50 reasons people give for believing in a god
Offline On another thread, Caposkia indicated he would be willing to discuss this book with me. I did not want to make this a one on one discussion as I feel it might be interesting to have input from other people. I do request that we don't all gang up on Caposkia, however. Give him a break to participate in other threads, and I am certain he has a life elsewhere.
My thought is to go through Guy Harrison's book and discuss his responses to the 50 reasons in as much detail as we (Caposkia and I) feel is necessary. Some of the chapters we may have more in common with each other and Mr. Harrison, so the discussion may be very short. Other chapters we may have a lot to say to each other.
In order to respect copyright laws, I am not going to copy the entire text of any of the chapters here. Copies are available in print and electronic format for about $10 US. Please consider purchasing a copy - not pirating it - to respect the author. I will give a short summary of a chapter, we can discuss it to death, then move on to the next. If you are interested in seeing how accurate I am, feel free to purchase your own copy. Thanks.
Lastly, I am on Pacific Daylight Time and I, too, have a life elsewhere. Classes are over for the spring term and I am not taking a summer class, so I have time to give this discussion some thought. I will post up the first chapter summary tomorrow afternoon my time.
-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.
"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken
"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.
- Login to post comments
Offline That hardly seems surprising seeing you know nothing at all on him
Beyond that, I'm not sure about Krishna, but
IF
Krishna in whatever form he existed, according to tradition, is to have preceded the time of Abraham by well over 1,400 years ± 75 yrs.,. Btw, He , or the sacred script writers, could NOT have envisaged the Old Testament. Realize, it doesn't hardly seem likely the Kavya (Epic) Literature or the Puranas would be referencing anything out of the Old Testament (whatsoever); Not in the Hebrew Canon either nor anything from the fledgling Yahwehists . . . Just so you know. No Reply is the least bit necessary.
Image Uploaded; Image has nothing whatsoever to do with this but I had it on my hard-drive
. . . .
There's-a-time-to-remain-silent-instead-of-opening-your-mouth-and-showing-off-your-ignorance
- Login to post comments
Offline Well first I have to agree with digitalbeachbum that Jews Muslims and Christians believe in the same God...
No, they don't all believe in the same God. Only Christianity espouses a Trinitarian God. Islam and Judaism are truly monotheistic in their god concept. No "one in three, three in one" god exists within the latter two religions. That distinction may not matter to you but it certainly does to the vast majority of Jews and Muslims. Even some Christian sects reject a trinitarian interpretation.
... Jews ... ( snip ) ...were expecting a different Jesus than the NT Jesus and therefore reject anything Jesus taught... they're still waiting for the coming of the Messiah.
The Jewish Messiah shares nothing with the Christian Messiah so why would the Jews accept him ?
For starters, the Jewish Messiah is not a God, a Son of God or any variation thereof. Nor will he come to Earth to be a ritual sacrifice, etc....
Check it out: www.jewfaq.org/mashiach.htm
- Login to post comments
We all have lives. I understand. Sometimes it takes me up to 2 weeks to respond. I try to get on weekly. I'm looking forward to getting started.
I think that this book might be interesting. I like to see the way the data was collected. I'll look to see if I can find it on Amazon for digital download so I can follow along in the discussion.
BTW. The description from Amazon is:
For skeptics looking for appealing ways to approach their believing friends or believers who are not afraid to consider a skeptical challenge, this book makes for very stimulating reading. Many books that challenge religious belief from a skeptical point of view take a combative tone that is almost guaranteed to alienate believers or they present complex philosophical or scientific arguments that fail to reach the average reader.This is undoubtably an ineffective way of encouraging people to develop critical thinking about religion. This is a unique approach to skepticism regarding that presents fifty commonly heard reasons people often give for believing in a God and then he raises legitimate questions regarding these reasons, showing in each case that there is much room for doubt.Whether you're a believer, a complete skeptic, or somewhere in between, you'll find this review of traditional and more recent arguments for the existence of God refreshing, approachable, and enlightening. From religion as the foundation of morality to the authority of sacred books, the compelling religious testimony of influential people, near-death experiences, arguments from Intelligent Design, and much more, Harrison respectfully describes each rationale for belief and then politely shows the deficiencies that any good skeptic would point out. As a journalist who has traveled widely and interviewed many highly accomplished people, quite a number of whom are believers, the author appreciates the variety of belief and the ways in which people seek to make religion compatible with scientific thought. Nonetheless, he shows that, despite the prevalence of belief in God or religious belief in intelligent people, in the end there are no unassailable reasons for believing in a God.
This is just to give some background on the author.
Guy Harrison has degrees in history and anthropology. At the time he wrote this book, he was a columnist and travel writer. So he has been to more places around the world than I have. In his introduction, he says he wrote this book in response to religious claims and how they seemed to him to be remarkably similar regardless of which religion was under discussion. His intent was not to harm, embarrass, injure or put down anyone's beliefs.
My instructor for one of my philosophy classes requested a Skype discussion with Mr. Harrison, and he graciously agreed. He really is a gentle person, an atheist who is interested in discussing faith and religion, but far from militant. He said he leaves the militancy to others as it doesn't suit him.
-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.
"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken
"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.
It is truly astonishing to me that anyone can make this claim, yet many do.
There are more than one billion Muslims in the world who claim Allah is obvious, yet it is not so obvious to over 5 billion people who do not believe in Islam.
There are more than 2 billion Christians in the world who claim Jesus and God are obvious, yet that is no so obvious to over 4 billion people who do not believe in Christianity.
Over a billion Hindus who say Krishna is obvious. If these (and other) gods are so obvious, why doesn't everyone believe in the "one true god(s)?"
And there are between 500 million and 750 million people world wide who are "organic atheists," those atheists who live in relatively free societies and have a choice in belief or non-belief without harassment from government or religious leaders. Why isn't god(s) so obvious to them? And these people are most prevalent in Denmark, Sweden, Norway, Japan, Canada and France. Hardly countries full of crime and poverty.
A survey of members of the National Academy of Scientists found only 7% believed in a god(s). People who would - most of them - be thrilled to make the kind of splash that proof of a deity - any deity - would give them in the academic world. Think of the rewards and grants your lab would be showered with if you had such proof! Alas, no such luck.
A discussion of references in the book:
American Atheists. "God and the Scientists: A New Debate, an Old Question." August 26, 1999, www.atheists.org/flash.line/athesism6.htm
This is a bad link, and unfortunately, I can not find a better one. So I searched the university library and found this article. There may be more recent research, but i think the problems as discussed in this article likely are still true.
Bergman, G. R. (1996). "Religious beliefs of scientists: a survey of the research." Free Inquiry. 16.3, p41.
The article is available through the library or you can order the particular edition of the magazine through SecularHumanism.org. The conclusion of this article is that it is difficult to define what is religious belief, and how that belief is expressed. Surveys vary a lot with the particular biases of the researcher designing and analyzing the survey. So we can throw out the "93%" of scientists are atheists. Though my thought that any scientist would be ecstatic if they found empirical proof of god(s), still holds.
Zuckerman, Phil. "Atheism: Contemporary Rates and Patterns." The Cambridge Companion to Atheism, ed. Michael Martin, 47-65. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
This article is available on line here: http://www.pitzer.edu/academics/faculty/zuckerman/Ath-Chap-under-7000.pdf
Again, there are issues with definitions of "religion," "religious," and "gods." Dr. Zuckerman addresses this in his paper.
The main point - which does not have any references cited - that there are many religions and they all claim their god(s) is/are obvious I think is pretty firm. Those god(s) are almost always mutually exclusive. Krishna and his relatives bear little resemblance to Allah, Jesus, Jehovah, The Great Spirit, etc. If particular god(s) are so obvious, why the multiplicity of religions? It seems to me that the best one can do at this point is insist on deism, pantheism or unitarianism where all religions are only a shadow of the true reality. Many religious people do not accept this view but cling to the "obviousness" of their own god(s) above any others.
The other references cited are general in nature and I won't discuss them specifically. I include them here for completeness.
Dennett, D. C. Breaking the Spell: Religion as a Natural Phenomenon. New York: Viking Adult, 2006.
Mythology: Gods, Goddesses and Heroes from Around the World. London: Kingfisher Publications, 2001.
-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.
"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken
"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.
Who is the following referring to, according to their respective religion ?
(Dana's) Three card Monte
re:: Three Card Monte (minus the larceny) . Now find the King --
The Sustainer; the Abider; Destroyer of the works of sin; Divine Warrior; the Teacher; the Head crusher; he "who never stumbles" (e.g. - sinless one); The herder; the Incarnation of Divine God in human flesh (with Manifestations of Divinity) ; The Bridegroom ; 'The' King; the Supreme Lord; Healer; the Obligator/(burdener); the Example ; the Liberator; the bestower of Wisdom; establisher of the Way ; was Slain etc etc.
p.s. -- It solely makes a point. I say, I DIDN'T read the pdf file, yet I still am able to give these examples.
Keep in mind that the Jews, the Muslims and the Christians (along with several other smaller factions) all believe in the same god; the god of Abraham. They are technically all brothers and sisters of the same god.
That being said, yes, why doesn't every person believe in the same god and why isn't the god of Abraham the oldest religion in the world?
My mother would say, "free will", but I discard this answer. Free will doesn't exist. It is an illusion.
The results of that survey can be found here, along with historical results from the same survey.
http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/news/file002.html
It is worth noting that the NAS is a rather small subsection of scientists. A wider poll conducted recently by Pew of a larger number of scientists suggests a more widespread belief in god, but still much less than the general public.
http://www.pewforum.org/Science-and-Bioethics/Scientists-and-Belief.aspx
Both surveys were conducted among US scientists and typically the US has a higher percentage of believers than any other developed country.
If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X
Worth repeating. Thanks for the research.
-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.
"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken
"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.
I want this book real bad right now. I would love to just tear down the stupid arguments of my new landlord that blames anything that happens to me or my girlfriend on my being an Atheist. So sick of his shit. Problem is, when one of those assholes finds out your an Atheist, they never cease to give you shit about it.
For instance, I was out front working on my bike the other morning, cause I could not get it to start. He has to walk by and say: "Well, since you think your the sole power of the universe, you shouldn't have a problem. Since you believe in absolutely nothing."
MAN. I wanted to jump up and bust him right in the jaw. If he wasn't the apartment landlord and we had been in public, I would have.
“It is proof of a base and low mind for one to wish to think with the masses or majority, merely because the majority is the majority. Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people.”
― Giordano Bruno
Nah, just say something like: "It's a shame your imaginary friend doesn't stop you from being a deliberately dishonest, self-righteous jackass."
[/threadjack]
LOL
“It is proof of a base and low mind for one to wish to think with the masses or majority, merely because the majority is the majority. Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people.”
― Giordano Bruno
Good one.
“It is proof of a base and low mind for one to wish to think with the masses or majority, merely because the majority is the majority. Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people.”
― Giordano Bruno
Back on topic and moving along.
The author repeats his previous argument briefly - that there are so many religions, who is right? And there is few doubts in anyone's mind that they are vastly different - even contradictory - from each other. Does this mean any god/s/dess is/are real or that humans are very good at inventing gods?
The new argument is that all religions spend a great deal of time teaching their children about religion. I grew up in a nonreligious household - "god exists, but we don't believe in religion" - and I still was encouraged to attend services with my friends whose families were more vested in a religion.
I use the word "teach" rather than indoctrinate purposefully. The people who are teaching their children about their own religion do not believe they are indoctrinating.
I have decided that indoctrinate is used if you don't agree with the particular doctrine being taught, otherwise, if you agree, the word usually used is teach. This is because the first definition is heavily loaded with words that are usually viewed negatively - partisan, biased. If you happen to hold that particular view, you don't see it as partisan or biased. If you don't hold that view - it is biased.
This is straight up confirmation bias. What you agree with is wonderful, what you don't agree with is nasty. I am just as susceptible as anyone else. No goody two shoes here. So I stick with "teach", religious people teach their children to believe. It would be very unlikely for a child to derive and believe the exact same religion as their parents with out instruction in or observation of same. I agree with the author - religious prevalence among humans is due to religious teachings when young.
I have not read the references cited in the book:
Hitchcock, Susan Tyler, and John. L. Esposito. Geography of Religion. Washington, D.C: National Geographic, 2006.
Joshi, S. T., ed., Atheism: A Reader. Amherst, NY: Prometheus Books, 2000.
-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.
"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken
"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.
Well first I have to agree with digitalbeachbum that Jews Muslims and Christians believe in the same God... they just have different sources of following. e.g. Muhammad wrote the Quran and was THEE prophet for the muslims despite NT claims that Jesus was the Son of God. They still accept that they are decendents of Abraham. Jews of course are decendents of Abraham and were expecting a different Jesus than the NT Jesus and therefore reject anything Jesus taught... they're still waiting for the coming of the Messiah. Christans accept that Jesus is the Son of God and came down for our salvation.
Beyond that, I'm not sure about Krishna, but Confucious referenced a lot to Biblical scripture, but did not reference it in His teachings... despite his not wanting a following, people revered him anyway thus the following continues. There are a few others as well i can't remember... that puts at minimum 1/2 the world accepting that God is obvious and the other half not.
I have not received the book yet, but it seems quite vague to me that it is left with "god is obvious" and that's it... in what way? How? What makes Him so obvious to you?(this being those who claim it) I've said God is obvious to those who know Him, but for those who don't, they wouldn't associate anything they witnessed with God. Therefore God may not be so obvious unless you know what you're looking for and can accept it as God's work. Does the author go into more detail on that? seems kind of like a cop-out to me.
As for Harleysportster, your landlord does not sound very educated on the scriptures. Sounds like they might be a victim of dispensationalism. Instead of negative feedback, rationality might be the better way.. likely if they are a victim of dispenationalism, nothing you say will matter because they have to be right. Instead ask them for the assistance that they know they must have from God... odds are they'll cop-out or try and be amazed that nothing happened. either way you win.