Perchance

(I chose this topic title because I didn't know what else to call it).

This is a follow up from <a href="http://iidb.org/ubb/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic&f=56&t=000253&p=1" target="_blank">this thread</a> in the Philosophy forum. I suggested we move it down here because I thought it might be getting off-topic for Philosophy.

The thread started with dannyk asking if he could be an atheist if he didn't believe in a deity, but still believed there was some purpose to the universe. Various responses arose, including a theistic one from Goody2shoes asking if perhaps dannyk hadn't made up his mind on labels a bit too quickly.

It grew to cover a whole lot of smaller topics, but the main one in the last few posts seemed to be:

How do we make up our mind on God?

A few posters said they had searched for God and hadn't found him/her/it. Goody2shoes pointed out that it might seem harsh to slam the mind's doors on God even with searching, and posited that each person finds his or her own individual path to God. I posted asking if it wasn't possible that at least some people didn't need God.

(By the way, Goody, if you feel that I'm skipping some points you wanted to address or misrepresenting your position, feel free to correct me on this).

So, to ask a question, for theists and non-theists alike:

Does everyone either need to have God, or to have done a thorough investigation of the religions of the world? Does searching come before someone is able to declare himself/herself a non-believer?

I don't feel that I need God. I wasn't raised in a religious home, and I've considered myself agnostic for a decade now. In that time, I haven't done an end-all be-all exploration of any religion, though I've read some interesting books on both Christianity and neopaganism.

I am very young (23), and have the time to collect information if I want to. However, I persist on referring to myself as a non-believer.

I know that some people feel qualifications for non-believer 'status' are completely useless, and that every individual decides for himself or herself. However, if atheism is defined as non-belief in a deity, that suggests that a person must at least have this qualification to call himself or herself an atheist. And so on.

This got longer and more rambling than I intended.

Thoughts?

[Edited because of a horrendous misquote].
-Perchance.

[ July 03, 2002: Message edited by: Perchance ]</p>

Pensee

While I was in my deconversion process (not recognizing it as such and not realizing I would end up an atheist), I read up on various religions world-wide.

The biggest benefit I received from that experience was realizing that we (humankind) are all in a search for truth. We're all looking for the same thing. No one would deliberately choose to follow a false religion. And there really is no way of knowing if one religion is more "right" than another.

Obviously, I didn't change religions and begin serving their gods in my quest for answers or just to see if their god made more sense than mine. But I came to a better understanding of the function of religion and religious beliefs. I felt that I was no more likely to find "god" in their religion than I was to find him/it in mine.

I don't think there is any way to thoroughly investigate every religion. I base my dis-belief in a deity on a lack of evidence. If a deity does exist, this deity has not revealed him/her/itself to me in my life. This leads me to two conclusions: either said deity does not exist or said deity does not care whether or not I know and believe he/she/it exists. I choose to believe the former because it makes the most sense, IMHO. However, if I'm wrong and a deity who doesn't care if I believe in he/she/it does, in fact, exist, then it doesn't matter anyway. I've lost nothing. I guess it's kind of a reverse Pascal's Wager.

goody2shoes

I think that it is difficult to "bracket" the discussion without a definition of the terms. My Dictionary defines them as:

Atheist: A person who denies the existence of God.

Agnostic: A person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (as God) is unknown and probably unknowable.

Theist: A person who believes in a God or Gods.

All of these are fairly positive statements of belief and seem to leave little room for simply "not knowing" or "not having decided". What would one call such a person?

Anyhow, I would say that the above categories have nothing to do with any "religion" per se. I have a friend who is a deist and that would be a subset under theist but not part of any organized religion. So I would suggest that if one starts from "scratch", the question of organized religion does not immediately arise.

Insofar as your question about "does one need a religion?", I would guess that the answer is "no" on the surface. However, if we think that we want the truth, rather than something that just makes us happy, then it suggests some further study.

Since you mentioned age, I will only say that I am quite a bit older than that. It doesn't make one smarter -- just exposed to more data points (which may or may not be good).

Goody

Perchance

Hi stardust,

I agree with you that it would be silly to follow a religion that one knew was false, unless outside circumstances compelled one to it (such as having to go to church to please one's family). But I would disagree that we are all "looking for the same thing."

I suppose you could say that I'm a "seeker of truth" (although that sounds melodramatic to me), but I rather hope I don't find it. Being trapped in certainty would be boring. Or maybe it only seems that way to me because I've lived in uncertainty for so long. Or maybe I will never find a certainty because I only WANT to find uncertainty. (You see how it multiplies? ).

I think there is too much variety within even individual humans to assure that we are all seeking the same goal. Perhaps it only seems that way because we're conditioned to think that truth exists?

I think studying religions is certainly a worthwhile pursuit to gain knowledge. But I agree with you that "god-shopping" doesn't seem to produce results- at least for most people I've known that do it.

I like your logic .

I suppose if a god who didn't care about me knowing him/her/it existed, I would like to ask why it didn't care. (It's not that I mind smaller certainties, and smaller answers to questions; I just don't think there's some "ultimate certainty" or answer to existence).

But then, I'm stubborn that way.

-Perchance.

[ July 03, 2002: Message edited by: Perchance ]</p>

Perchance

The English language doesn't have enough words for concepts bordering on or just outside of theism, I agree (and people don't agree on the ones we have). I would call myself "someone who hasn't decided, but who doesn't really want to be compelled to decide, and definitely would like the option of sleeping in on Sunday mornings, please." .

Degrees of open-mindedness are very hard to decide, I think, unless you happen to know the person in question individually.

By "scratch," do you mean "seeking the truth with an open mind?"

I'm not sure what you mean here.

I agree that it needs study. But so does biology, and botany, and linguistics...

Do you think religion deserving of more study? That is, if a person has never given much thought to it one way or the other, should he or she definitely consider it?

(I realize one possible answer might be yes, because of the questions that religion concerns, like ultimate truth and the destiny of the soul. Balancing it against other academic concerns, though, it doesn't seem to deserve either more or less study unless someone's research depends on it. But then, I am biased).

Oh, I don't mind being told that I have more to learn. I know I do.

And I would say that (usually) living longer does at least exposes you to more self-knowledge, and tests you in more situations to let you see how you will really react, which might be considerably different than the way you thought you would. I do know more older people who know themselves thoroughly than younger people who do.

-Perchance.

[Edited because my grammar has decided to desert me thoroughly].

[ July 03, 2002: Message edited by: Perchance ]</p>

goody2shoes

Hi Stardust,

You raise several interesting points. One of these is the question of God's revealing Himself to you. I guess one has to ask several things:

1.) Just how should one initiate or conduct a search?
2.) In what manner is "the revelation" from God expected?
3.) How long should it take?
4.) How does one know when "time is up"?

Your opinions?

I would suggest that open mindedness need not have a time limit. I happened to arrive at theism followed by Christianity fairly long ago, but the details change and I am still open to other notions if I ever see where I have been mistaken.

The race never ends (IMO).


Goody

goody2shoes

The other part of being so ancient is that it is hard to teach an old dog new tricks, as my son loves to say. I must completely give up in getting this machine to quote your text as you have presented it. Your quotes of my quotes just prevent the entire thing from being reproduced in the reply

Anyhow, I would just offer up that the question of a God is completely moot if he if is not interested in us. If there is God who made this universe and just watches it as a toy, then why should one care? It would only be if God has an interest in us that we should be concerned.

Some say that it is egotistical for us to think that God should be interested in us. Perhaps so, but if He exists and did make us, then there is a least that possibility. This is what had (has) led me to be interested in establishing whether or not such a God exists.

My remark of "from scratch' was meant to say that I think theism as a notion should proceed without reference to any organized religion (although the concepts of God might help). I for one, was a theist before becoming a Christian.

Goody

Perchance

Hi Goody,

There are two ways to do it that I know of:

1) Put {QUOTE}{QB} before the material you want quoted (replacing {} with []) and {/QB}{/QUOTE} after (again replacing {} with []).

2) Highlight what you want to quote, then go up to the edit menu and hit "copy." Hit the little "quote" button under the reply box and then just paste the quoted material in.

If the quote button doesn't show up, then it may mean something with the menu is malfunctioning.

As far as I understand the Deist position (not having met or conversed with someone who holds to it), knowing God exists makes a difference as far as the state of knowledge. For example, whether one believed in a creator God or not would probably make a difference in whether one accepted evolution.

Whether some, or all, or most Deists feel that God requires worship or not, I don't know.

Yes. If he exists and did make us...

But then we get into the question of qualities of the god. Certain gods might be very interested in us. Others might not.

There is a famous quote that gets tossed around on these boards whose attribution I can't remember (and I may be getting the quote itself wrong), but it goes something like:

"Why would a being who could create infinite galaxies be delighted by the smell of burning goat flesh?"

If God is omnibenevolent, omniscient, and omnipotent, then actually it seems less likely that he would be concerned with us, not more. Doesn't he have more important things to worry about? Isn't there intelligent life elsewhere in the universe, or even scads of intelligent life, that he finds more interesting? Perhaps he's off watching stars explode.

If you're going to presuppose a limited, personal god who just made humanity, and all the billions and billions of stars were kind of an afterthought, then I might accept that the egotistical argument doesn't hold much water.

Do you think organized religion has done harm to theism? I've met people who say they have contempt for "religion," but are into "spirituality" or "Jesus" or "my spiritual path." Not to say you're one of them, but I often wonder at the way that organized religion sometimes actually has a bad rap among theists as well as non-believers.

-Perchance.

Starspun

Stardust's Call?
<img src="graemlins/notworthy.gif" border="0" alt="[Not Worthy]" /> <img src="graemlins/notworthy.gif" border="0" alt="[Not Worthy]" />

Pensee

Perchance:

When I say "We're all looking for the same thing", I mean that we're all searching for truth and to be a part of something greater than ourselves. I don't assert that the same things, ideas, beliefs, etc. will be defined as truth by all people and, in that way, the same things, ideas, beliefs, etc. will not fill the need to be a part of something greater than oneself for all people. We're all looking for something outside of ourselves, but what we consider the object of that something outside of ourselves will manifest itself in people's lives in different ways. I'm finding it difficult to put into words my sentiment on this matter. Let me explain it this way: for me, being a part of and trying to find my place in humanity is enough. Humanity, as a whole, is that something greater than myself of which I am a part. It fills my need to be a part of something greater than myself. Others may find that need fulfilled in the belief in a deity or some may find it in space aliens. We may fulfill that need in different ways (and through the use of different deities for those to whom it applies), but we're all searching for truth (even though we may define truth differently) and looking to fulfill that need (even though we may fulfill it differently).

Is this making any sense? I'm usually much more articulate. I can't seem to find the right words to express myself today.

Since there is no way of knowing if an unconcerned deity exists, then it is, IMHO, a futile attempt to worry about it. The deity might not care b/c we were some great cosmological accident (like some kids who become parents in high school--big OOPS--then don't want to have to deal with the responsibility of their new creation) or maybe b/c it has the inability to care. There could be a zillion reasons. But there's no way of knowing or asking that deity why we exist. So I don't worry about it.

~~~~~
Goody: I'm 22 and this is just my philosophy, so take it however you want to. In my mind, a loving deity would choose to make it blatantly obvious that he/she/it exists (kinda like the sun). What idiot could deny the existence of the sun? There is absolutely no doubt whatsoever in my mind that the sun exists. I didn't have to search for the sun to see if it exists; it's just been a part of my world and my life since I was born. I don't think that it would be a "revelation" per se, but the existence of and communication with a deity would just be a fact of life. When you ask, "How long should it take", I assume "it" refers to a search for a deity, but, as I stated above, there should be no need for a search if a loving and caring deity exists. Despite this, people all over the world continue to search for a deity. I guess "time is up" when one simply gets fed up with a lack of evidence.

I couldn't agree more that "the race never ends."

~~~~~
Starspun: Thank you, thank you very much. Stardust's Call. Has a ring to it, no?

BTW, if anyone poses any more ?'s to me, I'm going to be away from my computer for a few days. I'll get back to you as soon as I can.