5 reasons atheism is irrational

[Theophilus]

Ces, your analogy is getting closer to the real situation yes. You remind me of the wise poem by John Godfrey Saxe. Yet, I work from the perspective that I have. Anyway, here's the poem which I daresay contains much more wisdom and entertainment than anything I have to say.....


It was six men of Indostan
To learning much inclined,
Who went to see the Elephant
(Though all of them were blind),
That each by observation
Might satisfy his mind.

The First approach'd the Elephant,
And happening to fall
Against his broad and sturdy side,
At once began to bawl:
"God bless me! but the Elephant
Is very like a wall!"

The Second, feeling of the tusk,
Cried, -"Ho! what have we here
So very round and smooth and sharp?
To me 'tis mighty clear
This wonder of an Elephant
Is very like a spear!"

The Third approached the animal,
And happening to take
The squirming trunk within his hands,
Thus boldly up and spake:
"I see," quoth he, "the Elephant
Is very like a snake!"

The Fourth reached out his eager hand,
And felt about the knee.
"What most this wondrous beast is like
Is mighty plain," quoth he,
"'Tis clear enough the Elephant
Is very like a tree!"

The Fifth, who chanced to touch the ear,
Said: "E'en the blindest man
Can tell what this resembles most;
Deny the fact who can,
This marvel of an Elephant
Is very like a fan!"

The Sixth no sooner had begun
About the beast to grope,
Then, seizing on the swinging tail
That fell within his scope,
"I see," quoth he, "the Elephant
Is very like a rope!"

And so these men of Indostan
Disputed loud and long,
Each in his own opinion
Exceeding stiff and strong,
Though each was partly in the right,
And all were in the wrong!

MORAL.

So oft in theologic wars,
The disputants, I ween,
Rail on in utter ignorance
Of what each other mean,
And prate about an Elephant
Not one of them has seen!

[Coito ergo sum]

Ces, your analogy is getting closer to the real situation yes. You remind me of the wise poem by John Godfrey Saxe. Yet, I work from the perspective that I have. Anyway, here's the poem which I daresay contains much more wisdom and entertainment than anything I have to say.....


It was six men of Indostan
To learning much inclined,
Who went to see the Elephant
(Though all of them were blind),
That each by observation
Might satisfy his mind.

The First approach'd the Elephant,
And happening to fall
Against his broad and sturdy side,
At once began to bawl:
"God bless me! but the Elephant
Is very like a wall!"

The Second, feeling of the tusk,
Cried, -"Ho! what have we here
So very round and smooth and sharp?
To me 'tis mighty clear
This wonder of an Elephant
Is very like a spear!"

The Third approached the animal,
And happening to take
The squirming trunk within his hands,
Thus boldly up and spake:
"I see," quoth he, "the Elephant
Is very like a snake!"

The Fourth reached out his eager hand,
And felt about the knee.
"What most this wondrous beast is like
Is mighty plain," quoth he,
"'Tis clear enough the Elephant
Is very like a tree!"

The Fifth, who chanced to touch the ear,
Said: "E'en the blindest man
Can tell what this resembles most;
Deny the fact who can,
This marvel of an Elephant
Is very like a fan!"

The Sixth no sooner had begun
About the beast to grope,
Then, seizing on the swinging tail
That fell within his scope,
"I see," quoth he, "the Elephant
Is very like a rope!"

And so these men of Indostan
Disputed loud and long,
Each in his own opinion
Exceeding stiff and strong,
Though each was partly in the right,
And all were in the wrong!

MORAL.

So oft in theologic wars,
The disputants, I ween,
Rail on in utter ignorance
Of what each other mean,
And prate about an Elephant
Not one of them has seen!

Yes, but this misses the mark in this case.

In this case, we have a dragon or an elephant that nobody can actually feel, see, smell, taste or touch, and that no test or observation tool can detect. In this case, it's like the guys from Indostan not touching anything, and yet concluding that there is in fact, an elephant, and despite being blind they determine what color it is.

[Thinking Aloud]

I once came across the "elephant" analogy elsewhere. It works insofar as there's actually an elephant there.

I wrote:

The correct analogy would be more like this, though: three blindfolded men were brought into a room and had a sort of gut feeling that there was something in front of them. They couldn't touch it, smell it, or hear it, never mind see it. So the difficulty in describing what was there was even greater.

One could easily add that they'd been told there was something in the room, that the something was "amazing" and then led into its presence blindfolded. On leaving the room, everyone told them how wonderful it was! They had to agree for fear of being considered outsiders. Maybe they had felt something in the room. Everyone else seemed to think it was there.

[Theophilus]

But I, of course, would say "but we do know something about God, because of Jesus Christ. There is a historic evidential basis unless one rejects it. We can see some of the elephant" (with apologies to my Lord for calling him part of an elephant).

And then Ces, of course, would say "ah, but what about that other greater god known as Beckham? The one who was recently speared in his achilles as all the greatest gods are. Why do you not follow him and his supernatural bendy-ball skills?"

To which I would reply that I work from the perspective I have and I don't agonize over different perspectives (though I've had very interesting discussions with a Muslim friend).

Hmmm, are we running out of steam yet? Or is there more coal to burn?

[Gawdzilla Sama]

But I, of course, would say "but we do know something about God, because of Jesus Christ. There is a historic evidential basis unless one rejects it. We can see some of the elephant" (with apologies to my Lord for calling him part of an elephant).

Logical fallacy, the possibility Jesus might have existed doesn't prove diddly about God.

[Coito ergo sum]

But I, of course, would say "but we do know something about God, because of Jesus Christ. There is a historic evidential basis unless one rejects it. We can see some of the elephant" (with apologies to my Lord for calling him part of an elephant).

You see, this is part of the problem.

We also "know part of the elephant" because of the Vedas and the Gita. We also know part of the elephant because of the Eddas and the Havamal. We also have the Book of Mormon and the Qu'ran. There is a historic evidential basis unless one rejects it (and you do).

And then Ces, of course, would say "ah, but what about that other greater god known as Beckham? The one who was recently speared in his achilles as all the greatest gods are. Why do you not follow him and his supernatural bendy-ball skills?"

To which I would reply that I work from the perspective I have and I don't agonize over different perspectives (though I've had very interesting discussions with a Muslim friend).

I realize that. But, can you not step back for a moment and see that Muslims "work from their perspective and don't agonize over different perspectives?" You would say that they are wrong (and some Christians even say "damned" because they reject Jesus as God or the Son of God). Why do you not have the same obligation to "agonize" over other perspectives that they have? A Muslim is born and raised in Mecca with his perspective...if he doesn't agonize, he's damned. You are born into your perspective, and so you think your perspective is right and there is no need to agonize.

Do you not see anything curious about that? Really? (this is one of those areas that I just really can't understand why Christians don't get it).

Hmmm, are we running out of steam yet? Or is there more coal to burn?

There is plenty, but you manage to skirt around the specifics. You stick to very generalized responses that wind up always bringing us back to "I believe because I feel it is right because I feel that the Bible is accurate and other religious texts are not and I have had what I feel are personal experiences (which I will not elaborate on) that I ascribe to my god."

If that's what your basis is for your belief, then that's fine. But, you seem to deny that that's your basis, and then talk in circles and generalities, never getting us beyond that.

[Theophilus]

Ah Ces, ask me a specific question and I'll try and give you a specific answer (though it may be "I don't know").

It's best to just ask me one thing at a time or I'll just latch on to what interests me.

But this thread is turning a little too much about me (as fascinating as I am ). What about you and all others here? What is your interest in religion; are you interested in the belief systems, why people believe, or its role in society, or something else?

[Feck]

Ah Ces, ask me a specific question and I'll try and give you a specific answer (though it may be "I don't know").

It's best to just ask me one thing at a time or I'll just latch on to what interests me.

Why do you think your Brand of god is correct when others that can be "proved" with at least as much certainty as yours are not ?

[Coito ergo sum]

I was going with Feck's question too.

On what basis do you reject the Shinto gods?

[Theophilus]

Ah Ces, ask me a specific question and I'll try and give you a specific answer (though it may be "I don't know").

It's best to just ask me one thing at a time or I'll just latch on to what interests me.

Why do you think your Brand of god is correct when others that can be "proved" with at least as much certainty as yours are not ?

Hmmm. That's quite a big question.

I think I'd want to start by rejecting the idea of judging all religions as either "right" or "wrong". There are many shared beliefs and morals; the outworking of many faiths contain many similarities. Could I learn something from a Jewish Rabbi? I'd say "yes". But I do believe in Jesus Christ as God and hold very firmly to the Nicene creed, so on the one hand I don't judge all religions as all wrong, but on the other hand there are core beliefs I hold very dear. Can all faiths be proved with equal certainty? I don't know about that at all. One example I mentioned earlier is that Islam introduced new teachings about Jesus in the 7th century which contradict scripture from the 1st century. That, to me, reduces the credibility of Islam. So I think I would need convincing that all faiths have equal proof (indeed I believe this to be a major flaw in analogies such as the flying spaghetti monster - they do not have the historical roots of Judaism and Christianity). But I will accept there are other faiths which makes claims which I have not checked and/or could not reject, so your question still stands.

And this is where I return to something I talked about earlier (and I suspect this may frustrate those who want a more courtroom-like answer to my judgement of the validity of Christianity). I felt drawn (back) into Christianity after many years on your side of the fence. I don't know why (I've been blessed so far with a very relaxed life with no major worries and so there was no anxiety that I was looking to deal with). It was never a dramatic experience for me - I simply felt drawn to read the bible more and more and then go and sit in a church, and finally to pray. Faith came slowly through that period (which was about a two month "confused agnostic" period). After that I took more of an interest in Church history and in theology, and it was important to me (I know Ces feels differently) to ensure that everything was internally consistent as far as I could understand and check (call it "due diligence" if you like). So the conviction in the end, after checking there are no obvious fallacies, comes from prayer, faith and (I would say) God. I know, of course, that Muslims and Jews will say the same. Is it possible we are called to God through different routes? I don't know (there are passages in the Bible that allow for that, especially for those who do not know the Gospel).

How do I know I'm really right? To be honest the only thing I'm pretty sure of is that I would have got something wrong. But we can always worry about not committing ourselves to something because we might not have got everything right. And so I think an analogy for faith is marriage; I have been blessed with a happy marriage (20 years) and we have grown in love and trust. I don't spend time wondering if I would be better off with someone else; I met the love of my life and am absolutely committed to her. I feel no need to look around at and for different women, and that is also how I feel about my faith.

So, that's all very subjective, I realise. And I'm very realistic about how much credence anyone else would or should put on my story. But it is my story, and you did ask

[Coito ergo sum]

Ah Ces, ask me a specific question and I'll try and give you a specific answer (though it may be "I don't know").

It's best to just ask me one thing at a time or I'll just latch on to what interests me.

Why do you think your Brand of god is correct when others that can be "proved" with at least as much certainty as yours are not ?

Hmmm. That's quite a big question.

I think I'd want to start by rejecting the idea of judging all religions as either "right" or "wrong". There are many shared beliefs and morals; the outworking of many faiths contain many similarities.

Sure, but either your god exists, or the Muslim one or the Norse ones, etc. - they can't all exist. Nobody is disputing that there are many shared beliefs and morals. If that's all your talking about then many secular philosophies also share some of those beliefs and morals.

You, once again, skirt and evade the issue.

The issue relates to belief in your god or some other god, not whether you can "learn something" from a rabbi.

This is the kind of thing that gets people frustrated.

[tytalus]

It is interesting that Theophilus' story attempts to reconcile baseless faith with 'checking' for 'obvious fallacies'. But while baseless faith fails on its own lack of merit, I did spot one possible error in 'internal consistency' that seems quite fundamental.

I felt drawn (back) into Christianity after many years on your side of the fence. I don't know why (I've been blessed so far with a very relaxed life with no major worries and so there was no anxiety that I was looking to deal with).

Yes, the story is very subjective and vague, but this may be an appeal to emotion, lacking any reasonable justification, and somehow Theophilus' 'due diligence' failed to identify this.

Do you do everything you feel drawn to do, Theophilus? Do you recommend this as a general philosophy, or for choosing religious persuasion in particular? Can you think of any examples where this might be a poor choice?

[Feck]

Well , when we get right down to it you believe a set of letters and writings that I don't believe are entirely factual ,but disregard others,and that It feels "right" to you .

Do you understand why atheists are like this ,Almost every time we talk to a theist we get to the same point .It feels right to you ! but you are asking everybody else to :A take your word for that . B believe in some extra-ordinary things that fly full in the face of common experience and scientific study



Then we have the problem of moving goal posts. The gap your god lives in is getting smaller and frankly I do not think there is room left .

[Theophilus]

Do you understand why atheists are like this

Yes, as I know there is nothing I can say today that would have convinced my old atheist self. So if I don't think I could have convinced myself I'm very realistic about interacting with others. Still enjoy it though (it beats reading debates about how high the host should be held up in the eucharist!).

Tytalus - I think whenever we are drawn to someone or something we should put our "safety hat" on. I don't think there is any good or bad about being drawn by itself; we may be drawn to sport which is likely to be good for us, or we may be drawn to drugs which is likely to be bad for us. I remember early on actually pausing and thinking "do I want to continue with this", so I think most of us do have in-built checks to stop us getting involved in things that are likely to harm us. Perhaps we need to know ourselves as well; I'm quite a cautious person, averse to risk-taking, and consider two spoons of coffee in my mug quite risqué.

[Coito ergo sum]

Do you understand why atheists are like this

Yes, as I know there is nothing I can say today that would have convinced my old atheist self.

But, don't you see - it's not just your "old atheist self." There's nothing a follower of Odin can say to convince your new Christian self. Why is that?