believe in a wide variety of things that others think are incredibly silly. ELVIS LIVES!

I agree that we do not have a 100% certain understanding of the world around us. Thus far, the greatest tool for gaining understanding is science, and science dictates that nothing is 100% certain. the question seems to be: How reasonable is it to hold belief 'A' based on the facts we currently have?

As far as your prayer goes, I suggest that since you view your world through a supernatural, god-filled universe, you will interpret daily events through that context. Thus what I might call coincidence, you might call prayer being answered. Remembering the hits and forgetting the misses is a famously human phenomenon found the world over. This is because as humans evolved, it became very important to notice patterns as part of our survival.

I have found that many humans exhibit a fanatacism for their own world views, whether they be athiest or theist. As far as why they say these things, I think it's very important to ASK THEM. You see, people are taught to presuppose these things by their religious/cultural upbringing, especially in the case of why people are atheists. There are a whole set of reasons many people are taught that people become atheists, and most are innacurate to say the least.

As far as "self", I think you're going to have to better define what you mean by this. I try to constantly improve my self every day. When you say without the supernatural, then self is the penultimate being in the universe, I don't follow you. To me discovery of self (philosophy), self examination, is a process of discovery.

I think I see what you're saying now. You seem to be putting the cart before the horse, so to speak. You are assuming an external component (God) must be sought out in the search for improvement of self. An atheist (as you correctly point out) has no external component, therefore self improvement has an internal component. It seems to me that you're making a few assumptions here, that improvement can only be found through your creator. If I can improve myself, and come closer to "perfection" without seeking a higher power (which I have) doesn't that at the very least mean my method is just as valid as yours? I don't know many atheists that deny there is something "greater than self" when that could be simply a better version of yourself. New and improved! I won't speak for others, I assume they'll chime in when they wish.

Again, you must define faith here. It does take faith to believe in creation, because there is no evidence to support it. It does not take faith to accept evolution, because that belief is based on a mountain of available evidence. Faith is not based on evidence. If evidence exists, then faith is not required! Also, one follows where the evidence leads, regardless of which direction that goes, one does not seek only evidence to support their own conclusion.

When you say that 'everyone has faith in something' I have heard that far too often as an attempt to rationalize a world view by putting atheism and theism on the same intellectual ground, which it is not. One is based on evidence the other faith, and they are not equal.

Remember, the minute you start using logic to defend your position, you undermine why faith is needed at all.

Toto

Welcome to II, 4God. I hope to read more about your experiences.

This is a very good thread, but I don't see a reference to Biblical Criticism or History, so I am going to move it to GRD.

JGL53

4God:

1. Learn how to spell 'atheist'.
2. Look up 'penultimate' in the dictionary to avoid misuse in the future.
3. Anyone can 'believe' or 'have faith in' anything they wish - and 'wish' is the operative word here. So what is supposed to impress here?
4. Occam's Razor takes care of god. What else do you have on offer?

Aeron

ok, there are a lot of things i would like to "tackle" and i am sure a few of them overlap, so fogive me if i, well, you know, babble.

also, as a preface, dont take any of these as attacks or peronal insults in anyway, just to make sure.

1st. I do agree with your first two assertions. "we all have to have faith in something" is correct. I have faith in gravity, for if i didnt i would never jump out of fear of just drifting off into outer space. I somehow dont think thats what you meant, so if you could, define faith. What is it? what isn't it? Are we talking Kierkegaardian (sp?) faith, or contemporary models?
Your second assertion is correct: its human nature.

Your hypothesis is where the problems begin. Also, here is where an addendum/condition needs to be added to assertion #2. I think the key word in assertion #2 is "know." What does it mean to know? How could one possibly "know" of supernatural worlds? everyone knows about the natural world, its impossible not to. When one comes to the supernatural world though, no one can "know" anything. You can have suppositions, faith, belief, whatever you want to call it, but you CAN'T call it knowledge (unless you want to involve a Saussurian language analysis which will invariably lead nowhere at all).

Thus, yes, we have faith in something, and yes we have a desire to know the world around us. However, you hypothesis is stated in a way that removes the human element to the equation - we dont do the logical thing all the time. sure, it may stand to reason that the natural world is the only one, but that leaves many questions unanswered. Thus, one who is not strong/independent/stubborn enough to accept the often random naure of life is left trying to rationalize their fate. It is in this context that religion seeps in. What better way to not only explain the events of your life, but to justiy your passivity that to say "god has a plan." Exalting the meek is a great way to foment apathy among the masses. Thus, it doesnt matter what one "knows" per se, but rather what one wants to believe.

The thought that we dont have an end-all understanding of the world around us misses a key point (or perhaps proves it). From a socratic perspective, it is this knowledge in itself that is the most important of all. In itself, the end-all understanding of the world is the fact that there is no such thing (as the understanding, not the world).

Also, as far as prayers being answered, i have numerous problems with that statement. Firstly is the fact that if god answeres prayers, then he is an active participant is human affairs, which in essence negates (or at least detracts from) the theory of free will. You can't say, oh i have free will, but only when god doesnt tell me what to do. Secondly, saying that a prayer was "answered" puts the cart before the horse, in a sense. Because a choice you made worked out, it is then fair to say your prayer was answered - what if it didnt? This sets up a situation where if a prayer is answered its god's will and if not it's free will. This seems to say that instead of empiraically examining the world and determining fact/truth, you have a predetermined worldview in which you shoehorn/manipulate events into so they fit.


As far as your conclusion on atheists search for greater-than-self, there are a couple arguments there as well. One is why does "greater-than-self" necessitate the existence of god? I think Stephan Hawking is much (MUCH) greater than myself, yet that in no way deifies him. And forgive me, maybe its because i had three hours sleep, but i dont see the dillema. Atheists, when searching for answers, look inward, while theists look upward. It seems that taking responsibility for one's actions, as opposed to leaving it up to "god" is the more proactive approach to life. On the same token, it is also more difficult to not have the built in defense mechanism of god/religion with which to fall back on if things dont work out. I could blame my car breaking down on god's will or on the fact that i didnt change the oil for 9,000 miles. so the whole theory of greater-than-self, to me, is a strictly theistic notion. Atheists, well, at least myself, are searching for a greater-self, not greater than self.

At least thats my .02

Hobbs

What if perfection, or goodness, is an achievement rather than a given? There doesn't need to be a standard of perfection to tell better from worse. All you need is a comparison between two or more examples. You can imaginitively extrapolate from there to better possibilities than those that actually exist, and even to a ideal of perfection (and this view has the added benefit of explaining why different people can have different ideas of what this perfection would be). So, what is the contradiction between denying that there is now a "greater than what is" and seeking to create something better than what currently is, i.e. to improve ourselves and the world around us? Why does a "higher than what is" have to actually already exist in order to make sense to seek it? It seems to me that all you need is the possibility that something better could be. Why do we need a god for this to make sense?

Aeron

Braces for impact, it appears we had many of the same thoughts on this topic, although i am jealous that you posted yours first :-)