Sam, we cannot discuss religious people with an athiest mind
Posted: 20 February 2007 07:23 PM   [ Ignore ]  
Newbie
Rank
Total Posts:  1
Joined  2007-02-20

We have to realize that people have different needs. Some people like to eat sushi, some people doesn’t like it. It very simple, it is based on preference and the need of the individual.

I’m a non believer of God since I m able to think. Before, I used to think why can’t people live on and not rely on a book to live their life. Why they can possibly manage ignore all the evidence and continue to believe in a book written centuries ago that are full of nonsense. I used to think religious people are a bunch of close minded idiot that don’t know better. I try to convince my family and friends the important of being able to reason and thinking logically. And I have failed every time.

I thought about this for years, I interview my friend and family whenever possible.
I asked them one simple question. How do you deal with the unknown in this world?
I asked them, “You know, there are lots of unknown in this world, how do you deal with it?

This question receives basically three different answers.

1)“I don’t need an answer to the unknown and Ill look for it through the means of reason and logic”

2) “I don’t need an answer to the unknown and I don’t care”

3) “I need an answer to the unknown immediately”

People who answered no.3 are mostly religious. They say, they feel scared and uneasy when there are unknowns and there is no filler it. I thought about it, and I feel very differently. I think, isn’t it great to be able to look at all the evidence and think logically to reason ourselves about the unknown. Isn’t it exciting to be able to use science and build up the answer for the unknown bit by bit? However, most religious people think otherwise. They need filler to the unknown no matter what and need it now. They need an answer to the unknown immediately.

This is when I realize, atheist and religious people are simply different people with different needs. This is when religious people and science minded people clashes. Because of their different needs, and the fact that we failed to think through each other mind, it creates confusion between the two.


I think it is lot complicated than saying to religious people “why can’t you live your life through reason and logic” I think the reason that religious people need a God, is that they simply need an answer the the unknown at this very moment. And that is a lot different than an Atheist who do not need an answer and is perfectly fine discovering the unknown through science. 

I think it hard to understand the religious people when the atheist thinking is completely different than the religious person view point. Some people need to eat sushi than others. I don’t think we can reason with them and tell them to have less sushi. I think we have to realize our different in thinking. When it comes down to different thinking and needs, we just have to respect it.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 20 February 2007 10:17 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 1 ]  
Member
Avatar
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  765
Joined  2006-08-16

[quote author=“alleon86”]I think it is lot complicated than saying to religious people “why can’t you live your life through reason and logic” I think the reason that religious people need a God, is that they simply need an answer the the unknown at this very moment. And that is a lot different than an Atheist who do not need an answer and is perfectly fine discovering the unknown through science. 

I think it hard to understand the religious people when the atheist thinking is completely different than the religious person view point. Some people need to eat sushi than others. I don’t think we can reason with them and tell them to have less sushi. I think we have to realize our different in thinking. When it comes down to different thinking and needs, we just have to respect it.

You appear to be misconstruing Sam’s position regarding faith and reason. Don’t worry, you are not the first and you won’t be the last.

Sam is not arguing that people should live their life through reason and logic alone. There is nothing wrong with experiencing the beauty, joy and pain that is life without reducing it all to scientific explanations. But when our beliefs disagree with reason, we shouldn’t abandon reason. Sam’s central argument is that religion should not be exempt from rational thought just because it is religion.

You are correct that reasoning will not stop some people from eating sushi, but that does not mean those people can make unreasonable claims about it either. We know that uncooked foods carry a higher risk of bacterial infections like E. coli and Salmonella, so would immediately challenge anyone who would say sushi is perfectly safe. Why should religion get a free pass on it’s claims about God and Heaven?

 Signature 

“Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities.” - Voltaire

“Rational arguments do not work on religious people, otherwise there would be no religious people.”—Dr. House

Profile
 
 
Posted: 20 February 2007 11:21 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 2 ]  
Member
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  565
Joined  2007-01-30

[quote author=“camanintx”]

Sam is not arguing that people should live their life through reason and logic alone. There is nothing wrong with experiencing the beauty, joy and pain that is life without reducing it all to scientific explanations. But when our beliefs disagree with reason, we shouldn’t abandon reason. Sam’s central argument is that religion should not be exempt from rational thought just because it is religion.

Sam is not arguing that people should live their life through reason and logic alone.”  ....  “But when our beliefs disagree with reason, we shouldn’t abandon reason. ” ( thus we should ” live our life through reason and logic alone.” )

8) Consistency is irrelevant once we support “reason” … I see LOL

Profile
 
 
Posted: 21 February 2007 01:12 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 3 ]  
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1377
Joined  2004-12-21

“But when our beliefs disagree with reason, we shouldn’t abandon reason. ” ( thus we should ” live our life through reason and logic alone.” )

The fact that you see inconsistancy here is probably the source of your cognitive dissonance, whether you realize it or not.  Cheri Huber is a Zen teacher of my acquaintance, who has written several books useful to folks interested in other ways of thinking.

This is a quote from one of her books that explores the negative side of believing something that goes against reason.  Try it on.

We “believe” as a way of not facing the very uncomfortable (to egocentricity) fact that we don’t know.  Life never repeats itself.  Each split second everything in the universe is different.  Each moment is brand new; it could be anything.  Not having a guarantee about what is coming next, we imagine what will happen (we project the past into the future) and cling to a belief that our imaginings are true.  Then believing is supposed to make us feel more secure, but if we believe something we don’t know to be true, and may suspect is not true, anxiety, not security, is the result.

As a culture we operate out of the assumption that if enough people believe something it must be true.  The process of group assuming and believing seems to work, because when people believe something is true, they experience whatever it is as true.  For instance, if I told a group of people that the individual I was bringing to speak with them was one of the wisest, clearest, most awakened masters living today, they would hear what that individual said as wise, assuming they believed my judgment.  On the other hand, if I informed the group that the person I was bringing to speak with them is a primary example of extreme intelligence masking delusion, they would hear everything that was said through the filter of “this person is deluded.”

Here are a few of the ways we attempt to control the outcome of the next moments in order to make life fit with our beliefs:  Selective perception, tensed muscles, self-hate, superstition, and self-control.  “If I make myself (and those around me) be the way I ‘should’ be, then my life will be the way I believe it should be and I will get what I want.”  In this way we manage to avoid seeing what is so and are able to continue to choose our beliefs over our experience.  “When life doesn’t go the way it should, it’s my fault.  If I were better, smarter, stronger (whatever) this wouldn’t be happening If things aren’t the way they should be, it’s proof that there’s something wrong with me.”

This is a child’s view of life.  It seems secure; it perpetuates suffering!


In some small part of your mind, as with virtually all the faithful, you have this tiny nagging doubt that your belief system is an absurd house of cards.  No, you won’t admit it, perhaps even to yourself, but it is there nonetheless.  It is a source of pain to you whether you realize it or not.  Denying reality always is.

 Signature 

http://powerlessnolonger.com

Profile
 
 
Posted: 21 February 2007 01:22 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 4 ]  
Member
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  565
Joined  2007-01-30

[quote author=“hampsteadpete”]

“But when our beliefs disagree with reason, we shouldn’t abandon reason. ” ( thus we should ” live our life through reason and logic alone.” )

The fact that you see inconsistancy here is probably the source of your cognitive dissonance, whether you realize it or not.  Cheri Huber is a Zen teacher of my acquaintance, who has written several books useful to folks interested in other ways of thinking.

.

:shock:

Why? do Zen reasons lately?  LOL

SPARE ME THE ZEN CRAP!

In some small part of your mind, as with virtually all the faithful, you have this tiny nagging doubt that your belief system is an absurd house of cards. No, you won’t admit it, perhaps even to yourself, but it is there nonetheless. It is a source of pain to you whether you realize it or not. Denying reality always is.


How you can know what I admit or no….  LOL

every belief system is an absurd house of cards 8) ...

That goes for proof theoretic approaches ..in model theoretic approaches you are ready to TOTALLY sift your paradigm … Axioms are not taken for granted except from within a system of reasoning.

About CONSISTENCY now…
Formally speaking ...
CONSISTENCY has nothing to do with whether the “axiomatic” ingredients of a model are true or false . …you suppose they are true within a model … CONSISTENCY has to do with propositions within the model that lead to contradictions.

[ Edited: 21 February 2007 01:58 AM by ]
Profile
 
 
Posted: 21 February 2007 01:40 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 5 ]  
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2821
Joined  2005-04-29

[quote author=“Hippasus”]. . .
Why? do Zen reasons lately?

What are you asking? Are you assuming that Zen equates with religion?

 Signature 

Philosophy may in no way interfere with the actual use of language; it can in the end only describe it. For it cannot give it any foundations either. It leaves everything as it is.
Ludwig Wittgenstein

Profile
 
 
Posted: 21 February 2007 01:42 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 6 ]  
Member
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  565
Joined  2007-01-30

[quote author=“homunculus”][quote author=“Hippasus”]. . .
Why? do Zen reasons lately?

What are you asking? Are you assuming that Zen equates with religion?

nahhh ..just with CRAP…  LOL

Profile
 
 
Posted: 21 February 2007 02:27 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 7 ]  
Jr. Member
RankRank
Total Posts:  93
Joined  2007-02-19

[quote author=“alleon86”]We have to realize that people have different needs. ... I think we have to realize our different in thinking. When it comes down to different thinking and needs, we just have to respect it.

I love this idea, and wish more people agreed with it!

Profile
 
 
Posted: 21 February 2007 02:30 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 8 ]  
Jr. Member
RankRank
Total Posts:  93
Joined  2007-02-19

[quote author=“camanintx”]Sam’s central argument is that religion should not be exempt from rational thought just because it is religion.

Thanks for summing this up.  After reading “Letter”, I have been struggling to understand where Harris was really coming from because I could not get through what appeared to me to be a lot of anger in his book.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 21 February 2007 03:32 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 9 ]  
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  3255
Joined  2004-12-24

Religious people can’t be discussed with atheists just like we can’t understand drug use unless we’re addicts ... uh, yeah.

Byron

 Signature 

“We say, ‘Love your brother…’ We don’t say it really, but… Well we don’t literally say it. We don’t really, literally mean it. No, we don’t believe it either, but… But that message should be clear.”—David St. Hubbins

Profile
 
 
   
 
 
RSS 2.0     Atom Feed