Unquestioning faith **Mod Warning in final post**

J C

I had the privelige of attending the funeral of a great Christian woman on Saturday.
She was 98 years at the time of her death and had enjoyed good health up until recently. She died peacefully surrounded by her family and she returned to God happily and with a smile on her face.
The atmosphere in the house and church was one of sadness at losing such a genuinely nice person, mixed with great joy that she had now reached what the ultimate objective of her life was ... heaven.

smacl

Safehands wrote: »

It occurs to me that there are two types of logic. The logic that tells me that the Biblical stories and Christian beliefs cannot be true and the logic that tells me that when I am on my deathbed I will be better with her unquestioning faith, than with my lack of it.

Those two things aren't necessarily contradictory, though I'd change 'will be better' to 'would be better' on the basis that you don't currently have that faith and this may or may not change. Unfortunately, unless your faith becomes concrete and deeply held, I'd imagine it won't assuage your fear of dying. You might want to ask yourself would you ever be likely to cultivate such a faith again, and if so, is fear of dying the right reason to do so?

Elemonator

I believe the more scientists discover about our universe, the more questions are revealed. There is much out there that could possibly be impossible to us to understand now, but could have also originated from intelligent design.

I am not sure myself.

smacl

antiskeptic wrote: »

It strikes me that we only get one death and it is appropriate that that be faced and dealt with rather than flee from it.

Agreed, it is the one certainty in life. My own father died a couple of years back, and though an atheist like myself was quite stoic about it, having moved back in with my family for the last few weeks of his life. I'd hope to manage the same with kids and grandkids around the place, but who knows.

Scripture urges the believer not to mourn as the unbeliever does/has little option but to. Mourn because you will miss the person but that mourning significantly tempered. So yes, tear from all. But qualitatively different.

No doubt mourning is that bit easier for the faithful. I personally found my fathers death very difficult and to some extent still do. Atheism does have its downsides

uck51js9zml2yt

smacl wrote: »

Agreed, it is the one certainty in life. My own father died a couple of years back, and though an atheist like myself was quite stoic about it, having moved back in with my family for the last few weeks of his life. I'd hope to manage the same with kids and grandkids around the place, but who knows.



No doubt mourning is that bit easier for the faithful. I personally found my fathers death very difficult and to some extent still do. Atheism does have its downsides

Perhaps you shoud start looking at the alternative:D

smacl

Amina Spicy Self-possession wrote: »

Perhaps you shoud start looking at the alternative:D

Which is what exactly?

Safehands

smacl wrote: »

Those two things aren't necessarily contradictory, though I'd change 'will be better' to 'would be better' on the basis that you don't currently have that faith and this may or may not change. Unfortunately, unless your faith becomes concrete and deeply held, I'd imagine it won't assuage your fear of dying. You might want to ask yourself would you ever be likely to cultivate such a faith again, and if so, is fear of dying the right reason to do so?

Very relevent points. You are right of course, "would be" is far more accurate. As for cultivating that faith again, I really don't know. Ultimately, fear of death and where we all go has to be a major reason for the existence of faith in the first place, I suspect.

antiskeptic

smacl wrote: »

Agreed, it is the one certainty in life. My own father died a couple of years back, and though an atheist like myself was quite stoic about it, having moved back in with my family for the last few weeks of his life. I'd hope to manage the same with kids and grandkids around the place, but who knows.

The only believer who's died, who I know well enough to be sure of the solidity of her faith, is* my mother. Although it's an ugly business, death, there was an utterly beautiful aspect to it. Her God appeared at her side and led her through. No fear rather, wonderment, awe, comfort and humility his presence felt.

*I just noticed my use of the present continuous tense.

No doubt mourning is that bit easier for the faithful. I personally found my fathers death very difficult and to some extent still do.

My sympathy. I miss my folks and since most of the day isn't spend pondering on their eternal whereabouts, the missing can be keen. It's just that I arrive at the terminus of looking for to seeing her again soon, and perhaps hopefully, him also.

NIMAN

Elemonator wrote: »

I believe the more scientists discover about our universe, the more questions are revealed. There is much out there that could possibly be impossible to us to understand now, but could have also originated from intelligent design.

I am not sure myself.

But you tend to find that most scientists are atheists.

Peregrinus

NIMAN wrote: »

But you tend to find that most scientists are atheists.

Not necessarily. More often than not, sicentists tend to be less religious than the population of which they form part, but this doesn't necessarily mean that a majority of scientists will be non-religious- it depends on the religiosity of the wider society. Plus there are counter-examples; socieities where scientists tend to be more religious than their wider society.

You can also cook the books somewhat to get the result you want here by deciding who you will, and who you will not, regard as a "scientist". Just the natural scientists, or are you including the social scientists as well? Just those employed in scientific posts, or all those with a scientific education or qualification? Etc.

The claim that "most scientists are atheist" is usually made by combining (a) the results of a study looking at scientists (however defined) in the US, plus (b) an assumption (ironically, a deeply unscientific assumption) that the rest of the world is just like the US, really.

Finally, the thought that always occurs to me in this context; why should we care whether most scientists are atheist? Given any half-way reasonable definition of "scientists", scientists are going to be people with some degree of expertise in science. But "does God exist?" is a theological question, and being a scientist confers no particular theological expertise or philosophical wisdom. No doubt scientists have an interesting perspective from which to consider the question, but it's not an authoritative perspective, and the views of scientists on the existence of God carry no more weight that, say, the views of poets. Why would they?

smacl

antiskeptic wrote: »

My sympathy. I miss my folks and since most of the day isn't spend pondering on their eternal whereabouts, the missing can be keen. It's just that I arrive at the terminus of looking for to seeing her again soon, and perhaps hopefully, him also.

Thanks for that, and my sympathies also. I guess we're more alike than we might think. I don't ponder where my Dad is either, my belief is that his final resting place is the thoughts and dreams of myself, my sister and those who love him. The missing does remain keen and describes the sense of very well, more so than mourning.

*I just noticed my use of the present continuous tense.

Again, entirely appropriate IMHO, as it seems apparent that your love for someone can outlive them.

smacl

Peregrinus wrote: »

Finally, the thought that always occurs to me in this context; why should we care whether most scientists are atheist? Given any half-way reasonable definition of "scientists", scientists are going to be people with some degree of expertise in science. But "does God exist?" is a theological question, and being a scientist confers no particular theological expertise or philosophical wisdom. No doubt scientists have an interesting perspective from which to consider the question, but it's not an authoritative perspective, and the views of scientists on the existence of God carry no more weight that, say, the views of poets. Why would they?

It is a fair point, but I suspect the issue here is that scientists don't actually form a homogeneous a group where it is useful to consider their religious leanings. I think setting up science versus religion is a false dichotomy for this reason. That said, the linked article seems pretty weak too, i.e.

"More than half of scientists in India, Italy, Taiwan and Turkey self-identify as religious"

If the percentage of scientists in these countries that self identify as religious is considerably lower than than national average , it would suggest that scientists are correspondingly less likely to be religious that those around them. A quick glance at Wikipedia shows identification as religious running at 99% in India, 87% in Italy, 78% in Taiwan and 97% in Turkey, so noting that only half of the scientists from these countries identify as religious tells us that scientists from these places are far less likely to be religious than others.

uck51js9zml2yt

NIMAN wrote: »

But you tend to find that most scientists are atheists.

And I assume you have scientific evidence to prove your point?

I must tell the Christian scientists I know that they are wrong to believe!!

homer911

NIMAN wrote: »

But you tend to find that most scientists are atheists.

On the contrary, a survey I saw somewhere recently put scientists who believe in God in the majority and many prominent historical scientists had a strong Christian faith - will have to try and locate the results..

Peregrinus

smacl wrote: »

. . . . A quick glance at Wikipedia shows identification as religious running at 99% in India, 87% in Italy, 78% in Taiwan and 97% in Turkey, so noting that only half of the scientists from these countries identify as religious tells us that scientists from these places are far less likely to be religious than others.

A point the article itself makes, I think. But "scientists less religious than the general population" is not at all the same thing as "majority of scientists atheist".

Besides, for the result to be meaningful I think you'd have to control for other factors - you need to adjust your results to take account of other factors that are positively or negatively associated with religiosity (age, gender, social class) in order to identify any effect that may actually be attributable to being a scientist.

And, in the end, all you will learn is something about the effects of a scientific education/a scientific career (depending on how you are defining "scientist" for the purposes of your study). I don't know that you're learning anything meaningful about religion.

MrPudding

smacl wrote: »

Atheism does have its downsides

Yes, as atheists we have considerably fewer worthless platitudes at our disposal.

I have never like funerals, even when I was a believer. I dislike them more now as I think they are easier when you can give it the old "ah well, (s)he is in a better place now..."

I find losing a loved one difficult too. I guess it should be harder on me for me death is it. There is nothing after, I will not see them again. I look at my children and I know that when I die I will not be looking down on them, watching them grow and raise their own children. That makes me sad.

Amina Spicy Self-possession wrote:

Perhaps you shoud start looking at the alternative

But not sad enough to lie to myself and others. Yes, it would be great if after death I got to meet up with everyone again and live happily ever after, but that is simply not going to happen. What I try to do is enjoy my life as best I can, be the best person I can be, and try to teach my children the same. Then when the time comes I will know I tried my best to made the world a little better, and tried to instil the same desire in my children.

This life is what we have, I see no reason, particularly sadness at what happens after death, to cling to a lie.

MrP

smacl

Peregrinus wrote: »

And, in the end, all you will learn is something about the effects of a scientific education/a scientific career (depending on how you are defining "scientist" for the purposes of your study). I don't know that you're learning anything meaningful about religion.

What a scientific method teaches is to arrive at an understanding based on controlled and repeatable observation and experiment where subjective interference and bias is removed as far as is reasonably possible. Science tells us very little about religion until such time as a broadly accepted scientific theory comes into direct conflict with a strongly held religious belief, e.g. evolution versus creationism and Noah's ark etc... In this case I'd imagine that the religious beliefs held by scientists are likely to be tempered by their scientific education to the extent that they largely shy away from unacceptable literal truths in the bible. Religious doctrine is also prone to revision through scientific observation albeit rather slowly, as can be seen from the acceptance of heliocentrism over geocentrism following the works of Copernicus and Galileo.

smacl

MrPudding wrote: »

I find losing a loved one difficult too. I guess it should be harder on me for me death is it. There is nothing after, I will not see them again. I look at my children and I know that when I die I will not be looking down on them, watching them grow and raise their own children. That makes me sad.

Never having been in any way religious, this doesn't make me sad in the least in that the expectation that this might happen was never there to start with. What does strike me as somewhat sad is raising a child with the belief that they're essentially immortal only for them to arrive at the conclusion in later life that they've been sold a pup.

MrPudding

smacl wrote: »

Never having been in any way religious, this doesn't make me sad in the least in that the expectation that this might happen was never there to start with. What does strike me as somewhat sad is raising a child with the belief that they're essentially immortal only for them to arrive at the conclusion in later life that they've been sold a pup.

yes, I think probably never having been religious at all has its advantages. Don't get me wrong, I am not depressed, I don't struggle with questions of who am I, what is my purpose, what is the point... But when you spend you formative years believing this stuff, one can't help be a little sad in some circumstances.

It's a bit like the Matrix though, I am out, and I have no desire to get plugged back in.

MrP

eviltwin

I don't believe in God or an afterlife and I'm quite open about it. I also come from a very religious family. My dad died of cancer and I remember an aunt of mine saying something like "i bet you've changed your mind now" or words to that effect. She thought that I would not be able to live with the idea of never meeting my dad again and that I would suddenly find god. I didn't and I'm okay with the idea that he's gone forever, one day I will be too and that's okay.

I was raised catholic and grew up with the notion of heaven but also that of hell and purgatory. We were always told that only the very best people go straight to heaven. Personally, leaving that belief behind me was a positive one. I hadn't been a good person and did a lot of things a good Catholic shouldn't do. If its all real I'm going to hell forever. It used to worry me as a child, I'd have sleepless nights terrified I would die and go to purgatory for some minor transgression. I'm a lot happier now that I don't have to worry about some kind of cosmic karma when I eventually pop my clogs.

EirWatchr

eviltwin wrote: »

She thought that I would not be able to live with the idea of never meeting my dad again and that I would suddenly find god. I didn't and I'm okay with the idea that he's gone forever

Good honest post. It just brought some things to mind.

Its not the fear of nothing (or even judgement) that would cause someone to suddenly think there is an afterlife. Belief in Jesus would:
“I am the living bread that came down from heaven. If anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever.” (Jn 6:51)
If those who accept Jesus live forever, then perhaps those who don’t will come to an end - in which case, you’d be correct that believers and unbelievers won’t meet again.

eviltwin wrote: »

I was raised catholic and grew up with the notion of heaven but also that of hell and purgatory. We were always told that only the very best people go straight to heaven. Personally, leaving that belief behind me was a positive one. I hadn't been a good person and did a lot of things a good Catholic shouldn't do. If its all real I'm going to hell forever.

But would "leaving belief", rejecting God, and so a life in heaven, because of fear of the consequences of sin, not be the ultimate triumph of that evil?

The way doctrine was taught in the past (and probably still is) has a lot to answer for (quite literally). A lot was taken for granted, and yet left us with fundamental questions that were unsatisfactorily answered, so unsurprisingly many fall away from it under any provocation (the proverbial seedlings that didn't take root in shallow soil). Today, we are rightly more demanding in wanting better answers to the questions, deep questions that we likely didn’t even have in school. We received doctrine, but were never catechized. The RCIA adults go through is very different compared with the way it is ‘taught’ during schooling. For me, I found it was only much later when I started investigating for myself the fundamentals for Catholic faith and teaching that I got any authentic meaning out of it. The fundamental message of Jesus (reflected in the sacrament of confession) is that there is no sin that He will not forgive. None. His forgiveness is there, ready for us, but up to us to take it. The only sinner beyond the reach of God’s forgiveness is the one who refuses Him. That's why we’re warned of sin, and why its so destructive - it separates us from knowing (or even acknowledging) God, and so also "life forever" in the Kingdom of Heaven, and so death is what we'll receive. Catholic Christian faith is a positive thing; it is the message of the Gospel (literally meaning "Good News”), that there is another way, if you want to take it.

Steve012

Elemonator wrote: »

I believe the more scientists discover about our universe, the more questions are revealed. There is much out there that could possibly be impossible to us to understand now, but could have also originated from intelligent design.

I am not sure myself.

I had a look at that a few years ago. Many many scientists believe the is "Design" to the universe. Very evident here on planet earth, snowflakes, tree of life, etc..

So as they say in their own words, "if it was designed, well then there has to be a designer"

The more scientist discover, they realize they know feck all.

Steve012

eviltwin wrote: »

I don't believe in God or an afterlife and I'm quite open about it. I also come from a very religious family. My dad died of cancer and I remember an aunt of mine saying something like "i bet you've changed your mind now" or words to that effect. She thought that I would not be able to live with the idea of never meeting my dad again and that I would suddenly find god. I didn't and I'm okay with the idea that he's gone forever, one day I will be too and that's okay.

I was raised catholic and grew up with the notion of heaven but also that of hell and purgatory. We were always told that only the very best people go straight to heaven. Personally, leaving that belief behind me was a positive one. I hadn't been a good person and did a lot of things a good Catholic shouldn't do. If its all real I'm going to hell forever. It used to worry me as a child, I'd have sleepless nights terrified I would die and go to purgatory for some minor transgression. I'm a lot happier now that I don't have to worry about some kind of cosmic karma when I eventually pop my clogs.

Good post, the catholic church made a mess of things saying e.g "kiss that girl and you'll go to hell" eh sure man right on!

They pretty much used Fear the whole time, especially the older generations will tell you tales of woe when they were in school.


What if its like this though, a lot of folk know that frequency is everything. We are all made up of frequencies.
The human heart is a very powerful frequency transmitter/receiver.
There's a lot of talk about "God" being infinite consciousness. Infinite consciousness cannot hold any negativity, a pure loving all knowing consciousness.

I believe when we pass we re join infinite consciousness. Not a lot of humans can experience it here on the planet because we are affected by duality.
We can NEVER be free of sin on this planet, impossible.

Say if one went to confession, "cleared their sins" on the way out of the church there's a wedding going to begin, a lot of ladies dressed very well, some in short skirts and low cut tops, your neighbours wife happens to be among them, in the shortest skirt and the lowest top and she is very pretty.
Most hot blooded males would look a think... you guys get the picture. So hey .. I've basically just sinned again, seeing as I have my own wife and this is my neighbours.

I believe Yeshua came to show us and keep us on the right side of duality.
Right side of duality " Love your neighbour as yourself"
Wrong side, "Kill the <snip> and take his land"

I've been looking researching and studying this topic out of interest for years now. And I didn't come from a catholic background.

Ah we'll all know one day anyway

smacl

Steve012 wrote: »

Ah we'll all know one day anyway

Or not

.........

Steve012 wrote: »

Good post, the catholic church made a mess of things saying e.g "kiss that girl and you'll go to hell" eh sure man right on!

They pretty much used Fear the whole time, especially the older generations will tell you tales of woe when they were in school.

Those who managed the Irish Church certainly did make a mess of things.They failed to practice anything close to what Catholicism taught, and practiced the exact opposite, but that is no more an example of actual Catholicism than Bertie Ahern and Brian Cowen were an example of how leadership should work.

J C

MrPudding wrote: »

Yes, as atheists we have considerably fewer worthless platitudes at our disposal.

I have never like funerals, even when I was a believer. I dislike them more now as I think they are easier when you can give it the old "ah well, (s)he is in a better place now..."

I find losing a loved one difficult too. I guess it should be harder on me for me death is it. There is nothing after, I will not see them again. I look at my children and I know that when I die I will not be looking down on them, watching them grow and raise their own children. That makes me sad.



But not sad enough to lie to myself and others. Yes, it would be great if after death I got to meet up with everyone again and live happily ever after, but that is simply not going to happen. What I try to do is enjoy my life as best I can, be the best person I can be, and try to teach my children the same. Then when the time comes I will know I tried my best to made the world a little better, and tried to instil the same desire in my children.

This life is what we have, I see no reason, particularly sadness at what happens after death, to cling to a lie.

MrP

... what you believe to be a lie.

... and millions believe to be true.

MrPudding

J C wrote: »

... what you believe to be a lie.

... and millions believe to be true.

Argumentum ad populum, I guess that is an improvement on what you normally post...

MrP

antiskeptic

NIMAN wrote: »

But you tend to find that most scientists are atheists.

Which doesn't explain the very significant numbers of scientists that are believers. And that does require explanation.

For if believing scientists are to be tarred with the brush that is often used of believers in general (crutch, deluded, upbringing, etc) then we can say that being a scientist doesn't inoculate you against these things.

So what leg up does the fact a majority of scientists are atheists give to the argument, if there is no inoculation given against other influences-of-worldview by virtue of being a scientist.

.........

NIMAN wrote: »

But you tend to find that most scientists are atheists.

Most scientists where ?

Science only deals with the physical, not the non physical. The Scientist that first proposed the big bang theory of the universe was also a Catholic Priest.

If it helps soothe the human mind, so desperately trying to find some way to overcome the fear that accompanies the instinct for self preservation, then hang on dearly to the belief that there is a loving and forgiving god, ready to accept you in an afterlife should you look to it for acceptance, etc etc.

I believe there is nothing after death. Nothing to fear, to lose or gain. Death is the absolute end of your consciousness and in time even memories of you will die, with the end of other peoples lives and consciousness, leaving little evidence that you ever breathed air on earth. Your body will decompose and all that will remain will be your name on a stone somewhere, truly bringing to an end your very existence as a being, in any form.

Believe away lads if it gives you comfort to think that way. As long as I'm put in a box and turned into ashes with the liberal application of fire and not so much as a single person trying to pray to their mind-salve deity on my behalf it'll all be okay. I'd hate to think someone would waste their make believe play time on this old bag of bones when there are others who'd welcome your thoughts and prayers.