God, Believing in the Unproven … But Does It Help to Be Happy? – A #381

Some people rely on religion, in different gods, depending on their culture they will adore a specific god. They believe this god will help them throughout their lives through favors and fantastic miracles, forgiveness for their sins, no matter how horrific the crime is “god is powerful and loving enough to forgive their sins” – they, the believers, say.

 

These people are theists. The opposite to theism is atheism: the lack of faith in any god. But in order to consider atheism as a valid contradictory position, there has to exist theism first: the belief in a god. They are both on the same coin, just opposites.

God, Believing in the Unproven ... But Does It Help to Be Happy? - A #381 1

 

How can anyone oppose the non-existent, and debate it fervently on the Internet? It is a waste of time. The radical and fanatical religious will never try to understand, they will never have an open mind. 

 

ABOUT AGNOSTICISM:

 

In my experience agnosticism is largely misunderstood and often misused.  And I especially do not like the modern misappropriation of ‘agnostic has to do with knowledge and atheist has to do with belief”, for one, we lack an unambiguous philosophy of Knowledge (see The Analysis of Knowledge) – two, in practice almost nobody except a few nut cases claim to be absolutely 100% certain (theist or atheists)

 

Really? One hundred percent certain? OK, here I go.

 

Let’s look at what agnosticism is.

The term Agnosticism arose in the days when atheists were loudly making the strong claim that god doesn’t exist and it was a rejection of that certainty. How can anyone reject the non-existing?!

But smart atheists today largely do not make this claim, so times have changed.  Agnosticism was founded on two principles – parsimonious epistemology (I don’t believe things by default and I prefer beliefs that don’t add unnecessary elements) and empiricism (I believe things when there is measurable evidence to support the claim). Today we basically call this ‘skepticism’.

To sum it up, Agnosticism is merely the position that you shouldn’t hold a position that isn’t demonstrable with sufficient evidence.  In the exact words of Thomas Huxley, who coined the term Agnosticism:

 

Agnosticism, in fact, is not a creed, but a method, the essence of which lies in the rigorous application of a single principle. That principle is of great antiquity; it is as old as Socrates; as old as the writer who said, “Try all things, hold fast by that which is good” it is the foundation of the Reformation, which simply illustrated the axiom that every man should be able to give a reason for the faith that is in him; it is the great principle of Descartes; it is the fundamental axiom of modern science. Positively the principle may be expressed: In matters of the intellect, follow your reason as far as it will take you, without regard to any other consideration. And negatively: In matters of the intellect do not pretend that conclusions are certain which are not demonstrated or demonstrable. That I take to be the agnostic faith, which if a man keep whole and undefiled, he shall not be ashamed to look the universe in the face, whatever the future may have in store for him.

 

God, Believing in the Unproven ... But Does It Help to Be Happy? - A #381 2

 

Let Me Explain To You My Reasoning In The -how I call it:

“THE FALSE COIN”

 

Note that NOTHING in this definition implies that all possibilities are considered all ‘equally likely’, nor does it have anything to do with looking at probabilities.

 

Putting this into practical terms, let’s say I’ve tossed a coin so we know it is either Heads or Tails but neither of us have looked at the result, right?

Hopefully we can both agree that given this situation, and lacking sufficient evidence otherwise, that both claims, that it IS Heads or that it IS Tails, are equally unsupportable?

In this situation it is the ‘Theist’ who claims they believe the coin is Heads.  They can give you a load of reasons and rationalizations about WHY they believe it is Heads but ultimately they take it as a matter of ‘faith’.

The modern Atheist says they don’t believe the Theist’s claim. They also largely do not assert that it is Tails (though a few still do).  This is a correct statement BUT it doesn’t really say WHY you don’t believe.  To reject a claim that hasn’t met a reasonable burden of proof is a logically sound position so long as you don’t assert the opposite – but this may or may not be the case.  The term ‘atheist’ alone doesn’t tell us about anything other than the rejection of the claim.

 

The Agnostic says they neither believe it is Heads nor believe that it is Tails because they lack evidence sufficient to make either claim.  This is also a logical sound position.  To me, the difference is that Agnosticism says a little bit more about WHY you reject the claim and is more clear that you aren’t asserting the opposite.

 

Both can have a good basis for their position and both are largely compatible.

 

If you are an Agnostic and you don’t accept the theistic claims then you are, by common usage an Atheist – even if you reject the label (for whatever reasons).

 

I think this is best summed up by Bertrand Russell in “Am I An Atheist Or An Agnostic?”

 

Here there comes a practical question which has often troubled me. Whenever I go into a foreign country or a prison or any similar place they always ask me what is my religion.

 

I never know whether I should say “Agnostic” or whether I should say “Atheist”. It is a very difficult question and I daresay that some of you have been troubled by it. As a philosopher, if I were speaking to a purely philosophic audience I should say that I ought to describe myself as an Agnostic, because I do not think that there is a conclusive argument by which one prove that there is not a God.

 

God, Believing in the Unproven ... But Does It Help to Be Happy? - A #381 3

 

On the other hand, if I am to convey the right impression to the ordinary man in the street I think I ought to say that I am an Atheist, because when I say that I cannot prove that there is not a God, I ought to add equally that I cannot prove that there are not the Homeric gods.

 

None of us would seriously consider the possibility that all the gods of homer really exist, and yet if you were to set to work to give a logical demonstration that Zeus, Hera, Poseidon, and the rest of them did not exist you would find it an awful job. You could not get such proof.

 

Therefore, in regard to the Olympic gods, speaking to a purely philosophical audience, I would say that I am an Agnostic. But speaking popularly, I think that all of us would say in regard to those gods that we were Atheists. In regard to the Christian God, I should, I think, take exactly the same line.

 

So to me, (Huxley) Agnosticism is the stronger version of the claim because it asserts two positive beliefs upon which the position is based while Atheism, at best, tells us your position on the God question and for strong Atheism it is actually a logically untenable position (although, if the Hawking-Hartle unbounded origin model can be demonstrated I would say that all First Cause ‘gods’ could be rejected).

 

On the other hand – I do not find the Theist position to be logically sound at all.  There are tens of thousands of different theistic beliefs, many of which are directly contradictory, and they are ALL accepted on the same ‘faith-based’ methodology – which means that this methodology is completely useless.  It produces an endless stream of often unintelligible beliefs with no mechanism by which we can discern the truth of any of them.

 

I also think that the combination of all the known human cognitive flaws better accounts for the data (including ‘personal experience’).  I find no indication in all of that noise that it points to anything other than flawed human cognition (confirmation biases, false memories, wishful thinking, etc).

 

god religion agnostic

 

Summary:

 

If it helps you to believe in God (whatever your god is) to make yourself happy and more hopeful, so be it.

 

I like Huxley Agnosticism – Skepticism.
I don’t have a problem with ‘Atheism’ at all.
Theism isn’t logically tenable.

 

I like the terms: Free thought, skepticism, humanitarianism. After all, all of them are atheists – Agnostic Atheists. 

FOLLOW ME ON INSTAGRAM

[the_ad_placement id=”adsense-in-feed”]

Myth of the Day: 3 Heartbreaking Jesus Virgins Saints Crying Blood Tears

[the_ad_placement id=”into-the-content”]

MYTH:

The Catholic church and some of its followers believe in the myth that some saints and virgins have cried blood. They make statues of them with blood tears rolling down the faces made of ceramic or plaster.

Myth of the day

Many catholics report sightings of weeping madonnas, from Ireland to Croatia, but the only one recognised by the Church is a statue of the Virgin Mary in the town of Siracusa in Sicily. It began weeping in 1953, so they say.

FACT:

There is actually a symptom known as  haemolacria, which is a rare condition that causes a person to produce tears that are partially composed of blood. The condition has garnered significant attention in the medical community and media recently.

Myth of the Day: 3 Heartbreaking Jesus Virgins Saints Crying Blood Tears 4

Haemolacria is a symptom of multiple diseases involving the conjunctiva and lacrimal system.

These entities can range from vascular malformations and tumors to infectious or inflammatory conditions and has even been reported in the literature as a presenting finding in scleral buckle infection.

SUBSCRIBE TO DR MARTHA

Enter your email address:

Delivered by FeedBurner

[the_ad_placement id=”into-the-content”]

Excellent Article It will Blow Your Mind Suicide Through the Cracks: The one the system missed — takingthemaskoff

Excellent Article It will Blow Your Mind Suicide Through the Cracks: The one the system missed — takingthemaskoff 5

I survived a suicide attempt. However my friend, he did not. This is what suicide looks like. This is him after hanging himself, right before he died. February 25th 2010. The difference between us is nothing, except our resources—--Malcolm Gladwell

By Cortland Pfeffer

There is enormous stigma associated with the word “suicide.” People cringe when you even mention the word and immediately change the subject. If we are afraid to talk about it, how on earth do we think we are going to prevent it? According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, suicide is the tenth leading cause of death in the United States, taking more than 40,000 per year. At this rate, in one decade, we lose 400,000 people to suicide – equivalent to the entire population of Oakland, California.

When someone is suicidal, the typical reaction is “don’t talk like that!” or “that’s not even funny.” Or it turns to simplifying the situation such as, “other people have it worse than you,” or “just snap out of it, things will get better.” Nobody wants to “deal with it” and most people will adamantly refuse to even discuss it. You may even be considered selfish for having those thoughts and leaving close ones behind.

But when suicide does occur, the response is quite the opposite. Suddenly, everyone is there and feels terrible. They did not see the signs, never saw it coming, and can only talk about the amazing qualities of the deceased. It even goes as far as to hear people saying, “why didn’t they just reach out?”

If anyone has ever lost someone to suicide, they know the tremendous amount of pain associated. There may not be a worse feeling in the world. There are so many unanswered questions, “what ifs”, and “Should haves”. In the end, nobody commits suicide because they want to die, they commit suicide because they want the pain to go away.

I was suicidal, Joe committed suicide.

Part of the reason Joe is dead is because of the stigma associated with suicide along with the professionals he worked with that neglected and labeled him. He did not get treated as he deserved.

Joe didn’t have money, my family did. He went to jail and stayed long-term, I went to jail and got bailed out. He stayed in jail, while I was offered treatment instead. His crimes were all non-violent drug possession charges, mine were DUI, assault, and disorderly.

The difference? I had money and resources. Based on the information in the paragraph above, is there any other reason for the difference in penalties?

Joe and I were also born with the same temperament, which is more in tune with others emotions and greater sensitivity. This is neither good nor bad, just the way we were born. This is not to say that being emotional is guaranteed to create issues.

To be on this far end of the spectrum, along with consistently being denied needed support, along with the unhealthy environment is a formula for addiction. They refer to this as the biopsychosocial model. The biology is the genetics, the psychological refers to the emotional neglect and trauma, and the sociological refers to growing up in a broken home, overpopulated schools with minimal resources, poverty, and lack of positive role models.

via Suicide Through the Cracks: The one the system missed — takingthemaskoff