Subject: Belief in God. (was People of Value & Forgiveness) Date: 2 Jun 1999 07:40:53 GMT From: Chris Ho-Stuart <> Newsgroups: aus.religion.christian,nz.soc.religion Nigel Mitchell <> wrote: > On Wed, 2 Jun 1999 13:51:07 +0800, Chris Ho-Stuart wrote > (in message <>): > > > > Nigel Mitchell <> wrote: > > > >> I believe that atheists are only atheists because they do not have the > >> imagination or good fortune to see the presence of God all around them, or > >> to experience God's love in their lives. > > > > Just out of curiosity ... really??? > > Yes. OK. In that case it is worthwhile making a rather more careful response. >From my own experience and limited chances to interact with others, the difference between theism and atheism has nothing to do with a lack of imagination or a poverty of experience, or bad luck. The distinction between theism and atheism is something about belief, or lack thereof, in "god". Just what we mean by "god" is a totally non-trivial matter. I distinguish two broad classes of god-concepts. The first is basically anthropomorphic. This is I think the most common; and it is explicit in the orthodox Christian doctrine that we are in the image of God. By this concept, God is an entity, so that it makes sense to speak of God existing. Just how our human nature reflect any aspects of the divine nature is open to a range of interpretations, but God at least can have a relationship with us in some way. God is not wisdom in the abstract; God is a supreme being who is wise. God is in some sense conscious or aware, as we are conscious or aware. It may even make sense to speak of God deciding between alternatives, as we do. Note that I use anthropomorphic is a very general sense, with no implication that God has to share in all our various human imperfections. It is not meant as a term of criticism. The second form of god-concept is nebulous. By this concept, the proposition "God exists" may not even be the same form as propositions like "Nigel exists" or "Santa Claus exists"; there may be no distinguishable entity out there which is "god" in distinction to other things which are not-god. Some people try to express concepts of God which do not fit the simple "supreme superhuman conscious and living entity" which is like us only much much greater. For example, Paul Tillich speaks of God as "the ground of being". Abstract forms of Buddhism or Hinduism think of God as "all being"; and enlightenment is in part recognition that the distinction between god and not-god is vacuous. Albert Einstein spoke of God as "the order we perceive in the universe" -- something wonderful, but not in the least human, and not something with whom you have a relationship, and something totally unconnected with issues of morality. I think there may be Christians with this kind of concept of God: not actually a distinct conscious living entity that exists or does not exist; though they may find it helpful to think of God in that way as an aid to prayer or meditation (which are essentially the same thing). It is hard for Christians to express such a view, since it is generally recognized as heretical. Some Christians do brave disapproval; and attempt to express their concept of God openly, even though it flies in the face of orthodoxy. I have even heard the term "Christian atheist" -- one who somehow has reconciled in their world view on the one hand a pivotal role for the person of Jesus Christ, while on the other hand avoiding adopting Jesus' own views on the divinity and recognizing that there is no superhuman entity distinct and supreme over the rest of the universe. Jesus' view of God is very anthropomorphic as I use the term. Jesus saw God as a great heavenly Father, who could love, and forgive, and punish. What Nigel understands by the term "God" I honestly do not know. I would be curious to know -- but I have a sneaking suspicion that a careful answer on his part would lower his credibility with many Christians who hold more orthodox views. So, to bring the focus back on to atheists... why am I am atheist? First of all, I openly identify myself as a strong atheist: one who does not merely disbelieve, but is of the considered opinion that God does not exist. In my apologetics for this point of view, I explicitly limit myself to what I have called the anthropomorphic god-concept. I recognize that there are Christians and theologians who are also atheists as I use the term; and some who would even accept that description, suitably qualified to indicate what god we do not believe in. To allow imagination as a means of maintaining a belief in fictional entities is foolishness. I want no part of it -- this does not indicate a lack in my imaginative powers but recognition of the role of imagination. To take experience as indicating the existence of such God is simply poor judgement. But with respect to a more nebulous God -- what of this possibility? Here I do recognize adopt "god-talk" can be a way of expressing oneself on deep questions of existence and meaning, even while recognizing that "god" does not actually exist as some heavenly Father like us only much much bigger and better. Einstein tended to do this with considerable eloquence. For me -- I think the god-talk is more confusing than helpful. It leads others to make incorrect inferences about my world view. It is not actually necessary to allow you to express wonder at the universe and the phenomena of existence. Finally -- to put the boot on the other foot I do not think belief in God indicates a lack of imagination. But I DO think it is a tragic lack of imagination or some other quality of empathy or understanding which would make you unable to recognize in your unbelieving neighbours the possibility of deep and meaningful and creative and imaginative and valuable life experience; or that would lead you to project on to them a lack of these qualities because they do not share your particular world view. Cheers -- Chris Ho-Stuart -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: Belief in God. (was People of Value & Forgiveness) Date: 2 Jun 1999 23:55:11 GMT From: Chris Ho-Stuart <> Organization: Queensland University of Technology, Australia Newsgroups: aus.religion.christian,nz.soc.religion References: <7j283f$b0> <01HW.B37AD687000C41C60376CF20> <> <01HW.B37AEC66001166290376CF20> <> <> John Fulton <> wrote: > In message <> - Chris Ho-Stuart > <> writes: > :> > :>Nigel Mitchell <> wrote: > :>> On Wed, 2 Jun 1999 13:51:07 +0800, Chris Ho-Stuart wrote > :>> (in message <>): > :>> > > :>> > Nigel Mitchell <> wrote: > :>> > > :>> >> I believe that atheists are only atheists because they > :>> >> do not have the imagination or good fortune to see the > :>> >> presence of God all around them, or to experience God's > :>> >> love in their lives. > :>> > > :>> > Just out of curiosity ... really??? > :>> > :>> Yes. > :> > :>OK. In that case it is worthwhile making a rather more careful > :>response. > :> > :>From my own experience and limited chances to interact with others, > :>the difference between theism and atheism has nothing to do with > :>a lack of imagination or a poverty of experience, or bad luck. > :> > :>The distinction between theism and atheism is something about > :>belief, or lack thereof, in "god". > > Here you are not being particular enough. Theism does not define > Christanity, Buddhism, or Islam. All of these religions would > claim to have differing Gods, or differing aspects of the same > God perhaps. But to call it a belief in god is not what any of > these religions is about! Look at the context John. You are the first person who brought up particular religions. The entire thead, quoted above, is about atheism, and the claim that atheism implies a lack of imagination or good fortune, or something. That is the claim I am attempting to argue. The appropriate contrast for atheism is theism. The distinguishing mark of atheism is a lack of belief in god. I have said nothing about distinguishing marks of other religions since they are not the topic of conversation. > :>Just what we mean by "god" is a totally non-trivial matter. > :>I distinguish two broad classes of god-concepts. > :> > :>The first is basically anthropomorphic. This is I think the most > :>common; and it is explicit in the orthodox Christian doctrine that > :>we are in the image of God. By this concept, God is an entity, so > :>that it makes sense to speak of God existing. Just how our human > :>nature reflect any aspects of the divine nature is open to a range > :>of interpretations, but God at least can have a relationship with > :>us in some way. God is not wisdom in the abstract; God is a supreme > :>being who is wise. God is in some sense conscious or aware, as > :>we are conscious or aware. It may even make sense to speak of God > :>deciding between alternatives, as we do. > :> > :>Note that I use anthropomorphic is a very general sense, with > :>no implication that God has to share in all our various human > :>imperfections. It is not meant as a term of criticism. > :> > :>The second form of god-concept is nebulous. By this concept, > :>the proposition "God exists" may not even be the same form as > :>propositions like "Nigel exists" or "Santa Claus exists"; there may > :>be no distinguishable entity out there which is "god" in distinction > :>to other things which are not-god. > > Here we move into the world of gobbledy gook. I am inclined to agree, in many cases. > This may well be a very > academic description of the word god, but it says nothing about the > Christian God, or the Islam God Allah, or any other particular God. > As fas as I am aware any religion has a particular God, and not just > a general academic god! The point is that some folks, even within Christianity, have different conceptions of God. (Heretical Christians, maybe...) I have already noted that it is very very difficult to get a solid discussion on what God might mean to someone who rejects orthodox views of God as the superhuman entity, a heavenly Father, etc. Part of the reason is continual interjection from those like youself who hold the more usual view, insisting that only this form of God can have meaning. What I would like to do now is hear from people who have rather more nebulous views of God. We don't need to call their views gobbldy-gook just because we disagree with them. I think I am an atheist with respect to their God, as well as with respect to your God. But who knows? I wait to hear from the others and I would like you to note that your views have been taken on board and comprehended -- though not shared, of course. > :>Some people try to express concepts of God which do not fit the > :>simple "supreme superhuman conscious and living entity" which is > :>like us only much much greater. For example, Paul Tillich speaks > :>of God as "the ground of being". Abstract forms of Buddhism or > :>Hinduism think of God as "all being"; and enlightenment is in > :>part recognition that the distinction between god and not-god is > :>vacuous. Albert Einstein spoke of God as "the order we perceive in > :>the universe" -- something wonderful, but not in the least human, > :>and not something with whom you have a relationship, and something > :>totally unconnected with issues of morality. > > Even Einstein used the expression "God does not play dice with the > world"! and his description of order seems a very fair description of > God. Not complete but a good start! Note that Einstein was in fact wrong in that statement! He was speaking of quantum mechanics, and his belief in a kind of underlying determinism; but in fact he was wrong on that subject. Put more bluntly -- you seem to totally misunderstood Einstein. He was not talking about God as you understand the term. He was using the term God as a kind of metaphor for the laws of the universe. Read through http://www.stcloud.msus.edu/~lesikar/einstein/index.html for a fascinating series of extracts where Einstein speaks much more directly to the matter of God and belief. Einstein generally called himself agnostic; though he did at times use the word atheist as well. He did not believe in God, at least as you understand the term. > :>I think there may be Christians with this kind of concept of God: > :>not actually a distinct conscious living entity that exists or does > :>not exist; though they may find it helpful to think of God in that > :>way as an aid to prayer or meditation (which are essentially the > :>same thing). It is hard for Christians to express such a view, > :>since it is generally recognized as heretical. > :> > :>Some Christians do brave disapproval; and attempt to express their > :>concept of God openly, even though it flies in the face of orthodoxy. > :>I have even heard the term "Christian atheist" -- one who somehow has > :>reconciled in their world view on the one hand a pivotal role for the > :>person of Jesus Christ, while on the other hand avoiding adopting > :>Jesus' own views on the divinity and recognizing that there is no > :>superhuman entity distinct and supreme over the rest of the universe. > :> > :>Jesus' view of God is very anthropomorphic as I use the term. > :>Jesus saw God as a great heavenly Father, who could love, and > :>forgive, and punish. > > You miss part of the Christian point in that Jesus was God! I am not trying to summarize Christianity, nor to debate propositions such as the incarnation which admit a huge range of diverse understandings for what is implied. I am simply pointing out that your views of God correspond more closely to Jesus' teaching that the views you earlier called gobbldy-gook. I presume we are agreed on this as well. > :>What Nigel understands by the term "God" I honestly do not know. > :>I would be curious to know -- but I have a sneaking suspicion that > :>a careful answer on his part would lower his credibility with many > :>Christians who hold more orthodox views. > > I doubt it. A careful answer would not help this discussion as you > would not accept what he had to say! I categorically reject that assertion. Of course I would accept what he has to say. I am in honest uncertainty as to what his belief in God actually entails. I would like to know. I am not asking for a debate on whether his views are in accordance with reality or not; and nothing in my remarks suggest such a thing. We *can* actually learn about each other, John. > :>So, to bring the focus back on to atheists... why am I am atheist? > :> > :>First of all, I openly identify myself as a strong atheist: one > :>who does not merely disbelieve, but is of the considered opinion > :>that God does not exist. In my apologetics for this point of view, > :>I explicitly limit myself to what I have called the anthropomorphic > :>god-concept. > :> > :>I recognize that there are Christians and theologians who are also > :>atheists as I use the term; and some who would even accept that > :>description, suitably qualified to indicate what god we do not > :>believe in. > > You have described a valid belief system. One which you are prepared > to live with. Fair enough > > :>To allow imagination as a means of maintaining a belief in fictional > :>entities is foolishness. I want no part of it -- this does not > :>indicate a lack in my imaginative powers but recognition of the > :>role of imagination. ? > I do not advocate the belief in nonsense at all. I do not regard my > Christian belief as nonsense. I do not expect you to hold the same view > - that is your choice. I would however hope that you would not ridicule > my belief system. Hey! Not fair. Look again at the paragraph you have objected to. It is trying to get to grips with a purported connection between lack of imagination and unbelief. I am pointing out one way of misusing imagination. I would presume all of as actually agree that it is misuse of imagination to bolster belief in fictional entities. Your belief in God is due to conviction, and not imagination. My position on God is that God is a fictional entity. I do not attempt to conceal this view, but I express it as what I think of God, and not as a criticism of people like you who disagree with me. If you take offense at that, tough. If not, then we can discuss. I usually try to be very careful on this group not to ridicule your beliefs. Some people can't seem to bear hearing a contrary view without assuming that they are being wronged in some way. In this thread, I have been told that atheists lack imagination or good fortune or *something*. Now, as promised, I do not take offense at that. But I wonder how this perception is justified, and so I explore the relationship between imagination and belief. > :> > :>To take experience as indicating the existence of such God is simply > :>poor judgement. > > I do not believe so. > > :>But with respect to a more nebulous God -- what of this possibility? > :> > :>Here I do recognize adopt "god-talk" can be a way of expressing > :>oneself on deep questions of existence and meaning, even while > :>recognizing that "god" does not actually exist as some heavenly > :>Father like us only much much bigger and better. Einstein tended > :>to do this with considerable eloquence. > > I am not sure what this means. > > :>For me -- I think the god-talk is more confusing than helpful. It > :>leads others to make incorrect inferences about my world view. It > :>is not actually necessary to allow you to express wonder at the > :>universe and the phenomena of existence. > > That is fair enough. The whole of life's experience is not just a set > of scientific facts, and propositions. There are other things. Human > beings are not fully rational, and to pretend that they are is missing > one of the things that makes us all different and interesting. I like > the idea of God you do not fair enough. > > :>Finally -- to put the boot on the other foot > :> > :>I do not think belief in God indicates a lack of imagination. > :> > :>But I DO think it is a tragic lack of imagination or some other > :>quality of empathy or understanding which would make you unable > :>to recognize in your unbelieving neighbours the possibility of > :>deep and meaningful and creative and imaginative and valuable life > :>experience; or that would lead you to project on to them a lack of > :>these qualities because they do not share your particular world view. > > What does that last sentence really mean? It is starting to look > like the old fashioned legal documents. A very long sentence with > an obscure meaning! I believe that you and other atheists can > have a deep and meaningful life. I would never say otherwise. > I would ceretainly hope that you have a wide set of experiences, > and an interesting life. We would have no disagreement about the > scientific method and the resulting hypotheses that it produces. The sentence was too long. I'm not proud of it as prose. Depsite its obvious defects, you appear to have understood it just fine, and I appreciate your kind words. The sentence was directed at Nigel: I'd be curious to hear if he would clarify or qualify his remarks on atheists. > I believe that far too many religious people believe nonsense, > but that is their right, I may discuss it with them, but I would > not judge them as sinners, or say that they are on the way to > hell as a result of their actions. Quite so. I also try not to direct criticism at individual persons, and I try not to be too sweeping in criticism of general positions. I do sometimes disparage specific propositions, of course. Felicitations -- Chris
Discussion
Comments are disallowed for this post.
Comments are closed.