Conclusion.
The video from yesterday by a young atheist who defined "spiritual" for himself was a great summation of what I've heard from atheists on Twitter who have seriously thought through their decision of non-belief.
And now for the other side of the coin.
Here's an excerpt from "The Silver Chair," which is part of the Chronicles of Narnia by C.S. Lewis, a former atheist turned Christian. And IT is the perfect summation of why Christians choose to believe. One reason I love the Narnia Chronicles is that although they're children's books, Lewis conveys difficult-to-understand spiritual concepts so succinctly and easily. This is a fantastic example.
Read it, compare it to the video posted below ... and post your thoughts. I'd love to hear from both atheists and Christians on this.
The Silver Chair – Chapter 12
“One word, Ma'am,” he said, coming back from the fire; limping, because of the pain. "One word. All you've been saying is quite right, I shouldn't wonder. I'm a chap who always liked to know the worst and then put the best face I can on it. So I won't deny any of what you said. But there's one thing more to be said, even so. Suppose we have only dreamed, or made up, all those things – trees and grass and sun and moon and stars and Aslan himself. Suppose we have. Then all I can say is that, in that case, the made-up things seem a good deal more important than the real ones. Suppose this black pit of a kingdom of yours is the only world. Well, it strikes me as a pretty poor one. And that's a funny thing, when you come to think of it. We're just babies making up a game, if you're right. But four babies playing a game can make a playworld which licks your real world hollow. That's why I'm going to stand by the play-world. I'm on Aslan's side even if there isn't any Aslan to lead it. I'm going to live as like a Narnian as I can even if there isn't any Narnia.”
Heidi:
ReplyDeleteI have read your blog and must say you are persistent in your efforts to promote a myth that should have died years ago but didn't.
I have been atheist since I was born because my parents didn't push religion on me. I am very lucky because when I see someone like you continuously butting your head against a brick wall, I am really glad I was never brainwashed to believe in one of the most massive frauds ever perpetuated on mankind. I am now 76 years of age and still have no desire to be duped into believing a fairy tale.
I have read the bible many times and have taken the same stance as Bart D Ehrman who wrote "Jesus Interrupted", revealing the hidden contradictions in the bible and why we don't know about them. This man was a professor of religious studies at the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill. He after many years as a professor could no longer continue because he did not believe what he was teaching. Please read this book, you may get some insight why there are atheists.
You claim that you are instrumental in converting atheists to Xtianity, I'm not going to call you a dishonest person for saying that. But, you may have exaggerated the numbers a bit.
I have read many other books by intelligent people who all say pretty much the same thing;
The bible is a myth, written by bronze age men who believed that thunder and lightening was a message from Yahweh.
You have taken on a task that may prove fruitless for you. After all, you are talking to clear thinking, intelligent people who live in the 21 Century where ghosts, demons, witches, waterwalkers, virgin births and Genesis in general is too hard to swallow.
Now Aspentroll will return to his world, where everything is JUST LIKE IN THE CHRISTIAN WORLD -- morality, fealty, justice, awe, etc. -- only without god in it.
ReplyDeleteNot two cents' worth of difference. Except for the comforting feeling he gets that he is smarter and better than 99.5% of humanity throughout the ages, and all that extra brainspace he gets to have since he doesn't bother to actually think beyond a literal, fundamentalist reading of religion.
As for atheist spiritualism, we see again that atheists want to "reject supernaturalism" but can't quite bring themselves to cut the cord. They have to justify and add layer after layer of materialist interpretation to the cord, but they can't just have done with it. Which is very telling.
It's that guy-in-the-mirror who stares at them every morning. It bothers them that, in the material cosmos, he is still there. Emergent only a few decades ago, clearly not the author of this cosmos, and exiting soon hereafter. And yet. Not of this world.
Who says those lines...something like Puddleglum...I've seen it before...(but haven't read the books or anything).
ReplyDeleteI think where atheists would disagree is that they would disagree that Aslan's side so completely "licks" the witch's world hollow.
ID_vs_EGO has posted to the basic conclusion that he agrees the real world is licked hollow. So I guess there is some cash value to such a statement.
I find it interesting that IvE goes so far in his tirade. He points out how Aspentroll's world has "not two cents' worth of difference" as if this is a smoking gun that the atheist is trying to "patch up" naturalism and "can't..cut the cord."
But that's the thing. Atheism and theism need not have "two cents' worth of difference," because the only distinction between the two is belief in god. That is all. From there, you cannot tell anything about beliefs in morality, beliefs in justice, awe, etc., etc., because neither theism or atheism alone tell you anything about that. Theism is one disparate belief that fits in a set of worldviews...atheism is one distinct nonbelief that fits in a set of worldviews. You cannot say, "I know you are a theist, therefore I know you are a Catholic Christian." However, given you know someone is a Catholic, you can venture that they are (or should be, if they are believing what their catechism tells them) theist.
This is ID_vs_EGO's greatest problem. He chides atheists on not bothering "to actually think beyond a literal, fundamentalist reading of religion," but in his pronouncements, he has not bothered "to actually think beyond a nihilist, anti-existential reading of nontheism."
And then, looking at the strawman, he says it's "all very telling."
He self-describes himself as an "agnostic" (if I read his last few messages right.) But is he a believer in deities or a deity? If not, then what is the difference between him and an atheist? If so, then what is the difference between him and a theist? Not two cents' worth of difference. Except for the comforting feeling he gets that he is smarter and better than 99.x% of humanity throughout the ages, and all that extra brainspace he gets to have since he doesn't commit to "either side".
"but in his pronouncements, he has not bothered to actually think beyond a nihilist, anti-existential reading of nontheism."
ReplyDeletethank you for taking the time to respond to my li'l rant. since you do not know me at all, I will forgo responding to the above. I will assume you were addressing my "pronouncements" only, and not any actual time I've spent pondering the imponderables of life.
the Troll (above) hit a sore spot with me, and you are coming in on the middle of an interesting summer I've had. I will try to step through one point, and if you like we can go from there. I will try not to spew all over the place.
Please trust me when I say: I've put more time into these things than most people put in, outside of those who live in monasteries.
***
what did I find "telling?" the inability to step away from some mass-hysterical "morality." haven't the New Atheists, so enamored of their Dawkins, actually read Dawkins, or Camus? Morality, in a materialist cosmos, is (a) irrelevant (Dawkins) and (b) SELF-CREATED (Camus). The existentialists might win the day.
Most New, Modern atheists (I set aside Buddhists, here, who have been doing atheism well for longer than any of the current crop of smart-alecks) seem wed to the idea of some nebulous, "evolved" morality that they then posit MUST APPLY to all humans.
Think on that.
Having rejected "pronouncements from God" on how to behave, because they are "just because some guys in charge said so," they then cajole me to embrace a materialistic morality -- why?
Just because they say so.
Hmm. So I am to trade in my "blind faith" in the morality handed down from the imaginary gods invented by humans to control mass behavior for what? A faith in a morality handed down from the current most-popular group of scientists, invented to control mass behavior.
And if I choose to believe differently? Can you guess? My morality is labeled the "wrong kind." Or I "haven't thought it through."
But maybe I have. Maybe I have looked at the moralities of many atheist camps, and maybe the morality of Ted Bundy appeals most to me.
And so, I ask "why?"
I am told, "because." I mean -- bottom line -- that's the reasoning I'm given: you are wrong because -- well; your morality is amoral!
But their's is a morality based on the equality of humanity, and in a strictly materalistic cosmos, humanity is most easily proved not equal at all.
There is me. And then there is everyone else, a notch below me.
Why do I think I am different? Because, well, I am. I am me. And no one else ever has been, is or will be me.
I am unique, and finite, and that's all there is to that.
So, why can't I develop a "morality" with one or two simple rules (rule #1: don't get caught)?
***
Agnosticism, as you have probably guessed, is a temporary state. But I don't mind passing through it from time to time. I find it -- hmm -- clarifying. Purifying. Refining.
So, once again, I will pass over your last paragraph as one written by someone who really doesn't know me from Adam. No offense taken.
P.S. Andrew:
ReplyDeleteIn all honestly, I'd rather start a dialogue with you over this:
"It's that guy-in-the-mirror who stares at them every morning. It bothers them that, in the material cosmos, he is still there. Emergent only a few decades ago, clearly not the author of this cosmos, and exiting soon hereafter. And yet. Not of this world."
What do you think?
Cordially, Mike J.
ID_vs_EGO:
ReplyDeleteI personally am not all that "bothered" by the guy-in-the-mirror. We are thrown here, and the guy-in-the-mirror is here with me. Why would I be bothered? Why should I presume that, in the material cosmos, the guy-in-the-mirror shouldn't or wouldn't be here? He is here; he is a constant. He is what I know first and foremost.
I don't get the last part. The "not of this world" part. I know the guy-in-the-mirror. But I don't know anything about his being not of this world.
"We are thrown here, and the guy-in-the-mirror is here with me."
ReplyDeleteWho's we?
we are the entire human race, as many of us are not zombies or robots, that is.
ReplyDeletethe entire human race is in your head? well: entire race minus one (me)?
ReplyDeleteNo, just the zombies and robots...
ReplyDeletethis gets difficult to convey, at times.
ReplyDelete"Why should I presume that, in the material cosmos, the guy-in-the-mirror shouldn't or wouldn't be here?"
the guy-in-the-mirror is the cameraman, the one asking the question. he is you. where he isn't, there is nothing outside of him. because there isn't a him to be outside of. he *seems* to be constant and ageless, but his body decays around him and his memories pile up on one another, now this one, now that.
he is what you know, alright, for he is you before you started knowing you knew anything.
he is the observer, he who changes the system by being there to observe it, and choosing to do so.
he is not with you, he *is* you.
he did not evolve over billions of years. he has only been around for -- what? -- two decades, in your case? Five, in mine. Eight, in my father's case. and when he goes, the cosmos goes with him.
was he "plugged in" to your body, or did he "emerge" from it, as the brain reached a critical mass of complexity, creating a mind, which in turn supports or gives birth to a spirit?
Most frustratingly of all, though we might describe eventually how he came to be *in general,* the specific emergence of you, at this time, in this place, remains forever beyond the ken of science. general descriptions of populations do not predict individual outcomes.
the materialist kind of has to "overlook" this to create a really coherent philosophy of living. but if one has to overlook one's self to get to a coherent philosophy, I question the coherence of the philosophy.
it is a real problem. I am not saying anything about the problems of theism (involved god, uninvolved or otherwise). those are a separate issue. but belief in a solely materialistic cosmos -- atheism -- has difficulties also, primarily (but not only) with the existence of one's self in it.
OK, I think I'm getting a bit of what you write, but in this case, there is a part with which I have to disagree:
ReplyDeleteMost frustratingly of all, though we might describe eventually how he came to be *in general,* the specific emergence of you, at this time, in this place, remains forever beyond the ken of science. general descriptions of populations do not predict individual outcomes.
The thing I recognize is that so much about me really IS determined by "general descriptions of populations." I may not have or science may not have or whoever else may not have all the descriptions that are necessary, but I have to recognize a few things -- the desires I have, the feelings and opinions I have...they don't just come from thin air. I agree that my individuality isn't a carbon copy of trends (as far as I can tell), but om a way, it *IS* evolved over billions of years, heavily based and biased to being in the 21st century at the tail end of those billions of years, heavily based and biased to being born in the late 1980s, with dark skin, in a minority religion, etc.,
I understand that *I* began suddenly. The me that perceives began suddenly. It's not like I have any conscious awareness of billions of years. BUT I don't feel completely novel either.
So, I don't get what you say in the next paragraph.
Instead, I think the opposite. The non-materialist has to "overlook" why we are so remarkably "tied" or "anchored" down in so many ways. Why our will isn't so free (even if we perceive it as such). Why we have all of these biases (that we can't just choose not to have). Why we have all these hangups.
Because we didn't ask for these chains, and yet they came with us. We were just thrown here.
Actually, different religions have different takes on this. Fallen nature, sin nature, natural man, whatever., I think they go too far with this, but clearly we have some tie down to the physical, material world.
I have heard similar arguments, now that you phrase it in this way. Arguments that materialists ignore human questions, questions of self, but I don't get it. I don't see how that happens or how materialism or atheism requires it in any way.
The theist arguments with which I have familiarity concern themselves intimately with the "animal/spirit" nature of Mankind. I evidently have chosen to ignore or not pursue non-materialist arguments that "overlook" the dichotomy of existence.
ReplyDeleteTheistic arguments, rooted in the physicality of Man are as old as the hills. I haven't invented anything new there (that I know of).
The "new atheist" approach that is to suppose that Man is animal through-and-through. But that doesn't wash with human history, or my experience in general.
If in fact the totality of "the feelings and opinions I have" are products of material properties (physics, evolution) then it is silly to even believe that you (or any of those others around you for that matter, including this one here called 'me') are anywhere close to a perception of objective truth in any arena of science or art.
But one's choices -- what one does with the inherited physical and cultural and personal biases -- enter into play. Which do I keep? Which do I examine? Which do I discard? Which do I choose NOT to examine?
Someone, or something is doing the choosing.
Skinner tried to reduce all animal activity (including human) to conditioning. The really, really funny part of this was HE DID IT IN A LABORATORY OF HIS OWN DESIGN USING EXPERIMENTS AND NOVEL THEORIES OF HIS OWN DESIGN. My wife and I get a chuckle out of stuff like that.
Finally you say:
"I have heard similar arguments,... that materialists ignore human questions, questions of self, but I don't get it. I don't see how that happens or how materialism or atheism requires it in any way."
Which gets back to my point: evidently, the materialist has to overlook or ignore the question of selfhood. Pretend it isn't there, when it is in fact the fundament of any being's existence. If your philosophy does not account for your own existence, how valid can it be?
Analogies are (to me) usually weak, but I'll try one here: the current popular stream of materialistic atheism is something like a user's manual written for something, that never mentions or even considers what the something is. It describes in exacting detail the *environment* of the thing, but never says whta the thing is itself.
The "new atheist" approach that is to suppose that Man is animal through-and-through. But that doesn't wash with human history, or my experience in general.
ReplyDeleteGood thing "new atheists" don't represent all atheists.
But one's choices -- what one does with the inherited physical and cultural and personal biases -- enter into play. Which do I keep? Which do I examine? Which do I discard? Which do I choose NOT to examine?
Someone, or something is doing the choosing.
and I think that someone or something that is doing the choosing isn't wholly free. We have biases, but not only that, we have biases in our biases, metabiases. I'm in favor of downplaying ideas of "objectivity" more often.
Which gets back to my point: evidently, the materialist has to overlook or ignore the question of selfhood. Pretend it isn't there, when it is in fact the fundament of any being's existence. If your philosophy does not account for your own existence, how valid can it be?
Great job reading.
What I had said was, "I don't see how that happens or how materialism or atheism requires it in any way." You say the materialist *has* to overlook and ignore. I say, "Wait, what? How? What requires it?"
what is telling is your next part:
the current popular stream of materialistic atheism
Well, the "current popular stream" has holes for many many reasons, not just this one. But that doesn't mea that every materialist has to overlook or ignore.
(1) "I think that someone or something that is doing the choosing isn't wholly free." Well, then -- your point has no intellectual validity. you are merely part of the machine.
ReplyDelete(2) "You say the materialist *has* to overlook and ignore. I say, 'Wait, what? How? What requires it?' " I apologize; shouldI have interpreted that as, "you don't have to overlook it. you *choose* to overlook it?"
The impression you may be giving is that you have no interest in contemplating the self, its origins, its relation to the material world, its exercise of free thought and will.
You may, unconsciously, reap untold benefits from these things, but you do not wish to know about them.
***
(I wish the editor would weigh in here, just to tell me if my impression is reasonable)
***
In geometry, there is Euclid's 1st postulate, the reflexive property. In its funnest form, the reflexive property says that "this object is this object," for example, "this pen is not just A pen, it is THIS pen." The thing is equal to itself. People who reject the 1st postulate of Euclid don't really have anything meaningful to bring to the table when one is discussing geometry, even the non-classical forms. The philosophical chasm, between those who agree that something is itself and those who do not, is too wide.
We have, perhaps, arrived at that point in our dialogue. I think self and will fundamental to the hewing of a philosophy to live by; you -- interestingly, to be sure -- give all appearance of thinking the self and will beneath contemplation.
I haven't often encountered souls (or whatever) who hail from a cosmos so different from mine as to be incomprehensible, to me, at this point in my sojourn. But it isn't unique; it has happened before on occasion.
You offer me mere crumbs -- if that -- in my quest for clarification of the atheist -- ANY atheist -- point of view. You take no stance, and regard yourself as unassailable because of that. Against such thinking, there is no argument.
That being said, I can't begin to understand why you would find any fault in my developing atheist worldview, nor with its contrast to the New Atheist movement. You have no dog in this hunt, & you can't bring yourself to care whether or not I do or don't. You seem to have some other dog in some other hunt.
I can't even precisely say you "hold up a mirror" to my ruminations, or, if I did, I guess I could say you "hold up a Fun House mirror" since you tend to misinterpret my statements. But I could say that you at least give me a hard surface to bounce ideas off of. Perhaps "iron sharpens iron" comes closest. So thanks for that.
Peace be with you. I think it is interesting we both have interests in numerical fields.
If people want to describe how awestruck they are, why not just say "awestruck". Calling it spirituality (a term that has had so many meanings attributed to it over the years that it is functionally meaningless, and should be expunged from the English language) serves no purpose except to confuse the issue.
ReplyDelete