Entertaining opposite viewpoints.

TheBardWest

Cross-posted from spirituality, as I'd love to get a pagan perspective on this question as well...

Occasionally, as a form of self-torture, I like to check in on the A&A forum to see what folks are talking about, debating, and to see at which group they're poking fun today.

A recent thread got me thinking: How often do we entertain the ideas of our most staunch opposition? To phrase it another way: how many skeptics, agnostics, and atheists make a practice of reading and studying the works they so vehemently oppose? Likewise, how many religious fanatics, sometime-spiritualists, and would-be-seekers spend time reading the latest scientific debunking of the power of positive thinking, faith or religion?

I find myself getting wound up in such arguments, because most of the time neither side leaves room for its opposite. The atheists think all religion and spirituality is hogwash, and all followers fools. The spiritualists think the atheists are all Cartesian quarterbacks, riding the self-righteous wave of scientific inquiry - "I think, therefore your position is wrong."

What is most frustrating to me is that the majority on both sides cannot find the value in the other position. Scientists don't see the very real value that the modern spiritual movement has brought in increasing compassion, fulfillment, and positive change in the world - instead choosing to focus on fundamentalist religion as representative of all 'woo-woo' faith. Spiritualists don't see the value in critical reasoning, scientific inquiry, or exploring the very real ways in which science can shed light on some of the more questionable and objectionable practices and beliefs to make way for something more open, truthful, and universal.

I'd love to hear how and if you have entertained opposite positions in this way. Myself - I just added the book "The End of Faith" to my library queue. :-)

Nevyn

I think critcal thinking/reasoning is a very useful skill and all seekers should take the time to hone it.
But as the vast majority of spiritual experiences are personal and subjective arguing form a position of logic is never going to get anyone very far in defending or understanding imho.

TheBardWest

I don't disagree with your point, Thaedydal, but the lack of subjective arguing from a position of logic is exactly what the scientists, atheists and agnostics criticize the spiritualists for...

So basically, you can't win no matter what you do! ;-)

Nevyn

Well I only need to keep me and my Gods happy, not the atheists and there are more things to the universe and the human conditions then logic and science can currently explain.

Those who want a argument coming from their perceived positions of logic do so thinking they can win on that field or score enough points to think they have won.
I did enough debating and arguing when I was younger to not longer wish to be something someone in their evangelical zeal to score points off.

TheBardWest

Clearly I haven't garnered that Wisdom! I guess one of my struggles is in my desire to find common ground, even with those whose viewpoints oppose mine. The issue, it seems, is an unwillingness for the other party to also want to find common ground...

Shiminay

It really infuriates one of my friends when I concede that every point he makes about logic vs belief makes sense, but it won't change the fact that I know the gods are out there Given that I come from an engineering background he gets very frustrated that I seem to have abandoned all logic and I just point out to him that he actually knows nothing about what I believe and why and that it has nothing to do with the Christian stuff he learned as a child. When he tells me then that I should explain it to him I say that I have no need because it's obviously not for him and it's personal to me. I have told him I don't know how many times that my faith does not require that I convert or kill any who do not follow it and that I'm perfectly happy for all religions and belief practices to have their place.

There is no point in trying to talk to this type of person - any fundamentalist will not budge on their viewpoint and if you want a giggle, you can point out to them that their fundamental "non-belief" is just as blinkered a view as those they claim to be better than.

To anyone who wants a debate or just an informed chat, they will be reasonable enough to at least try to meet you half-way I'd have thought. But on a subject such as Faith or Religion, it seems you would be doing well to find that person

sensibleken

Hi. I hope you don't mind me joining in. There seems to be an idea that athiests just dismiss things off hand. Some might, were not really an organised group.

Personally I spent years as an occultist. read hundreds of books from various practitioners, underwent tuition from a magister templi, did weekly rituals etc. Gradualy, and then rather drastically my belief waned.

I had already deconstructed christianity to the point where i didnt buy it. So after that and studying an awful lot of different religions i dont buy any of it. Then I struggled to come up with an explaination for the diversity of belief that im satisfied with (but wont bore you with)

So quite often athiests can have a good understanding of thiestic viewpoints, quite often it can be ignorant. But like paganism there is no central doctrine of rulebook

TheBardWest

Thanks for your thoughts, sensibleken. I find that theists (or spiritual folks in general) often understand atheistic, rationalistic, or scientific viewpoints as well. In fact, while I certainly know some folks who dwell exclusively in the domain of the woo-woo, I know far more spiritualists who are willing to dive deeply into scientific, social, political and rational thought than I know atheists/rationalists who are willing to dive deeply into spiritualist thought. There does seem to be some amount of hypocrisy there, though admittedly I tend to run in generally progressive circles, vs. fundamentalist circles. In some ways, I think there can be 'fundamentalist atheism' just as there can be 'fundamentalist religion'...

One of my best friends is an atheist, and he and I see eye-to-eye on many, many things. In fact, I've come to realize that his non-belief in anything beyond the rational actually yields the same result as my belief in something more than what we currently can explain with science and rational thought.

He believes that since there is nothing beyond this existence, we should make the most of it and take care of one another and the planet to the best of our ability - in other words, "You only get one chance." I believe that since we are all connected and part of the same universal consciousness, yet there is so much to the great mystery that is as yet unknown, we should be kind and compassionate toward one another and take care of this existence as best we can so that we might someday come to know and understand more deeply - in other words, "You and I are connected and part of the same mystery, so I want to make sure that YOU have the best experience possible in life."

I've been thinking a lot lately about atheism and science and belief, and I think ultimately my primary issue is with this idea of fundamentalist atheists and scientists. Note that I'm not saying atheism or science, because, like religion, the doctrine itself isn't the problem, its what happens to the doctrine when it gets into the hands of fanatics. I believe it is just as easy to be a fanatical atheist as it is to be a fanatical Christian.

When I see a debate between a scientist and a spiritualist, rarely does the scientist make an effort to create goodwill, to find common ground, or to somehow serve the cause of compassion. On the contrary, it seems their purpose is generally to refute the spiritualist veiwpoints, to expose them as a fraud, and to instead provide a fully science-based version of reality which is utterly devoid of mystery, utterly devoid of compassion, and most importantly, utterly impartial to the actions and consequences of the organisms on our planet and beyond. We are, in their eyes, simply parts of a machine, and in their closing arguments, the most important point is that they are right and the other is wrong.

It is rare to find an atheist/rationalist who demonstrates any kind of reverence for the astounding intricacies of creation, who demonstrates radical humility in the face of this amazing world we live in, or one who devotes their lives to radical selflessness in the service of the greater good and all existence. On the other hand, I can think of hundreds of spiritual people who have devoted themselves to improving the lives of others.

When I hear arguments about spiritualism vs. atheism or science, it seems the rationalist/atheist/scientists goal is to make the spiritualists look like a bunch of fools and wackos, lumping us all together with the occult or fundamentalists. Okay - so you've proven that scientifically, X belief in Y is false. Now what? Aside from winning an argument, what service have you performed, and how have you actually improved the lives of humans and other beings on the planet? What vision of humanity can you now provide that will markedly increase compassion toward one another?

It seems the people who most vocally oppose spiritual beliefs are people who think that being "right" is more important than finding common ground. There are lots of doctors and scientists who perform good deeds, who make remarkable discoveries and yet don't believe in anything beyond this existence - but these typically aren't the people out arguing with Mother Theresa about the quality of her services, or suggesting that Deepak Chopra makes too much money in his work. On the contrary, these are people who find common ground, who recognize the value that each approach can bring to making the world a better place.

It seems to me that the most influential people in history - in terms of how drastically they've affected the course of humanity for the better - all seem to be people with a healthy dose of respect for the mysteries of life, and a huge dose of compassion toward all life and existence, and a willingness to find common ground, even with those whose beliefs don't match their own. The vocal minority, who shout from the rooftops about the masses being led astray by "The Secret" or (whatever flavor of the day) seem mostly interested in proving that believers are inherently stupid, and in so doing, only serve to divide people more fully from one another, reducing compassion, increasing fundamentalism on all sides, and generally making the world an unfriendly, selfish place.

sensibleken

TheBardWest wrote: »

In fact, while I certainly know some folks who dwell exclusively in the domain of the woo-woo, I know far more spiritualists who are willing to dive deeply into scientific, social, political and rational thought than I know atheists/rationalists who are willing to dive deeply into spiritualist thought. There does seem to be some amount of hypocrisy there, though admittedly I tend to run in generally progressive circles, vs. fundamentalist circles. In some ways, I think there can be 'fundamentalist atheism' just as there can be 'fundamentalist religion'..

Thanks for getting back thebardwest. I think there are an awfull lot of athiests who think a great deal on spiritual matters. but spiritual matters do not need a seperate spiritual world, they can be contained within questions like 'who am i', 'what should i do with my life'. while not strictly spiritualist, it is certainly spritual, ie on the human spirit

TheBardWest wrote: »

When I see a debate between a scientist and a spiritualist, rarely does the scientist make an effort to create goodwill, to find common ground, or to somehow serve the cause of compassion. On the contrary, it seems their purpose is generally to refute the spiritualist veiwpoints, to expose them as a fraud, and to instead provide a fully science-based version of reality which is utterly devoid of mystery, utterly devoid of compassion, and most importantly, utterly impartial to the actions and consequences of the organisms on our planet and beyond. We are, in their eyes, simply parts of a machine, and in their closing arguments, the most important point is that they are right and the other is wrong....

true there are fundamentalist athiests who go beyond thinking that theistic belief is incorrect to thnking that all belief is evil. but when arguing over what is the actual state of the universe then some scientists will get picky if someone is making claims not based on evidence. this debate would probably change if they were talking about ethics, but ethics, compassion etc are not part of the structure of the universe for athiests. they are completely seperate debates. So where i can see where someone would think the athiest cosmology is cold and uncaring without wonder and mystery, quite the opposite is true in most cases. hence why they spend so much time exploring space rather than attacking people like jordano bruno.

TheBardWest wrote: »

It is rare to find an atheist/rationalist who demonstrates any kind of reverence for the astounding intricacies of creation, who demonstrates radical humility in the face of this amazing world we live in, or one who devotes their lives to radical selflessness in the service of the greater good and all existence. On the other hand, I can think of hundreds of spiritual people who have devoted themselves to improving the lives of others.
....

i would have to disagree with this also. athiests can wonder at a sunset or an unspoiled forrest just as much as anyone else. in fact my appreciation has increased that such beauty can be natually formed without someone making it. my enviromentalism has also increased due to my knowledge that prayer and rituals will do nothing to save the planet. we need to get off our arse and do it ourselves

TheBardWest wrote: »

When I hear arguments about spiritualism vs. atheism or science, it seems the rationalist/atheist/scientists goal is to make the spiritualists look like a bunch of fools and wackos, lumping us all together with the occult or fundamentalists. Okay - so you've proven that scientifically, X belief in Y is false. Now what? Aside from winning an argument, what service have you performed, and how have you actually improved the lives of humans and other beings on the planet? What vision of humanity can you now provide that will markedly increase compassion toward one another?
..

If we are talking about what is the truth, athiests want proof because most of us think that lies are usually a bad thing. blind faith is usually a bad thing and can justify some nasty stuff. so we will chalenge it when it comes up in debate and prove it wrong if we can. Surely knowledge can only be of benifit to humanity.

common ground is very important. but if someone is saying the earth is 6000 years old and if your gay your going to suffer for eternity then its going to meet some pretty big resistance from athiests and thiests alike.

again compassion would be a different debate for an athiest. If we were having a debate on say astrology or the creation of the universe. it does not follow that once we have established newtons laws prevents celestial bodies having influence on our bodies then there is no compasion left and the world is a cold uncaring place. perhaps an improvement would be instead of people blaming imaginary external forces for their troubles they might act proactively and improve their lives

TheBardWest

sensibleken wrote: »

...this debate would probably change if they were talking about ethics, but ethics, compassion etc are not part of the structure of the universe for athiests. they are completely seperate debates.

Interesting - I'd never considered that. For myself, I can't separate my belief in the interconnectedness of all things and ethics. However fractional, every choice I make in this life has some small ripple effect, and thus I must consider my every action in the context of how it affects others. Belief or non-belief without ethics seems like a nice thought-experiment, though ultimately I can't see how it can possibly be of benefit in the world of the living, where every choice we make does actually affect the lives of other beings.

sensibleken wrote: »

my enviromentalism has also increased due to my knowledge that prayer and rituals will do nothing to save the planet. we need to get off our arse and do it ourselves.

Again, perhaps I run in more progressive or fringe circles, but the spiritual folks I know wouldn't disagree with this at all. Again - we're all connected, so we must all do what we can to take care of things. Certainly ritual and prayer are ways to tune-in, to reflect, to gain wisdom through self-inquiry - but I don't know too many people who consider these viable substitutes for real-world-action. They are a useful, complimentary practice. I like the quote that "...ritual is poetry in the world of acts." I like the idea of making art out of life - seems more fun that way...

sensibleken wrote: »

If we are talking about what is the truth, athiests want proof because most of us think that lies are usually a bad thing. blind faith is usually a bad thing and can justify some nasty stuff. so we will chalenge it when it comes up in debate and prove it wrong if we can. Surely knowledge can only be of benifit to humanity.

I guess the issue I have with this is that it is a generalization. Not all faith is 'blind faith', nor is one person's a belief (even if it is in the Flying Spaghetti Monster) inherently bad. Only when it begins to negatively affect others does it become an issue for me. And in that case, I've seen non-belief just as damaging as belief. I don't care that you don't believe until it begins to infringe on my right to believe. The converse is also true, of course.

sensibleken wrote: »

"...knowledge can only be of benefit to humanity."

If that were the case, wouldn't it stand to reason that the entirety of the world would now be in a better place than it ever has been? For all our knowledge, why do we still have people who are starving and uneducated? Surely it isn't because we don't know how to feed or educate them...It is because we make choices in absentia of ethics. We choose to spend money on weapons and military, as opposed to spending money on improving the lives of others. Not for lack of knowledge of those choices, but rather for our own limited world-view, for lack of compassion, for lack of ethics. I see a lot of wanton destruction of the environment, a lot of consumerism and selfishness, and a growing divide between the haves and have-nots. So we have more knowledge - but it certainly has benefitted only a few.

sensibleken wrote: »

common ground is very important. but if someone is saying the earth is 6000 years old and if your gay your going to suffer for eternity then its going to meet some pretty big resistance from athiests and thiests alike.

Agreed and again - this is a generalization. Fundamentalism is dangerous from any front. Fundamentalist atheism doesn't allow for alternate viewpoints and makes enemies of believers in the same way that Fundamentalist Christianity makes enemies of homosexuals.

sensibleken wrote: »

again compassion would be a different debate for an athiest...perhaps an improvement would be instead of people blaming imaginary external forces for their troubles they might act proactively and improve their lives

Again, I don't experience this in my community. I run with people who are spiritual and activists. The generalization of all spiritual beings as woo-woo, happy-go-lucky, "we'll pray our problems away" is one that needs to simply go away to find any common ground.

sensibleken

TheBardWest wrote: »

If that were the case, wouldn't it stand to reason that the entirety of the world would now be in a better place than it ever has been? For all our knowledge, why do we still have people who are starving and uneducated? Surely it isn't because we don't know how to feed or educate them...It is because we make choices in absentia of ethics. We choose to spend money on weapons and military, as opposed to spending money on improving the lives of others. Not for lack of knowledge of those choices, but rather for our own limited world-view, for lack of compassion, for lack of ethics. I see a lot of wanton destruction of the environment, a lot of consumerism and selfishness, and a growing divide between the haves and have-nots. So we have more knowledge - but it certainly has benefitted only a few.

I actually just read what i wrote and realised how dumb it was. Of course knowledge is not always of benefit. I think we'd be much better off it the internal combistion engine wasnt invented.

But i dont think people ever make decisions in absentia of ethics unless their sociopaths. (big decisions i mean, not what will i have for lunch, although as a vegan i would, but i digress)

I guess athiests would treat the physical sciences and ethics as seperate debates as we I don't think they came from the same place, but ethics plays a massive part in the application of knowledge. something which is not made worse by athiesm. maybe by amoral people.

I guess were in agreement that people suck and we should get to destroying them right away

In conclusion. Ive always said there are two types of people. nice people and as*holes. I will talk to your if your nice and wont if your an as*hole. fundamentalists who get up your face are always of the latter

TheBardWest

sensibleken wrote: »

I guess athiests would treat the physical sciences and ethics as seperate debates as we I don't think they came from the same place, but ethics plays a massive part in the application of knowledge. something which is not made worse by athiesm. maybe by amoral people.

Again - going back to my original statement that it isn't really doctrine or belief/non-belief that is the issue, but rather the human application of said ideas. In the end, I'm happy if you believe or don't believe - just so long as you are making choices in service of the greater good.

sensibleken wrote: »

I guess were in agreement that people suck and we should get to destroying them right away

I take a slightly different approach - in a way a sort of opposing view to 'original sin'. Matthew Fox calls it original blessing - we are all born perfect, unique, wholly complete, unbroken, beautiful beings, as part of a complex tapestry of mystery and existence. The choices we've made and continue to make are 'sins of the spirit' - greed, lust, pride, etc. - and when we make choices from that base, we fu*k up the world for everyone, including ourselves. It isn't damnation in some eternal hell we should fear, but rather the hell we've already created for ourselves here on Earth in which we're already living.

When we make choices from a place of interconnectedness, compassion, and a healthy respect for the unique expressions of each individual, we tend to steer a more healthy course for everyone - not because we believe we will end up in a fluffy-white, serene and beautiful heaven after we die, but because making those choices creates a 'heaven' right here on earth.

Cheers and thanks for a great discussion.

Herbal Deity

TheBardWest, I think you're generalizing unfairly, probably based on what you see written by a vocal minority of atheists in internet arguments.


Now, I will entertain the viewpoints of spiritualists up to a point, but ultimately, I always fail to grasp where they get their beliefs from, how they began to believe in what they do, and ultimately, why they think they are true. The discussion always boils down to the spiritualist having a "spiritual experience" or something, and at that point the discussion can either stop or the validity of the experience can be disputed.

And if one side of a debate claims intrinsic knowledge that they "just know", then it is not a debate at all.

Personally, I think that many spiritualists just fail to understand how wondrous the natural world and what we can learn about it through science are. You seem to imply that you think a purely rational, scientific view of the world is very cold and calculated in your posts, which I really disagree with. I find the natural world so fascinating and amazing that I don't understand those who feel the need to believe in anything beyond it.

TheBardWest

Herbal Deity wrote: »

TheBardWest, I think you're generalizing unfairly, probably based on what you see written by a vocal minority of atheists in internet arguments.

I think you're probably right. Though in fairness, I actually started the thread in response to a debate I saw between Deepak and some scientists. It seemed most of the scientists time was spent trying to prove Deepak wrong, rather than to prove why and how science can bring people together and inspire us. Again - why not try to find common ground where we can - even if we arrive by different avenues?

Herbal Deity wrote: »

Personally, I think that many spiritualists just fail to understand how wondrous the natural world and what we can learn about it through science are. You seem to imply that you think a purely rational, scientific view of the world is very cold and calculated in your posts, which I really disagree with. I find the natural world so fascinating and amazing that I don't understand those who feel the need to believe in anything beyond it.

Again - I don't know many 'spiritualists' who aren't also in love with science - though they show their gratitude and reverence for it in different ways. I'm not at all delusional about how amazing our system of evolution is - I am not a creationist at all, but I am happy to give praise and gratitude to nature in spiritual ways. But I also don't think we 'have everything figured out', so I'm also grateful for the mysteries and can find equal amounts of wonder there. Many scientists seem content that we can explain a lot of things, but the stuff we can't explain, well, let's not talk about that and just say that the spiritual people are just crazy.

In the end, if we both arrive at a place of awe, wonder, gratitude, and a dedication to service, I don't care how we arrive there. I'm more than happy to sit across the table from an atheist, a scientist, or a fundamentalist - provided everyone is willing to listen, find common ground, and give up their own 'need to be right'. It is this last part I have a problem with - if we're working toward the same goal, what does it matter what I believe or you believe?

You can go 100% science as far as that has taken us. I'll take science and a willingness to believe there is something as yet unexplained in the mystery of experience and consciousness and interconnectedness. In the end, if we arrive at a better, more connected, more conscious and more ecstatic existence for all beings, that's enough for me.

Herbal Deity

TheBardWest wrote: »

I think you're probably right. Though in fairness, I actually started the thread in response to a debate I saw between Deepak and some scientists. It seemed most of the scientists time was spent trying to prove Deepak wrong, rather than to prove why and how science can bring people together and inspire us. Again - why not try to find common ground where we can - even if we arrive by different avenues?

That wasn't really the point of the debate though.

TheBardWest wrote: »

Many scientists seem content that we can explain a lot of things, but the stuff we can't explain, well, let's not talk about that and just say that the spiritual people are just crazy.

I don't know what you're basing this on at all.

A good scientist will humbly say "I don't know" if asked about something science has not yet explained.

It's important to understand that science isn't about accepting everyone's viewpoint, it's about attempting to rip hypotheses to shreds, in the hope that this can't be done and that, therefore, something has been discovered.

TheBardWest wrote: »

In the end, if we both arrive at a place of awe, wonder, gratitude, and a dedication to service, I don't care how we arrive there. I'm more than happy to sit across the table from an atheist, a scientist, or a fundamentalist - provided everyone is willing to listen, find common ground, and give up their own 'need to be right'. It is this last part I have a problem with - if we're working toward the same goal, what does it matter what I believe or you believe?

I don't think our goals are the same though, and I don't see what the common ground is.

I have a sense awe for the earth and the universe, but I most certainly do not have any gratitude to anything for it, nor do I have a dedication to service.

Do you not see any value in seeking objective truth?

TheBardWest wrote: »

You can go 100% science as far as that has taken us. I'll take science and a willingness to believe there is something as yet unexplained in the mystery of experience and consciousness and interconnectedness. In the end, if we arrive at a better, more connected, more conscious and more ecstatic existence for all beings, that's enough for me.

I don't really know what you're saying here.

Nevyn

Science often gives the how but rarely the why, and it's not like science is an absolute, sure atoms were considered the smallest thing in the universe

sensibleken

Thaedydal wrote: »

Science often gives the how but rarely the why, and it's not like science is an absolute, sure atoms were considered the smallest thing in the universe

well it gives the why but its probably not the same 'why' that you mean. it explains why planets move (laws of motion), why certain traits survive and why others do not (natural selection) etc.

why is a question that can be asked ad infinitum and most scientists will say i dont know when it moves from the realm of observable phenomena into the realm of philosophy.

as for the bit about atoms. yes knowledge increases over time. but when new evidence proves an old theory wrong then it is discarded. why a lot of scientists do not have much time for religion is that it makes assertions despite what has been observed, demonstrated and repeated. I mean who believes there a only 5 physical elements anymore (though many esoteric traditions, tarot etc still use it in a figurative sense)

TheBardWest

Herbal Deity wrote: »

I have a sense awe for the earth and the universe, but I most certainly do not have any gratitude to anything for it, nor do I have a dedication to service.

That's usually where I part ways with atheists, scientists, fundamentalists - really anyone. In my view, you're fooling yourself if you're unwilling to show humility for the fact that your entire presence on this planet is sustained by systems and life-forms that have been here far longer than you, that we did not evolve to be masters of all things but rather evolved by learning and understanding the systems in place and working within them. If that's the case then your existence is ego-centric, self-centered, and ultimately unsustainable.

Humans are pretty much the only thing in our known existence that are capable of acting in ways that are fundamentally counter-productive to their own existence and the existence of the rest of the planet. This egotistic sense of entitlement and mastery over nature will be the death of us and many other species.

If you're living your life for yourself alone (i.e. a life not of service), you're acting a way that fundamentally denies that your actions directly affect others. This is ultimately unsustainable.

Herbal Deity wrote: »

Do you not see any value in seeking objective truth?

Seeking objective truth is fine and dandy until such time as it falls into the hands of humans to be acted upon. Then we have the age-old quandary: at what point do we apply ethics and wisdom to the application of our knowledge? Knowledge is worthless unless applied. If applied without wisdom and ethics, I think most of the time we'd have been better off not knowing. (see: Hiroshima, Climate Change, Gulf Oil Spill, etc.)

Herbal Deity

Thaedydal wrote: »

Science often gives the how but rarely the why, and it's not like science is an absolute, sure atoms were considered the smallest thing in the universe

Of course science isn't absolute. Science is constantly changing, constantly refining the models by which we understand the universe.

What goes against the scientific philosophy, however, is to believe in things before they have been verified. Even if someone was shown to be correct about something which had not been verified yet, science would not consider them wise.

Of course, then we get into the subject of personal experience, which can't be proven or disproved, and the debate is best to stop there. (debates on the validity of personal experience can be interesting sometimes, but are usually just frustrating)

Also, I don't think gods or anything supernatural gives us the "why" either. Personally, I don't see how there can be any ultimate why. If we know we were created by gods, then there is the question of why those gods exist in the first place etc.

Herbal Deity

TheBardWest wrote: »

That's usually where I part ways with atheists, scientists, fundamentalists - really anyone. In my view, you're fooling yourself if you're unwilling to show humility for the fact that your entire presence on this planet is sustained by systems and life-forms that have been here far longer than you, that we did not evolve to be masters of all things but rather evolved by learning and understanding the systems in place and working within them. If that's the case then your existence is ego-centric, self-centered, and ultimately unsustainable.

Humans are pretty much the only thing in our known existence that are capable of acting in ways that are fundamentally counter-productive to their own existence and the existence of the rest of the planet. This egotistic sense of entitlement and mastery over nature will be the death of us and many other species.

If you're living your life for yourself alone (i.e. a life not of service), you're acting a way that fundamentally denies that your actions directly affect others. This is ultimately unsustainable.

So would you say that you are entertaining my viewpoint?

(As an aside, you're also jumping to conclusions far and beyond my actual views. I think that you are a little guilty of tunnel vision here.)

TheBardWest wrote: »

Seeking objective truth is fine and dandy until such time as it falls into the hands of humans to be acted upon. Then we have the age-old quandary: at what point do we apply ethics and wisdom to the application of our knowledge? Knowledge is worthless unless applied. If applied without wisdom and ethics, I think most of the time we'd have been better off not knowing. (see: Hiroshima, Climate Change, Gulf Oil Spill, etc.)

Are you saying that scientists generally pursue research without any ethical considerations?

I disagree with you when you say "most of the time we'd have been better off knowing". Yes there have been atrocities that would not have happened did the technology not exist and had the scientific research behind it not occurred, but it's unfair to blame science for this, when in reality it was politics that caused this misuse.

TheBardWest

Herbal Deity wrote: »

So would you say that you are entertaining my viewpoint?

Sure, I'll promise to be in wonder and awe of the universe, while simultaneously not being of service to anyone and spending no time reflecting on how great my life is...

...if you if you promise to say "thanks" for every creature/plant that provides you with nourishment at each meal, and promise to make an effort to make someone's life better today.

Deal?:D

Herbal Deity wrote: »

Are you saying that scientists generally pursue research without any ethical considerations?

Not at all. But I am saying that quite often the desire for knowledge overshadows ethical considerations, or at least consideration for the ramifications of the application of said knowledge further down the line.

Herbal Deity wrote: »

Yes there have been atrocities that would not have happened did the technology not exist and had the scientific research behind it not occurred, but it's unfair to blame science for this, when in reality it was politics that caused this misuse.

I disagree. I think many of the world's problems could be easily solved if everyone was willing to accept personal responsibility for the state of things rather than placing the blame on someone else and waiting for someone else to solve the problem. If a person doesn't take responsibility for the application (present and future) of their discoveries, then they aren't fully considering the wisdom/ethics side of the inquiry, IMHO.

For every scientific discovery made, how many of those are actively out there in the world working to ensure their discoveries are being used appropriately? How many are happy to have made a discovery, then wash their hands of any potential misuse?

As an example: I don't believe that I am personally the cause of sh*tty driving in Ireland, however I do take personal responsibility for making sure I don't perpetuate it and make every effort I can to be courteous and safe.

Herbal Deity

TheBardWest wrote: »

Sure, I'll promise to be in wonder and awe of the universe, while simultaneously not being of service to anyone and spending no time reflecting on how great my life is...

...if you if you promise to say "thanks" for every creature/plant that provides you with nourishment at each meal, and promise to make an effort to make someone's life better today.

Deal?:D

I don't think you're understanding my point.

You've jumped to a huge range of conclusions about me based on one sentence, one small thing I disagreed with you about. You come across as condescending and your tone very much implies that you are convinced that your world view is correct. Ironically, you exhibit absolutely no sense of entertaining my viewpoint, you didn't ask me any questions to attempt to understand my line of thought, but rather just gave me a lecture.

TheBardWest

Herbal Deity wrote: »

I don't think you're understanding my point.

You've jumped to a huge range of conclusions about me based on one sentence, one small thing I disagreed with you about. You come across as condescending and your tone very much implies that you are convinced that your world view is correct. Ironically, you exhibit absolutely no sense of entertaining my viewpoint, you didn't ask me any questions to attempt to understand my line of thought, but rather just gave me a lecture.

I don't know what kind of evidence you're looking for about entertaining your viewpoint. The fact that I continue to engage in debate should provide enough - but perhaps you're looking for something else?

And regarding not asking questions for clarification:

I've heard this more than once here on Boards, so I will ask the same question of you as I did previously: Am I to assume that when someone posts on here, they are not posting a full thought, or a complete position? If so, is it standard procedure to ask for clarification of every statement made - even if I think I understand the position you've provided? It seems that you'd make it my fault for misinterpreting your position because you haven't fully revealed it to me, even if I believe I've understood your statement.

On the net, I say what I mean and I say it as completely and succinctly as I can. I have time to formulate a thought, and I have time to edit before posting. If, then, my posted thought seems incomplete to someone else, I can't rightly blame them for making an assumption about me because I haven't posted a complete thought to begin with. Instead, I can then clarify my position by providing more information - not at their behest, but because in their responses I see that I haven't clearly defined my position.

Perhaps this view of forum behavior isn't common on Boards.ie - I don't know...but the more time I spend on here, to more I find folks treat it like an IM or informal chat vs. a place for thought-out debate...

I didn't ask you any questions because the statements you've made seem fairly straightforward:

Herbal Deity wrote: »

I have a sense awe for the earth and the universe, but I most certainly do not have any gratitude to anything for it, nor do I have a dedication to service.

Tell me, please, how I am supposed to interpret that? It doesn't leave much room for questioning.

Herbal Deity

I'd class this more as an informal discussion than a formal debate. This thread is about entertaining opposite viewpoints. Your angle was that science and spiritual belief will lead to the same fundamental goal. I stated what I did to show that they often don't. People have a wide range of priorities and goals in life based on a variety of things.

In any case:

I'm not grateful to anything because I don't believe we were created by an intelligent "higher power" and I don't know who or what I would be being grateful to.

I don't live a life of service because, again, I don't know who or what I would be serving.

How you inferred a lack of humility, self-centeredness, egocentricism, egotism and denial that what I do affects others I don't really know.

I consider myself a selfless, moral person. Personal experience and my natural sense of empathy inform my choices. I don't see where gratitude or service come into being a good person.

bluecatmorgana

Can I ask why you choose to be a moral person?

El_Duderino 09

Hey TheBardWest, this is an interesting topic. I am inclined to think the disagreement is also over the use of the same terms to mean different things.

Take the term 'belief'

TheBardWest wrote: »

Interesting - I'd never considered that. For myself, I can't separate my belief in the interconnectedness of all things and ethics. However fractional, every choice I make in this life has some small ripple effect, and thus I must consider my every action in the context of how it affects others. Belief or non-belief without ethics seems like a nice thought-experiment, though ultimately I can't see how it can possibly be of benefit in the world of the living, where every choice we make does actually affect the lives of other beings.

For example, when you say 'belief in the interconnectedness of all things', the atheist will want to know if this is something you know about, (are you gnostic regarding the claim). In other words do you have any evidence to demonstrate the claim. It raises an interesting point because, if 'the interconnectedness of all things' is part of nature then it is by definition natural and not supernatural. The scientists would be all about that kind of thing. I would love that kind of information to be demonstrable.

If on the other hand when you talk about 'belief' in 'the interconnectedness of all things', and mean that you believe it's a nice way to look at the universe and it helps people behave morally, then that's completely fair enough, but there is a difference between it being a nice way to look at things and it being true. I do think that would be a misuse of the term 'belief' though. Any belief that something is true is an unjustified belief unless you have evidence to demonstrate it. Not to say things can't be true without being demonstrable of course, just that the belief cant be justified without being demonstrable. That would be my line of inquiry as an atheist.

Just a further note on the use/misuse of terms, theory and hypothesis are very different and should really not be conflated. If you said to a rationalist that you have a nice idea or nice hypothesis that all things might be interconnected and if it could be demonstrated it might encourage people to behave more morally, I don't think any of them would argue.

Cheers.

TheBardWest

Hey Dude. Hid Dudeness...Duderino...

I can appreciate the logic arguments you put forth, but I'll be honest in saying that I don't really spend that much time debating the difference between truth/belief, that which is demonstrable/that which is assumed, etc. I know that these are typical arguments of atheism/agnosticism against various types of 'believers', but I'm not really out to convince anyone of my way of thinking, so it really isn't something I put a lot of time into. Your last sentence: "If you said to a rationalist that you have a nice idea or nice hypothesis that all things might be interconnected and if it could be demonstrated it might encourage people to behave more morally, I don't think any of them would argue." - yes, I suspect that's probably a good way of putting it, and I suspect it is more palatable for a rationalist or atheist. But honestly, I have better things to do with my life than to appease other people's need for disclaimers on my belief systems. They don't need my convincing any more than I need theirs, so I don't spend a lot of time getting into those little crevices of debate.

There's a neuroscientist named David Eagleman who proposed a concept called 'possibilanism' - http://www.possibilian.com/ - I really like his ideas, and I suspect if you asked me for a more 'scientifically acceptable explanation of my belief system' I'd probably use a description not far from his.

I don't really put much stock in that which is 'true' beyond my own, personal experience in any argument that revolves around spirituality and science. Science, with its current toolset and understandings, cannot fully speak to my spirituality. The interconnectedness of our biosphere, I believe, has been reinforced by modern science - but it doesn't fully speak to the various aspects of my spiritual beliefs such as love, consciousness, imagination, creativity, etc. Germ theory was just a theory before there were microscopes...So, too might the possibility exist that the things we can currently measure scientifically don't actually encompass all that we might 'intuit' or 'believe' - the things that make up our spiritual systems. And in my opinion, too few scientists are willing to take the risks to look into the mysteries...I suspect there isn't a lot of funding for such things, so we stick to the basics. ;-)

But as I said - I'm not really that great at arguing these points, nor do I have any real interest in converting atheists, agnostics, or others to my way of thinking.

Abidingly yours,

West

PS - I just wanted to quote one sentence Eagleman says at 14:05: "...to the extent that we can measure things now, we cannot find any evidence to support it." I like this kind of science. It doesn't make a person 'wrong', but simply says that as far as we can currently understand a thing, we can't state that it is 'true'. Very different than making someone 'wrong' for their belief system...

strobe

TheBardWest wrote: »

Cross-posted from spirituality, as I'd love to get a pagan perspective on this question as well...

Occasionally, as a form of self-torture, I like to check in on the A&A forum to see what folks are talking about, debating, and to see at which group they're poking fun today.

I have been known to lurk in the Spirituality and Paranormal forums for the same reasons. I guess we're just a couple of masochists lol.

A recent thread got me thinking: How often do we entertain the ideas of our most staunch opposition? To phrase it another way: how many skeptics, agnostics, and atheists make a practice of reading and studying the works they so vehemently oppose?

I know quite a bit about Christianity (which is the only thing I think I could be accused of 'vehemently opposing' on here. I have read the Bible cover to cover and ask questions in the Christianity forum quite a bit. The focus on Christianity is because it would be the most relevant religion here. I have researched Islam a bit, listened to Islamic apologists and theologists on youtube, read a couple of 'dummy's guide to Islam' type books. I've read up on other religions, Buddhism, Hinduism, Shota, Scientology, various pagan beliefs and also a bit on Intelligent Design, mediumship, faith healing, re-incarnation, crystal healing and other 'spiritual' beliefs and practices. It's not because I want to be able to 'vehemently oppose' them as such, I just find it interesting what people can believe in. That's not to say I don't disagree with most/all of the claims these things make. But I wouldn't ever claim something is rubbish off the bat. If someone claims to be able to provide some sort of evidence for something like one of the above I would definitely here them out and look at it with an open mind. While I'm sure not all atheists, agnostics and skeptics can claim the same, in my experience that tends to be true for the vast majority I have met. People often jump the gun and say I am closed minded or whatever when I say I don't believe in what they claim or believe in straight away on the mistaken assumption I have not heard their claims before many times, made by many different people and looked into them years ago already.

I find myself getting wound up in such arguments, because most of the time neither side leaves room for its opposite. The atheists think all religion and spirituality is hogwash, and all followers fools. The spiritualists think the atheists are all Cartesian quarterbacks, riding the self-righteous wave of scientific inquiry - "I think, therefore your position is wrong."

I don't think all religion and spirituality is hogwash, just any one I know of. For all I know there is a spiritual belief out there that would make perfect sense to me and I would find entirely convincing. I would seem likely to me that I would have heard about it somewhere before though. I certainly don't think all religious and spiritual followers are fools however. You don't have to be a fool to be wrong. If some spiritualists think the atheist are all anything then I would consider that pretty foolish though.

What is most frustrating to me is that the majority on both sides cannot find the value in the other position. Scientists don't see the very real value that the modern spiritual movement has brought in increasing compassion, fulfillment, and positive change in the world - instead choosing to focus on fundamentalist religion as representative of all 'woo-woo' faith.

There are religious and spiritual scientists. I'm not a scientist but if I can speak for one atheist, agnostic and skeptic; I have seen people who have taken an interest in spirituality and seen it appear to increase compassion, fulfillment, and positive change in them. I just believe in most cases it had less to do with the spiritual belief(s) they invested themselves in and more to do with the fact they wanted to effect an increase in compassion, fulfillment, and positive change in themselves. I believe a lot of the time the spiritual belief was not the cause.

I'd love to hear how and if you have entertained opposite positions in this way. Myself - I just added the book "The End of Faith" to my library queue. :-)

As above. I know you asked for a pagan perspective but you went on to mention if A&A's did the same so I hope you don't mind me answering.