The Case for Christianity

[pood]

I identify in my profile as an agnostic but really that should probably be philosophical skeptic, one who doubts all knowledge claims.

Pan-agnostic?
Let me know when you settle on a label so I can steal it.

Pan-agnostic might do it.

 

[Politesse]

I'm a strong agnostic: quite certain that no one knows.

 

[Wiploc]

Atheism isn't an ideology, it's just a single idea - that there are no Gods.

You're describing strong atheism, but weak atheists are atheists too.

Theists: Those who believe that gods do exist.
Strong atheists: Those who believe that gods do not exist.
Weak atheists: Everybody else.

So .. are weak atheists a subset of agnostics, or is it the other way around?

First, lets set out the two most common systems of nomenclature. I don't know which is older, but I call them newsys and oldsys.

Newsys and Oldsys are two ways of naming the following five categories:

A. Those who believe that gods do exist.
B. Those who believe that gods do not exist.
C. Everybody else (those who don't believe either way).

X. Those who know (or think they know) whether gods exist.
Y. Everybody else (those who don't know whether gods exist).

Here are the two most common systems of nomenclature (I don't know which is older, but I call them newsys and oldsys).

Oldsys:
A. Theists
B. Atheists
C. Agnostics

X. Gnostics (not capitalized except mostly as the first word of a sentence)
Y. Agnostics.

Newsys:

A. Theists
B. Strong atheists
C. Weak atheists

X. Gnostics
Y. Agnostics

Oldsys uses the word agnostic for both category C and category Y, which leads to endless confusion.

Newsys uses agnostic only for category Y. This facilitates communication.

People who identify as atheists overwhelmingly prefer newsys, so much so that someone referring to herself as an atheist presumptively using newsys.

Now to your question:

So .. are weak atheists a subset of agnostics, or is it the other way around?

Oldsys doesn't use the term weak atheist. So, it (oldsys) doesn't see weak atheism as a subset or superset of anything.

In newsys, theism/atheism describes belief and gnosticism/agnosticism describes knowledge. Agnosticism and weak atheism

Neither system sees weak atheism as a subset of agnosticism, or vice versa.

We often hear that theism/atheism and gnosticism/agnosticism are orthogonal. I hadda look it up.
Dictionary.com: "... orthogonal is also sometimes used in a figurative way meaning unrelated, separate, in opposition, or irrelevant. In this sense, it means about the opposite of parallel when parallel means corresponding or similar.Example: Not everything happens according to a grand scheme—some events are simply orthogonal to each other.

There are numberless other nomenclatures, other systems of naming the five categories. But newsys and oldsys are the common ones. Whatever's in third place is so rare that we don't have to worry about it. If you elect to use a third system, you will have to tediusly explain it to each person you engage in conversation on the topic.

 

[Wiploc]

Atheism isn't an ideology, it's just a single idea - that there are no Gods.

You're describing strong atheism, but weak atheists are atheists too.

Theists: Those who believe that gods do exist.
Strong atheists: Those who believe that gods do not exist.
Weak atheists: Everybody else.

So .. are weak atheists a subset of agnostics, or is it the other way around?

That standard idea is that strong atheists positively believe that gods do not exist. The weak atheist simply lacks a belief in god. The agnostic is one who differentiates belief claims from knowledge claims. So an agnostic may say that while he lacks a belief in god, or even believes that god does not exist, he does not know: a-gnosis = not knowing. You also can have people believing that god exists but admitting they do not know that. So you can have atheist agnostics and theist agnostics.

I'm an agnostic strong atheist. I believe that no gods exist. But I don't know that for sure.

My mother said she struggled with her faith every day. She was an agnostic Christian.

 

[Swammerdami]

Let’s not forget apatheists, who don’t give a shit whether god exists or not. Or fideists, who believe god exists but admit there is no evidence for god but don’t care. They just believe anyway. Which I think is fine. It’s better than those who make all sorts of ridiculous evidentiary claims for god that are easily refuted.

My sister may be an apatheist as long ago she said "Life is a joke; you either get it or you don't." This view might be endorsed by a certain Nobel Laureate.

 

[lostone]

I think a lot of people are apatheists. Sometimes I also think life is either a joke, or else a poorly written novel by an illiterate and insane author. .

 

[GenesisNemesis]

I'm just an atheist, and I don't really care about the other descriptions. *shrug*

 

[pood]

I think a lot of people are apatheists. Sometimes I also think life is either a joke, or else a poorly written novel by an illiterate and insane author. .

Borges characterized it as a garden of forking paths in which every outcome and all alternatives are realized, and also as an infinite library in which almost all the books contain nothing but gibberish.

 

[lostone]

I'm just an atheist, and I don't really care about the other descriptions. *shrug*

Which is an easily and strongly defendable ideological position to hold - a true intregnible fortress

 

[bilby]

We often hear that theism/atheism and gnosticism/agnosticism are orthogonal. I hadda look it up.
Dictionary.com: "... orthogonal is also sometimes used in a figurative way meaning unrelated, separate, in opposition, or irrelevant. In this sense, it means about the opposite of parallel when parallel means corresponding or similar.Example: Not everything happens according to a grand scheme—some events are simply orthogonal to each other.

In the case where the comparison is between degrees of belief, and degrees of certainty with which that belief is held, the word is being used literally, not figuatively, and means "At right angles to".

It refers to the ability to plot these two elements on a graph, with axes for each element, where those axes intersect at a right angle, like this:

 

[bilby]

I'm an agnostic strong atheist. I believe that no gods exist. But I don't know that for sure.

I am a gnostic strong atheist. I believe that no gods exist, and I am as sure of that as I am of anything.

I am also a scientist, so I am not 100% sure of anything; But it would require an astonishing amount of compelling evidence to bring me to the belief that a perpetual motion machine had been constructed, or that any gods existed.

Of course, these positions depend to a degree upon definitions; It would be trivially easy for someone to define "perpetual motion machine" to include machines that do not contravene the laws of thermodynamics, but were they to do so, I would simply reject their definition as erroneous - that's not what a "perpetual motion machine" is.

I have seen people on this forum make claims about gods of the form: "Emperor Hirohito was a God and he existed. Checkmate atheists". Such claims are, of course, both pathetic in their sophistry, and utterly irrelevant to the kinds of Gods we are all actually discussing. Provide compelling evidence that Hirohito performed a miracle, and then we would have something to consider.

I have no problem with both rejecting the existence of Gods and accepting the existence of Hirohito; It is simple to observe that humans often make errors in assigning objects to categories, and "Hirohito is a God" is an example of such an error.

 

[Wiploc]

...
I am also a scientist, so I am not 100% sure of anything;

I've never understood this. You have no knowledge of any kind? You're not really sure you're a scientist? You're not sure that you're not 100% sure of anything? You're not even sure that you think you're a scientist? You're not sure that you probably think you're probably a scientist?

I'm not trying to hijack the thread, just expressing bafflement.

But it would require an astonishing amount of compelling evidence to bring me to the belief that a perpetual motion machine had been constructed, or that any gods existed.

I'm with you. I'm open to persuasion about gods, but I'll be astonished if theists turn persuasive after all these years of relying exclusively on stupid arguments.

Of course, these positions depend to a degree upon definitions; It would be trivially easy for someone to define "perpetual motion machine" to include machines that do not contravene the laws of thermodynamics, but were they to do so, I would simply reject their definition as erroneous - that's not what a "perpetual motion machine" is.

I have seen people on this forum make claims about gods of the form: "Emperor Hirohito was a God and he existed. Checkmate atheists". Such claims are, of course, both pathetic in their sophistry, and utterly irrelevant to the kinds of Gods we are all actually discussing. Provide compelling evidence that Hirohito performed a miracle, and then we would have something to consider

Right. Hirohito and the Pharaohs and the Caesars and ancestors and little piles of rocks are not what I mean by gods.

I have no problem with both rejecting the existence of Gods and accepting the existence of Hirohito; It is simple to observe that humans often make errors in assigning objects to categories, and "Hirohito is a God" is an example of such an error.

Gods are implausible, but it's a big universe. Might there be something somewhere so weird that if people called it a god I would say, "Well, maybe that's fair"?

But I'm a hundred percent sure I believe there are no gods.

 

[pood]

@bilby can speak for himself of course, but I’m pretty sure he means he’s not 100 percent sure beyond any doubt whatsoever, but he is sure beyond any reasonable doubt of any number of things. It is the same standard used in court. That’s how I look at it for myself, anyway. It’s always logically possible that we are deceived by Descarte’s demon, that we’re in a matrix, etc. Highly implausible but not logically impossible.

 

[Brunswick1954]

The Reality of The Spirit
Science claims that reality is something “out there”—concrete, measurable, objective. But what we actually experience is in fact, entirely constructed: a world filtered not just through our senses and constructed by our brains, but selectively shaped by our values, emotions, memories and choices. What we call "reality" is in its very essence a spiritual experience - it is lived, interpreted, and constructed by the conscious self. Consciousness itself is a spiritual experience which cannot be measured nor identified by science.

This spiritual experience - one that includes our longing, conscience, and beliefs - is more significant than and dominates the physical. A hungry spirit will manipulate the body for pleasure, control, or escape. But a nourished spirit can endure suffering, transform trauma, and live with dignity even in death.

When the spiritual self is ignored or starved, life itself begins to unravel. We become restless, addicted, numb, or despairing. In this sense, the spirit rules the body and determines whether the physical body should live or die.

This spiritual reality is the world we explore through literature, art, philosophy, psychology and religion. It is neither invisible nor irrational. We know what it needs and its needs are spiritual rather than physical. Wealth and fame are hollow to the spirit. Ultimately unfulfilling. On the other hand, non-material rewards, like living virtuously, loving people and being loved, being appreciated, are held in more esteem than material rewards.

Modern psychology tries to provide emotional support without addressing the spiritual - meditation for the sake of meditation, learning gratitude for the little things, trying not to worry unnecessarily without believing in a benevolent God - and fails because these practices are meant to align the spirit with a higher spiritual domain. One that makes sense of the spiritual world we live in.

That's why, despite all the advances we have made, people still seek religious truth and access to a higher spiritual domain. One that parallels our physical universe that contains our physical earthly home. Even a foolish belief is better than no belief.

We need these timeless and universal spiritual truths: that goodness is real, that justice matters, that beauty is sacred. That we need to love one another, not just be polite and charitable. They are spiritual realities that point beyond the self - to natural law, to moral order, to the sacred, to God.

The spiritual world is not an abstraction of reality. It is the only reality we know. And if we take it seriously, we are led—not away from reason—but to the source of all meaning, goodness, and truth. We are led to God.

 

[pood]

The Reality of The Spirit
Science claims that reality is something “out there”—concrete, measurable, objective. But what we actually experience is in fact, entirely constructed: a world filtered not just through our senses and constructed by our brains, but selectively shaped by our values, emotions, memories and choices. What we call "reality" is in its very essence a spiritual experience - it is lived, interpreted, and constructed by the conscious self. Consciousness itself is a spiritual experience which cannot be measured nor identified by science.

This is true, though it remains an open question whether science can explain consciousness, qualia. So far it has not done so.

Skipping over the rest, I again ask: Do you believe in a literal resurrection and a literal heaven? Or are you just arguing for ethical Christianity and perhaps the instrumental utility of professing belief in a literal god?

 

[ideologyhunter]

The spiritual world is not an abstraction of reality. It is the only reality we know. And if we take it seriously, we are led—not away from reason—but to the source of all meaning, goodness, and truth. We are led to God.

Said the Christian (6 major groups, 40,000+ denominations)
Said the Muslim (2 main groups, 73 sects)
Said the Hindu (4 main sects)
Said the Jew (3 main branches)
Said the Sikh (multiple sects; I got lost in the tabulations)
Said the Jainist (2 schools, multiple sects)

I'm guessing you're open to the arguments of only a portion of the first listing.
You're calling this "the only reality we know"? That 'we' is presumptuous, sir. With defunct gods and goddesses numbering in the tens of thousands, religion has no bedrock to stand on. Do you give credence to the creation stories, miracle narratives, and supernatural claims of Muslims, Hindus, Sikhs, Jainists?
Faith is a terrible and completely untrustworthy method with which to seek reality.

 

[Brunswick1954]

The Reality of The Spirit
Science claims that reality is something “out there”—concrete, measurable, objective. But what we actually experience is in fact, entirely constructed: a world filtered not just through our senses and constructed by our brains, but selectively shaped by our values, emotions, memories and choices. What we call "reality" is in its very essence a spiritual experience - it is lived, interpreted, and constructed by the conscious self. Consciousness itself is a spiritual experience which cannot be measured nor identified by science.

This is true, though it remains an open question whether science can explain consciousness, qualia. So far it has not done so.

Skipping over the rest, I again ask: Do you believe in a literal resurrection and a literal heaven? Or are you just arguing for ethical Christianity and perhaps the instrumental utility of professing belief in a literal god?

I feel that these questions of belief are irrelevant. So what if they exist? So what if they don't? Are your values going to be determined by such trivialities? I am arguing that the validity of Christianity lies in its provable claims:
1. That love transcends moral laws
2. That moral acts without love are hypocrisy (again, that the spiritual counts for more than the physical)
3. That we need God, and even in the face of evidence to the contrary (which I argue isn't), God is both benevolent and loving
4. That God is immanent in our lives and the fulfilment of our spirit lies in aligning ourselves to His will

These are values we can live by, or not. They are real and speak to our very existence, purpose and meaning. Why concern ourselves with questions we cannot answer? I see God the way I see science, as something rational but paradoxical, something that speaks of truth and yet beyond my understanding. That Goodness, like Truth and Beauty, is a worthwhile pursuit in our lives.

We see the truth dimly but it gets clearer over time. There will always be unanswered questions. They don't invalidate our pursuit, beit science, art, literature, philosophy or psychology. Even theology. I think we need to bring the same rational rigour to morality that we bring to science but not pretend that science can teach us about the spirit.

 

[pood]

The Reality of The Spirit
Science claims that reality is something “out there”—concrete, measurable, objective. But what we actually experience is in fact, entirely constructed: a world filtered not just through our senses and constructed by our brains, but selectively shaped by our values, emotions, memories and choices. What we call "reality" is in its very essence a spiritual experience - it is lived, interpreted, and constructed by the conscious self. Consciousness itself is a spiritual experience which cannot be measured nor identified by science.

This is true, though it remains an open question whether science can explain consciousness, qualia. So far it has not done so.

Skipping over the rest, I again ask: Do you believe in a literal resurrection and a literal heaven? Or are you just arguing for ethical Christianity and perhaps the instrumental utility of professing belief in a literal god?

I feel that these questions of belief are irrelevant. So what if they exist? So what if they don't? Are your values going to be determined by such trivialities?

So the question of whether Jesus was literally resurrected and there is a literal heaven is trivial? Well, that is certainly not so for most Christians.

I am arguing that the validity of Christianity lies in its provable claims:

Are they proven?

1. That love transcends moral laws

I don’t know what that means.

2. That moral acts without love are hypocrisy (again, that the spiritual counts for more than the physical)

Well, perhaps the first part is true. The parenthetical part is indeterminate absent a clear definition for spiritual to differentiate it from physical.

3. That we need God, and even in the face of evidence to the contrary (which I argue isn't), God is both benevolent and loving

So we are back to a literal God again? Because above you dismiss the question as trivial. Or is God just a metaphor for benevolence and loving”

4. That God is immanent in our lives and the fulfilment of our spirit lies in aligning ourselves to His will

Again, it’s not clear what this means if there is no literal God. Plenty of atheists align themselves with good works and acts without belief ini god. Is that good enough?

These are values we can live by, or not. They are real and speak to our very existence, purpose and meaning. Why concern ourselves with questions we cannot answer? I see God the way I see science, as something rational but paradoxical, something that speaks of truth and yet beyond my understanding. That Goodness, like Truth and Beauty, is a worthwhile pursuit in our lives.

This is anodyne but uninformative.

We see the truth dimly but it gets clearer over time. There will always be unanswered questions. They don't invalidate our pursuit, beit science, art, literature, philosophy or psychology. Even theology. I think we need to bring the same rational rigour to morality that we bring to science but not pretend that science can teach us about the spirit.

If spirit just means “breath,” which I believe it literally did in the beginning, science has explained that.

 

[Michael S. Pearl]

1. That love transcends moral laws

With regards to "moral laws" or "natural law", the entailed obligations are too general and, therefore, too impersonal to suffice for or as love of neighbor. As justice is incidental to law and order (as reportedly admitted by J. Edgar Hoover), so, too, is love incidental to moral laws and natural law as well as justice. In that sense, love transcends or exceeds moral laws.

2. That moral acts without love are hypocrisy

I am not sure that the hypocrisy charge necessarily holds. Altruism is not love, but, in itself, it is not hypocrisy. According to Paul in 1 Corinthians 13: 3, "If I give all I possess to the poor and give over my body to hardship that I may boast, but do not have love, I gain nothing." There, the referenced boasting could well be sufficient for arguing a charge of hypocrisy. However, rather than what Paul wrote, I would instead say: "If I give all I possess to the poor and give over my body to hardship but do not love, I am nothing even if I am admired and held in the utmost esteem for my acts." I think that ultimately we want to distinguish between moral laws, moral acts, and something like ethical being (or maybe ethical personhood) for which love as personal acts for the sake of an other is essential and is readily distinguished from merely impersonal acts done with some hope for benefit to some abstract and unknown others. There is nothing inherently wrong with altruism; it is simply that it is to be recognized that altruism is insufficient for ethical being.

3. That we need God, and even in the face of evidence to the contrary (which I argue isn't), God is both benevolent and loving
4. That God is immanent in our lives and the fulfilment of our spirit lies in aligning ourselves to His will

Are you familiar with W. H. Vanstone's book, Love's Endeavour, Love's Expense?

 

[DBT]

The Reality of The Spirit
Science claims that reality is something “out there”—concrete, measurable, objective. But what we actually experience is in fact, entirely constructed: a world filtered not just through our senses and constructed by our brains, but selectively shaped by our values, emotions, memories and choices. What we call "reality" is in its very essence a spiritual experience - it is lived, interpreted, and constructed by the conscious self. Consciousness itself is a spiritual experience which cannot be measured nor identified by science.

This spiritual experience - one that includes our longing, conscience, and beliefs - is more significant than and dominates the physical. A hungry spirit will manipulate the body for pleasure, control, or escape. But a nourished spirit can endure suffering, transform trauma, and live with dignity even in death.

When the spiritual self is ignored or starved, life itself begins to unravel. We become restless, addicted, numb, or despairing. In this sense, the spirit rules the body and determines whether the physical body should live or die.

This spiritual reality is the world we explore through literature, art, philosophy, psychology and religion. It is neither invisible nor irrational. We know what it needs and its needs are spiritual rather than physical. Wealth and fame are hollow to the spirit. Ultimately unfulfilling. On the other hand, non-material rewards, like living virtuously, loving people and being loved, being appreciated, are held in more esteem than material rewards.

Modern psychology tries to provide emotional support without addressing the spiritual - meditation for the sake of meditation, learning gratitude for the little things, trying not to worry unnecessarily without believing in a benevolent God - and fails because these practices are meant to align the spirit with a higher spiritual domain. One that makes sense of the spiritual world we live in.

That's why, despite all the advances we have made, people still seek religious truth and access to a higher spiritual domain. One that parallels our physical universe that contains our physical earthly home. Even a foolish belief is better than no belief.

We need these timeless and universal spiritual truths: that goodness is real, that justice matters, that beauty is sacred. That we need to love one another, not just be polite and charitable. They are spiritual realities that point beyond the self - to natural law, to moral order, to the sacred, to God.

The spiritual world is not an abstraction of reality. It is the only reality we know. And if we take it seriously, we are led—not away from reason—but to the source of all meaning, goodness, and truth. We are led to God.

Exploring ideas and appreciating the wonders of nature may be called 'spiritual experiences,' but this is not the same as spiritual things that are believed in religion, a spirit realm populated with supernatural entities, etc.