[Closed] The difficulty in discussing religion on the forum

As regards the WoS OO pish - Hee Haw to do with actual religion. Everything to do with bigoted tribalism.
Our church has hundreds of members, none of whom are in the OO. Other local churches report the same phenomenon. Funny eh?

Sorry, bad choice of words, I do realise it's bigotry hiding behind religion, apologies for the (justifiable) offence caused!

apologies for the (justifiable) offence caused!

None taken. Double oppression for you on Sunday though 😉

Religion aside for a moment, has there never been a time in your life when you've believed something to be true, in the pit of your stomach without empirical, demonstrable truth that it actually is?

Isn't there a subtle yet defining difference here between 'true' or 'factual'?

I broadly share your general non-enjoyment of watching football. Yet I'm fairly certain that I also understand why other people enjoy it. Same goes for cricket (in a diminishing way, I have to try harder to understand why!)

However, both cricket and football do not require an enormous effort to verify as factual. Yet if someone claimed (quite literally) - 'It's true, Manchester United are favoured by God' - it seems reasonable that they shoulder the burden to provide the empirical/demonstrable truth of this 'deity', first and foremost - if they wish to be believed. Rather than I simply believe that it is 'true' because the team's performance was good over a season. Extraordinary claims, and all that...

molgrips

That, to me, is poor thinking. Poor thinkers exist on both sides of the debate, definitely not a symptom of religion.

I agree, but I spent a long time looking for the best thinkers on the side of religion (assuming they must exist somewhere) and honestly I haven't seen much of any interest (except for those deists whose god is so distant they may as well not exist).

However, both cricket and football do not require an enormous effort to verify as factual. If someone said to me - 'It's true, Manchester United are favoured by God' - I would require them to provide the empirical/demonstrable truth of this 'deity' first and foremost. Rather than simply believing that it is 'true' because the team's performance was good over a season. Extraordinary claims, and all that...

what about e.g. 'this relationship is definitely the right one for me' or 'XYZ is a nasty piece of work'?

And as it happens, go onto any newspaper or sports site and you'll find plenty of atheists saying 'It's true, Manchester United are favoured by referees/the FA/etc' without a shred of empirical/demonstrable truth... 😉

If someone said to me - 'It's true, Manchester United are favoured by God' - I would require them to provide the empirical/demonstrable truth of this 'deity' first and foremost

Dragging religion back into it. Naughty 😉

The question I was asking , to use your example, would be if someone believed that Manchester United were the greatest team in the world despite not having won the Premiership or the FA Cup or any European competitions.
The persons conviction regarding Man Utd would likely be unshaken despite a lack of evidence to support it.
Neither true nor factual but believed nonetheless.

Something that, you know to be right , which others around you may find irrational or even a little odd.
A strongly held conviction based on feelings or instinct rather than provable facts?

no, anything I hold to strongly without evidence I'm happy to admit is completely illogical and is pure emotional response and as such I have no expectation or right to think that anyone else would either give a monkeys or make allowance for it.

... belief that the world is flat for instance...

You see, [b]Stoatsbrother[/b], you have suggested EXACTLY the sort of inaccuracy I am talking about: these things that get set forward as facts, when in truth they are nothing of the sort.

[url= https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myth_of_the_flat_Earth ]The myth of the flat earth[/url]

If we just asked each other questions instead of asserting presuppositions, we would end up in a better place. How can that be controversial?!?

no, anything I hold to strongly without evidence I'm happy to admit is completely illogical and is pure emotional response and as such I have no expectation or right to think that anyone else would either give a monkeys or make allowance for it.

So, as long as you admit it's an irrational belief, you should be left in peace to get on with it without any one questioning it?

For me it's Football. Despite the overwhelming evidence to the contrary, I can't see any merit or entertainment in the game of Football. It does absolutely nothing for me. I've tried to like it, I really have. I coach a boys team twice a week and hold a coaching qualification and my boys love it. Still don't get it.

Fine, but there's no argument about it's existence. Everybody can see the evidence.

I spent a long time looking for the best thinkers on the side of religion (assuming they must exist somewhere) and honestly I haven't seen much of any interest (except for those deists whose god is so distant they may as well not exist).

@eat_the_pudding: Really? How much have you read of Rowan Williams, Eric Mascall, Jürgen Moltmann, Hans Küng, or Reinhold Niebuhr for example? What about Dostoyevsky even?

Could it be that the vast vast majority of the 'best thinkers on the side of religion' have better things to do than constantly explain themselves to internet commentators? There are a few who include, as part of what they do, explaining religion to those who ask about it; but for the most part, 'proving' basic tenets is not what any of us/them are interested in.

"special pleading" is actually a phrase with a specific meaning, asking for different treatment than others might receive. I'd view it as an accurate description of a particular scenario, rather than pejorative.

I'm sorry but not suprised that molgrips and JY have chosen to take offense on SaxonRider's behalf. Seems to me they are playing the man, not the idea... No one has ever accused me of being [i]passive [/i]aggressive before... 😉

Religion aside for a moment, has there never been a time in your life when you've believed something to be true, in the pit of your stomach without empirical, demonstrable truth that it actually is?

Something that, you know to be right , which others around you may find irrational or even a little odd.
A strongly held conviction based on feelings or instinct rather than provable facts?

When I was a child, I had an invisible friend who went everywhere with me who I talked to about my worries.

Then, when I grew up, I stopped going to church.

So, as long as you admit it's an irrational belief, you should be left in peace to get on with it without any one questioning it?

As long as said person doesn't use such a belief to inflict harm on others, or request special treatment or demand a privileged place in society then for the most part I'd agree with the sentiment. No one however should be above being questioned and no one has the right to expect to not be offended.

Fine, but there's no argument about it's existence. Everybody can see the evidence

The point was not about the existence of Football, The point was about my deeply held conviction that Football is shite . A belief I hold true to despite massive amounts of supporting evidence to the contrary. .....but you knew that and chose to dodge the actual question I asked you.

It's OK. I forgive you 😉

When I was a child, I had an invisible friend who went everywhere with me who I talked to about my worries.

Then, when I grew up, I stopped going to church.

come on, this kind of sneering adds nothing to the discussion.

would be if someone believed that Manchester United were the greatest team in the world despite not having won the Premiership or the FA Cup or any European competitions.
The persons conviction regarding Man Utd would likely be unshaken despite a lack of evidence to support it.
Neither true nor factual but believed nonetheless.

Well, 'naughty' or not - I agree with you that certain people's beliefs are unshakeable no matter the absence of supporting evidence. Excluding religion from this phenomenon would be like talking about human-powered vehicles yet 'let's not mention bicycles'...

It's odd because I always assumed most theists (Ok monotheists) have no trouble disbelieving all the other deities/demigods/woodland elves etc...yet so many find atheism to be an intolerable position. Genuinely confused by this. Do they just 'blame it on the Devil', or something?

Are we going to have a 'The difficulty in discussing difficult to discuss threads' thread next?

😕

So, as long as you admit it's an irrational belief, you should be left in peace to get on with it without any one questioning it?

as long as it doesn't effect others rights or roles within the society in which you exist then crack on really. no one has the "right to be offended" so basically just dont be a dick and be excellent to each other.

asking for different treatment than others might receive

I am asking in this instance because it is the subject under discussion, and it happens to be a subject I have some investment in, beyond being a practitioner.

I would most certainly ask for the same approach, or stand side-by-side with any doctor or lawyer or welder or computer scientist if it was their subject being discussed without a certain level of recognition that there may be sources and people worth referring back to at times.

I definitely DON'T believe in special treatment for me, personally, or for religion, in debate or conversation. I just believe in the calm, considerate, collaborative treatment of all subjects, because I think it gets us closer to the truth in most matters.

And the fact that I know it won't happen any time soon won't stop me from asking! 😉

Jeez SR....either you're laid up in hospital bored stupid, work for a company that doesn't require you to do any work, or are addicted to STW.

Its sunny man...get out on your bike! 8)

(no offence like!)

saxonrider

Really? How much have you read of Rowan Williams, Eric Mascall, Jürgen Moltmann, Hans Küng, or Reinhold Niebuhr for example? What about Dostoyevsky even?

I read widely over a long period of time, guided by other christians and ministers recommendations, yes including books by some of the above.

It was mostly pre-internet, and I wasn't really expecting any major authors to turn up?

I found little that was very satisfying at the time.
With hindsight, I found a lot of special pleading, wooly thing, goalpost moving and finally nothing that made more sense than the null hypothesis.

Long term, I suspect got considerably more benefit from Spike Milligan, Douglas Adams and Terry Pratchett.

PS .. you say you're "not interested in proof"
really!
If there actually was any proof are you honestly saying you wouldn't have a peek and then tell everyone in the world as quickly as possible?

I suspect your lack of interest may actually be because of a lack of evidence? Correct me if I'm wrong.

So, as long as you admit it's an irrational belief, you should be left in peace to get on with it without any one questioning it?

as long as it doesn't effect others rights or roles within the society in which you exist then crack on really. no one has the "right to be offended" so basically just dont be a dick and be excellent to each other.

That's Ok then.

I'll just leave comments from the other thread here....

perchypanther - Member

1.

[b]Against all logic[/b] and not as a result of my upbringing.

Rather, it's because I choose to and I get something from it.
[b] Inexplicably[/b], it fills a hole in my being that would otherwise be empty.

perchypanther - Member

Kinda, I believed there to be a hole and chose to fill it with something I believe does exist.
Belief is funny like that.

[b]Difference is that I don't ever try to tell anyone else that what I believe is right and what they believe is wrong.

I choose my own path and try not to be a dick about it. [/b]

The point was not about the existence of Football, The point was about my deeply held conviction that Football is shite .

That's just a strongly-held preference. As such, it has nothing to do with the existence or non-existence of a thing, which is the subject under discussion.

I was using your football reference to bring you back to the subject at hand.

... and I am completely indifferent as to whether you forgive or don't forgive me.

I forgive you your indifference.

considerate

Being the key word here IMO.

Invisible friends, sky fairies and all the other nonsense spouted on here is the level of debate you might enjoy in a primary school playground. It does nothing to further the debate and only gets folks backs up. There is something to be said for treating folk with respect, ironically one of the oft quoted complaints about religion is not doing this, usually spouted by someone in between insults of their own.

And I say that as an atheist myself.

Invisible friends, sky fairies and all the other nonsense spouted on here is the level of debate you might enjoy in a primary school playground. It does nothing to further the debate and only gets folks backs up. There is something to be said for treating folk with respect, ironically one of the oft quoted complaints about religion is not doing this, usually spouted by someone in between insults of their own.

And I say that as an atheist myself.

couldn't agree more. I too am atheist but discussions like this often make me side with the religious!

It also doesn't help when people conflate 'someone who believes in a god' with 'organised religion' (which is indeed responsible for plenty of wrongs). And also 'a discussion about religion' with 'prove or disprove the existence of X', which is an entirely separate issue IMO

@perchypanther

so you are happy to admit that your belief in a mystical sky pixie is totally illogical is not deserving of any special treatment or respect, its just a personal thing that helps get you through day without being a knobend, tip top, I have no issues with that at all.

Now how can we get those blooming creationist nut jobs to stop trying teach their made up mumbo jumbo as a science?

"It does nothing to further the debate and only gets folks backs up. There is something to be said for treating folk with respect"

treat the person with respect, but the "belief" as ridiculous. If you respect the belief as having merit and deserving of respect then in validates the delusional behavior, in much the same way as coping with someone having a psychosis episode.

I suspect your lack of interest may actually be because of a lack of evidence? Correct me if I'm wrong.

I have spent my life pondering these questions. I have half-jokingly on other threads talked about the existence-of-God question, and questions posed by the natural sciences as constituting different epistemic categories, but now let me repeal the 'half-jokingly' bit.

The existence-of-God question, and questions posed by the natural sciences, constitute different epistemic categories.

Those who say there is no evidence for God are right (after a certain, philosophical fashion): there is no empirical proof that a god exists. But it is only recently that empirical evidence became the only acceptable sort in public discourse, and in any case, the idea that God 'exists' in any way comparable to a measurable thing is not an idea native to Christian theology prior to the Scholastics.

I, together with most of the Christian philosophical/theological tradition, have no interest in proof. It is a question I might play with from time to time for entertainment's sake, but it is wa-a-a-a-y down on my priority list in terms of questions I deal with.

Please accept that as your 'correction'. 😉

Now how can we get those blooming creationist nut jobs to stop trying teach their made up mumbo jumbo as a science?

Who cares what Young Earth Creationists do? Since when did they even begin to cause a stir on the social landscape? I understand that polls show that many Americans believe in such a thing, but first of all, you'd have to believe the polls, and secondly, you'd have to consider whether or not those Americans have any sway over anything that affects your life.

I'd say that, as long as they are kept out of office (lest they be put in charge of the red button, or environmental policy, or whatever), don't worry about it.

@perchypanther

so you are happy to admit that your belief in a mystical sky pixie is totally illogical is not deserving of any special treatment or respect, its just a personal thing that helps get you through day without being a knobend, tip top, I have no issues with that at all.

Exactly. Try telling that to some people on here though.
Special respect? No.
Respect that you would afford anyone. I'd expect that as a matter of course.

Actually, struggling a bit not to be a knobend about this today.

Sought guidance in the scripture...

[i]The book of Panther - Chapter 4 verse 20[/i]

"Taunt ye not the unbelieving infidel for they know not the ways of believing in stuff. Forgive them for their indifference and cricket too. Thou shalt not fire zingy one liners to bring them low for thou wouldst be seen to be naughty in the sight of the Lord. Just give it a break for there is great toil to be done and much coffee to be drunk."

I think a lot of the problem comes from some of the language used by the "anti" crowd.

I don't believe in Allah but I would never dream of talking to a Muslim friend or acquaintance using offensive language like "sky pixies", "lies", "fairy tales" etc. That's just deliberately offensive and obtuse - and there's no need for it. It's quite possible to respectfully disagree with someone's beliefs without having to use combative language and deliberately inflammatory words.

@eat_the_pudding: Really? How much have you read of Rowan Williams, Eric Mascall, Jürgen Moltmann, Hans Küng, or Reinhold Niebuhr for example? What about Dostoyevsky even?

I, together with most of the Christian philosophical/theological tradition, have no interest in proof.

Presumably you believe that your god exists? What leads you to suppose this?

the sky pixie thing is a bit insulting but I think its just some people trying to express their utter amazement that a modern educated person could actually believe in something that is completely unprovable and ilogical

I'm sorry but not suprised that molgrips and JY have chosen to take offense on SaxonRider's behalf.

I am not taking offense on his behalf. I am not taking offense. I am calling out bad behaviour. SaxonRider can easily take care of himself!

treat the person with respect, but the "belief" as ridiculous.

Those two things overlap quite a bit though. If you say 'well, I don't believe in it' then fine. If you say 'it's stupid, and only an imbecile would beleive it' then that's an insult to the believer isn't it? Of course it is.

I, together with most of the Christian philosophical/theological tradition, have no interest in proof.

This is more or less what I was going to say next. [b]Does it actually matter whether or not God exists?[/b] Think about that carefully before answering.

I wholeheartedly agree with perchypanther's belief that football is shite.

Would a football lover be offended by that?

Testify Sister!

For it is written in the Book of Panther Chapter 47 Verse 12

"The wicked shall wish to commit lascivious sins of the flesh such as wearing tight lycra clothing and kissing each other and having mullet bubble perms. They shall hide these sins from right thinking people by pretending it's a sport. They shall cavort in huge communal baths and worship false idols in shape of trophies......but it's okay for kiddies cause they could use the exercise and burns off excess energy"

Amen.

Who cares what Young Earth Creationists do? Since when did they even begin to cause a stir on the social landscape? I understand that polls show that many Americans believe in such a thing, but first of all, you'd have to believe the polls, and secondly, you'd have to consider whether or not those Americans have any sway over anything that affects your life.

A former student of mine lost her job, in a school in England in the last couple of years, because she mentioned the evolution of the atmosphere during a chemistry lesson. A child in the class told their parent, the parent told their Rabbi, the Rabbi complained to the school, the school gave her a formal written warning because she'd implied an old Earth.

You're dismissive of the impact of Young Earth creationists, but religion that others accept influences everyone here. Abortion is a criminal offence in Northern Ireland, because of religion. Until recently, my sister would have been unable to marry the person she loved, because of religion.

Presumably you believe that your god exists? What leads you to suppose this?

Well, if I have to... But let me be clear that I do not put any of this forward as any sort of 'proof'. I have no expectation that my experience has any relevance to a bunch of people on the internet. In any case...

1) Inner conviction. For as long as I can remember, I have had a sense of God's existence.

2) Experience. I have had personal experiences that I interpret as indicating the existence of a god.

3) Reinforcement. My social experiences in life (family, friends, etc.) have enhanced my sense of the characteristics of the God I believe in, as opposed to contradicting them (as some people might - justifiably - describe).

4) Philosophy. There are elements of both the teleological and cosmological arguments for the existence of God that provoke a positive response in me. I am not 'convinced' by them, but equally, I do not think that they can be dismissed as easily as someone like Dawkins has made it seem.

5) Interpretation. Many of you demand 'evidence', but as I expressed in a thread some time ago, sometimes I think we are looking at exactly the same thing and simply reading it differently. Some scientists look at the world/universe and see nothing but empirical data, while others look and see the evidence for God. Obviously, though not a scientist, I would take a similar line. Likewise mathematics. Some see the Fibonacci number as a mathematical incidental. I, like many before me, see it as indicative of a divine reality.

6) Who/what God is. When some polemicists write about God, they end up describing a concept I don't recognise. The God I believe in doesn't present the same sort of cognitive difficulties that those people often say turn them off the idea.

Ultimately, though, it's not like belief is absolute. I have gone through long periods where I have not 'believed'. The people I like best tend to be 'agnostic theists' or 'agnostic atheists', and even 'agnostic agnostics'. I don't tend to trust absolutists in any camp.

I think a lot of the problem comes from some of the language used by the "anti" crowd.

I don't believe in Allah but I would never dream of talking to a Muslim friend or acquaintance using offensive language like "sky pixies", "lies", "fairy tales" etc. That's just deliberately offensive and obtuse -

I'm certainly not part of a 'crowd', yet I do see belief in a 'deity' as exactly comparable with a belief in fairies. A cursory study of anthropology shows that humans traditionally 'explained' phenomena away by assigning agency to anthropomorphised 'spirits', animals, spirits of departed Chieftains etc. I say this neither to be offensive or obtuse. It perfectly and literally reflects my understanding of the development of faith and religion. There is a trend of sneering though, I agree, yet not limited to atheists, rather 'anti-' whateverists, including angry, self-righteous theists. This tone of discourse must've come from Across The Pond of course, as we adopt nearly all things American, from skateboards to language 😉

*Edit:

This is more or less what I was going to say next. Does it actually matter whether or not God exists? Think about that carefully before answering.

That really rather depends upon which 'God' we are talking about? If it's that smiting, testy, patriarchal one who will toast me and my loved ones over sulphur forever for not believing in Him ... Then one might surely see that it would matter enormously to anyone who holds an ounce of care?

Experience. I have had personal experiences that I interpret as indicating the existence of a god.

What was that, then?

The reason I focus on that is because the rest of it just reads like you trying to convince yourself, TBH...

@Saxonrider

that was an interesting and thoughtful post, thanks.

Would a football lover be offended by that?

so what if they are? being offended doesn't do anything, you don't suddenly catch bad cat aids as a result of offence. At what point did stick and stones, become no longer valid? folks don't have the same likes as you, so what? they choose to express their opinion? so what, it only has any effect if you respect their standpoint or the validity of their argument, if you live your life seeking validation from strangers then you are always going be upset.

Part of the problem of discussing religion is that the religious can't agree what religion is. So someone questioning their religion might say "you think X but there's all this evidence against that" and their response will be "oh, I don't believe X, I believe Y".

What was that, then?

The reason I focus on that is because the rest of it just reads like you trying to convince yourself, TBH...

Fair enough, but experience is inherently personal, and so not something I would be inclined to talk about. I understand that this means anything I say further about my own faith perspective will seem somewhat weakened, but I just have to accept that.

If you and I knew each other, and were having this conversation in person, and you asked, I might be more inclined to talk about it. Not that it's earth-shattering, or would even be remotely convincing; just that it's particular to me, if you know what I mean.

[b]SaxonRider[/b] you elegantly express an intelligently considered belief, an understanding of why it could not be proved, and a dislike of absolutists.

This still leaves difficulty as we live in a world where religious absolutists are resurgent and more significant by the day, and where many theists feel their beliefs should not only be [i]respected[/i], (which is fine if they are not adversely affecting others) but should be accepted as [i]true[/i] by others.

how do we deal with this?

Stoatsbrother

This still leaves difficulty as we live in a world where religious absolutists are resurgent and more significant by the day, and where many theists feel their beliefs should not only be respected, (which is fine if they are not adversely affecting others) but should be accepted as true by others.

how do we deal with this?

Stoning. Obviously.

Fair enough, but experience is inherently personal, and so not something I would be inclined to talk about.

I suspect that you suspect it's veracity. Do you test it?

This still leaves difficulty as we live in a world where religious absolutists are resurgent and more significant by the day,

evidence? 😆

on the one hand, there are some nutters in the middle east. on the other, Atheism in the west is increasing in prevalence all the time. I'm not sure religious absolutists are any more of a problem now than they were 25, 50 or 250 years ago.

A lot of people brought up atheist seem to have a pretty sparse knowledge of the history of religion, the contents of the bible, and the views of any particular church either historically or today. Consequently they are arguing from false assumptions. Anyone who has studied these things extensively would be quite rightly annoyed.

I thought this was an interesting quote, because the same could probably be said of the knowledge that people brought up in one religion have of other religions, even relatively close ones.

How many Anglican Christians know anything much about Mormon Christians?

on the one hand, there are some nutters in the middle east

Have you been watching the race for the republican nomination for US president? There were plenty of religious nutters on show there with way more potential for harm than in the middle east.

evidence?

on the one hand, there are some nutters in the middle east. on the other, Atheism in the west is increasing in prevalence all the time. I'm not sure religious absolutists are any more of a problem now than they were 25, 50 or 250 years ago.

Has there not been a rise in the religious right in the States over the last couple of decades?

[b]doris5000[/b] just look at the laws on sexuality and approaches to education going through the USA in the South and Midwest at the moment.

Fair enough, but experience is inherently personal, and so not something I would be inclined to talk about.

At one time I was arranging transport of food to displaced folks camps in Chechnya. We hadn't managed for a couple of weeks because of a total curfew so stocks were getting low. So I arranged a vehicle, got up very very early and spent a while praying that the road would be protected by angels and we would get through. I looked up and all I could see either side of the road was huge tall angels. I confess I nearly shat myself

I looked up again and this time what I saw was lampposts. However I had zero problems getting through all the check points that day and ours was the only vehicle that I saw out

So, you take your pick. You can take the view that we were protected or you can take the view that I saw lampposts and got lucky. Both viewpoints work and lots of stuff that happens in life is like that. There is no absolute proof but when you take a particular viewpoint it is consistently reinforced but could equally be refuted

@Saxonrider

Without wishing to probe too insensitively on a public forum where you might feel over-exposed, here's a thought.

Is it possible, do you suppose, that the quality of "profundity" is just something that the mind attaches to a thought or an experience, like a sort of reinforcement, for it's own purposes? That is to say, not a homogenous part of the thing itself, but a sort of added quality for the minds' own reason (which may not necessarily be benign, per se)?

(No answer required).

Has there not been a rise in the religious right in the States over the last couple of decades?

I don't think there has. Pat Robertson et al have been preaching their crap forever, it's not a new thing. In fact there seems to have been a decline in the number of Christians, and an increase in the number of atheists:

http://www.pewforum.org/2015/05/12/americas-changing-religious-landscape/

There are some deplorable laws going through at the moment, but is the situation any worse than when Reagan was in power and the Moral Majority were on the case?

It's only 40 years since Roe vs Wade and yet now the states talking about outlawing abortion are outliers. I'd say it's getting better, overall.

[b]Stoatsbrother[/b], I would say that, while I believe in an absolute truth, I also believe - as I said yesterday at some point - that such a truth is better conceived as a cosmic rubber band than a rigid fence. In other words, anyone that fails to acknowledge the existential struggles faced by every human being, and respect people for who they are and where they are at in life's struggles, is someone that should either be invited to re-consider, or face rejection.

So, for example, the Islamo-fascism we see represented by Al-Qaeda and Daesh, is an appalling abuse of what it is to be human, and there is no other response to such groups but rejection. Wherever there is genuine intolerance, it needs to be combatted. But I guess I think that, if we understood - those of faith and those of no faith - that we stood on the same side, then we could more effectively identify and combat abuse and intolerance wherever and whenever it reared its head.

Beyond that, stoatsbrother, I just don't know. I think we all just need to stand up to hatred, violence, and oppression together, and get on with pursuing what is good and true in the world.

sometimes I think we are looking at exactly the same thing and simply reading it differently.

This is exactly it. In other words, truth is subjective.

To the atheists - does it matter if you know why the universe was created? It may matter to you, it may not.

Don't make me bring up the episode of Friends again.

I think we all just need to stand up to hatred, violence, and oppression together, and get on with pursuing what is good and true in the world.

.. as someone famous once said ...

You can take the view that we were protected or you can take the view that I saw lampposts and got lucky. Both viewpoints work and lots of stuff that happens in life is like that. There is no absolute proof but when you take a particular viewpoint it is consistently reinforced but could equally be refuted

The problem with any case of being protected by God and/angels is what about when people [i]are[/i] killed or injured? Was God absent?

A friend (an ordained doctor of theology) would say that about people who would pray for a parking space or for help finding their car keys - if God will intervene for such a trivial matter, why not for natural disasters?

@Mr Woppit, I indeed acknowledge that you could be right.

There may well be a purely psychological explanation to how and why I interpret experience the way I do, but think that two further points emerge:

1) I would never hold such experiences up as any sort of proof, seeing as they are so subjective, and

2) I don't think that a psychological/scientific explanation for something necessarily negates a spiritual impetus behind it.

As with leffeboy's post just above yours, I would maintain that there are two ways in which such experience might be taken, but fully admit that it is legitimate to identify only the scientific or psychological.

Yeahbut molgrips. You have just contradicted yourself. How do you pursue truth if it is subjective?
How do you define what is Good? (especially if there is no divine arbitrator)

The problem with any case of being protected by God and/angels is what about when people are killed or injured? Was God absent?

I don't know and it is in a big bundle of stuff that I don't know and which troubles me but I don't consider it proof of non-existance

So, for example, the Islamo-fascism we see represented by Al-Qaeda and Daesh, is an appalling abuse of what it is to be human

Flipping humanists! Always think they know better...

(As a humanist, I think I know better)

Molgrips quoted:

I think we all just need to stand up to hatred, violence, and oppression together, and get on with pursuing what is good and true in the world.

I understand (after frequenting many forums/speaking to others) that we (human population) by and large do, as individuals (and groups) pursue what is 'good and true'. Though many have fundamentally/radically differing ideas as to what is 'good and true'. <------------- "There'sya problem!' (Mythbusters voice)

Yeahbut molgrips. You have just contradicted yourself. How do you pursue truth if it is subjective?
How do you define what is Good? (especially if there is no divine arbitrator)

I would tweak what molgrips said by saying our [i]perception[/i] of truth is subjective.

And that being the case, what is good needs no external definition, and only our willingness to assent to it.

So, for example, the I am struck with awe by the implications of the golden ration, and so is the atheist mathematician. I am reminded of God because of it, and he or she is reminded of the incredible beauty of nature. It is then incumbent on both of us to respond by pursuing the good it has inspired, maybe by being an even more enthusiastic scientist, or a better poet, or a more diligent builder, or whatever.

Good has done its job, and we have done ours. And nobody got killed! 🙂

I find this thread interesting. Interesting for a few reasons really. I have had a belief in something most of my life although this has waxed and waned. I have had concerns with the role of religion in the formal structures in our country e.g. schools, government etc... I am not keen on organised religion or the politicisation of religion either.

My problem on STW in particular, is that I do have a particular issue with militant attitudes towards people with differing beliefs/philosophies. I cannot stand intolerant aggressive atheists or religious believers. In previous times, I would have been most aware of the forcefully religious but I have found that here that atheists have been almost vicious in the way they converse to and about people with belief and see it as the root of all evil - despite evidence to the contrary.

As a result, I don't really bother engaging much anymore. I don't think people's beliefs are much likely to change as a result of sharing views and experiences and frankly my conviction is not strong enough for me to defend or support.

How many religious threads do you need Saxon ?

Will you stop when its a holy trinity 😉

I do have a particular issue with militant attitudes towards people with differing beliefs/philosophies.

I promise, Junkyard, that this will be my last for a while. I'm sure there is some news somewhere that I need to catch up on.

How do you pursue truth if it is subjective?

In a personal way, as SaxonRider, PerchyPanther and others have.

I don't think people's beliefs are much likely to change as a result of sharing views and experiences

I don't do this to try and change people's beliefs. I do it to try and get people to consider other people's points of view, and to be nice.

I would tweak what molgrips said by saying our perception of truth is subjective.

Well that's a fundamental question isn't it? Is there any such thing as absolute truth? Does such a concept even make sense?

Take quantum physics*. Is the cat alive or dead? Can it be both? Does it make any sense to define the health of the cat in this situation given that it is unknowable?

* Actually I should call myself out here because the cat thing is not meant to be a trite philosophical question along the lines of one-handed clapping and so on. It is simply a layman's illustration of a concept. I studied Quantum Physics for three years and this got a single mention at the end of a sentence. Quantum effects are described using hard maths. But you could start using the existence of these concepts to pull at the strings of what we see in our everyday lives, even though the actual equations do match up with what we see at our macroscopic level.

Of more use actually is the wave/particle thing. People boggle at this because it goes against common sense, but what use is common sense when describing something that's anything but common? It is simply not possible to determine if a photon is a wave or a particle without interacting with it. So if you don't interact - what is it?

If you look at the world through religious eyes, you see God - if through atheist eyes, you see simply unanswered scientific questions. So which is it?

Both and.

.. and what?

If you look at the world through religious eyes, you see God - if through atheist eyes, you see simply unanswered scientific questions. So which is it?

That reminds me of a book I read long ago (Anam Cara - a Book of Celtic Wisdom)

'Styles of Vision'

[url] http://swatura-anamcara.blogspot.co.uk/2011/03/styles-of-vision.html [/url]

I may be skeptical and dismissive about many beliefs, but when we are talking about human natureI'll be the first to admit there is much 'truth and beauty' inspiring (and inspired by) 'spiritual' philosophy.

It's a rhetorical question btw, not looking for an answer. The point is that we can't know, so why not just go with your feelings?

But if truth is subjective, in what way is it then truth? Surely truth by definition is something absolute.
As Gandalf said (in another context admittedly) "Then it is no longer white"

But if truth is subjective, in what way is it then truth?

The definition of the word 'truth' is the issue.

Quoted this before, but it's relevant:

"I checked it very thoroughly," said the computer, "and that quite definitely is the answer. I think the problem, to be quite honest with you, is that you've never actually known what the question is."
"But it was the Great Question! The Ultimate Question of Life, the Universe and Everything," howled Loonquawl.
"Yes," said Deep Thought with the air of one who suffers fools gladly, "but what actually is it?"
A slow stupefied silence crept over the men as they stared at the computer and then at each other.
"Well, you know, it's just Everything ... Everything ..." offered Phouchg weakly.

Also this

The chances of finding out what's really going on in the universe are so remote, the only thing to do is hang the sense of it and keep yourself occupied

But if truth is subjective, in what way is it then truth? Surely truth by definition is something absolute.
As Gandalf said (in another context admittedly) "Then it is no longer white"

Again, it's not often clear whether talking about either 'fact' or 'truth.'

(Mom). 'Jane, who stole a biscuit?'
(Jane) 'John did!! John stole a biscuit!

Might be the truth. Might not be. Follow the crumbs...

God is Truth

Crumbs becoming more difficult to follow. What if the crumbs lead all the way back to an early hominid eating a funky mushroom and worshipping a rock? What if the crumbs then lead from there to a a real-life proto-Life of Brian, where one couldn't hardly move for 'prophets'? What if .... God is The Crumbs! 😯

And that's fact!

Hoenir

[img] ?resize=632%2C356[/img]