Do mimsy atheists gyre and gimble in the wabe?

[Purple Rabbit]

Hey,

I have known very well many, many people that had an improved quality of life, and decision making process because of their personal relationship with theology. I don't think you can win the argument that in every situation, for every other person, theology has no benefit. May be to yourself, but that is not the statement you seem to be making.

For me to claim that nothing good can possibly come from agnosticism would be far from the truth, and demonstrably wrong. Just because Agnosticism holds no value to me does not make it hold no value for others. I assure you, without doubt I have seen good come of theology. I have had good results personally. There is a bad side, but that is not its totality.

I think it is foolish to forward that no benefit as ever come from theology. That is just my opinion.
Thanks,
-Pip

All very well, but what precisely is the good you are talking about. Let's make it specific.

[Rhizomorph13]

I can point to some specific good that comes from religious organizations. My parents church has a program that mentors people who are straight out of jail. The program had living quarters set up and there were some businesses that were working with the program to give the people jobs. I worked with the program for a while to help set up activities like hikes and picnics.

The fact is that God didn't need to be involved at all; any group of people could have pooled their money and done the same thing and there are secular groups that do the same thing. This idea leads me to musing about an Atheist church or meeting hall. Like I said in another post, the world does not have a scarcity of resources problem but it does have a distribution problem. There are practical solutions that do not need a god backihng to be beneficial.

Rhizo

[fr0d0]

You have no developed thought (although I believe you do, you just deny it. moral choices for example.) to differentiate harmful superstition from beneficial theology. You may adopt reasoned standpoint entirely by chance, because the contemplation of a component part of human nature is off limits to you. Science proves itself to be an inadequate comfort blanket when confronted with such problems. Perhaps that is why this forum exists. There's a vacuum to be filled.

That's your problem (one of them, anyway), you see a monopoly for christianity as the keeper of impeccable moral dogma. I do not deny that christianity has shown to be able to converge morally beneficial actions. It has been a container for such. But you cannot claim it to be the only source of good. Buddhism and humanism provide that also. And on the other hand christianity has been a container for the morally abject (inquisition, HIV policy, silent condonement of holocaust in WWII). There is no basis to claim monopoly on good moral by christianity or by theology. So what are these uniquely theologian benefits you suggest? Can you name a few? What has theology done for society?

Quick point: I don't claim that Christianity is the only source of good at all. That's very gracious of you to credit it as you do.

Somewhat too quick, it seems. You forgot to read. Never mind, just take your time.

That theology is not beneficial in any way, stands unrefuted.

Like I said in another post, the world does not have a scarcity of resources problem but it does have a distribution problem. There are practical solutions that do not need a god backing to be beneficial.

Rhizo

The belief in Christianity, which promotes ideas like community, acceptance & forgiveness produces positive action more so than say, humanist belief which is largely ego centric would. Therefore christian theology is demonstrably beneficial.

Of course with your (Purple Rabbit) examples you have to quote examples which go againt the theology to produce non beneficial results. This hardly counts.

There is no reason to suspect that science, at least potentially, is unable to answer questions about any aspect of our universe. You are doing exactly what Dawkins says you and your kind do ... claiming religion has a get-out-of-jail-free card ... I do not accept that any religious POV deserves that and you have yet to justify that it does.

I don't think there is a get out of jail free card. Of course Dawkins doesn't understand the point of theology, so you're in good company. Theology already has the answers but you'd rather trust in the unknown. Sounds more like superstition than science.

[Pippy]

Hey,

I got a lot of people quoting my post, and I appreciate that. I am happy to continue onwards.

All very well, but what precisely is the good you are talking about. Let's make it specific.

Thank you Purple Rabbit, for your question. I think the 'good' I see from faith is a better ability to make decisions, better coping and less stress. Allow me to try to further on those vague points before arguing if you would though.

The better ability to make decisions is about the mental framework of choice. If a healthy level of faith is adopted (?) that would offer an also healthy level of moral and consequential concepts to help make even slightly better judgments and decisions. I know that there is a bad side to this same mental trick, if you want feel free to go on and on about it. I will most likely agree with you, it is a very dangerous 'tool' in the mind. All of these examples would be of faith in it's best regard. That is what would be the only way to get "good" from faith, to do faith in a good way (as directly opposed to a bad way). Faith is a tool, and like most it has at least two edges...

Better coping seems easier to describe. That at least some of the things that concern and worry us are completely out of our control. Even more are very close to completely out of our control. Like asteroids and accidents. A healthy faith can help to differentiate what is and is not within your control. You can freely worry about the things that you can do something about, but would be gently reminded (by yourself, or god, i don't know, it's interpretive) not to worry about something inevitable or unknowable.

Thirdly, thereby leading to less stress. In simple terms... Less time and energy spent in a state of negative emotion and uncomfortable states-of-mind (most especially ones that are unnecessary). More time and energy spent in calm, comfortable, productive states-of-mind. This is only a best example kind of thing, let me say again. I know you will all say it is unrealistic, that I am calling it a 'blanket' or 'falsehood representing weakness'. I can only try to assure you that it is not arrived at from that angle. You don't practice faith or believe because it makes you have a possibly improved life quality, but you possibly have a better life because of faith (like a zen koan). And I still freely admit these same tools can be used to do very terrible tings, they can be as bad as they can be good. That is the nature of tools, I think.

And to be clear, I don't meant "better life" or any of that as 'better than atheists' at all. I would dislike it if you took it that way, as I don't mean to be arrogant. I mean a 'better life' than if that same exact life were without faith. And even then in a matter of degrees, and with many good and bad sides.

Hope that is in any way clear, at least for you to understand, even if you disagree.
Thank you,
-Pip

[Edwardo Piet]

Theology already has the answers but you'd rather trust in the unknown. Sounds more like superstition than science.

What answers? Where's any objective truth in any of it??? Where's the evidence?

EvF

[fr0d0]

Theology already has the answers but you'd rather trust in the unknown. Sounds more like superstition than science.

What answers? Where's any objective truth in any of it??? Where's the evidence?

EvF

You say that but then you also say you're not going to look for it.

Theology has answers to theological questions. Theology has no answers for science, no scientific claims or theories. Science deals with all those thoroughly. Science has no answers for theology.

I suppose a theological Dawkins would say the requirement of theological proof of God's existence by science would be special pleading

[Edwardo Piet]

And my question is, then - how does theology have any answers? How is it a subject at all? How does it study stuff? How can thinking theologically be a subject of study if there's no evidence God exists at all. Me thinks it's all made up...

How can theology, by its defintion - study anything or have any valid answers to anything objective?

How can I look for the answers in theology, exactly? How does it study anything objective, in an at all legitimate way?

EvF

[fr0d0]

If we're talking theologically, then that's special pleading. If we're talking scientifically, then that's irrelevant.

[Edwardo Piet]

And how exactly do we 'talk theologically' in an any sense objective way?

EvF

[fr0d0]

Theological assertions are "mind independent" but conclusions from those assertions aren't. If you need to establish something objectively this is still special pleading in theology.