In praise of Atheism
In a recent thread I outlined three areas that might typify the thinking of an atheist intent on justifying their view. This seems to me to have some potential for further discussion.
The three areas to consider are firstly, showing problems with the arguments that purport to demonstrate that god exists, then pointing out inconsistencies in the notion of god that render him logically impossible, and finally rejecting the immorality that so often follows from theism.
I'll place posts outlining each, but first a few general notes. Here I'm looking at atheism as the belief that god does not exist. That's how it is generally defined, and places it in direct opposition to theism, the belief that god exists, and is contrary to the agnostic view that there is no good reason to think that god doesn't exist.
In a way this thread is an antidote to several threads started by theists on the forum seeking, perhaps duplicitously but certainly without success, positive arguments from atheists for their view.
Amongst professional philosophers and there associates theism is overwhelmingly rejected. In forums such as this, there are a small number of theists who are quite prolific. This might give an impression that theism, or other beliefs in God are prominent amongst amateurs, but it's more likely that those who don't believe in god just ignore the threads. Perhaps giving the discussion it's own place will entice a few from them.
Arguments for the existence of god
The basic argument is that if these were successful, there would be far more theist philosophers.
Logicians have given us a better understanding of necessity, the central theme of the cosmological and ontological arguments, than we have ever had. Those developments in logic have not lead towards wider acceptance of theism, but rather has shown further problems with the notion of a necessary being.
Teleological approaches have had some attention recently, having previously faded in the face of developments in our understanding of the logic of evolution. The catch here is that any purpose one chooses to consider may be imputed by us rather than observed independently. The important point here is that an atheist is not obliged to ignore the astonishing intricacy and beauty of the world around us, but can be whole heartedly amazed and yet not conclude that any of this implies the existence of a god.
Moral arguments seem to be little more than wishful thinking.
Far more can be said here, and doubtless will be both here and in other threads. But while these arguments may provide a way for theists to understand the nature of their god, they do not achieve their claimed goal of convincing all who give them due consideration. In that regard they are post hoc rather than evangelical.
Consistency of the notion of god
God is, on Anselm's account, something a greater than which cannot be conceived.
It would be worth taking some time to consider what goes along with one thing being greater than another. Two is greater than one, and infinity greater than every real number. So is infinity the greatest number? No, we have the transfinite numbers. Is there a number a greater than which cannot be conceived? For any number that one might conceive, it seems a larger can be found.
Surreal numbers contain all the reals, all the infinite and infinitesimal numbers; If we add imaginary numbers, do we have every number of which we can conceive? Are you brave, or foolish, enough to claim that there are no other numbers of which we might conceive?
My maths is not up to that task, but I want to make a more general point: those who place a limit on what can be conceived merely set up a target for others.
That's the trouble with Anselm's formulation. It lends itself to attempts at refutation. From the undergrad "can god make something so heavy that he can't lift it?" to theistic emanationism's committed to the existence of properties being posterior to God’s causing them to exist, Anselm created an argument, not a definition.
Further, it's just not at all apparent that the various attributes of god sit together in a coherent way; indeed, quite the opposite. The entire enterprise of theology appears for the most part to be an attempt to overcome this disunity, and with dubious - debatable - success.
Given these issues, it's not unreasonable to suppose that the notion of god is itself inconsistent.
Moral Considerations
Let's suppose that there is a god, and further that god's will is write in such a way as to be undeniable, as clear as day, so to speak.
Ought we do as he says?
Surely what god says is the case, is the case - it follows from his being who he is; and so it is argued that we ought do as he says. We do what is right by being obedient to his will, by submission.
Here's a philosophical question to consider: ought we do it because it is the will of god, or ought we do it because it is the right thing to do? We can put this in a slightly different way, by asking, is it is right to do as god wills?
Now this of course is Moore's open question, as applied to god. And to be sure it is open to the theist to simply say, yes, it is right to do gods will; and further that gods will and what is right are exactly the same thing. The theist may claim that the notion of what god wills, and the notion of what is the right thing to do, are the very same notion. But this looks to me like a conceptual error, since it is not on the face of it clear that what god wills and what is the right thing to do are the same notion; when we talk about what god wills, we are not, it seems to me, also talking about what it is right to do. That is, it seems to me that the question "Is it right to do as god wills" is not an analytic question; it is not like asking 'Is 2+2 the same as 4?" or "Are all bachelors unmarried men?". Abraham was willing to sacrifice his son as an act of submission or out of fear for god. Sacrificing another human being out of fear or obedience is not a virtuous act. Hence for the purposes of our story, it is possible to question the virtue of the will of god; and it follows that the will of god is not the very same as what is the right thing to do.
Now this is not a knock-down argument, since it remains open for the theist to insist that it was right for Abraham to sacrifice his son. But I don't agree. Further, I think those who think it was morally right for god to make such a demand are in error.
Even if a moral law were indisputably laid down by the good lord, it would remain open for people to choose to obey or not. The religious person still has to choose, and are not in a different position to the non-religious in that regard. So if the choice of a non-believer is in some way arbitrary, so is the choice of the believer. You cannot avoid responsibility for your moral choices by blaming god. So no, the choice is yours, regardless of there being or not being a god.
Bring to mind that all of this discussion presupposes that we have some direct access to the will of god. Of course, we have no such access, but are instead left to decide if this or that is the will of god, to choose between Jesus, Allah and Brahmin, and then to further choose between the minuscule variations therein.
All of which might count for nothing if it were clear that the actions of believers were more virtuous than those of unbelievers. But that is not what we see. To be sure, we do see people doing great and noble things in the name of their god, but we see others doing the same for love of their fellows. And we see dreadful crimes committed apparently under the auspices of the Good Lord. Ignoring the right of children, of women, of the dying while using institutional mechanisms to avoid responsibility. Believers do not have any special claim to virtue. They are all too much like everyone else.
__________________
Some of the more pertinent replies:
Quoting 180 Proof
Quoting Fooloso4
Quoting Ciceronianus the White
Quoting bert1
Quoting darthbarracuda
__________________
This was written in sections, then moved to the OP. Here are links to the original posts:
Arguments for the existence of god
Consistency of the notion of god
Moral considerations
Here are links to external, related threads:
Conceiving of agnosticism
Belief in god is necessary for being good
The three areas to consider are firstly, showing problems with the arguments that purport to demonstrate that god exists, then pointing out inconsistencies in the notion of god that render him logically impossible, and finally rejecting the immorality that so often follows from theism.
I'll place posts outlining each, but first a few general notes. Here I'm looking at atheism as the belief that god does not exist. That's how it is generally defined, and places it in direct opposition to theism, the belief that god exists, and is contrary to the agnostic view that there is no good reason to think that god doesn't exist.
In a way this thread is an antidote to several threads started by theists on the forum seeking, perhaps duplicitously but certainly without success, positive arguments from atheists for their view.
Amongst professional philosophers and there associates theism is overwhelmingly rejected. In forums such as this, there are a small number of theists who are quite prolific. This might give an impression that theism, or other beliefs in God are prominent amongst amateurs, but it's more likely that those who don't believe in god just ignore the threads. Perhaps giving the discussion it's own place will entice a few from them.
Arguments for the existence of god
The basic argument is that if these were successful, there would be far more theist philosophers.
Logicians have given us a better understanding of necessity, the central theme of the cosmological and ontological arguments, than we have ever had. Those developments in logic have not lead towards wider acceptance of theism, but rather has shown further problems with the notion of a necessary being.
Teleological approaches have had some attention recently, having previously faded in the face of developments in our understanding of the logic of evolution. The catch here is that any purpose one chooses to consider may be imputed by us rather than observed independently. The important point here is that an atheist is not obliged to ignore the astonishing intricacy and beauty of the world around us, but can be whole heartedly amazed and yet not conclude that any of this implies the existence of a god.
Moral arguments seem to be little more than wishful thinking.
Far more can be said here, and doubtless will be both here and in other threads. But while these arguments may provide a way for theists to understand the nature of their god, they do not achieve their claimed goal of convincing all who give them due consideration. In that regard they are post hoc rather than evangelical.
Consistency of the notion of god
God is, on Anselm's account, something a greater than which cannot be conceived.
It would be worth taking some time to consider what goes along with one thing being greater than another. Two is greater than one, and infinity greater than every real number. So is infinity the greatest number? No, we have the transfinite numbers. Is there a number a greater than which cannot be conceived? For any number that one might conceive, it seems a larger can be found.
Surreal numbers contain all the reals, all the infinite and infinitesimal numbers; If we add imaginary numbers, do we have every number of which we can conceive? Are you brave, or foolish, enough to claim that there are no other numbers of which we might conceive?
My maths is not up to that task, but I want to make a more general point: those who place a limit on what can be conceived merely set up a target for others.
That's the trouble with Anselm's formulation. It lends itself to attempts at refutation. From the undergrad "can god make something so heavy that he can't lift it?" to theistic emanationism's committed to the existence of properties being posterior to God’s causing them to exist, Anselm created an argument, not a definition.
Further, it's just not at all apparent that the various attributes of god sit together in a coherent way; indeed, quite the opposite. The entire enterprise of theology appears for the most part to be an attempt to overcome this disunity, and with dubious - debatable - success.
Given these issues, it's not unreasonable to suppose that the notion of god is itself inconsistent.
Moral Considerations
Let's suppose that there is a god, and further that god's will is write in such a way as to be undeniable, as clear as day, so to speak.
Ought we do as he says?
Surely what god says is the case, is the case - it follows from his being who he is; and so it is argued that we ought do as he says. We do what is right by being obedient to his will, by submission.
Here's a philosophical question to consider: ought we do it because it is the will of god, or ought we do it because it is the right thing to do? We can put this in a slightly different way, by asking, is it is right to do as god wills?
Now this of course is Moore's open question, as applied to god. And to be sure it is open to the theist to simply say, yes, it is right to do gods will; and further that gods will and what is right are exactly the same thing. The theist may claim that the notion of what god wills, and the notion of what is the right thing to do, are the very same notion. But this looks to me like a conceptual error, since it is not on the face of it clear that what god wills and what is the right thing to do are the same notion; when we talk about what god wills, we are not, it seems to me, also talking about what it is right to do. That is, it seems to me that the question "Is it right to do as god wills" is not an analytic question; it is not like asking 'Is 2+2 the same as 4?" or "Are all bachelors unmarried men?". Abraham was willing to sacrifice his son as an act of submission or out of fear for god. Sacrificing another human being out of fear or obedience is not a virtuous act. Hence for the purposes of our story, it is possible to question the virtue of the will of god; and it follows that the will of god is not the very same as what is the right thing to do.
Now this is not a knock-down argument, since it remains open for the theist to insist that it was right for Abraham to sacrifice his son. But I don't agree. Further, I think those who think it was morally right for god to make such a demand are in error.
Even if a moral law were indisputably laid down by the good lord, it would remain open for people to choose to obey or not. The religious person still has to choose, and are not in a different position to the non-religious in that regard. So if the choice of a non-believer is in some way arbitrary, so is the choice of the believer. You cannot avoid responsibility for your moral choices by blaming god. So no, the choice is yours, regardless of there being or not being a god.
Bring to mind that all of this discussion presupposes that we have some direct access to the will of god. Of course, we have no such access, but are instead left to decide if this or that is the will of god, to choose between Jesus, Allah and Brahmin, and then to further choose between the minuscule variations therein.
All of which might count for nothing if it were clear that the actions of believers were more virtuous than those of unbelievers. But that is not what we see. To be sure, we do see people doing great and noble things in the name of their god, but we see others doing the same for love of their fellows. And we see dreadful crimes committed apparently under the auspices of the Good Lord. Ignoring the right of children, of women, of the dying while using institutional mechanisms to avoid responsibility. Believers do not have any special claim to virtue. They are all too much like everyone else.
__________________
Some of the more pertinent replies:
Quoting 180 Proof
What more really needs to be said ...
I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.
— Stephen Roberts?
In other words: Hitchens' Razor.
Quoting Fooloso4
From Salman Rushdie:
If you were an atheist, Birbal," the Emperor challenged his first minister, "what would you say to the true believers of all the great religions of the world?" Birbal was a devout Brahmin from Trivikrampur, but he answered unhesitatingly, "I would say to them that in my opinion they were all atheists as well; I merely believe in one god less than each of them." "How so?" the Emperor asked. "All true believers have good reasons for disbelieving in every god except their own," said Birbal. "And so it is they who, between them, give me all the reasons for believing in none.
The Enchantress of Florence
Quoting Ciceronianus the White
I've always found it interesting that, even if the traditional "proofs" of the existence of God had any validity, they don't serve to prove the existence of a personal, peculiarly Christian God, although they're regularly touted by Christians and have been for centuries. The same would apply in the case of other personal Gods if the "proofs" are used to "prove" them. Even if they're true, there's still a long way to go to get from them to Jesus or any other personal deity.
Quoting bert1
In real life, it's the moral and political views that matter. I find it intensely uncomfortable that some of the most obnoxious and ignorant attitudes tend to go along with religious belief. Sorry, there's no philosophy here. I just wanted to say that.
Quoting darthbarracuda
In his book Five Proofs of the Existence of God, Catholic philosopher Edward Feser provides several long-winded metaphysical demonstrations of the existence of God:
the "Aristotelian proof" is 50 points long,
the "Neo-Platonic proof" is 38 points long,
the "Augustinian proof" is 29 points long.
the "Thomistic proof" is 36 points long.
the "Rationalist proof" is 27 points long.
__________________
This was written in sections, then moved to the OP. Here are links to the original posts:
Arguments for the existence of god
Consistency of the notion of god
Moral considerations
Here are links to external, related threads:
Conceiving of agnosticism
Belief in god is necessary for being good
Comments (121)
The basic argument is that if these were successful, there would be far more theist philosophers.
Logicians have given us a better understanding of necessity, the central theme of the cosmological and ontological arguments, than we have ever had. Those developments in logic have not lead towards wider acceptance of theism, but rather has shown further problems with the notion of a necessary being.
Teleological approaches have had some attention recently, having previously faded in the face of developments in our understanding of the logic of evolution. The catch here is that any purpose one chooses to consider may be imputed by us rather than observed independently. The important point here is that an atheist is not obliged to ignore the astonishing intricacy and beauty of the world around us, but can be whole heartedly amazed and yet not conclude that any of this implies the existence of a god.
Moral arguments seem to be little more than wishful thinking.
Far more can be said here, and doubtless will be both here and in other threads. But while these arguments may provide a way for theists to understand the nature of their god, they do not achieve their claimed goal of convincing all who give them due consideration. In that regard they are post hoc rather than evangelical.
It would be nice to see some integrity in people, but perhaps it's too much to expect from the prejudiced.
You have incorrectly defined and characterized the agnostic view, clearly in a prejudicial way.
This is the etymology of agnostic: "one who professes that the existence of a First Cause and the essential nature of things are not and cannot be known" ,and can be seen here .
This is from Wikipedia: These are the first 2 sentences. "Agnosticism is the view that the existence of God, of the divine or the supernatural is unknown or unknowable.[1][2][3] Another definition provided is the view that "human reason is incapable of providing sufficient rational grounds to justify either the belief that God exists or the belief that God does not exist".
Therefore the true agnostic view is, they don't know anything about the existence or the non-existence of god.
So, show some credibility when you start these threads. In any case, i have no investments or interest in this silly "god" game, and will remove myself now.
Quoting Banno
Isn't what Banno said included in what you said? Although yes it's missing an essential part "and no good reason to think god exists"
The "essential part", as you call it, is the prejudicial part, a personal add on, which has very different implication than the actual definition.
Not sure if you were being deliberately flippant, but I think this is a bad argument. There could be many other reasons why more philosophers are atheists than theists aside from it being that arguments for theism are unsuccessful. Recently there has been a growing resurgence of interest in, and appreciation of, medieval scholastic metaphysics; the proponents of which have provided demonstrations, that they believe, show that standard refutations of theistic arguments (usually the cosmological) are insufficient and depend on certain misinterpretations, or just flat out ignorance, of the actual arguments.
I think the idea is that the majority of philosophers are atheists not because atheism is correct, but because of certain historical events (et cetera et cetera) there is a climate of atheism within philosophy that more or less takes theism to have been refuted, and that because of this most philosophers simply don't see the need to really deal with it. While the majority of philosophers may be atheist, I am not sure if the same can be said about philosophers of religion, those who have specialized in studying these arguments. Within philosophy of religion there does seem to be a much greater appreciation (and understanding) of theistic arguments.
I don't mean to say that I personally believe in these arguments (I think metaphysics like this is basically propaganda for power structures and so I don't really see it as a worthwhile pursuit), so don't expect me to offer any defenses of them. I'm just making a point that if you decide to play the metaphysics game, I think you might be surprised to find that there are theists with sophisticated arguments that are not so easily refuted by the standard arguments you hear from atheist philosophers.
So having a topic titled “In praise of atheism” and designing it to entice the theistically uninterested will somehow change this impression? Perhaps you’re falling too deeply into the character of a bubble headed bleach blonde. :lol:
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/11349/conceiving-of-agnosticism
I'll move the discussion elsewhere, as I would prefer to keep this thread for discussion of atheism (yeah, well, I can dream...)
I don't really consider myself as a theist, atheist or agnostic because I find all the labels to be b a little bit inadequate and restrictive. However, I am not really writing here to justify my own perspective on the issue of God. I am really more remarking on your title because all a long when you had your thread on praising science I thought that the title was rather ironic and I think that I made some comment in the post I wrote, saying that I didn't think that we needed to sing any hymns to science or praise because it did not request praise. You did write a reply to me but did not remark on that specifically. But here we go again, with the title in praise of atheism, and I notice that a couple of others have remarked on your title too.So perhaps we really need to build a temple, and compose some hymns for the thread.
The point is, i was clearing up the distortion to the word agnostic. As to your "evidence", you hold on to that, it will help support your beliefs. Or, you can present them in your battles with the theists,
God is, on Anselm's account, something a greater than which cannot be conceived.
It would be worth taking some time to consider what goes along with one thing being greater than another. Two is greater than one, and infinity greater than every real number. So is infinity the greatest number? No, we have the transfinite numbers. Is there a number a greater than which cannot be conceived? For any number that one might conceive, it seems a larger can be found.
Surreal numbers contain all the reals, all the infinite and infinitesimal numbers; If we add imaginary numbers, do we have every number of which we can conceive? Are you brave, or foolish, enough to claim that there are no other numbers of which we might conceive?
My maths is not up to that task, but I want to make a more general point: those who place a limit on what can be conceived merely set up a target for others.
That's the trouble with Anselm's formulation. It lends itself to attempts at refutation. From the undergrad "can god make something so heavy that he can't lift it?" to theistic emanationism's committed to the existence of properties being posterior to God’s causing them to exist, Anselm created an argument, not a definition.
Further, it's just not at all apparent that the various attributes of god sit together in a coherent way; indeed, quite the opposite. The entire enterprise of theology appears for the most part to be an attempt to overcome this disunity, and with dubious - debatable - success.
Given these issues, it's not unreasonable to suppose that the notion of god is itself inconsistent.
It's three degrees centigrade outside, so rather than doing The Things, I'm idling.
As a related point, i think you perhaps forgot to mention missionary work. You know the kind where they travel presenting their "evidence".
Thereby hangs a tale, a very important one.
Thales of Miletus, the first philosopher in the Greek tradition
[quote=Wikipedia]Thales is recognized for breaking from the use of mythology to explain the world and the universe, and instead explaining natural objects and phenomena by naturalistic theories and hypotheses, in a precursor to modern science.[/quote]
Mythology evolved into Theism as we know it. In a sense then, all amateur philosophers/thinkers are reenacting the journey Thales took from God(s) to Philosophy proper roughly 2,500 years ago.
[quote=Wikipedia]Crucifixion in the Philippines is a devotional practice held every Good Friday, and is part of the local observance of Holy Week. Devotees or penitents called magdarame in Kapampangan are willingly crucified in imitation of Jesus Christ's suffering and death, while related practices include carrying wooden crosses, crawling on rough pavement, and self-flagellation. Penitents consider these acts to be mortification of the flesh, and undertake these to ask forgiveness for sins, to fulfil a panatà (Filipino, "vow"), or to express gratitude for favours granted. In the most famous case, Ruben Enaje drives four-inch nails into both hands and feet and then he is lifted on a wooden cross for around five minutes.[/quote]
Theism (mythology) then is The Greatest Lie Ever Told that flags off the journey towards Truth (Philosophy).
This kind of thing happens sometimes but I think it’s wrong here. They might not see the need to exhaust the whole literature by theistic philosophers, but that doesn’t mean they didn’t legitimately form their own judgments and just ran with the assumption that what their peers say is correct. The main arguments for the existence of god are quite accessible, and it doesn’t take long for one to think them through and become unconvinced even if they don’t hear every new iteration of these arguments.
Okay, its play on Russell, and I will try and read his essay, but in the context of a thread on God the title does play with more. Also, even though I say I am not wishing to justify my own position on the theist, atheist or agnostic question, I just read your other new thread and it does seem to be putting oneself into boxes. I do think that the existence of God is extremely important, but don't feel that the neat categories are particularly helpful. Personally, I find some people's ideas about God as restrictive, but I don't categorise myself as an atheist either. I don't even wish to adopt the title agnostic because it is saying that we cannot know. I just feel that all these categories are arbitrary and the power behind everything is far more complex, and defies them completely.
I realise that this may be seen more as a mystical rather than philosophical position. Also, I am not trying to say that the philosophy arguments are not worth talking about, but I think that some of the structures and frameworks of the philosophical arguments and, clear categories are a bit too narrow. I would not choose to say that we are speaking about 'the ineffable' because that can be a way of saying that we cannot find words to use at all, although I can see why mystics sometimes say this. I am really saying that I have some sympathy with certain ideas of theists and with some views of atheists and agnostics, but I prefer to use all those labels in a more flexible and expansive way.
However, I realise that others on the site may find my own point of view as being a bit strange, but I do feel entitled to my viewpoint and I don't really have a strong need to justify this to others, especially on this site. I am simply writing it down to say that it is possible to formulate philosophy about the question of God without the rigid definitions or choice of fixed categories. This can involve keeping an open, questioning mind.
1. Either there are good justifications or there are no good justifications (true/tautology)
2. If there are good justifications then circular argument (justifying there are good justifications presupposes there are good justifications)
3. If there are no good justifications then contradiction (to justify there are no good justifications we presuppose there are good justifications)
Ergo, the dilemma
4. Either circular argument or contradiction (1, 2, 3 CD)
Note: The dilemma only arises if you commit to a standpoint i.e. you must claim either that there are good justifications or that there are no good justifications.
Hence, the skeptic only asserts,
1. Either there are good justifications or there are no good justifications (true because tautology and ergo, it itself needs no justification)
Also, remember to assert either of the two disjuncts in 1 is to claim there are good justifications i.e. neither represent the skeptic's viewpoint which is simply that nothing more can be said apart from 1 Either there are good justifications or there are no good justifications.
Thus, every proposition p can't progress beyond p v ~p.
Theism v Atheism
End of story!
N.B. I'm not sure about all I said above.
‘God’ cannot be found anywhere because ‘God’ can’t be Fundamental.
Yet, an Eternal Basis has to be, for 'Nothing' cannot be, much less 'be' a source of anything, demonstrating that the existence of the Eternal Basis has no alternative, in that existence can have opposite. What is Eternal, then, has to be ungenerated and deathless, unmakeable and unbreakable. Also note that there can be no design point for the Eternal Basis, given no Beginning.
For certain, 'God' cannot be so, as Fundamental, since a Being who thinks, plans, designs, and implements requires a System of Mind; however, systems violate the Fundamental Arts in that they must contain parts—and parts have to be more fundamental than the system. 'God' is a contradiction and thereby disproved.
Not even a proton can be fundamental, for quarks are its composite parts, but a quantum field could be, as continuous waves oscillating.
So long, ‘God’; we hardly knew ‘ye’, because ‘Ye’ were never.
Look to the future for higher human/alien beings, for that's where greater complexity lies. Look not to the past of the simpler and simpler—that is the wrong direction—the wrongest even.
Quoting TheMadFool
Yogi Berra: "I never said all the things I said."
[quote=Stephen Roberts?]I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.[/quote]
In other words: Hitchens' Razor.
I don’t know the argument of how an increase in leisure time would result in increased involvement in the arts and sciences, but it seems to require a LOT of faith.
I had similar thoughts a couple of years ago. It all depends on the so-called Technological Singularity. I envision that to be a point wherefrom intelligence increase exponentially. Humans create AI smarter than humans, call this AI A; A creates B, smarter than A; B creates C, smarter than B; so on and so forth...this process, seemingly having no limit but even if that's the case, either the chain of creation (smart->smarter...ad infinitum) or "that than which nothing greater can be conceieved" (St. Anselm) will be God (super AI)
Suppose now that a dying universe (Heat Death Of The Universe) is problem no. 1 for life. God (super AI) would "solve" it. One solution is to reverse the entropy to lower levels or to zero if that's possible. That would mean a Cyclical Universe. If so, God (super AI) in the future (God will exist) is the same as God (super AI) in the past (God existed) and, more interestingly, in the present (God exists).
I have a time machine and I go visit Porphyry sometimes. The other day he was saying this same thing, and I was like, damn you crazy people never change.
:fire: :fire: :fire:
Not to split hairs but the reasons for dismissing the other gods may not suffice to dismiss the one God we're in a tizzy about. The Devil, as they say, is in the details.
First part should be a pinned sticky.
But,it begs a question.
What is rigorous logic?
@Hello Human
What I mean by rigorous logic is reasoning without any fallacies.
The problem is professional philosophers invented and defined these fallacies and academic logic.
The answer is found outside academic philosophy.
(necessary and possible are terms in modal logic, like the possible worlds formulation thereof)
The bare necessities:
Is R[sup]3[/sup] (or Q[sup]3[/sup], doesn't matter) self-consistent? Sure. It's a mathematical thing, so, in a sense, it shares a category with (modal) logic.
Anyway, so, R[sup]3[/sup] is a possible world, a boring, barren, inert, lifeless world. No minds here, nothing worthy of worship, nothing resembling any deities or what-have-you. For G to be necessary, G would have to hold up or be present in R[sup]3[/sup], all possible worlds actually. It follows, then, that any such G can't be a mind, isn't worthy of worship, is rather inert and lifeless, which does not seem like any gods/God preached by the theists out there.
Assuming that the theists would like their gods/God to show up, defining/asserting gods/God as necessary is a bad move. (Not that wishing makes it so anyway.)
Epic fail at the onset.
People who believe in God typically don't do so on the grunds of some philosophical arguments. Instead, they were born and raised to believe in God, and everything else follows from there.
Only the relatively few philosophers who profess to believe in God do so on the grounds of some philosophical arguments. However, these philosopher-theists do not believe in the same God as the religious theists do; philosopher-theists believe in a God of their own making, on their own terms -- they believe in the God of philosophers. For all practical intents and purposes, philosopher-theists should not be counted as proper theists; because from the regular monotheistic perspective, they are still atheists.
Duh. Of course. You must bear in mind that theists typically believe that atheists are stupid and that they should be convinced by the proselytizing arguments put forward by the theists. (Imagine yourself being patronizingly patted on the top of your head everytime a proselytizing theist puts forward an argument in favor of God. Of course, that same theist did not arrive at his belief in God by considering the arguments he wants you to consider!)
And -- "in praise of atheism"?? Are you preaching to the choir? Are you arguing that atheism is evolutionarily advantageous, more conducive to survival and happiness? You'd need to show that the poor God believers are kept poor by their God belief.
From Salman Rushdie:
Like i said in that post, not interested in the god game. You will have to find someone else.
Yes, the final relevant word for me too. The rest is largely head-meets-wall masochism.
You mean the answer is fallacious? Yes, that seems likely.
You think truth is the province of philosophy and or science?
How cute!
Right. So indoctrination works. (y) And, taken as a methodology, indoctrination doesn't differentiate the target faiths, any will do, and it works just the same. Whether Jesus is divine, or whether Sathya Sai Baba was a Shiva avatar, doesn't matter as far as indoctrination is concerned, it'll work just fine either way. Directed indoctrination, therefore, isn't a reliable means to discover the truth of the matter. (n) But I think this should be fairly clear.
The move is to neutralize all moves. A discussion is reserved for the serious and the sincere.
Quoting Bylaw
You are talking big for a new account. I don't recall asking you for advice. Don't be insulting by giving it.
Sounds good.
Up for consideration is the following simple logic, It's a basic observation, doesn't get more basic than this, that you do not have true ownership over yourself, your body, or 'life', Now use logic and relinquish the fallacious sense of ownership. And by extension the sense of ownership over everything else you think you "own".. Have the atheists and the theists use their logic (simple, not even rigorous), if you can. At the end of the day all your "love for wisdom" comes down to how well you can translate it in your living, doesn't it? Unless, the idea is simply to....well...the circus.
Better luck next time.
Two categories of deities:
The former cannot be derived from the latter - the apologist gap.
The former is by far the most common in terms of professed faiths - people worship in temples, churches, mosques, synagogues, by altars, etc - preachers indoctrinate and proselytize. This category is also politically active, and so warrants some attention due to that alone.
The latter may be more philosophical if you will.
While looking around, I've come across a few people that lean towards straight atheism on the former category, the story characters, and lean towards agnosticism (or indifference) regarding unassuming deism and such. Unassuming deism is sort of in a category with simulation hypotheses, The Matrix, brain in a vat thought experiments, or whatever. Anyway, this then introduces an ambiguity: persons with two different attitudes, depending on what we're talking about. If this isn't pointed out where applicable, then confuzzlement follows, perhaps mobile goalposts.
It's not simply indoctrination.
Like I said elsewhere:
What you mention exemplifies doxastic involuntarism because, well, someone else (parents) chose for them. (I'll just call it directed indoctrination, though it shares something with enculturation.)
Anyway, formation (and revision) of beliefs aren't trivial matters I guess, but surely incorrigibility isn't a virtue.
I'd like to take this opportunity to put my position to alleviate some of my discomfort. I am a quasi-theist, I believe for philosophical reasons, but I want to distance myself from many of the other theists on this forum and in the wider world generally. Spiritually, I'm an atheist if you will. If I had to choose to spend the rest of my life stuck in a pub, I'd generally rather spend it with atheists. I agree with most of the arguments against theism, and think nearly all the arguments for it are bollocks, at least without very heavy modification. Typically (and I generalise - apologies to those civilised theists) my political and moral views tend to align with humanists, ecologists, liberals, and lefties. On this forum the people I argue with the most are those whose metaphysics and philosophy of mind I disagree with, and these also tend to be the people whose moral and political views I agree with. Banno for example, 180, street, jorndoe, all the people I find most annoying philosophically (and editorially actually). In real life, it's the moral and political views that matter. I find it intensely uncomfortable that some of the most obnoxious and ignorant attitudes tend to go along with religious belief. Sorry, there's no philosophy here. I just wanted to say that.
I don't know what the 'can' means in Hitchen's razor means.
Of course it can, in the sense one has the ability. Is it a moral can? an epistemological one?
If someone runs into a supermarket and says he needs help getting a kid out from under a car and has no photos of this kid, I can certainly dismiss the assertion that there is a kid stuck under a car. It might be better to say I have no compelling evidence for the belief. But I think it's a potentially messy razor. Because dismissing something interpersonally is one thing, but I think it can be easily conflated with doing it in general. IOW if person A tells me there is a God, I can dismiss any sense Person A has that I should now believe there is a God. But I dont think it makes sense to then dismiss the truth of that assertion. Assertions without evidence are not compelling (at all). This shorter razor leaves out what becomes a neo-claim that the assetion is necessarily false or dismissible in and of itself.
If I could just point out something to all you enlightened heroes.
The greatest argument for atheism is penicillin, not some dubious bullshit about razors.
Whatever keeps people from feeling lost in grief so that they turn to the opium of religion for comfort, that's your argument.
The more you look out at the world and see people becoming educated and fulfilled, the more your atheism is winning.
If you see the opposite, that people are disenfranchised and losing hope, losing their health insurance and job security
you
are
losing.
Sure it can be, esp. when framed as self-confidence and constancy.
Surely that is their own fault, not atheism's.
If you're an atheist and you're doing well in life, you've got atheism to thank for that, right?
And if you're an atheist and you're not doing so well in life, you've got only yourself to blame for that (or your mental illness), correct?
Stop thinking of blame and look at it mechanistically:
Religion is anesthesia. People reach for religion because it helps. It keeps mom and dad standing upright at their child's funeral.
Social conditions that put mom and dad in that situation are feeding religion, not atheism.
My point is, sharpening your argumentation is mental masturbation. Nobody cares. It has nothing to do with whether people become religious or not.
Social conditions where people are fed, educated, kept healthy, employed, able to live without fear of the local gangs, able to influence their local government, etc. These are the conditions that feed atheism.
Get off your fucking high horses.
But there are educated,healthy,employed people in secure surrounding who are Still religious.
Atheism science and philosophy are just as much opium as religion.
Also witness the new age movement in the west? A bunch of rich comfortable folks repackaging and inventing religion.
This equation of economics equals atheism equals happiness is false.
Funny enough, Cantor did think there was a number larger than any conceivable (or inconceivable) number, which he did identify with God: the Absolute Infinite. And he did straight up admit that the very notion thereof is inherently inconsistent.
Not necessarily, and if time really were cyclical that would be a problem for life just as much as heat death would be, because there was a time when there was no life in the universe, so cycling back around to that would imply the death of all the life that currently exists.
To really save life, there needs to be an open-ended future with an unlimited source of new energy to continually counteract the ever-increasing entropy. Fortunately, if eternal inflation cosmology is correct, that's exactly what our universe is like, and all that's left is the monumental challenge of actually harnessing the new energy that's being constantly created in tiny, tiny amounts everywhere across the entire universe, and putting it to some productive use.
True, but their god isn't the simple-minded object of superstition targeted by a positive atheist. I think you'll find that atheists who understand that give a wide berth to thoughtful divinity.
Quoting Protagoras
How so?
Quoting Protagoras
Mysticism, actually. Not the same thing as religion.
Quoting Protagoras
Statistics bears it out. Educated, wealthy people are more likely to be atheists.
I would not necessarily say that they are new iterations of these arguments; at least some of the proponents have provided evidence that the standard arguments we are familiar with are not faithfully represented in their original form. In the same way that several prominent scholars seem to have misinterpreted Kant (according to Allison), it seems to be the case (according to these neo-scholastic proponents) that modern philosophy has greatly misunderstood the arguments presented by the ancients and the medievals.
The general narrative about how this occurred seems to be that the misinterpretations were published by prominent philosophers associated with the Scientific Revolution, and due to the success of science, these philosophers (and their interpretations) ended up becoming more greatly studied than their predecessors. Neo-scholastics will often claim that philosophy was at its apex with medieval scholasticism, before it went off the rails with the modern turn, and that ultimately we need to re-learn what the scholastics taught and abandon modern and post-modern philosophy for being founded upon fundamental misunderstandings of the "perennial" philosophy, which has continued to be practiced off-the-radar.
Most individuals will be so bamboozled and flabbergasted by the audacious lengths and complexities of these proofs that they will likely vomit and faint. The absurdity of requiring not one, by five different proofs of these lengths in order to demonstrate the existence of God is prima facie evidence that God does not exist.
These proofs serve exactly two purposes:
Both of which are crucial characteristics of propaganda.
I'm not an atheist, but I also don't believe in the kind of 'sky-father' figure that many believers believe in and most atheists reject. It's a 'straw god' argument a lot of the time. One giveaway is that I will often mention Buddhism in arguments about religion, and most atheists will also reject that, even though Buddhism is not based on belief in God. It turns out it's not belief in God that is the issue, but 'the concept of the transcendent', which is invariably categorised as 'woo'.
So a lot of the time, it's not at all obvious what is being argued about. As I believe Noam Chomsky once said, 'I'll tell you if I'm an atheist if you tell me what I'm supposed not to believe in.'
Two relevant OPs
https://www.commonwealmagazine.org/he-who
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/god-does-not-exist_b_1288671
My version of atheism generally concerned itself with a theistic position that would seek to change politics and the laws (in its favor) or work towards imposing a theocracy. Paul Tillich's notion of theism (for instance), as far as I can tell, doesn't concern me.
Yes, one ought keep an eye out for hubris.
Of course. But look at Philosophy of Religion. Without discussion of the arguments, it would be barren.
(Arguably, it is barren with that discussion.)
Same answer to ; yes, you are right, but so what?
But we might add, if it is so pointless, why are you both here? There are plenty of folk who agree with you, and hence do not post here.
Is it inconsistency, or incontinence?
In Islamic scholarship, the product of the arguments was Allah, not Christ.
Notice the sudden burst of interest in the arguments since this thread was posted?
That's were my argument came from. And it hopefully avoids the ensuing madness that afflicted him.
or 'salve'.
It's philosophy; if wasn't for the dopamine that results from light intellectual narcissism none the universes mysteries would be solved. In theory...
In "linear" universe, the heat death would mean the end of life for all eternity. Not so in a "cyclical" universe which basically presses the reset button and gives life a fresh start. Think of this difference as being similar to that between sleep (continuity) and death (no continuity) - interestingly, if God (super AI) can/has somehow leave/left clues as to how much progress was made in controlling/reversing entropy or even how to halt it (your thoughts precisely) so that life can continue without having to go back to square one each time the universe undergoes heat death, a "cyclical" universe would be exactly like sleep.
Well, let the dopamine flow then. :grin:
Quoting Banno
Nobody's taken Anselm seriously since Aquinas gave him the thumbs down.
Do Descartes's ontological proof. It shows that the medieval worldview has god existing by definition. It was a hinge.
A heat death only necessarily applies to an energetically closed universe (where no energy is created or destroyed); only in a closed system must entropy always increase. But according to our latest theories of physics the universe is energetically open, with new energy being constantly created everywhere (though not in an easily accessed form), so in principle it's possible to keep entropy in some part of the universe (the part with life in it) at low entropy forever, no cycling required.
If you're not critical of the agnostic who believes this way, why would you be critical of the theist who believes this way?
Most theists ignore this forum altogether.
I'd say the general sentiment of the atheist is probably apathy toward religion, not really spending much time thinking about it or caring to form a complex position on it. That's not just atheism, but pretty much the case with all sorts of complex intellectual positions.
In any event, I'm a theist. I spend zero amount of time worrying about proofs for God's existence. Faith just doesn't work that way. I live under no illusion that I could change your mind and really don't care to. I actually find your need to peddle atheism as annoying as I do those peddling theism, as in thank you for your pamphlet, but I'm good right now. I'd think that unless someone just happened to be at a terribly vulnerable point in their life would they be open to reconsidering their fundamental worldview.
But to your general observation, I agree. The theists ignore certain threads and the atheists ignore others. Everyone preaches only before their own choir. That's how it should be. But of course everything is exactly as it should be.
Let's suppose that there is a god, and further that god's will is write in such a way as to be undeniable, as clear as day, so to speak.
Ought we do as he says?
Surely what god says is the case, is the case - it follows from his being who he is; and so it is argued that we ought do as he says. We do what is right by being obedient to his will, by submission.
Here's a philosophical question to consider: ought we do it because it is the will of god, or ought we do it because it is the right thing to do? We can put this in a slightly different way, by asking, is it is right to do as god wills?
Now this of course is Moore's open question, as applied to god. And to be sure it is open to the theist to simply say, yes, it is right to do gods will; and further that gods will and what is right are exactly the same thing. The theist may claim that the notion of what god wills, and the notion of what is the right thing to do, are the very same notion. But this looks to me like a conceptual error, since it is not on the face of it clear that what god wills and what is the right thing to do are the same notion; when we talk about what god wills, we are not, it seems to me, also talking about what it is right to do. That is, it seems to me that the question "Is it right to do as god wills" is not an analytic question; it is not like asking 'Is 2+2 the same as 4?" or "Are all bachelors unmarried men?". Abraham was willing to sacrifice his son as an act of submission or out of fear for god. Sacrificing another human being out of fear or obedience is not a virtuous act. Hence for the purposes of our story, it is possible to question the virtue of the will of god; and it follows that the will of god is not the very same as what is the right thing to do.
Now this is not a knock-down argument, since it remains open for the theist to insist that it was right for Abraham to sacrifice his son. But I don't agree. Further, I think those who think it was morally right for god to make such a demand are in error.
Even if a moral law were indisputably laid down by the good lord, it would remain open for people to choose to obey or not. The religious person still has to choose, and are not in a different position to the non-religious in that regard. So if the choice of a non-believer is in some way arbitrary, so is the choice of the believer. You cannot avoid responsibility for your moral choices by blaming god. So no, the choice is yours, regardless of there being or not being a god.
Bring to mind that all of this discussion presupposes that we have some direct access to the will of god. Of course, we have no such access, but are instead left to decide if this or that is the will of god, to choose between Jesus, Allah and Brahmin, and then to further choose between the minuscule variations therein.
All of which might count for nothing if it were clear that the actions of believers were more virtuous than those of unbelievers. But that is not what we see. To be sure, we do see people doing great and noble things in the name of their god, but we see others doing the same for love of their fellows. And we see dreadful crimes committed apparently under the auspices of the Good Lord. Ignoring the right of children, of women, of the dying while using institutional mechanisms to avoid responsibility. Believers do not have any special claim to virtue. They are all too much like everyone else.
You have evidence for this?
I said:Quoting Banno
Run your eye down the list at https://thephilosophyforum.com/categories/7/philosophy-of-religion and show me I'm wrong.
Quoting Hanover
A bit presumptuous. I've repeatedly espoused silentism, not atheism. I'm not convinced that the arguments I've presented here are of much value, except perhaps in a role critical of the theist crap that predominates.
Total number of theists / total membership of TPF = Really low number Quoting Banno
Maybe the religious ramble on a bit. They are a passionate bunch, not motivated by simple academic curiosity, but by heavenly concerns. Religious ferver maybe. It's hard sometimes to get them off your front porch, why would you think they'd leave easily here?Quoting Banno
I ddn't know that, but we're in agreement in that regard then.
Yes, early Christianity was superb at repression, and at assimilation when repression was unsuccessful. This was especially the case with Latin Christianity, I believe, which naturally was dominant in most of Europe during the Middle Ages. The early Christians found Neo-Platonism fitting to the task, so it was never completely repressed, despite the systematic burning of books pagan books. But the "rediscovery" of Aristotle courtesy of Muslim scholars was something of a bombshell, and it took Fat Tommy Aquinas to assimilate his work.
Ah, blessed silence. But religion brings out the noise in us.
https://austintorney.files.wordpress.com/2021/07/fthc-8.5x11-jpg-150-dpi.pdf
Ah, but we are at cross purposes, since I was talking of the philosophy of religion forum, not the philosophy forum.
The OP is an exploration of a few ideas, nothing more. It's apparent that there are those here who do not understand the irony of the title, but there's no point in explaining a joke.
I knew Socrates. I worked with Socrates. You sir, are no Socrates.
Irrelevant example, a fictional scenario, because the moral decision depends entirely on the situation being real, factual.
It's not possible to make meaningful moral decisions in fictional scenarios. (Although fictional scenarios are conducive to playing out one's fantasies.) Moral decisions require that there exist actual options to act on, in the real world. Fictional scenarios don't provide those.
Processing of old traumas, efforts to gain a pychological distance from religion (via controlled exposure and desensitization).
Sure. But I would like to see longitudinal and developmental studies of this phenomenon.
It seems to me that when people start out poor and religious, they sometimes end up well-off and atheist. In some cases, religion is vital for propelling people forward, but once a measure of material wealth and wellbeing is achieved, religion takes a backseat.
Are educated, wealthy people more likely to be atheists because they are educated and wealthy; or are they educated and wealthy because they are atheists?
Theaetatus was something of a milquetoast, it seems.
Educated people practice orbiting the hinges properly.
I just noticed that you referred to my thread. As I think I said, I don't really like the clear categories of theist, atheist or agnostic, because I prefer to keep a more fluid approach. Of course, from my previous post on philosophical mysteries, people probably realise that I am inclined to contemplate the mysterious. I don't necessarily believe in astrology, but anyone who does would probably not be surprised to know that my sign is Pisces. But, I think that I really created the thread which I did yesterday because there are just so many threads on atheism, and a couple on agnosticism, mostly on the front page. Of course, there are a couple by Barticks on God, but I was trying to redress the balance, but the idea of the mysterious doesn't necessarily imply a God.
Nothing in atheism debars this. Indeed, it avoids the theistic leap to an unjustified conclusion, and so is a help rather than a hinderance. so yes, the idea of the mysterious doesn't necessarily imply a God.
I’ll follow every single avenue,
Whether it’s brightly lit or a dark alley,
Exploring one-ways, no-ways, and dead-ends
Until I find where the truth is hiding.
Since we all became of this universe,
Should we not ask who we are, whence we came?
Insight clefts night’s skirt with its radiance—
The Theory of Everything shines through!
For me "mysteries" are not the inexplicable or (merely) ineffable – certainly not woo-woo – but the horizons, or sublimity, of reasoning. Or as Camus says "The absurd is lucid reason noting its limits." In this way I advocate silence about g/G – setting aside all the usual abracadabra glossolalia chatter (e.g. theism, apologetics) – in the spirit of the apophatic tradition (via negativa): antitheism.
Your silent about god because you believe in an apophatic version or because you don't believe in the possibility of God?
I definitely think that the mysterious does not suppose the existence of God. In many ways, arriving at the idea of God may be too much of an easy solution. I prefer to keep very big open roaring 'why's . It is not as if we even have to sign an agreement on the matter of the existence of God, like Thomas More being asked to sign one to allow Henry V111 to divorce and have more wives.
I am not sure if we have actually agreed on anything before.
You mean your too chicken to answer!
Same old formatting,cliches,lame humour and venting.
Grow a pair,Mr runner!
It's like aphasia: one opens one's mouth, and nothing comes out.