Unpleasant conversations between atheists and theists

I kind of like this analogy because it still sits on the side of what is maybe knowable (or “postulate-able”) based on math that is consistent with the world we observe. Though the existence of the multiverse is not directly observable, and though the reasons for the multiverse differ depend on the choice of the mathematical model used, the idea that such a world exists follows logically from the mathematical models. Seeing that we can infer physical things that we may never be able to measure (though in some cases, the models are testable in principle), it follows logically that even this may not be the entire story.

Granted, we (theists) are basically in the same position as the Greeks like Democritus in speculating that the world is made of atoms or Aristarchus who is the first know recorded person to propose a heliocentric system (“proved” wrong by Plato). (Here, I am of course keeping my eyes in the direction of the plow and not looking side-to-side or back, as @Merv described it.) Deductive and inductive reasoning are very powerful tools, but they can become a dangerous recipe when you have a hammer and everything looks like a nail.

Our reasoning for believing in God are rooted somehow in personal experience and through a long history of a community of faith. In some ways, those experiences abstractly connect with what we have learned and experienced both within that fellowship of believers and even sometimes without.

It certainly isn’t something we can use as a club to force others to think our way – something that zealots on our side do embarrassing often. At the same time, zealots on the other side, who want to rid the world of religion so everything will be wonderful and beautiful again, are also likely smoking opium thinking that their “science” is enough to describe all that is. I can appreciate why they feel that way sometimes, but my impression is that blind belief in science (mind you, “blind belief” not mere “acceptance of” or “respect for” science) is likely to be just as pernicious as blind belief in some cheap god that some charlatan claims he possesses a direct line to in the clouds. Faith is tempered by the realities of living in the world and the long history of a community of people who have wrestled with similar questions through a diversity of circumstances over the course of a very long history. Certainly, the writings help us to find a common language by which to express the experiences we share in common with other people throughout the ages. In some ways, it seems to help when we (by the immeasurable powers of His grace) turn out to be humble and faithful.

– by Grace we proceed

1 Like

I am happy to see some respect for lefties who are the only people in their right minds. :wink: I know, I know, that isn’t what this clip is actually talking about (it is talking about both), but I really couldn’t resist.

Welcome to the group. We’re all a little strange here and somewhat outliers here, so you’re in good company.

Reading some of your other posts, it is an interesting take you have on belief. There is little doubt that belief in some sort of god (or gods) is common throughout the world, so it suggests that there is a selective advantage to this kind of reasoning. I personally do believe in God, but I don’t deny the validity of your premise. It is plausible that it is an evolutionary product of some of features that make us conscious beings; just like when I feel hungry or the fact that I’m a heterosexual male.

I know you haven’t presently made any evolutionary arguments, that is (presently) my projection. Since consciousness is a strange sort of thing that does not sit well (solely) with computation, and there are a lot of very persuasive things we find with evolution, I don’t find your view particularly unsound.

I might note the ancient comment
11 He has made everything beautiful in its time. He has also set eternity in the human heart; yet no one can fathom what God has done from beginning to end. (Ecc 3:11).

… He has also set eternity in the human heart …

Even in somewhere between 700 to 500 BC, people understood that something like this [i.e., that something or someone put the big picture into the human heart] is working there. The author is talking about his own heart, since he cannot really know what is in the heads of other people within his community of faith. Maybe they even could have imagined the “brain in a vat” notion, though I guess they might have assume a heart in a vat. At any rate, we are still asking a similar question.

My only real objection to your claim is mainly in the “who”.

If God has set that sense of eternity in our hearts, this is a “Ruler” who has set the standard – at least in its best form. Granted, there are a number of Levitical rules that are quite objectionable by our modern understanding. Yet why have we come to find them objectionable is also a product of a community of faith and dialog with the world in general. So we aim at being godly even if our attempts at it have been largely very clumsy at best.

On the other hand, a purely evolutionary argument (without the big boss at the top) seems to be more troublesome. Evolution is not concerned about anything or anyone really. It simply goes from wherever it is. I don’t really see how “all men are created equal” can be a maxim in evolution. Most societies, even today, don’t really work that way. This seems to aim at something higher than mere survival. The Beatitudes are not things that are likely to guarantee survival either, yet they seem right only be there this God and a kingdom of heaven (the sine qua non). I see the possibility of us getting here by chance via evolution, but evolution is fickle and has no concern for us or what we do.

So my objection goes to the question of “sovereignty” here. Is it the molecules and some product of epi-phenomena in social cultures that writes those rules, or ne plus ultra is it an Almighty God? How can we trust evolution to grant us objective truth that is not by fiat but is genuinely right?

Or, if I am completely wrong in my presumptions, if it is not a evolutionary product, and it’s not God (or some sort of bigger-than-everything sort of “culture” that permeates everything), then what could it be? Even animals can understand right and wrong behavior through our teaching and they know when they have done wrong, but that goes down, not up. We surely don’t learn our ethics from dogs or cats … well, in a way we can learn our own humanity from them sometimes, but we certainly would not adopt them carte blanche.

[I add as an addendum that we have “overseers” on this site that also help to keep us in line. I don’t think I have crossed anything yet, but I am very thankful for their genuine efforts because it does help make us better. We’re all human so we can get angry, but going into rant mode and exchanging insults serves no one any good. There once again, that all seems to be working from top down, not bottom up.]

– by Grace we proceed
[some post editing]

2 Likes

This topic was automatically closed 6 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.