Is there a spiritual dimension to atheism?

philologos

As a theist, I've seen it important to my life to have a spiritual dimension. But in atheism, where you reject the belief of a God or a supreme being altogether, is there a spiritual dimension driving it or do you feel inspired to be a better atheist?

JC 2K3

Since Atheism isn't a belief system, there's no definite answer.

IMO it depends on how you define spiritual. I can take time out to reflect on life, to think, to meditate perhaps, but I don't see anything "spiritual" about it. I often think about how I can be a better person etc. but again, there's nothing "spiritual" about it.

I asked once or twice on the Spirituality forum to define "spirituality"(As to be perfectly honest I haven't got a clue what the hell "spirituality", "spirits" or "spiritual dimensions" are supposed to mean), and the answer I got was basically unless I'd had a "spiritual experience" it was impossible to explain.

philologos

even if it's in complete awe of whats around you, or something that inspires you to work for something for the benefit of others, etc.

Sapien

Jakkass wrote:

As a theist, I've seen it important to my life to have a spiritual dimension. But in atheism, where you reject the belief of a God or a supreme being altogether, is there a spiritual dimension driving it or do you feel inspired to be a better atheist?

This is a question that should be asked of atheists not of atheism, and you there is no reason to expect any kind of common response.

Zillah

I occasionally have experiences that feel spiritual, but have nothing to do with magic. I regularily feel a sort of awe/pride when considering the achievements and potential of our race. When I first saw the quote that is now in my sig I felt both elated and humbled.

I don't see why we should use such a misleading word as "spiritual" for such feelings though. If you're inspired you're inspired, if you're joyful then you're joyful. The fact that most people seem to turn to wishy washy sophistries as the source of these shouldn't highjack the terminology for the whole lot.

JC 2K3

Jakkass wrote:

even if it's in complete awe of whats around you, or something that inspires you to work for something for the benefit of others, etc.

But why is that spiritual? Events in one's life provoke emotions and reactions. If you equate deep thought and deep emotions with being spiritual then I am very spiritual, but considering "spiritual" is a word associated with supernatural happenings and the fact that I consider these deep thoughts and emotions to be a natural human response, I would not call it spiritual.

Son Goku

Jakkass wrote:

As a theist, I've seen it important to my life to have a spiritual dimension. But in atheism, where you reject the belief of a God or a supreme being altogether, is there a spiritual dimension driving it or do you feel inspired to be a better atheist?

I'd work for the benefit of others because I like them or feel for them, but I wouldn't have any inspiration.

philologos

I suppose "spiritual" could have been the wrong word. I'd generally associate it with a feeling of connection with something beyond yourself (namely God for me). But do atheists feel a special link with the human race for example, and inspiration to work for the betterment of others as well as oneself, as opposed to an inspiration to work for a supreme being.

JC 2K3

I feel an ordinary, natural link with other members of my species and a natural, instinctive empathy which makes me want to work for the betterment of the species.

Zillah

Jakkass wrote:

I suppose "spiritual" could have been the wrong word. I'd generally associate it with a feeling of connection with something beyond yourself (namely God for me). But I do atheists feel a special link with the human race for example, and inspiration to work for the betterment of others as well as oneself, as opposed to an inspiration to work for a supreme being.

Again, I have to point out that the only thing Atheists have in common is a lack of belief in God. An atheist could be a deeply immoral person who has no empathy for other human beings or an atheist could be a deeply moral person with a great respect and love for all the world.

In my experience most Atheists are very moral people, but by no means is it a given. Your mistake here is expecting us to have some sort of group identity or doctrine of the sort you're used to from a Christian point of view. It doesn't work like that, atheists take responsibility for their own beliefs.

Wiki "secular humanism", that might be what you're looking for.

Scofflaw

Well, I'd say yes (thus proving most people's point that there's no common answer). I find atheism spiritually inspiring, in the sense that something like Bach is supposed to be - uplifts me, and makes me feel part of the universe, rather than being separated from it by God's "special creation" of humanity.

However, I think it's obvious from most posts that atheists are rather shy of the word "spiritual" unless you can offer a definition.

cordially,
Scofflaw

aidan24326

Jakkass, I would find it difficult to answer your question as I don't really know what 'spiritual' or 'spiritual dimension' is supposed to mean. I'm not sure it actually means anything. Isn't it just a vague term that someone can interpret in pretty much whatever way they want? Not entirely unlike 'god'.

If you mean do I ever feel that there's 'something else', perhaps something etheral beyond our normal scope of perception, I'd say I can't completely rule it out as I don't know, but I'd say that having no evidence for such I'll reject the idea until something a bit more convincing than people's vague and highly subjective experiences becomes available.

And as for being 'inspired' to be atheist, perhaps inspired at one time or another by some of the greater minds than mine that have tacked the question, but not 'inspired' in any 'spiritual' sense that I'm aware of.

EDIT someone mentioned that the people in spirituality suggested that one cannot understand 'spirituality' unless they've had a spiritual experience. But I'd love to hear their own descriptions of what that spiritual experience was and why it was, and see if there was any commonality. I doubt there'd be much tbh. It's a bit like me saying nobody can understand my imaginary friend Billy because only I can see him.

Zombrex

Jakkass wrote:

even if it's in complete awe of whats around you

I am in constant awe of everything around me, and fascinated by pretty much all areas of science that attempt to understand it

Jakkass wrote:

something that inspires you to work for something for the benefit of others, etc.

I'm also inspired to work for the benefit of others when I can.

I don't think either of these things have much to do with me being an atheist though.

Though I do feel that the awe an atheists experiences at the universe is probably of greater value than the awe of a theists. "God" as an explanation I feel is too easy an answer and removes some of the wonder of the universe.

There is great beauty in the realisation that what is actually happening in the universe is truly beyond us

Dades

So the question might be be better put like: as an atheist do you have experiences that might be termed as spiritual?

Undoubtedly an atheist can have intense emotional responses to events in life, but I wouldn't think they could be described as spiritual. They may have the same result as a spiritual event, just under a different moniker.

Asiaprod as a Buddhist will no doubt have an interesting take on it.

Asiaprod

The Atheist wrote:

Asiaprod as a Buddhist will no doubt have an interesting take on it.

Never one to shy away, its a good question.
I think the term spiritual is not properly defined so it is not possible for me to say that yes, that was a spiritual experience. I would use the word loosely in relation to what I believe since any spiritual experiences is personal. I guess I would describe any deep connection I make with my world and the people in it, or a sudden awareness of some aspect/mechanics of life a kind of spiritual experience. My type of Buddhist is focused on nature, its continuity, our world and the structures that bind it all together. We leave the sciences to explain creation and the final demise of our world.

philologos

another question then, if a spiritual dimension doesn't exist in life, then what do you describe the feelings that theists feel as? Or why do theists feel so drawn to a God? just out of interest.

Scofflaw

Jakkass wrote:

another question then, if a spiritual dimension doesn't exist in life, then what do you describe the feelings that theists feel as? Or why do theists feel so drawn to a God? just out of interest.

Again, that's almost impossible to answer the way you've phrased it, because you still haven't explained what you mean by spiritual, although there are some pointers in your phrasing.

Do you consider the "spiritual dimension" to actually be a dimension like a spatio-temporal one?

cordially,
Scofflaw

JC 2K3

Jakkass wrote:

another question then, if a spiritual dimension doesn't exist in life, then what do you describe the feelings that theists feel as? Or why do theists feel so drawn to a God? just out of interest.

Well there's always the God Gene Hypothesis.

Personally I think theists feel the exact same profound emotions as I do. They just interpret it as a "gift from God" or something.

I mean, when I was younger and indoctrinated as a Catholic I used to feel a "connection" with Jesus during all of those meditation sessions where we were told to close our eyes and talk to Jesus in our hearts. However, nowadays I experience similar feelings, it's just a natural response to personal reflection. Had I never been told that this was "talking to Jesus" when I was younger I would never have believed I was actually "talking" or "connected" to a supernatural entity.

Scofflaw

JC 2K3 wrote:

Well there's always the God Gene Hypothesis.

Personally I think theists feel the exact same profound emotions as I do. They just interpret it as a "gift from God" or something.

I mean, when I was younger and indoctrinated as a Catholic I used to feel a "connection" with Jesus during all of those meditation sessions where we were told to close our eyes and talk to Jesus in our hearts. However, nowadays I experience similar feelings, it's just a natural response to personal reflection. Had I never been told that this was "talking to Jesus" when I was younger I would never have believed I was actually "talking" or "connected" to a supernatural entity.

Do you mean "connected" in the sense that when one focuses meditatively on a candle, or a fire, one feels somehow connected to it?

cordially,
Scofflaw

pinksoir

Jakkass wrote:

another question then, if a spiritual dimension doesn't exist in life, then what do you describe the feelings that theists feel as? Or why do theists feel so drawn to a God? just out of interest.

When I was about 19 and studying philosophy of religion in college, I remember distincly feeling a strong 'spiritual' connection with God as various arguments for his existence hit a note with me. I remember believing that 'God is love' and no matter where I was I could always feel that elated sense of love. It was a feeling of connectedness with something other than myself.

I also remember singing in the choir and feeling a deep connectedness with everything outside of myself.

Both examples can be rationalised, and both are entirely reliant on emotions. The first is that just because you believe something does not make it true. It is easy to think of someone who feels love for someone that is not recirocated. No matter how much this person loves the other does not make the object of his affection reciprocate. No matter how much he/she believes that the other person must love him/her because his/her love for them is so strong does not make the other person love them. This is what restraining orders are for!

It is also easy to think of an example where someone loves a dog, but the dog does not love them in return. Or indeed an inanimate object that one feels strongly connected to, like an object from their childhood. This love can also be extended to the non-existent.

The second example has a lot to do with the environment in which I was in. If anyone has ever been to st. Patrick's cathedral in Dublin then they will know that it is an awe enspiring structure. The connectedness I felt was very much influenced by the acoustics of the building, the beautiful music that was being sung, the size of the congregation, in fact, innumerable factors that all worked together to produce a very strong emotional connectedness.

The thing is that emotions are very complex and absolutely essential to the human condition. If by 'spirituality' you mean 'a deeper emotional connectedness with something outside of yourself', then I am sure that the vast majority of people, theists and atheists alike, experience much the same feelings. I get exactly the same feeling of connectedness and awe that I did when I was Christian, especially when I think of the universe, the achievements of man, the fact that we are indeed all connected, albeit not through God but on a sub atomic level (string theory has begun to explain this rationally), and even, dare I say it, when I took mushrooms.

The fact of the matter is that, as already stated, emotions are extremely complex things. But they can be rationalised, and they are often entirely dependent on environmental factors. Also, and this is important, when you are immersed in an emotion it is often impossible to see past it. Many people suffer from depression, as I have in the past, and when you are deeply depressed it is extremely difficult to see past it. As it is an overload of emotion one can almost revel in it. But once you have come through it you can rationalise it and understand it, and the factors that caused it.

Is depression spiritual?

Zombrex

Jakkass wrote:

another question then, if a spiritual dimension doesn't exist in life, then what do you describe the feelings that theists feel as? Or why do theists feel so drawn to a God? just out of interest.

Hard to answer without knowing specifically which feeling, since I would imagine they have different causes.

If you could describe some such feeling then possibly we could give an explanation that doesn't include a deity

JC 2K3

Scofflaw wrote:

Do you mean "connected" in the sense that when one focuses meditatively on a candle, or a fire, one feels somehow connected to it?

cordially,
Scofflaw

Essentially, yes.

Scofflaw

JC 2K3 wrote:

Scofflaw wrote:

Do you mean "connected" in the sense that when one focuses meditatively on a candle, or a fire, one feels somehow connected to it?

Essentially, yes.

I'm sorry to keep asking questions, but I never was a theist, so I have a lot of questions!

When you were asked to 'meditate on Jesus', you felt a 'connection' with Jesus - do you think you would have felt the same 'connection' if asked to meditate on some other person? Assuming that you had been told, that is, that the other person was real, and loved you, etc...

Lastly, do you think this is what most theists mean when they say that they feel a "spiritual connection" to Jesus/God?

cordially,
Scofflaw

JC 2K3

Scofflaw wrote:

I'm sorry to keep asking questions, but I never was a theist, so I have a lot of questions!

When you were asked to 'meditate on Jesus', you felt a 'connection' with Jesus - do you think you would have felt the same 'connection' if asked to meditate on some other person? Assuming that you had been told, that is, that the other person was real, and loved you, etc...

Lastly, do you think this is what most theists mean when they say that they feel a "spiritual connection" to Jesus/God?

cordially,
Scofflaw

Yes to both questions.

Tim Robbins

Jakkass wrote:

another question then, if a spiritual dimension doesn't exist in life, .

Atheists and theists both feel spiritual. My spirit or innate emotions are uplifted by Art, Sport, Love, music, comedy, politics, logic etc.

then what do you describe the feelings that theists feel as?

Tingly emotional feelings.

Or why do theists feel so drawn to a God?

Reason 1:
Evolution:
Uncertainty => stress => Lower immunse system => survival disadvantage
whereas
Belief in the supernatural => Less uncertainty => better immune system => survival advantage.
Part of your brain is programmed to intuitively belief in supernatural.

Reason 2:
Social pressure and indoctrination.

Reason 3:
Fear of death, and loss of a loved one.

Reason 4:
Lonliness. Part of conciousness is isolated from everyone else. A belief in a god is a belief that God can see right inside of you, into your conciousness and remove some of lonliness associated with your conciousness.

Reason 5:
Escapism from the humrdum of life. Life is boring for most people. a belief in a higher being for many people gives life meaning and an aura about it.

Reason 6:
Poor education or not very good at critical thinking.

Reason 7:
Social function.
For many people, A religion can perform as a social outlet.

philologos

Tim Robbins wrote:

Reason 6:
Poor education or not very good at critical thinking.

A lot of theists are educated and are very critical of other things outside religion, some are even very critical of the establishment of the church itself. So I don't know where you get that from.

JC 2K3

Obviously not every reason applies to every theist.

philologos

I don't think it's a reasonable conclusion, and it would apply to a few atheists as well.

Son Goku

Jakkass wrote:

I don't think it's a reasonable conclusion, and it would apply to a few atheists as well.

Yeah, it's simply another reason. Some people will be theists due to lack of education.

Zillah

Reason 8: Social cohesion. In a primitive tribal society it is an advantage to all worship something together. When bloodthirsty worshippers of Yaweh clash with less bloodthirsty atheist tribe, atheist tribe falls apart.

Also, NOT worshipping Yaweh is a critical flaw resulting in a prompt and bloody death.

Scofflaw

Son Goku wrote:

Yeah, it's simply another reason. Some people will be theists due to lack of education.

To be fair, atheists include amongst their number some whose only reason for "atheism" is teenage rebellion.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Sapien

Scofflaw wrote:

To be fair, atheists include amongst their number some whose only reason for "atheism" is teenage rebellion.

cordially,
Scofflaw

I would think rebellion is as good an reason as any to reject religion. What percentage of early-start humanists have hormones to thank for their sanity?

Son Goku

Scofflaw wrote:

To be fair, atheists include amongst their number some whose only reason for "atheism" is teenage rebellion.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Definitely, to be fair it does work both ways. In fact I think the fact that so many people are teenage atheists siphons a lot of its credibility among the religous, e.g. "I was once like you"

Scofflaw

Sapien wrote:

I would think rebellion is as good an reason as any to reject religion. What percentage of early-start humanists have hormones to thank for their sanity?

Couldn't say, of course. There's a difference, though, between people who intellectually decide to be atheists in their teens, and those whose atheism is only a rejection of their parent's atheism. I think most of the latter become theists again, and do the annoying thing:

Son Goku wrote:

Definitely, to be fair it does work both ways. In fact I think the fact that so many people are teenage atheists siphons a lot of its credibility among the religous, e.g. "I was once like you"

that Son Goku points out.

Mind you, a lot of theists who say that actually mean "I didn't think about God" rather than anything else - an equally irritating and fellatious (sic) assumption about what drives atheists.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Tim Robbins

Jakkass wrote:

A lot of theists are educated and are very critical of other things outside religion, some are even very critical of the establishment of the church itself. So I don't know where you get that from.

Correct, not all reasons always apply. However, that said, I do find a lot of fanatic or fundamentalist Christians are quite poorly educated in Science for example.

Jakkass

Jakkass wrote:

I suppose "spiritual" could have been the wrong word. I'd generally associate it with a feeling of connection with something beyond yourself (namely God for me). But do atheists feel a special link with the human race for example, and inspiration to work for the betterment of others as well as oneself, as opposed to an inspiration to work for a supreme being.

Sounds about right for me I guess
I suppose compassion is a main point of my religion anyway though

philologos

Tim Robbins wrote:

Correct, not all reasons always apply. However, that said, I do find a lot of fanatic or fundamentalist Christians are quite poorly educated in Science for example.

Fair enough, but just because you are poorly educated in Science doesn't mean you aren't very well educated in other fields such as politics, history, and theology for example, as a lot of theists I know would be. Atheists could be terrible in these fields, but that doesn't mean that they are poor at critical thinking. So personally I would be critical (ironically for a theist apparently) of your viewpoint for that reason.

Tim Robbins

Jakkass wrote:

Fair enough, but just because you are poorly educated in Science doesn't mean you aren't very well educated in other fields such as politics, history, and theology for example, as a lot of theists I know would be. Atheists could be terrible in these fields, but that doesn't mean that they are poor at critical thinking. So personally I would be critical (ironically for a theist apparently) of your viewpoint for that reason.

What part of my viewpoint? More information please.

robindch

There's a difference between acquiring information (the nub, for example, of history, politics etc) and the fine art of critical thinking (which attempts to assess competing truth-claims). The former is mostly concerned with Content, while the latter mostly relates to Form. They're diff'rent things.

Scofflaw

Perhaps it's worth expanding slightly on what robin is saying, before this turns into one of those "theists are silly, atheists are silly" fights?

The arts are very different from the sciences, and the role of "critical thinking" in each is quite different. Both deal with the assessment of competing claims, but the methods of comparison are quite different, and the intellectual frameworks in which those comparisons are made are also quite different.

The Arts are, to a large extent, rationalist where the sciences are empiricist. In the Arts, interpretation and the strength of logical argument are key features, and all evidence requires interpretation. Evidence in the Arts, therefore, assumes a sort of subsidiary role, because it is open to many interpretations.

If we take a shard of pottery, for example, we might say that it was part of a container - but that is an assumption based on its shape etc. If we have a container, we might say that it is a pot - but even that word assumes a certain functional interpretation. Let's assume that it shows no traces of contents. Perhaps it is a funerary urn? Doesn't contain ashes? No matter - perhaps it was intended as a funerary urn. Does that mean the people concerned venerated their dead? Was the container traded for, or made locally?

So, from a single shard of pottery, we have come a very long way. If we try to make whatever story we are spinning match the evidence of another shard of pottery 100 miles away, there is really very little to stop us.

How does this happen? It happens because the arts are primarily concerned with the study of humanity and human artefacts, and with making our way through what we know to be the rich tapestry of human history and endeavour using only tiny scraps of thread, each of which is unique. The resulting fields can hardly help but be dominated by interpretation.

The framework behind all such interpretative arts is now based largely on the general theory that the interpretation you come to is likely to result from unconscious biases, and that this will also impact your interpretation of the evidence - interpreting the pottery shard as evidence of trade and honouring the dead rather than local effort and materialism.

In the sciences, interpretation and the strength of logical argument are relevant, but the evidence is everything, and evidence can only be interpreted where you can draw a very short and solid line from fact to interpretation.

If a physicist measures a value for acceleration under gravity, that's all that happens. That figure is repeatable - the next physicist can do it, and the next. When a sedimentologist says that such and such a sedimentary structure can only result from a particular set of conditions, the matter is experimentally verifiable. Therefore, every time we see that structure, we know that the particular set of conditions must have been in place.

So, wind-formed dunes cannot have been formed underwater, because the characteristics of water and wind are too different to permit of such confusion. Similarly, sand and rock erode differently, so one cannot mistake an eroded rock surface for an eroded sand surface.

What cultural baggage, or unconscious biases, can one bring to the question of whether dunes formed under water or air? None.

Science therefore operates in an intellectual framework in which one interpretation of the evidence is correct, and others are not. To say that there "Islamic geology", or "feminist geology", in the sense that the same evidence is interpreted differently, but equally validly, is utterly foolish.

Therefore, when someone with a science background, and someone with an arts background, engage in "critical thinking" or "examine the evidence", they are approaching the matter under consideration from completely different angles, each appropriate for different tasks.

When we attempt to determine what the Bible means when it says something, the arts approach is usually more appropriate. However, that does not hold for matters of fact - whatever the author of Genesis may have meant, the physical evidence cannot be bent to fit that narrative, and that unbending truth is not a matter of interpretation, no matter what someone with a background in the arts might think.

cordially,
Scofflaw

philologos

robindch wrote:

There's a difference between acquiring information (the nub, for example, of history, politics etc) and the fine art of critical thinking (which attempts to assess competing truth-claims). The former is mostly concerned with Content, while the latter mostly relates to Form. They're diff'rent things.

Critical thinking very much falls in to politics and history as well I think you'll find. People debating the accuracy of whether events have occurred. Or enquiring into actions that have taken place. For example I can hold a critical viewpoint on the actions of the Israeli Defence Force in the West Bank by analysing human rights reports. Still requires a critical mind in the first place.

Zombrex

Jakkass wrote:

Critical thinking very much falls in to politics and history as well I think you'll find. People debating the accuracy of whether events have occurred. Or enquiring into actions that have taken place. For example I can hold a critical viewpoint on the actions of the Israeli Defence Force in the West Bank by analysing human rights reports. Still requires a critical mind in the first place.

Then why do you not bring this critical thinking to your own religion?

Tim Robbins

Jakkass, Can you answer my last post please?

philologos

Wicknight wrote:

Then why do you not bring this critical thinking to your own religion?

What makes you think I haven't ever employed critical thinking into Christianity? Sure I've questioned my beliefs before but the spiritual connection that I have had with God, alongside the fact that it is pretty possible for a supreme power to have done what he has done in Biblical accounts my faith has kept with me thankfully.

Jakkass

Jakkass wrote:

What makes you think I haven't ever employed critical thinking into Christianity? Sure I've questioned my beliefs before but the spiritual connection that I have had with God, alongside the fact that it is pretty possible for a supreme power to have done what he has done in Biblical accounts my faith has kept with me thankfully.

So because a supreme power could possibly do supreme things, it must go from possible -> probable -> definitely true, and because some of those things may be true, all of them must be true, it must be the only power capable of doing such things, and it's therefore worth a lifetime of worship...

robindch

Critical thinking is equally applicable in politics and history, but frequently ignored in order to propagate or validate one viewpoint or another, usually one in which the propagator has invested significant time and energy. History and politics and many other topics also often seek an agreed "interpretation" which isn't much different from an opinion on whatever's up for discussion. This is far less common in science and engineering where one must eventually submit to nature as judge. One can't "interpret" an airplane up into the sky, for example.

In your second point about the IDF, you're mixing up the epistemological meaning of the word "critical" (implying systematic thought) with the more normal daily usage (implying disapproval of). One can be critical, for example, of medical science, while approving of it.

philologos

Tim Robbins wrote:

Reason 6:
Poor education or not very good at critical thinking.

Firstly you say that theists have a poor education and aren't good at critical thinking.

Tim Robbins wrote:

However, that said, I do find a lot of fanatic or fundamentalist Christians are quite poorly educated in Science for example.

Then you say this. Just because you have met some fanatic and fundementalist Christians who do not have a knowledge in Science doesn't mean that they could not be very well educated in other fields. It's not a crime not to pursue a career in science you know. This is where I think your viewpoint is fundementally flawed. That is like saying that atheists aren't well educated because a few of them don't have a decent education in modern politics.

(again using the critical mind that theists aren't supposed to have)

Zombrex

Jakkass wrote:

What makes you think I haven't ever employed critical thinking into Christianity?

Other than the fact that you are still a Christian ...

Seriously though, I've had discussions with you Jakkass about various aspects of Christian belief and "critical thinking" was not the first thing that springs out from your posts... quite the opposite in fact, as demonstrated below

Jakkass wrote:

Sure I've questioned my beliefs before but the spiritual connection that I have had with God

Well there you go.

Why do you think that you actually have a spiritual connection with God in the first place. Have you not applied critical thinking to this, have you not considered the other (far more likely) explanations for what you experience?

I think the real barrier that stops theists from really applying critical thinking to their own religion is that they don't want to confront answers that they don't like.

Jakkass wrote:

, alongside the fact that it is pretty possible for a supreme power to have done what he has done in Biblical accounts my faith has kept with me thankfully.

Again, there you go

What makes you think anything in the Bible is actually true? That doesn't sound like critical thinking at all. In fact it sounds like wishful thinking in the extreme.

Why have you not applied critical thinking to the Bible?

But again you have a vested interest in wanting this stuff to be true. Which means that it is very hard for you to actually apply critical thinking to any of this, since I doubt you actually want to confront any uncomfortable conclusions from said critical thinking.

Scofflaw

Jakkass wrote:

Firstly you say that theists have a poor education and aren't good at critical thinking.

Not what the statement says - it says one possible reason people become theists is through "poor education or not [being] very good at critical thinking."

If you leave aside Christianity for a moment, surely this is one reason that you would see people worshipping idols or fetishes?

Jakkass wrote:

Then you say this. Just because you have met some fanatic and fundementalist Christians who do not have a knowledge in Science doesn't mean that they could not be very well educated in other fields. It's not a crime not to pursue a career in science you know. This is where I think your viewpoint is fundementally flawed. That is like saying that atheists aren't well educated because a few of them don't have a decent education in modern politics.

I think here TR quite specifically means "Creationists". To claim to be able to evaluate the evidence for Creation certainly does require scientific education.

cordially,
Scofflaw

JC 2K3

Jakkass, would you be open to the possibility that perhaps I feel the same "spiritual connection" with God as you do, yet I simply don't recognise it as a "connection with God", but a normal, natural human feeling?

JC 2K3

Jakkass wrote:

Firstly you say that theists have a poor education and aren't good at critical thinking.

Ugh, he said that a POSSIBLE REASON for one being a theist could be that they are poorly educated, the same way a possible reason for one being an atheist could be that they simply are an angsty teenager who wants to rebel to be "cool". He didn't say ALL theists were poorly educated.