From: ttobler@unislc.uucp (Trent Tobler)
Subject: Re: Alt.Atheism FAQ: Atheist Resources
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL5
Organization: Unisys Corporation SLC
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 18:27:02 GMT

Ciaran O'Donnell (ciaran@ulysse.enst.fr) wrote:
: 
: 
: These remarks about faith and free choice are made from the religious
: point of view.

 [initional discusion on Faith deleted]


: Faith and positive belief
: --------------------------
: 
: I will now try to explain the difference between faith and simple belief,
: from my point of view as a religious believer.
: 
: Religious belief is not a belief just like any other. For example, when
: we believe that it is going to rain tomorrow we are expressing an opinion.
: This opinion, in a sense, does not really matter -- if the sun shines tomorrow,
: we are not going to be sad.

Yes, religious belief is usually deeply tied to the emotions, and therefore
has two properties that may not be desirable to have.  One is that attacks
made on the beliefs are often taken as attacks on the person, and therefore
criticing religious beliefs often results in hurt feelings and defensive
statements.  The second is that emotions often have little bearing on reality,
one can be angry at someone for something they did not do, love someone who
does not deserve this love, be happy because they do not know that things
are heading for the worse, sad, even if this sadness is in the midst of
very promising things..  this tie to emotions lends, to the person having
the religious beliefs, the matter of actualy reality being irrelivent in the
choice of the beliefs, and it degenerates into what they have been taught
(tied to stubborness), what they wish to be (tied to happiness), what they
fear may or may not be true (tied to fear/unhappines).  Having a 'personal'
experience does not really help matters in many situations.  In the analogy
you give, critics on art often disagree about many paintings as to their
worth and inherent 'artness'.

: 
: I am now again obliged to use analogy to make my understanding of what
: religious faith is clear.
: 
: Imagine that we believe that we are loved -- that somebody else, a man
: or a woman, loves us. This belief can be a permanent one (as in marriage)
: or it can be something we "discover" (love by a stranger).
: 
: This kind of positive belief can fill us with joy, and indeed change our
: lives. It is quite different from indifference ("why would anyone love me").
: This is again different from a strong, negative opinion
: ("nobody would love me").

No, not really different, just tied to different emotions.

: 
: The necessity of true faith
: ---------------------------
: 
: The point I am making is that the kind of beliefs that are most positive for
: us are positive ones.

This is circular.  This is like saying all red ties are the red ones.

: Nonetheless, not all positive beliefs are positive ones.

Before we go much further... define what you mean by 'positive'.  Are you
saying that 'positive beliefs' are things that are tied to good emotions.
What does it mean for something to be 'positive for a person'?

: For example, love can be destructive. This would imply that the beliefs that
: are most positive for us are exactly the true, positive ones.

Again, you are using 'positive' in a way that hasn't really been defined yet.
Many 'negative' things can also make a person better, for example, fear
can prevent you from doing dangerous things, anger can make you present
matters and clear them up before they start affecting your sanity, etc.

: It is difficult to imagine a more positive belief that an infinite
: God loves us, and loves us infinitely.

How about that the little invisible blue unicorns that dance on your
walls love you, and love you infinitely?  Is not this belief in an
intangible, unprovable being(s) equivilant?

: However, for such a belief to be
: acceptable, it must be both truly positive (we must truly believe it, what
: we believe must have nothing negative in it) and true.

First, why does a belief have to be acceptable, and second, why does it
have to be 'truly positive' and true to be acceptable?

: 
: Atheism is not based on faith
: -----------------------------
: 
: The atheist position is that belief in God is either, not true, or not truly
: positive.

How can a belief in God be not true?  A belief is not really a statement of
truthity or falsity, it is the perceptions of some person about reality.  These
perceptsion are subjective, and certainly 'true' as far as the belief existing.

'The atheist position (belief) is that the statement "God exists" is not true,
or that belief in the truthity of this statement is not positive.' would
perhaps be a better statement to comment on.

: There is a qualitative difference between this kind of rejectal
: and the positive belief of faith (including, even false belief).

This again did not parse.  Let me restate, and comment, and if I get it wrong,
correct me.

"There is a qualitative difference between a positive belief, and the atheist
position."

First of all, please explain why there is a qualitative difference.  You still
have not demonstrated that 'negative belief' can not be "truly positive".

(Again, I am hoping to get definitions of 'positive belief', etc.)

: At this point therefore, religious belief and atheistic scepticism or strong
: atheism myst be considered different and atheism cannot be considered to
: be a religion. I would argue that, practically speaking atheists "adopt" 
: a religion, but that is another matter.

Depends on how you are defining faith... if it is an emotional tie to some
belief, then there certainly exist atheists who have faith... 

: Incidentally, this notion that an atheistic belief is qualitatively different
: from a religious belief is suggested by the FAQ.

Mainly because there are some (many?) atheists base the belief or lack
thereof concerning gods on things that hopefully are perceivable by all
other beings.  A religious belief may not be as universal.

: Free choice
: -----------
: 
: A distinction must be made between belief and knowledge. We do not need
: to believe in anything we know, because we know it. For example, a doctor
: does not need to belief that someone with appendicitis needs an operation,
: because he knows it from his education. A patient who has never heard about
: appendicitis is obliged to believe the doctor.

The difference between belief and 'knowledge' is the amount of evidence
supporting the specific statement.   "The patient is experiencing lower
abdominal pain, localized to the right side, and X-Rays indicate no
kidney stones.  Therefore, they must have appendicitis" is supported by
years and years of evidence.  One can state much more strongly with
'knowledge' than one can with 'belief' that something is true.

: If we do not know something, we can choose different opinions about the truth,
: but only one opinion is the true opinion. However it is not possible to
: choose one's opinion once we know the truth.

Now you are mixing 'knowledge' (lower-case, a subjective, based on perceptions)
with 'KNOWLEDGE' (the objective, not based on perceptions).  How can you have
the latter.  You do realize that the 'knowledge' that a patient has
appendicitis is occationally incorrect?  I posit that as humans, we are
inherently tied to our perceptions, and that KNOWLEDGE is not possible.
It requires something greater (or maybe something simpler) than conciousness
can hold.  Therefore, one can not 'KNOW' truth, only 'know' it, and because
'knowing' a statement to be true, even in reality, the statement is not true
is possible, 'knowing' something is in fact forming an opinion about some
statement.

: Thus the ability to choose ones belief, in the existence of doubt, is
: a first instance of human liberty.
: 
: Now there is a difference between knowing the truth and accepting it. 
: For example, we all know that Bill Clinton is going to be president of the
: United States but not everybody accepts it. However, there is nothing that
: anyone can do about it.
: 
: The second instance of human liberty is thus the possibility to reject
: something that is known to be true.
: 
: Now if we reject the truth, for example, by refusing to accept Bill Clinton
: as president, it is because we believe that it is not a "good thing.") In
: other words, we believe that there is a higher truth (i.e., even though
: Bill Clinton is president his "ideas" are wrong and the "right ideas" will
: win out in the end), to which this truth is subject.
: 
: Clearly, if God exists, there is no higher truth than this.

Can you support this statement?  Is it by definition of God (will the
correct definition of god please stand?)

: If we have
: knowledge of his existence, we lose our first form of liberty, that is the
: liberty to believe. If we refuse to accept God despite this knowledge, our
: second form of liberty, that is our possibility to reject him nonetheless,
: is useless to us since there is no higher truth in which we can then believe.

What necessity is it to have the two forms of liberty?

: The point I am making here is that the possibility to choose, and even
: reject God, is essential to human liberty.

Why is this liberty 'positive', good, or whatever is the point you are trying
to make?
 
: Life in the presence of a refusal to believe
: --------------------------------------------
: 
: I assume that I am addressing myself to people that do not believe in God.

Correct.
 
: I now assume the two points above granted, i.e. that you the reader admit the
: existence of a choice about the existence of God as necessary, and that its
: effects on someone who chooses positively are different from for themselves
: I will now consider the consequences of this negative choice from a
: philosophical point of view.

Why is it a negative choice?  You still have not provided this information.

: Two things remain necessary, namely to live out your life and to continue
: to ask yourself questions.
: 
: Many atheists come from religious backgrounds, so their rejectal of a belief
: in God does not stop them from looking for justice, kindness, and so on
: in their lives. Some atheists have never believed neither in God nor in such
: things as these. I call these "stomach" atheists.

And some atheists have never believed in god, and are also kind, look for
justice, and so on.  There are also atheists who come from religious backgrounds
who are cruel, want only justice for themselves and so on.  What is your point?
people are different.

: I think there is an important consequence of the "atheist choice" that needs
: to be underlined.
: This is despite the fact that the above remarks about living out your own
: life, about having to ask yourself questions, about looking
: for kindness in your own life, or even about attaching too much importance
: to your stomach would apply equally well to religious believers.
: 
: When you decided not to belive in God you simultaneously decided
: to believe first of all in yourself.

Some do, and some take this to the extreme (the Solopsilist (sp?)), others
also do not even believe in themselfs (the Nihilist(sp?))  Oh, you are talking
about some 'force' that can bring good?  Well, there are still those that
do not believe even in themselfs, or believe solely on some axiom (golden
rule, reverse golden rule, etc)

: It is, after all, a belief in your
: own capacity to choose that led to your choice.

Not necessarily.  I believe in something called 'subjective' free will,
ie, one has the appearance of being able to choose, but in reality, is
only following some kind of random chain of events, or cause/effect
events.

: You can believe in other
: things (justice, kindness, one's stomach) but you are alone in making these
: decisions.

Hmmm.... I don't see how one can be alone in making these decisions.  One
does not have to believe in a God to believe in 'friends'... be they
imaginary or real.

: It is both harder and easier for we religous believers. It is easier
: because our conviction that we are not alone leads us to seek God's counsel
: (by faith and prayer). It is harder because we must submit ourselves to His
: will.

Are you saying that it is not easy to depend on oneself?  I disagree.

: Socrates said "Know thyself." I would add to that "Know Socrates" (this
: knowledge is inexpensive to acquire). This advice applies to anyone, but
: because your atheists beliefs make you believe in yourself first of all,
: it would seem to apply particularly to you.

You are using a little supported implication here.. that athiest's believe
in themselves first... see above.
 
: Question your own beliefs most of all. Look at your own life -- why do
: things happen to you the way they do. Are you unnecessarily constraining
: yourself (in your work, for money, in your human relations).

Things happen the way they do because they do.  There is no explaination
that human conciousness can be made aware of (even via a 'god')

: Above all, are you asking yourself the right questions?
: Even the wrong answer to the right question has some good in it. This is
: because sincere examination of wrong answer will lead to the right one.
: However, nothing is more useless than the right answer to the wrong question. 

Why is that?  The wrong questions often are quite interesting.  BTW, how
does a question aquire a 'rightness' or 'wrongness' to it?


--
  Trent Tobler
Newsgroups: alt.atheism