Liberally religious people & philosophical atheists - "Truth"

[bloom]

I was reading this page on "Truth" ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truth ) and it got me to thinking that what I like about liberally religious people & philosophical atheists is that they are all (mostly) looking for truth. Some how or another.

I think that the Fundamentalists think that they know the truth - and are often trying to use their religion (or philosophy) to try to justify immoral beliefs/abuse of power, etc. But there is a difference in being open-minded to the idea that you don't know the "truth" and being close-minded because you think that you have it all figured out.

I think that most people on DU are trying to figure out what the truth is - in regards to a lot of things. And people recognize that the media is mostly one big roadblock when it comes to figuring out what is going on. Many of us have become more aware that what we have been taught about our country is false. And we are acutely aware that the idea that Bush represents that interests of most Americans is way past false and into fraudulent.

Idea from Hegel:

That truth is not a property of well-formed sentences or propositions, but rather it is a much richer metaphysical concept. ‘The true’ or ‘truth’ in their fully developed form are reached only at the pinnacle of Hegel’s system – the Idea. The idea is the single principle of all reality. The Idea is what is true in and for itself, the absolute unity of Concept and objectivity.

Where some people seem to think that it is all about the argument - I think it is about understanding the idea.

Erich Fromm finds that trying to discuss truth as "absolute truth" is sterile and that emphasis ought to be placed on "optimal truth". He considers truth as stemming from the survival imperative of grasping one's environment physically and intellectually, whereby young children instinctively seek truth so as to orient themselves in "a strange and powerful world".

I think that many people do want to know the truth - but that the truth can be awfully depressing. The Bush administration really pushes "fantasy" - as the optimal "truth". As in there is no global warming - Iraq is going well, etc.

It's interesting to consider the Constructivist theory & Consensus theory

Constructivist theory

Social constructivism holds that truth is constructed by social processes, is historically and culturally specific, and that it is in part shaped through the power struggles within a community. Constructivism views all of our knowledge as "constructed," because it does not reflect any external "transcendent" realities (as a pure correspondence theory might hold). Rather, perceptions of truth are viewed as contingent on convention, human perception, and social experience. It is believed by constructivists that representations of physical and biological reality, including race, sexuality, and gender are socially constructed. Giambattista Vico was among the first to claim that history and culture were man-made. Vico's epistemological orientation gathers the most diverse rays and unfolds in one axiom--verum ipsum factum--"truth itself is constructed." Hegel, Garns, and Marx were among the other early proponents of the premise that truth is socially constructed.

Consensus theory

Consensus theory holds that truth is whatever is agreed upon, or in some versions, might come to be agreed upon, by some specified group. Among the current advocates of consensus theory as a useful accounting of the concept of "truth" is the philosopher Jürgen Habermas. Among its current strong critics is the philosopher Nicholas Rescher. Habermas maintains that truth is what would be agreed upon in an ideal speech situation.

The constructivist theory explains what feminists, esp. and also other people who are against our imperialist system - are fighting against. The status quo - the generally accepted truths that say our society is working well for people and the planet. And many so-called truths about our civilization and it's history.

Many of us would like a new consensus. Essentially - if people can't agree on some basic truths and what the problems are - we aren't going to be effective in fixing them.

[LouisianaLiberal]

1. Thanks.

[pat_k]

2. belief people v. knowledge people

http://january6th.org/post_of_the_week.html#pmk

[charles22]

4. Belief is speculative.

Not inherently wrong, but not a place to reside, either.

[pat_k]

5. Nevertheless, some apparently reside there. . .

. . .and they don't appear to come to their beliefs through speculation. They apparently adopt them wholesale from others.

When your belief defines your reality, there is no reality out there to test them against, therefore you have no reason to look beyond the beliefs.

We can't know the process -- it is a black box -- but we can observe how people operate. My "belief-people v. knowledge people" model is consistent with the behavior we see.

The main point is that we when we stop treating folks who behave like belief-people as if they were knowledge people and speak "their language" we save ourselves loads of frustration and actually more effectively get through.

Expecting belief people to be knowledge people is sort of like expecting dogs to behave like a cats. To figure out how to deal with them, we observe and adjust our approach accordingly.

[charles22]

6. Oh sure.

I never thought otherwise. Why "belief" never been interesting to me.

[bloom]

7. "belief people" & "knowledge people"

I think that just like the belief in God/dess is on a continuum - I think that "knowledge" is as well.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=214x90852#90874

Nor do I think that it is an either/or proposition - belief/knowledge.

Some people accept what comes into their homes through their TV as fact without processing it - as if they have experienced it themselves.

Some people won't believe anything until they have proved it themselves with some kind of mathematical proof (that can't be done with most stuff - like people's behavior - though some people are working on predicting that mathematically, too).

I think that everyone is a "belief person" to some extent. Some people believe more unproven things than others.

We all choose who to listen to - who to ignore.

Certainly the Bush presidency has shown that many people are willing to believe an awful lot of nonsense - and that many of those same people believe some pretty extreme religious stuff.

A lot of people believe that "truth" wins - and that the majority would not believe a thing unless it were true. I think that that is one of the biggest fallacies of all.

[Finder]

8. Truth always wins in the end...

although sometimes it takes a while for it emerge from all the muck. The words belief/believe have become interpreted as positions without a basis but many believe or hold beliefs based on reason or evidence. It depends on the context...

The word "Believer" when used in religious circles refers to belief in the tenets of that religion. Followers of other religions would be considered "unbelievers" even know they do hold beliefs.

One can believe in certain principles or even in a person based on observation, facts, evidence, or history.

Facts/Truths are not something we choose to believe in or ignore but are simply facts/truths.

[lvx35]

11. Wow that's an interesting read.

I am reminded of Martin Buber's ideas of Ich Du and Ich es Its interesting to note that those get their ideas from testing and theories (knowledge people) most focusing on an "it" (Ich es) while those getting their ideas from others (belief people) are focusing on a "you" (Ich Du). Its not suprising that the "Belief" people see ultimate truth as a "you" while "knowledge" people see ultimate truth as an "it", consistent with Buber's ideas about the modes of conciousness.

[Finder]

3. Good post....and I agree basic truths need to be established...

in order to find solutions for most of what we are confronted with today.

Truth via facts vs conventional wisdom does seem to be the root of most of the problems.

[Irreverend IX]

9. Pros and cons

Philosophies that include "absolute truth" can be logically flawed and lead to destructive behavior, but so can the "optimal truth" concept. Religious fundies, dittoheads and their brethren exemplify the flaws of belief in "absolute truth," but the Straussian philosophy held by the leaders of the neoconservative movement is more oriented towards "optimal truth" and moral relativism. They believe that leaders should craft truths to cement their power over society--as Orwell said, "he who controls the past controls the future."

Many conservative attacks on liberal philosophy come from a position of moral relativism, like "you say torture is always wrong, pre-emptive war is wrong, but 9/11 changed everything, we're fighting them over there so we don't have to fight them over here," etc. I think most of us would agree that some principles are absolute and others are relative, and one of the most important challenges involved in defeating conservative philosophy is defining which principles fall into each category. The neocons' belief that there's one ethical standard for leaders and one for the masses is repugnant, but it's important that we move beyond the dualistic idea of "absolutism bad, relativism good," so that we have a firm philsophical base from which to attack the conservative paradigm.

[Finder]

10. A few things to point out...

First, philosophy rarely has absolutes...that is what distinguishes it from religion.

Moral relativism is necessary in order to live in a pluralistic world. Certain ideals in Straussian philosophy border on elitism. Relativism is not part of the philosophy.

Absolutism is sometimes dangerous and always repressive.

Liberal philosophy is relativistic, Conservative is absolutist which explains its comfortability with religion.

[lvx35]

12. The atheists and spiritual left are far too lazy to ever move forward.

I agree with you, regarding the need for consensus. The funny thing is that its already there in many ways...Most on the left know the evils of the right wing religious leaders for instance, though the religious left frames it as a perversion of spiritual principles and the atheist frames it religion in general. What happens is that we argue about the framing of the issue and ignore the actual issue, which is alot more easy in a lot of ways than doing the hard work to deal with it all.

The unproductive arguments we get in always involve huge generalizations. "religion is bad" or "religion is good", when everybody knows these statements aren't true. The religious motivations that drove Gandhi were quite good, the religious motivations that drove Atta were quite bad. But if we all accepted this, it would mean we'd have to do real thinking, analysis, and work to figure out what the problematic ideas were, and that would take far too much effort. So we're stuck, we're stuck because we're lazy bastards.

[Finder]

15. Speak for yourself...n/t

[Random_Australian]

19. Speak for yourself.

"the atheist frames it religion in general."

1) No we don't.

2) 'the atheist' is a collective that puts religion before humanity. Don't use it. Try 'atheists'.

Thinking I'm too sensitive? Look for where you find the term "the Jew" as a collective noun.

"But if we all accepted this, it would mean we'd have to do real thinking, analysis, and work to figure out what the problematic ideas were, and that would take far too much effort"

Already did the real thinking. I already accepted all that. Looks like your little hypothesis does not work.

[lvx35]

22. Thank you for illustrating my point.

I was worried about that guy who said "speak for yourself." I'm glad you came along to illustrate my point about bickering about petty bullshit between the religious left and the atheistS on the left. I mean, if you talked about actual issues like the movement to teach creationism, or intolerance of homosexuals, we'd be forced to agree and address the religious right. But by comparing me to Hitler for making a typo where I forgot to put an "s" after atheist, you have defined the argument as being all about typos, not policies. This is exactly what I was talking about, I was not exaggerating!

[greyl]

23. Maybe.

It doesn't really make sense that you meant to type "the atheists", because you also used "frames" but, whatever.
I think the agnostic/atheistic left helps provide a more complete understanding of the failings of the religious right than the faithful left does on their own.

[lvx35]

24. I accept that criticism.

Its true, we have not done nearly the job that we should have in standing up to the religious right. we focus on tolerance, even to the extent where tolerate the intolerant, which has been our failure. But we are organizing now, trying to change that. :)

edit: Regarding 'the atheist', yeah probably not a typo, but my point is nothing bad was intended. I would not find it offensive if somebody said "the person faith frames it this way" etc.

[Random_Australian]

36. Hmmm.

I make one post- just one- that you think is petty bullshit of course means that I never discuss anything else.

But hey, talking about creationism, ID, intolerance of homosexuals sounds good. Why don't you actually start a conversation about it here? I'll be more than glad to add to the conversation.

So, ok, some of us, like me, aren't in R/T to discuss what you want to the exclusion of everything else. That does not mean we don't argue this stuff in real life.

And Hitler was not the only one to use "the Jew". The point I was making was that it was common to people who were either placing some aspect above the whole or committing the fundamental attribution error. If it's just a typo, say so. Just say "typo" and I'll get the point.

The now-known-as typo was an aside to the main argument - it had small worth and no relation to what we were arguing about. I mean really, if someone said "I think xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx. P.S. it is spelt conscious" then would you post an attack on them for tacking that on?


*****************************************************************

Ok, now is the point where I put aside petty bullshit and get to something that has actual worth.

And finally, you keep telling me that if we looked like we were discussing it more I would be forced to "agree and address" the RRR - what on earth makes you think that I don't agree with the theists? What makes you think I do nothing to address the RRR?

[Evoman]

13. We can have political consensus and ethical consensus

but as far as I am concerned, I can never have any kind of consensus on religion with liberal christians. Because religion is a big, stupid, unfortunate side effect of evolution, and nothing more. There is absolutely no truth in religion..and if there IS any truth in religion, it is purely coincedental. We do not "make up truth"...the truth is out there, and what we believe or agree to believe in has little effect on it. We either know the truth, or don't know the truth...but making up shit, which religion does, is no way of looking for it. I know that you didn't seem to be specifically talking about religion, but since this is the religious forum, I thought that was what you were getting at.

I have a lot in common with liberal christians in terms of politics. I hate bush, I vote for leftist leaders, and
i believe in helping the poor, strong public education, and other liberal ideas. But I will always strongly disagree with religion, and I will NEVER admit there is any truth in it whatsoever until a)religionists show evidence for god (which they never will) and b)religious people quit making shit up and start actually doing scientific studies of god (and I mean REAL science, not that bullshit they pull off at Creationist Science Institutes).

There is no truth in religion. If atheists, especially scientists, made a consensus with religion, our scienctific theories would HALF made up bullshit.

[Ron Green]

14. Maybe there's plenty of truth in religion, but not the kind you buy into.

Doing scientific studies of God is missing the whole point, 'cause science looks at truth in a particular way, while religion operates differently. The whole problem with the "creationist" nonsense is just that: They try to apply a scientific way of understanding to the non-scientific part of existence. The God rejected by many atheists and skeptics is a very limited God, often with a personality and pulling strings like a puppeteer.

Bad religion ought to be discouraged (just as bad science ought to be), but spiritual, scholarly and tolerant religion is full of good, and, yes, truth as well.

[Evoman]

16. There is NO TRUTH IN RELIGION, except by coincedence and

pure luck. What exactly do I buy into? The fundies religion or the creationist religion is the exact same thing as yours....a bunch of bullshit masquerading as truth. What is religion? How does it find truth? Theologians are not real scholars by any stretch of the imagination, and scholarly and tolerant religion is just a pipe dream that has NEVER happened, and I predict will NEVER happen.

Scientists actually do work do discover things about the universe. Religious people just make shit up. Thats how they "operate differently". Like Dawkins said:

"What expertise can theoligians bring to deep cosmological questions that science cannot? *snip* Why are scientists so cravenly respectful towards the ambitions of theologians, over questions that theologians are certainly no more qualified to answer than scientists themselves?".

[ironbark]

21. Illiterate camel herder gets lucky

again and again and again-


"Do not the Unbelievers see that the heavens and the earth were joined together, then We clove them asunder and We got every living thing out of the water. Will they not then believe?".
Sura 21 verse 30, Quran .

[Ron Green]

26. You seem to be angry and rigid in your assertions.

Is your only function in the "Religion and Theology" forum to disrespect religion and theology, along with anyone who doesn't reject it out of hand?

How do you know my "religion" is a bunch of bullshit masquerading as truth? You don't know me, or what I believe.

I hope you lose some of your anger, or at least some of your rudeness.

[Evoman]

30. I have very little anger....annoyance, perhaps, best

describes my feelings towards religion. Is my only function to disrespect religion and theology? Nope. I have no "function" here. I come here because I quite like the people here, and the discussion (which include religious people, by the way). I, do however, immenesly disrespect religion..so yes, I guess you could say thats one of my "functions". I do not disrespect you or other people here, but I have no respect for your religious beliefs whatsoever.

How doe I know your religion is bullshit? Simply because it ALL IS. Now, if you don't believe in god, and you don't believe in other things like reincarnation (i.e. your not really religious), then I suppose I am making assumptions, and I apologize. Please know that I would never attack you as a person...I simply attack your religious beliefs, and I admit that quite readily. If I proffessed, for example, to believe that welfare was stupid and that we should have unregulated capitalism, you would probably just be as likely to attack my position. It is not "rude" to make your own position known. I stand by my positions as you do..the only difference is that my position is very unpopular.

I will reiterate. I am not angry...although if you want to believe that I am, be my guest. I was simply sharing my view that we will never have a religious consensus, because I think that any belief that you have about the supernatural (I am assuming that you do..if not, again I apologize) is simply in your mind and does not reflect the real world. I deal only in the real world, not in unrealistic fantasies and ideas.

I want to add, however, that I recognize your name (I think you posted quite a bit on a thread about the whole Paige Scandal), and I do respect your views on other subjects. I have absolutely no doubts that you are intelligent liberal. However, in this case, I will never agree with you. Religion is false, and has never been a worthy way of gaining of knowledge or truth.

[Ron Green]

33. Thanks for allowing that my religious beliefs, if any, may not be worthy

of your attack. Actually, I'm not a religious person, at least not one who subscribes to any particular doctrine or ritual. My understanding of God is that "he" (for lack of a better pronoun) is much more all-encompassing than almost any "believer" can define, especially since a valid definition must be referenced outside that which is defined, and in my view there is nothing outside of God, except for illusion.

However, I think it's important that religious sects, churches, congregations, orders, what have you, be beacons of service and stewardship, seek to embrace others not like themselves, and reject the idea of having enemies. In its broadest sense, the "church" in the world community is the conscience and soul to balance the "ego" and "id" of the State and the Market, respectively. Churches are never going away, any more than governments or businesses are. Therefore, I hope for them to be the best they can be.

[Evoman]

35. Lol...I don't much get deism either.

I mean, if god is all-encompassing and there is nothing outside of god, then the term god becomes synonymous with Universe, and then loses all meaning. Illusion...what is illusion? I would like very much to hear your idea. See...my problem is unclear statements like "Nothing outside god, except for illusion". Its just a string of sentences, with no meaning. Illusions...do you mean the type of illusions magicians do. Do you mean illusions that we have in our mind? Does that mean that god is everything but illusions.

More than that, I would like to know why you think the universe is a god? What do you base your belief on? A feeling? If you don't know any more about the universe (having studies it in less detail) than your typical astronomer or cosmologist, what do you base your idea on? When you really come down to it, didn't you just make it up, this idea of all-encompassing god?

[Finder]

37. That is not Deism, that is Pantheism. n/t

[Ron Green]

43. The view that makes the most sense to me

I don't think the universe is "a god," I think the universe is the part of God that we can observe and study, and that in our life on earth we are part of that universe, bound by time and space just as the physical universe is so bound. The physical creation, the universe studied and understood (in a limited way - I mean, do they even know yet if light is a wave or a particle?) by astronomers and cosmologists, is actually the illusion in this cosmology, because it's differentiated from the Unity. In my view, absolute truth is that there are no differences among all the forms of matter and energy found in the universe, and what we see in our brief time here on earth is the illusion of separation.

Our job, then, it seems to me, is to find our way back to the Unity, as best we can in our limited time- and space-bound way, and the way to do that is to love. In each other human (indeed in each other creature) is God, and connecting with the God in the other one is the ongoing work that we do. All the ways of saying "God says this" or "God did that" are just more illusion, and continue to try to apply our limited knowledge to what cannot be talked about. Only love, especially of one who seems to be our enemy, makes the connection, overcomes the difference, and moves us toward God.

Fear is the natural state of being in the seen universe, but love is the state of eternal being, in the unseen world. To the extent we can deal effectively with fear and replace it with love, we can grow. To me, this makes good sense: it gives a purpose to life here on earth, and it doesn't allow a bunch of limited, bullshit "gods" with human personalities and all kinds of rules.

[Evoman]

45. Wow...where did you get all of THAT!

Honestly, I am curious. Where did all these beliefs come from? How do you know ANY of this stuff? How do you know that "fear is the natural state of being, but love is the state of eternal being"? What do you mean by eternal being? How do you know that fear isn't the state of eternal being? What makes love so special? Without certain chemicals in our brain, we can't even experience love...so how can a unity without our chemical composition even experience love. How do you sadness isn't the state that we need to have unity? Doesn't sadness bring people together as well?

See, this is esentially my problem with religion and supernatural thought. You have no idea what the universe is...your just making things up and passing it off as deep thought. Don't get me wrong...I don't know what the hell the universe is either, really, but I refuse to make conjectures without some sort of basis for it. How do you even know there is UNITY. See, every single person believes something unique...considering that you have no more evidence than anybody else, chances are that you are no more right than the fundie. The ONLY thing we have on top of our willy nilly opinions is science.

[Ron Green]

46. Love isn't special at all.

Love is general. It's the specialness of physical existence that separates us from each other.

You keep asking "how do you know, how do you know?" . . . I would only ask in return that you tell me your age. (You may well assert that such a fact is not important, but I believe it is. What you are writing is exactly what I have said and defended in other times of my life, and I have a whole different way of understanding now.)

"You have no idea what the universe is..." is what you wrote above, and of course that's not true. I do have some ideas, and I can give you a pretty good accounting of Big Bang Nucleosynthesis and how it brought about what we know as matter. You refuse to make conjectures without some sort of basis for it, but I'm willing to make broader conjecture, much broader than when I believed that science was the end of knowing.

Now if you're as old as I, I'll have some different kinds of questions. But my guess is that you are much younger than I am, with experiences and understandings similar to mine when I was asking the same questions.

[Evoman]

47. I am no doubt much younger than you

I'm a nubile 27 years old. But that does not change the question...how do you know? There are plenty of people your age who don't make stuff about unity and god and love with no evidence. I am in no "stage", I assure you and I find the implication that I am rather insulting. I am pretty sure that as I grow older, I am no more likely to make up stuff about Unity or Love or eternal beings than I am now. And I know plenty of older people who don't believe what you believe, fundies and atheists both. How can you make any claims that you know more than they, or that your musings are in any way true or accurate?

I usually treat people older than I with more respect...many of them have had more experiences than I (though not that many..lol..I've been around) and may in all likelihood be wiser than me. But it has limits...you can't just expect that a younger person such as I will expect that you have any more answers than I do, especially in light of the fact that some of the most intelligent, wise older people I know completely disagree with you. My grandpa is 72, and he is a complete liberal atheist, who would probably snicker if you told him what you told me. He has seen more in his life than many people living in our society (he has travelled around the world).

[Ron Green]

48. Thanks for dealing straight with me in this little exchange.

And honestly, I don't want to play that "when I was your age I thought like you do" card, it's really bullshit. What I'm trying to get across is that the stuff I "make up" has been accrued and assimilated in my own mind over many years, and it works FOR ME. I really can't prescribe for anyone else what he or she should believe or know, but I do share some very fundamental (there's that word!) tenets with other people whom I consider thoughtful and experienced.

For me, a deep belief in the world of the unseen has brought great peace of mind, at the same time allowing me to experience the pain and sadness that I believe is necessary for personal growth. It makes sense that IF there is a God, then that God is infinite - otherwise it's a God with limits, or some sort of Superman in the Sky dude, with a personality and a human way of operating. Unfortunately, many people believe in such a personal (and maybe vengeful) being, and thus the source of lots of problems. Again, I do believe that people are basically fearful in their existence here on earth, and making up gods that justify their fears and bad behavior is not a surprising development over human history.

However, over that same history have come many moments of wisdom, some connected with organized belief systems and some not. I know that you assert there is no connection between these moments of wisdom and any religion, and you may be absolutely right. You may be correct in maintaining that there is no such thing as God, or gods, or any existence beyond what we can measure. However, my life, study and experiences have taught me that connecting with other people in a meaningful way, while one of the most difficult things to do, is the path to some sort of "true self" that is very different from the the self image of my childhood and youth. It has taken me many years to strip away who I thought I was, and start to come to know something more real, something capable of connecting with a source of energy and knowledge beyond my consciousness, and then sharing that with other people.

Throughout this time I have noticed that some of the central beliefs of various religions support not only each other, but my own experiences. My decision to remain open to theses myths, allegories and lessons, balancing all the while the skepticism of my younger years, has led me to my present spiritual understanding, to which I'm committed to examining and challenging for the rest of my life. As a thoughtful and outspoken young person (you're less than half my age), you deserve the honor of my attention and consideration, and the acknowledgment that you may be right.

At this time, though, I still claim to be part of you. :-)

[bloom]

54. Re: "How do you know ANY of this stuff?"

I saw this earlier today and it reminded me of this idea. Stuff that people "know" through experience.

Mirror neurons track the emotional flow, movement, and even intentions of the person we are with, and replicate this sensed state in our own brain by stirring in our brain the same areas active in the other person.

Mirror neurons offer a neural mechanism that explains emotional contagion, the tendency of one person to catch the feelings of another, particularly if strongly expressed. This brain-to-brain link may also account for feelings of rapport, which research finds depend in part on extremely rapid synchronization of people’s posture, vocal pacing and movements as they interact. In short, these brain cells seem to allow the interpersonal orchestration of shifts in physiology.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/10/health/psychology/10essa.html?_r=2&oref=slogin&oref=slogin

I noticed someone else blogging about how - to her - it explained "magic" or the "energy work" that some people do. For others it might be prayer - esp. in groups.

What it says to me is that there probably are scientific explanations for processes that occur that some people see as "religion" - other people see as something else. I think that there are things that our minds do - connections that we have that are not always explainable ("Unity and all that). And one thing that I think that is good about religion are the little things - like people being there for each other. Which of course people can be without religion - but which for some people religion is a path that helps.

I also totally think that some people pervert their interpretation of "God's will" to suit their (often) greedy purposes. But I think the idea of people wanting to have a common definition/understanding of "God/dess" is that they want to align themselves with other people who are looking for the "positive" life mindset. Like I would love for everyone to have the mindset to care about the earth - and each other - basic things. (And there are certainly people who are working against that - esp. in the Bush Administration and the whole fascist nonsense.) And I think that it takes will to be positive toward people who are determined to be negative - but I think that it's a really positive thing when people are.

While that can be outside of religion - some religions are based on that because it is a powerful thing when it happens. And governments aren't going to make it happen. It's something that people have to do, themselves.

[Evoman]

53. oops

delete

[PVnRT]

39. Science is the search for fact, not truth

Truth is the subject of philosophers. The problem with people like you is that you've bought into the fundamentalist view of Christianity, i.e., that Christianity is All and everything else is stupid and worthless. In fact, you've managed to substitute your search for truth into that statement in place of Christianity.

"a bunch of bullshit masquerading as truth"

Then define for us what truth is.

[Evoman]

40. No.

I have not been brought up with a fundamentalist view of christianity. Quit pidgeonholing me. I quite understand your liberal christianity and I still believe it is bullshit. What is liberal christianity but a dilution of the old-style, evil Christianity of yesteryear. The only thing that liberal christianity is, is a dilution of religion with secularism. Secularism and scientific understanding is what leads one to believe that Noah couldn't have been on that boat and that sick people don't have demons in them. You don't believe gays are evil because you know better...but that revelation does not come from god.

Christianity is stupid, but not worthless. It can tell us a lot about an ancient peoples world view, and give us some insight into their minds. And when Jesus Christ goes the way of Zeus, then it will be an interesting class that bored college students will take for easy marks.

Define truth? Well there are two meanings of truth..there is the one people in everyday situations do
(i.e. conformity to reality or actuality) which is almost synonymous with fact, and there is the grander philosophical truth, which is harder to define and, when it comes down to it, just leads us around in circles. Using the second, if you wanted, you could debate to me that the proposition "The earth is a planet" is not really true because I don't understand the universe and how do I know that rhe earth is really there and that I have limited human sense etc etc etc. But I hold that that sort of meaning of truth is somewhat useless in everyday conversation.

No matter which version of truth you use, though, still doesn't make religion any less bullshitty ;)

[PVnRT]

41. Who says everyone takes the story of Noah literally?

I don't. The rest of my family, minus the fundies in it, don't. In fact, you've proved my point once again by relying on the fundamentalist version of Christianity to define all of it. Wouldn't someone in search of truth dig a little deeper than a superficial layer that is easy to believe because it fits one's own preformed conception?

"there is the one people in everyday situations do
(i.e. conformity to reality or actuality) which is almost synonymous with fact"

No, that is not truth, it is fact. "The earth is a planet" is not a fact without a definition of planet, which is arbitrary (ask Pluto), and all things arbitrary depend on someone else's opinion.

[Evoman]

42. I know you don't believe in Noah...don't strawman me.

I simply said that THE REASON you don't believe in Noahs story is because of secular and scientific thinking. Go back and read my post thoroughly before you lash out. In fact, you proved MY POINT.

On edit: Fine, I concede your point on the planet. But then let me change my example...in the everyday sense of the word, it is true that the earth revolves around the sun. But if you want to talk about philosophical truth, you could argue that in 4 dimensions, the earth does not or that space is curved, but we go straight etc etc etc. It all depends on whether or not your using the common meaning or not...but if you really want to tell me that none of what I believe scienfically and rationally is true, I will simply argue that christianity as well can never be truth.

[Random_Australian]

18. ....

"The God rejected by many atheists and skeptics is a very limited God, often with a personality and pulling strings like a puppeteer."

Odd that you said that, and I wonder if this is the case. I for one have considered every possible God. :shrug:

[Ron Green]

27. Maybe you're not one of the many.

:hi:

[beam me up scottie]

25. I agree with you on the creationism/intelligent design issue.

But I don't reject that particular god, or any other gods, for that matter.

Rejection implies acknowledgment and acceptance of gods' existence, it begs the question.

Since I have never found any evidence of their existence and never believed in them, rejection has nothing to do with my atheism.

[Ron Green]

28. This is what I don't understand - how does rejection require acceptance?

If many people claim knowledge of a god, and worship that god, as I understand it you DO NOT accept that notion; therefore you reject it. Help me see the difference between not believing (as they do, or as any believers do) and rejecting such a belief.

[beam me up scottie]

29. To be able to reject something, I have to understand what it is.

I don't understand what gods are, and no believer has ever been able to define them adequately enough for me to decide whether or not to reject them.

[Evoman]

31. What do you mean?

I am quite certain that God is an angry old sky god living in the clouds. He is also a kind hearted force that exists outside of the universe. No wait, he is actually an energy that exists in all of us..he is love. No wait, he is the universe..god is everything. No wait, he rides a chariot and shoots lightning from his hands. Or is he a man who is the son of god, who is really a part of god, but separate but still part of the same god but who has a son that was a man but now is a god, so that god gave birth to himself and then died to save us from sins, but not really, because how can you kill your son that is really you, which is god?

So I don't know what the hell your talking about when you say theists haven't properly defined god.

[beam me up scottie]

32. Exactly.

I don't think they can define it because it's different for each believer.

And I always hated it when believers (not talking about Ron Green or any DUer) claimed we "reject" God because we're angry or disappointed (kind of like we're pouting with Dad or something).

This issue also ties in with the whole explicit/implicit atheism issue we talked about at NG.

[Evoman]

34. Its patronizing drivel, and its arrogant.

The fact that there are so many different beliefs about god (every single person has a different one) just seems to confirm that its all in the mind. God is not a real construct, apart from associated brain chemicals. People always think I am angry at god...sometimes it may seem like it, but its really only a rhetorical device for me. How can I be angry at something that doesn't exist? I am also not disappointed...I rather like the idea that there is no god. Hell, or limbo, or even eternal life doesn't sound that fun to me.

[trotsky]

44. "because we're angry or disappointed"

I have long suspected that many believers go through a phase in which they ARE at least a little disillusioned with their religion, and/or angry with their god, and they assume this period in their lives was "atheism." Later, they return to embrace their faith, and when they interact with atheists, assume we're all stuck in that same "angry with god" phase that they went through. Because, hey, they've been an atheist too, so they know how we think. Patronizing bullshit, of course.

[Zhade]

50. Me, I'm ECSTATIC that I'm god-free!

No gods, no masters - it's quite liberating to take charge of one's life and not need that secuirty blanket.

[Random_Australian]

52. There is another mechanism too.

The simplest way for someone who knows no atheists to try and work out how an atheist thinks is simply take themselves and subtract God.

However, these people have bound everything good in their lives to God.

Therefore you get statements like "the atheist has a God shaped hole in his heart" and "atheists are without (love, fuzzy things)"

The exact mechanism, I think.

[Evoman]

56. Very good point, RA.

Although I doubt all of them think like that, I think that it is very hard for people who accept things as true (for example, if one takes gods existence as for granted as trees, or flowers) to imagine their world without it.

I just wish that people would understand that everything good in them, all the humanity and kindness and peacefulness come from their core. Not god. You are good because YOU are good.

[Finder]

38. You nailed it...n/t

[Zhade]

49. Exactly. One cannot 'reject' what has never been proven to exist.

It is begging the question, indeed.

[Random_Australian]

17. Why not both?

As in, there are some things with less chance of bieng accurate than other things, (as in, there is subjective interpretation of objective data) and that also what any given word means is formed by consensus, (and consensus is caused by social constructs influencing many people), however, while the meaning of words like "apple" change by consensus, no consensus actually affects the fruit.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

20. Both theories are self-evidently wrong.

At least as stated/summarised in the OP.

Whether or not something is true has nothing whatsoever to do with whether or how many people believe it. It's not a construct or a consensus, it's a fact. The world wasn't flat, even when people believed it was.

Truth isn't something you invent or create, it's something you discover.

[Zhade]

51. "Universal truth is not measured in mass appeal."

NT!

[bloom]

55. "Truth... is something you discover"

I think that societies/groups discover more or less together. Their understanding of the universe. Whether the earth is flat or not. Whether our country is "moral" or not.

Of course - some people can be on one page and other people are still on different pages. Like the evidence is there - but they are not ready to move on or whatever.

The Moyers show, "Is God Green" was interesting in illustrating this as far as some of these evangelical groups go. For instance - the preacher who decided that "God is Green" and he got the whole congregation on board (they had all thought that they couldn't think that because it was a 'liberal' idea :eyes: ). Or the other evangelical who could hear the "truth" from an evangelical scientist (that people are affecting the climate) - what he couldn't hear from an abstract media - and who went on to convince others. Sometimes it is people like that who take these issues more seriously than anybody.

So much of it is wrapped up in who the people trust. Of course - the Republicans want people to trust them.

[greyl]

57. I think differences in what are considered legitimate sources of knowledge

are more crucial to the general issue you're speaking to - in a nuts and bolts way.