Question for the Atheist

[_MrStakhanovite]

I don't think atheism equates to naturalism. I'm skeptical of there being a good, coherent definition of naturalism in the first place. I just think atheism is a statement about not believing in gods. I find your use strange because it's off the path of how the term is generally used.

I thought about this some more and I think you are right on your orginal point.

[_JAK]

Let’s begin a review of THIS POST

Hoops quoting JAK:
“Individuals pray generally with intent to manipulate whatever they regard as God for their own benefit.”

Hoops:
“Not always. And, I've found, not even generally. In my own experience, rarely.”

Note the qualifier “generally” in my comment. Typically before eating, a person praying asks God to bless this food to the nourishment of our bodies. That’s asking the assumed God to do that which presumably won’t be done or may not be done unless the one offering the prayer as well as those believing the prayer hear a request for favor. The fact is that under normal circumstances, food which is eaten nourishes the body. Even if someone were to pray that the food would NOT nourish, it would if it were eaten. Hence, God is irrelevant. But the intent of the prayer is to manipulate God to ACT in a particular way – to act in favor.

“God grant us safe journey from this place to our homes” is a typical prayer when those hearing the prayer are to travel a long journey. The intent is to manipulate God to favor those who hear that prayer. The assumption implied is that if we don’t ask for God’s protection, we will not be protected – we won’t be safe.

Prayers are offered for the sick to God to intervene and make well the one who is sick. Again, the attempt by the one praying is to manipulate God to act in accordance with the directive of the prayer. Even a prayer which is a Thank God prayer is a confirmation that God is responsible for the benefit for which “thanks” is being given.

Following up on your comment above, “…not even generally…” Suppose you write on this discussion what you regard as a typical prayer made by believers in God a prayer they would make directed to that God.

Let’s see a two or three paragraph prayer you regard as a typical prayer commonly delivered in public or in private when individuals think/imagine/consider that they are talking to God in a prayer.

I’ll be happy to address all other issues you raised in the post above. This is long enough for a response to your initial comment.

JAK

[_JAK]

Part II of a response

Let’s continue a review of THIS POST

JAK (previously): ” ’Faith’ is a relative not an absolute.”

Hoops:
“Relative to what?”

JAK:
Example: People differ in their degree of what they characterize as “faith.” One has faith his car will start. It might not. If the car is in poor condition, one’s faith that it will start is diminished relative to someone who has a new car in top shape. 20 degrees below zero may temper the faith one has that his car will start even if he believes his car to be in good condition.

If one begins a trip by car of 1500 miles in a car, one has a degree of faith that the car will make it as well as a degree of faith that one has the skill to pilot the car through 1500 miles of traffic and all that entails.

Some would be very confident (much faith) that all would be well. Others would be less confident as a result of their age, their condition, the condition of the car, etc. Hence, faith in an outcome is relative to the situation and to the individuals.

In religion, a person who refuses medical treatment in favor of petitioning God for physical problems well treated by medication is a person who exhibits relatively more faith religiously than a person who utilizes fully the medical science available. To illustrate, hypertension or high cholesterol is well treated by medicine.

Someone who claims to have “faith” but sees a doctor and takes medication for a treatable problem exhibits relatively less faith in God presumably through prayer that seeks to manipulate God’s will to comply with their own.

Still others who have little or no faith in their own capacity to influence God, also go to the medical profession and follow the direction of applied medical science. Of course, some might not. We can always find some percentage, even small, of individuals who are outside the general, prevailing reliance on medical science.

So one could understand that even a person who claims to be agnostic or atheist might reject (for a variety of reasons) medical treatment. That might be the case with terminal cancer in a person 90 or less who simply is willing to accept an earlier death or even welcome it rather than endure painful medical treatment. At best the treatment might prolong their life a few weeks or months.

Hence, faith is relative to time, circumstance, perspective, belief, etc.

JAK previously: For example, many pray for “healing” then go to the doctor or hospital for medical science to provide “healing.”

Hoops’ response: You bet! Isn't the Christian admonition to explore God's Creation wonderful?

JAK: Not necessarily is this universal Christian view. Early explorers in science and medical science were condemned and criticized for attempting “explore” rather than rely on faith. Those Christian Scientists, for example, oppose use of modern medicine. Amish, for example are slow to accept medical treatment especially for mental illness. Jehovah's Witnesses, for example do not believe in blood transfusions.

Amish and the Modern Health Care Industry clarifies some particular beliefs of certain Amish groups.
One item from that link states: “They believe the body is a creation of God and, while medicine may help, it is God who heals. An extension of this idea is evident in the traditional use of ‘home remedies’."

Here we have an example of relative faith.

Amish Culture and Health care observes: “Amish life is significantly different from modern society in North America. For example, the Amish avoid modern conveniences such as telephones and electricity. Furthermore, their most common mode of transportation is horse and buggy.” (emphasis added) Use link to full website.

Any quality medical care relies on “electricity.”

Hoops quoting JAK: “If they had “faith,” what is the need for doctors or hospitals? Hence, “faith” is relative.”

Hoops stated:
“You have no idea what faith is. Going to the doctor is an excellent demonstration of faith. Faith in our fellow human, created by God, faith that God's universe is predictable, the medicine we take, and so on.”

JAK: “Going to the doctor” is a demonstration in faith in the doctor, not faith in God. Modern medicine has evolved slowly over time. People who relied on “faith in God” a hundred years ago and more had little understanding of what we (collectively) know today about the treatment of illness.

You demonstrate well here that faith is relative. It’s relative to time, place, people, and available knowledge.
The first appendectomies resulted in death. At that time nothing was known about germs and sterilization. Today, an appendectomy is relatively routine. The “faith” is in medical science not in God. Nevertheless, many facing surgery appeal to God as they attempt to manipulate God to “guide” the surgeon. When the surgery is a success, many who claim “faith” say, “Thank God.” Fewer thank the surgeon and the medical profession. They might, but their prayer is not to the surgeon.

While there is no evidence for any God notion, there is much evidence for medical science as it has evolved over the past century.

This is more than enough for one post, Hoops. But I have no objection to addressing the remainder of your comments in this post.

JAK

[_JAK]

Continued analysis on THIS POST. 3rd part.

Hoops stated: You have no idea what faith is. Going to the doctor is an excellent demonstration of faith. Faith in our fellow human, created by God, faith that God's universe is predictable, the medicine we take, and so on.

There are many notions of God. Why is that? Throughout human history, the evolution of religious perspectives moved from primitive superstition to belief in the gods – many gods to belief in a few gods. That was a struggle. The notion of one God has dominated religious perspective for the past few thousand years in the hundreds of thousands of years of changing and evolving life forms on this 4.5 billion year old planet.

The idea of “creation” began primarily in the notions of one God. It’s important to realize that God is an assumption. To that assumption are in the thousands of ideas and interpretations. Only early art and primitive language gave some form to concepts of A God.

The point is that “…created by God” in your language is a religious doctrine/dogma. The evidence is the reverse. That is, man developed the notions of A God. They vary widely (as a few of my previous references and links show). In mentioning specific religious groups, I demonstrated that God notions are not in agreement. They are in conflict. There is conflict about the power of the assumed God. There is conflict about the limitations of the assumed God.

Today we have many religious groups. Those many do not agree on the notions of God. It’s important to recognize that historical fact, Hoops. Without that recognition, anyone or any group is free to assert absolutely that their notions of a God are the correct ones – making all the other notions wrong.

The idea that the “universe is predictable” is also relative as to detail. That is, just what can be predicted and with what accuracy? For example, earthquakes are predictable. However exactly where and when are much less “predictable.” On the other hand, average temperatures where temperatures have been monitored daily for a century have a closer range of accuracy. (It’s so unlikely that it will be 0 degrees F in Tennessee in July as to be regarded as impossible.) But, you are correct to recognize that “predictable” is a very real dimension of science (not religion or faith).

Doctors in 1900 actually knew so little that their treatment was often fatal. Going to the doctor TODAY in a country that has a well developed medical science is enormously safer than going to a doctor in 1911. And, important to realize, going to a doctor in 2101 will likely be safer than going to one or many 90 years earlier (our time here). God is irrelevant in the context applied knowledge.

Your statement above assumes God as do all pontifical statements with allusion to God.

We might also recognize that in the Western World (more education) the number of people who subscribe without reservation to any God notion is smaller. It is skepticism which yields discovery, Hoops.

I don’t mean simply rejection of religious dogma. Rather, skepticism which studies and tests possible results in the very technology we use here as well as skepticism about cause for a particular finding.

JAK previously: Belief contrary to evidence.

Hoops: You mean belief in the evidence you allow one to consider.

JAK response: In a sense, that might be correct. Example statement: “The moon is made of yellow cheese.” What’s the evidence? Well it’s yellow, the color of cheese. Since we know cheese is yellow (some) it’s only reasonable to submit COLOR as EVIDENCE that the MOON is CHEESE.

400 years ago, that concept might have been presented by an excellent communicator and sold as truth. Lots of myths (attempts to explain via story and what could be seen) have been promulgated throughout the centuries of human evolution and the accumulation of information. But, of course, we know the moon, our moon, is not cheese.

400 years ago, someone could have argued: If it’s not cheese, YOU tell me what it is?

And 400 years ago no one could have established the moon was something OTHER than cheese.

A charismatic pontificator might have sold that idea 400 years ago. Of course, we know today, the “idea” was/is wrong.

Enough for one post

JAK

[_JAK]

Continued analysis on THIS POST. 4th part.

JAK previously: Roman Catholics and Lutherans and other Christian denominations build hospitals. Why?

Hoops responded: Because religion is evil?

JAK: In many respects, “religion is” a negative factor. “Evil” is also relative. (Killing one innocent person might be evil. How does that compare with killing 10,000 innocent people? It’s relative.) How and why the killing of another person is also relative. You might say it’s “evil.” Yet, most would argue self-defense against an aggressor is different from premeditated killing. One could argue all killing is “evil.” Some do. Pacifists reject killing of another even to save their own life.

Roman Catholics, Lutherans, and others build medical facilities because their God view is different from that of the Amish, the Christian Scientists, or the Jehovah Witnesses. That is, faith in God is not as exclusive for those groups who use and accept the inventions of medical science.

Near Cincinnati, OH, there is a large public place called “Creation Science Museum.” People who like it and generally those who visit it are CREATIONISTS. That is, they subscribe to a six-day event of creation as done by God. They distort, omit, and fail to recognize accepted scientific information of today on evolution. I’d consider that museum “evil” in that it misrepresents what is known and accepted by virtually all the scientific community. But, no one gets shot who goes to the museum to bask in religious Christian fiction. (Well at least no killings have been reported there.)

JAK previously: Christian Scientists (who aren’t in the least scientific) don’t build hospitals and don’t employ modern medical science. They are believers in miracles but don’t view a miracle as a Methodist does. Hence “miracle(s)” is likewise relative to other countervailing views.[/quote] I'm not so sure. You may mean that a CS more readily attributes an event to a miracle, but the working definition is the same. It would seem.

Hoops responded: I'm not so sure. You may mean that a CS more readily attributes an event to a miracle, but the working definition is the same. It would seem.

JAK: The issue is not particularly a definition but rather a commitment to or a level of faith. The Christian Scientists place no trust or confidence in the medical establishment (science of medicine). Some groups blame all illness on sin. They use the Bible (ancient mythology) to argue their position in a modern world. God’s will is not to be denied, some argue. Their only recourse is their attempt to manipulate God through prayer and intercession in behalf of the sick or dying.

People today use the word “miracle” rather loosely. Something that happens that is good, especially life-saving is characterized as a miracle. A fireman rescues a child from a burning building successfully. Some on-lookers call it “a miracle.” But, the fireman did what he was trained to do. He was successful. Had it been a failure and both the child and the fireman had been killed, it would have been called “a tragedy.” Most of people who believe like this perceive their God as very selective and as a God that gives preferential treatment to some and not to others. They pray for preferential treatment. (I’ll conclude with that issue which I asked you to address in my first response to this post.)

One could just as well argue the deaths were God’s will. The successful rescue was called “a miracle” as in an implication that God intervened which the on-lookers were praying to happen.

But no evidence is here for a God claim. It’s an assertion absent evidence. We do have evidence of a trained fireman. We do have evidence of a brave person doing exactly what he/she was trained to do. God is irrelevant. It’s a claim lacking merit in many loose claims of it’s a miracle… when something regarded as good happens or when something bad fails to occur.

This concludes our comments in the previous post.

My original response asked you to write a two or three paragraph prayer that you would regard as a typical prayer. You could even use one you find or that someone else constructed. My point then and remains that prayer is generally an attempt to manipulate an assumed God. Most prayers address God in some way at the beginning and in the conclusion.

My invitation for you to construct that prayer has received no response. Why?

I assume you are unwilling or unable to generate such a construction for analysis. I also conclude that you accept my analysis in this discussion since you offer no rejoinder or rebuttal to what I have stated.

JAK

[_Ceeboo]

Hi Jak, (Huh! That is a cool thing to type...... "Hi-Jak". Y'all should try that)


As the author of this thread, I am going to have to ask that you refrain from any additional posts until we all have had ample time to read your last four posts.

I think 2 weeks should be fair.

:)

Thanks and peace,
Ceeboo

[_EAllusion]

Deism is a kind of theism. "Deist" means "theist" in Latin. In fact, the English Deists sometimes used the term "Theist" rather than "Deist" to describe themselves. The fact that their enemies slandered them as atheists is irrelevant, since their enemies didn't know what they were talking about.

Deism started out as a variant of theism, but evolved into an association with a belief in a disinterested clockwinder god who created the universe and let it run on its own. This is now distinguished from theism proper as theist gods are actively engaged with the affairs of the universe. This creates some tricky issues, such as certain "deists" of the past not really being deists in the modern sense.

Pantheism (not to be confused with panentheism) is a slightly more ambiguous case, since if God is identical with the natural world then one is hard pressed to describe a way in which It can meaningfully be called God.

When I think of pantheist, I think of someone who has a religious reverence for the universe that extends to anthropomorphizing it (typically in a "mother nature" sort of way). The universe itself is in some minimal way a deity by having personal qualities like self-awareness. Granted, this can bleed into sexed-up atheism depending on your pantheist. This is different than panentheism as panentheism posits the existence of a deity that exists outside the physical universe and animates and penetrates its events - sort of like the dream of the dreamer.

[_Hoops]

Hi Jak (thanks Ceeboo, I like it to!)

Note the qualifier “generally” in my comment. Typically before eating, a person praying asks God to bless this food to the nourishment of our bodies. That’s asking the assumed God to do that which presumably won’t be done or may not be done unless the one offering the prayer as well as those believing the prayer hear a request for favor. The fact is that under normal circumstances, food which is eaten nourishes the body. Even if someone were to pray that the food would NOT nourish, it would if it were eaten. Hence, God is irrelevant. But the intent of the prayer is to manipulate God to ACT in a particular way – to act in favor.

“God grant us safe journey from this place to our homes” is a typical prayer when those hearing the prayer are to travel a long journey. The intent is to manipulate God to favor those who hear that prayer. The assumption implied is that if we don’t ask for God’s protection, we will not be protected – we won’t be safe.

These examples you've chosen are small samples of a Christian's prayer life. Despite the fact that these prayers occur daily (blessing the meal) or before one travels, these are a small sliver. And, in fact, as Christians, these prayers are not to get God to intervene where/when He might not have otherwise, rather they are to remind us that God is sovereign. I will readily grant you that there is one benefit that Christians get from prayer and it is this: when we pray, we are reminded that God is sovereign and that we are not. Beyond that, the bulk of a Christian's prayers are for the benefit of others, even our enemies. Those on this board who do pray know exactly what I mean on both of these fronts. Those who don't pray probably are scratching their heads right now. Prayer by definition is mystical. I don't think it unreasonable to expect that one has a mystical experience because of prayer.

Prayers are offered for the sick to God to intervene and make well the one who is sick. Again, the attempt by the one praying is to manipulate God to act in accordance with the directive of the prayer. Even a prayer which is a Thank God prayer is a confirmation that God is responsible for the benefit for which “thanks” is being given.

I can't get on board with this either. While we pray for another's health, for that one to recover, we also pray because He is worthyto be prayed to. Same with your "Thank God". Yes, we thank God that what we've prayed for has come to fruition (as best we can understand), but our intent is to recognize yet again that He is God and we are not. That is the point of prayer, not to manipulate God.

Following up on your comment above, “…not even generally…” Suppose you write on this discussion what you regard as a typical prayer made by believers in God a prayer they would make directed to that God.

No, thanks. You might get some of our higher church friends on this board to do so, but that's not my game. I will, however, tell you of prayers in my life that I found particularly significant. I once had a person in my life who caused me great harm. As it turned out, irreperable harm. Significant, life changing harm. I had very, very strong feelings for this person and I found myself descending into hatred for this person and I didn't want that. So I decided I would pray for that person every day for a year. I had no more interaction with this person during this year - and I was still in a position that what this person had done effected me greatly. Whatever blessings this person gained, I knew nothing about, but I prayed anyway. The effect on me was profound - and completely unexpected.

Let’s see a two or three paragraph prayer you regard as a typical prayer commonly delivered in public or in private when individuals think/imagine/consider that they are talking to God in a prayer.

Prayer is not talking to God, it is communion with God. Still, point taken. I know lot's of people who pray a lot during the day. I don't, but I know those who do. Their prayers are often along the lines of "God, help that baby feel better," "God, bless that person over there who might be feeling down," things along those lines. I won't say that I NEVER say these kinds of prayers, I often do. But I also wouldn't say these are a habit. I can't see how one can represent these as being in one's self interest.

[_Hoops]

Oh, and Jak.....?

How about the Lord's prayer? I didn't write it but it seems like a good one to me.

[_JAK]

Hoops,

First, thanks for the accurate quotation from my post. Let’s look at THIS POST Part 1.

This is addressing the topic line. It’s not a new subject. It is also addressing Hoops’ remarks allowed to stand on this thread. It may require more patients than most (maybe even Hoops) will be willing to give.

Hoops stated: “These examples you've chosen are small samples of a Christian's prayer life. Despite the fact that these prayers occur daily (blessing the meal) or before one travels, these are a small sliver. And, in fact, as Christians, these prayers are not to get God to intervene where/when He might not have otherwise, rather they are to remind us that God is sovereign.”

JAK: Do you regard these examples (JAK’s quote) as uncharacteristic of religious prayer? You imply it by calling the examples “…a small sliver.” If they are not typical, offer your own examples and write a prayer you would consider typical made in today’s world.

“Bless this food to the nourishment of our bodies” is a request for intervention for God’s blessing on the food. Why would it be spoken presumably to God? The implication of saying it is that nourishment might not happen if we don’t pray in petition for favor. (I’ll address “sovereign” shortly.)

God grant us safe journey from this place to our homes is also a petition for God’s intervention that will grant protection. Otherwise, we would just begin the drive with standard operating procedure to go someplace.

There is no refutation in your comment above but rather an assertion as to what “…these prayers are not…” This prayer and others assume God. People have prayed for safe journey and been unsafe or killed. God notions are irrelevant. God is not established any more than the gods were established when ancient people appealed to them. Praying to God for protection prior to a dangerous encounter has the intent to manipulate that God to intervene. The implied assumption is that safety is more likely if God is petitioned than if God is not.

There is no evidence in these examples that those who pray such prayers are NOT attempting to acquire God’s intervention. It's not mere recognition of "sovereignty."

While these were my examples, I asked you to construct what you regard as a typical prayer which religious individuals would offer today. I did so in order to have a legitimate, original paragraph or two of your idea. In that, I would address with specificity your construction not mine.

Hoops stated: “…rather they are to remind us that God is sovereign.”

JAK: Why the reminder? When a religious person turns on a light in a room, does he have to SPEAK or think: This switch will turn on the light…? Of course not! He knows the switch will turn on the light. (I am excluding a power failure or some catastrophe which will mean no light.)

We don’t “remind” ourselves by word or conscious thinking about how to open doors, start cars, go to a particular store, return to our homes, etc. under normal circumstances.

So why do religious people pray in petition to God for the obvious? People often pray out of fear: O God, help me get through this. Again, I want YOUR prayer, Hoops. If you regard these as non-typical, you make the construction. I think these are typical. If you dispute that, what is YOUR example?

Hoops stated: “I will readily grant you that there is one benefit that Christians get from prayer and it is this: when we pray, we are reminded that God is sovereign and that we are not. Beyond that, the bulk of a Christian's prayers are for the benefit of others, even our enemies.”

JAK: Let’s address the last part first. “…a Christian's prayers are for the benefit of others, even our enemies.”
Are these prayers made to God? If so, the intent is to influence God “…for the benefit of others…” Such prayers assume God. Absent any evidence for God (or in earlier times the gods), the prayers are irrelevant. We KNOW the light switch works, and we have repeated evidence. Religious people don’t pray when turning on a light switch. Furthermore, they have much greater FAITH in the light switch. They don’t have to petition by word or thought the light switch. They are far less sure of their own notion(s) of God. Hence, we see the compelling need of religious people to address God for favor. If the religious person is praying “for the benefit of others…” they still want God’s intervention. And, they ask for it.

Hoops stated: “Those on this board who do pray know exactly what I mean on both of these fronts.”

JAK: It’s an assertion. I am most skeptical of the contention. It’s also irrelevant to the issue of your prayer example.

Hoops stated: “Those who don't pray probably are scratching their heads right now. Prayer by definition is mystical. I don't think it unreasonable to expect that one has a mystical experience because of prayer.”

JAK: “Prayer” is “mystical” primarily because it dates back many centuries in the evolution from superstitions to mythologies. It may be wishful thinking. It may be conformity to that which is/was expected in particular cultural situations. We can understand this by close examination of historical development – much to large a subject to tackle here.

A Part 2 will follow on THIS POST. I’m trying to take your comments as they appear and not jump ahead in analysis of this post, Hoops.

JAK