 |
|
|
|
October 2nd, 2012
04:04 PM ET
Your Take: Author who calls 'spiritual but not religious' a cop-out responds to comments
Editor’s note: Alan Miller is director of The New York Salon and co-founder of London's Old Truman Brewery. He is speaking at The Battle of Ideas at London's Barbican in October. By Alan Miller, Special to CNN I wrote a Belief Blog piece on Sunday called "My Take: 'I'm spiritual but not religious' is a cop-out," which has received more than 8,000 comments, many taking up key points I raised. My assessment is that the wider disorientation of Western society, the decreasing respect for many institutions and the disdain for humans alongside what Christopher Lasch has termed a "culture of narcissism" has played out both among the "spiritual but not religious" identifiers as well as among many "new atheists." Lots of the comments bear that out. Some commenters accused me of outdated and dangerous dogmatism in sticking up for traditional religion. A commenter whose handle is spectraprism spoke to this view:
I don't happen to believe in a religious "one true way" and in fact am not religious myself. My comments and observations are based on an increasingly common phenomenon in the past 20 years. Follow the CNN Belief Blog on Twitter It is telling, though, that this and many other comments converge on dogmatism and extremism and juxtapose them with the notion that an individual choice is immune to any of that. These comments speak to my point that not wanting to be held accountable to any set of ideas or principles is a very popular position among the “spiritual but not religious." In recent decades, the demise of the notion that there can be universal truths and the ascendancy of relativism and the new preaching of "many truths" and the idea that "all truths are equally valid" has clearly had significant impact on that identity. The disenchantment with belief and a commitment to some wider authority has also had an impact on the self-described new atheists, who are furious that anyone could have the audacity to believe in something bigger than themselves. The end of the big ideas of liberalism and socialism left a vacuum in society. Atheism used to be a small component of bigger movements in society. Ironically, today what defines many new atheists is a shared outlook with “spiritual but not religious” views. CNN’s Belief Blog: The faith angles behind the biggest stories New atheists define themselves in negative terms, as not believing without any broader sense of a positive alternative, while those identifying with a "spiritual but not religious" outlook define themselves as not religious rather than according to the strong convictions that they do have. This commenter summarized the sentiments that lots of others express on my piece:
It is so interesting how so many people now use the therapeutic language of recovery - "recovering" from organized religion. The group American Atheists describes anguish and toil as the "first step" of "coming out," making the analogy with gays coming out the "closet," as though somehow atheists are oppressed today in America. The therapeutic outlook is of far more concern with regard to human autonomy and freedom than organized religion. The idea is that humans are all "damaged goods" and in need of constant counseling and instruction. These comments take off on that theme:
It is interesting how "spirituality" seems to be thought of as "clean" and unimpeded by problems. Dustin calls religion a "disease" - once again we see the therapeutic language. Striving for an understanding of the world is an important and essential human attribute, yet so many of the comments have reiterated a generality about "spiritualism" and "my choice" that it seems to endorse the point I made that what seems so paramount is in a determination not to be "labeled" or dictated to by an authority. So what is left? The superstition and mysticism of some "oneness" and often a therapeutic notion of being "spiritual." Here’s a comment from someone who identifies as 51yo:
The commenter 51y0 doesn't want to be tied to anyone else's "facts." While we all have to work out our things in life, I am interested to know what “spiritual but not religious" facts are. It can seem that on the one hand there's a reluctance to commit to advocating anything and also that words can end up losing any meaning if one simply says something to the affect of "spiritual means it's right for me." Nick says it can mean a lot of different things to people:
I’ll end with this comment:
This remark will chime with many – the new atheists among them - who believe that being "spiritual" means you don't want to be associated with all the "chaos and destruction." It strikes me that having an opt-out plan should have something more than simply a negative, whether it's a "spiritual" one or a "new atheist" negative. We live in an age where many are disillusioned with institutions and humans generally, yet not so evident is a positive alternative. Thank you for the comments. The event we held last night, "I'm Not Religious – I'm Spiritual" benefited from some of them. The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of Alan Miller. |
  About this blog
The CNN Belief Blog covers the faith angles of the day's biggest stories, from breaking news to politics to entertainment, fostering a global conversation about the role of religion and belief in readers' lives. It's edited by CNN's Daniel Burke with contributions from Eric Marrapodi and CNN's worldwide news gathering team.  |
|
|
|
By Alan Miller, Special to CNN
Yeah, the truth is that I'm an idiot. I was just testing you folks.
I am kind of amazed by the number of people who fail to understand the argument presented. They seem to hold to the position that their belief (mostly atheism or spiritual) is correct, and that Miller simply fails to understand it. Miller gets what you are saying; he simply sees past it. Your inability to comprehend that is the first sign of zealotry, and the basis of the dangerous historical consequences of any belief system.
Zealotry is based on strictly adhering to regimented belief system to the point of doing things past where you would normally question them. This is what he's advocating for, following through on organized religion past your comfort zone, or at least critisizing those that do not stick to one dogma. And This is where blind, mindless zealotry starts.
I will ask you the same question I would like to ask Alan....."what is your point?"
Everyone's experience is different so you can't pass a blanket judgement on people who say they are spiritual and not religious. I was very religious until a few years ago and now I consider myself spiritual. Why not religious? Because they demand you believe in doctrines, dogma, theology that has no proof. They claim to be totally right but they do not KNOW for sure, it is just their best guess and majority opinion. I cannot prove there is a God. I believe there is one. I cannot prove He is good. I believe He is good. I don't know if there is a Holy Trinity, there might be. I believe that there was something going on between God, Jesus and the Holy Spirt. I know I cannot define what that was. Jews, Hindus, Buddhists and Muslims could not right some of the beautiful things they write unless it was by the inspiration of God. You get to a certain point in your spiritual life where you know you don't know. And you suspect no one else really knows either. You realize that you can't define God. No words, no thought can express the totality of the Divine. So you have to learn to get comfortable with the "not knowing" and be at peace. Even though I "know" nothing I am at peace with that to some extent and believe (can't prove) that God is leading me in all of this. To me that is spiritual (just "being") and not religious (sure of doctrines, beliefs, dogma, explanations etc.). In addition, religion has been hijacked in my society to be used to manipulate people by the extreme right wing of the Republican party....and I sure don't want to be associated with anything like that.
oh gees. I need an editor. typo – write not right 🙂
YOU GUYS NEED TO STOP MAKING FUN OF ME! I spent like hours on that article. My mom and dad called me from upstate to congratulate me on it. It is a big deal. Your comments hurt my feelings. Besides, you don't even know, ok? You don't get it. I am like highly respected and I know what I am talking about ok. God, you guys....just stop.
God called, he told me he hates you.
Your pal, J
Hey Nigel, the suckItUp guy is even dumber than you are! J/K, mate. You know I love you.
Stonehenge!
I've read and re-read this and the previous article several times and the only point the author makes is that somehow sprituality but not religiousness is a bad thing because spirituality allows for the metamorphosis of one's beliefs as he/she progresses through life whereas religion does not. How is the ability to tone one's moral/ethical/spritual development a bad thing? How is blind faith in a strict set of regulations without interpretation or reflection (dogmas that, more than likely, were imposed upon us in one shape or another during our childhoods by our families and communities and historically through conquest) more virtuous than simply knowing that there is something greater than oneself and striving to do good? I don't think people who are 'spiritual but not religious' do so to have an easy time changing their moral compass in the event their mettle is tested. I think they are 'spiritual but not religious' because they can think outside of the box and realize they are a work in progress. The genesis of all religions was to explain the unknown and serve as a guide of morality. Through man's simplistic desire for a black and white answer, religions morphed into rules and regulations that people lived and died for, rules that often times contradicted each other and missed the point of the original teachings. What was lost was that in the root of all religions, the basic premise is 'do good'. 'Spiritual but not religious' people may use religious texts and religious beliefs in piecemeal fashion, but they do so to support the basic message of all religions and leave out the BS and allow a window for growth and internal development. They think outside the box, and there's nothing wrong with that.
I really like this response. Just wanted to say that.
Why wouldn't religion allow metamorphosis? That is a very narrow definition. If one comes from something like Calvinism (as many Americans do) it is easy to see how religion can be viewed that way-but that doesn't make it an accurate view.
JFCanton, in my opinion, religion does not allow for metamorphosis of belief because belief in a religion equals belief and unquestioning acceptance of a doctrine. Of course, some doctrines are more defined/strict than others. For example, there are a lot more things open to interpretation in various sects of buddhism than there is in catholicism, but even there, you have to pick whether you follow a theravada subschool of buddhism, a tantric school of buddhism or a mahayana school of buddhism if you want to call yourself a buddhist. Much the same, there are things you HAVE to unquestionably accept if you want to consider yourself a catholic, an evangelical christian, a sunni muslim, a shia muslim, a jew, a mormon, a scientologist, etc. For example, you cannot call yourself a catholic if you do not wholeheartedly believe in transubstantiation. In religion, beliefs and practices are not open to interpretation, even in non abrahamic religions. If you are a follower of zen and when you pray at a temple you don't bow twice and clap your hands twice, you are simply doing it wrong. Any metamorphosis in belief or practices starts you on the path from religion to philosophy, the end result being 'spiritual but not religious'.
Turning away from guilt based, "humans are bad from birth and need salvation" theology is in itself a "positive alternative". Alan does not seem to get the point that Abrahamic religion at it's core is negative.
Not uh...you don't know. STAHP it!
In turn you're making a logical jump there, though. Where does the author qualify a "guilt-based religion" as a healthy one? Most religion is not about that; which would be only natural because religion is usually preaching to the converted.
JFCanton,
I think most religion, at least Abrahamic religion, is about guilt at the core. "Original sin" requiring "salvation" or suffer "eternal damnation". The idea of humans being quilty of being "human" is the dogma most religion teaches.
Hi Alan,
This is an interesting conversation, I hope my comments don't get drowned out. I have two questions / reactions.
1) On Accountability: You seem to argue that rejecting organized religion is making people unaccountable, and I don't understand how that could be. On the contrary, I believe that following a religion pushes the individual's responsibility off of him/her. In fact I'll take this one step farther and say one can't be "moderately" religious because that's tantamount to being spiritual + philosophical but not religious. If you're truly, honestly, deeply religious, you must follow word-for-word the dogma laid before you with absolute faith and commitment, because who are you to overrule the word of God? This takes responsibility for your actions off of you: THIS is where accountability cannot be found. As many suicide bombers believe (whatever their deep-down subconscious 'true' reasons my be.. economics? social pressure?), it is their duty to kill the infidels. But this point isn't just about Islam. It is true of all the religions I am familiar with - we all know they all contain some terrible things. And we all know that most of us don't believe in those things (thankfully).
2) On Integrity: There is a conceptual falseness in the notion of there being more integrity in following the rules of any one religion, because they are not eternal (as much as their leaders would like us to believe that they are). They have a beginning, and since then they have changed over time. Even if, for example, the Bible text has more or less remained the same for 1700 years (or however long), it is clear that the church's interpretation and "set of rules" has evolved over time (often because of irreligious common sense-driven social pressure, incidentally). Furthermore, the religious individual's integrity only goes as far as how closely he or she follows the set of rules (back to the point of the paradox of 'religious moderation').
In short, following an organized religion certainly doesn't give anyone more integrity or accountability than following his or her own well-picked philosophy. There is wisdom and truth in many religions and philosophies around the world. To reject them under the pretense that "they are not in MY book" and conversely stand by things you don't deep-down agree with because "they ARE in my book" is irresponsible toward humanity – and dangerous.
For those seeking truth and honesty, a genuine adherence to a well-thought-out set of rules and principles is what they need - not religion. It's philosophy and spirituality we're talking about.
For those who do not have good intentions or no integrity, religion will certainly not make them into better people.
Cheers.
Well said, sir.
I'd like to see an article written by you, please!
he has said the following:
He is not religious – therefore he is finding it hard to be accountable and have integrity – which he then proves to all by committing a hate crime against some made group of religious non-religious people he labels "spiritual but not religious" in the midst of many people still emotionally and mentally reeling from a major hate crime against religion and nationalities and more wars because of it when it really more based on money, greed, and power – but shoved down everyone's soul as some kind of religious demand that the whole world is supposed to bow to ...
and he then criticizes this group of people who do actually exists in some kind of understanding to themselves and provide him kindly (some of them) with further understanding – and he blasts them again – still based upon his contrived agenda and stifled understanding – and still debases this group of people ...
why?
I don't need to know the architect to love the building.
I absolutely agree with Mr. Miller. The notion that one can be spiritual and not religious is a cop-out. You can take a hint of this and a touch of that and create your own "religion". I certainly agree that atheists are generally so firm in their beliefs that they do not believe in anyone that indeed, this is actually a belief in itself. I was raised in a Jewish household. My mother decided to try church as she found Judaism oppressive to women. We attended church for several years. I even debated becoming a nun. Then I realized the truth. There is only one G-d with whom I've ever had a spiritual connection. I returned to my Jewish roots and am happily spiritual and religious. I don't push my beliefs on others or judge them- I simply pray for them as I pray for no more death in the name of anything. Those extremists are not religious by the way; they're idiots who use religion as a crutch to support their twisted minds. I think we should call them non-spiritual with mental illness. Kudos to you Mr. miller for being brave enough to say the truth even if it is not the trendy.
II'm sorry, but it's a cop out to whom? You're creating a situation where people must come up with excuses for how they think, feel, and worship. Actually you CAN be spiritual and not religious. It is VERY easy. Native Americans in the South West who worship their ancestors and the sky people who brought them to their location on Earth, are VERY spiritual people, but they don't follow a "religion", just a system of beliefs. It's all just a matter of words. The problems come from people like you and Mr. Miller who have to put everyone into a category so they can judge them and ridicule them for being different, then tries to scare them into not being different by using a psychological term called PROJECTION. If someone wants to be spiritual, but don't want to go to church or temple every weekend, why can't you just let them?
There may be "one truth," whatever that means, but there are as many paths to it as there are people, and many destinations along the way. And it is not so easy as to be able to be captured for all in any book. Truth is like the moon: at best, a book, belief system, or religion can only be a finger pointing to that moon.
On the other hand, it is (or should be) very easy to determine what is universally wrong. There are not multiple paths in which something is sometimes clearly wrong and other times not. That is where being excessively permissive or insufficiently in control of oneself, as people will often do when deciding things for themselves, runs off track.
After reading this second article by Mr. Miller, it is obvious he has very little insight to offer our society. To put it simply, he just doesn't get it. Instead of looking to dialogue so as to understand those with differing views, he seems intent on defending his ideas. Mr. Miller's focus on the "therapudic" language used by some is an example of how little he understands how people express themselves and thus how far off he is in his evaluation of the subject at hand.
This is an interesting subject to pursue but unfortunately Mr. Miller has chased rabbits rather than the real meat of the issue.
Richard
yeah the author is a moron
God is dead. He was my grandma.
Weird.
This hack is a hack. Where is the news, CNN?
The author has done us a service in bringing about this discussion, as it is an important one in our world where religious thought is directly impacting political change in the world. The rise of fundamentalist thinking in all religions worldwide has become a threat to our security and prosperity, because religion is frequently used as a crutch for committing terrorism or launching wars of empire. A spiritual approach to viewing religion has the potential to reduce the rising mental and emotional pressures in our world.
Why? A spiritual approach does not deny the objective and fundamental truths found in all faiths. In fact, a truly spiritual person using reason will see that the great religions have much in common, despite the cultural factors that influence them and seem to form the greatest points of division. Developing the eyes to see beyond culture provides insight into the truth, and the unity of humanity is a core truth. We are all part of the same human family, children of the same God and on the same path of return.
Viewing "spiritual but not religious" from a fundamentalist viewpoint will necessarily lead to a misinterpretation of what many spiritual people of faith experience and believe. Does a fish know he is wet? If one only looks at atheists or personality cults as representatives of the "spiritual" community, then yes, it is easy to come to many of the author's conclusions. However, a spiritual Christian who recognizes that a Hindu can live a Christ-like life is not copping-out on his or her faith. If anything, seeing people of different faiths expressing generosity, love, beauty, creativity, compassion and reason might strengthen one's own faith.
With regard to atheists, objectivists and those who otherwise criticize faith based on religion's role in fomenting wars and destruction, they are mistakenly associating human weakness and error with religion. If a person in religious authority sanctions violence and war, then most likely the conflict has other political, tribal, economic or emotional roots and is merely using religion as a red herring. However, since most of us are emotionally-centered, religion has proved to be a potent motivator to perform evil things.
Yet, misuse of religion and great teachings does not invalidate the truths contained within them. People of faith have been responsible for much good in the world. They have brought community, compassion and a hand-up to billions of others. If we recognize the virtues found in all great faiths, then perhaps we can find unity, calm our emotions and use reason to identify solutions and act in love to implement them.
The author is a very good analyst in terms of identifying hypocrisy and fallacy, but I would like to see future topics on how we can bring our human family closer together.
I think Nick said it best, well at least for me. He said, "To me, saying that I'm spiritual but not religious highlights that I'm not a person who believes in the existence of God as a fact, but neither do I believe in his nonexistence as a fact. It's my assertion of the respect and awe that I have in the face of a universe that I can't understand, which contains forces (perhaps a God) that I can never prove to exist or not exist." This is exactly how I've felt for many years, I simply do not understand the God issue. To help me understand I like to say it's just that the word God is mispelled and should spelled Good. That means Devil is also mispelled and should spelled as Bad. So now we have a whole new issue, Good vs. Bad. What's Good and what's Bad? Isn't that a whole lot easier to understand?
New atheists define themselves in negative terms, as not believing without any broader sense of a positive alternative, while those identifying with a "spiritual but not religious" outlook define themselves as not religious rather than according to the strong convictions that they do have.
very true..
as far as I can tell, the only common rallying atheist cry is "dont tell me that I have anyone to be responsible to other than myself"
The only rallying atheist cry is, "There is no God!"
I am a dumbass, though.
Of course it would appear that way to you, Chad.
You are delusional
very not true Chad
I do not define myself in negative terms and rail against those who claim I "lack" faith. I am not lacking that which is not needed, nor is reasonable.
It amazes me that you continue to post your myopic views of everyone else when all of your posts show incredible potential for personal growth.
get an education about the origins of all religions and you will find they all originate from ignorance.
good luck with that
@Amniculi "The only rallying atheist cry is, "There is no God!""
=>are you making a claim that God does not exist? or do you merely stating that you dont believe God exists?
Amniculi: Some atheists claim there is no god, some say they see no reason to believe there is. The fact that you claim that there is a rallying cry means you are either misinformed, or just a moron. You choose
Chad
Who other than my self, and the people I choose, should I be held accountable to?
a·the·ism
[ey-thee-iz-uhm]
noun
1. the doctrine or belief that there is no God.
2. disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings.
Debate semantics all you want – by disbelieving in a god you are declaring, if only to yourself, that none exists. Anything else is not atheism.
@Who invited me?
I do not define myself in negative terms and rail against those who claim I "lack" faith.
I am not lacking that which is not needed, nor is reasonable."
=>seems like you define yourself as lacking that which is not needed?
right?
@Amniculi, so you are a "strong atheist" then (stating that God does not exist)
what proof do you have that God does not exist?
You may as well ask me to provide proof that unicorns and leprechauns don't exist. But that would be ridiculous, wouldn't it? You know that it is true because no one has ever provided valid evidence that either exists. There is no difference concerning religious claims. The burden of proof lies with those claiming the existence of a deity.
@Huebert "Who other than my self, and the people I choose, should I be held accountable to?"
=>God of Abraham
that really is the entire point of that main article, that the journey for so many atheists begins with "I dont want to be held responsible".
This is why you see so many "weak atheists" (atheists that dont make a claim that the God of Abraham doesnt exist, they just say they dont believe He does), instead of "strong atheists".
That's the guys point, what do you actually stand for?
@Amniculi "You may as well ask me to provide proof that unicorns and leprechauns don't exist. But that would be ridiculous, wouldn't it? You know that it is true because no one has ever provided valid evidence that either exists. There is no difference concerning religious claims. The burden of proof lies with those claiming the existence of a deity."
=>the burden of proof lies with whoever is making a claim
if you claim that God does not exist, you have a burden of proof to establish that claim
If I claim that God does exist, I have a burden of proof to establish that claim
neither one of us gets to say "I cant meet my burden, so I dont have the burden". If you cant meet the burden, dont make the claim 🙂
oh, and "my claim is demonstrated because you cant demonstrate your claim"
is another equally fallacious argument 🙂
Again, argue semantics all you want, but I claim there is no god just as I claim there are no leprechauns or unicorns. To ask for proof of such is a null argument. My evidence is that there is no evidence. The burden of proof always lies with the party claiming the existence of something, rather than those claiming nonexistence. To ask anything else is ridiculous.
Chad
As far as the God of Abraham is concerned, I am a strong atheist. Now don't try to shift the burden of proof on to me like you did with Amniculi. The burden is ALWAYS on the person making the positive claim, the negative claim is referred to as the null hypothesis. This is because it is impossible to support a negative claim and very easy to refute it. If I claim that their are no such thing as swans you can refute me by producing a single swan. However, the only way top support the claim that there are no such thing as unicorns would be for me to be able to simultaneously observe every point in the universe. Atheism is the null hypothesis, and if the burden of proof cannot be satisfied the null hypothesis is what you must accept.
Huebert, great minds.
@Amniculi
🙂 An understanding of science and reason is a wonderful thing.
@Amniculi "The burden of proof always lies with the party claiming the existence of something, rather than those claiming nonexistence. To ask anything else is ridiculous."
@Chad "LOL
sorry, and no..
the burden of proof ALWAYS lies with the person making the claim. "My claim is true because you havent demonstrated it is false" is nonsense. I could always say "God exists until you prove He doesnt" 🙂
now you are starting to understand why so many atheists dont want to make a statement like "there is no God". It cant be backed up..
Besides being obtuse, you are missing the point of my original argument: disbelief, by default, is the act of claiming there is no god. To say anything otherwise is not atheism.
@Huebert " Now don't try to shift the burden of proof on to me like you did with Amniculi. The burden is ALWAYS on the person making the positive claim, the negative claim is referred to as the null hypothesis."
=>LOLOLOL
funny stuff, you made my day.
sorry.. no.. you make a claim, you have to back it up. that's the way it works
if you dont want that, you cant be a strong atheist.
from http://atheism.about.com/od/atheismquestions/a/strong_weak.htm
note the bold section below 🙂
enjoy!!
Atheism is commonly divided into two types: strong atheism and weak atheism. Although only two categories, this distinction manages to reflect the broad diversity which exists among atheists when it comes to their positions on the existence of gods.
Weak atheism, also sometimes referred to as implicit atheism, is simply another name for the broadest and most general conception of atheism: the absence of belief in any gods. A weak atheist is someone who lacks theism and who does not happen to believe in the existence of any gods — no more, no less. This is also sometimes called agnostic atheism because most people who self-consciously lack belief in gods tend to do so for agnostic reasons.
Strong atheism, also sometimes referred to as explicit atheism, goes one step further and involves denying the existence of at least one god, usually multiple gods, and sometimes the possible existence of any gods at all. Strong atheism is sometimes called “gnostic atheism” because people who take this position often incorporate knowledge claims into it — that is to say, they claim to know in some fashion that certain gods or indeed all gods do not or cannot exist.
Because knowledge claims are involved, strong atheism carries an initial burden of proof which does not exist for weak atheism. Any time a person asserts that some god or any gods do not or cannot exist, they obligate themselves to support their claims. This narrower conception of atheism is often thought by many (erroneously) to represent the entirety of atheism itself.
As I said before, our evidence is that there is no evidence to support the existence of god, ergo, god does not exist. No other proof is needed to support our claim. If you care to disprove that claim, go right ahead.
the willful suspension of disbelief is strong with this one..
🙂
Premise 1: That which is imaginary is not real.
Premise: 2: If something is not real, it does not actually exist.
Premise 3: If the god of Christianity is imaginary, then it is not real and therefore does not actually exist.
Premise 4: The god of Christianity is imaginary.
Conclusion: Therefore, the god of Christianity is not real and therefore does not actually exist.
Presumably the Christian will accept the first two premises. Most human beings, when confronted directly with the question, will typically acknowledge that there is in fact a fundamental distinction between what one imagines and what is real, and admit that something that one imagines does not actually exist.
The stories of fictional works like the Harry Potter series or Tolkien’s tales of Middle Earth, are rooted in their authors’ imaginations. No one really believes that the heroes and villains of these storybooks actually exist (or existed, as the case may be), and that the events that move their storylines along actually happened someplace. That’s because it is introspectively obvious to most individuals, by reference to the world we live in and deal with everyday, that the stories and characters in these fictional accounts are ultimately imaginary.
Premise 3 is most likely going to make many Christians uncomfortable just in contemplating it. Many individuals who invest themselves emotionally in a life centered around a god-belief are likely to resent any suggestion, even hypothetical, that the god they worship is imaginary. If this premise produces in the theist a noticeable attitude change, perhaps it’s because you’re getting close to the central nervous system of his god-belief. But it seems that any adult thinker, even if she happens to be Christian, should accept the truth of this premise, assuming they don’t have any qualms with the first two premises.
Subtle discomfort is not what one should expect when he presents premise 4 to theists. Rather vehement protest is most likely to result. And of course, the theist can be predicted to reply with something like “Prove it!” (as if he were going to accept any proof that his god is imaginary). At this point I would suggest that he review my blog The Imaginative Nature of Christian Theism, in which I provide no less than 13 points of evidence – any one of which is damning enough – to meet his counter-challenge.
If it turns out that the Christian god is in fact imaginary, then by virtue of this fact it is not real, and therefore it does not actually exist.
When I imagine your god, how is what I am imagining not imaginary?
Since we have no alternative to imagining the Christian god when believers tell us about it, this question is most appropriate, especially since we’re expected to believe that it is real. If theists think we have an alternative to imagining their god, what is that alternative, and how is it different from imagination?
Christian believers who have invested their psyches so deeply with the ambition to convert the world to their god-belief, have long ago passed the great divide between imagination and reality, such that they are unable consistently to distinguish between the two, especially when their god-belief is involved. For anyone who is not already predisposed to believing that the imaginary is real, if his attention is called to the distinction between reality and imagination and he is explicitly reminded that the imaginary is not real, he’s not likely to accept claims about imaginary things as truth. On the contrary, he’s going to wonder about the content of the character of individuals who insist that something which they can only imagine is real.
The bottom line is that, whether or not atheists really have the burden of proof in the matter, it has been met in spades.
@Chad – Oh! The irony. The ultimate suspension of disbelief belief is that of the religious mind.
@Dawson – Well played, sir.
Chad
Your understanding of the burden of proof is incorrect.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_burden_of_proof
Lol, omit the word "belief" from my last comment. They really need an edit function.
@Huebert "Your understanding of the burden of proof is incorrect. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_burden_of_proof"
=> 🙂
no.. your understanding of what a "positive claim" is, is erroneous..
When debating any issue, there is an implicit burden of proof on the person asserting a positive claim
Examples of positive claims:
1. "God exists"
2. "God does not exist"
perhaps this will clear up your confusion:
What is the common element in the courtroom and Contactee Bob examples? It is that in both cases the burden of proof is not on the person making the positive claim. Now, by “positive” claim I mean any truth claim, such as “X is true” or “X is false.” Notice that saying something is false is also a positive truth claim: you are claiming that the assertion “X is false” is a true statement (i.e., you positively disbelieve X). For example, the claim “leprechauns do exist” is just as positive a claim as is “leprechauns do not exist.” Each is a claim to truth, and the burden of proof properly lies with the person making either claim. http://www.freethoughtdebater.org/2012/03/03/atheism-agnosticism-and-burden-of-proof/ (Resources for America's Atheists)
hope that helps 🙂
@Chad,
I see you are back at it fomenting nonsense with your irrelevant distinctions of "weak" and "strong" atheists .
As we have done this before (so many times) and Huebert has already underlined, yes, the claim "I don't believe in God" is negative (in the logical sense). So what?
The positive form "I believe in the non-existence of God" is (as you well know) unprovable so why would anyone try to embrace that here just to give you sport?
Because Alan Miller critizes "new atheists" (whatever that is supposed to mean exactly) as negative? Of course it's defined in the negative. So what?
Chad
No, your sources are wrong. A positive claim is a claim that states that something "is". A negative claim is that something "is not".
@GOPer “The positive form "I believe in the non-existence of God" is (as you well know) unprovable so why would anyone try to embrace that here just to give you sport?”
@Chad “dunno,, Huebert/Amniculi: why in the world would you do something so silly?
================
@Chad "the fascinating contortions you guys will do 🙂
it is actually very simple (unless of course one is attempting to redefine word meanings ). If you are going to say "God does not exist" you have a burden of proof.
simple 🙂
A positive claim is any claim about reality. It may in fact be a "negative claim," that is to say a claim that something is "not real" or "not true." Positive claims should be supported with evidence in scientific settings.
The burden of proof is always on the person who makes a claim. A claim may be positive or negative. For example there may be a claim that "X is real" or "X is unreal." Both types of claims (X and not X) require supporting evidence or logical defense. However, it is much more difficult to prove that something does not exist than that something does exist.
When anyone makes a claim, either positive or negative, it is the responsibility of the person making the claim to prove it. It is easy to get around the obligation to present proof ("burden of proof"). For example, instead of stating "X is unreal" or "X does not exist," subst itute "I do not believe X is real," or "I do not know of any evidence that X is real."
========
@Huebert "No, your sources are wrong. A positive claim is a claim that states that something "is". A negative claim is that something "is not"."
@Chad "hmm... should I go with the extremely well established logical/philosophical definition of "positive claim" in use by the entire world.. or should I go with what you want to redefine it as because you want to be able to say "God does not exist" and not have any burden of proof..
what to do.. what to do...
Dawson
Premise 1: That which is imaginary is not real.
Premise: 2: If something is not real, it does not actually exist.
Premise 3: If the god of Christianity is imaginary, then it is not real and therefore does not actually exist.
Premise 4: The god of Christianity is imaginary.
Conclusion: Therefore, the god of Christianity is not real and therefore does not actually exist
@Chad "funny stuff..
the obvious problem is stating #4 as a premise (A proposition upon which an argument is based or from which a conclusion is drawn). It makes your "logic" LOL an excellent example of the Begging the Question fallacy ( logical fallacy in which a proposition relies on an implicit premise within itself to establish the truth of that same proposition)
kind of like saying
Premise 1: That which is imaginary is not real.
Premise: 2: If something is not real, it does not actually exist.
Premise 3: If the Statue of Liberty is imaginary, then it is not real and therefore does not actually exist.
Premise 4: The Statue of Liberty is imaginary.
Conclusion: Therefore, the Statue of Liberty is not real and therefore does not actually exist
Probably the best example of Begging the Question I have ever seen. .nice job 🙂
Which god is everyone talking about?
@Chad
And where did you pull that from? It's not in italics so you didn't copy paste it from your favorite wikipedia source.
Chad-Fantastic posts!
Using the Statue of Liberty is a false analogy. The existence of the statue can be proven. It is tangible. Put "God" back into the premise and you are unable to provide proof of existence.
Leah, fantastic in that they are complete fantasy.
@Amniculi "Using the Statue of Liberty is a false analogy. The existence of the statue can be proven. It is tangible. Put "God" back into the premise and you are unable to provide proof of existence."
=>:-)
no..
the problem is that you are putting the conclusion in as an assumption (one of the premises). Read it again...
atheist "I can prove God isnt real"
theist: "really? wow, ok, go"
atheist: "Ok, lets as sume He is imaginary, since we know that if something is imaginary, then it isnt real, so voila!! That proves He isnt real"
theist: "hunh?.. you call that a logical argument? what planet do you live on?"
@Chad
Are you suggesting that now all atheists use this argument?
and for HD (dont bother looking, you wont like it.. just call me a liar and save yourself some time)
http://www.freethoughtdebater.org/2012/03/03/atheism-agnosticism-and-burden-of-proof/
http://atheism.about.com/od/doesgodexist/a/burdenofproof.htm
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/mathew/logic.html
The burden of proof is always on the person asserting something. Shifting the burden of proof, a special case of Argumentum ad Ignorantiam, is the fallacy of putting the burden of proof on the person who denies or questions the assertion. The source of the fallacy is the assumption that something is true unless proven otherwise. (used in this thread by Huebert, see his "null hypothesis")
The last one is my favorite
note that ALL OF THESE ARE ATHEIST SITES 🙂
"Are you suggesting that now all atheists use this argument?"
=>no, not all. Atheists come in two categories:
1. those that claim they just disbelieve in God, they dont make a claim that God does not exist
2. those (like Huebert/annicula) that claim that they can say "God doesnt exist", and they are right until proven wrong (see "Shifting the burden of proof" fallacy above).
Chad
Using your definition, it is impossible to claim that anything does not exist. I can't prove that Big Foot doesn't exist, I can't prove that Zeus doesn't exist, I can't prove that there is no gnome living in an invisible teapot orbiting mars.
@Chad
Those distinctions have established for a while now. In fact, you were one of those people who made no distinction at one point, and all atheists made the claim that there was no god. Unless I'm thinking about a different Chad. I'm also still wondering where you got that Premise 1-5 thing from.
The reason Chad continues to dance around the hard direct questions and post fallacy after fallacy is because deep down they know they have no proof. Chad will continue to extract the parts that can justify his stance while ignoring the whole truth but those of us that read this see right through his cowardice responses. Chad is a classic case of what is wrong with Christianity.
Suppose that the miracle claims are true, and that Jesus, for example, did perform all of the miraculous feats that he is credited with. Typically, these miracles are taken as indicators that an omni-God exists. Here's the problem. Consider for a moment what sort of acts an omni-God would engage in. Being all powerful, all knowing, and all good, this sort of being will not act lightly. He would not make mistakes, he would not perform an act that did not accomplish exactly what he desires, in exactly the way he desires, and in the best possible manner. He wouldn't be unclear about the outcomes of his actions in any way. So if an omni-God were to act in the world, that action would be a perfect, flawless manifestation of that being's power, knowledge, and goodness.
Now consider some of the miraculous acts that are commonly attributed to God: Jesus is said to have walked on water, healed the sick, and resurrected the dead; Mohammed is said to have split the moon, and to have transcended directly into heaven, and so on.
This challenge has been put to theists concerning God's omnipotence: is God capable of acting in a way that would limit himself, such as by making himself not God, or making someone else God, or creating a challenge that he can't meet (like creating a stone that he cannot lift)? If he is, then there will be something he cannot do as a result of his action. If he is not capable of performing these kinds of actions, then, again, there is something he cannot do. So either way, God's power is limited and he is not omnipotent.
Theists like Aquinas and Plantinga have responded by pointing out that being omnipotent is having the power to do anything that is logically possible, or that does not involve a logical contradiction. All of these acts, they argue, are contradictory in some way. So these are impossible acts, and it is therefore no limitation on God's power to accept that he cannot do them. Thus it is widely accepted that the paradox associated with omnipotence conceived as the power to do anything is solved by understanding omnipotence as the power to do anything logically possible.
Now consider the purported miracles of Jesus and Mohammed above. Those acts were all minor, insignificant acts with regard to what an omni-God could do. That is, God is capable of doing far more than healing someone who is sick, or splitting the moon. He is alleged to have created the universe from nothing, after all. So it would appear that in those acts and all the purported miracles in history, God is acting far below his capacity. But it has been argued and widely accepted that an omni God wouldn't act in self-limiting ways. Doesn't that include acting in ways that are vastly beneath one's capacity? If I have a goal that I want to achieve, and I have means at my disposal to achieve it, it wouldn't make sense for me to only employ some of my abilities in a limited fashion to achieve that goal. I might act in a less than optimal way, applying some but not all of my knowledge, or some but not all of my power, if I don't understand all the relevant facts about the situation–I mistakenly think that the guy behind me in a marathon is too tired to catch me, so I don't push as hard as I could, but he's faking and he beats me, for instance. Or I lose the race simply because I don't have as much endurance as the next guy. Or I lose the race because I don't have the mental fortitude. But God won't have those limits in power, knowledge, or desire.
So it's hard to see why an omni God would act in such tiny ways. But it is easy to see why some lesser being, who is not God, might act in such ways. These miracles are the sorts of things that Vegas magicians would engage in. They are intended to impress by being flashy, provocative, and attention grabbing. These acts are localized, not universal the way an omni-God would act. These miracles are only seen by a handful of people (compared to the number of people that an omni-God could reach). These miracles leaves all sorts of doubts open and questions unanswered. In short, nothing about these acts suggest the infinite knowledge, power, and goodness of an omni-God. And everything about them suggests that someone of limited knowledge, questionable goals, and partial goodness like us was responsible. So it looks like that miracles, even if they were to happen, are actually evidence against the existence of God. The only sort of being that would perform such superficial party tricks is one who is limited in knowledge, power, and goodness.
So contrary to what most people seem to think, even if miracles do occur, the most they would show is that whatever is responsible for them it is not God.
@Douglas "The reason Chad continues to dance around the hard direct questions and post fallacy after fallacy....."
@Chad "there was a direct question in there that I didnt answer?
must have missed it somehow, please post it and I'll be happy to do my best 🙂
=======
@Huebert "Using your definition [the definition of atheist/theist/basically everyone in the world], it is impossible to claim that anything does not exist. I can't prove that Big Foot doesn't exist, I can't prove that Zeus doesn't exist, I can't prove that there is no gnome living in an invisible teapot orbiting mars."
@Chad "By George, I think he's got it!!!!!
look into "proving the negative"
I will rejoice the day the Chard figures out what @ stands for.
What a fvckin' idiot.
@Matt "God is capable of doing far more than healing someone …..So it's hard to see why an omni God would act in such tiny ways … t it has been argued and widely accepted that an omni God wouldn't act in self-limiting ways. Doesn't that include acting in ways that are vastly beneath one's capacity "
=>hope you didnt type that entire thing out, all of it can be summarized with the simple statement "God is supposed to be able to do anything, so why didnt His Son Jesus do something bigger? And because He didnt, doesnt that prove Jesus wasnt divine?"
1. The "I would have done it differently" attack is fallacious to begin with. Who are you (or I) to tell God how to do things?
2. Jesus said explicitly that no sign would be given other than the resurrection. Matthew 12
3. Resurrection from the dead after 3 days. Can one of your Vegas magicians can resurrect a corpse dead for that length of time? 🙂
thought not..
@Chad
All that just assumes that it happened. There is no evidence of the ressurection, nor is there evidence of the supposed miralcles of Jesus.
Yeah, hawaiiguest, 12,000 folks ate magic fishes and not one thought to save and preserve (or sell as souvenirs) the wowie-zowie bones!
You guys are still going on about this? Chad's an ignorant troll who knows he's wrong but insists on muddying the waters for his own amusement. Let's just leave it at that.
"2. Jesus said explicitly that no sign would be given other than the resurrection. Matthew 12
3. Resurrection from the dead after 3 days. Can one of your Vegas magicians can resurrect a corpse dead for that length of time? :-)"
There is absolutely no concrete proof of this and there have been of religions before yours that also make this same claim. It's all part of peoples imaginations and nothing more. Please proved outside proof other than your fictional bible that these claims you make are true... oh this is where I get to say....thought not.
Mer Der Herp Derp Meh HERP
Hey everyone! We have a Rhodes Scholar among us!
The truth is that religion is anti-human. It denies thought, needs and living on this planet, instead forcing a grab for power, money and control on innocents. There is no religion that values human life above itself. That says it all.
So what if you're "spiritual, not religious, but not atheist? Do these people exist in Mr. Miller's world?
I'm not religious, I'm what you would call "spiritual", I don't believe in what the Christians call "God", but I believe in intelligent design. But I didn't come to those conclusions as "therapy" as Mr. Miller wants people to believe. I came to them after years of learning, reading, and understand the way the world, the universe, and people work. I'm sorry if this goes against everything you wrote, Mr. Miller, but maybe you shouldn't assume everyone who doesn't think the same as you as "negative" and "copping out". But then again, in Mr. Millers world, people who are "spiritual but not religious" MUST be atheist because "EVERYONE MUST BE CATEGORIZED INTO A SPECIFIC GROUP BASED ON WHAT I THINK THEY BELIEVE EVEN KNOW I HAVE NEVER PERSONALLY MET ANYONE I AM TALKING ABOUT"