Who has the truth ?

Originally posted by amannion
Maybe not in your strict terms, but the reality of actually being an atheist is that you make that choice as a way of framing the world around you.

'I refuse to believe in a God', the atheist says, by which s/he then understands the world.

No-- I observe the world, myself, my place in and of that world, and draw conclusions subject to revision based on evidence.

I simply do not assume God in order to reframe the existential situation in which I find myself. I might assume God if it seemed to add aesthetic richness to that existential situation—but, in fact, I have dropped that assumption (not because I deemed it to add no aesthetic richness—that was not my reasoning—but it has not proved necessary for aesthetic richness, for me, anyway).

Whew, lots of posts. Obviously an issue everyone here feels strongly about. Let's see....

Well, as to the tedium of discussing the finer points of atheism, agnosticism, and theism, I too don't enjoy discussing them at length for their own sake, just to help us establish some things. Post-modernism forces you to open up within your own assumptions. 😉

As to the difference between Borne's definition and other competing definitions, I don't think it matters much in the end, provided that we agree that the assertions "I know there is no God" and "I know that you can't know" are self-defeating systems. Once that is established we can begin to discuss more constructively.

As to the definition of "ultimate" truth, that bears some examination. By "ultimate" I would assume this is referring to (since this discussion involves a possible "supreme" being) the "first truth" or original truth; the source, if you will, of all other truths.

The law of causality (contrary, I fear, to Russel) does not state that "everything has a cause," but "every effect has a cause." Hence, Aristotle's "first cause" must be posited; otherwise an infinite regression (a logical impossibility) is the only recourse. The question is "What is the first cause?" Christianity asserts that this first cause is intelligent and loving, indeed is the source of all intelligence, love, and by definition, truth as well.

On a more proactive note, Steven Jay Gould once said, "We may yearn for a 'higher' answer-but none exists. This explanation, though superficially troubling, if not terrifying, is ultimately liberating and exhilarating." Forgive me if I seem obtuse, but, in all honesty I fail to see the exhilaration he speaks of. In the atheistic viewpoint, no moral law, no ultimate meaning, and no ultimate hope exist. The universe will ultimately collapse and bring all of humanity's hopes crashing into absolute ruin.

But with Christianity, you have all three: morality, ultimate meaning, and ultimate hope. It is the church's and the Bible's assertion that though you may have done things that you are ashamed of, you don't have to pay for them ultimately (though there will be temporal consequences); instead you can have forgiveness. Pantheism may offer a system of nigh-endless payment, atheism can offer tiny hopes before the worms devour your body and you commit your soul to the "Great Perhaps," but only in Christianity is there a cross, which, barbaric and horrible though it is, it is what Christ was willing to endure so that we wouldn't have to.

Just by way of explanation, that's why I'm a Christian and not something else.

Well, my clock is giving me "that look" again. Work awaits on the morrow. I'll talk to you all later.

Fascinating discussion by the way. Thanks for being honest, guys. 🙂

Originally posted by vistesd
No-- I observe the world, myself, my place in and of that world, and draw conclusions subject to revision based on evidence.

I simply do not assume God in order to reframe the existential situation in which I find myself. I might assume God if it seemed to add aesthetic richness to that existential situation—but, in fact, I have dropped th ...[text shortened]... at was not my reasoning—but it has not proved necessary for aesthetic richness, for me, anyway).

The ultimate constructivist, eh?

Most people take shortcuts in their interpretation of the world.
As young children they may do what you suggest (although even then they'll probably rely on their parents to provide a framework with which to understand things), but as we age it becomes harder and harder - and stupid really - to try to base everything on your own observations.
We take shortcuts by utilising frameworks which seem to work best based on our initial observations, and on what others are doing.
Religion, science, and I think atheism too fit this category.
We choose to believe or not believe, or follow a scientific approach or not, because it makes sense to us, and helps us to reduce the metal effort required to live in the world.
I don't have to think about absolutely everything that goes on and try to make sense of it from first principles. Instead, I can rely on a pre-existing framework that I've subscribed to, to help me figure out what's going on, how I should act, why things are happening, and so on.

Now, I think most people choose the absolute easiest framework of all - that which their parents, friends and community have chose - which is to say, their local religion.
Some choose, for whatever reason, to reject this and seek other frameworks.
Some choose to utilise different frameworks in different situations - hence religious scientists.

Originally posted by Ristar
Whew, lots of posts. Obviously an issue everyone here feels strongly about. Let's see....

Well, as to the tedium of discussing the finer points of atheism, agnosticism, and theism, I too don't enjoy discussing them at length for their own sake, just to help us establish some things. Post-modernism forces you to open up within your own assumptions. 😉
...[text shortened]... ussion by the way. Thanks for being honest, guys. 🙂

If I could suggest what Gould might have meant (I don't of course know, I'm going by my own position) ...

The liberation of learning no 'higher answer' exists is that of realising that you are responsible for yourself - no one or no thing else has that onerous task.
I am responsible for myself, for my thoughts, my beliefs and my actions.
Of course, I believe that everyone has the same autonomy, and (arguments in this forum to the contrary) I'm sure most people - religious or not - believe the same.
But for the religious person, with a need to believe in a supernatural power to confer some sense of purpose, I see a loss of control.

Maybe that's what Gould meant.
Just a thought anyway ...

Originally posted by Ristar
Whew, lots of posts. Obviously an issue everyone here feels strongly about. Let's see....

Well, as to the tedium of discussing the finer points of atheism, agnosticism, and theism, I too don't enjoy discussing them at length for their own sake, just to help us establish some things. Post-modernism forces you to open up within your own assumptions. 😉
...[text shortened]... ussion by the way. Thanks for being honest, guys. 🙂

I'm afraid I must find in favour of the late Professor Gould. Whilst theism has many "nice" features for the believee, it is ultimately setting people up for a tremendous fall should it be found to be false. Likewise, as is normally pointed out, many wars have been conducted, and still are, in the name of religion. In one of the other threads (the one about suicide) one poster recalled the story of his / her niece, who was struck down with a cancerous growth in her face. The had to have numerous skin grafts, and ultimately lost half her face and one of her breasts. All this happenned to a young, 21 year old girl. Where was god then? God buggered off, that's what happened. Dereliction of duty. You don't think so? What if it was YOUR daughter, or YOUR niece? Of course, science would seek to solve these sort of problems, for example using stem cells to help repair damaged tissues, giving this girl a chance at life. And what of the so-called-christians who would seek to block this? Are those the people you want to associate yourself with? Personally, I wouldn't take a whizz on themwere they on fire - after all, that's obviously God's will too.....

Originally posted by amannion
The ultimate constructivist, eh?

Most people take shortcuts in their interpretation of the world.
As young children they may do what you suggest (although even then they'll probably rely on their parents to provide a framework with which to understand things), but as we age it becomes harder and harder - and stupid really - to try to base everything on choose to utilise different frameworks in different situations - hence religious scientists.

Ah! I don't know if I'm a constructivist!??!

But now I think I see what you're getting at though, about framing. And, yes, I dropped the framing I grew up with and held studiously for most of my adult life (which was Christian theist). I am mostly a Zennist (and as a Zen Buddhist I would likely be a heretic too). The idea is to see what happens when you drop the conceptual frames and just see (experience) the suchness-as-it-is (with due regard to the fact that our cognitive architecture undoubtedly provides frames prior to our thinking). That does not mean that one cannot pick up certain frames again as they prove useful (e.g., what I’m doing in this intellectual exercise).

That does not necessarily mean a final rejection of any frame. And, as you note, selecting different frames for different projects seems certainly valid to me—is essentially what I, too, do. (Note: when I referred to aesthetic reasons for following a certain religion, I was not referring to simply “entertainment value.” )

I would say, following the metaphor, that dropping a frame is not the same as throwing it away, smashing it, whatever. Especially if one drops it, in part, because it seems to “screen” the evidence, rather than enhancing one’s ability to see clearly.

_____________________________________

With all that said, I offer the following Zen story (which I had posted elsewhere) as simply an illustration:

A roshi (I forget who) was sitting in his study with some students. The students were engaged in a conversation about various issues of Buddhist metaphysics, while the roshi sat quietly.

Suddenly the roshi said: “Hey, what is that spot on the wall?”

Students: “What spot? Where?”

Roshi (pointing): “That one, over there.”

Students: “Where? Where?”

Roshi: “That one there. Right on the wall, there. Can’t you see it?”

Students (straining their eyes): “No, we don’t see anything.”

Roshi: “What! Are you blind?” (The roshi lifts his spectacles off his nose in order to see better.) “What! Now it’s gone!” (Moves his spectacles up and down, takes them off and wipes them with his sleeve, puts them back on.) “Oh. There, that’s better.”

The students look at him disconcertedly. The roshi just smiles...

Originally posted by amannion
If I could suggest what Gould might have meant (I don't of course know, I'm going by my own position) ...

The liberation of learning no 'higher answer' exists is that of realising that you are responsible for yourself - no one or no thing else has that onerous task.
I am responsible for myself, for my thoughts, my beliefs and my actions.
Of course, I b ...[text shortened]... ose, I see a loss of control.

Maybe that's what Gould meant.
Just a thought anyway ...

rec'd.

Originally posted by vistesd
Ah! I don't know if I'm a constructivist!??!

But now I think I see what you're getting at though, about framing. And, yes, I dropped the framing I grew up with and held studiously for most of my adult life (which was Christian theist). I am mostly a Zennist (and as a Zen Buddhist I would likely be a heretic too). The idea is to see what happen ...[text shortened]... There, that’s better.”

The students look at him disconcertedly. The roshi just smiles...

Yes, that - dropping conceptual frames and just experiencing something - sounds a bit like Thich Nhat Hanh's mindfulness.

Originally posted by Ristar
Whew, lots of posts. Obviously an issue everyone here feels strongly about. Let's see....

Well, as to the tedium of discussing the finer points of atheism, agnosticism, and theism, I too don't enjoy discussing them at length for their own sake, just to help us establish some things. Post-modernism forces you to open up within your own assumptions. 😉
...[text shortened]... ussion by the way. Thanks for being honest, guys. 🙂

In the atheistic viewpoint, no moral law, no ultimate meaning, and no ultimate hope exist.

1. No moral law—wrong. That has been discussed to death here though, and I no longer lend my hand to spin that wheel round and round. Maybe someone can point you to a relevant thread...

2. No ultimate meaning—I don’t know what you mean by “meaning.” If you mean a meaning that is given to you, rather than one you make as you live, that I agree. If by “ultimate,” you mean extending beyond death, then I agree there is no such ultimate meaning.

3. No ultimate hope—I agree; but absence of such a hope does not need to lead to despair of any kind.

(BTW, since you like Chesterton, you may want to read Miguel de Unamuno’s The Tragic Sense of Life. Unamuno is a Roman Catholic existentialist. He minces no words in the face-off between the lack of a reasonable underpinning for belief in an afterlife, and the strong desire that life not ultimately terminate. I disagree with his conclusions, but he’s no schlock, and you might find him compelling.)

Forgive me if I seem obtuse, but, in all honesty I fail to see the exhilaration he speaks of.

You’re not obtuse. You can’t “see” the exhilaration, you can only experience it. I have. It’s a bit like clinging knuckle-white tightly to a ball—and then opening your hand...

Originally posted by scottishinnz
I'm afraid I must find in favour of the late Professor Gould. Whilst theism has many "nice" features for the believee, it is ultimately setting people up for a tremendous fall should it be found to be false. Likewise, as is normally pointed out, many wars have been conducted, and still are, in the name of religion. In one of the other threads (the on take a whizz on themwere they on fire - after all, that's obviously God's will too.....

thats unfair, god doesnt make that happen so you blame him for not making her better? why didnt you make her better? nobody fixed her cancer so i guess in your eyes its all our faults. i want to highlight this part of your post: "Of course, science would seek to solve these sort of problems, for example using stem cells to help repair damaged tissues, giving this girl a chance at life." who gave her life in the first place? god (assuming that he exists because in your post you are assuming the same). and who created science? god. who gave us all a chance at living, and the brain to even understand science? i think you know.

Originally posted by buckky
What religion has the ultimate truth ? I know the Christians think they do, but I'm sure the Muslems think the same way. I would bet the Buddhest think they might be on the perfect road also. Could it be that they all might have something to offer ? I know the athiest are convinced they are the smart ones, and that all religions are nut's but they also have a ...[text shortened]... timate truth on a chess forum is no doubt a crazy way to go, but God works in mysterious ways.

No religion has the ultimate truth. Each religion expresses a different philosophy or way of thinking, and it is up to the individual to decide which religion best suits their own opinions, thoughts, attitudes, beliefs, morals and values. And yes, they all have something to offer. But Atheism too, offers a lot of wisdom and interesting ways of thinking.
B.

Originally posted by amannion
Yes, that - dropping conceptual frames and just experiencing something - sounds a bit like Thich Nhat Hanh's mindfulness.

Yep. I find two things amazing about it—for myself:

1. How uneffortful it really is, especially compared to the effort we use to cling to our various spectacles.

2. How deeply the habit is ingrained to cling to those spectacles, to strap them fast to your head, even once you’ve realized you can put them down (and, as you say, take them back up again as needed). That’s where my real work is now—and I think that much of my participation here is really a habitual (addictive, compulsive?) attempt to distract myself from that...?

LemonJello posted a wonderful “koan”:

In this way and that I have tried to save
the old pail
Since the bamboo strip was weakening and
about to break
Until at last the bottom fell out.
No more water in the pail!
No more moon in the water!

- Chiyono's satori poem

I still keep trying to put the damned bucket back together, wrapping my arms tightly around it—keep the moon in the bucket! What foolishness...

Originally posted by vistesd
Yep. I find two things amazing about it—for myself:

1. How uneffortful it really is, especially compared to the effort we use to cling to our various spectacles.

2. How deeply the habit is ingrained to cling to those spectacles, to strap them fast to your head, even once you’ve realized you can put them down (and, as you say, take them back up again ...[text shortened]... together, wrapping my arms tightly around it—keep the moon in the bucket! What foolishness...

Yeah, nice one.
I guess it's such a dramatic departure for most of us from the way we're brought up and the societies we live in, that the tendency is to always go backwards ...

Originally posted by amannion
Yeah, nice one.
I guess it's such a dramatic departure for most of us from the way we're brought up and the societies we live in, that the tendency is to always go backwards ...

Hey! I thought we were arguing—what happened?

Oh yeah: I misread your post on frames, responded thoughtlessly, and then you moved me where I really needed to go... 🙂