Message 528 of 536 (824919)
12-05-2017 10:43 AM
Reply to: Message 515 by Phat
12-03-2017 11:52 AM
Believe vs. Non-Belief
Believers tend to be made up of people who need and/or want and prefer to have a Father figure...a protector...a rich uncle....whereas non-believers couldn't wait to grow up and leave the nest. They are more adult thinking.
Who wants a Stile ramble? Here it comes!
I have a few things to say about such a statement.
First, I don't think things are so streamlined. I think there's a plethora of reasons why people believe, and why they don't... ranging from 'just human nature' to 'in-depth reflection.'
Because of that, I think it's a disservice to lump everything together as "Believers are ..." or "Non-believers are ..."
There are just too many different people who are believers or non-believers for too many different reasons to think they are all like you, or me, or anyone specific.
So, I will take your statement more to say:
Believers as Phat categorizes them tend to be made up of people who need and/or want and prefer to have a Father figure...a protector...a rich uncle....whereas non-believers as Phat labels them couldn't wait to grow up and leave the nest. They are more adult thinking.
Reasons such as this:
-I was brought up this way
-All my friends are like this
-People I respect are this way, so I'm this way too
-I think others will accept me more if I act like this
-I had a personal experience, so therefore I lean more in this direction
All those reasons (and more, I'm sure) can be a reason why someone is a believer or a non-believer.
And these are the reasons for many people.
And there are many people who don't have such reasons.. they have other reasons entirely.
What I think you're getting at is the "in depth reflection" area of reasons.
But I wouldn't use the same wording you used.
I'd describe it more like this:
Believers preferring a Father Figure or Protector or Rich Uncle
-I think this can come off a bit degrading
-I would word it more that believers seem to hold onto a certain, unwavering ideal or answer, and refuse to accept the world is any way other than the way that holds this Answer as a priority
The Answer they hold onto could be many different things (and possibly multiple things)
-An answer for life after death?
-An answer for ultimate justice?
-An answer for good always triumphing over evil?
-An answer for absolute security of what you care for most?
Non-Believers preferring to grow up and leave the nest
-I think this can be a bit misleading
Perhaps this is true for some non-believers.
But, again, there are some non-believers that don't care about growing up and leaving the nest. And they would even prefer to have a Father Figure or Ultimate Justice or Absolute Security over relying on themselves or other equally-mundane people.
-I would word it more that non-believers seem to be okay not having all the answers, and accepting the world however it may be.
Non-believers may want many things, but they are willing to accept that things just aren't that way.
-might dearly want an answer for life after death, and hope that there is one... but can accept that, maybe, there is nothing there
-might dearly want an answer for ultimate justice, and hope that there is one... but can accept that, maybe, intelligent people are all there is
-might dearly want an answer for good always triumphing, and hope that there is one... but can accept that, maybe, we can't always get what we want
--might dearly want an answer for absolute security, and hope that there is one... but can accept that, maybe, sometimes shit happens and there's nothing you can do about it
Now, which one is Right and which is Wrong?
In the sense of morality... I don't think it matters.
Holding an unwavering ideal of Ultimate Justice can be an extremely moral thing to do, regardless of the reasons for it.
Morality (as I see it) is more about hurting or helping others. And you can choose to do either of those things while under either of the above positions.
What about the sense of The Way Things Are, though? What about truth and reality and accurate descriptions of the universe?
Well, you can see this sort of thing in action in some Christian vs. Atheist debates:
The Christian will fight dearly that something MUST be a certain way (God exists, Flood occurred, Biblical Creation, Resurrection, Apostles are real, Jesus exists...)
But the Atheist doesn't say things MUST be different...
...they generally say that things appear to be different. The things we've uncovered and learned seem to point in another direction.
The Christian generally takes this to mean that the Atheist MUST be defending another, specific concept.
But that's not true.
The Atheist isn't defending another, specific concept... they're defending "whatever answer happens to seem more plausible with what we're able to see."
That is, the Atheist would AGREE with the Christian, if everything we saw, felt, touched... led in the direction of what the Christian described.
But there doesn't seem to ever be a way the Christian would agree with the Atheist. It MUST be the Christian's way... for one reason or another.
But, of course, people are people. And some Atheists will cling to an idea themselves... and say things MUST be their way for reasons other than the evidence leaning in that direction.
But there's always some Atheists willing to accept that the Christian is right if things would only show that the Christian was, indeed, right.
And they'll change their mind, and follow wherever reality seems to lead.
Are their Christians willing to do this?
What Christian is willing to give up Christ, God, and everything about their religion in order to follow where reality seems to lead?
I think that's the difference you're talking about.
Some Atheists are willing to denounce atheism and fight for anything else at all as long as reality supports the position. Maybe it means they're not an Atheist... they don't really care.
But... if a Christian is willing to denounce Christianity and fight for anything else at all as long as reality supports the position... are they really a "Christian" in the first place? Can you "not really care" if you're a Christian or not and still call yourself a Christian?
The issue is... it's not about Believers vs. Non-Believers.
It's about Believers vs. Reality-Followers.
It just so happens that, right now, the evidence seems to imply that Reality-Followers should be Non-Believers.
|This message is a reply to:|
| ||Message 515 by Phat, posted 12-03-2017 11:52 AM|| ||Phat has responded|
|Replies to this message:|
| ||Message 529 by Phat, posted 12-05-2017 12:43 PM|| ||Stile has responded|