Mailbag: True Happiness is God
Subject: Re: Please read with an open mind
I am writing in response to your article on about.com. I ask that you think about how you got here.
I hate it when someone writes to me to criticize an article I have written but never bother to even hint at exactly what article they mean. There are over 13,000 pages here on this site and I’m not a mind reader. Unless someone tells me specifically what page they are responding to, I can’t figure it out.
As to the question of how I got there, that’s easy to answer: I was born. I’m not clear on why any further answer is necessary.
The answer is unexplainable because nobody knows. But I do know: It's the miracle of God.
Interesting: first Thomas says that the answer (to what? how we got here?) is “unexplainable” and that “nobody knows,” then he turns around and says that he knows and gives his “explanation”: his god. Was he mistaken when he said that the answer is unexplainable, or is he mistaken when he offers his explanation? Both sentences can’t be true.
At least, that’s the way that logic works. Anyone relying on logic for their position can’t make such an argument, but I get the distinct impression that Thomas here either doesn’t understand or simply doesn’t care about logic. Too often, I receive messages from people and I could swear that the very concept of “logic” is foreign to them.
I hope you find him because once He is in your life, you will know what true happiness is.
This presumes that I do not already know true happiness,and Thomas does not know me well enough to make such a claim. Unfortunately, I often hear from people who do think that they know me well enough to offer their opinions about what I am feelings, what I am thinking, and what my life is like. That’s extremely arrogant, but it happens so frequently that I have to wonder if there is some standard chapter in evangelical manuals on making judgments about strangers. Is this something learned in church or taught in books?
Aside from that, Thomas obviously fails to provide any good reasons to think that the claim 'god exists' is a true one. If he had any, I would assume that he would have actually provided them. Instead, he just makes vague statements about his god and assumes that that is sufficient. Perhaps in some circles the idea of actually supporting one’s claims is rare, but as far as I am concerned nothing else is sufficient.
More selections from the Agnosticism / Atheism Mailbag...
Comments
Excellent article.
The really sad thing is that Thomas represents the best the theists can do.
Theists can get PhDs in sciences, history, philosophy, they can spend their entire lives learning about religious philosophy and theology, arguments for gods and metaphysics. They can spend years as professors of theology or divinity or whatever, but whenever you see them arguing for their god (or, shudder, gods in general) it’s never any better than what Thomas has offered. It’s sometimes wordier and more murky, but nothing better is ever offered.
And yet people still believe in gods. I don’t get it.
I dislike Thomas’ claim to both absolute truth, and absolute understanding of someone’s else’s state of mind (i.e., happiness or lack thereof).
I also, however, dislike the similar absolutism of many Atheists.
Without demonstrable proof, what’s left is belief, not fact. I think that the only certainty is. therefore, the lack of certainty, the lack of absolute knowledge: agnosticism, literally, “not knowing”.
1. What absolutism?
2. The term “atheist” is not a proper noun and should therefore not be capitalized.
You seem to be under the mistaken impression that atheism and agnosticism are mutually exclusive; they are not. Atheism and theism are about belief; agnosticism is about knowledge. These are separate issues: if though a person says they do not have certain knowledge of some matter, they still have a belief that it is true or they do not. There is no middle ground between the presence of a belief and the absence of a belief.
(1) There is a God.
(2) There is no God.
One of those statements is true, regardless of which one you believe to be true.
A theist believes number one is an absolute. An atheist believes that number two is an absolute. An agnostic, lacking a convincing proof about which is true, disregards both. An idiot believes that both are either equally true or equally false.
You can not scientifically prove that either #1 or #2 is true. To believe that either is an absolute is an expression of faith, not fact.
A belief is just that until proved it is nothing. I believe the sun will rise tomorrow until it does my belief means nothing except that it has risen billions of times and in all probability, will rise again tomorrow. As to theism and theists they have their belief but nothing to back it up, not history or present.
I have a query. Is Thomas claiming only God gives true happiness? Is Thomas so bereft of his humanity, that he cannot be “truly” happy without a god in his life? How utterly depressing!
I feel sorry for those who must credit or blame God for their happiness or lack thereof. To have to depend on something outside yourself for your emotional life, to me is very depressing, not positive at all.
You are mistaken on both counts.
A theist believes that at least one god of some sort exists. An atheist lacks any such belief. Neither position is necessarily held as an “absolute.”
Please do note the important fact that you are defining both in reference to “God,” the monotheistic god of western religion and philosophy. By your definition, ancient Greek pantheists were “atheists” because they didn’t believe in this deity. Surely you recognize the absurdity of that.
An agnostic is also either a theist or an atheist because even though an agnostic doesn’t claim to know for sure that any gods exist, they must also either think the proposition “god x exists” is true or not.
You are mistaken on this as well. You are basically insisting that believing something without scientific proof is a “faith,” which is simply wrong.
An agnostic is also either a theist or an atheist because even though an agnostic doesn’t claim to know for sure that any gods exist, they must also either think the proposition “god x exists” is true or not.
So I can’t answer “I don’t know” to the proposition “god x exists?” I have to decide “true” or “not true” ???
I don’t think that’s correct - surely I can answer ” I don’t know”
- however, I should add, I do actually think that it is not true, and that there is sufficient scientific and logical proof for that. Does this mean I believe in something then? (that I believe there is no godd - I’m believing in the absence of deity…) As so far I’ve been stating that I don’t believe in anything but rely on evidence. Argh I really hate getting into that hair-splitting “does the table really exist” philosophy stuff. It makes my head hurt.
I think at some point you must be entitled to “believe” that something is not true based on evidence and logic, just as theists have decided that their god does exist based on the evidence that they claim to have for it. It cuts both ways.
That’s not what I said.
Either you think that some proposition is true or you do not. There is no middle ground between the two.
This is entirely separate from the question of whether you think you know it is true or know it is false.
Of course you can, but knowledge and belief are separate issues. You can not know for sure if a proposition is true or not and believe it anyway (like faith) or not bother believing.
No. Not accepting some proposition as true doesn’t imply belief in anything in particular.
Ok, well I’ll try a different proposition.
How about - “Steven Hawking owns a black cat.”
While this might be easily verifiable, I don’t currently have any information on it, so I can’t say whether it is true or not. It could be possible. But he could just as easily not own a cat, maybe he’s allergic. Or he might own a tabby.
SO I absolutely have no opinion one way or the other. I don’t think that it is true or not, I really really don’t know.
So you do not believe that the proposition “Steven Hawking owns a black cat” is true.
You may be under the mistaken impression that not believing a proposition is true is the same as denying that it’s true — the same as asserting that it’s false. They aren’t the same. The absence of some belief is not the same as believing the exact opposite.
I don’t believe that you have a green car. How could I? I don’t even know if you own car in the first place. Because of my lack of knowledge, however, I necessarily don’t believe that the proposition “she has a green car” is true. How could I? I can’t believe it’s true. This is not the same, however, as denying that you have a green car. I don’t. How could I?
People who believe you have a green car are “theists” whereas people who don’t believe you have a green car are “a-theists.” The theists are the ones who believe for any possible reason. The a-theists are the ones who don’t bother believe for any possible reason (they don’t have enough information to do so, they know better, etc.).
The links I provided in comment #7 go into detail about all this.
This is why agnosticism and atheism/theism are not mutually exclusive. If you told me you had a green car, I’d believe you though I couldn’t also claim to know for sure. I’d just accept your statement at face value. That’s an agnostic theist. Right now I don’t believe you have a green car though I can’t say for sure that you don’t. I’m an agnostic atheist. If you showed me a picture of you in a green car, I’d be a gnostic theist. If someone showed me proof you had one red car, I’d be a gnostic atheist.
Knowledge and belief are related, but they are separate issues.
Brilliant. I think I get it. Thanks so much!
I’ve had times where I’ve explained that a dozen different ways with a dozen different examples and the other person still couldn’t get it. I’m so relieved to find someone who gets it so quickly…
Thomas’ email does seem a little useless. I would assume though, from the tone of email and from my own previous experience, that his intention seems “pure”. I recall similar feelings.
That, however, doesn’t help him when it comes to his illogical, unsupported email.
Arrogant to think that he has the answer and Austin does not? Very. Illogical? Yes.
But I can’t help but feel a little sad by the whole thing. I hope that Thomas has a chance to be exposed to other viewpoints. I hope that Thomas takes the time and mental effort required to listen with an open mind (as he requests in his subject). I think if he did, he would, at the very least, be able to come to the conclusion that NO ONE can 100% know.
But, then again, that’s my own arrogance talking. Because I know that my viewpoint is correct.
>>I am writing in response to your article on about.com. I ask that you think about how you got here.
>I was born. I’m not clear on why any further answer is necessary.
You get snaps for answering that. I actually thought he meant “how you got” HERE–at About.com–or how you arrived at atheism. Ironically, I just recently replied to someone about how problematic it is when theists use vague or even metaphoric/poetic language.
It was medical professional I was responding to who had written to say he had examined many “hearts,” personally, inside and out, and had never seen any moral code written upon a single one. He offered that we could quote him on that the next time a theist calls the AE show to say that god has written his moral code upon the human heart.
The vague language used in religion serves to mystify the mundane. Recently a theist wrote to tell us that altruism in humans can’t have evolved as it is counter to evolution. Of course, he offered no demonstration of this. And I can point to a number of other social animals that would be dead in a week if not for the support of their social group (lions, grazing animals, wild dogs and wolves, and so on). Supporting the group supports the individual in social animals. It’s a key component of surviving and breeding. How can someone NOT observe that? But keep yourself ignorant and mystified…that’s how faith operates best. “Social animals are mysterious mystifications that counfound evolution…I just know.”
Tracieh;
I just had to comment on your “social animals” idea. If anyone has observed the amazing behavior of most group or herd animals, then that would seem to disprove the “need” for a god for lessons on morality.
These so-called “dumb” animals can be more co-operative and helpful to each other than your own “intelligent” neigbors.
No meerkat will abandon their group leader’s offspring, for instance. They actually baby-sit while the leader, a female alpha, by the way (no gender discrimination, either), matriarchal rule, by the way. So much for male superiority (another MAN-made convenience).
The behavior of a herd of elephants and how they co-operate with each other and care for their young, is well known. Even in nature it is obvious that social mores, do exist. What elephant or meerkat follows the bible?
How many humans who claim to be god fearing will lie, steal and cheat, not to mention murder and rape? So much for Thomas’ “true” happiness with God.
slight correction on one of the above paragraphs, it should have read:
No meerkat will abandon their group leader’s offspring, for instance. They actually baby-sit while the leader is away from the burrow, a female alpha, by the way, (no gender discrimination,either)matriarchal rule. So much for male superiority (another MAN-made convenience).
Austin, if I believe that it is possible to know that there is a god or gods, for example by one appearing and doing things that fit my preconceptions of what a god could do, BUT do NOT believe that it can be proved there is no god al la the teapot, does that make me an agnostic or a gnostic with respect to the question of “can we know god(s) exist ?”.
Thanks, Peter
Happiness is mostly a matter of luck. People who value integrity seem to be luckier though. A false Skygod provides endless pleasure, but little happiness.
Peter: (A)gnostic is a matter of whether you know (or think you know) if any gods exist. The question of whether such knowledge is possible is a related issue, but separate.
An agnostic may believe that knowledge of gods is categorically impossible for humans, is unlikely for humans, is impossible for them personally, is possible for humans, etc. All agnostics only have in common the fact that they don’t claim to know themselves.
Austin, I read with interest your related article http://atheism.about.com/od/aboutagnosticism/a/what.htm referenced above, where you say:
>”Everyone who claims that such knowledge is possible or that they have such knowledge might be called “gnostics” (note the lowercase ‘g’).”
You say in your reply to me here that:
>”The question of whether such knowledge is possible is a related issue, but separate.”
The second statement appears to contradict the first.
I will try to clarify my question as statements:
1. It is possible to know, with evidence, that a god exists. (This sidesteps the issue of what would be good enough evidence, bearing in mind Clarke’s third law.) This makes me a gnostic.
2. I know of the category “god(s)” but I do not know there is a god because there is insufficient evidence for one NOW. This makes me an agnostic.
So is it about timing ? The current state as opposed to the possible future state of knowledge ?
Can I then hold both states at once as above ?
Thanks
Peter
Notice the might in the line quoted from the article.
A person who says “I don’t know” is an agnostic. A person who says “knowledge isn’t possible” is necessarily an agnostic — there is no need to add “and I don’t know.”
A person who says “I know” is a gnostic. A person who says “knowledge is possible” might be gnostic — it depends on what they say about their own state of knowledge.
Perhaps I should change the article to make it clearer…
>A person who says “I know” is a gnostic. A person who says “knowledge is possible” might be gnostic — it depends on what they say about their own state of knowledge.
OK, so we have two assertions to assess.
1. It is possible to know there is a god.
I believe that such an entity if it existed could appear and act so as to make it clear that this statement would be supported by evidence. We could find the teapot, or capture a unicorn/fairy etc. Therefore I am gnostic on this point.
2. There is a god.
I am not in a state of knowledge about the truth value of that statement therefore am agnostic. I belive this is the scientific position. There is no/insufficient evidence. Same with the teapot, faries etc.
The second statement is conditional on the first isn’t it ?
Yes, that’s where the “related but separate” comes in. They are separate questions, but your answer to one will help determine your options for answering the second.
Your origional respondent wrote:
I hope you find him because once He is in your life, you will know what true happiness is.
My best rejoinder to that is a wonderful quotation by George Bernard Shaw:
“The fact that a believer is happier than a skeptic is no more to the point than the fact that a drunken man is happier than a sober one. The happiness of credulity is a cheap and dangerous quality.”
Chad said:
(1) There is a God.
(2) There is no God.
This is a perfect example of the “excluded middle” and “false dichotomy” logical fallacies so common among theists.
Take 1, for example. What is a god? Why should there be only one god? Why not many, even an infinite number in an infinite number of universes? Even positing the existence of some sentient being(s) superior enough to mankind to be called a god, is there anything supernatural about it, or is it a natural lifeform in the universe.
As for 2 - it is a reasonable assumption as long as there is no evidence for the existence of a god or gods and, so far, all natural phenomena can be explained without the need to inject the interference of a supernatural being. The Law of Parsimony (Occam’s Razor) would seem to indicate that, as of now, it is reasonable to accept that there is no god.
Anyway, I’ve always believe that the only difference between a theist and an atheist is that the theist believes that all religions and all gods are nothing but superstition and nonsense except for his own religion and god.
An “atheist” believes exactly the same thing. He just doesn’t make the final exception.
Incidentally, I don’t really feel comfortable with the term “atheist” as currently used. Would we characterize somebody who doesn’t believe in Jupiter an atheist? Or Krishna, Poseiden, Quetzelcoatl, Mithra, the Yeibichai, Marduk, Ahura Mazda?
In that sense, EVERYBODY is an atheist about the vast majority of mankind’s gods.
“MY GOD MY ALL”
God is all He is true happiness an he has the best life for you.
Let His will be done and you will be happier!
thou you might feel happy with worldly material your just going to feel empty in the end because you can not bring worldly material to heaven or hell
GOD IS MY LIFE WALK WITH ME!!!