4 ms·

> The fact that people overwhelmingly inherit their beliefs should be a serious problem to any religious person, and I have no good rationalization for it. and

• nate_meurer 10y ago
  AMA, LOL, no problem. Sorry for the late reply; I'm traveling a lot but still engaged. Complexity implies intent. The funny thing is that everyone really does agree with this, except when the discussion is ontic in nature. To take an example from Carl Sagan (yes, I know), if we were to detect a radio signal from deep space that counts prime numbers, then there would 100% unanimous agreement that it's of intelligent origin. I'm puzzled as to why folks are willing to extend assumption of intelligence only to our "peers" in the universe (i.e. aliens), but not to any kind of higher creative force responsible for the very existence of both us and those peers. In other words, absolutely everyone agrees that a machine that transmits prime numbers must have an intelligent designer, and yet some folks say that a FAR more complex machine (such as evolution, or your conscious brain) must not. > I'm at a loss. I have no alternatives (beyond nature, or what's observed, etc) Beyond nature? Where did this observable nature come from? Some people dismiss that question as though "nature" is just like arithmetic; one thing naturally leads to another, and here we are! That's insane to me. Why for example are the universe's fundamental physical constants set at the exact values needed to allow "one thing to lead to another"? At this point, a fashionable atheist will inevitably invoke the multiverse and some flavor of the anthropic principle, which naturally leads me back around to same kind of question: where did the fucking multiverse come from? Ultimately there are only two possible answers; either the universe was somehow "intended", or it's turtles all the way down. > how do you reconcile that with the observation that plenty of other people see the same levels of complexity but come to a different conclusion? My rather patronizing explanation is that the emotional baggage that often burdens notions of theology makes fertile ground for cognitive disconnect (on both sides of course). I suspect you disagree with regard to your reasoning. :) What am I missing? > ...this is not something you think is possible for anyone (or perhaps just 'reasonable for a thoughtful person') to think -- would that be a fair statement? No, I know you believe that, and I don't judge it. My rather too subtle and maybe not useful point is that whatever roles God plays in a religious person's life, those roles must necessarily be played by yourself (or whatever fellow humans you choose). Even if you have no use for those roles, that judgment and the choice to leave them unattended are yours alone; there is no "higher power" for you to appeal to that isn't made of flesh and blood. I understand why atheists dislike this whole notion, and it's not a hill I'll die defending. > I've never considered that theists might assume that atheists are plagued by some kind of sensation - doubt, fear, a feeling of absence or missing something profoundly important - because of this. In fact this assumption is central to many Christians' belief system. I find it to be terribly presumptuous and judgmental, but it's ubiquitous. The idea is that non-believers must be defiant, otherwise how is their punishment justified? Same argument goes for the need for forgiveness or redemption. I feel a need for forgiveness from my creator deeply and innately, but I have no idea how I got there, and there's little chance of ever evangelizing someone else into the same conviction. It's not a matter of self esteem; for me it's disappointment at so often falling short of the purposes for which I was created. > Had you been born into a time & culture that worshipped, say, Zeus, what belief system do you think you would have had as an adult? That's an excellent question that totally summarizes your point in the prior paragraphs. If my strong tendencies in my current context are any indication, I'd like to believe that I'd still be interested in being a good person, and that the criteria for doing so were such by the authority of a greater being that created me, and that this would secure my redemption just as it does today. BTW this is a very biblical idea, supported in Jesus' own words (can cite and discuss if you want). > You say that you shopped around Well, that was a bit tongue-in-cheek, and it should probably be taken just as casually as I put it. I have been exposed to the ideas of all of the major faith systems (There aren't really 4000 religions; that figure counts all of the minor variations of a very limited number of major religions). I've been struggling with this stuff since I was 10 years old --my first existential crisis, the first of many. But I ain't no religious scholar, and as dragonwriter pointed on elsewhere in this discussion thread, I remain greatly ignorant of important details. > I don't understand the '[Christianity is the only] religion that puts no burden on me to earn my way' bit either -- can you explain that differently please? Let me think about how to phrase it differently than in paragraph surrounding that bit.