The 'New Atheism' : How May it Be Evaluated Philosophically?
I am writing this thread after reflecting on the one I wrote querying the nature of whether the existence of God is a question of science or the arts. Here, I was wishing to draw attention to the symbolic aspects of the ideas of religious perspectives about God. However, I ended up wondering if the issues were deeper and about the whole nature of understanding causation as aspects of causation, especially with regard to mind, matter and ultimate reality. The question of how far science can address this is important but it may be that further philosophy exploration is important.
Even though I don't define myself as an atheist, I am impressed by the arguments of Dawkins in
'The God Delusion', especially his understanding of the way in which he sees Einstein's understanding of the nature of God as a symbolic understanding of reality. One important critique of Dawkins is ' Answering the New Atheism' by Scott Hahn and Walker. In their analysis, Hahn and Walker query the basis of theism on the basis that those who argue for the existence of God have weak proofs. However, in criticism of Dawkins, they point to the way in which Dawkins, in his emphasis on " natural selection" has simply replaced the idea of God with that of chance.
Dawkins is one of the new atheists. He is one of the 'The Four Horsemen: Daniel Dennett, Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchkins and Sam Harris. I am wondering how the perspective of such writers fits into the question of God' s existence, or if the nature of the question needs formulating. How much is about understanding causal reality and its sources? What does the concept of God imply, and what are the advantages and disadvantages of the concept of God in thinking about how life works and the nature of reality? How important is 'The New Atheism' in connection with the historical belief in God within the Judaeo- Christian tradition and other traditions and philosophies?
Even though I don't define myself as an atheist, I am impressed by the arguments of Dawkins in
'The God Delusion', especially his understanding of the way in which he sees Einstein's understanding of the nature of God as a symbolic understanding of reality. One important critique of Dawkins is ' Answering the New Atheism' by Scott Hahn and Walker. In their analysis, Hahn and Walker query the basis of theism on the basis that those who argue for the existence of God have weak proofs. However, in criticism of Dawkins, they point to the way in which Dawkins, in his emphasis on " natural selection" has simply replaced the idea of God with that of chance.
Dawkins is one of the new atheists. He is one of the 'The Four Horsemen: Daniel Dennett, Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchkins and Sam Harris. I am wondering how the perspective of such writers fits into the question of God' s existence, or if the nature of the question needs formulating. How much is about understanding causal reality and its sources? What does the concept of God imply, and what are the advantages and disadvantages of the concept of God in thinking about how life works and the nature of reality? How important is 'The New Atheism' in connection with the historical belief in God within the Judaeo- Christian tradition and other traditions and philosophies?
Comments (117)
Except for Sam Harris, I intellectually respect these gentlemen as advocates of irreligion but not of soundly reasoned atheism itself. Not even the philosopher Daniel Dennett (whose "belief in belief", while deflationary, seems too psychologistic (even hehaviorist)).
FYI: I'd been an unbeliever and freethinker for two decades already by the time "the new atheists" had become a thing. I have a background in the natural sciences, comparative religion, philosophy, etc. Thus, the only thinker from the so-called "New Atheism" movement who I'd found rigorously interesting was the late particle physicist and philosopher Victor Stenger whose writings inspired me in the late 90s to use methodological naturalism in order to further develop from negative atheism (i.e. "belief that there is a theistic deity is strongly unwarranted") to positive atheism (i.e. "disbelief that there is a theistic god is strongly warranted"). I've since moved on to (my own argument for) antitheism, but Dr. Stenger was an intellectual catalyst even for rethinking positive atheism as well. If you read only one book of his, Jack, I'd recommend the breezy, non-technical, and soundly reasoned The New Atheism in which Dr. Stenger summarizes the movement (e.g. "The Four Horsemen") but expands beyond them historically philosophically & scientifically. A list of his other related, even more comprehensive and technical works are found on this wikipedia page.
'Supernatural claims' must consistently account for nature (which is ineluctable and universally accessible to us as natural beings) or else such 'claims' – a category which includes "God" – do not make sense, at best, and are false otherwise.
You will have to specify that "concept"; otherwise, underdetermined, it is too vague to "imply" anything intelligible.
Not much. Other than Stenger (& Dennett on his better days), I think "new atheists" traffic mostly in journalistic polemics that are readily rebuffed – rationalized away – by well-worn JCI apologetics.
:lol: :rofl:
:clap: :clap:
mfw someone tells me they believe in "god":
pov of a theist when they tell me to "prove a negative":
this about sums of the intellectual merits of new atheism, imo. there is very little to be impressed by
fish in a barrel and all that
If one begins with the assumption that the existence of the natural world cannot be explained in terms of the natural world, then a supernatural necessity cannot be rejected in principle. That there is or can be a consistent account for nature that does not take nature as a given is not something that has been demonstrated.
This does not mean that one should accept a supernatural explanation, for the simple reason that it is not an explanation. It is a claim in need of an explanation. It may be, however, that the existence of natural world does not make sense. [added: with or without supernatural claims].
No matter how you slice it, it's still baloney. No matter what name you give it, it still is the same thing: the belief that there are no gods / god.
What's the point of slicing it thin, or thick, or square, or semi-circularly? There is no god, that's a belief, and people who believe that are atheists.
Period, full stop, end of paragraph.
I totally don't understand this yammering about no gods. The four horsemen have been preempted by Marx, Engels, and the larger portion of the population in the entire eastern block, including China. What's the point in talking it to death?
The defining characteristic seems to be that new atheists enjoy "pissing people off".
Outing their bullshit will do that.
New Atheism became a marketing term in publishing after it was coined and seemed to resonate, for good or ill. It doesn't refer to a movement.
I never thought of it as philosophy as such - the writers already referred to are mostly fundamentalist busters. This seems to be much needed, as ever more literalist expressions of theism seek to influence education, legal and social freedoms. One only need to be recognise that the fastest growing version of Christianity in the world is evangelical to see the problem.
Dawkins expounds and supports a detailed theory of how complex organisms can develop from extremely simple forms of life. So there's no 'simply' involved. These days humans can experiment with evolutionary ideas using computers. We can watch the complexity of creatures increase in simplified, simulated worlds. We can use genetic progamming to solve problems. Darwin is the 'Newton of biology' now, and critics of evolution who aren't biologists seem to be in a very weak position.
The four horsemen are primarily polemicists. Hitchens wrote very well, on a number of things; the others I haven't read much. They say nothing new about the abundant problems of institutional religion and the so-called proofs of God's existence, as far as I know.
By doing what they do, they encourage the public to think seriously about the ideas and arguments they present, which is a good thing.
I will look out for the writing of Dr Stenger because it is worth looking at the idea of the new atheism from a wider angle. I read Dawkins a long time ago initially, at a time in which I was not reading philosophy. At the time, I was not even aware of the movement of new atheism.
In a way, the question of 'the supernatural' is part of the underlying question. The only thing which I would query is what supernatural means fully. The reason why I wonder this is because I read Lyall Watson's book on biology, 'Supernature' which suggests that aspects of nature, including telepathy, which people cannot understand may just complexities in nature which people cannot understand. Of course, I realise that religion is more about aspects far more difficult, such as the resurrection of Jesus and the nature of miracles. Of course, here it is connected to how religious texts, are interpreted, back to the issue of literal or symbolic interpretations.
The only thing about saying that Darwins ideas of evolution as being significant is that it is possible to accept Darwin's theory and believe in God. As far as I understand, he was not proposing his ideas to imply atheism itself.
Thanks for the link to an interesting article. It does seem as @Tom Storm argues that the 'new atheists' are like evangelists of atheism..
It does seem that the new atheists do attack institutional religion. I did read the book with the book, 'The Four Horsemen' , with the dialogue between the four writers last summer and didn't really feel that they got into the debate about the existence of God deeply enough. At the time, I consider creating a thread on it but was not sure that there was any really outstanding argument in it.
From my reading of the four writers, I find the ideas of Dawkins more interesting, as I reread it recently. The reason for this was because I thought that his understanding of the question of whether Einstein was or was not an atheist useful. Also, even though Dennett is included In the new atheism by some, I have come across the idea that he is not an atheist. From my reading of some but not all of his books, I am sure how to interpret him, because he comes across as a materialist but that doesn't in itself equate with atheism necessarily.
:up:
Darwin was quite a gentle person, very unlike a brash atheist today. I think the threat of Darwin is that he offered a detailed and evidence-supported explanation of how a 'watch' could be created without a 'watchmaker.' The complexity of organisms (ourselves especially) is such that it's intuitively/initially hard to fathom the emergence of speaking/conscious intelligence from its other.
I think it's perfectly fine to have people learn about atheism and the irrationality which religion often does to people, but it's not much better to create militant atheists who are fanatical and just like to make fun of other people.
I think Harris is extremely bad. Hitchens was very good, but became garbage after 9/11, Dawkins is a good science educator. Dennett is very polite, at least.
But as for substance, not here. There's far more to be learned in Hume on this topic, than these four combined.
And, for something more modern than Hume, yet still quite rational and humane, Bertrand Russell also far exceeds them all.
I don't think it is a movement, it was a time and place publishing phenomenon mainly. It probably also includes Michel Onfray who wrote, 'The Atheist Manifesto'. Taking down religious literalism is not really evangelism, but perhaps this is in the eye of the beholder.
We can easily criticize their work as insufficiently philosophical but the the point is they were writing polemical works, for the average reader, they were not engaged in serious philosophy. If they had been writing philosophy, they would have struggled to sell books.
I guess that it may be that there is some difference between the subject, or genre, of popular non fiction writing, from philosophy writing or academic philosophy. This is probably more clear in relation to religion, which is probably the angle I was coming from when I wrote a thread previous to this one religion on whether the existence of God was one of the sciences or humanities. It may be that in academic thinking and non fiction writing the conventional categories of non fiction writing are breaking down. Religion is related in some ways to the academic tradition of theology or religious movements. It is also related to the genre of spirituality, which may be popular outside of the academic establishments.
It does seem that writers such as Dawkins don't really deal with the academic issues of religion. Of course, a strong influence on these academic arguments was the Christian church historically. The ideas of Augustine and Aquinas took on those of Plato and Aristotle, reworking them in the context of the Christian Church, which became a source for the development of philosophy. But, in regard to the ideas of Dawkins and others they don't fit into the framework of philosophy itself.
One aspect which Karen Armstrong raises is that there are different conceptions of God, especially the God of the mystics and that of the philosophers. However, it would be hard to place the writings of Karen Armstrong because they could be they could be regarded as popular, although she came from the unusual position of having lived as a nun and writing on this basis. So, she is describing personal experience and it is hard to know where this fits in. It could be argued that it is not philosophy in the sense of being formulated on the basis of arguments primarily. But, here it could be queried to what extent is the philosophy of religion related to abstract arguments, or whether it incorporates personal reflection on the basis of experience.
That's interesting as I hadn't thought of the connection between the new atheism and 9/11. Of course, religion, politics and philosophy have a complex relationship. So, it will be interesting to see what emerges in response to all that is happening in the world currently, ranging from the pandemic and conflict, especially the Ukrainian situation...
Yes, especially the role of Christian nationalism in Putin's actions. There are media stories now about how some Trump supporters are pro-Putin because he is understood to be working to spread Christian values across Europe... If this continues to go sky high, expect best selling books about the cultural values of the Eastern Orthodox church.
You will find Stenger very clear in his arguments, because he takes a firm stand on Naturalism. You could even call his inflexible position Dogmatism. If you agree with his Naturalist premises though, you must agree with the logic of his Atheist conclusions. But philosophers tend to be open to other interpretations of Nature, that may not be of interest to empirical scientists. Especially, regarding Ontology and questions about "something from nothing".
Naturalism takes the existence of this physical world for granted. So the scientific evidence for a specific "creation event" came as a shock. But, they have adapted their belief in eternal Nature, to imagine explanations for a time-before-time, when our knowable world didn't exist as we know it. Yet, Multiverse & Many Worlds theories are simply extensions of their original Naturalist premises across the Big Bang abyss into the unknowable what-if.
Ironically, the Wiki quote below says he also used a statistical probability argument, for which the data must be imagined, to prove that our world is nothing special. Hence, not created by an omniscient deity. However, other scientists have used similar anthropic logic to prove just the opposite. So, apparently, the Las Vegas odds are in favor of the "house", who determines the odds (premises) you will play with. So, are you going to play by house-always-wins rules, or your own personal reasoning? If you are a Theist, Stenger will challenge your assumptions. But, his own presumptions are also subject to philosophical questioning. :smile:
Stenger was an advocate of philosophical naturalism, skepticism, and atheism. He was a prominent critic of intelligent design and the aggressive use of the anthropic principle.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victor_J._Stenger
The anthropic principle is the principle that there is a restrictive lower bound on how statistically probable our observations of the universe are, given that we could only exist in the particular type of universe capable of developing and sustaining sentient life. ___Wikipedia
Ever since Copernicus, scientists have continually adjusted their view of human nature, moving it further and further from its ancient position at the center of Creation. But in recent years, a startling new concept has evolved that places it more firmly than ever in a special position. Known as the Anthropic Cosmological Principle, this collection of ideas holds that the existence of intelligent observers determines the fundamental structure of the Universe.
https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/218097.The_Anthropic_Cosmological_Principle
Thanks for your summary of Stenger's writings and the reference to Barrow's book because both seem worth exploring.
? really don't get it. How superstitious beliefs or the rejection of them(atheism) can ever be part of a philosophical discussion outside of Sociology.
The concept of god is only relevant in anthropology and social sciences in general.
Quoting Gnomon
:roll:
[i]whiskey
tango
foxtrot[/i] ...
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturalism_(philosophy)
-"Naturalism takes the existence of this physical world for granted. So the scientific evidence for a specific "creation event" came as a shock. "
-Two issues. Naturalism is not one thing. Science is based on Methodological Naturalism..not Philosophical Naturalism.
Methodological Naturalism only acknowledges the limits of our methods of observation and verification.
MN and Science take nothing for granted. They just admit we can only produce descriptive frameworks within the naturalistic realm but we don't have methods that could verify or investigate other realms.
They don't dismiss other realms as wrong but in order to incorporate them in their frameworks a method capable to produce objective facts need to be available.
Now, In science the big bang event is not labeled as "creation"(since it would imply extra agencies) but as "formation" so there was no real shock caused by that observation.
-"But, they have adapted their belief in eternal Nature, to imagine explanations for a time-before-time, when our knowable world didn't exist as we know it. Yet, Multiverse & Many Worlds theories are simply extensions of their original Naturalist premises across the Big Bang abyss into the unknowable what-if."
-Not true either. Processes(cosmic time) before the process of the Universe(our time) is not an imagined explanation. Its a concept that keeps popping up in our math (string theory) in quantum mechanics(interpretations) and in our awarded (Nobel) observations (Quantum fluctuations).
A cosmic substrate interacts with matter that is formed in our universe and that is an indication that our universe is not all there is. In addition to that we already know that the universe didn't always exist as a process.
"Eternal Nature" as you named it is a reasonable conclusion since "nothing" as a state of being is a nonsensical concept. Something that has the potential to change state always exists.
Our cosmological metaphysics point to a change of energetic state of the cosmos thus allowing the process of universe to unroll.
Nothing is final of course but all those ideas are parsimonious, they are epistemically connected to current physics and we don't need additional supernatural entities or invisible realms to explain anything. We just use what we know it exists and hypothesize on possible mechanisms.
-"Quoting Gnomon"
-Anthropic principles and statistical probabilities are not even in the same ball park. The first is a conclusion based on available facts and the second presupposes teleology and purpose behind a creation.(fallacy).
-" So, apparently, the Las Vegas odds are in favor of the "house", who determines the odds (premises) you will play with. "
-Actually in a vast cosmos the odds of energetic fluctuations producing new states are equal to the Las Vegas odds. We don't even know if it is something inevitable not to have universes in the cosmic stage. i.e. one who doesn't know how magnets work would find improbable for two magnets to always end up having the same "colors" stick to each other.
So we don't know many things about this source of virtual particles we observe so we can not declare it impossible, improbable or equal to casino odds....what we do know is that it's Possible.
It's late to the show but useful for Americans who didn't pay much attention to atheism until now.
It's new for them, hence the label. In Europe, atheism is old news. Got ist tot, remember?
Perhaps. But, since this is a philosophical forum, I'm referring to the position defined in the quote below. So, there's not much distinction between them. :smile:
Philosophical Naturalism :
naturalism, in philosophy, a theory that relates scientific method to philosophy by affirming that all beings and events in the universe (whatever their inherent character may be) are natural. Consequently, all knowledge of the universe falls within the pale of scientific investigation.
https://www.britannica.com/topic/naturalism-philosophy
Quoting Nickolasgaspar
I have been surprised at how many prominent scientists have referred to the BB as a "creation event". You can Google some of their quotes. :smile:
"There is a strange ring of feeling and emotion in these reactions [of scientists to evidence that the universe had a sudden beginning]." ___ Robert Jastrow, astronomer, physicist
"An expanding universe does not preclude a creator, but it does place limits on when he might have carried out his job!" __ Stephen W. Hawking
Quoting Nickolasgaspar
I assume your comment got [1] & [2] backward. :wink:
ANTHROPIC ASSUMPTIONS
[i]A. We can identify which natural properties are necessary or compatible for life
B. Evolution follows natural laws and inherent limitations set by initial conditions & constants
C. The element Carbon, only produced in certain stars, is essential to life, but is rare (.025%) on Earth
D. The initial conditions of our universe were selected from all possible logical (mental) or actual (multiverse) combinations
E. The complex pathway to Life has a low statistical probability
F. An unlikely occurrence is not necessarily a miracle, but must have some ultimate Cause[/i]
Book Review of The Anthropic Cosmological Principle
"christian atheism" versus "new atheism" :eyes: :pray:
-Well the definition is wrong or vague at best. First of all there isn't such a thing as A scientific method. There are many methodologies in science and the limits and standards are defined by Methodological Naturalism. Secondly it doesn't distinguishes the two main types of Naturalism. (ontological as a worldview vs methodological as an acknowledgement of our epistemic limitations)
You should take an Academic Mooc on Philosophy of science if you want to learn about their differences. Copy pasting the first definition it pops up...especially when the term (Methodological) is NOT included in the result...is not the best way to gain information...
-"I have been surprised at how many prominent scientists have referred to the BB as a "creation event". You can Google some of their quotes."
-colloquial use of the term, maybe polluted by personal metaphysical beliefs. That is an argument from false authority. The fact is that the formation of the universe was not a creation act...at least we can not make that claim.
-""There is a strange ring of feeling and emotion in these reactions [of scientists to evidence that the universe had a sudden beginning]." ___ Robert Jastrow, astronomer, physicist"
- yes, learning new things can be emotional...what is your point and how can you connect that to a philosophical worldview????
"An expanding universe does not preclude a creator, but it does place limits on when he might have carried out his job!" __ Stephen W. Hawking"
-Cherry picking on Stephen's poetic irony? You do see the irony in his words.....don't you???
-" - [1] Anthropic principles and [2] statistical probabilities are not even in the same ball park. The first is a conclusion based on available facts and the second presupposes teleology and purpose behind a creation.(fallacy). — Nickolasgaspar
I assume your comment got [1] & [2] backward. :wink:
ANTHROPIC ASSUMPTIONS
A. We can identify which natural properties are necessary or compatible for life
B. Evolution follows natural laws and inherent limitations set by initial conditions & constants
C. The element Carbon, only produced in certain stars, is essential to life, but is rare (.025%) on Earth
D. The initial conditions of our universe were selected from all possible logical (mental) or actual (multiverse) combinations
E. The complex pathway to Life has a low statistical probability
F. An unlikely occurrence is not necessarily a miracle, but must have some ultimate Cause
Book Review of The Anthropic Cosmological Principle".
indeed, I placed them backwards.
The don't agree with the second premise. Evolution is the product of natural processes(law?), The limitations are set by random events (non deleterious mutations that allow an organism to survive)and ever changing conditions of the environment!!!
The C point is also irrelevant. The rarity of an element say nothing about its ability to form more compounds than all the other elements combined. Its rare only relative to the size of the earth's crust. Obviously its more than enough to act as a catalyst for lifeforms on the planet.
A surprising thing would be if there were carbon based lifeforms without any carbon on the planet....
D is also a massive failure. Claiming what one needs to prove is a red flag. -"The initial conditions of our universe were selected....". first of all you will need to prove that a selection among many choices was available and it actually took place. The truth is that we just DON'T KNOW whether the characteristics of the universe were inevitable...and of course it is the fallacious thinking of the puddle by Douglas Adams all over again. I hope you have heard about it and understand that it is more likely for water or a "flexible" biology to fit exactly in a pot hole or an environment that sustains pockets of life....than to find life evolving in an environment that doesn't sustain life.
E. an other huge failure "The complex pathway to Life has a low statistical probability". And how one can calculate the probabilities exactly? Since we have ended up with a huge diversity of life forms, its not only probable......but its also POSSIBLE.
Complexity doesn't imply low statistical probability. The immense number of galaxies, solar systems, moons and planets do not favor this unfounded claim. Probabilities are Mathematical calculations. I would like to learn what variables are used to reach that conclusion.
F. "An unlikely occurrence is not necessarily a miracle". The problem is that unlikely occurrences happen and they are verified all the time ( read Ricard Feynman take on that). We can not say the same thing about miracles though......
'' but must have some ultimate Cause"
-Sure....and we can drop the "ultimate" since it only introduces woo and zero information plus it poisons the well. So now we need to identify and verify that cause. Until then we should stick with what we know and what we can verify to be in agreement with current facts. Anything beyond our current epistemology is irrational and "not even wrong".
The quote referred to "scientific method[s}" to contrast with "philosophical methods". Note, I added the "s" to improve the parallel, and to make you feel better. :joke:
Quoting Nickolasgaspar
On what basis do you make that factual claim?
Quoting Nickolasgaspar
Yes, But I also see the acknowledgement that the BB could be construed as a creation event. Which is why Einstein, among others, resisted the idea. He had assumed that the universe was self-existent. But was forced to change his mind. Some scientists quibbled that the BB was not an "explosion in space" but an "expansion of space'. But even that clarification avoided the issue of how space came to be. Had it always existed somewhere in the Great Beyond, or was it "created" from nothing? Since I know nothing about the Great Before, like most non-specialists, I accept the BB philosophically & metaphorically as a "creation event". Besides, all other pre-BB explanations, such as Multiverses, are also Creation Myths. :smile:
“The basic laws of the universe are simple, but because our senses are limited, we can't grasp them. There is a pattern in creation.”
___A. Einstein
https://www.azquotes.com/author/4399-Albert_Einstein/tag/creation
"The Big Bang Is Hard Science. It Is Also a Creation Story."
___Barry Powell
Quoting Nickolasgaspar
Apparently, you are going to place everything in this topic backwards. Are you just being contrarian? :cool:
-again, its irrelevant to the fact that Methodological Naturalism is not a metaphysical view but an acknowledgment of our limits of our methods.
-"On what basis do you make that factual claim?"
-Null Hypothesis. Any existential claim need to be rejected until objective facts can falsify our initial rejection. So its not a factual claim, its the default position one should hold on unfalsifiable existential claims. The existence of a creator needs to be demonstrated...not assumed.
-"Yes, But I also see the acknowledgement that the BB could be construed as a creation event. "
-Fallacy of Ambiguity. Using the term poetically doesn't imply what you need to prove....
-"Which is why Einstein, among others, resisted the idea."
-He questioned the observations...this is what any scientists should do and demand independent verification. Why are you using celebrity scientists to support your metaphysical arguments? You do know what a fallacy from false authority is...right? Einstein was expert in physics..not on metaphysics.
-" He had assumed that the universe was self-existent. But was forced to change his mind. "
-He "install" a made up constant...remember? He was forced out of his belief through objective facts.
-" Some scientists quibbled that the BB was not an "explosion in space" but an "expansion of space'. But even that clarification avoided the issue of how space came to be."
-the BB was NOT an explosion...nothing banged. IT was an expansion of a change in state of energy.
The space is "created" by the distance between structures of the universe. The cosmic(previous state) just exists.
-"Had it always existed somewhere in the Great Beyond, or was it "created" from nothing? "
-Again Nothing can not be a state of being...since nothing is not being. How can nothing "exist" when it is NOTHING?
-" Since I know nothing about the Great Before, like most non-specialists, I accept the BB philosophically & metaphorically as a "creation event". "
-Not a creation and no creator in our scientific framework. It was a cataclysmic event for cosmos that allowed the existing quantum brewing substrate to enable the formation of the universe.
-"Besides, all other pre-BB explanations, such as Multiverses, are also Creation Myths. "
-Not really, but if you like the word, be my guest. As long as you don't bootstrap magical tool-men, we are ok.
Quoting Gnomon
-Again posting poetic takes on metaphysics by scientists doesn't help your case.
ITs the same fallacy of ambiguity all over again. "dna is a language, or a code", "information is an intrinsic feature of nature" etc etc. Our language implies agency because it was evolved by mind of thinking agents.
That doesn't mean that this ambiguity supports your metaphysical beliefs.
I think its a waste of time to point out the obvious....
Christopher Hitchens: Ditto
Daniel Dennett: Haven't seen a video where he presents his position in re God, but it's widely believed that he's an athesit.
Richard Dawkins: Science and religion are incompatible. That's his mantra. Emphasizes Darwin's theory of evolution, and pits it against religious creationism.
Immanuel Kant, if accounts of him are accurate, was averse to God as traditionally understood, an idea we could mentally manipulate with the aid of logic in order to prove/disprove. That, he claimed, is NOT God. He offers an alternative which, for the life of me, I can't recall.
Daniel Dennett makes a similar point. Once you accept that God is a concept, you're an atheist, you just don't know that you're one.
God isn't a concept. Am I concept? Are you? :grin:
-"Sam Harris: Mostly focuses on the ills of religion (terrorism, oppression of women, and so oon)"
-yes , philosophy is the study of facts in an attempt to produce wise claims. Identifying the issues religions cause is a philosophical endeavor!
Quoting Agent Smith
-Again he is making acknowledgment on facts and issues created by religion. Religions compete with science in cosmological and biological claims. They try to pollute our epistemology by attempting to introduce their myths in the classes.
Again this is what we expect form philosophy....to observe the facts and highly the implications wisely.
So "new atheism" is nothing more than exposing religious wrong doings that have crippled societies and epistemology for ages.
Religious people and magical thinkers don't like it so they accuse the messenger for exposing their bad practices.
Now I am not sure that you understand what "evangelical"means. Atheists bring the BAD news about religious practices...how that qualities as "?? ?????????" (a good/great announcement)???
:fire:
Quoting Nickolasgaspar
Why are you listening to other people's metaphysical beliefs???
Being an atheist (the minimum position) means to not be convinced of claims about god's existence.
Now of course God is primarily a concept. Its a concept that includes multiple qualities and ontological claims.
If one is convinced that god is only a made up concept that isn't tied to an actual agent then he is an Antitheist.
The burden of a Theist is to provide objective evidence for the ontological reality of that concept.
Originality is not something I'm known for. Plus, why reinvent the wheel. Tried and tested theories are preferrable to novel ideas that haven't been vetted by experts/veterans, oui?
As for atheism, the certainty of the claim makes me cringe, it doesn't sit well with the skeptic in me. Why can't we do what we should be doing, suspend judgement (I don't know), and acknowledge the truth viz. we don't know whether god exists or not, ja? Agnosticism is the most rational position to adopt. Atheism vs. theism is like two people fighting over the color of ball before they've even seen the ball. Agnostics would like to see the ball first and only then enter into a discussion as to the ball's hue. It's just common sense.
Quoting Agent Smith
-because wheels don't work with staircases.....Our reasoning improves along with the available facts
Quoting Agent Smith
-Atheism and certainty of claim...is like like saying the best way to cook burgers is with your freezer.
Maybe you are referring to Strong Atheism or Antitheism because the minimum position of Atheism is to "Not be convinced of the concept".
On the other hand the antheistic position in relation to specific version of the concept qualifies as a certain claim! i.e. Christian cosmology, morality, social injustice etc.
-"Why can't we do what we should be doing, suspend judgement (I don't know), and acknowledge the truth viz. we don't know whether god exists or not, ja? "
-This is exactly what it means to be an atheist...suspend belief until objective facts justify it.
Its the Null Hypothesis that demands the rejection of all existential claims until objective facts can falsify that initial rejection.
If you suspend your belief in the existence or non existence of god, then you are not a Theist or an Antitheist. You are an Atheist (A=without a theistic belief against or in favor).
-"Agnosticism is the most rational position to adopt."
-ONCE again. Agnosticism addresses knowledge, Atheism addresses belief. Knowledge is a subset of belief.(we are justified in believing things that are based on knowledge claims).
Those two terms are NOT mutually exclusive. for example I am an agnostic atheist...this means that I am not convinced of the claim since I don't have knowledge to justify my belief in favor or against this concept.
This means that I need to reject it (not believe in it) until objective facts can justify a different belief.
-"Atheism vs. theism is like two people fighting over the color of ball before they've even seen the ball."
-Your example is not good. A Ballist and an A-ballist fight about whether it is reasonable to believe that a magical ball exists....we are not even close to talk about its color! Theist talk about the properties of the "ball" (all powerful divine, merciful good etc etc). So the color talk originates from one side only.
An atheist rejects the existence of the god (ball) because there aren't sufficient evidence to warrant belief in it. He doesn't necessary needs to adopt the Antitheistic burden.!
In the case of the christian god I would happily accept the antitheistic position due to the ridiculous claims made by the dogma of christianity.
-"Atheism vs. theism is like two people fighting over the color of ball before they've even seen the ball."
- I am not sure that atheists give any weight to the claimed properties of the "ball". As far as I can tell they demand theists to point out the ball and they will go from there.
In general:
Atheism addresses the belief claim of God's existence. It doesn't addresses its non existence...like in the court we address guilty- not guilty, we don't address innocence.
This is because the burden is on the side making the claim (theists for god existence and prosecutor for guilt).
Its more than inevitable to make logical errors (i.e. false dichotomy, shifting of the burden) when you try to address one then one statement (god exists, god doesn't exist).
I never could wrap my head around the claim that atheism is a lack of belief and therefore, these very same atheists go on to say, the onus probandi falls not on 'em.
What is atheism, how shall we, in one statement, condense their viewpoint? It can't be "God doesn't exist". for the simple reason that that's a knowledge claim and ergo, needs to be proved.
If, as you aver, atheism is about belief, do you mean that atheists opt not to believe for no rhyme or reason? This doesn't add up now does it? An atheist has to justify why s/he refuses to believe in God unless s/he wants to admit that their stance on the god issue is utterly baseless.
-Those are two different logical criteria.
The first (lack of belief due to the absence of evidence)is defined as the Default Position by the Null Hypotheses.
Demanding evidence for those who warrant belief to that claim is defined by the Burden of Proof.
Those who accept a claim as true need to provide justification for it.
Quoting Agent Smith
-"If, as you aver, atheism is about belief, do you mean that atheists opt not to believe for no rhyme or reason? "
-Atheism addresses belief. Atheism not on its own a belief. Its the rejection of a belief claim. Atheist can and do hold other beliefs . There are raeliens, buddhists, antitheists, supernaturalists etc They all hold the minimum position (rejecting all known god claims) and they go a step further, but not all of us do! I don't.
-"This doesn't add up now does it?''
-I don't know what it doesn't add up. I dont believe in the big foot or fairies or Nessy, does that means that I need to replace my disbelief in those claims with an additional belief? why?
-"An atheist has to justify why s/he refuses to believe in God unless s/he wants to admit that their stance on the god issue is utterly baseless."
-First of all its not a matter of refusal when we deal with belief. A claim either meets our standards of acceptance or it doesn't.
In order for the god claim to be accepted it will need to be supported by objective evidence. My rejection of the god concept is based on the fact that theists are unable to offer objective evidence.
4.300 religions with more than 10.000 gods prove the subjective nature of this belief.
SO if you are able to provide objective evidence product of accessible to everyone facts then I will accept the concept of god as a reasonable belief.
Can you please expand and elaborate on the Null Hypothesis.
Is it like assuming there's no God and then making an attempt to prove God's existence, failing which the Null Hypothesis (there is no God) holds?
I've heard of the Null Hypothesis in community medicine where a correlation is assumed not to exist or deemed as only coincidental, a study is then conducted, the data analyzed, and assessed for statistical significance which is just another way of saying the correlation can't be coincidental. The rest of the method I no longer recall.
What "certainty"? For most atheists, at minimum, it's a probabilistic (i.e. falliblistic) belief warranted by (some or all versions of) theism's lack of corroborating evidence, or sound arguments, in contrast to ubiquitous counter-evidences from comparative philosophies, comparative histories, as well as natural and social sciences. At minimum, theism is a belief consisting of claims about "God", etc the truths of which are highly improbable in the context of all we know (so far) about nature and human existence. "Certainty" is a canard, Smith. One simply says to a theist, in effect, "How do you know there is a God?", which is quintessentially a skeptical question, and the rest follows from her non/answer.
-"Can you please expand and elaborate on the Null Hypothesis."
-Sure.
The Null hypothesis is a logical principle that mainly informs our statistics(no statistical significance exists in a set of given observation....and we go for there).
In the case of Existential claim the principle dictates that we shouldn't assume any connection between A(existence) and B(lets say god) until verified observations can falsify our initial "negative assumption".
-"Is it like assuming there's no God and then making an attempt to prove God's existence, failing which the Null Hypothesis (there is no God) holds?"
Now the problem with your example is that you addressing two different statements (no god exist and god does exists).
The Null Hypotheses assumes that there is no connection between existence and god until our negation is falsified by objective facts.(data)
Not accepting A (god exists) ?A is wrong(No god exists).
The Null hypothesis guides our default position based on the claim found in first part of the equation (god exist), not the second part.
-"I've heard of the Null Hypothesis in community medicine where a correlation is assumed not to exist or deemed as only coincidental, a study is then conducted, the data analyzed, and assessed for statistical significance which is just another way of saying the correlation can't be coincidental. The rest of the method I no longer recall. "
-Correct. correlation need to be demonstrated if possible beyond sufficiency and necessity.
Either materialism or idealism is the reality of things.
If idealism is how it is, then God, in the Brahman sense rather than in the pantheon sense, is self evident and the existence of an objective material universe is what has a burden of proof.
If materialism is the case, then the objective material universe is self evident, and the existence of God holds the burden of proof.
What I'm saying is that one's paradigm determines if God or the universe seem self evident or not to you. It goes deeper than belief or unbelief. Than proof or lack of proof.
The God question has to do with Ultimate Reality itself, rather than this or that thing in reality.
Maybe there is no pantheons in reality. That has nothing to do with whether Ultimate Reality is Brahman or matter.
The ball in Smith's analogy is Reality, as I see it. Neither theists nor atheists can simply point to reality. It can only indirectly be referenced.
-"Either materialism or idealism is the reality of things.'
-or occastionalism or solipsism or pantheism or theism....
-"If idealism is how it is,"....nothing changes all worldviews fell beyond a point that makes any difference to our realm. The burden is set based on your current worldview...not based on a hypothetical "if".
none of those two ideologies affect the concept of god. Being a magical being it can exist in an idealistic or materialistic world...after all he is the supposed creator, I guess he can be good with mud or other materials.
Quoting Yohan
-And my position is that both paradigm are pseudo philosophical since none of them can produce wise claims(philosophical) that can bring change in our life and expand our understanding.
It goes further away from being rational.... occupying our thoughts with things that can not improve our wisdom or understanding of the world around us.
These ideas are fine if this forum was on theology but they are out of topic in a philosophical discussion.
Again and I can not stress it enough.
"The Philosophical Method is an exercise in frustration, not the pursuit of happiness".
In order to be a good philosopher you need to accept your epistemic and existential anxieties and keep them separate from your syllogisms.
So, we assume no connection between God and existence (H[sub]0[/sub]) and then try to disprove that assumption i.e. prove that there's a connection between God and existence.
What does "connection between existence and God" mean? It seems like you're saying it isn't the claim "God exists". If so, the Null Hypothesis method is pointless, oui?
Since the Null Hypothesis seems to be about correlations, it's mostly got to do with causal hypotheses and isn't suitable for proving/disproving existence. Existence, causation, two different things!
If atheism is fallibilistic + probabilistic, I have no issues. It's just that some/most atheists don't make that aspect of their position explicit. Hence my confusion. There's enough uncertainty in atheism in this form to allay my fears of unbridled dogmatism; as it is our hands are full dealing with this very same problem with theism.
I'll just point-out that I'm not making a scientific case. Besides, Atheism is a belief in Absentia. It is not based on scientific facts, but on the absence of physical evidence, which is literally & figuratively immaterial to a metaphysical concept. By "meta-physical" I refer to that which is non-physical (e.g. mental ; cultural), hence immaterial to scientific methods, which specifically eschews subjective phenomenology (personal experience).
BTW, my position is not anti-science, but pro-philosophy. I'm also not a Theist, so the typical anti-theism arguments miss their imaginary target. IMHO, Philosophy is more of an art than a science. So demanding reductive scientific evidence for a holistic concept is like, requiring Picasso to justify his odd imagery with empirical facts. Did he really see the world that way? It doesn't matter. :smile:
Legitimate Metaphysics :
[i]Naturalized metaphysicians defend the thesis that science licenses meta-
physics, such that only metaphysical results that are based on the best science
are to be considered legitimate.[/i]
http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/11149/1/OMR_Does_Science_License_Metaphysics.pdf
Metaphysics as the Science of Essence :
[i]the central task of metaphysics is to chart the possibilities of being, with a view to
articulating the structure of reality as a whole, at its most fundamental level.[/i]
http://ontology.buffalo.edu/06/Lowe/Lowe.pdf
To the degree that theism consists in factual truth-claims, atheism is the second-order objection that 'theism is not corroborated either by direct evidence or with sound arguments'. However, if your position, Gnomon, is that 'theism does not consist in factual truth-claims' (i.e. is only a purely speculative concept ~ non-propositional à la poetry, myth, supposition), then your position happens to be substantively consistent with (weak) atheism while also contrary to what most avowed theists actually profess to "believe in" (& often savagely martyr one other to defend): that "God" is an entity ("person") which is more concrete than a mere "meta-physical" idea. :sparkle:
I am not sure whether God would have to be a person as such, because that is more the anthropological picture of what the concept means. In this sense, the human being imagines God as being a person. The idea that God is a person, apart from in the form of Jesus Christ, may lead to the conclusion that there is no God at all. On the other hand, it could be that the idea of God would make more sense of it were seen as the inner, or personal connection with the source of everything, including nature.
-Obviously you aren't. You are not even making a philosophical case since you are arguing for the supernatural!!!
lol no Atheism is the rejection of a specific belief....not a belief at all!
-"It is not based on scientific facts, but on the absence of physical evidence, which is literally & figuratively immaterial to a metaphysical concept."
-Not quite. If a specific dogma makes knowledge claims about the role of its god in the world(ID, cosmology, morality,theodicy etc etc) then the claim is rejected for scientific reasons.
But to be precise all know god claims are rejected due to the absence of Objective and Sufficient evidence. "Physical" are just one type of evidence that are included in those two major categories.
You can provide non physical evidence and I will accept them if they manage to meet the above criteria. So don't feel limited to the physical realm...
Btw I don't know how you can be sure about the ontology of a metaphysical concept. Metaphysical means beyond the physika(beyond our current knowledge/ science) .....not beyond the physical realm. You should check basic definitions and etymologies before making unfounded ontological claims.
Quoting Gnomon
The problem is that philosophy on supernatural principles is not real philosophy. there is no wisdom to gain from unfalsifiable conclusions that do not advance our understanding of the world.
Wisdom is contingent to Knowledge...and we know nothing about undetectable realms.
Quoting Gnomon
-I don't know what you mean. Not being a theist doesn't guarantee rational thinking. There are atheists who are spiritualist, or supernaturalists and accept all kind of weird and unfounded claims.
Quoting Gnomon
-I get what you are saying....but there is objectively bad and good art. No...to be more precise, there is art on the canvas, or an audio track, on marble, on a piece of paper etc...and art that one claims he has on his head and haven't find the time to express it on a medium.
This is more suitable for the case of Philosophy and Pseudo philosophy.
Again I am not here to argue in favor of science. I am here to help people understand how to recognize philosophy from pseudo philosophy.
Quoting Gnomon
-Nobody did that. The demanded standards are based on Logic. Objectivity and Sufficiency is what your evidence need to have.
Btw.....how do you know that the "holistic" nature of your concept agrees with the actual nature of what it tries to describe....do you have evidence?
what indications and facts do you have for a god to be possible?
I mean..... we can talk about me owning a giant diamond on Jupiter under all those gases....but is there any real value in such discussions...especially in a Philosophical forum?
I would agree that talking about god(s) is an interesting topic in social sciences.
Quoting Agent Smith
-Actually we don't have to assume it . We just acknowledge that we can not demonstrate any connection between god and existence so we reject the claim(god is found not guilty of existing until the evidence meet the criteria to overturn the judgment!).
Quoting Agent Smith
It means that those who make the claim must demonstrate the connection between an entity and a state of existence. They should be able to point to characteristic properties that are displayed by entities that exist.
Quoting Agent Smith
-The Null hypothesis can be applied on any claim without sufficient evidence to assist our conclusions.
You seem to be desperate to find excuses for dismissing rules of Basic Logic, but I don't get what your point is. Of course the Null Hypothesis is not pointless. Its a great way to identify the Default position in any claim.
You don't have objective evidence for the existence of this concept labeled as god....so your job is to provide a connection between those two points in your claim...only then your claim will be sound.
The statistical application of the hypothesis is pretty similar. We accept any value that is available to us and we don't assume the existence of any statistical significance until such a prospect is verified.
The available value(evidence) in the case of god is zero(non existent) so we don't assume that statistical significance exists until we have the data.
Can you see the irrationality of accepting statistical significance before having the data in our hands???
Only if they wish to convince others that their beliefs are true.
So we wont find any of those in philosophical forums debating their beliefs.......oh wait!
lol.
independent of their intentions,from the moment they share their views we have to inform them that they hold irrational beliefs.
Of course you will find many who feel compelled to argue that their beliefs, although neither logically entailed by anything, or empirically evidenced by anything; are nonetheless rationally justifiable. Others may just present their ideas (whether they count as beliefs or merely entertainments) in case someone may find them interesting or inspiring or whatever. You know...like poetry...
Quoting Nickolasgaspar
We all hold irrational beliefs; or at least beliefs which are not strictly rationally supportable. If you think you are exempt from that, then there's an irrational belief right there.
-yes people don't react well to criticism and they are not interested to be reasonable or to hold true beliefs....what is your point? When they go public they will get their critique either they are interested or not...period. Those who make the claim have the burden independent of their intentions and goals.
Quoting Janus
-red herrings is your A game?
I hold irrational beliefs,but in contrast to those who you defend, I am interested in identifying and correcting them.
Try addressing the points made by your interlocutor...don't' construct accusations out of thin air mate.
As far as I can tell, you're mistaken about the Null Hypothesis. It's a statistical tool applied to populations and is designed to assess causality.
Quoting Nickolasgaspar
This statement makes zero sense. I can understand a connection between prayer and cure, between smoking and cancer, but between existence and god, what does that even mean?
That people have different motivations for presenting their ideas.
Quoting Nickolasgaspar
The points you make are based on a narrow conception of both people's motivations for presenting ideas and the epistemological status of the ideas they present. Don't worry; if I think that people are incorrectly imagining that the beliefs they are presenting are rationally justifiable, I will be the first to let them know,
No need to be defensive; what are you trying to defend? I haven't constructed any accusations, out of thin air or otherwise, that I am aware of.
Just out of interest, what is the assumption upon which you base your belief that it is necessary or desirable to identify and correct all your irrational beliefs?
lol no...its a logical standards that has an application in statistics and in any hypothesis.
well since no one today seems to be able to google a statement before criticizing it I will chip in a link.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UMTUsOd9IuE
Quoting Agent Smith
-it means that god doesn't exist is the null hypothesis and through investigation we need to provide the evidence for the rejection of the default position.
In your prejudicial imagination. :cool:
FWIW, see my reply to :
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/678622
nothing new...why are you saying this obvious fact to us?
If one is not interested in convincing people ...good for him...the idea remains fair game for dissection
Quoting Janus
-you are seriously confused. I never made any points on people's motivations mate.
You were the one who tried to let people beliefs off the hook by presenting their motivation as an excuse to go around posting their beliefs without accepting any critique.
Quoting Janus
-So your innervation had no other goal just to play the wise guy on an obvious matter?
Quoting Janus
-You are the one being defensive when you bring up subjective intentions to protect people's irrational beliefs.
-" I haven't constructed any accusations, out of thin air or otherwise, that I am aware of."
-only red herrings...Why should we care what people want or don't want to achieve in a forum? The rule of the burden of proof applies independent of their intentions. We are free to point out the side burying the burden...why is this so difficult for you?
Quoting Janus
-I prefer to hold true beliefs, its my vice.....so personal preference. I find being informed to be helpful.
-No that is a fact. Supernatural presumptions leading to supernatural conclusions do no provide wisdom that we can act upon inform our actions and expand our understanding!
Its by definition pseudo philosophy...since zero wisdom is produced.
Quoting Gnomon
-I just read the first line and my eyes glazed over !
-"Metaphysics is specifically exempted from scientific analysis. So, scientific verification is out of the question. "
So you don't know what a scientific hypothesis is..????
I found the Dawkins' book I read a general primer on evolution, and I can't imagine it threatened any theists other than Creationists.
Maybe there's a political need to stamp out those peculiar literalists, but the weakness of their position is so obvious, it's not clear why a philosopher would expend much time defeating them.
Of course you can dissect whatever is presented. If you criticize ideas for not being rationally justifiable, however, when they were not presented as such; then you are merely sniffing up the wrong trail.
Quoting Nickolasgaspar
Helpful for what?
don't fool yourself...I am not posting in these forums because I want to convince people for the validity of my personal preferences...I just believe they are objective and true and I don't need other people to challenge them....lol
People are often snooty about Dawkins (even in humanist circles), nevertheless I've found that atheists I have met over the years were once Catholics or observant Jews or Baptists and came to their atheism largely through reading Dawkins as a first step towards secularism. I've not read much of his stuff to be honest and I'm not a big one for atheist manifestos.
:lol:
Quoting Nickolasgaspar
referred to some beliefs of my own that you knew of. The combination of "you" and "his" there is somewhat ambiguous I suppose.
When I stated "those who make the claim have the burden"...I am not saying they are obliged to participate to the deconstruction of their irrational claims. I am only pointing out to the side responsible for providing soundness to their arguments. ITs a simple case of the Null Hypothesis.
Part of the problem is whether the idea of God is meant to imply an actual entity or a symbolic picture of whatever exists metaphysically. The one aspect of Dawkins' writing which did impress me was the way in which he translates some of the incongruencies in Einstein's comments about God to be about 'God' as a metaphor. This may correspond with Schopenhauer's idea of will or Hegel's idea of spirit. Of course, I realise that this understanding of God is extremely different from the way most church-goers consider, although I would imagine that they may vary in their ideas.
Of course, the concept of God is a loaded term and, as @Tom Storm suggests, it may be that the idea of God is so imprecise that it is often better to use another one. Nevertheless, the issue or questions about God don't go away. It is rare for there not to be at least one thread on the front page of this forum for or against God. The concept seems to be central to understanding life and philosophy, including those who argue for and against the existence of God.
I don't recall this exactly (it's been about 15 years since I've read The God Delusion) but this is what Einstein means by "God" – more than "a metaphor" – in his own words :fire:
[quote=response to Rabbi Herbert S. Goldstein']I believe in Spinoza's God, Who reveals Himself in the lawful harmony of the world, not in a God Who concerns Himself with the fate and the doings of mankind.[/quote]
[quote=letter to Maurice Solovine]I can understand your aversion to the use of the term 'religion' to describe an emotional and psychological attitude which shows itself most clearly in Spinoza... I have not found a better expression than 'religious' for the trust in the rational nature of reality that is, at least to a certain extent, accessible to human reason.[/quote]
in contrast to popular or traditional meaning
[quote=letter to Eric Gutkind]The word ‘God’ is for me nothing but the expression and product of human weaknesses; the Bible a collection of venerable but still rather primitive legends.[/quote]
https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/einsteins-famous-god-letter-is-up-for-auction/
I wonder to what extent those who believe in Spinoza' s God may be considered to be theists or atheists? That is one of the areas where the strict divisions between the two become complex. Dawkins argues that his ,'The God Delusion' is not intended to be about Einstein's understanding of God and that he simply wished 'to get Einsteinian religion out of the way to begin with: it has a proven capacity to confuse.' In spite of this intention, I found his discussion on Einstein, and on atheism and pantheism to be the best part of the book, because it is such a fuzzy area.
He does not regard Einstein as being a theist, but points to the complexities arising, especially in terms of the ideas of pantheism and deism. Dawkins says the following:
'In many theistic belief systems, the deity is intimately involved in human affairs. He answers prayers; forgives or punishes sins; intervenes in the world by performing miracles; frets about good and bad deeds, and knows when we do them (or even think of doing them). A desist too, believes in a supernatural intelligence, but one whose activities were confined to setting up the laws of the universe. The deist God never intervenes thereafter, and certainly has no specific interest in human affairs. Pantheists don't believe in a supernatural God at all, but use the word God as a non-supernatural synonym for Nature, or for the Universe, or for the lawfulness that governs its workings.'
He points to the way in which pantheists adopt 'a metaphorical or poetic synonym for the laws of the universe.' Dawkins also states, 'Pantheism is sexed-up atheism. Deism is watered-down theism. ' It seems that this whole area is blurry and this could be a problem with strict use of terms, including theism and atheism. It may be that use of the terms is a way of clarifying ideas, but it is important that it is done in such a way as to elucidate the concepts rather simply putting ideas into boxes because sometimes the boxes themselves are not strong enough to hold the concepts fully.
Being a Spinozist, I consider myself an – to coin a phrase – ecstatic naturalist, with a strong affinity for pandeism as mentioned elsewhere . Maimon, Hegel, Deleuze et al, I think correctly, describe Spinoza's position as acosmism (similiar to Advaita Vedanta) in contrast to "pantheism" of which academic fashion always has been overly (simplistically) fond.
How trite and dismissive ...
Again, more superficialities. Pantheism consists in a description of nature itself as supernatural, or divine, where 'creator is not separate from creation' as its active principle (e.g. "process ontology" ~ Whitehead). This is analogous to Spinoza's natura naturans which, no doubt, is why he's so often misinterpreted as a "pantheist". In any case, IMO, Dawkins embarrasses himself with such unnuanced and shallow misreadings of philosophy as well as (biblical) theology, and is not taken very seriously outside of evolutionary biology.
Yes, I did wonder if Dawkins was reading correctly in his understanding because I have not read that much on pantheism. I do wish to because all these aspects are important in thinking of the question of God's existence. Sometimes, reading interpretations which are misreadings can be problematic, and sifting them out.
I have started reading Spinoza's writings. Unfortunately, I often start too many at once, which mean that some get pushed aside. There just seems to be so much reading to be done and it does mean that it is likely to be a life long task.
Not trying to prove anything means not making a claim. In which case asking for justification of what is presented is inapt. But by all means continue in your inaptitude...it's amusing.
Somewhere in the middle. Spinoza's God/Nature may be too close to Pantheism for the comfort of Atheists. And it was dismissed by his contemporary Blaise Pascal as the impotent "god of philosophers", lacking an offer of salvation. But, the notion of identifying God & Nature could be acceptable to Deists, who believe in a Supreme Being or First Cause of some kind, but not one who violates natural laws with miracles. :smile:
Nope. You shit the bed again, G. :sweat:
Pay attention! Deists, like theists, believe that "God" is ontologically separate from Nature (i.e. metaphysical transcendence). Spinoza argues that, in effect, there aren't any entities ontologically separate from Nature (i.e. metaphysical immanence) and that only Nature's 'physical laws' are divine (real), which is contrary to both deism and pan/theism.
That might be true, but can you provide evidence for this claim, or is it just a cheap smear you are using because you resent atheism? Please advise...
Oh, and while you are about it, do you have proof of God? :wink:
"Old atheists" conceptually reject god-beliefs whereas "new atheists" rhetorically reject god-literalists – both in response to "religious theists" who, in the main, believe the unbelievable (magic) in defense of the indefensible (theodicy, martyrdom). "New atheists" happen to be media savants seemingly driven to proselytize (mostly) in "developed" societies against manifest (popular) forms of anti-secularism & anti-intellectualism; on balance, I think this one-trick-pony "movement" has been a good thing (so far) in the US.
Why do you think Spinoza used the term 'God'? It is for theologico-political and ethical reasons? One might think his signet "caute" would warn against it, but it is more than likely that he acted with due care. The term 'infinite' might have avoided the connection with the assumptions and associations connected to 'God' and 'nature', but it is perhaps for this very reason that he deliberately chose them.
I think Spinoza uses "God" in contrast to religious (scriptural) usage in order to de-anthropomorphize reality – the necessarily independent process upon which all facts and things necessarily depend. From the (speculative) perspective of eternity, Spinoza's "God" is the unmanifest, impersonal being of all manifest beings, that is, synonymous with the laws (structure) of nature while not reductively identical to natural things themselves. Deus, sive natura =/= natura deus est. A 'metaphysical conception' that is also deflationary of irrational sectarian (ecclesiastical) dogmas about "the Word of God" and thereby argues for (maximally) opening up, or expanding, secular spaces for rational free inquiry and free expression as the basis of what Spinoza thought of as 'a well-ordered, reasonably stable & secure society' which was a radical critique of prevailing theocratic monarchism still ravaging Europe into Spinoza's day after centuries of religious wars & pogroms. Caute indeed.
I don't know where this stands in relation to deism, but my concept of whatever reality or metaphorical reality of 'God' is that it is imminent in reality, as opposed to separate from it. From what I have read of or about Spinoza so far indicates a kind of imminent reality. However, that would imply, to some extent, more of an underlying reason underlying nature. This may not be entirely abstract, and may even be about the spirit of nature itself, including Gaia, the earth. But, I am sure that this is very different from Spinoza's philosophy, and, of course, he was writing in an entirely different era of history.
I definitely believe that there is a middle ground between theism and atheism. Spinoza may get into this area, as well as Jung, even though they are coming from a different angle. The middle ground is something which I have been thinking about since Easter last year. It was during a debate about Jung, and it seemed to me that both theism and atheism were true or false to some extent.
It is all about interpretation and I do wonder if there is a middle ground rather than theism and atheism and I don't mean agnosticism because that is like a waiting area to make a choice. I wonder if both the labels theism and atheism are too limited, because the essential aspects of reality, whether called God or not are way all encompassing. In some ways, what I am saying could be interpreted like some kind of mystical argument about reality and I am not intending to do so. That is because mysticism is inclined to dismiss explanations, whereas philosophy is about trying to find words and explanations. To use the word God may gloss over many gaps in philosophy, but, on the other hand, the theist vs atheist debate may be too neat and tidy from my point of view.
I did realise that you said that Spinoza, spoke of immanence. I may have a read of his writings today. Of course, it is human beings who construct reasons rather than these being existent in nature itself. Even the idea of natural selection is the human grasp of how it works. However, it may be that human consciousness is part of the imminent reality often projected onto God, as Schopenhauer describes as will and the 'thing in itself' described by Kant. The source of the numinous may be part of the realisation of consciousness and awareness itself.
Nice summary!
Yes. Both Atheists and Theists have some good arguments to support their polarized positions : magic vs matter. But they are both Gnostic, in the sense that they feel sure they know the true answer to the God Question. That's why I sometimes describe myself as an Agnostic Deist. Because I have concluded that logically there should be a First & Final Cause of our temporary universe, and a comprehensive holistic Aspect/Entity of our dynamic, many-minded world. But my limited mind can't wrap around an uncaused Cause or an unbounded Mind.
Therefore, all I know about everything-actual-&-possible is just-a-theory. And, as a mere speck in the cosmic whole -- a fleeting instant in eternity -- I know nothing for sure about such all-encompassing generalities, universals & absolutes. So I can only think in terms of philosophical principles & poetic metaphors & rational speculations. For example, Cosmologists viewing the universe from the inside -- and from a materialist perspective -- construct imaginary models of what it would look like from the outside. Those speculative constructs typically look like either bubbles of unspecified-something, or evolving horns of burgeoning plenty, or in some cases as topological toroid rings. Yet, they are all pictured floating in the black emptiness of the unknown. And, they are all imaginary materialistic metaphors for a mind-boggling mystery.
As an Agnostic, I am ignorant of the Mind of God. I have no direct revelation from the Source. And yet, I am motivated to know what can be known about my cosmic context. So, I tend to use a variety of symbolic concepts, in a feeble attempt to comprehend the all-encompassing features & functions of the Logical All, of which you and I are minor parts. An alternative way to think of the Cosmos, including Life & Mind, is not as a place in space or time, but as a universal state of consciousness. Like Plato's Forms, which are not “out there”, but everywhere, everywhen, all-at-once.
However, Atheists might say there's no such thing as Everything, outside space-time. And Theists could object that my skimpy theory has no place for Favored People, or for salvation from imperfect Reality. Also, in my incomplete Agnostic theory of Everything, the world does not revolve around me or my kind. It's just a way to know a little something about the vast unknowable, and to make sense of the "blooming buzzing confusion" of incoming signals. Meanwhile, I'm content to wait for omniscience to set-in, before I place my faith in a mystery, or abandon all hope. :cool:
PS__There are several ways to interpret the general idea of an intentional universe. For example a> Panpsychism/Pantheism/PanDeism/PanEnDeism ; b> universe as mathematical simulation (a la Matrix) ; c> gestation of a baby god (a la Omega Point) ; and so forth. But I try not to get too specific in my speculations into the dark realm of manifold Possibilities . . . or too fantastic.
MULTIVERSE : AN UNBOUNDED SPHERE OF MANY SPHERES
PROGRESSION FROM BIG BANG TO BIG RIP
COSMIC DONUT
You present a good argument for agnosticism and one which counters Jung's argument, 'I don't believe, I know'. Jung's epistemology was based on his idea of knowledge not being possible but gained through intuition, which he derived from Kant. The problem is to what extent can intuitive knowledge be certain, and why in spite of ideas in the mind it hard to know to what extent they are fantasy or correct, making the idea of God an aspect of imagination and speculation. The outer basis of knowledge is evident, but the source is hard to trace, even though some may be try to fill in the gap of unknowing as 'God, because the mind itself can only go so far in the perception of everything...
I missed that one. :sweat:
I always understood that he arrived at this through Gnosticism not Kant.
Personally I always understood intuitive knowledge to be faith dressed up in big boy pants. It is still the case that anyone can justify anything via intuitive knowledge. The last racist I argued with told me that certain people were inferior to white people because in his words - 'I just know.'
My understanding is that Jung read Kant as well as Gnosticism. He blends the two together to come up with the emphasis on 'God' as known within the psyche.
Intuition has some role in life and discovery but can be used in all sorts of erroneous ways in arguments. It is a bit like the idea of countertransference, which is intuition in therapy, in which it is possible to use as a basis for arguments for whatever one chooses to suggest or fabricate.
Ergo evidence-based inquiries (e.g. history, science, applied mathematics, etc) and reflective practices (e.g. political accountability, ecological sustainability, class struggle, etc) are indispensable for adaptive conduct with respect to nature – the immanent realities (domains) – within which "we" (metacognitive agents) as natural species-beings (not just apes, not yet angels) are both enabled and constrained. IMHO, at best, New Agery (i.e. perennially fashionable "transcendent(al)" folk intuitions e.g. Jungian psycho-mythology :sparkle: ) is just "self-help" pseudoscience ... :zip:
I found an article that quoted a TV interview some time before Jung's controversial quote you mentioned. At that time he sounded certain of the existence of a god "who's nature is beyond human comprehension". Apparently, he was censured for making such a bold Gnostic assertion. However, he also acknowledged that what he "knew" was more emotional than intellectual. Yet, my own Agnostic belief is more intellectual than emotional. But, I suppose both of us fit somewhere in the middle of the range from Theism to Atheism.
So, a more positive label for my semi-belief is Deism, sometimes defined as "rationalistic theology". Intellectually, and based on general evidence from science*1, I believe there must be a First Cause with omni-potential for the full range of outcomes, both good & evil, which are manifested in the imperfect world that we inhabit. Hence, I label my have-it-both-ways non-committal philosophical worldview as BothAnd. That's how I deal with the theological "Problem of Evil" for monotheism, which describes God as goodness personified, yet sneaks in an evil deity through the back door.
Such a wishy-washy worldview is not sufficient to motivate a religious commitment. But, it's acceptable for philosophical humility, as a wise man once admonished his listeners to keep an open mind, by admitting paradoxically : "I know that I know nothing". :cool:
*1. e.g. Evidence from science that evolution is progressive & self-organizing (Enformy), instead of self-destructing (Entropy), as you would expect from a random or accidental reality. Hence, the implication of Teleological & Intentional Design. But, the Hegelian method of "progression" is bottom-up heuristic (trial & error) instead of top-down divine fiat. Even human-designed computer programs have adopted the trial & error method of reaching the best possible compromise solution : Evolutionary Programming.
Jung's need to know :
[i]All that I have learned has led me step by step to an unshakable conviction of the existence of God. I only believe in what I know. And that eliminates believing. Therefore I do not take his existence on belief – I know that he exists (Sands 1955, p. 6) . . . .
In Jung’s view, the truth about God is complex because God is a mystery whose nature is beyond human comprehension. . . .
The God-image is the expression of an underlying experience of something which I cannot attain to by intellectual means…[/i]
https://steve.myers.co/jungs-regret-over-i-dont-need-to-believe-i-know/
Evolutionary Programming :
Special computer algorithms inspired by biological Natural Selection. It is similar to Genetic Programming in that it relies on internal competition between random alternative solutions to weed-out inferior results, and to pass-on superior answers to the next generation of algorithms. By means of such optimizing feedback loops, evolution is able to make progress toward the best possible solution – limited only by local restraints – to the original programmer’s goal or purpose. In Enformationism theory the Prime Programmer is portrayed as a creative principle (e.g. Logos), who uses bottom-up mechanisms, rather than top-down miracles, to produce a world with both freedom & determinism, order & meaning.
BothAnd Blog Glossary
A yes. Barking Barugh Baruch AKA as The Howling Dutchman. Unduly launching God to let Him land smoothly in the unchangeable, eternal, omnipotent, and omnipresent laws of Nature, providing Leibniz with the raw divine material for his pre-established harmony to inject his immortal divine soul into. A strong duo-package, liberating mankind from the tightening constraints of God.