How can unbelievers come to believe in God?

That sounds like an understanding of energy - that it merely transforms, but can be neither created nor destroyed.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Really? I've never met any.

I don't mean like not cleaning their room; I mean like what is right and what is wrong.

Theists have these ethical rules laid out for them, with a higher power (an uber-parent, if you will) to both judge the infractions and enforce the rules.

Do not steal because god says so. And he's way more wise than you.

Atheists have no such luxury. Atheists must decide for themselves what is right and what is wrong and must police their own moral behavior.

Do not steal because, well, it's a bit more thought involved. And you must question your decision because there's no one wiser than you to tell you.

No, but not being under someone's protection does automatically mean one is always responsible for one's mistakes.

Agreed. I do not claim certainty; that's why there's an if in that sentence.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

There are approaches that suggest that matters of faith are a bit more complex than that.
See, for example, Fowler's Stages of faith development.

Why wouldn't there be anyone wiser than oneself?

How would being under someone's protection in any way imply that one isnot responsible for one's mistakes?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

But it can be destroyed. Matter can be destroyed by anti-matter.

 

But does that destroy the energy too. Just leaves nothing does it?

 

So you don't think morality is innate? I understand that certain moral issues require an understanding of the world that is not innate, but do you not agree that the drive behind moral actions are?

For example, the videos recently posted here posited that witch hunts represented an innate desire to protect our families. Once a person is educated, and learns that witches do not exist and are therefore not a threat, our instinct does not go away, only the perceived threat does.

 

I suppose that if god wanted to convince me that it exists there would have to be some serious explaining involved. Perhaps it could call a press conference which would reach many(if not all) of the people on the planet. That, combined with some display of "godlike power" and maybe a display of knowledge beyond what we have immediately available would constitute decent evidence in my opinion, and would be well within god's power to do so. Which leads me to conclude that if there is a god then it really doesn't care about the billion or so atheists in the world.

 

Yes, but that 'something' identifies itself with all that is impermanent...namely the body and its relationship with the rest of the material world during its physical lifetime.

In Asian traditions this is 'the problem' to be transcended.

Its really a problem of identification....that must become perceptual, not merely conceptual.

 

There are different reasons why people would become unbelievers. If you value truth very highly then the obvious reason is because there is a lack of evidence / presenc of contradictory evidence to theistic claims of 'God'. For these types of people, the only way for them to believe is with evidence and as we both know that doesn't happen.

There are; however, people who don't put very much value into truth and are unbelievers because of painful life events (e.x. feelings of abandonment by 'God') non-exposure to the psychological satiation benefits of theism. Converting these people is all a matter of fulfilling their needs coming from their highest values (which is often as simple as "how they feel").

 

It was not my intention to suggest matters of faith are simplistic, not at all. It was I who did the simplifying for the sake of this discussion. I simplified the atheistic point of view as well, though it's tougher to do, since in principle, every atheist's rationale could be unique.

To an atheist, the wisest entity in the universe is still only human.

Protection is fine, but it's the deleterious effects I'm concerned about. A higher power judges and enforces too. When one knows that someone is watching, one who can judge, it tends to change ones actions.

That's one of the primary reasons why children move out of their parent's house.

Regardless of whether morality is innate, if someone you trust implicitly tells you what is right and what is wrong, that is certainly less effort than sussing it out for yourself, perhaps over years of painful mistakes.

If it were innate, theists would not spend a half hour teaching it each Sunday.

 

Sure.

 

Same for theists.

The question was whether one has only oneself to look up to, or other humans as well.

You said earlier -

Surely a person can draw on the great collective wisdom of humans.

That will depend on the stage of moral reasoning that a person is at.

Further, for example, traditional Buddhists do not believe in God, but they believe in karma, and on principle, it is the consideration of karma that guides their actions. Although they do not believe that "someone is watching," they in effect act as if that would be the case.
So the traditional Buddhists are an example of being careful about what one does even in the absence of a Personal Higher Power.

This is not the case in all cultures, nor at all time periods. Traditionally, it was common in many countries for three (or four) generations to live together, and on principle, people would leave their home of origin only due to marriage or business.

Analogies that are strongly context-bound (such as the one that the reason why children move out of their parents' house is so that they can escape the influence of their parents) have only limited use.

Some theists indeed perceive their relationship with God in a manner similar as a small child perceives their relationship with their mother and father; but not all theists are like that.
Theists grow up too in their relationship with God and become responsible adults - and still remain theists.

People generally do not live in vacuums. As long as they use some form of human language, they are thereby bound to other humans and their wisdom or lack thereof. So we can't say that anyone really figures out their own sense of morality on their own.

The notion that morality is innate and the notion that morality comes from God are not mutually exclusive.
A common theistic notion is that God imparted morality on humans in an innate fashion, but that since people have free will, the actual acting on that innate morality is a bit more complex and people are intended to cultivate an awareness of that (which can be done via religious practice).

 

So you believe that the vast majority of the human population in the past and in the present
are deluded and/or do not value truth?


(Ironically enough, most theists would agree with the statement that the vast majority of the human population in the past and in the present are deluded and/or do not value truth. Although they probably mean something else by "valuing truth" than you do.)

 

Ultimately, it comes from the same place: What the theist believes God's wish is for us. This differs from an atheist's beliefs, who have no centralized body of direction. They may have convergent philosophies, but that's not the same as a centralized philosophy.

Yes but humans are equals. One does not have to accept the judgment of another human, and does not have to accept that another is more wise. (Remember, we're talking ethics here, not crime.)

This is splitting hairs. Whether it's a conscious entity or some unconscious force manipulating their fate, it makes no difference. A higher power is a higher power. Same with luck.

I never suggested otherwise.

What I am suggesting is that, as long as there is someone inarguably there to judge, and with the power to enforce it (ultimately), a believer is not forced fully realize their own responsibility. They can always defer to the higher power to tell them right from wrong. It doesn't mean they must, or that they always do, but they can defer.

Absolutely. Which is much more work than just being told.

Absolutely agree. That's why God gave Man free will.

A parent can leave a child to her chores, but the child knows the parent will ultimately judge. The child has free will, but is given the expectations.

A child without parents (or parent substitutes) who chooses to clean her room is a child wise beyond her years.

 

Theists tend to differ quite a bit on what exactly it is that God wishes for people, especially when it comes to specific situations.

In what sense?

And you think that in the case of theism, 1. people are obligated to accept what God says, 2. people are obligated to accept what other people claim God has said ?

Not at all. Karma does not speak, it has no mouth. God is usually said that He can and does speak.

I disagree.

What you say may hold for the Abrahamic theists with the notion of eternal damnation, but it doesn't hold for some Hindu forms of theism.

Once eternal damnation is out of the picture (and with it the notion that mistakes can be fatal), there is room for full responsibility.


Secondly, you say "They can always defer to the higher power to tell them right from wrong." Apart from some fanatical Abrahamists who readily claim God is speaking to them, it's not clear how even members of the Abrahamic theisms would believe something like what you just said.
Most Abrahamists seem to struggle quite a bit with figuring out what exactly it could be that God wants them to do in any given moment, so they are far from simply sheepishly "defering to the higher power to tell them right from wrong."

It is anything but easy to simply follow what someone else tells one.

Psychologists have been making millions off of people who tried to "do as told" and failed.

And you believe that it is impossible for theists to be that kind of children?

 

100% of the human population is deluded in some way. That's an aspect of being human. Most of the human population doesn't place truth as a top value. What that means is that truth will take a back seat to other values when push comes to shove.

I am sure they do mean something else. Quite often the definition to truth for theists relies on holy books rather than actual reality.

 

In practice, certainly. In principle, they should all be pretty much aligned though. For example, the ten commandments are an attempt to get everyone on the same page about at least one thing.

The fact that there are many facets of a given religion is a human short-coming, not a systemic design.

In the sense that one human does not, by virtue of having created the world, the animals and man himself, have the right to judge me and determine what happens to my everlasting soul (or whatever outcome a given religion might enforce). The only time one man can be judged by another is when they choose to be part of a society where there are mutually agreed upon rules.

Essentially, yes. Though, as with all my answers, it is not black and white, nor so simplistic. But you're sort of demanding, by asking very black and white questions, that I give back and white answers.

In principle, people are supposed to accept what God says. If not, it's drifting from the ideal situation.

I never said any such thing.

Karma is a higher power, regardless of any hair-splitting or rationalization.

Those two or not exclusive, don't you see? The fact that they're ""struggling quite a bit with figuring out what exactly it could be that God wants them to do" is a pretty clear indication that they are looking to a higher power to tell them right from wrong.

Never said it wasn't. Simply said that it'll be harder if you have to also come up with the rule yourself.

No I do not believe that.

You are ascribing too much to the black and whiteness of my case.

Things are hard for a theist. There's a lot of work to do to be a good person, no question whatsoever about that. I'm simply saying that, for however much work a theist has to do to reach point X, an atheist has to do the same amount plus be the one who come up with her own rules in the first place, to get to the same point.

So, being given that headstart is a luxury an atheist does not have.

Kind of like being raised by parents is a luxury a wolf-child does not have. So for the wolf-child to become as civilized as a child-of-a-family would be a huge achievement. (That is why Tarzan was super-heroic in character and why it is a classic story. (Being uneducated is not the same as being primitive. He was brilliant, as witnessed by how quickly he picked up on to modern society.) And he managed to develop his own set of ethics in the jungle, far from anyone to tell him. This was the principle Burroughs was demonstrating.)

 

True, but getting those moral guidelines from someone you trust does not necessarily make it any easier. Many theists struggle with the morality preached to them, because it doesn't jibe with what they feel inside.

This I disagree with. One does not need to be taught that torture, for example, is wrong. We may not instinctively know that animals can suffer, but once we learn that they do, we feel the same empathy for them that we do for other humans.

A more sophisticated understanding of the world does help us correctly solve complicated moral problems, but that does not mean morality itself is not innate.

 

Including you?

And you know what "actual reality" is?

You are sure that "actual reality" is something about which you are not deluded?

 

Absoutely.

To an extent. Like all humans, I have visibility and knowledge limits even with technological aids and education.

I am sure I hold several false beliefs about reality. The process of science has corrected me more than once so far and it's likely going to happen again.