Theists and atheists ( P.S.)

[kowalskil]

Theists and Atheists (P.S.)

I still do not know what can be done to eliminate endless futile conflicts between theists and atheists. But comments collected at several websites prompted me to compose a short on-line paper at:

theo_sci

It can probably be used to initiate an interesting discussion here. Please share this link with those who might be interested.

Ludwik Kowalski
Professor Emeritus
Montclair State University, USA

 

[Deavonreye]

I am neither theist or atheist. I would like to believe that I am closer to a theist, but at current I am as close to atheist as I'd like to be. Can both stand together? Perhaps, but [for me] not until there is something credible to compare from the theist side of ideologies. For the most part, atheists go with the science community and what countless scientists test and confirm. Such as this has enormous weight and is quite tangible. The "spiritual side" is based upon non-testable inputs. "Faith" and "belief" may have some value to a certain subgroup of people, but at this point, I don't see much collaboration between the two camps, especially when . . . for example. . . . one group's claims are un-testable, and the other group refuses to agree with tested and repeatable data sets.

They CAN have amiable discussions, but in reality, that will only go so far. The theist WILL attest that they are right. The atheist will attest that their evidence is what matters.

 

[AKJVReader]

I would say that atheists should have better knowledge from the King James Bible. That way they can ask better questions and the theist can give a better answer. Much of the futility between theist and atheist debates comes from a lack of knowledge from either party.

[SIZE=-1]"Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth." (2 Timothy 2:15)
A Christian is commanded to study the Word of God so that they can give intelligent answers to atheists or people in other religions.

[/SIZE]"But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts: and be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you with meekness and fear:" (1 Peter 3:15)
So a Christian needs to have answers to questions from men.

If an atheist avoids questions from the Bible then they are letting the Christian win the debate since they can't defend there position.

Those are my thoughts.

 

[Pebbles]

If an atheist avoids questions from the Bible then they are letting the Christian win the debate since they can't defend there position.

Well no because they'd answer that there isn't any evidence that the events described in the bible are valid in any way or historically accurate.

No doubt you'd say they are avoiding the question.
If I have no faith in the supernatural or the bible they hold no meaning to me beyond trying to understand the thought processes of others whom I'm only interested in because there's a real risk of them attacking and severely harming me or others directly or by-proxy with political meddling in affairs BEYOND a persons spiritual quest.

 

[Deavonreye]

Plus, . . . some of us have read the bible extensively, . . . . which is why we no longer are "believers". But as Pebbles stated, it really makes no difference. Claims of supernatural events are just stories with no evidence, so why WOULD they be looked upon as "answers" by the Christian?

It would be like the Christian asking the Pagan why they believe their beliefs in Faeries, and when the Pagan says, "yes, because I interact with them and have been to Faeryland." What would you [as a Christian] do with that information? Would you consider it as a truthful and factual "answer"?

 

[Drew]

They CAN have amiable discussions, but in reality, that will only go so far. The theist WILL attest that they are right. The atheist will attest that their evidence is what matters.

Surely you realize that this is a false generalization. I am a "theist" and I suspect my respect for "evidence" is certainly as strong as yours.

 

[WIP]

I don't see much collaboration between the two camps, especially when . . . for example. . . . one group's claims are un-testable, and the other group refuses to agree with tested and repeatable data sets.

I wouldn't say that. I believe that most of what we have learned through scientific study and testing is probably quite accurate. About the only thing I won't believe is that we are here by accident. What process God used and the time frame used is immaterial to me and bears no influence on my belief. No matter how much science uncovers or believes it uncovers about our environment and life it will never influence me to the point of denying that God is the creator.

I know that my parents consummated their marriage. The evidence is disreputable because the fact remains that I am here. Generation after generation after generation of mothers and fathers performed the same acts throughout human history. Were it not so, I wouldn't be here to testify.

Does the buck stop there? Absolutely not! There was a beginning and God made that possible by His creation long ago. Were that not so, I wouldn't be here to testify.

 

[TRUTH over TRADITION]

In my mind, the atheist position lacks a foundation and ultimately falls short from a logical perspective because it will ALWAYS leave an 800lb guerilla standing in the room. That guerilla is the question of origin and origination. Any honest scientist will have to admit that in order for there to have been a "starting point" where material was introduced, that something supernatural had to be the catalyst.

In order for something to be supernatural, it must either be from beyond the realm of what we see as natural and/or not subject to natural law. So, whatever caused the "being" of our universe would by necessity fall into this catagory.

With this in mind, I do not believe the theist position can be stood soundly against. However, the theist still has no proof that the "deity" that caused being to be is identifible. So the issue is not whether there is a supernatural "GOD", but rather, who or what that entity is and whether or not that being wishes to communicate with the creation it has rought.

 

[Deavonreye]

You will not find scientists "admitting" that at all. True, there may be a case where science has to say "I don't know", but that absolutely does not mean that "Therefore, a god did it."

The "supernatural" is of no value to a true scientific endeavor, and "magic" isn't any credible answer. This is why I say that such topics will seldom result in the theist and atheist coming to an agreement. A nice conversation, perhaps, but the two fields are incongruent.

 

[Pebbles]

In my mind, the atheist position lacks a foundation and ultimately falls short from a logical perspective because it will ALWAYS leave an 800lb guerilla standing in the room. That guerilla is the question of origin and origination. Any honest scientist will have to admit that in order for there to have been a "starting point" where material was introduced, that something supernatural had to be the catalyst.

I don't mean to derail the thread and I will apologies for that. But believing in the supernatural dosen't resolve that problem it merely moves it from your sight, And gives the religious an excuse to not answer.
If as you believe the Supernatural Created the Natural world Then your still left with the dilemma of who created the Supernatural.

If humans didn't just "come about" and were made by a god
how did god "come about"
It's really no more infeasible than the other explanation offered of the Natural world creating itself, It's merely removing unproven extraneous variables.

 

[TRUTH over TRADITION]

......If as you believe the Supernatural Created the Natural world Then your still left with the dilemma of who created the Supernatural.

If humans didn't just "come about" and were made by a god
how did god "come about"
It's really no more infeasible than the other explanation offered of the Natural world creating itself, It's merely removing unproven extraneous variables.

The issue at hand is the origin of our plane of existence which is defined in terms and space and time and the argument is that in order for a universe whose laws are encapulated by space and time to come about, there by necessity must exist an intelligence outside of the "capsule" of space and time that caused such a universe to come about. As far as the origin of this causal force, we can but guess since it would by necessity have to exist beyond our natural world which is limited again by space and time. And the ramifications of admitting that leads to the possible reality that this intelligence has simply always been for though it initiated space and time, it is not dependant upon or a product of its own invention.

As far as what honest scientists do current admit, they readily say that the evidence all points to the universe having a starting point. And really, that's all we can ask from science for science cannot do anything but apply the scientific method to the natural world. That is not a knock on science, that is the truth. Science does have this limit because nothing beyond the natural can be tested and put under the microscope of the scientific method. Science can neither prove nor disprove the existence of supernatural forses, all it can do is point us back as close to a "beginning" as possible leaving us to ponder the origin it is not equiped to disclose.

 

[Deavonreye]

....there by necessity must exist an intelligence.....

This is where we [and most scientists] part company. Just because something may not be understood RIGHT NOW, does not mean that you can logically claim a "magical beginning". In my opinion, . . . that mindset is nearly equal to the days of old when lightning was not understood, thus was "Zeus throwing them down from Mt. Olympus".

One can theorize about such things, . . . but then must also allow for many other "creation myths" from other cultures, Raelian beliefs, or Matrix type philosophies.

 

[Sparkey]

Greetings kowalskil,

Thanks for posting your work, Theists versus atheists: are conflicts necessary? Within I see two basic questions:

1. Is it desirable to end such confrontations?
2. Is it possible to end them?
   
   [*]and, "If yes, then how?"​

I personally believe that Athiests and Theists can learn (if they are motivated) to live in peace. To me, the main difference is the point of view. Scientists enjoy looking at specifics and drawing general conclusions from things than can be proven by experiment. Believers enjoy looking from the opposite spectrum, considering God in all things and forming opinions about what is seen in agreement with truths spoken into their hearts from their Father, God.

I followed a couple of your links as I was able and found something you said that I think is worth quoting here:

*** A note to myself, September 19, 2010

1) A week ago, responding to someone on a thread about religion, I wrote that “many people have no problem with being both scientific and religious. Scientists do not validate claims by referring to God, and they do not try to explain God by using science.†This was posted on Richard Dawkin's website; it was removed by the moderator.

So much about the mutual tolerance and respect which many of us cherish. The same happened when I posted something at a communist website

Soviet-Empire.com - The U.S.S.R. Online

My message was removed. This is censorship, not moderation. The role of the moderator is to make sure that all points of view are discussed politely. Ideally, the purpose of a discussion, for example, about global warming, is to resolve a controversy. But this makes sense only when each side shares the same methodology of validation of claims. Two scientists can logically discuss a controversy relying on experimental data. Two theologians can also logically discuss a controversy, relying on books which are holy to them.

In both cases a controversy can be resolved, at least in principle. But what about theologians who do not share the same holy books? And what about discussions between religious people and atheists? The only possible outcome of such a discussion would be to agree to disagree.

Thank you for your thoughtful post. To me, conversations such as this would be well served if both parties saw themsleves across from a shared dinner table. One could bring something to chew on (food for thought, if you will) that the other could ponder. I, for one, would enjoy hearing more of what you have to say.

Cordially,
~Sparrow

 

[Mike S]

You will not find scientists "admitting" that at all. True, there may be a case where science has to say "I don't know", but that absolutely does not mean that "Therefore, a god did it."

The "supernatural" is of no value to a true scientific endeavor, and "magic" isn't any credible answer. This is why I say that such topics will seldom result in the theist and atheist coming to an agreement. A nice conversation, perhaps, but the two fields are incongruent.

Your response here “You will not find scientists "admitting" that at all…. The "supernatural" is of no value to a true scientific endeavor, and "magic" isn't any credible answer†to the previous poster’s comment “Any honest scientist will have to admit that in order for there to have been a "starting point" where material was introduced, that something supernatural had to be the catalyst†seems a very definite point of view, but is absolutely wrong. Certainly you know that there are literally thousands of scientists who believe in God, who believe that creation is the act of a transcendent intelligence, don’t you?

Many surveys, including surveys by the Pew Research and Gallup polling, and universities including Rice and the University of Chicago, have found that approximately 40% of scientists believe in God. When,Nobel Laureate Charles Townes was asked in 2002 “What do you think about the existence of God?†is qupted as replying “I strongly believe in the existence of God, based on intuition, observations, logic, and also scientific knowledge.â€
<O:p</O:p
It is true that scientists in larger percentage than the general population disbelieve in God, but any percentage of believers at all, it seems to me, disproves your claim. Why not retain an open mind on the issue and accept that there are scientists on boths sides of the question "Is there a transcendent intelligence (God) behind creation of the universe?"

 

[tim-from-pa]

One question to atheists, and I'm not trying to convert any, but how do you explain that inanimate objects in the universe behave according to a mathematical pattern which requires a being of some sort to comprehend?

Even Einstein stated that the most incomprehensible thing about the universe is that it's comprehensible.

From that alone, for those of us who believe, understand that there is a reason that we can see and have at least that much respect. Ever been in love? There are some that don't see that and "can't understand what he/she sees in the other". It's the same with those who believe in God as there is no scientific test any more than there is for love.

Also keep in mind that claiming there is "no God" is equally dogmatic as one who says there is a God, but in the negative. A truly honest person would say they are agnostic if claiming to be open-minded.

 

[Mike S]

Also keep in mind that claiming there is "no God" is equally dogmatic as one who says there is a God, but in the negative. A truly honest person would say they are agnostic if claiming to be open-minded.

Yes, it is a position of faith, every bit as much as the claim "there is a God."

 

[jasoncran]

perhaps this will be of interest . a message from an agnostic on spaceport. name witheld of course.

I commend you for taking the time and making the effort to understand the details of the BBT. I'm an agnostic, but I don't see any conflict between science and religion in general. The more I learn about science, the more I marvel at how "exactly right" everything seems to fit together. For me, learning about science is the same as learning about "God's plan". It may seem paradoxical, but most scientists are religious in the general sense of the word.

 

[Deavonreye]

Your response here “You will not find scientists "admitting" that at all…. The "supernatural" is of no value to a true scientific endeavor, and "magic" isn't any credible answer†to the previous poster’s comment “Any honest scientist will have to admit that in order for there to have been a "starting point" where material was introduced, that something supernatural had to be the catalyst†seems a very definite point of view, but is absolutely wrong. Certainly you know that there are literally thousands of scientists who believe in God, who believe that creation is the act of a transcendent intelligence, don’t you?

Many surveys, including surveys by the Pew Research and Gallup polling, and universities including Rice and the University of Chicago, have found that approximately 40% of scientists believe in God. When,Nobel Laureate Charles Townes was asked in 2002 “What do you think about the existence of God?†is qupted as replying “I strongly believe in the existence of God, based on intuition, observations, logic, and also scientific knowledge.â€
<O:p</O:p
It is true that scientists in larger percentage than the general population disbelieve in God, but any percentage of believers at all, it seems to me, disproves your claim. Why not retain an open mind on the issue and accept that there are scientists on boths sides of the question "Is there a transcendent intelligence (God) behind creation of the universe?"

Please. I am hardly "absolutely wrong". Not even going to bother replying to you.

 

[Deavonreye]

One question to atheists, and I'm not trying to convert any, but how do you explain that inanimate objects in the universe behave according to a mathematical pattern which requires a being of some sort to comprehend?

Even Einstein stated that the most incomprehensible thing about the universe is that it's comprehensible.

From that alone, for those of us who believe, understand that there is a reason that we can see and have at least that much respect. Ever been in love? There are some that don't see that and "can't understand what he/she sees in the other". It's the same with those who believe in God as there is no scientific test any more than there is for love.

Also keep in mind that claiming there is "no God" is equally dogmatic as one who says there is a God, but in the negative. A truly honest person would say they are agnostic if claiming to be open-minded.

I am agnostic.

"Love" is just a coctail of brain chemicals.

 

[Mike S]

Please. I am hardly "absolutely wrong". Not even going to bother replying to you.

It's OK to admit you have no answer, no shame. I recognize your fear of responding for what it is.