What kind of atheist converts to a theist?

[George-ananda]

The nature of the universe is wonderful, but you wont find it in religion.

I'm interested in truth not religion here.

 

[Willamena]

Some atheists out think themselves being an atheist, and what they embrace is no teddy bear.

Plus, if all they embrace is a teddy bear, they haven't really given up atheism at all.

 

[psychoslice]

I'm interested in truth not religion here.

I am also, but not truth that is written in books or someone's dogma, truth can only be experienced, as soon as we try to explain truth from that experience, truth disappears, I think you see it that way also ?.

 

[George-ananda]

I am also, but not truth that is written in books or someone's dogma, truth can only be experienced, as soon as we try to explain truth from that experience, truth disappears, I think you see it that way also ?.

Yes, I agree. You will only know it's truth when you experience it yourself. And then words are inadequate.

But until I get there, I need masters/saints who have been there to give me guideposts as well as truth as best as it can be explained in words. With their grace and guidance, the goal is to experience truth ourselves.

 

[psychoslice]

Yes, I agree. You will only know it's truth when you experience it yourself. And then words are inadequate.

But until I get there, I need masters/saints who have been there to give me guideposts as well as truth as best as it can be explained in words. With their grace and guidance, the goal is to experience truth ourselves.

I wish you well, but always remember that you are already there, you cannot be anywhere else, if you remember that you will be fine.

 

[Me Myself]

If it were, it would not be particularly useful, nor particularly definible as logic.

It is certainly not 100% objective.

By definition, nothing can be. (AFAIK)

 

[Me Myself]

Reason has nothing to do with it in the end.

You can use it for both, but in the end it comes to be where you put your trust on.

You can rationally discard a lot of religions or dogmas or hypothesis of gods, at you can do, but I doubt you can rationally come to the conclusion gods are impossible.

In any case, ultimately both atheists and theists tend to assume they ignore a lot on all sorts of topics and can see with wonder the myseries that are so much bigger than them.

I understand what you say, partially, but I htink I lean with Luis into that some people seem to be more lean to become theists.

I guess the more animistic ones of us

 

[LuisDantas]

It is certainly not 100% objective.

By definition, nothing can be. (AFAIK)

Not even boolean logic? Mathematics?

 

[nash8]

Logic is definitely not subjective... Otherwise it's useless.

Logic - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

Nothing in this screams objective to me. I agree that disregarding evidence, or believing in something where no evidence exists is not logical, but the subjective part comes in as one begins to qualify what evidence is. Who determines the criteria for what constitutes evidence?

That is true, but only if the premises, goals and models are consistently the same. Which in practice is so rare as to be almost unheard of.

Indeed, so if two scientists create different premises, goals, and models based off the same evidence, would one scientist be logical and the other illogical?

Personally I find Wittgenstein a good author on this particular matter.

A great theory, and one I most definitely agree with. Thank you for the insight. However, I still agree that the premise and model that he sets forth is subjective to his own experience, and the fact that you adhere to a specific conceptualization of logic means that it is subjective in my book.

All of them that happen to be supported by available evidence. And at least hypothetically also any that happen to have not been considered yet.

Indeed I agree, but can evidence support two opposing theories, or a theory that has not been proposed yet? If the evidence, in actuality, supports a theory that has not yet been proposed, then wouldn't the interpretation of the evidence by those that promote the alternate theories be illogical? Is not misinterpretation of evidence illogical?


I

personally would argue neither, due to an utter lack of qualifications. But in principle it is a simple matter of keeping those that are not yet falsified and letting go of those that are.

Ahh now in this we can agree on logicality, believeing in an absolute where a counter-example has been proven would be illogical in my opinion, according to the laws of mathematics. I digress, you have convinced me that given a proven counter-example disproves an absolute, but can where in reality, can be a definite counter example be shown given all the parameters that go into any one decision? In my opinion this logicallity can only exist in mathematics, or in specifically defined experiments, in all other aspects, there are too many variables that can't always be accounted for in reality.

Why? Lacking information to make an informed choice does not make the choice itself illogical.

To a certain agree I would agree with you, but I would argue that this is one of the arguments that make logic subjective. In my opinion, a logical person would gain all the information possible before coming to a conclusion on a particular decision, but then where does that quest for information to make a decision stop? At what point does it become illogical to continue to seek inofrmation in regard to one decision? Is logicality not based on the amount of information that you obtain in order to make a decision? Does this not form the premises and models that you base your further inspection on?

Notice that it is not always possible to make a logical choice of premise and models, or even an illogical one; adequate information may be simply unavailable.

I would argue that adequate information is subjective. The term adequate implies subjectivity in that one must determine what level of information is adequate in order to determine what model and/or premise is logical and/or logical to begin with.

Logic itself does not. But given different premises and models, the logical path and conclusion often do, as is to be expected.

Isn't the decision to choose a specific model and/or premise in the first place, based on interpretation of pre-existing evidence that could possibly make two premises and/or models logical? If logic is objective, how could two different different models and/or premises be surmised from the same evidence?

Is there any particular reason why you attribute that divergence to a lack of objectivity of logic itself as opposed to a lack of needed information?

I actually attribute the subjectivity of logic to two interpretations of the same information. I would also attribute the subjectivity of logic to the amount of information possesed. If one person has more information available to them then their premises and/or models would most likely be more logical then someone who didn't have as much information. So if one person only had information about newtonian physics, while another had information about quantum physics as well as newtonian physics. Which person person would be more logical.

Logic is often personal even when well-implemented, and that may well appear to indicate that it is also subjective. It has become a sad cliche that many people truly believe that having one's own free-styled "logic" is a basic civil freedom or something.

If logic is personal how can it not be subjective? Logic is based on interpretation of existing evidence no? So what constitutes evidence? And if that is the case, logic is not determined by the interpetation of the evidence itself, but by the existence of the evidence in the itself to be interpreted. So if evidence exists, regardless of the criteria than it's interpretation would be logic no?

Logic itself isn't the problem. People adopting different premises will arrive at different conclusions.
But more significant is the fact that most of us don't ever employ logic at all. Take this heathen as
an example.....I see no evidence for gods, so I don't believe in them. See! No logic is required at all.

Lol, so your saying athiesm is illogical?

I believe to just lean on logic over emotional intelligence is to cause a separation in oneself that keeps one from being whole and creates a void that can only be filled when one understands the importance of allowing reason and our emotions to function in harmony rather than choose one over the other.I believe man is still driven by a flight or fight response and not by logic. Some scientists like Einstein and Tesla relied a great bit on intuition as a tool for their scientific reasoning. Love is still unexplained though.

Great post sir. Logic functioning in combination with intuition = genius in my opinion.

They have different information at hand.

So logic is dependent upon the information available?

What does "an analysis of theism" entail?

The analysis of something greater than you? Your opinion of what is greater than you may vary.

But what has a near death experience got to do with joining a religion, a NDE, is just that, its not death, and it has been proven that the brain produces a chemical that can make one feel the effects that are said to be experienced in a NDE,an atheist would have the sense to investegate the experience he had and not just run out and join a religion.

What chemical has been proven to be produced in the brain during a NDE, that is not produced in normal brain function. And religion is not neccesarily inhernet in thiesm.

Because things happen to us that we cannot explain, doesn't mean its something special from some God in the sky, many years ago when something happened that could not be explained they would believe some god did it all, even thunder and lightening was thought to come from a god that wasn't very happy, and we laugh at this today.

Does God have to be in the sky?

The nature of the universe is wonderful, but you wont find it in religion.

I totally agree, and totally agree with this statement all at once.

Yes, I agree. You will only know it's truth when you experience it yourself. And then words are inadequate.

Words are not inadequate in my opinion, the interpretation of those words is what is inadequate, but then again, if the interpretation is inadequate that might imply that the words were inadequate in the first place.

[/quote] But until I get there, I need masters/saints who have been there to give me guideposts as well as truth as best as it can be explained in words. With their grace and guidance, the goal is to experience truth ourselves.[/quote]

You don't need them neccesarily, but why build a wheel without reading the instructions?

 

[Monotheist 101]

the unsure kind.

 

[LuisDantas]

Indeed, so if two scientists create different premises, goals, and models based off the same evidence, would one scientist be logical and the other illogical?

Nope. They would be researching different hypothesis, or dealing with different perspectives.

 

[nash8]

Nope. They would be researching different hypothesis, or dealing with different perspectives.

So different hypothesis based on the same evidence wouldn't promote subjective logic? Different conclusions of what will happen based on the same evidence isn't subjective? Different perspectives on the same evidence isn't a difference in logic?

If you view that interpretation of existing evidence is logic, then I agree with you that logic is objective, but if what constitutes evidence is subjective than I don't see how the belief in a diety can be illogical or irrational.

 

[philbo]

It's agreed of course that nobody's experiences change the structure of the universe. But it certainly can change that person's beliefs about the universe. The whole discussion here is about what can change an atheist to a theist. I'm not sure where else you were heading with that reply.

Because using only personal experience, especially during a period of trauma, is inherently flawed as a rationale for changing beliefs about the universe. I am not arguing that it doesn't change people's beliefs, rather that it shouldn't.

 

[LuisDantas]

So different hypothesis based on the same evidence wouldn't promote subjective logic?

No. Different creativity, perhaps.

Different conclusions of what will happen based on the same evidence isn't subjective?

Yes, it is.

Different perspectives on the same evidence isn't a difference in logic?

No, it isn't.

If you view that interpretation of existing evidence is logic, then I agree with you that logic is objective, but if what constitutes evidence is subjective than I don't see how the belief in a diety can be illogical or irrational.

Seeing how so many of the deity beliefs are mutually exclusive, how could they all be logical and rational?

 

[philbo]

So different hypothesis based on the same evidence wouldn't promote subjective logic? Different conclusions of what will happen based on the same evidence isn't subjective? Different perspectives on the same evidence isn't a difference in logic?

It's less what you use as a hypothesis than the way you test it: for example, proposing both Intelligent Design and evolution as mechanisms to explain the fossil record are not inherently using different, subjective logic; however, one involves wilfully ignoring the evidence while the other does a very good job of explaining it. There's nothing wrong with coming up with multiple hypotheses to explain observations, whether these hypotheses are credible can be tested and may not reach a definite resolution based on the evidence available: that doesn't mean that there's a difference in logic.

If you view that interpretation of existing evidence is logic, then I agree with you that logic is objective, but if what constitutes evidence is subjective than I don't see how the belief in a diety can be illogical or irrational.

I like the idea of a "diety" - would that be the god of slimmers, by any chance?

 

[Windwalker]

Because using only personal experience, especially during a period of trauma, is inherently flawed as a rationale for changing beliefs about the universe. I am not arguing that it doesn't change people's beliefs, rather that it shouldn't.

This is illogical. Why shouldn't it be?

Here's the thing. Everyone develops a system of thought, a mode of perception, a framework of reality influenced by their culture and personal experiences as well as linguist structures. This becomes "reality" to them. They for the most part find a certain equilibrium that satisfies basic needs, such as emotional and psychological well-being and the ability to function in social interactions. People adopt common referents and languages and modes of consciousness that allow these "realities" to function - at that given level of consciousness. But is that truly "reality"? Or is it a standard, average-mode consciousness?

Now to my point. What happens in many traumatic experiences is essentially an existential crisis. All these structures that held "reality" together for us become called into question, or create stresses themselves, because they are unable to help translate the world and stabilize it for us. This is understandable because these systems, these frameworks of reality that are adopted through culture, family, and society, are not typically sufficient enough in order to answer the really "big" questions that one faces in such a crises. What ends up happening as larger life questions come to bear on an individual, such as the very nature of ones own being itself, is that a tension builds to a point it has no choice but to smash straight through this 'bubble' reality of "normal" consciousness (shared illusion), and consciousness itself breaks free into a 'higher' awareness in a new state of conscious awareness.

The result of these peak experiences is to cause to bring into question all of these assumed truths about reality for the person, because the eyes have now seen a larger, or higher, reality. The individual has experienced something that all these other "answers" they've been told before were reality, cannot answer. But this is not an experience of escapism, rather it is one of a healthy, larger and freer awareness. Life is in fact far larger than any ideas we have about it we call truth and reality. And once this larger reality has been tasted, it makes it nearly impossible to repress it and sink back into the bubble they called reality before, along with the rest who continue to live within that. You become changed forever.

This is not inherently flawed, but natural and normal as in how evolution itself works as a whole. Even though the individual may find themselves challenged in how to now translate the world into this newly opened to conscious awareness, it nonetheless is healthy for them. It has moved them into a new mode of awareness to develop and to learn integrate. It is entirely logical to become who you have been opened to within yourself, to be true to that, even though you cannot supposed "rationally" talk about it because frameworks of reality, systems and structures to help translate the world linguistically for them, are rarer and harder to find than those of a previous conventional reality, or your frameworks of 'average-mode consciousness'.

To suggest one should only allow what can be "rationally proved" is hogwash. In fact, it's a type of cowardliness actually. This is saying only reality as has been framed by others is an acceptable mode of awareness to have. It allows for no growth. It is itself another form of dogma, imposing a structure from some created authority outside ourselves to define and impose the boundaries of acceptable beliefs. It's taking rationality and science and calling that the new Holy See to ensure correct doctrine, approved beliefs, etc. Again, I am not talking about a dysfunctional break such as in schizophrenia, but a functional, larger, and more healthy reality than what their previous reality in its own structures could offer, or allow. The questions became too large, the desire too compelling for the soul of the individual to remain in or return to the average-mode, consensus conscious reality.

 

[sandandfoam]

So we have all heard, read, watched, or experienced for ourselves, the stories of people who have converted to, and/or from, being an athiest, and sometimes back again. To be honest, the first time I heard of an atheist converting to theism, I was baffled... I had converted from thiesm to atheism my self, and I coulndn't possibly fathom how I could ever switch back. I thought it was just some theistic manipulation of the truth in order to provide more "prais to the glory of god". But I think I understand what's really going on. Based on all of the stories I have heard (or otherwise), I have a general hypothesis about atheists who convert to, or back to theism.

I think that almost all atheists who convert to theism were not atheist due to a rational, in-depth analysis of theism. I'm not supposing what may have been their source for being atheist, just that it was NOT a concious and deliberate decision against being a theist due to a rational, in depth approach to theism. I am making a point to say "in-depth approach" because... a theist who used to be an atheist, but their atheism was simply because they were raised in an atheist family and was always told "there is no evidence for god", could claim a "rational approach". While that claim "is" rational, it's no where near the same level as a fomer theist who was raised theist, and battled with the cognative dissonance for years while examining the scriptures, evidence, history, etc... and finally coming to the conclusion that their belief in god is unsubstantiated.

Agree, disagree? Does my hypothesis make sense?

EDITED:

I also wanted to add, that MOST of the "Atheist to Theist" conversions I have heard of involved some sort of traumatic event in their life. Possibly suggesting their conversion was emotional... out of fear or a need for comfort??

EDITED AGAIN:

It seems that I need to place a more defined description on the type of atheist that I believe would be highly unlikely to be converted to a theist...
An atheist who I think would not be converted is one who makes observations in our world with a rational approach, has a confidence based in sciences, and was not an atheist for any emotional reason, but one who's lack of belief in a god was solely based on rational analysis of the natural world. (this would include the aforementioned analysis of religion as it could be included in sciences since it falls under anthropology and that relation to ancient civilizations)

Why does it matter to you?

 

[RedJamaX]

Because using only personal experience, especially during a period of trauma, is inherently flawed as a rationale for changing beliefs about the universe. I am not arguing that it doesn't change people's beliefs, rather that it shouldn't.

I agree with you, and I don't think that personal experience, or trauma alone can change beliefs. I would think the the individuals current beliefs, previous beliefs, exposure to any other beliefs, and his/her knowledge would play a significant role in the change as well. Whether they identify that or not would most likely be unknown to them because things typically influence us at a subconscious level.

 

[RedJamaX]

Why does it matter to you?

Curiosity. Conversion stories intrigued me for a while and I noticed a pattern. I've never heard this suggested before and thought I would check amongst the community to see if it made sense with what others have read or heard before as well.

 

[philbo]

This is illogical. Why shouldn't it be?

I disagree that it is illogical, and I believe I have explained why I think it shouldn't be.

The result of these peak experiences is to cause to bring into question all of these assumed truths about reality for the person, because the eyes have now seen a larger, or higher, reality.

I disagree with the "now seen a larger, or higher, reality" assertion. My whole point is that they haven't: they may think they have, and if the result of these experiences is to make them question assumed truths, then all well and good: such questioning is never a bad idea. But "larger or higher reality"? No. The only change is internal, in perception. Not in reality.

..which is another way of saying that I disagree with your "personal realities": sure, the way we perceive the outside world is what may seem real to us, but that isn't "reality". Defining our nuanced perception of what's outside our heads as a personal reality interferes with the meaning of the word "reality".

To suggest one should only allow what can be "rationally proved" is hogwash. In fact, it's a type of cowardliness actually. This is saying only reality as has been framed by others is an acceptable mode of awareness to have. It allows for no growth. It is itself another form of dogma, imposing a structure from some created authority outside ourselves to define and impose the boundaries of acceptable beliefs. It's taking rationality and science and calling that the new Holy See to ensure correct doctrine, approved beliefs, etc.

Twaddle. It's an attempt to have some kind of objective reality; something that doesn't twist with perception. Something that doesn't turn into what I want it to be just because I want it to be that way. And it derives from the absolute certainty that my personally perceived "reality" is unlikely to be objectively "real" at all, and that is very likely to be the case for pretty much everyone else.