Wall Street Journal Opinion Piece: If You're an Atheist, Lie to Your Kids

[pogi]

14 hours ago, Calm said:

So if I understand you correctly, if the atheists were right, all would be meaningless, but they are not, so life has meaning even for those who don’t believe it had. 
 

You are therefore in your view only arguing about the logical implication of their lack of belief in God. 
 

You start, I assume, constructing their position with 

1) there is no God...

From what I remember, from then on all other premises in that argument are your assumptions, “God creates meaning” for example, which means that is not an exploration  their position, but yours. 
 

So your commentary is about your worldview and not about the worldview of atheists, imo, and does not imo give insight into how atheists think, though there might be some who agree with you. 

There isn't a single "worldview of atheists".  Their views and philosophies are as diverse as theists.  It is not my intent or purpose to "give insight into how atheists think".  I think that would be naive and futile to attempt.  My purpose was to explain my position and to show that it is supported by many atheists/scientists.  I find their argument to be the most compelling, naturally. 

[pogi]

8 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

In general I think you are right, but there's a twist in there that favors the LDS view in my opinion, because our God is a Human who "constructs/organizes" reality - as we know it-  thereby making reality itself a Human creation

 As I have said before, I was attracted to the church, AS an atheist re-examining the ideas of theism, by the LDS idea of "organizing" reality including creating one's own meaning in life.   For me the whole - at that time as I saw it- parable of a Council of Human Gods, organizing reality was a perfect match with the Pragmatism of say, a Rorty or John Dewey's ideas of Social Constructivism and Social Constructionism

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_constructionism

So if reality is CREATED by humans socially, it seems to me that there is less necessity for the existence of a God to do it, for most, thereby putting the idea "closer to atheism" IF and ONLY IF you look at God as creating the world ex nihilo, and God being transcendent and the world immanent.

In other words, If you see God as organizing the world and thereby being PART of it, having a body, etc. (an "immanent" God) then you are closer to the LDS position- AND ironically the idea that humans organize the world as their brains organize what they know,  a position you are saying is closer to atheism.

If you see, on the other hand, God as a transcendent being without body parts or passions, who is totally OTHER compared to humans, who created the world ex nihilo and fills the universe you are closer to classical Christianity

But this question really shows the vast difference between the LDS view and that of classic Christianity.  Thank God for the Restoration. 

Some say God created man, others say man created God.  But of course that is a simplistic way of seeing it, and we LDS folks come down right in the middle of that believing both and neither of those choices.  

If reality is a human creation as you state (which I don't necessarily disagree with), then it is my position of faith that if you remove the God variable, there is no life, there is no human self, there is no agency, there is no ability to create anything, including meaning.  The part that distinguishes Latter-day Saints from atheists is that we believe that we are only human because of God.  God gave our existence life and the ability to create. 

Edited February 5, 2020 by pogi

[mfbukowski]

44 minutes ago, pogi said:

  The part that distinguishes Latter-day Saints from atheists is that we believe that we are only human because of God.  God gave our existence life and the ability to create. 

Misunderstanding?

I agree.

I was speaking of the LOGIC of the paradigm.  Reality as we know it is created by our human God.

Suppose God chose to have a whale body instead of a human body, with echolocation, the ability to sing to others at great distances and to travel great distances without navigation equipment, etc.

Dolphins and whales are also social beings not unlike us in many ways. They are very intelligent and their intelligence is quite alien to us.

So if our Father had a whale body then we would have whale bodies.

Would our perception of reality be different.?  Could it be said that our reality was entirely different? We would naturally and instantly perceive differences in temperature salinity of the water Etc and use it to be able to navigate. We would not need tools or houses because we were perfectly adapted to our environment as it was.

Could a super intelligent whale create meaning in its life?

The fact that reality as we know it is completely inseparable from our body and our senses is the logical point I was making.

Logically I see no reason why a super intelligent whale could not create meaning in their lives. 

Think of Star Trek et al.

So in these scenarios you have a different kind of God and there for a different reality.

You still have life you still have agency and meaning in your life, you still have the self.

I'm not sure why you think these are so connected to how we perceive reality 

[Meadowchik]

3 hours ago, smac97 said:

Well, I do.  

From Dictionary.com:

From Mirriam-Websters:

I'm operating on these.

Branches predicated on the affirmative rejection of the existence of God.

As I presently see it, "agnostic atheist" is a paradox.  Like "square circle" or "dry water."  But I'm reviewing this for myself.  Give me some time.

Consider this article:

I 'm not sure gradations of atheism like this work.  It seems to be too conclusory a term.  But Let me think on that.

See also here:

This does a somewhat better job.  I don't really care for the conflating of terms that are, in my view, better left differentiated.  However, I'll give this matter some further consideration.

I am accustomed to having disagreements with people about definitions of terms.  Some terms are fairly subjective, such that varied applications are appropriate.  This is particularly so in areas like religion and philosophy.  

I hope we can keep going.  You are actually helping me to modify my views a bit.

Thanks,

-Smac

Many years ago a friend shared this story. For background, she had fled from (non-Mormon) religion as it had been a large part of the context of familial abuse she had experienced. She had thought little of religion in her early adulthood. One day, however, she was knocked down by a bus. She was taken to the emergency, checked for injuries and treated, and having been lucky to not need more treatment was sent home with pills for the pain. She was poor and quite lonely and sore. Waves of pain gripped her in the darkness of her flat's stairwell, more stairs to go, and she cried out to God. She says it was an almost involuntary cry, but the depths of her soul seemed to call out to what those depths felt was there. It was then that she sought a relationship with God better than the one she was shown in her abusive upbringing, and found that in the Episcopal Church.

With that as a backdrop, I'll say that in the past two years or so I have experienced pain and anguish, but never once did my mind seek out some outer cosmic force. I just don't believe it is there. I do like ritual and hopeful mantras especially if I need special encouragement. I do admire the idea of a Perfect Omnicient Loving Creator. I do see the utility in a human being believing they are having a conversation with such a being. I just don't believe such a being is real. Hence the term atheist.

I also don't believe it it is possible to prove the existence of God or disprove the existence of all god concepts. I'm a sci-fi fan, and I can imagine some force making themselves known to a less powerful people. A highly advanced creature might be able to appear god-like to less advanced peoples, just by sheer superiority of technology, but I would not call that God. I also don't think it's possible to prove infinite power or eternal existence. Hence the term agnostic.

So those terms are the closest fit I can find up to now.

Thanks.

Edited February 5, 2020 by Meadowchik

[mfbukowski]

17 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

Many years ago a friend shared this story. For background, she had fled from (non-Mormon) religion as it had been a large part of the context of familial abuse she had experienced. She had thought little of religion in her early adulthood. One day, however, she was knocked down by a bus. She was taken to the emergency, checked for injuries and treated, and having been lucky to not need more treatment was sent home with pills for the pain. She was poor and quite lonely and sore. Waves of pain gripped her in the darkness of her flat's stairwell, more stairs to go, and she cried out to God. She says it was an almost involuntary cry, but the depths of her soul seemed to call out to what those depths felt was there. It was then that she sought a relationship with God better than the one she was shown in her abusive upbringing, and found that in the Episcopal Church.

With that as a backdrop, I'll say that in the past two years or so I have experienced pain and anguish, but never once did my mind seek out some outer cosmic force. I just don't believe it is there. I do like ritual and hopeful mantras especially if I need special encouragement. I do admire the idea of a Perfect Omnicient Loving Creator. I do see the utility in a human being believing they are having a conversation with such a being. I just don't believe such a being is real. Hence the term atheist.

I also don't believe it it is possible to prove the existence of God or disprove the existence of all god concepts. I'm a sci-fi fan, and I can imagine some force making themselves known to a less powerful people. A highly advanced creature might be able to appear god-like to less advanced peoples, just by sheer superiority of technology, but I would not call that God. I also don't think it's possible to prove infinite power or eternal existence. Hence the term agnostic.

So those terms are the closest fit I kind find up to now.

Thanks.

Test

[smac97]

6 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

Many years ago a friend shared this story. For background, she had fled from (non-Mormon) religion as it had been a large part of the context of familial abuse she had experienced. She had thought little of religion in her early adulthood. One day, however, she was knocked down by a bus. She was taken to the emergency, checked for injuries and treated, and having been lucky to not need more treatment was sent home with pills for the pain. She was poor and quite lonely and sore. Waves of pain gripped her in the darkness of her flat's stairwell, more stairs to go, and she cried out to God. She says it was an almost involuntary cry, but the depths of her soul seemed to call out to what those depths felt was there. It was then that she sought a relationship with God better than the one she was shown in her abusive upbringing, and found that in the Episcopal Church.

With that as a backdrop, I'll say that in the past two years or so I have experienced pain and anguish, but never once did my mind seek out some outer cosmic force. I just don't believe it is there. I do like ritual and hopeful mantras especially if I need special encouragement. I do admire the idea of a Perfect Omnicient Loving Creator. I do see the utility in a human being believing they are having a conversation with such a being. I just don't believe such a being is real. Hence the term atheist.

Okay.  I'm with you so far.

6 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

I also don't believe it it is possible to prove the existence of God

Or disprove the existence of God.  Would that be a fair statement as well?

6 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

or disprove the existence of all god concepts.

I'm not sure what this means.

6 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

I'm a sci-fi fan, and I can imagine some force making themselves known to a less powerful people.

Like Q from Star Trek: TNG?

Also, may I ask why you can imagine this theoretical being, but not "God" as is described in the doctrines of the Church?

6 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

A highly advanced creature might be able to appear god-like to less advanced peoples, just by sheer superiority of technology, but I would not call that God.

What if "technology" is not part of it?  Q was not Q because of "technology," but because he was essentially omnipotent.  

6 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

I also don't think it's possible to prove infinite power or eternal existence. Hence the term agnostic.

What about disproving "infinite power or eternal existence"?  Is that also impossible in your view?

6 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

So those terms are the closest fit I kind find up to now.

Thanks.

Let's take a look at the graphic I posted previously:

What are your thoughts about it?  Here are my thoughts:

1. I think "gnostic atheism" is not possible.  I don't think anyone can credibly say they know that God does not exist.

2. I think "moderate" and "weak" atheism are, as defined in this graphic, plausible and reasonable (though still, in the end, wrong).

3. I think "strong agnosticism" is not reasonable.  Unequivocally declaring that the existence of God is necessarily unknowable does not seem reasonable.

4. I think "moderate" and "weak" atheism are, as defined in this graphic, plausible and reasonable (though I disagree with their assessments of the evidence).

5. I think "weak" and "moderate" theism are where pretty much all theists are.

6. I think "strong theism" is a pretty rare thing, but nevertheless possible.  I think very few people have a knowledge of God (something that transcends faith).

Thanks,

-Smac

[mfbukowski]

 test 2 

Edited February 5, 2020 by mfbukowski

[pogi]

1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

The fact that reality as we know it is completely inseparable from our body and our senses is the logical point I was making.

I agree.

1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

Logically I see no reason why a super intelligent whale could not create meaning in their lives. 

Think of Star Trek et al.

So in these scenarios you have a different kind of God and there for a different reality.

You still have life you still have agency and meaning in your life, you still have the self.

I agree.  

1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

I'm not sure why you think these are so connected to how we perceive reality 

By "these" do you mean "life", "agency", "meaning", and "the self"?

If so, I am confused because you seem to agree that "reality as we know it is completely inseparable from our body and our senses." aka "the self".   It doesn't matter if it is a human self, an intelligent whale, or whatever alien life you want to imagine, it's existence is dependent upon a God creating it.  To pretend that any life/self capable of creating meaning can exist without God would require me to suspend my faith and understanding of the creation and adopt the faith that God doesn't exist.  If you remove the God variable, then there is no self to create meaning.  That is what we (I anyway) believe.  Many atheists agree with that position.  

Edited February 5, 2020 by pogi

[mfbukowski]

54 minutes ago, pogi said:

If you remove the God variable, then there is no self to create meaning.

So then God IS the self?

As I see it the problem is as usual semantics.

If God is the self and you remove God obviously you remove the idea of the self.

I can go with that. But it seems that that as more of a position for the atheists. You essentially pray to the "Self" or the best within your self. The conversation is essentially between you and your unconscious in that view.

I was trying to post a reply to @Meadowchik saying something similar but I kept getting a 403 error. Can't figure out what I said that made that happen.

Edited February 5, 2020 by mfbukowski

[Meadowchik]

51 minutes ago, pogi said:

I agree.

I agree.  

By "these" do you mean "life", "agency", "meaning", and "the self"?

If so, I am confused because you seem to agree that "reality as we know it is completely inseparable from our body and our senses." aka "the self".   It doesn't matter if it is a human self, an intelligent whale, or whatever alien life you want to imagine, it's existence is dependent upon a God creating it.  To pretend that any life/self capable of creating meaning can exist without God would require me to suspend my faith and understanding of the creation and adopt the faith that God doesn't exist.  If you remove the God variable, then there is no self to create meaning.  That is what we (I anyway) believe.  Many atheists agree with that position.  

It sounds to me that your conclusion that meaning depends upon God is a result of your belief in God, not independent of whether you believe in God or not. Is that right?

[Meadowchik]

7 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

So then God IS the self?

As I see it the problem is as usual semantics.

If God is the self and you remove God obviously you remove the idea of the self.

I can go with that. But it seems that that as more of a position for the atheists.

I was trying to post a reply to @Meadowchik saying something similar but I kept getting a 403 error. Can't figure out what I said that made that happen.

Weird!

[pogi]

5 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

So then God IS the self?

That's not what I am trying to say.  I am simply describing the basic beliefs of our faith. 

Quote

If you remove the God variable, then there is no self to create meaning.

By that I mean that God created the self.  That is what our faith teaches.  A self capable of creating anything can only exist as a creation of a God creator.  

[mfbukowski]

58 minutes ago, pogi said:

If so, I am confused because you seem to agree that "reality as we know it is completely inseparable from our body and our senses." aka "the self". 

Aha.

Got the problem I think

REALITY as we know it is inseparable from our senses. I think that is obvious.

Then comes your AKA. If I'm understanding you then I think we disagree on that.

What I think follows from your position is that reality as we know it  IS the self.

Reality = Self

That's what the AKA means to me.

So is that what you are saying?

 

[mfbukowski]

10 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

Weird!

I saved it I will post it without quoting you. My next post will be that attempt regardless of it looks like a reply or not.

Very weird can't figure it out.

[mfbukowski]

Try mindfulness meditation for the pain, and perhaps the god in you will speak.

 

You're looking for a guy with a long beard in the sky.

 

He's inside of you. He IS you. The conversation is with YOUR true and perfect Self.

 

But the meditation will help the pain. Just let it wash over you and observe it, as if it were a movie of a person in pain.

 

works for me

[pogi]

10 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

It sounds to me that your conclusion that meaning depends upon God is a result of your belief in God, not independent of whether you believe in God or not. Is that right?

My position is a matter of faith as much as much as the position that God does not exist is a matter of faith.  We build our paradigms based on our foundations of faith.  Those who don't have an opinion about God one way or another base their faith in science or philosophy, etc.  Because my position is based in faith, doesn't mean that it can't be argued from a position of science or philosophy.  It can. I find those arguments very compelling. 

[mfbukowski]

@Meadowchik

This time I went through. The above is the reply I was trying to get to you

[mfbukowski]

6 minutes ago, pogi said:

My position is a matter of faith as much as much as the position that God does not exist is a matter of faith.  We build our paradigms based on our foundations of faith.  Those who don't have an opinion about God one way or another base their faith in science or philosophy, etc.  Because my position is based in faith, doesn't mean that it can't be argued from a position of science or philosophy.  It can. I find those arguments very compelling. 

All paradigms are based on faith one way or the other. Even scientific paradigms are based on faith that the scientific method can reveal reality.

That itself is debatable.

Clearly science codified our PERCEPTIONS of what WE THINK is out there. But is what we perceive the same thing as reality?

That is the classic question of epistemology and the whole debate about if the appearance is reality.

Edited February 5, 2020 by mfbukowski

[Analytics]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

Okay.  I'm with you so far.

Or disprove the existence of God.  Would that be a fair statement as well?

I'm not sure what this means.

Like Q from Star Trek: TNG?

Also, may I ask why you can imagine this theoretical being, but not "God" as is described in the doctrines of the Church?

What if "technology" is not part of it?  Q was not Q because of "technology," but because he was essentially omnipotent.  

What about disproving "infinite power or eternal existence"?  Is that also impossible in your view?

Let's take a look at the graphic I posted previously:

What are your thoughts about it?  Here are my thoughts:

1. I think "gnostic atheism" is not possible.  I don't think anyone can credibly say they know that God does not exist.

It depends upon how you define "God." Most well-informed atheists don't really fit on the scale you propose here. Their statement of belief is more along the lines of, "I lack a positive belief in God, and don't even know what 'God' is referring to, other than a tribal codeword that makes people feel like they belong. So until 'God' is defined in a cogent way, I wouldn't know 'God' as 'God' even if I bumped into Him/Her/It on the street. It isn't that I know there are no gods, nor that I am "almost certain" there are no gods, nor that I cautiously doubt that there are gods. Rather, it is that I don't even understand the question." Note that this is different than all of the categories of agnosticism you propose, too. "I lack a positive belief in God" is in fact synonymous with "I don't believe in God."

As an analogy, do you believe that noongleberries exist? If the term is undefined and you have no idea what I'm talking about, the correct response is, "No, I don't. I have no idea what a noongleberry is, and I lack a positive belief in such a thing. Give me a cogent definition and some evidence, and I can then tell you whether I have a positive belief in their existence or nonexistence, as well as the extent to which I think the existence of noongleberries is knowable. But as it stands, I don't believe in noongleberries."

When approached this way, some theists will try to define God as that being which is everywhere and nowhere, bigger than the universe yet smaller than our hearts; as the infinitely loving, infinitely merciful creator and architect of the universe, who will send a large portion of His children to be exquisitely tortured in hell for all time and all eternity.

If 'God' is defined as that being, one can positively know 'God' doesn't exist in the same way one can positively know that there aren't any round squares.

Of course you probably conceive of 'God' very differently than that, but that just illustrates the point. You can't have an opinion other than not believing in God (i.e. lacking belief in God) until 'God' is cogently defined. Only after 'God' is cogently defined can a rational statement about the likelihood of His/Her/Its existence be made, as well as a rational statement about the extent one can know the truth of the matter.

Edited February 5, 2020 by Analytics

[Kenngo1969]

2 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Test

 

2 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

 test 2 

Well, we're here to be tested, Mark, so ... good job!

Sorry! 

Couldn't resist!

[Meadowchik]

29 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Try mindfulness meditation for the pain, and perhaps the god in you will speak.

 

You're looking for a guy with a long beard in the sky.

 

He's inside of you. He IS you. The conversation is with YOUR true and perfect Self.

 

But the meditation will help the pain. Just let it wash over you and observe it, as if it were a movie of a person in pain.

 

works for me

Thanks for the advice.

I used zoning out very effectively in childbirth, but the pain I speak of is heartbreak pain. And I think I have been able to address that too with a variety of approaches.

[pogi]

1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

All paradigms are based on faith one way or the other. Even scientific paradigms are based on faith that the scientific method can reveal reality.

That itself is debatable.

Clearly science codified our PERCEPTIONS of what WE THINK is out there. But is what we perceive the same thing as reality?

That is the classic question of epistemology and the whole debate about if the appearance is reality.

Exactly!

If you think about it, there is a major problem if you rely purely upon science because science can't be proven scientifically without it becoming very circular.  Using the scientific method to judge the scientific method is circular reasoning.  You have to accept the scientific method on faith or else it is circular. 

[Tacenda]

I've struggled with thoughts that are blasphemous for years. I struggle to see people suffer and IMO far worse sometimes then the Saviour. My mother who suffered with Alzheimer's for over 10 years. She would be in pain and not be able to express it. We would see signs and do all we could to take care of her. I've seen suffering in people that have had painful cancer treatments, I've seen murders committed on the news where the physical pain was in humane. And so many out there, not to leave out those people that suffer with hunger, those children with puffed out stomachs..the list goes on and on. Not to take away from the Saviour's pain, nor that he may have arose from death. I am angry with blessings such as lost keys being found, but prayers for a mother dying from Alzheimer's not answered out there, or insert all of your personal stories. 

I think these things cause a person to doubt God. Recently my feelings about the words in the Bible that could cause harm to people as well. How in the Bible some slavery was okay, and how women were treated in the Bible, and it was okay. Therefore the thoughts that these things aren't from God but of men using God to get their way is what helps me have a thread of holding onto a belief in God/Jesus. I look around and see the world and all of it's miracles, and that helps me too. 

"Nones" are gaining speed across the lands now, I think with the invention of the internet it has spread like a fire in the driest climate possible. I wonder if God enabled the internet and progress so that people can read the truth. And I believe those agnostics, atheists and theists can come together and hopefully create a world that will finally follow the first two commandments. 

[SeekingUnderstanding]

4 minutes ago, pogi said:

Exactly!

If you think about it, there is a major problem if you rely purely upon science because science can't be proven scientifically without it becoming very circular.  Using the scientific method to judge the scientific method is circular reasoning.  You have to accept the scientific method on faith or else it is circular. 

Except the problem is bigger than science. It includes everything outside our own conscious experience. We are all pulling ourselves up by our own bootstraps. 

[MiserereNobis]

9 minutes ago, pogi said:

Exactly!

If you think about it, there is a major problem if you rely purely upon science because science can't be proven scientifically without it becoming very circular.  Using the scientific method to judge the scientific method is circular reasoning.  You have to accept the scientific method on faith or else it is circular. 

You might like Feyerabend's "How to Defend Society Against Science." He is a maverick yet highly influential philosopher of science and here he points out ideas similar to yours. He shows flaws in giving science a prominent position based on the scientific method and based on the results science has achieved. And he does it in a very enjoyable anarchist style.