This personal quote of mine means a lot to me. As I continue to talk to people of all ages and races all over the world about various religions, one thing remains the same: many of them consciously choose ignorance and logically explain their decision.
They simply don't want to know.
I've heard "I know all I need to know about God; let's talk about something else." I've also been told "Everything you say makes perfect sense and that scares the hell out of me, so stop—there is a god!"
Can any of you explain why anyone would not want the truth, and instead remain ignorant of facts just to not feel uncomfortable about their belief?
After all, isn't the truth really what's important?
14 comments:
No the truth is not important at all. At least not to Americans. We all live in a constant state of misinformation and percieved realities anyway whether it be from our news, our politicians, our churches, our families, our teachers or even our history books. The truth these days is non-existent in almost every single area of our lives. Our perceptions are what guide us. Whats important to know to one is not important to know to another.
God or no God would not change anything about the way people live. We would still be an evil, prejudiced, selfish, judgmental, underhanded, sneaky, stupid, kind, good, tolerant, generous, honest, brilliant bunch of people even if it was proven one way or the other.
The "truth" is all perception, there is no way to know for sure through any earthly means at this moment.
There is no proof either way, aside from personal experiences that cannot be replicated.
There is your way, there is my way, but there is no one right way.
Truth is not real. No atheist and no believer no matter what they think is real or fact knows the truth.
In my two years of owning this blog, this is the best comment I've received. Love it.
My only addition is this:
I think it's sad that the truth is not important, but I must say you're correct.
What we consider to be knowledge can only come as a result of a trusted means of receiving previous knowledge. This means, until the 'truth' appears to us in a way which we have received the truth in the past, it should not be considered as knowledge, but presumption. This is basic epistemology.
Therefore, because the idea of 'God' comes through faith, which has never on its own provided knowledge, the only scientific and logical conclusion is to assume a negative until a positive can be proven.
This is why atheism is the most logical conclusion. I do not want readers to walk away from this thinking that atheists and believers are equally assuming facts and both have a 50/50 shot at being right. That's not the case here.
The believer assumes through faith; the atheist asks for proof.
And I am a believer, in a form of God anyway.
So I would disagree that the idea of God comes through faith alone. Its illogical to me to assume that the whole world suffers from some kind of mass delusion. Thats not a negative. The idea of a God is always the same, the details about that God are what differ from place to place. Do I believe anyone has a monopoly on the truth, absolutely not.
An atheist is not closer to the truth than any believer.
We are all in the same boat, and how we choose to accept or reject information influences our perception. If science is enough information for you to arrive at your truth and that is the limit to what you will accept than that is your reality.
Is it the truth? Or is your information limited? You cant know.
At this point, it is no longer a religious discussion, but a philosophical one. It comes down to epistemology; or the study what individuals consider to be knowledge.
I don't think the world is "suffering from a mass delusion," but rather trying to come up with an answer for questions bigger than their brains can deal with.
In my book that is being released this month, "Baptized Atheist," I detail what's called the 'Faithometer Theory,' which better explains my point about atheism being the logical decision.
To summarize, suppose the two of us were standing on the outside of a log cabin. You asserted that you 'believed' a dog was inside the cabin.
So we walked around the cabin for hours looking in windows, knocking on the walls and doors, trying to see or hear some sign of a dog.
With not a single shadow, bark, whine, or appearance of a dog, I state that my assumption is that no dog is in the cabin.
Of course, there still could be a dog inside, but are we really both equally likely at this point to be correct? The way we obtain knowledge is by hearing, seeing, feeling, smelling, and otherwise experiencing things and testing outcomes.
With every unanswered knock, with every passing moment of not having the evidence we need to come to a conclusion, does it not lean more towards my assumption?
Now, for the dog to be inside, the odds narrow. He must be dead, deaf, injured, unable to bark, unable to walk, or have some other incapacitating condition.
Therefore, my assumption (which is how science would deal with it) is if it can't be tested, we must assume a negative; otherwise science and the scientific method cannot deal with it.
So I'm sorry, but we are not all in the same boat. It hasn't been hours, it hasn't even been days or weeks. It's been 2,000 years, and your dog still isn't barking.
To say we're in the same boat, and that we're both just as likely to be correct is as intellectually dishonest as saying pigs flying is just as likely as the sun appearing tomorrow.
How did I know there was a dog in the house in the first place? Obviously I was working on some kind of information to make that declaration.
Did I agree with you that there was no sign of a dog after all the knocking? Or I did I hear the dog while you did not?
Maybe it was not the dog that was deaf, but you instead?
Your scenario is one sided since you assume I had the same experience as you did. 3 different people can watch the same event happen in front their eyes but each will give a different account of what actually happened. Which of the 3 really knows the truth of what happened?
Perception of the evidence is everything. People say they hear the dog everyday... you can't tell them they didn't hear it because you didn't hear it.
You are right that science can not deal with it... yet. Its trying. I recently read The Intention Experiment. Quite interesting to watch scientists try to bridge the gap.
It is also interesting though that the whole world throughout all of time has come up with the exact same answer for what you say their brains can't deal with. Thats not a negative. Or it could be your brain is coming up with an answer for something you can't deal with. You can't know
Same boat, but no one has a paddle.
Woah... "the whole world throughout all of time has come up with the exact same answer..." a little presumptuous, wouldn't you say?
Millions of atheists, agnostics, and Buddhists in the civilized world just may disagree with that broad-brushed statement.
Not to mention, I'm sure the hundreds of thousands of aboriginals in jungles all over the world that practice ancestor worship and animatism and have no concept of your god at all would also tend to disagree.
Furthermore, the Christians disagree with the Muslims, who disagree with the Jews, who disagree with you. So to use words like "everyone" and "of all time" and consider yourself among billions that agree, is again, intellectually dishonest.
As for the dog scenario, just like with real life, believers must change reality to try to make themselves right. My point was the bark was not heard. Just like no god has ever appeared. But you must make this a magical story of possibility and wonder to draw appeal and leave doubt.
Atheists do just fine without that assumption. And until we're proven wrong, it will always be the most scientific, logical conclusion regardless of who knows what.
Not presumptuous at all.
Atheists are unique in the belief that there is nothing after life or outside of your physical existence except the possibility of becoming worm food.
All others believe in the possibility of a soul, a spirit, a god, or gods, an energy, an existence after death of some kind. The details of what that is differs, but the conclusion that there is something has been the origin of all religion. It is the common vein of all religion or spiritual thought. The basic cell that it all stems from, what its face looks like varies but it is all the same at its core.
Okay, to clarify, atheists are without a belief at all. We do not 'believe there is nothing' we lack the belief in an afterlife because there is no evidence to suggest it. There is a difference.
Again, we're not in the same boat.
There is a reason that many people 'believe' in something. There is a neurological chemical response in the brain that comes from an evolutionary biological need that religious belief satisfies.
Please read this: http://bigthink.com/ideas/23960
Let me leave you with these questions and thought:
Do you believe most people are intelligent?
Do you think the average IQ's increase or decrease as groups get larger?
Would you rather leave your 5-year-old daughter with one 16-year-old babysitter, or forty 16-year-olds in one house?
Do you think logic is more reasonable in an individual or masses of thousands?
What do you trust to be more accurate: individual thinkers or masses of followers?
When you really consider what we know about society's average intelligence, sociology in general, and group psychology, the more people that 'believe' something, the less likely it is to be true.
I've read that before and Tigers theory is just that... theory. He also suggests that religion gives people good feelings of well-being and happiness and given the fact that religion itself is responsible for some of the most horrific violences in our history its hard to swallow that. His ideas about the decline of the male due to the invention of birth control, and that all unmarried women with children should stay home, not work and be on welfare makes it quite hard for me to take him seriously.
I've also read alot about Michael Persinger's god helmet and found it quite interesting at first, as I believe that if we ever find a scientific link to whatever is outside of our reality it will be through brain study. But researchers have tried to replicate his experiment and the results have not been able to be reproduced. Some have said it was the power of suggestion or the placebo effect that gave him the results he published. To be proven it must be able to be reproduced. Its also quite funny that you can now purchase a replica of the god helmet on the internet for $285. So far its not selling like hotcakes.
As for your questions:
1: Depends on your definition of intelligent but I believe most people are intelligent enough to function day to day and be productive members of society but I also beleive most people want a quick answer to their questions about life, love spirituality etc and most dont have the time or desire to study or search for themselves so they settle for the quick answer.
2: I don't beleive IQ numbers are an accurate measure of intelligence. They measure only one kind of intelligence.
3: I wouldn't leave my 5 yr old with a teen babysitter.
4: Depends on the specific individual. The masses didn't make up religion on their own, it usually comes from an individual thinker that the masses followed. But I love the individual thinker and those that think outside of the box. Even those that think outside of the very limited science box.
Hello Smalley and anonymous,
I just recently found this blog due to stumbleupon.com. I am an atheist who is thoroughly enjoying your thread.
I also have some psychology and philosophy under my belt. As far as this debate between you two, I find one minor hole in the discussion.
We are animals above all else. We have evolved from much less advanced humanoids. Throughout history our greatest teachers are first our caregivers. (If born to a "christian" mother then given up for adoption to a "jewish" family you will no doubt "be a jew") thems the breaks. Anyway, we as humans have evolved to be In a herd first, nomadic, scared of the dark not knowing what went bump in the night. Thus we named it and worshipped it; fire, animals, storms, etc.
Then as we further advanced we diminished the amount of "gods" once reality of the true nature of things came to light. BUT as we become less and less herd like we still hold on to that internal primal need. The same as a child with no one to make them feel safe and secure will personify their imagination or a teddy bear per say. This is a natural thing for man to feel more safe in a group and what better group than a congregation of like minded people all agreeing in the same "always there to protect you imaginary friend." The hell part is just to scare children into behaving through adolescence. As adults most just believe in the warmth and love. And how his arms will embrace you when you deal with the scariest monster of all, your demise. If Christians truly believed in heaven and their ideals, life support would not be an issue and abort babies? Hell yes! Send those precious souls to Jesus.
So religion albeit cruel and maniacal from the outside, we will never be able to force the child to let go of their security blanket without a fight. So I patiently wait for others to evolve.
I know you say you believe there isn't a God because of the lack of prof of a God. but what about the lack of prof there is to prove that there isn't a God? There is not prof that we all just happened to become. Even scientist don't believe in the big bang theory! You say we believe about something that has no prof... but what about yourselves? Do you have prof? Probably not, or everyone would be athiest. You take just as musch of a leap of faith believing than I do.
Lindsey
I thoroughly enjoyed reading this post..but to the comment above mine, I must say, scientists do indeed in the big bang theory.
You don't have proof that there is no flying spaghetti monster, so there must be one ...
"Is Truth important?" That is not a complete question. In my opinion the question should be rephrased in "Is Truth important to that person?" Well, there seems to be an easy answer. But again this does not lead us to the heart of the "problem", which is What one is going to do with the truth. Everyone can exchange a false reality with another false reality in order to meet certain needs and desires. But truth does not allow manipulation and once is presented and accepted then the person must actually use, do something, change his/her life, and that is a very difficult and inconvenient task.
Post a Comment