Atheists: what would it take?

[RabbiO]

As someone who is becoming increasingly Atheistic I feel as though I have very much benefited from some of the responses given in this thread.

Are you saying you’re not sure if you’ve benefited?

 

[Eddi]

Are you saying you’re not sure if you’ve benefited?

No

 

[Twilight Hue]

This one's for the Atheists:

What would it take for you to follow a religion?

I mean, if a religion turned out to be verifiably true, would you follow it?

Assuming there were tons of evidence available for it that would make an absence of belief akin to denying the evident?

For instance, if Jesus were to very publicly return to Earth from Heaven and start working miracles would you become a Christian?

If you are an Atheist due to an absence of belief, would this give you cause to believe?

And if you are an Atheist who positively disbelieves, would this make you change your mind?

Basically: would evidence make religious claims reasonable to you, and would you then act on those beliefs were you to find them reasonable? And change how you live accordingly?

It would take a god to know a god. Not people.

I don't get the following religion part as there are both Atheist and Theistic themed religions out there.

I follow my present religious course because it's working for me.

 

[Yerda]

Basically: would evidence make religious claims reasonable to you, and would you then act on those beliefs were you to find them reasonable? And change how you live accordingly?

I don't think it would take that much for me to believe there was a god of sorts. I'd probably be convinced by evidence similar to the claims of many theists here and elsewhere: some subjective appearance of "God" in me, a voice or inspiration that leads me on. I'd maybe doubt myself, but on balance if a god was appearing to me I'd probably believe.

I don't know how I'd feel about following a religion. It would depend on the god that showed up.

 

[MikeF]

This one's for the Atheists:

What would it take for you to follow a religion?

I mean, if a religion turned out to be verifiably true, would you follow it?

Assuming there were tons of evidence available for it that would make an absence of belief akin to denying the evident?

For instance, if Jesus were to very publicly return to Earth from Heaven and start working miracles would you become a Christian?

If you are an Atheist due to an absence of belief, would this give you cause to believe?

And if you are an Atheist who positively disbelieves, would this make you change your mind?

Basically: would evidence make religious claims reasonable to you, and would you then act on those beliefs were you to find them reasonable? And change how you live accordingly?

Let's say an entity presented itself in a convincing and verifiable way. I think my first response would be of great concern. Such an entity would have a lot of 'splain'in to do.

I think two adages would be foremost in my mind, "Absolute power corrupts absolutely.", and "With great power, comes great responsibility."

Just as a child, once grown to adulthood is not forever bound to and under submission of parents, but becomes an independent person with self-responsibility and certain rights granted through mutual agreement among their societal fellows, my expectation would be that a creator entity would honor those societal rights if it wanted to be involved in the affairs of humans (which it does not appear to have been, up to this point). Such an entity should not be granted or afforded superior rights or privileges simply based upon its power.

I would reject any notion of worshiping such an entity, and my hope and expectation would be that such an entity would not exhibit such base behavior as desiring or requiring worship of itself.

Such an event as a powerful entity presenting itself would have the one benefit of eliminating the question of its existence and eliminate the division between peoples based on differing ideas of the entity. However, what will be the cost of that benefit in dealing with a powerful creature of unknown temperament and intent?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

There is more than one question here. One is whether I would believe the factual claims. The other is whether I would follow the moral teachings.

Whether I would believe the factual claims would depend on the nature and strength of the evidence.

For example, suppose something claiming to be Jesus appears in the sky and heals people, calms storms, etc. That could *easily* be a highly technological alien that is playing to our superstitions. At the very least, I would believe there is something that can to whatever 'miracles' are actually done. But that is a LONG way from proving the existence of a creator of the universe.

So, again, what I believe would depend very heavily on the specific evidence and exactly what it shows. To believe a deity is involved, I would at least have to be able to discount the possibility of a high technology alien trying to manipulate us.

The second question is whether I would follow the moral teachings. That would strongly depend on my moral judgement of the entity. If it is anything similar to Yahweh of the OT, then it would be a moral duty to *fight* such a thing. The morality of Jesus is better, but I would have to look at details.

In short, powerful is not the same as deity. And deity is not the same as moral.

I see a third question as well: whether I would actually join the religion.

Even now, there are religions (specifically the UUs and liberal unprogrammed Quakers) whose beliefs I don't disagree with and that I'm generally aligned with morally, and I've tried attending them but gave up because I didn't really see the point.

 

[Brian2]

It's true that inflation is hypothetical. It's also true that so far it appears to work well as an account of what happened to bring about the universe as we see it 14 bn years later. So to date it continues to pass that particular test.

Science works by scientific method, which involves empiricism and induction. Since nothing protects such conclusions from unknown unknowns, science makes no absolute statements ─ as a matter of principle, they're expressed in a falsifiable manner.

But it does make its statements on the basis of examinable evidence. So more than mere belief, mere opinion, is involved.

Science makes statements about the physical universe and not about anything non physical. Anything that goes beyond the physical is opinion, belief. That is a job for both atheists and theists to do.
But science imo does venture into opinion and belief and even goes against the evidence and that is because of the naturalistic methodology in science.

 

[sun rise]

I very much doubt i would join a religion though. The dogma and hypocrisy is not for me.

Not all religious folk are hypocrites, of course.

Edit : I will add that I'll be asking said deity some very searching questions.

Good.

 

[Brian2]

Well, if evidence shows that there was something else, I will accept that. As simple as that. Like @KWED said, go with evidence and do not make ridiculous claims.

I suppose that would mean that you go with the evidence that life comes from previously existing life and not from dead matter.

 

[sun rise]

I've tried attending them but gave up because I didn't really see the point.

Some people find the support of a community helpful and some don't.

 

[Polymath257]

Science makes statements about the physical universe and not about anything non physical. Anything that goes beyond the physical is opinion, belief. That is a job for both atheists and theists to do.
But science imo does venture into opinion and belief and even goes against the evidence and that is because of the naturalistic methodology in science.

Actually, there is nothing about the scientific method that requires a naturalistic methodology. All that is required is that ideas presented can be tested by some sort of observation that is available to everyone.

So, if the existence and properties of ghosts could actually be tested through observation, then the subject of ghosts would become a scientific question. It really doesn't matter whether they are 'physical' or not.

For that matter, it isn't very easy to define what the term 'physical' even means. As used by science, it typically means something whose properties can be tested by observation. So, in the above scenario, ghosts would be considered to be 'physical'.

So, there really is no reason that the scientific method couldn't be applied to questions of religion *if* those questions actually have a testable truth value.

 

[Polymath257]

I suppose that would mean that you go with the evidence that life comes from previously existing life and not from dead matter.

Or you could go with the stronger evidence that life is a chemical process and that the term 'dead matter' is rather meaningless. So there is no reason that the chemical processes of life could not have arisen from other chemical processes.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Some people find the support of a community helpful and some don't.

Sure. And the UUs did a good post-service pot luck lunch. It still wasn't enough for me to give up sleeping in on Sunday morning.

 

[Aupmanyav]

I suppose that would mean that you go with the evidence that life comes from previously existing life and not from dead matter.

Yeah, I agree to that. I am the result of interaction between my father and my mother. My children are the result of my interaction with my wife. That is how it goes.
The is no dead matter. Matter is always alive. Life began with organic compounds - Abiogenesis - Wikipedia.

 

[ChristineM]

Not all religious folk are hypocrites, of course.

Of course, from my experience the minority but good ones do exist

 

[Alien826]

I see a third question as well: whether I would actually join the religion.

Even now, there are religions (specifically the UUs and liberal unprogrammed Quakers) whose beliefs I don't disagree with and that I'm generally aligned with morally, and I've tried attending them but gave up because I didn't really see the point.

This is a question I have asked myself, so I ask it in all seriousness.

Let's say the aliens (and I don't see any way to distinguish self proclaimed gods from very advanced aliens*), set up a true utopia on Earth. You can define your own utopia, but lets say you were quite convinced that it was real and not some kind of trick. There is one catch. In order to participate in Utopia, you must attend gatherings where you perform something close to worship of the aliens (maybe exaggerated praise, gratitude, bowing down and so on). Why? I don't know, it's just something the aliens think is important. If you decline, no punishment will ensue, you just stay in a section of the Earth set aside for and run by humans who are left alone to manage themselves (in short as things are now).

Do you participate in the "worship"? My answer is "yes", though in the words of Marvin the depressed android, "I won't enjoy it, you know".

* How would a god convince a human that it actually knew everything?

 

[MikeF]

This is a question I have asked myself, so I ask it in all seriousness.

Let's say the aliens (and I don't see any way to distinguish self proclaimed gods from very advanced aliens*), set up a true utopia on Earth. You can define your own utopia, but lets say you were quite convinced that it was real and not some kind of trick. There is one catch. In order to participate in Utopia, you must attend gatherings where you perform something close to worship of the aliens (maybe exaggerated praise, gratitude, bowing down and so on). Why? I don't know, it's just something the aliens think is important. If you decline, no punishment will ensue, you just stay in a section of the Earth set aside for and run by humans who are left alone to manage themselves (in short as things are now).

Do you participate in the "worship"? My answer is "yes", though in the words of Marvin the depressed android, "I won't enjoy it, you know".

* How would a god convince a human that it actually knew everything?

Is it even possible for a single Utopia to match the utopian preferences of billions of individuals? How would the alien/aliens satisfy everyone?

I think I would rather maintain a higher level of input and autonomy and work for/participate in, a system of least worst compromises that are mutually agreed to by my fellow human beings in the trenches.

 

[Heyo]

Actually, there is nothing about the scientific method that requires a naturalistic methodology. All that is required is that ideas presented can be tested by some sort of observation that is available to everyone.

So, if the existence and properties of ghosts could actually be tested through observation, then the subject of ghosts would become a scientific question. It really doesn't matter whether they are 'physical' or not.

For that matter, it isn't very easy to define what the term 'physical' even means. As used by science, it typically means something whose properties can be tested by observation. So, in the above scenario, ghosts would be considered to be 'physical'.

So, there really is no reason that the scientific method couldn't be applied to questions of religion *if* those questions actually have a testable truth value.

Requiring observable evidence is naturalism.

 

[blü 2]

Science makes statements about the physical universe and not about anything non physical. Anything that goes beyond the physical is opinion, belief. That is a job for both atheists and theists to do.

I think a world exists external to me and my senses are capable of informing me about it. To exist in that world ─ nature ─ is to have objective existence.

No gods, no supernatural beings, are found there.

The only place they're known to exist, and the only manner in which they're known to exist, is as concepts or things imagined in individual brains. Thus they're not answerable to any objective standard of truth and thus there are at least as many gods as there are working brains that hold the concept of a god or of gods. And that's why, across human history and in the world at this moment there are countless thousands of gods.

That suggests to me that devising gods is something humans do, probably related to the brain's natural ability to instantly devise a narrative to explain things that are unexplained, like noises in the night, thunder and lightning, drought, famine and plague, good and bad luck, and so on. It's also readily observable that religion is part of tribal identity, along with language, customs, folk history, stories and heroes.

But science imo does venture into opinion and belief and even goes against the evidence and that is because of the naturalistic methodology in science.

You can see from the remarks above that we're destined to disagree.

 

[Polymath257]

Requiring observable evidence is naturalism.

is there such a thing as unobservable evidence?