Biggest Reason Theism is Rejected

[Deidre32]

Having lived nearly most of my life as a Christian, and now over the past few years...gravitating towards atheism, and now...as an atheist...I'd say it is all of the contradictions not only within Christianity, but between Christianity and other religions. Seems that if so many exist, to the point where Islam has an entirely different view of a god, heaven, etc...than say a Christian...then, neither seem valid, in my opinion. If a god exists, why isn't he the same for everyone? Why is the path to the afterlife different depending on what 'religion' one follows? Why do some believe that Jesus is the savior, and others...don't?

Theism is rejected often because it just lacks logic, and I don't believe that in order to believe that a god exists, logic needs to go out the window. I was brought up with 'faith is a mystery.' On some levels, maybe it could be...but, it just seemed to always be the pat answer someone religious gave to me when they couldn't answer my harder questions.

Just being honest from where I once was as a Christian, to now viewing life and religion, from an atheist view.

 

[Received]

Having lived nearly most of my life as a Christian, and now over the past few years...gravitating towards atheism, and now...as an atheist...I'd say it is all of the contradictions not only within Christianity, but between Christianity and other religions. Seems that if so many exist, to the point where Islam has an entirely different view of a god, heaven, etc...than say a Christian...then, neither seem valid, in my opinion. If a god exists, why isn't he the same for everyone? Why is the path to the afterlife different depending on what 'religion' one follows? Why do some believe that Jesus is the savior, and others...don't?

Theism is rejected often because it just lacks logic, and I don't believe that in order to believe that a god exists, logic needs to go out the window. I was brought up with 'faith is a mystery.' On some levels, maybe it could be...but, it just seemed to always be the pat answer someone religious gave to me when they couldn't answer my harder questions.

Just being honest from where I once was as a Christian, to now viewing life and religion, from an atheist view.

I think you should make a thread with those great questions from your first paragraph.

Theism has perfect logic, usually; but even fundamentalism can have good logic. Logic just means the conclusions follow the premises; it doesn't have a thing to say about whether the premises are true.

 

[lesliedellow]

For most people today, there is not so much an outright rejection of religion as indifference towards it and the reason for that is that they have found a new god called consumerism. That is not exactly a new phenomenon, and even in New Testament times God apparently had a competitor named mamon.

In the case of the noisy new atheists, the new god is science. Unlike the famous physicist quoted in my signature, they apparently think that science is the be all and end all of everything.

 

[Received]

For most people today, there is not so much an outright rejection of religion as indifference towards it and the reason for that is that they have found a new god called consumerism. That is not exactly a new phenomenon, and even in New Testament times God apparently had a competitor named mamon.

In the case of the noisy new atheists, the new god is science. Unlike the famous physicist quoted in my signature, they apparently think that science is the be all and end all of everything.

Thing is, we're speaking conceptually, not behaviorally. Consumerism isn't an ideology for the people for whom it applies, so it doesn't have a conceptual part like religion or theism do. So it's totally possible to be a consumer and a theist simultaneously; it would definitely make it harder if you have good theology to be a Christian, though.

 

[bhsmte]

I think you should make a thread with those great questions from your first paragraph.

Theism has perfect logic, usually; but even fundamentalism can have good logic. Logic just means the conclusions follow the premises; it doesn't have a thing to say about whether the premises are true.

Could you explain what you mean by "theism has perfect logic"?

 

[Received]

Could you explain what you mean by "theism has perfect logic"?

I mean that theism as a system of thought usually (but obviously not always) has a valid way of reasoning premises to conclusions. Logic is the holding-together of abstract stuff, done via reasoning from premises to conclusions. Now, just because premises and conclusions are perfectly valid (or held together) doesn't mean that the premises (and therefore the conclusions) are true; hence the difference between validity and soundness.

 

[digitalgoth]

What we need is not so much arguments for God as a really relevant theism. A theoretical theism that bridges the gap between secular and spiritual. Just like evolution is unavoidably useful because it connects everything biological together through a theory, the same would be the case if God were actually made relevant and aspects of religion connected theoretically to things like happiness, pathology, ethics, and ontology.

Maybe I'm misunderstand, but why exactly do we need a "bridge" between the spiritual and the secular? And how would such a thing even be possible?

The only way I can even think of it is to somehow come up with platonic universal entities (truth, justice, law, whatever) and try to apply those to the secular world (such as sharia law).

This would be less of a bridge and more as a means of injecting religion into the world, taking from the self's exploration of God to a series of rules everyone must follow.

Even if we kept the discussion just on the philosophical plane, what would the point be? Secularism rarely seems to have openings for the spiritual.

 

[bhsmte]

For most people today, there is not so much an outright rejection of religion as indifference towards it and the reason for that is that they have found a new god called consumerism. That is not exactly a new phenomenon, and even in New Testament times God apparently had a competitor named mamon.

In the case of the noisy new atheists, the new god is science. Unlike the famous physicist quoted in my signature, they apparently think that science is the be all and end all of everything.

Indeed, there are noisy atheists and there are also noisy fundamentalists on the religion side and I am sure they will continue singing their tune as long as they are able.

To some, religious dogma likely just gets boring after a time and as one lives, gains knowledge and experience in life, they may conclude; this dogma doesn't help me in my life, or is something I have to somewhat play mind games with myself to believe in. Hence, why many people have moved away from specific denominations and the growth of non-denominational churches in the US.

To me, science and religion are polar opposites, with both having their place and the Catholics have come a long way towards understanding this and appear open to letting science do it's thing and not holding the bible up as any resemblance to a science book.

Science is designed to be scrutinized and scrutinized heavily and for good reason, it needs to be. Religion, is not designed to be scrutinized and doesn't hold up well when it is. Religion is to be taken on faith and with some, it makes them a better person and able to cope with life better. Others, not so much, but that is human nature and psychology for you.

 

[Received]

Maybe I'm misunderstand, but why exactly do we need a "bridge" between the spiritual and the secular? And how would such a thing even be possible?

The only way I can even think of it is to somehow come up with platonic universal entities (truth, justice, law, whatever) and try to apply those to the secular world (such as sharia law).

This would be less of a bridge and more as a means of injecting religion into the world, taking from the self's exploration of God to a series of rules everyone must follow.

Even if we kept the discussion just on the philosophical plane, what would the point be? Secularism rarely seems to have openings for the spiritual.

But if you understand that, if God exists and affects our lives in any way, the distinction between secular and spiritual only applies to those who aren't spiritual and those who are. For those who are spiritual (i.e., those who live by spiritual disciplines, like praying, service, etc., and who interact with the world in the shadow of their relationship with God and so change the world for the better), everything is spiritual, even things we would otherwise consider secular, which would basically be any physical or relational place that doesn't involve a church or collection of believers. Even a tire swing is spiritual in that the Logos upholds the atoms that constitute this thing.

The bridge between secular and spiritual is needed because there simply isn't a theology that conceptualizes things this way, and therefore any consequential behavior by Christians that would impact the world. The Kingdom of God is most decidedly not a physical place, heaven in the sky, but rather stands for the "place" where God's will is made manifest, in terms of one's personal and private life (emotions, covert behavior, cognitions, etc.), which should extend itself to external behaviors and therefore influence systems "out there" parallel or contrary to the will of God (e.g., advanced capitalism, consumerism). The bridge makes God relevant in the otherwise secular world by pointing out how otherwise spiritual stuff like sin, salvation, and justice are all meant to affect the otherwise secular world, which if successful makes the secular spiritual as well given the changed persons and systems from secular to spiritual.

 

[bhsmte]

I mean that theism as a system of thought usually (but obviously not always) has a valid way of reasoning premises to conclusions. Logic is the holding-together of abstract stuff, done via reasoning from premises to conclusions. Now, just because premises and conclusions are perfectly valid (or held together) doesn't mean that the premises (and therefore the conclusions) are true; hence the difference between validity and soundness.

I don't know, to me, it would depend on the type of thought process one utilizes to make theism hold much logic. If one goes at it, with a heavy spiritual and creative sense, with the end game already in mind, I guess it can follow logic. On the other hand, if one's tendency is to think more analytically, I think the logic tends to fall apart for those types of people.

 

[Received]

I don't know, to me, it would depend on the type of thought process one utilizes to make theism hold much logic. If one goes at it, with a heavy spiritual and creative sense, with the end game already in mind, I guess it can follow logic. On the other hand, if one's tendency is to think more analytically, I think the logic tends to fall apart for those types of people.

To me, it would only fall apart by appealing to what's true (soundness of premises) rather than what's reasonable (validity of premises). But otherwise it's impossible for an internally consistent, valid system of whatever to be disproven if the premises are assumptions that either aren't falsifiable or the party in question simply will not admit being wrong about them.

Which explains why things like fundamentalism stick around so long. The premises are often ridiculous, but the reasoning is good enough for validity for its adherents. Another reason why I can't win a freaking argument with a Calvinist. In more secular terms, this is why reasoning can be dangerous: reasoning itself doesn't speak to truth (soundness) or falsity of premises, and so it's possible for a person satisfied with validity to go to extreme directions without being internally inconsistent or unreasonable (invalid).

 

[bhsmte]

But if you understand that, if God exists and affects our lives in any way, the distinction between secular and spiritual only applies to those who aren't spiritual and those who are. For those who are spiritual (i.e., those who live by spiritual disciplines, like praying, service, etc., and who interact with the world in the shadow of their relationship with God and so change the world for the better), everything is spiritual, even things we would otherwise consider secular, which would basically be any physical or relational place that doesn't involve a church or collection of believers. Even a tire swing is spiritual in that the Logos upholds the atoms that constitute this thing.

The bridge between secular and spiritual is needed because there simply isn't a theology that conceptualizes things this way, and therefore any consequential behavior by Christians that would impact the world. The Kingdom of God is most decidedly not a physical place, heaven in the sky, but rather stands for the "place" where God's will is made manifest, in terms of one's personal and private life (emotions, covert behavior, cognitions, etc.), which should extend itself to external behaviors and therefore influence systems "out there" parallel or contrary to the will of God (e.g., advanced capitalism, consumerism). The bridge makes God relevant in the otherwise secular world by pointing out how otherwise spiritual stuff like sin, salvation, and justice are all meant to affect the otherwise secular world, which if successful makes the secular spiritual as well given the changed persons and systems from secular to spiritual.

What does; "spiritual" encompass to you?

 

[Received]

What does; "spiritual" encompass to you?

Easily, anything nonphysical. More complicatedly, spirit is "unembodied personal power" (Dallas Willard's definition).

 

[bhsmte]

To me, it would only fall apart by appealing to what's true (soundness of premises) rather than what's reasonable (validity of premises). But otherwise it's impossible for an internally consistent, valid system of whatever to be disproven if the premises are assumptions that either aren't falsifiable or the party in question simply will not admit being wrong about them.

Which explains why things like fundamentalism stick around so long. The premises are often ridiculous, but the reasoning is good enough for validity for its adherents. Another reason why I can't win a freaking argument with a Calvinist. In more secular terms, this is why reasoning can be dangerous: reasoning itself doesn't speak to truth (soundness) or falsity of premises, and so it's possible for a person satisfied with validity to go to extreme directions without being internally inconsistent or unreasonable (invalid).

Didn't follow everything you said, but to me, fundamentalism is easy, because it doesn't require a lot of in depth thinking. There it is, written down and that is it, no questioning allowed etc. etc..

There are tons of claims people can make that are not falsifiable and they can cling to, on that very platform (you can't prove it wrong).

This really comes down to how one's brain works, how it is wired and also their life's experiences. One thing that is crystal clear, is the more intellectual one becomes (the higher level of education), the lower the belief in religion in general and especially a heavy reduction in having fundamentalist religious beliefs. That, is a big clue to me, of what internal differences are in place, that drives different beliefs.

 

[bhsmte]

Easily, anything nonphysical. More complicatedly, spirit is "unembodied personal power" (Dallas Willard's definition).

Ok, just wanted to see if you believed that spiritual, expands beyond any type of God belief and or religion.

 

[Received]

This really comes down to how one's brain works, how it is wired and also their life's experiences. One thing that is crystal clear, is the more intellectual one becomes (the higher level of education), the lower the belief in religion in general and especially a heavy reduction in having fundamentalist religious beliefs. That, is a big clue to me, of what internal differences are in place, that drives different beliefs.

Yeah, but remember that this is only a modest correlation at best, so there are other explanations than just people getting smarter causing less intrinsic appreciation of religion. To me, the other big variable is terrible theology and a general anti-intellectualism in Christendom (with obvious big exceptions).

 

[bhsmte]

Yeah, but remember that this is only a modest correlation at best, so there are other explanations than just people getting smarter causing less intrinsic appreciation of religion. To me, the other big variable is terrible theology and a general anti-intellectualism in Christendom (with obvious big exceptions).

I'm not so sure the correlation is only modest, but I would agree there are clearly other factors.

And remember, terrible theology to you, could be perfect theology to someone else. But, what I am saying is, the higher the education one achieves, likely allows them to see terrible theology vs another with lower intellect, that doesn't.

 

[Received]

Actually, I'd go as far to say that if Christendom were as intellectually awesome (without the burnings and stuff) as the times of Aquinas, a lot more people would be Christian. You're raised in a Christian culture, so you're much more likely to accept your ideology as true (unless you're an annoying hippie type who rebels against everything to be cool), and if you have a reasonable enough explanation (unlike now for the vast majority of people who end up atheists), you'd have a lot more atheists.

 

[Received]

I'm not so sure the correlation is only modest, but I would agree there are clearly other factors.

I don't know the study you're referring to. I'm only thinking of one you're probably not thinking about: where the degree of liberalism and atheism were positively correlated (with r at around .3 or so, so slight-modest) with intelligence.

 

[bhsmte]

I don't know the study you're referring to. I'm only thinking of one you're probably not thinking about: where the degree of liberalism and atheism were positively correlated (with r at around .3 or so, so slight-modest) with intelligence.

I would have to find it, but the study I was referring to (or poll) discussed belief in a God or religion as related to education levels. Neil Degrasse actually referenced one in a talk he did, where I will have to guess on, but he said about 90% of Americans believe in a God and this drops to 60%, in people with graduate degrees. Taking it further, 40% of scientists were believers and then when it elevated to "elite scientists", it dropped to around 10-15%.