Biggest Reason Theism is Rejected

[digitalgoth]

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.

But that's the problem.

For those who are spiritual [ed], 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.

If you are already part of that particular sect of that particular religion, then everything is fine. The problem is that not everyone is part of that.

When people start using a religion secularly, the first thing that has to happen is the destruction of all other systems, and since religious beliefs are inerrant and unquestionable, the only outcome is a despotic totalitarian theocracy that will defend itself against any imaginary threat. The spiritual state becomes incapable of debate or change because it's not set up with the ability to evolve (ha) when necessary.

Even if the point was "let us create a generalized spiritual theism to bridge the secular" you end up with a situation that just breeds dogmatic control of the bridging deism.

I mean, look at the US constitution, which is a basic generic concept for secularists by secularists and look what's happened to it and the dogmatic systems taking place through a rule of law. A religious system would be infinitely worse. It would just have power hungry men flocking to the priest-hood for power just like they flock to law now for power.

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.

Christians have impacted the world in many ways, and not all of them were good for people who want to live alone and in peace. Despite what some people think, not everyone wants to be converted or killed to land on their knees for a new master.

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).

Spirituality and belief is good for that. Be nice to your neighbor, don't harm others, don't focus on lust but on love, and so on. However once fixed, it's very rare for people to alter what they've been preached to, and if that has been "you are all soldiers in the Christian war for Christ blah blah blah" you end up with nothing spiritual, just cannot fodder for destruction.

Codifying that is dangerous. If individual beliefs help others or harm others, they are limited to the individual's actions. If you start a rule system in the secular, then you have to make it dogmatic and policing it. Anything contrary to the secular religious state will be destroyed.

So keep the spiritual individual in one's exploration of the path to God. Expanding it to everyone is just a forward regiment to lay ground work for destruction.

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.

Which then is overthrown by the religious until we have that wonderful theocratic state everyone desires where the priesthood is in control.

See religion IS secular. Religion is just the spiritual being made into systems by man. I'm sure at the time, Christ was spiritual and not advocating a system and priesthood. It took men with dreams of power to create a secular religion based on it. One that created the Holy Roman empire, and every religious war involving Christians in history. And the Inquisition. And burning women alive.

Secularism IS a problem, and one that must be very closely monitored. It's why a republic system of democracy is horrible but slightly less so than most other systems. Injecting inerrant ideology into it would make it worse, and it's already worse.

I always bring philosophical ideas to the practical, because that's what really happens in the end anyway. So forgive the move from the ivory tower of philosophy to reality. I do this because every "good idea" or philosophical idea will inevitably be exploited, if possible, in the real world. We can just debate it, but that accomplishes nothing unless we see an actual benefit.

A bridged deism has little to offer that isn't already there, and a whole lot of bad to offer if it was implemented.

 

[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.

He talks about the correlation about the 11:50 mark or so and I believe mentions the source.

What is interesting, is to Tyson, he finds it more interesting that 15% of elite scientists believe in a deity, vs the difference being 90% of the general public vs the 15%.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1_-IrHcgilE

 

[Received]

He talks about the correlation about the 11:50 mark or so and I believe mentions the source.

What is interesting, is to Tyson, he finds it more interesting that 15% of elite scientists believe in a deity, vs the difference being 90% of the general public vs the 15%.


https://www.youtube.com...

Which doesn't tell us anything intrinsic to science that makes anyone not a theist. Even though it seems like simple polling, what a percentage here signifies is a correlation: a simple connection. Correlations involve taking one variable string among a pool of variables and correlating this variable string with another variable string from another pool of variables. Just like ice cream doesn't cause child drowning, science (and more particularly science literacy) doesn't cause atheism.

So what are the variables? How about the realistic possibility that the more focused a person becomes with a specific discipline, the more blinded he becomes by it, in the sense that he has less of a tendency to question the legitimacy in terms of philosophical roots of the discipline. What does this usually look like with the scientific elite? Scientism, or the idea that only science can provide us with truth (or that facts are the only form of truth), a self-negating position. So perhaps if you could have gone back and polled the same people and also asked them questions which could indicate scientism, you'd likely (IMV) find a big percentage of those who are atheist who are down with scientism. It's this scientism, as a single variable among other possible but for this study (and most others) unfounded predictors, that's responsible for atheism, given that scientism (not science) pushes out religion and spiritual possibilities, given the mutually exclusive assumptions of both.

But don't get me wrong: I love correlations. I just wish more folks were a bit more advanced with stats when it comes to polling stuff to where they could use multivariate regression rather than simple bivariate correlation (as is implicitly done here) to give us a much fuller reason as to why people are atheist, rather than just listing science, which indicates to people who don't know better (pretty much everyone) that there seems to be something about science that pushes people away from theism or religion. Tyson, and I'm not intimidated to say this, has limited statistical knowledge, even though he's a brilliant scientist.

 

[bhsmte]

Which doesn't tell us anything intrinsic to science that makes anyone not a theist. Even though it seems like simple polling, what a percentage here signifies is a correlation: a simple connection. Correlations involve taking one variable string among a pool of variables and correlating this variable string with another variable string from another pool of variables. Just like ice cream doesn't cause child drowning, science (and more particularly science literacy) doesn't cause atheism.

So what are the variables? How about the realistic possibility that the more focused a person becomes with a specific discipline, the more blinded he becomes by it, in the sense that he has less of a tendency to question the legitimacy in terms of philosophical roots of the discipline. What does this usually look like with the scientific elite? Scientism, or the idea that only science can provide us with truth (or that facts are the only form of truth), a self-negating position. So perhaps if you could have gone back and polled the same people and also asked them questions which could indicate scientism, you'd likely (IMV) find a big percentage of those who are atheist who are down with scientism. It's this scientism, as a single variable among other possible but for this study (and most others) unfounded predictors, that's responsible for atheism, given that scientism (not science) pushes out religion and spiritual possibilities, given the mutually exclusive assumptions of both.

But don't get me wrong: I love correlations. I just wish more folks were a bit more advanced with stats when it comes to polling stuff to where they could use multivariate regression rather than simple bivariate correlation (as is implicitly done here) to give us a much fuller reason as to why people are atheist, rather than just listing science, which indicates to people who don't know better (pretty much everyone) that there seems to be something about science that pushes people away from theism or religion.

Let me ask you this:

Why do you think lower educated people are more prone to be fundamentalists and or deny the TOE?

 

[Received]

Let me ask you this:

Why do you think lower educated people are more prone to be fundamentalists and or deny the TOE?

And again here, education probably has some causal influence, just not as much as a correlation at first glance might seem to indicate. But even here I'd question whether it's education in the sense of analyzing things, or education in the sense of helplessly and unconsciously buying into some of the philosophical assumptions of education which are incommensurate with religion, that's to blame. I'd say more the latter.

But what's the bigger variable? Because fundamentalists aren't willing to think for themselves, which you can't blame intrinsically on lack of education so much as the realization that things are fine and dandy when you begin to look at the world outside of your given cultural-religious lens. But even here we can go further: why don't fundies tend to think for themselves? Because they're too emotionally caught up in the tribally accepting their culture to question it reasonably. And this emotional caught-upness is exactly what you see again and again in brilliant people who are very educated, whether atheist or theist. This is precisely why it's very unlikely for a person to change their mind the higher they get up the ladder of their culture or institution.

IMO.

 

[bhsmte]

And again here, education probably has some causal influence, just not as much as a correlation at first glance might seem to indicate. But even here I'd question whether it's education in the sense of analyzing things, or education in the sense of helplessly and unconsciously buying into some of the philosophical assumptions of education which are incommensurate with religion, that's to blame. I'd say more the latter.

But what's the bigger variable? Because fundamentalists aren't willing to think for themselves, which you can't blame intrinsically on lack of education so much as the realization that things are fine and dandy when you begin to look at the world outside of your given cultural-religious lens. But even here we can go further: why don't fundies tend to think for themselves? Because they're too emotionally caught up in the tribally accepting their culture to question it reasonably. And this emotional caught-upness is exactly what you see again and again in brilliant people who are very educated, whether atheist or theist. This is precisely why it's very unlikely for a person to change their mind the higher they get up the ladder of their culture or institution.

IMO.

IMO, education has more of an influence then you allow and will admit as I already have, that other factors come into play.

It is also my opinion, that most atheists or agnostics, were once believers and the more education they experienced through life, either scientific or knowledge of the historicity of the bible and or their religion, prompted them to come to realize, they can't believe this stuff any longer.

 

[BL2KTN]

Again, Bhsmte has it correct.

 

[Received]

Again, Bhsmte has it correct.

Well, I just can't deal with a fraction of a possibility that this debate might be nothing about who is right or wrong but about, I don't know, content.

Turns out, bhsmte has been the best person I've debated with, other than quatona (who doesn't count because he's a German smoker who likes classical guitar), in the last month or so.

But content. No. By "best" I mean he has the best punctuation.

Hmm.

 

[Received]

IMO, education has more of an influence then you allow and will admit as I already have, that other factors come into play.

What I'm saying is that "education" is functionally a set of a few variables, which I'm trying to break down. When we're talking about causality, we have to be as precise as possible with specific variables, given that one variable in the set of "education" might be causal for atheism whereas another one might be causal for theism or irrelevant to both. But I can most definitely agree to an impasse.

It is also my opinion, that most atheists or agnostics, were once believers and the more education they experienced through life, either scientific or knowledge of the historicity of the bible and or their religion, prompted them to come to realize, they can't believe this stuff any longer.

And that at the very least could be more attributable to the poverty of Christendom at this particular point in history rather than 1) education by itself, or 2) Christianity by itself.

 

[Received]

But that's the problem.

For those who are spiritual [ed], 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.

If you are already part of that particular sect of that particular religion, then everything is fine. The problem is that not everyone is part of that.

When people start using a religion secularly, the first thing that has to happen is the destruction of all other systems, and since religious beliefs are inerrant and unquestionable, the only outcome is a despotic totalitarian theocracy that will defend itself against any imaginary threat. The spiritual state becomes incapable of debate or change because it's not set up with the ability to evolve (ha) when necessary.

Even if the point was "let us create a generalized spiritual theism to bridge the secular" you end up with a situation that just breeds dogmatic control of the bridging deism.

I mean, look at the US constitution, which is a basic generic concept for secularists by secularists and look what's happened to it and the dogmatic systems taking place through a rule of law. A religious system would be infinitely worse. It would just have power hungry men flocking to the priest-hood for power just like they flock to law now for power.

Actually, I would modify the stuff from which you quoted to say that everything is really spiritual at heart (in that spirit, in the form of the Logos, upholds matter -- definitely not a scientific conclusion here), and that spiritual and secular are fundamentally perspectives or frames which work with theological concepts (or lack thereof).

And I think your point about destroying other systems functions from the erroneous equation of Christianity with concepts involved with Christianity. This basically means that it becomes a matter of our conceptual tribe (Christianity, the church, believers, etc.) versus the world's conceptual tribe (Obama, etc.), with an emphasis on tribalism here. But if you're down with what I hold, there is no destruction in a conceptual, ideologically-driven way. A believer, by being part of God's Kingdom, might overcome individual members of systems that are secular and/or bad, but that doesn't mean it's about the destruction of entire systems (at least in this life). Hence Paul's speaking of our struggle being, "not with flesh and blood," but, "against the cosmic powers over this present darkness, against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly places" (Ephesians 6:12, ESV).

Christians have impacted the world in many ways, and not all of them were good for people who want to live alone and in peace. Despite what some people think, not everyone wants to be converted or killed to land on their knees for a new master.

I know you know that two people who share the same label doesn't necessarily mean that they're equal and therefore that they should both have the same label. An alcoholic is a person who drinks too much, not a person who likes Christmas carols too much. Likewise with Christians who act in unchristlike ways.

Spirituality and belief is good for that. Be nice to your neighbor, don't harm others, don't focus on lust but on love, and so on. However once fixed, it's very rare for people to alter what they've been preached to, and if that has been "you are all soldiers in the Christian war for Christ blah blah blah" you end up with nothing spiritual, just cannot fodder for destruction.

Codifying that is dangerous. If individual beliefs help others or harm others, they are limited to the individual's actions. If you start a rule system in the secular, then you have to make it dogmatic and policing it. Anything contrary to the secular religious state will be destroyed.

So keep the spiritual individual in one's exploration of the path to God. Expanding it to everyone is just a forward regiment to lay ground work for destruction.

You're describing tribal theism, not Christianity.

Which then is overthrown by the religious until we have that wonderful theocratic state everyone desires where the priesthood is in control.

See religion IS secular. Religion is just the spiritual being made into systems by man. I'm sure at the time, Christ was spiritual and not advocating a system and priesthood. It took men with dreams of power to create a secular religion based on it. One that created the Holy Roman empire, and every religious war involving Christians in history. And the Inquisition. And burning women alive.

Secularism IS a problem, and one that must be very closely monitored. It's why a republic system of democracy is horrible but slightly less so than most other systems. Injecting inerrant ideology into it would make it worse, and it's already worse.

I always bring philosophical ideas to the practical, because that's what really happens in the end anyway. So forgive the move from the ivory tower of philosophy to reality. I do this because every "good idea" or philosophical idea will inevitably be exploited, if possible, in the real world. We can just debate it, but that accomplishes nothing unless we see an actual benefit.

A bridged deism has little to offer that isn't already there, and a whole lot of bad to offer if it was implemented.

Yeah, but I think the so-called Christian ideology you're saying shouldn't be injected isn't Christian ideology, but tribal theism.

And right on about philosophy and practicality. Marx: "Hitherto, philosophers have sought to understand the world; the point, however, is to change it."

 

[digitalgoth]

Actually, I would modify the stuff from which you quoted to say that everything is really spiritual at heart (in that spirit, in the form of the Logos, upholds matter -- definitely not a scientific conclusion here), and that spiritual and secular are fundamentally perspectives or frames which work with theological concepts (or lack thereof).

I completely support that spirituality and secularity are frames for conceptualizing, which is fine, but I tend to look at outcomes or applications of these concepts, which inevitably these things become.

And I think your point about destroying other systems functions from the erroneous equation of Christianity with concepts involved with Christianity. This basically means that it becomes a matter of our conceptual tribe (Christianity, the church, believers, etc.) versus the world's conceptual tribe (Obama, etc.), with an emphasis on tribalism here. But if you're down with what I hold, there is no destruction in a conceptual, ideologically-driven way.

I actually apply that to all religions and belief systems, not just Christianity, but Christianity has some unique parts to it that make these discussions more interesting.

Good taxonomy of "tribalism" which is a good metaphor with practical examples, I'll steal that from you.

I'm not sure there isn't a destruction though, even conceptually. Unless we're discussing everything at a personal level with no impact outside of ourselves, eventually they are going to have conflict. And someone is going to want to win.

A believer, by being part of God's Kingdom, might overcome individual members of systems that are secular and/or bad, but that doesn't mean it's about the destruction of entire systems (at least in this life). Hence Paul's speaking of our struggle being, "not with flesh and blood," but, "against the cosmic powers over this present darkness, against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly places" (Ephesians 6:12, ESV).

My observations is that, unfortunately, those who make it about flesh and blood are the ones causing the issues. The struggle would be nonexistent to the world at large if it was only within the tribe, but it seems that the external forces are the ones that need to be battled against. And then armies are raised against the flesh and blood.

This is no different than any other nation-state, which uses the same methodology. Which is why I prefer religion at arms length from secular power struggles.

I know you know that two people who share the same label doesn't necessarily mean that they're equal and therefore that they should both have the same label. An alcoholic is a person who drinks too much, not a person who likes Christmas carols too much. Likewise with Christians who act in unchristlike ways.



You're describing tribal theism, not Christianity.

I am against tribal theism, as it applies to the external world. The concept of Christianity in concept is awesome, the practical application by man is the problem.

Yeah, but I think the so-called Christian ideology you're saying shouldn't be injected isn't Christian ideology, but tribal theism.

And right on about philosophy and practicality. Marx: "Hitherto, philosophers have sought to understand the world; the point, however, is to change it."

So how can we prevent this from happening? Should other Christians fight tooth and nail against their errant brothers?

 

[quatona]

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)

You mean like those annyoing hippie types who even rebel against reason just to be cool?
I have been an annoying hippie type who didn´t accept anything that I was expected to swallow just because somebody, the powerful or the majority believed it. My coolness didn´t depend on that, though. I´m naturally cool, and I never felt the need to prove it.

 

[GoldenBoy89]

I think the biggest reason theism is rejected is because atheists find theistic claims to be inconsistent with reality.

 

[KCfromNC]

I think the biggest reason theism is rejected is because atheists find theistic claims to be inconsistent with reality.

Or too incoherent to even test against reality.

 

[Received]

So how can we prevent this from happening? Should other Christians fight tooth and nail against their errant brothers?

Christians should just be Christians, which would mean no tribal theism for them as a group insofar as they actually seriously take Christ's teachings to heart, and by extension the possibility of positively influencing the so-called Christians who are really tribal theists by the benevolence that naturally springs from authentic Christianity.

 

[PsychoSarah]

I think the biggest reason theism is rejected is because atheists find theistic claims to be inconsistent with reality.

It's the primary reason I am an atheist.

 

[Received]

I don't think we function as human beings primarily because of truth, but because we like good things, or things that make us happy (eudaimonia, flourishing) first, then concerns about truth second. Actually, arguably the only reason truth is even valued (or should be valued) is because it brings about a better type of human being with it, i.e., a happier human being.

 

[PsychoSarah]

I don't think we function as human beings primarily because of truth, but because we like good things, or things that make us happy (eudaimonia, flourishing) first, then concerns about truth second. Actually, arguably the only reason truth is even valued (or should be valued) is because it brings about a better type of human being with it, i.e., a happier human being.

Except as an atheist, my views make me unhappy

 

[Received]

Except as an atheist, my views make me unhappy

And I don't think you'd stick to this belief unless you believed that you'll eventually find happiness if you just dug deeply enough with your atheist shovel.

 

[bhsmte]

And I don't think you'd stick to this belief unless you believed that you'll eventually find happiness if you just dug deeply enough with your atheist shovel.

Happiness, again, is sort of a flippant term to be used, IMO and a bit shallow.

States of happiness can come and go, but more deep satisfaction and or being at peace with your stances comes to mind to me as more applicable.

For instance, I was a Christian for 40 years and I had just as many episodes of happiness then as I do now. The difference I feel, is a freedom and peace, in knowing I am not living a life of fooling myself, which I came to understand that I was, after acquiring knowledge and experience I did not posses beforehand.