I'm going to mark this discussion, atypican, to delineate your words from mine, before it gets too confusing. You'll be "D" and I'll be "J."
On Dec 30, 12:15 am, atypican <[email protected]> wrote: D: > Yeah OK. How do we get assurance that our discernment isn't profoundly > flawed in one way or another. If you trust that your discernment is > sound, who are you trusting? I submit you are inescapably trusting > yourself. > J: > If I, as a human being, were the measure of all things > D: > Please rephrase. I struggle to understand the statement. We might measure > things according to the standards we accept but humans are not a measure. > Except perhaps in the task of counting people. > J: I mean judging things by our own lights, rather than in the light of another, higher standard. D: > Humankind sets standards. Standards by definition are imperfect and should > be adjusted as we learn > J: The image you paint is one of a continual improvement toward what we can imagine is the lofty goal of perfection, but perfection itself would always be out of reach in your picture. D: > A healthy recognition of failure is how we humans improve standards. > J: O.K., that works for most human endeavors, especially the sciences. But we are here discussing religion per se. I know many seek to lump the question of God and "what God wants" in with questions like, what is the precession of the orbit of Mercury? but I am not convinced that is legitimate. J: > then it seems plain that I would have only myself to trust. > D: > A logical conclusion made from a poorly established premise > J: > Either humankind is or is not the measure of all things > D: > A standard considered perfect or all encompassing is a standard that can't > be improved or developed by the considerer. > J: Plainly so. And I would not call the human standard perfect by any means. But that still leaves open the question of whether a perfect standard, incapable of improvement or development by our tinkering, exists, and is available to us? D: > If reality is infinite, there is no measure of all things. > J: Except if that measure were also infinite. Right? J: > perhaps there is One greater than ourselves. > D: > Greater as measured by what standard? > J: Plainly, greater "than ourselves" means merely, greater in comparison with ourselves. Now you brought up the Infinite, which skips over the question of some intermediate standard between ourselves and the Infinite. I have no problem with skipping over that, but I wanted to point out that that's what that does. Some do seek higher lights that may be less than the Infinite. I am not among them, except insofar as lesser lights may lead me to the Infinite Light; nonetheless, there are whole belief systems based on this kind of thing. J: > It comes down, again, to my previous question to you, of whether you > believe there is any alternative to mankind being the measure of all > things? > D: > Yeah mankind is the measure of some things. > J: "Some," yet not "all," immediately brings to mind the question, "which?" J: > You alluded to not holding that, but if you don't, then what > do you hold? > D: > See above > J: See my question above. J: > Is there any way out of this seeming pickle of trusting > ourselves, but wanting to have a higher standard by which we might > judge our own capacities > D: > Yeah We can understand on a fundamental level how important being able to > doubt (and not getting too proud to admit it) is. > J: O.K., I acknowledge the value of that. That may be surprising to e_space and maybe even to you, but, I do value self-doubt as a tool for obtaining discernment. D: > The majority of professed and vocal > atheists practice a form of theism. They can't disguise it from me by > simply claiming that they don't believe in god. > J: > Expand a little, if you don't mind. What theos do you see most > professed and vocal atheists believing in, if only implicitly? > D: > At the root it's the same as others but relabeled. They esteem others too > highly and themselves too lowly by comparison (or vice versa). J: Hmm. I have tended to interpret most of the atheists' views that I've encountered on these groups as more or less the opposite of that. They seem to hold their own opinions in too high of an esteem, from what impressions I've gathered. I guess that is what you meant by "vice-versa," so maybe I'm not adding anything here. D: >They go to > other people to learn about what they will feel most comfortable (in their > social environment) professing. Ask for critical comments about these people > that they go to. They will draw a blank. > J: Yes, I've seen that happen! Thinking for oneself is a rare trait, especially around ideas of considerable depth, because of the extreme amount of mental effort and persistence that is required to get that thinking done! And there isn't a subject deeper than God. I do think for myself, which is one reason why I feel a continual need to defend myself against charges like that expressed by e_space against me, that essentially I am not thinking for myself at all. It seems to me, it is one thing to think for oneself, and another thing entirely to improvise. And it seems to me that some, with e_space here as an example, view a lack of improvisation as equivalent to a lack of original thought. I am not saying that you do the same thing, but since your comment brought this to my mind, I will continue. Take as an example, the phenomenon of gravity. There is only so much improvisation one might possibly do on that concept. In the end, no one can really get around the observation that apples do fall from trees, and the moon appears to be orbiting the earth. But it seems that some, when it comes to the subject of God, feel the right to insist that one who does not improvise cannot be thinking for themselves. Neither Newton nor Einstein improvised their theories; rather, each of those men simply strove to reconcile observation with logic, and that was their genius. Thanks for letting me expand. D: > > the theist delusion is that > > they think they have access to an individual that teaches > > them perfectly. > > > J: Yes. That individual is called the Holy Spirit. > D: > > I am surprised at what you appear to concede here. > J: > What else could you possibly have expected? > D: > I don't know but I didn't expect agreement. > J: > Have you ever encountered a Christian before? > D: > According to which definition of Christian. J: One who entrusts their understanding of truth to God in the Christian sense, rather than to themselves. D: >Let's put it this way. I am one > of the few atheists you'll meet that doesn't have a condemning attitude > toward Christianity (or any other sect for that matter). I am > not...metaphorically challenged so to speak. :) > J: Cool! I am enjoying that non-condemning attitude from you! It makes for a possible conversation!!! D: > > Let's say your goal is to place your complete trust in this > > individual you > > regard as a perfect teacher. > J: > > Well, this is variously to be regarded, depending both on whether > > the > > individual one is seeking to trust is really God (God the Holy > > Spirit) > > or merely a human being with some possibly good ideas. > > Is there any > way for me to obtain a power of discernment that I myself would not > naturally possess? > D: > discernment develops with practice like any other skill. > J: Again I see you invoking the long, slow, climb to infinity, without any possibility of ever reaching it. I guess this is a fundamental difference between atheism and Christianity, in that a Christian believes there is One who is and has always been Infinite in every perfection, whereas --- it seems --- for an atheist, there can be no such person, and thus no such actual state as Infinite Perfection. Here, I am reminded of the religion of the Wiccans and the pagans and the witches. They say they worship Nature. I was struck very deeply this year by the Christmas Carol, "Joy to the World," in which there is the repeated chorus, "And heaven and nature sing!" The contrast is striking. Christianity acknowledges both, heaven (perfection) and nature (imperfection striving for perfection.) And at Christmas time, they both sing together, which is why Christmas is so joyful. I think I can sum up what is the missing element in a paradigm that contains *only* nature as imperfection striving for perfection, as opposed to the paradigm that contains both, in one word, and it is the word: Hope. Jesus is our Hope. There is a lot more to this, but that is the base of it. J: > Why should one not trust the Church that Jesus founded? > D: > trust it to do what? > J: At the very least, trust it to contains the truths entrusted to it by its Founder. And even, in a world with some hope, to teach those truths. D: > > I don't think it can be summed up that easily. I am atheist yet I > > could easily logically prove the existence of god. > J: > Then how can you be atheist? > D: > Because I don't know anyone all powerful, or if I do, I don't know that they > are. J: Then it would appear, that you didn't actually logically prove the existence of God. D: > If I did believe that there was an all powerful being I would wonder why so > many horrendous things occur. > J: Well, don't you? Don't you wonder anyway, without regard to whether or not there is God? Just as Newton and Einstein made it their business to reconcile their observations of gravity with logic, so it seems the task of individuals like myself to reconcile the observations of the reality of the world with the logic of the existence of God, since we (individuals like myself) are, after all, committed to the idea that God is both real and relevant to the world. J: > Does "could easily" mean you have done it? > D: > Yeah though I'm sure I wouldn't be introducing you to anything new here. : ) > J: But if I may, it seems to me that if you did not arrive at the logical resolution of the observation of evil in the world with the existence of an all-powerful God, then you did not actually prove to yourself the existence of God. It might seem irreconcilable, but that is simply the tough position that one is in, who wishes to cling to both ends of the apparent contradiction and see it through to a reconciliation. Einstein was in a similar position with regard to two seemingly contrary propositions: on the one hand, the intuitively compelling principle of relativity, and on the other, the observed constancy of the velocity of light. He made his name famous by not letting go of either, but by systematically holding fast to both, and arriving at a logically rigid theory. I have found a similar thing in the realm of theology with regard to the co-existence of an all-good, omnipotent God, and the temporary appearance of evil in the world. J: > And if so, why do you not believe your own proof? > D: > It's the only theological statement I have accepted so far. I am as sure as > I can be that god exists as a term. > J: O.K. but that is not a commitment to the ontological correlate of that term. A term is a far cry from an instantiation. Without, however, insisting that you move beyond where you are, I would inquire more deeply into your treatment of the term, that you referred to as 'god.' I am not really all that interested in the existence of 'god' or gods, so much as I am in the existence of God. In fact, I take it as a given that gods are real, since we are real, and we are gods according to any useful definition of that term I've ever seen. The question of religion is not so much whether we exist as gods, as it is whether there be any gods superior to ourselves and worthy of our worship. And it seems to me, the answer to that, if we would retain our natural dignity, is a resounding "No!" Except if it be, that there is One who can properly be called, not a god, but rather God. I would be reticent to bow down to a superior being, since his superiority might not be a function of his nature but only of his accomplishments, which I might in time be able to achieve. In other words, a superior being might not possess any *inherent* superiority over myself --- much like 'Q' on Star Trek is not actually inherently superior to Picard. But the Supreme Being, if such a phrase has an ontic correlate, would be different altogether. Metaphysical Supremacy is not something that could ever be achieved, so, if there is a Supreme Being, then plainly, that being must possess that Supremacy inherently, and such a being would indeed be worthy of our worship. And in the end, entitled to it as well. J: > Do you think that a proof of something does not imply the truth of what is > proven?? > D: > It implies it but does not absolutely guarantee it. > J: Then I submit that you would not be talking about an actual proof, but only an argument of sorts. D: > on to see if I can keep up... > > It boils down to trusting. And can (or should) we trust another individual > more than ourselves. I would say in a sense yes we can trust another *more*. > But the decision to trust is ours alone. J: Hmm. Here, you appear to be alluding to a free will decision. Is it possible that we might become so far intellectually convinced of the superiority of another being as to make our submission to such a being rather a no-brainer? But then again, in light of what I said above, it might be the situation like with Picard and Q. One of the reasons Q picked on Picard was that Picard would *not* just "accept" Q as "God." It seems to me a truly superior intelligence would treat us the same way, if it was truly a superior intelligence and not rather the actual Supreme Being. So it seems it comes down to that again. Looking forward to reading more of your thoughts on these things!!
