Humility
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
11-04-2013, 11:22 AM
Humility
Hey everyone. I'm enrolled in a college course regarding a historical study of Jesus as his life is accounted for in the Gospels. (Yes, I do this by choice. I have to actually understand the opposing argument in order to actually articulate my own.) After an exam this past Monday, I stayed after class to have a discussion (not a debate, just a discussion) regarding the nature of God and why I think theism is dead. I ran through the typical ways god is defined, being these:

1. A humanlike being separate from the universe and personally connected with humanity - This one I argued is highly improbable and there is literally no evidence for a theistic deity that acknowledges human existence or intervenes in our lives. (She disagreed but was respectful regarding it)

2. The "ground of reality" or "force of love" - This is a common thread in Buddhist and Hindu lines of thought. I argued that these feelings can be easily explained as human emotions and don't require an intervening body.

3. Spinoza's God - This is the only deity I could ever give assent to. Although I argued that the laws of physics don't really constitute a deity and are almost entirely explainable and will someday be completely explainable, I think that if someone wants to call the natural laws "God", then fine. I just call them the laws of physics.

It was at one point in the conversation that I was saying that I could never reconcile within myself the "God of Love" Christians talk about with the "God of vengeance" that is featured in the Scripture that is, for the most part, ignored. It doesn't mesh at all. It was when I said this that my professor said, "That is difficult to reconcile. Some people don't reconcile it at all and become Atheist or Agnostic because they don't have the humility to consider that the flaw of reasoning is on their part and not God's" that I took a step back. Humility? As an Atheist, I believe that I am a speck on a speck of a tiny solar system in a single galaxy that is part of a cluster of galaxies in a single neighborhood of the universe. I have no innate purpose, I must make one. The universe doesn't care I exist. Is that not more humble than saying that the universe was made by an omnipotent creator who not only knows humanity exists, but knows my name and my personality? That seems arrogant to me. Is there something I'm not seeing here, or was her statement just insulting? (Note: She is, in general, a wonderful person and has, in most regards, a brilliant mind)

Semper requiremus veritatis.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-04-2013, 11:24 AM
RE: Humility
(11-04-2013 11:22 AM)FrostyMan Wrote:  Hey everyone. I'm enrolled in a college course regarding a historical study of Jesus as his life is accounted for in the Gospels. (Yes, I do this by choice. I have to actually understand the opposing argument in order to actually articulate my own.) After an exam this past Monday, I stayed after class to have a discussion (not a debate, just a discussion) regarding the nature of God and why I think theism is dead. I ran through the typical ways god is defined, being these:

1. A humanlike being separate from the universe and personally connected with humanity - This one I argued is highly improbable and there is literally no evidence for a theistic deity that acknowledges human existence or intervenes in our lives. (She disagreed but was respectful regarding it)

2. The "ground of reality" or "force of love" - This is a common thread in Buddhist and Hindu lines of thought. I argued that these feelings can be easily explained as human emotions and don't require an intervening body.

3. Spinoza's God - This is the only deity I could ever give assent to. Although I argued that the laws of physics don't really constitute a deity and are almost entirely explainable and will someday be completely explainable, I think that if someone wants to call the natural laws "God", then fine. I just call them the laws of physics.

It was at one point in the conversation that I was saying that I could never reconcile within myself the "God of Love" Christians talk about with the "God of vengeance" that is featured in the Scripture that is, for the most part, ignored. It doesn't mesh at all. It was when I said this that my professor said, "That is difficult to reconcile. Some people don't reconcile it at all and become Atheist or Agnostic because they don't have the humility to consider that the flaw of reasoning is on their part and not God's" that I took a step back. Humility? As an Atheist, I believe that I am a speck on a speck of a tiny solar system in a single galaxy that is part of a cluster of galaxies in a single neighborhood of the universe. I have no innate purpose, I must make one. The universe doesn't care I exist. Is that not more humble than saying that the universe was made by an omnipotent creator who not only knows humanity exists, but knows my name and my personality? That seems arrogant to me. Is there something I'm not seeing here, or was her statement just insulting? (Note: She is, in general, a wonderful person and has, in most regards, a brilliant mind)


Did you point out here illogic to her?

Your reasoning is correct.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-04-2013, 11:29 AM
RE: Humility
(11-04-2013 11:24 AM)Chas Wrote:  
(11-04-2013 11:22 AM)FrostyMan Wrote:  Hey everyone. I'm enrolled in a college course regarding a historical study of Jesus as his life is accounted for in the Gospels. (Yes, I do this by choice. I have to actually understand the opposing argument in order to actually articulate my own.) After an exam this past Monday, I stayed after class to have a discussion (not a debate, just a discussion) regarding the nature of God and why I think theism is dead. I ran through the typical ways god is defined, being these:

1. A humanlike being separate from the universe and personally connected with humanity - This one I argued is highly improbable and there is literally no evidence for a theistic deity that acknowledges human existence or intervenes in our lives. (She disagreed but was respectful regarding it)

2. The "ground of reality" or "force of love" - This is a common thread in Buddhist and Hindu lines of thought. I argued that these feelings can be easily explained as human emotions and don't require an intervening body.

3. Spinoza's God - This is the only deity I could ever give assent to. Although I argued that the laws of physics don't really constitute a deity and are almost entirely explainable and will someday be completely explainable, I think that if someone wants to call the natural laws "God", then fine. I just call them the laws of physics.

It was at one point in the conversation that I was saying that I could never reconcile within myself the "God of Love" Christians talk about with the "God of vengeance" that is featured in the Scripture that is, for the most part, ignored. It doesn't mesh at all. It was when I said this that my professor said, "That is difficult to reconcile. Some people don't reconcile it at all and become Atheist or Agnostic because they don't have the humility to consider that the flaw of reasoning is on their part and not God's" that I took a step back. Humility? As an Atheist, I believe that I am a speck on a speck of a tiny solar system in a single galaxy that is part of a cluster of galaxies in a single neighborhood of the universe. I have no innate purpose, I must make one. The universe doesn't care I exist. Is that not more humble than saying that the universe was made by an omnipotent creator who not only knows humanity exists, but knows my name and my personality? That seems arrogant to me. Is there something I'm not seeing here, or was her statement just insulting? (Note: She is, in general, a wonderful person and has, in most regards, a brilliant mind)


Did you point out here illogic to her?

Your reasoning is correct.

Unfortunately, I had to go to another class, so we had to end the discussion there.

Semper requiremus veritatis.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-04-2013, 12:22 PM
RE: Humility
Does it require that one must be humble because one is inferior to god. Or might one be humble because as you said you are a speck on a small planet in a huge universe. Your argument was superior, because it did not contain conjecture.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-04-2013, 12:30 PM
RE: Humility
Consider

Maybe she is confusing 'humility' with 'subservience'?

Yes

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like DLJ's post
11-04-2013, 12:45 PM
RE: Humility
(11-04-2013 12:30 PM)DLJ Wrote:  Consider

Maybe she is confusing 'humility' with 'subservience'?

Yes

Maybe she also likes restraints and such. Could get you an 'A'.Drinking Beverage

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-04-2013, 12:47 PM
RE: Humility
(11-04-2013 12:45 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(11-04-2013 12:30 PM)DLJ Wrote:  Consider

Maybe she is confusing 'humility' with 'subservience'?

Yes

Maybe she also likes restraints and such. Could get you an 'A'.Drinking Beverage

More likely it will get an 'S' or an 'M'



more Drinking Beverage

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-04-2013, 03:02 PM
RE: Humility
(11-04-2013 12:47 PM)DLJ Wrote:  
(11-04-2013 12:45 PM)Chas Wrote:  Maybe she also likes restraints and such. Could get you an 'A'.Drinking Beverage

More likely it will get an 'S' or an 'M'



more Drinking Beverage

Dammit....

And I already have an A (Surprise, the Atheist knows religion) Smartass

Semper requiremus veritatis.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-04-2013, 03:06 PM
Humility
I agree that the misuse of language is a huge obstacle in any philosophical conversation, or in any. Maybe even the or one of the mere reason why religion and beliefs exist.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-04-2013, 04:18 PM
RE: Humility
Frostyman,

I'd be curious to hear her argument for there being a flaw in your reasoning. That statement is easily made, but far harder to back up.

"Religion has caused more misery to all of mankind in every stage of human history than any other single idea." --Madalyn Murray O'Hair
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: