Whether the leap of logic lies on either side is a matter of perception, and is in itself what separates the rational deist from the rational atheist.
We mgith be able to prove you're not God by proving that there was a time when you didn't exist, but you are probably correct, I don't think I can prove you're not god, though it would be funny to have a god who is an atheist (low self esteem maybe?).
Of course it raises the question as to what extent you can prove ANYTHING is true or untrue.
We can't prove anything beyond what our conciousness has experienced directly, if you want to have the solipsism argument. I'm not talking about philosophy.***
All of us interact with this physical, temporal world. Our understanding of this world is due to our constant testing, probing, experimenting, and studying. We take an action, and there is a reaction. These reactions are measurable, definable, and most importantly, repeatable.
Never once in all of these interactions has a god emerged. Never once has but a single shred of evidence appeared for even the most minor of supernatural forces.
The only world we know is the one we're in right now. To assume anything that the world has not shown us is idiotic. If something has never been measured, never been shown, never been realized, never been observed, and never been repeated, then you cannot justly declare its existence.
*** - for a change. ^_~ You wouldn't believe how often Scott yells at me for turning to philosophy every time we argue.
Scott: You know that the server is broken!!
Rym: But... What can a solipsistic being truly know?
Scott: -stab-
I still contend that one can have faith that a god exists, so long as one contends that it is one's own personal belief and no more or less valid than any other belief.
Naturally, of course, we all agree that anything a human can understand will be understood with logic and reason. To me, faith and religion lie entirely in, as Rym defined it, the realm of a "philosophical belief." To actually say that there is most definitely a god and you should act accordingly is irrational, silly, and probably contrary to the true purpose of the religion from which that god is derived.
I see no problem if someone has a belief and accepts the logical criticism that goes along with said belief; indeed, I've known a handful of people like that. They don't actually blindly follow their faith; instead, they consider it and debate on its finer points.
It is true, I would like to point out, that saying there is a god and saying that Rym is a god are logically equivalent statements. I can say that we're all gods, or that there are no gods, or fnord. They're all the same statement, but debating these conjectures in an intellectual fashion is an important exercise, philosophically and intellectually speaking. I'm not going to pretend that it's USEFUL in some fashion, at least as far as technological progress is concerned, but debating these points is important as it's a means to teaching oneself to think creatively. A fun exercise, and important to teach us how to think outside our given frameworks.
I just can't take anyone seriously who tells me he believes in gods, and I'll always suspect the mental faculties of such people.
Sure, there are exceptions for some people who take an intellectual bent on religion and all that, but you can't deny that the vast majority of people who believe in "god" do so for much less reasonable reasons.
Sure, but I peg that as a failing of the institution rather than the religion itself. Most religious institutions specifically discourage the higher-level intellectual discussion of the beliefs that support the institution; I mean, if people really read and pondered the Bible, they'd find that the Catholic Church is full of shit and they'd probably stop listening to them.
The philosophies are fine; the organizations that pervert them are not.
I think it's important to separate the philosophy of a religion from the organization because, well, they're not co-dependent things. You can pracitce and discuss a religion without being part of some formal organization; in fact, that's the way it should be done, at least as far as I'm concerned. In addition, the organization is often not at all reflective of the philosophy.
We separate legitimate science from pseudoscience and bad science for a reason. For that same reason, I separate religion and church.
Also, you can't make a comment as to how irrational someone's belief in a god is until you've been to a born-again revival meeting. Those people frighten me. You should SEE this shit.
"...the vast majority of people who believe in "god" do so for much less reasonable reasons."
In primary school when I was growing up we were taught the bible as truth, as far as I remember. When I found out that it wasn't an accepted truth (at about 9) I explored atheist arguments and supported many of them for about 8 years (note that even then, I still knew the quote you presented in the show was bullshit, and I felt it cheapened the Atheism to spout such drivel.).
Since then I've warmed to the idea of a god's existence through my own philosophical considerations and I'm currently at a place that seems very "Agnostic" to me. At the moment my progress is limited by not having access to other people to talk about this kind of stuff with who don't have an agenda to push that would hamper the debate, I find the odd person but a lot of them die tbh, I worked partially in a care home for a while. I might go hunt me some Unitarians.
The religious people I talk to usually say "it's true because it says it's true" and the Atheistis are usually flippant and bigoted. Most of the other people I talk to about it really dont care at all, their reasoning, if they have any, lies in the fact that most people have a spiritual change in their late 30s, and they're happy to wait for theirs.
So blah... no conclusion really. I would say to Rym though that being an Atheist doesn't make him some kind of "superbrain" that can decode the religous feelings of others as being more or less reasonable. Most people who have faith have put a LOT of thought into it even if they find it difficult to express the nature of their faith, which is partially the fault of the written media hampering their communication ability.
>>TheWhaleShark >> if people really read and pondered the Bible, they'd find that the Catholic Church is full of shit and they'd probably stop listening to them.
The philosophies are fine; the organizations that pervert them are not.
Ah, the wonders of the Internet, making sure that I don't have to go out and buy a Bible to prove my point.
For reference, I'm an agnostic. I'm not preaching Christian morality (well, perhaps in a very general and non-specific sense), just preaching that one needs to ponder and consider the message behind any religious text, and to thoroughly explore allegorical meanings rather than getting hung up on literal phrasing...
Which is where your quote falls short. If you had done your homework, you'd know that your quote is the last line of the Parable of Money Usage, Luke 19:11 - 27. Jesus isn't saying that, nor advocating it; rather, the man in his story is saying that, and the entire story is being used to convey a point.
And what objective method do you have of determining what in the Bible is to be taken literally and what is to be taken allegorically, hmmm? In the absense of such a method, the only recourse is to take it all literally. Besides, according to 2 Peter:
1:20 Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.
1:21 For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.
Yes, I know that Jesus liked to speak in parables, but so what? If he ended his own parable with that statement, it stands to reason that he advocated it. Let's look at some of the other moral teachings of the bible, shall we?
1 Timothy
2:11 Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection.
2:12 But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.
2:13 For Adam was first formed, then Eve.
2:14 And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.
Well, we can certain certainly make a statement about the status of women according to the Bible. Good stuff. I won't even get into Leviticus
Sure, there are some nice moral values that can be found, but you can't justify cherry picking them out while you ignore all the crap. You could probably do the same thing with Anton LaVey's work, or Mein Kampf.
Also, if you're going to claim to be Agnostic, then you should probably know that 'agnostic' refers to a claim about knowledge rather than belief.
I certainly appreciate the desire to consider the message, but that runs back into the point I made in my last post regarding the depravity of man as the central message of the whole book.
Gothfather, you're right. That seems to be one of the messages carried through the Bible, but it's also one of the messages that have reappeared several times throughout human history. Hobbe's Leviathan also makes this point, that people need to be controlled by a strong hand.
The thing is, there is some accuracy in this belief. People have an tendency towards greed. In many way this is a cultural thing, with differing extents and expressions in many cultures. "Ambition must be made to counter ambition."
But in grand extent, this idea is very wrong. We are no more a depraved race then we are a race of angels. We are both, in varying measures. Religion tries to manipulate this by making us feel guilty for our impulses; and self-righteous for our virtues.
"And what objective method do you have of determining what in the Bible is to be taken literally and what is to be taken allegorically, hmmm? In the absense of such a method, the only recourse is to take it all literally."
This is absolutely incorrect. You can freely choose to take it all allegorically, or take only some parts of it allegorically and ignore others. The Bible is like just about every other human text; it contains some useful or interesting bits buried amongst a load of absolute bullcrap. Its age and place in Western traditions does not make it especially good or bad from an absolute standpoint (though it does make it worthy of study as a work of literature, perhaps).
Religion, by which I refer to belief in supernatural guiding forces, has traditionally offered three things:
1. Mechanical explanations. How were our bodies and minds shaped?
2. Broad philosophical explanations. Why is art good or bad?
3. Mythology, i.e. a system of common stories. Consider how anyone educated in Europe from around 1500-1900 knew most of the major characters and stories from Greek and Roman mythology.
Point 1 is the one which rational, scientific thought has - rightfully - replaced in modern culture. Relgious explanations are left with the choice of either continually backpedalling into the areas where science has no accepted explanation yet (origins of consciousness and morality, for example), or dropping the pretense of mechanical explanation altogether. The ongoing spat over evolution is an example of the inevitable result of the former choice: when science does find an explanation, the religious explanations are given the choice of admitting they were wrong or of looking like idiots. Morality is another one at which science (game theory, in this case) is nibbling away.
Point 2 remains significant, however. Prophets, divine messengers, the authors of religious texts, and the like can (and should) be viewed like other philosophers. They teach certain systems of thought, certain reasons one should act and goals to which one should aspire. This comes back to my first statement, about allegory. It's quite possible to ignore much of what the Bible has to say while still valuing the teachings of Moses or Jesus in their own right. Like all teachers, of course, they should be subject to critical thought on the part of the taught. I have a large number of problems with the crop of dogmatic, monotheistic teachings that dominate the world today, but "religion" in the broader sense is still worthy of thought in this realm.
Point 3 also relates to the value of, say, the Bible. Myths and stories can be taken literally, or as metaphors, or as some combination of the two. Taking them literally when you have direct evidence to the contrary is rather silly, *but this does not remove their value as metaphors.* Metaphors are compressed meaning; they serve as components of a common language among those who know the same stories. Stories also tell readers a great deal about the person or people who wrote them, and are valuable in that sense. And a reader's reaction to a story tells an observer a great deal about that reader.
I agree with Alex 100%; I would've posted just that, but work prevents me from doing so.
There is a large problem in the US with people taking the Bible, or any other religious text, literally. This is, of course, silly, because when taken literally the book contradicts itself. However, when one considers and debates the meaning of any given point, without necessarily looking at it literally (ergo, take it as metaphor), you engage in the exercises for which religion is best.
The whole point of debating a religion is not to reach some agreement or some such, and it's not to wind up believing in God. The act of interpretation, debate, and consideration is an enlightening process; that's the entire reason to engage in any sort of intellectual discussion.
EDIT: TGF: I am aware of what agnosticism means. I'm not aware of having said anything to the contrary; you can believe whatever you want, but there's no way to know the truth behind it.
Alex>> I wholeheartedly disagree. According to you, any time that the text doesn't match up with reality can be taken allegorically or figuratively. In other words, on a whim. Doing this makes every claim in the text non-falsifiable, because any time that you say "this doesn't make sense," you can come up with some ad-hoc allegorical justification to force it to make sense.
I know that you can make the contents of a religious text have value as metaphor, but, in the case of the texts of the Abrahamic religions, that was not the original intent, so any attempt at forcing a metaphorical meaning to something that was written to be taken literally is simply ad-hocism.
WhaleShark>> Since you are aware that you make a knowledge claim when labelling yourself as an agnostic, then you are implicitly labelling yourself as an atheist, since atheism is a fallback position, and claiming agnosticism in the sense that you are witholding belief (if that is the way you intend it) is an implication of non-belief.
Penn Jillete said the same thing about agnostics. It's his opinion that all agnostics are actually either believers or atheists. The believer agnostics only say they are agnostic because they recognize that there is a chance they might be wrong and their beliefs are false. But they live their lives as believers. The atheist agnostics live their lives as atheists, but they say they are agnostic because they recognize the .000001% chance that there is some god somewhere.
That's what he says. What I say is that true agnostics are the people who don't care one way or the other. A real agnostic says "there might be, there might not be, who cares?" If you say "There could be, but I'll believe it when I see it" you are essentially atheist. And if you say "There might not be, but I'll believe it anyway" then you are essentially religious.
Wait, Gothfather, what sort of proof do you have that it should be taken literally.
We all know by reading history books, that the history can be scewed one way or another by the person witnessing it. We can't even aggree what happened 5 seconds ago let alone what happened 2000 years ago.
However, we can examine what little evidence we do have about the bible and look into what it is saying. It's suspiciously similiar to many other religions of the time. From there being many other "messiahs" at the time with similiar claims to the fact that many of the stories are similiar to other religions at the time that date back further or to around the same time such as zoroastrian
If the bible is to be taken literally and not used as a piece meal book of metaphor, why is it not internally consistant let alone historically consistant.
Why does it not match up with things we have evidence for? Records of Kings? Population numbers?
As for being a agnostic.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnostic
An Agnostic doesn't pretend to know the answer Gothfather, I don't say that there is no such thing as God(s). The nature and definition of god makes it impossible to ever truely disprove the existance of god but that doesn't stop me from finding evidence that discredits other views.
"Now it is such a bizarrely impossible coincidence that anything so mind-bogglingly useful could have evolved purely by chance that some thinkers have chosen to see it as a final and clinching proof of the nonexistence of God. The arguement goes something like this:
"I refuse to prove that I exist," says God, "for proof denies faith, and without faith I am nothing."
"But," say Man, "the Babel fish is a dead giveaway, isn't it? It could not have evolved by chance. It proves you exist, and so therefore, by your own arguments, you don't. QED."
"Oh dear," says God, "I hadn't though of that" and promply vanishes in a puff of logic.
--THGTG
Just because one doesn't understand or pretend to know what is going on in the unverise doesn't mean one cannot question someone else's view and/or play as a devil's advocate on any side.
OK, I agree with Cremlian 100% here. Damn you people, beating me to the punch.
You have absolutely no way of knowing whether or not the Bible, or any religious text for that matter, was ever meant to be taken literally, because the original authors aren't around. If you do take it literally, then you have to contend with the fact that it's not self-consistent in a literal sense. Do also remember that this book has been translated roughly a hojillion times, so any literal meaning is probably lost, and only any metaphorical messages are left behind.
Frankly, it's not important whether or not it was mean to be taken literally, because the book is USEFUL from a philosophical standpoint when taken metaphorically and when debating possible meanings of various passages. Hell, even though I despise the organizations of religion, even they don't claim that you should take the book literally (well, most of them); I went to a Catholic grammar school, and it was emphasized that we shouldn't look at the Bible literally, since it's the message and only the message that matters.
I contend that any religious text MUST be taken metaphorically, and CANNOT be taken literally, simply because the literal interpretation is silly and completely misses the useful exercise of attempting to interpret its meaning. The whole point of any religion, as far as I see it, is not to necessarily engender belief in a particular diety, but rather to goad one into the process of questioning one's faith. That idea goes back to Taoist philosophy; the goal doesn't matter, only the journey is important.
As for the agnostic bit, I'm a scientist, so I understand the importance of saying "I don't know" when faced with such a situation. That is how, in fact, I am an atheist; I don't know whether or not any particular religion is "right," so I treat them all the same. Frankly, whether or not we know the truth of any religion is unimportant; as I said before, it's the process of believing or attempting to reconcile belief that matters. The process of pondering the message of a religion is more important that knowing whether or not it's right.
As a corollary to that, I also choose to withhold belief, but that's because I cannot know. In science, if I don't know enough information about a given hypothesis to validate it or invalidate it, I say that it's inconclusive and keep trying. You withhold judgement BECAUSE of a lack of evidence, or an inability to know. Personally, I think that any religion is equally viable, and your choice of belief is wholly arbitrary and meaningless, which is why I don't bother saying I partiucarly believe or disbelieve any one. Instead, I use them as intellectual exercises and just avoid any judgement of faith at all.
As Cremlian said, an agnostic doesn't pretend to know the answer one way or another, and that is certainly the position I take. I choose to withhold belief in addition to that, but the root is in not knowing, not vice-versa.
I also submit that withholding judgement is not the same thing as submitting a negative judgement; you are exactly passing no judgement whatsoever until sufficient evidence comes along. By saying that I withhold belief, I am NOT saying that I specifically don't believe; I'm saying that I've not made a judgement in either direction, largely because believing in a specific religion is not the important bit.
I have no problem with a witholding of judgement in general. In fact, that should be the default policy in matters such as these.
I also have no problem with a person believing personally in the philosophical ideas of gods, faeries, titans, or what-have-you, and the intellectual exercises implied therein.
I just take serious issue with people who hold specific, concrete beliefs despite a total lack of evidence: beliving in the Christian god, or the divinity of Jesus Christ, or the power of Zeus, et cetera. It's one thing to believe in an idea: "gods exist somewhere," or "gods should exist." It's another thing to believe in a thing: "god x exists in place y and does z."
This is especially true considering that history can often show fairly clear secular origins of many of these beliefs.
To me, a belief is something that cannot be taken in any way but literally, a thing that is applied directly to the world or to one's life. "X exists." "Y causes Z." A philosophical belief is very different, much more ephemeral, and most importantly, difficult if not impossible to test, observe, or validate.
It makes it even more interesting if you consider this study.
Just more evidence that people who are likely to believe in one thing without evidence (god) are likely to believe in other things without evidence (atheists are untrustworthy). The truth is that the religious people are the untrustworthy ones.
For the record, I consider myself technically an agnostic, also due to a suspension of judgement. Humanism (in short: the belief that humankind has a responsibility to look after itself as a whole, because no one is going to do it for us) is much more important to my philosophical outlook than the existance or nonexistance of a deific force.
Slightly on topic: I just finished reading the books "Hyperion" and "The Fall of Hyperion" by Dan Simmons. They're one of the most interesting treatments of religion and divinity in fiction that I've read in quite a long time, and awesomely written sci-fi to boot. Heartily recommended.
I concur with Rym about the definite beliefs bit, but for different reasons. I recognize that there is a limit to human understanding, and insofar as that is true, nothing can truly be said to be understood with 100% certainty. Thus, when someone says, "X is definitely true," no matter what X happens to be, I question that belief.
Beliefs are good things to have; hell, we're all rife with them. The problem arises when one is unable to examine one's own beliefs and to consider them critically, or accept criticism of them. Open-mindedness is key.
Even faith isn't necessarily a problem, so long as one is open-minded and critical of their faith. I've met plenty of cool, open-minded Christians who really grapple with their faith and consider it deeply; those are the people that are doing it the RIGHT way. Resolving faith is supposed to be a difficult thing with which you struggle all your life; anyone who says they are 100% secure in their faith is pretty much full of shit.
I generally don't hold any belief too strongly, because becoming too rigid in one's beliefs prevents one from adapting to things that challenge said beliefs. This is not to say that one needs to be wishy-washy; rather, if one is presented with sufficient evidence that one's beliefs are a sham, one needs to be able to deal with that, and not cling tenaciously to some half-assed belief.
"This is not to say that one needs to be wishy-washy; rather, if one is presented with sufficient evidence that one's beliefs are a sham, one needs to be able to deal with that, and not cling tenaciously to some half-assed belief."
That's probably the most important idea here. There is nothing in this world in which I believe that, were evidence presented denying it, I would continue to believe. I think too many people accept things as true without proper questioning.
Rym, Why do you hate America so much. I mean we all know that if your open-minded and change your opinion when your wrong or find a better one you’re a flip-flopper. American’s never admit when they are wrong because obviously we are always right! Get with the Program! You Commie!
You're both wrong because you don't believe exactly what I believe. Your beliefs are based on logic and reason, but mine are based on a book filled with mystical bullshit and contradictions. Obviously, my basis for belief is superior, even though I've never thought about it; also, my book of bullshit is better than any other book of bullshit, because my book says that it's the correct one, and my book would never lie.
It seems like we all agree on some level. Religion is not science, it does not describe the under-pinnings of the world. It is useful as a guiding force for morality, once you think about where the rules come from.
What is it that leads us to this place? What takes us to this point of neutrality towards faith, or ending up on the far side of faith, opposing it at its base?
Comments
We mgith be able to prove you're not God by proving that there was a time when you didn't exist, but you are probably correct, I don't think I can prove you're not god, though it would be funny to have a god who is an atheist (low self esteem maybe?).
Of course it raises the question as to what extent you can prove ANYTHING is true or untrue.
All of us interact with this physical, temporal world. Our understanding of this world is due to our constant testing, probing, experimenting, and studying. We take an action, and there is a reaction. These reactions are measurable, definable, and most importantly, repeatable.
Never once in all of these interactions has a god emerged. Never once has but a single shred of evidence appeared for even the most minor of supernatural forces.
The only world we know is the one we're in right now. To assume anything that the world has not shown us is idiotic. If something has never been measured, never been shown, never been realized, never been observed, and never been repeated, then you cannot justly declare its existence.
*** - for a change. ^_~ You wouldn't believe how often Scott yells at me for turning to philosophy every time we argue.
Scott: You know that the server is broken!!
Rym: But... What can a solipsistic being truly know?
Scott: -stab-
*Pats self on back for being a friend to god's earthly avatar*
Naturally, of course, we all agree that anything a human can understand will be understood with logic and reason. To me, faith and religion lie entirely in, as Rym defined it, the realm of a "philosophical belief." To actually say that there is most definitely a god and you should act accordingly is irrational, silly, and probably contrary to the true purpose of the religion from which that god is derived.
I see no problem if someone has a belief and accepts the logical criticism that goes along with said belief; indeed, I've known a handful of people like that. They don't actually blindly follow their faith; instead, they consider it and debate on its finer points.
It is true, I would like to point out, that saying there is a god and saying that Rym is a god are logically equivalent statements. I can say that we're all gods, or that there are no gods, or fnord. They're all the same statement, but debating these conjectures in an intellectual fashion is an important exercise, philosophically and intellectually speaking. I'm not going to pretend that it's USEFUL in some fashion, at least as far as technological progress is concerned, but debating these points is important as it's a means to teaching oneself to think creatively. A fun exercise, and important to teach us how to think outside our given frameworks.
Sure, there are exceptions for some people who take an intellectual bent on religion and all that, but you can't deny that the vast majority of people who believe in "god" do so for much less reasonable reasons.
The philosophies are fine; the organizations that pervert them are not.
I think it's important to separate the philosophy of a religion from the organization because, well, they're not co-dependent things. You can pracitce and discuss a religion without being part of some formal organization; in fact, that's the way it should be done, at least as far as I'm concerned. In addition, the organization is often not at all reflective of the philosophy.
We separate legitimate science from pseudoscience and bad science for a reason. For that same reason, I separate religion and church.
Also, you can't make a comment as to how irrational someone's belief in a god is until you've been to a born-again revival meeting. Those people frighten me. You should SEE this shit.
In primary school when I was growing up we were taught the bible as truth, as far as I remember. When I found out that it wasn't an accepted truth (at about 9) I explored atheist arguments and supported many of them for about 8 years (note that even then, I still knew the quote you presented in the show was bullshit, and I felt it cheapened the Atheism to spout such drivel.).
Since then I've warmed to the idea of a god's existence through my own philosophical considerations and I'm currently at a place that seems very "Agnostic" to me. At the moment my progress is limited by not having access to other people to talk about this kind of stuff with who don't have an agenda to push that would hamper the debate, I find the odd person but a lot of them die tbh, I worked partially in a care home for a while. I might go hunt me some Unitarians.
The religious people I talk to usually say "it's true because it says it's true" and the Atheistis are usually flippant and bigoted. Most of the other people I talk to about it really dont care at all, their reasoning, if they have any, lies in the fact that most people have a spiritual change in their late 30s, and they're happy to wait for theirs.
So blah... no conclusion really. I would say to Rym though that being an Atheist doesn't make him some kind of "superbrain" that can decode the religous feelings of others as being more or less reasonable. Most people who have faith have put a LOT of thought into it even if they find it difficult to express the nature of their faith, which is partially the fault of the written media hampering their communication ability.
The philosophies are fine; the organizations that pervert them are not.
For reference, I'm an agnostic. I'm not preaching Christian morality (well, perhaps in a very general and non-specific sense), just preaching that one needs to ponder and consider the message behind any religious text, and to thoroughly explore allegorical meanings rather than getting hung up on literal phrasing...
Which is where your quote falls short. If you had done your homework, you'd know that your quote is the last line of the Parable of Money Usage, Luke 19:11 - 27. Jesus isn't saying that, nor advocating it; rather, the man in his story is saying that, and the entire story is being used to convey a point.
1:20 Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.
1:21 For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.
Yes, I know that Jesus liked to speak in parables, but so what? If he ended his own parable with that statement, it stands to reason that he advocated it. Let's look at some of the other moral teachings of the bible, shall we?
1 Timothy
2:11 Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection.
2:12 But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.
2:13 For Adam was first formed, then Eve.
2:14 And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.
Well, we can certain certainly make a statement about the status of women according to the Bible. Good stuff. I won't even get into Leviticus
Sure, there are some nice moral values that can be found, but you can't justify cherry picking them out while you ignore all the crap. You could probably do the same thing with Anton LaVey's work, or Mein Kampf.
Also, if you're going to claim to be Agnostic, then you should probably know that 'agnostic' refers to a claim about knowledge rather than belief.
I certainly appreciate the desire to consider the message, but that runs back into the point I made in my last post regarding the depravity of man as the central message of the whole book.
The thing is, there is some accuracy in this belief. People have an tendency towards greed. In many way this is a cultural thing, with differing extents and expressions in many cultures. "Ambition must be made to counter ambition."
But in grand extent, this idea is very wrong. We are no more a depraved race then we are a race of angels. We are both, in varying measures. Religion tries to manipulate this by making us feel guilty for our impulses; and self-righteous for our virtues.
This is absolutely incorrect. You can freely choose to take it all allegorically, or take only some parts of it allegorically and ignore others. The Bible is like just about every other human text; it contains some useful or interesting bits buried amongst a load of absolute bullcrap. Its age and place in Western traditions does not make it especially good or bad from an absolute standpoint (though it does make it worthy of study as a work of literature, perhaps).
Religion, by which I refer to belief in supernatural guiding forces, has traditionally offered three things:
1. Mechanical explanations. How were our bodies and minds shaped?
2. Broad philosophical explanations. Why is art good or bad?
3. Mythology, i.e. a system of common stories. Consider how anyone educated in Europe from around 1500-1900 knew most of the major characters and stories from Greek and Roman mythology.
Point 1 is the one which rational, scientific thought has - rightfully - replaced in modern culture. Relgious explanations are left with the choice of either continually backpedalling into the areas where science has no accepted explanation yet (origins of consciousness and morality, for example), or dropping the pretense of mechanical explanation altogether. The ongoing spat over evolution is an example of the inevitable result of the former choice: when science does find an explanation, the religious explanations are given the choice of admitting they were wrong or of looking like idiots. Morality is another one at which science (game theory, in this case) is nibbling away.
Point 2 remains significant, however. Prophets, divine messengers, the authors of religious texts, and the like can (and should) be viewed like other philosophers. They teach certain systems of thought, certain reasons one should act and goals to which one should aspire. This comes back to my first statement, about allegory. It's quite possible to ignore much of what the Bible has to say while still valuing the teachings of Moses or Jesus in their own right. Like all teachers, of course, they should be subject to critical thought on the part of the taught. I have a large number of problems with the crop of dogmatic, monotheistic teachings that dominate the world today, but "religion" in the broader sense is still worthy of thought in this realm.
Point 3 also relates to the value of, say, the Bible. Myths and stories can be taken literally, or as metaphors, or as some combination of the two. Taking them literally when you have direct evidence to the contrary is rather silly, *but this does not remove their value as metaphors.* Metaphors are compressed meaning; they serve as components of a common language among those who know the same stories. Stories also tell readers a great deal about the person or people who wrote them, and are valuable in that sense. And a reader's reaction to a story tells an observer a great deal about that reader.
There is a large problem in the US with people taking the Bible, or any other religious text, literally. This is, of course, silly, because when taken literally the book contradicts itself. However, when one considers and debates the meaning of any given point, without necessarily looking at it literally (ergo, take it as metaphor), you engage in the exercises for which religion is best.
The whole point of debating a religion is not to reach some agreement or some such, and it's not to wind up believing in God. The act of interpretation, debate, and consideration is an enlightening process; that's the entire reason to engage in any sort of intellectual discussion.
EDIT: TGF: I am aware of what agnosticism means. I'm not aware of having said anything to the contrary; you can believe whatever you want, but there's no way to know the truth behind it.
I know that you can make the contents of a religious text have value as metaphor, but, in the case of the texts of the Abrahamic religions, that was not the original intent, so any attempt at forcing a metaphorical meaning to something that was written to be taken literally is simply ad-hocism.
WhaleShark>> Since you are aware that you make a knowledge claim when labelling yourself as an agnostic, then you are implicitly labelling yourself as an atheist, since atheism is a fallback position, and claiming agnosticism in the sense that you are witholding belief (if that is the way you intend it) is an implication of non-belief.
That's what he says. What I say is that true agnostics are the people who don't care one way or the other. A real agnostic says "there might be, there might not be, who cares?" If you say "There could be, but I'll believe it when I see it" you are essentially atheist. And if you say "There might not be, but I'll believe it anyway" then you are essentially religious.
We all know by reading history books, that the history can be scewed one way or another by the person witnessing it. We can't even aggree what happened 5 seconds ago let alone what happened 2000 years ago.
However, we can examine what little evidence we do have about the bible and look into what it is saying. It's suspiciously similiar to many other religions of the time. From there being many other "messiahs" at the time with similiar claims to the fact that many of the stories are similiar to other religions at the time that date back further or to around the same time such as zoroastrian
http://www.infidelguy.com/ftopict-5490-A-Small-Compilaton-of-Contradictions.html
http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/contra/by_name.html
If the bible is to be taken literally and not used as a piece meal book of metaphor, why is it not internally consistant let alone historically consistant.
Why does it not match up with things we have evidence for? Records of Kings? Population numbers?
As for being a agnostic.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnostic
An Agnostic doesn't pretend to know the answer Gothfather, I don't say that there is no such thing as God(s). The nature and definition of god makes it impossible to ever truely disprove the existance of god but that doesn't stop me from finding evidence that discredits other views.
"Now it is such a bizarrely impossible coincidence that anything so mind-bogglingly useful could have evolved purely by chance that some thinkers have chosen to see it as a final and clinching proof of the nonexistence of God. The arguement goes something like this:
"I refuse to prove that I exist," says God, "for proof denies faith, and without faith I am nothing."
"But," say Man, "the Babel fish is a dead giveaway, isn't it? It could not have evolved by chance. It proves you exist, and so therefore, by your own arguments, you don't. QED."
"Oh dear," says God, "I hadn't though of that" and promply vanishes in a puff of logic.
--THGTG
Just because one doesn't understand or pretend to know what is going on in the unverise doesn't mean one cannot question someone else's view and/or play as a devil's advocate on any side.
You have absolutely no way of knowing whether or not the Bible, or any religious text for that matter, was ever meant to be taken literally, because the original authors aren't around. If you do take it literally, then you have to contend with the fact that it's not self-consistent in a literal sense. Do also remember that this book has been translated roughly a hojillion times, so any literal meaning is probably lost, and only any metaphorical messages are left behind.
Frankly, it's not important whether or not it was mean to be taken literally, because the book is USEFUL from a philosophical standpoint when taken metaphorically and when debating possible meanings of various passages. Hell, even though I despise the organizations of religion, even they don't claim that you should take the book literally (well, most of them); I went to a Catholic grammar school, and it was emphasized that we shouldn't look at the Bible literally, since it's the message and only the message that matters.
I contend that any religious text MUST be taken metaphorically, and CANNOT be taken literally, simply because the literal interpretation is silly and completely misses the useful exercise of attempting to interpret its meaning. The whole point of any religion, as far as I see it, is not to necessarily engender belief in a particular diety, but rather to goad one into the process of questioning one's faith. That idea goes back to Taoist philosophy; the goal doesn't matter, only the journey is important.
As for the agnostic bit, I'm a scientist, so I understand the importance of saying "I don't know" when faced with such a situation. That is how, in fact, I am an atheist; I don't know whether or not any particular religion is "right," so I treat them all the same. Frankly, whether or not we know the truth of any religion is unimportant; as I said before, it's the process of believing or attempting to reconcile belief that matters. The process of pondering the message of a religion is more important that knowing whether or not it's right.
As a corollary to that, I also choose to withhold belief, but that's because I cannot know. In science, if I don't know enough information about a given hypothesis to validate it or invalidate it, I say that it's inconclusive and keep trying. You withhold judgement BECAUSE of a lack of evidence, or an inability to know. Personally, I think that any religion is equally viable, and your choice of belief is wholly arbitrary and meaningless, which is why I don't bother saying I partiucarly believe or disbelieve any one. Instead, I use them as intellectual exercises and just avoid any judgement of faith at all.
As Cremlian said, an agnostic doesn't pretend to know the answer one way or another, and that is certainly the position I take. I choose to withhold belief in addition to that, but the root is in not knowing, not vice-versa.
I also submit that withholding judgement is not the same thing as submitting a negative judgement; you are exactly passing no judgement whatsoever until sufficient evidence comes along. By saying that I withhold belief, I am NOT saying that I specifically don't believe; I'm saying that I've not made a judgement in either direction, largely because believing in a specific religion is not the important bit.
I also have no problem with a person believing personally in the philosophical ideas of gods, faeries, titans, or what-have-you, and the intellectual exercises implied therein.
I just take serious issue with people who hold specific, concrete beliefs despite a total lack of evidence: beliving in the Christian god, or the divinity of Jesus Christ, or the power of Zeus, et cetera. It's one thing to believe in an idea: "gods exist somewhere," or "gods should exist." It's another thing to believe in a thing: "god x exists in place y and does z."
This is especially true considering that history can often show fairly clear secular origins of many of these beliefs.
To me, a belief is something that cannot be taken in any way but literally, a thing that is applied directly to the world or to one's life. "X exists." "Y causes Z." A philosophical belief is very different, much more ephemeral, and most importantly, difficult if not impossible to test, observe, or validate.
It makes it even more interesting if you consider this study.
Just more evidence that people who are likely to believe in one thing without evidence (god) are likely to believe in other things without evidence (atheists are untrustworthy). The truth is that the religious people are the untrustworthy ones.
Slightly on topic: I just finished reading the books "Hyperion" and "The Fall of Hyperion" by Dan Simmons. They're one of the most interesting treatments of religion and divinity in fiction that I've read in quite a long time, and awesomely written sci-fi to boot. Heartily recommended.
Beliefs are good things to have; hell, we're all rife with them. The problem arises when one is unable to examine one's own beliefs and to consider them critically, or accept criticism of them. Open-mindedness is key.
Even faith isn't necessarily a problem, so long as one is open-minded and critical of their faith. I've met plenty of cool, open-minded Christians who really grapple with their faith and consider it deeply; those are the people that are doing it the RIGHT way. Resolving faith is supposed to be a difficult thing with which you struggle all your life; anyone who says they are 100% secure in their faith is pretty much full of shit.
I generally don't hold any belief too strongly, because becoming too rigid in one's beliefs prevents one from adapting to things that challenge said beliefs. This is not to say that one needs to be wishy-washy; rather, if one is presented with sufficient evidence that one's beliefs are a sham, one needs to be able to deal with that, and not cling tenaciously to some half-assed belief.
That's probably the most important idea here. There is nothing in this world in which I believe that, were evidence presented denying it, I would continue to believe. I think too many people accept things as true without proper questioning.
^_^
What is it that leads us to this place? What takes us to this point of neutrality towards faith, or ending up on the far side of faith, opposing it at its base?