Ah, but that's a common misconception among all Catholics: they cannot even conceive a world outside their own, or without relation thereto. I like to tell people that if I don't know something, I'm not inclined to make something up, like a gaseous vertebrate who visits much unhappiness on his "flock" and then sits in judgment upon them. And the whole heaven/hell thing and much of Catholic theology is very post-Jesus. Even Pope Benedict openly admitted that Catholicism was a mixture of things, refined through Neoplatonic thought. So I guess Jesus could be improved upon by the Greeks, yet no one seems to have cottoned on to this implicaton yet.
I truly recommend reading "The Bible Unearthed" and "David and Solomon" by Finkelstein and Silberman to get a grasp on how religions get their start (and how little validity most of the stories have, based on current archaological investigation). And to believe that monotheism is an advancement is simply foolish: one god/one personality is infinitely inferior to polytheism which replicates the expanse of human behavior among deities (which is one of the reasons Catholics have a pantheon of saints: to make up for the cold dearth that is their god). But because few people get to engage in these discussions in any public format (Dawkins is not the best advocate for the atheist community), Christian theologians can make the most abominable and outrageously false claims without fear of contradiction. And Catholics don't even believe their own crap or find solace in it. I've never known a Buddhist who had such a problematic relationship with his belief system.
One day our descendants will look at us with the same incomprehension as we look at renaissance doctors attempting to make contact with angels. Surely, they didn't take it that seriously!
I whole heartedly agree that you are right that Richard Dawkins is atheist, not non-Catholic Deist. However, you missed the point of what the Cardinal said. Not that I agree with the Cardinal or Richard Dawkins, I'm just trying to point out a misperception. I believe, incorrectly or otherwise, that most atheists have a concept of God. They don't believe in it, but they have a concept of what God would be if God existed, or even just a concept of what a person claims God is. They aren't actually in a state of pure disbelief. They are in a state of denial of what they say God cannot possibly be. In this, the Cardinal is correct in saying he doesn't believe in it, either. Whatever an atheist would refuse to believe in (because it is so terrible that they just can't believe that it exists because that would be too horrible) the Cardinal wouldn't believe in either. He thinks God is wonderful. I personally think that atheists and most Catholics are both presumptive because they have no idea whether God exists or not. Catholics assume that God exists, and so have no idea whether God exists and never try to find out. Atheists also assume, but they assume God doesn't exist and almost never try to find out. A true atheist has tried to find God, and given up in frustration saying that no God that they have heard about have they been able to find. They may have many conceptions of God at this point, and they reject all of them so totally that they actually are more of an atheist than an average atheist, who only rejects one image. They are an atheist of experience. Personally, I was like the assuming atheist for many years, until I realized that I had never tried to find out what God was. I never questioned, and that is a basic ERROR. So I tried to find God. I'm not going to tell you whether I did or not, because if you really care, you'll go look for yourself.
Peace.
most atheists have a concept of God. They don't believe in it, but they have a concept of what God would be if God existed, or even just a concept of what a person claims God is. They aren't actually in a state of pure disbelief.
By the same logic, provided one has a concept of what the fairies at the bottom of the garden would be like if there were such things, one is not in a state of disbelief about fairies at the bottom of the garden.
A true atheist has tried to find God, and given up in frustration saying that no God that they have heard about have they been able to find.
I don't see why. An atheist is someone who doesn't believe in God or gods, for whatever reason. Some of those reasons are no doubt better than others; but I doubt if many beliefs or nonbeliefs are the result of having explored every possible alternative, for the simple reason that life is too short.
Whatever an atheist would refuse to believe in ... the Cardinal wouldn't believe in either. He thinks God is wonderful.
Refuse to believe in? You seem to assume here (along with many religious people) that belief is a matter of consent or refusal. I have never really understood this. One believes or disbelieves a particular thing because one finds the evidence for it satisfactory or unsatisfactory; surely one cannot will oneself to be satisfied.
because it is so terrible that they just can't believe that it exists because that would be too horrible
Here you do what the Cardinal does - you confuse dislike of Christian morals with disbelief in the Christian world view. They are two quite separate issues. I can't speak for "most atheists" myself, but I personally disbelieve in Christianity because I don't think it's true. That is not the same as disbelieving in something because one finds it personally unattractive. I don't like the Prime Minister, but that doesn't mean I disbelieve in his existence.
You completely missed the point of what I said, as I thought you would. I DO have a concept of faeries at the bottom of the garden that I DON'T believe in, but I haven't explored whether faeries exist and so I do not call myself and experience nonbeliever. I'm just not interested. As an athiest, however, who is posting their opinions in a blog, you are obviously interested in the subject. You are not an experienced nonbeliever, but you are still posting that you are correct and the cardinal is wrong. A concept that you believe does not exist does not disprove every other similarly named concept. That is what the Cardinal is trying to say to you. If you have a concept of God, and you say that it doesn't exist, then it is quite probable that it doesn't exist. HOWEVER, if you assume that what you call God is the same thing that everyone else calls God, you are, quite obviously, mistaken. Now, provided that there are MANY different concepts of God, and you only have one, how many does that leave that might be real? What are the ODDS that there is not a single person out there who has a somewhat correct concept of God? (I say somewhat because a concept is never exactly the same as the object. My concept of a chair does not equal the chair, because my concept is a thought and the chair is a physical object.) The previous question is, of course, easy for you to answer, because the answer is as automatic as brushing your teeth. "The chance of there not being a single person out there that is right about God existing is 100%, because my belief is superior and their belief is inferior." That is the crux of the problem between atheists and the religious: each side thinks that their side is the superior one. As I have previously stated, I have PLAYED BOTH SIDES. And as far as I'm concerned, they're BOTH WRONG. NEITHER has actually looked for FIRST-HAND EXPERIENCE. Atheists generally look for empirical data. Can I touch it? Can I see it? Can I smell it? Can I taste it? Can I even hear it? This is an error. Ask yourself this: can I hear other people's thoughts? Can I smell them? Can I taste them? Can I see or touch them? No? Then what evidence do you have that there is a single other thinking organism on the planet? NONE. But you find a serious individual who believes that they're the only person with a mind on the planet. I'm tempted to think that way sometimes, but it's generally accepted that mankind is a group of RATIONAL BEINGS. This may well be false(we may all be delusional), but currently I believe it to be true. Of course, there are indirect evidences that the brains of other people are active, but let's see you use those evidences to prove that they are having rational thoughts that are even similar to the way that you have rational thoughts. The religious go the other direction: You can't experience God at all, but it's there. There's no way that you'll ever find it. "Have faith," but certainly don't actually try to find God. This is also an error. What's wrong with looking for something that exists? The worst that could happen is that you can lose your faith, but religion says not even to QUESTION. That's just wrong. (Personally I think they say don't question anything because they don't want anyone thinking. That would undermine their authority.) The problem with both systems is that they both take things for granted. The religious say that you can't find God so you have to just believe. They don't point out that various people in history have had some kind of experience of God, or else God would not exist even as a concept. That said, the general athiest argument is that a person postulates God as an explanation for that which they cannot explain. This may be true, but that doesn't mean that every experience of God is based simply on the "inexplicable." Next comes the "physical" argument. There is no physical evidence for God, and we refuse to believe in something for which there is no PHYSICAL evidence. Of course, I have no physical evidence that other minds exist(not ever than the fact that I have thoughts is physical evidence), but that's beside the point. No one wants to believe that there are no other minds, because that would have TERRIBLE implications. So here we arrive at your closing argument, which is that disbelief is based on evidence that is not satisfactory and has nothing at all to do with personal feelings. If this were true, then every atheist, because the evidence that there are other minds is unsatisfactory, SHOULD believe that they are the only rational being on the planet, until proven otherwise. They CHOOSE not to believe this because it is LUDICROUS. How could the world run without a single mind in every being? Random collisions of particles that maintain a working order? What does that mean about me, am I actually rational, or am I an automaton that is just capable of believing it is rational? Either go full scientific, which I did in the past (I was so despaired of the pointlessness of everything that I nearly committed suicide) or admit that there is no evidence to support some things and that you just believe in those things because you want to. Also, you're point about the Prime Minister is inherently flawed. The Prime Minister has physical existence. Not liking him has nothing to do with his existence. However, an idea or concept that you don't like, such as the above statement about other people not having a mind, is a conceptual thing, similar in substance to a person's idea of God. Everyone has an idea of God. Everyone also has the idea that there are people with minds out there. They can reject either of them. What reason do you have NOT to reject the idea that there are no other minds out there? One and one only: "I don't want to believe that." Similarly, you don't want to believe in God. Why? There are many reasons, but I BELIEVE that the main reason is this: "I want to be one of the few people in the world who is right about something that 98% of the world is wrong about, because then I am superior to 98% of the world." Even if you personally don't think this, my experience with atheism is that it's followers tend to think themselves vastly superior to the rest of the world. Of course, the same can be said about any religion (and yes, I'm saying that atheism is a religion. Belief in no God is still a belief about God, and religion is a set of beliefs about God.) Also, I am not confusing dislike of Christian morals with disbelief in the Christian world view. I know exactly what the difference between the two is. Dislike of Christian morals is what I have. Christianity, like most other religions, is mostly a system that people use to control other people. I don't agree with that. On the other hand, disbelief in the Christian world view is what you have. You don't believe that the God of Christianity is real. However, do you also have disbelief in every world view that includes God, or just the one that the Christians have? The knee jerk answer is "I have a disbelief in every world view that includes God." That is an assumption. There may be a worldview that includes something which you believe in and calls it God. Just because you don't believe in what one person says is God, doesn't mean that you don't believe in what God really is. It also doesn't mean that you DO believe in what God really is, but how will you know unless you look? Of course, the main problem with looking is that God is not reportable. It is not something that can be spread through word of mouth, or in a document. Religion says it is, but that is a common error. When you think about it, though, does that mean that it doesn't exist? Or are there other things like that? Feelings. Beauty. Ideals. Things we are all familiar with. We all know the story about a person trying to share their feelings with an android. The android doesn't understand feelings. Nor beauty, nor ideals such as freedom, or love. Now you tell me there is physical data that proves beauty, or freedom, or love. Everyone knows what they are, but no one can explain them to someone that hasn't experienced them. Now you may say, "Well I don't believe in any of them either." And, as an athiest, you have no empirical data that feelings are based on anything more than chemical reactions. However, if that is true, this means that none of your feelings are justified. They are all just chemical reactions. And your thoughts are the same way. A thought is a random chemical-electrical reaction that just happened because of the current layout of your brain and the surrounding environment. You have no worth whatsoever, and whatever you do has no worth, because it was just random chemical firings and not anything that you did. Everything that you do is a complete accident. This means that no one is at fault for what they do, so if someone murdered your family, you could not hold them liable. They had no control over it. Furthermore, you have no control over yourself. You are completely at the mercy of your brain. You are not directing thought, you just believe (or don't believe) that you are directing thought. You are absolutely, 100%, completely powerless in every way. You are at the mercy of some chemicals. Do you really believe that? If you do, more power to you, you are the quintessential disbeliever. But personally, I don't think that you believe this way. If you don't believe the scientific view I have layed out, then what is your reason for disbelieving in God? If you believe in other things that have no basis in physical reality, then what is your argument for there being no God?
"The chance of there not being a single person out there that is right about God existing is 100%, because my belief is superior and their belief is inferior."
Of course I think my belief is superior to the beliefs of those who disagree with me, just as those who disagree with me think exactly the reverse. That is what is known as a difference of opinion. I am quite unable to calculate the chances of my being right and their being wrong, apart from my own judgement of the evidence at hand. On that basis, and on the basis of my own psychological quirks, my opinion is that there are no gods.
NEITHER (atheists nor the religious) has actually looked for FIRST-HAND EXPERIENCE. Atheists generally look for empirical data. Can I touch it? Can I see it? Can I smell it? Can I taste it? Can I even hear it?
Touch, sight, smell, taste and hearing are first-hand experience, are they not? Of course I can't detect other people's thoughts directly, but I can detect their words, facial expressions and gestures, and form a working hypothesis which can be modified as and when new evidence comes along.
the general athiest argument is that a person postulates God as an explanation for that which they cannot explain
The general atheist argument is that on present evidence there are no gods. The motives of either side are a matter for anthropologists, psychologists, moralists and comedians.
No one wants to believe that there are no other minds, because that would have TERRIBLE implications. ... What reason do you have NOT to reject the idea that there are no other minds out there? One and one only: "I don't want to believe that."
But that is not the only, or even the main reason for disbelieving in solipsism. There are plenty of beliefs that have terrible implications, but that doesn't mean we shy away from them. People disbelieve in solipsism because their senses (first-hand experience) tell them that there is a world, there are other living things, and some of these living things are pretty much like themselves. This is not, of course, 100% proof, and doubtless there can never be any such thing; but it does mean that the balance of probability tilts rather strongly in favour of believing in the world rather than in solipsism.
There may be a worldview that includes something which you believe in and calls it God.
What of it? That's somebody else's worldview, not mine.
God is not reportable. It is not something that can be spread through word of mouth, or in a document. Religion says it is, but that is a common error
On the contrary, many religions (including the Cardinal's) emphasise the impenetrable mystery of God a good deal. What they spread by word of mouth or in documents is religious dogma, which is not the same thing.
as an athiest, you have no empirical data that feelings are based on anything more than chemical reactions. However, if that is true, this means that none of your feelings are justified.
As an atheist, I disbelieve in gods. Whatever the basis of my feelings, I still feel them, and believe that other people's feelings are basically similar to my own (though I can't prove it, any more than I can prove the contrary). But the fact (or probability, if you prefer) that people have feelings does not imply anything about gods. Nor does it follow that people's emotions and actions are necessarily random, simply because they have a physio-chemical basis rather than a supernatural one. Why should it?
You have no worth whatsoever, and whatever you do has no worth, because it was just random chemical firings and not anything that you did. Everything that you do is a complete accident. ... the scientific view
"Worth" is a subjective term, not a scientific one; there is no scientific basis for calculating objective worth, assuming there is such a thing as objective worth (which I doubt), and no scientist worth the name would claim otherwise. The chemical firings in the brain are obviously not random, since they produce the systematic phenomena with which we are all familiar - emotions, personality and the like (assuming we all exist to begin with), and many of the things people do are not accidental. But the presence of something science cannot fully explain is not an argument for either the wrongness of science or the existence of God.
Philip, you put me in mind of Paul of Tarsus.
I can certainly damn a scene with the best of them.
Commenting by HaloScan
