A Must Read!

[leo9]

Interesting reading, for believers and non-believers alike.

This was deeply disappointing. After your buildup I expected some seriously reasoned philosophical and rational presentation of the materialist case, but what I found was a boilerplate anti-sermon that took too many paragraphs to say:
a) You can't prove a thing
b) I don't believe it
c) Liar liar pants on fire.

Which could have been replicated, mutatis mutandis, in any Muslim attack on Christianity, Christian attack on Islam, either against atheism, et cetera. One expects that level of discourse from fundies, but rationalists are expected to be more, well, rational.

His conclusion is, in my opinion, both moving and undeniable. (Emphasis mine.)

We stand naked before the universe, a product of its rules, and one of the facts of our existence is our eventual obliteration. Running away won't help. Believing in a magical savior won't save you. You face reality bravely, or you hide in fear — and that won't help you either.

The essential principle, though, the one that the religious cannot abide, is that you can face it honestly. And there's at least a little dignity in that.

I've noticed before that true believers seem unable to apply normal standards of criticism to their own school's literature, believing that a sufficiently vehement statement of their beliefs is in itself such a compelling and persuasive argument that it must convert any reasonable person. Jehovah's Witnesses routinely ask me if I've read the Bible, and when I say yes, they look baffled, as if the question on the tip of their tongues is "Then why aren't you converted?" I've read Dawkins, as well, who says the same things more eloquently and at much greater length than your referent, and I'm not converted by him either.

Moving? Well, yes, if you mean "using dramatic phrasing". "Undeniable"? Well, no, you may have noticed that several people have already denied it. But then, "undeniable" is usually a weasel word meaning "if you deny it you must be stupid".

He's entitled to his opinion, as I am to mine, which differs from his. But he isn't entitled to assert that his opinion is fact and mine is lies without offering evidence, which - by the nature of the question - neither of us have.

Alan Watts observed that there has been a trend in 20th Century philosophy towards facing grim realities, to the point where it has become a one-up game to face grimmer realities than your rivals; in the same way that some Protestant sects seem to vie with each other to make the certainty of damnation even more inescapable. But they're still only presenting their opinions as facts. I don't believe I'm inevitably damned, and I don't believe I stand naked before the universe - well, actually, I do, but not in the bleak sense he intends by that image. When I stand naked before someone who loves me, there's nothing bleak about it at all!

When people demand evidence for spirituality I'm frequently reminded of the radical Behaviourists who assert, as a matter of fact, that consciousness does not exist: you may imagine that you're a self-aware mind, but it's just your conditioned reflexes talking. And the great strength of their position, like yours, is that nobody can prove them wrong: their materialist theory accounts for all the evidence - except the evidence of our own senses. We all know they are wrong, but our evidence is purely subjective!

As with the mind, so with the spirit. You can quite satisfactorily demonstrate that material science can account for everything I see as spiritual and divine: I cannot measure the beauty of the world with a photometer, or show you a photograph of the Goddess when She came to me, or produce a recording of Her unspoken words that changed my life. I know your explanation is as incomplete as the Behaviourists', but I can't show you a scrap of objective evidence. Which is why I don't call anyone a liar; I just wish they would be as accomodating of my opinions, and not tell me that I'm weak-minded or cowardly or dishonest for not feeling the way they feel.

[Thorne]

"Undeniable"? Well, no, you may have noticed that several people have already denied it. But then, "undeniable" is usually a weasel word meaning "if you deny it you must be stupid".

You'll notice that I said it was undeniable in my opinion. I did not say, nor did I intend to imply, that anyone who disagrees with me is stupid. Far from it. Most of the arguments I've heard (from three different posters) have been fairly reasoned and intelligent except (and again, this is my opinion) those arguments which try to appeal to emotion as proof of belief.

He's entitled to his opinion, as I am to mine, which differs from his. But he isn't entitled to assert that his opinion is fact and mine is lies without offering evidence, which - by the nature of the question - neither of us have.

As I said earlier, Myers' rhetoric can be abrasive and harsh. I believe this comes from having to deal with truly stupid commenters who call him names and threaten him for denying the existence of their pet god, and from pseudo-intelligent commenters who spout "evidence" which has been debunked multiple times over many years. I've seen him threatened and cursed at, and know of at least one "critic" who threatened his whole family. I tend to grant him a little leeway for that.

I don't believe I'm inevitably damned,

This is one of the biggest problems I have with some of the more rabid religious defenders. They seem to think that the ONLY way to please their god is to kowtow to him and believe in him with all your heart and soul. Anything else results in damnation. In other words, "Follow me down this same dark road or you'll go to hell." This is the kind of attitude which started me down the path of atheism.

and I don't believe I stand naked before the universe - well, actually, I do, but not in the bleak sense he intends by that image. When I stand naked before someone who loves me, there's nothing bleak about it at all!

Did you really find that bleak? I found that image to be more heroic: the brave humans, weary and battered, standing bravely against all that the universe can throw at them. Inspiring, not bleak. And the universe doesn't love you, or anyone. The universe is dark, dangerous, and ultimately unconcerned with the existence of humanity. But it's all we have, so we'd better learn to deal with it.

their materialist theory accounts for all the evidence - except the evidence of our own senses. We all know they are wrong, but our evidence is purely subjective!

But we can't always trust our senses. That's why we need to make sure that everyone else sees or hears or tastes the same things we do. We need to understand how our senses can trick us. We need to learn how our minds make judgments. By being rational and skeptical we can minimize bias and wishful thinking and learn the truth.

As with the mind, so with the spirit.

Here is where we must part ways, I'm afraid. Spirit is a meaningless concept to me. There is nothing there for me to hold on to. No meat. No sensations. No proof.