Religious Discussions - User's Manual

Evaluation is something we do when we're picking, or deciding. When we're being appealed to, or approached. It isn't appropriate when we're knee deep involved, or on the inside.

It's not a matter of appeal. Do it or else.

Battle lines drawn years ago with no chance of movement. Kind of like WW1 trench warfare.

Reply to Mariner God exists because of X, Y, Z. No he doesn't. God exists because of A, B, C. NOOO!! >:O

Stop talking when the holy dude answers your question about hell by cupping his hands together and saying that religion is about loving another person.

Quoting Mongrel

Stop talking when the holy dude answers your question about hell by cupping his hands together and saying that religion is about loving another person.

I honestly think you (and other progressives) don't understand what love means. You seem to think that love is some sort of all-encompassing benevolence combined with pink-flying unicorns that give you lots of kisses :s

Quoting Mariner

Arguments for God always beg the question.

If by begging the question you mean the petitio principii fallacy, then I disagree. There are plenty of arguments for God that don't commit this fallacy. Even the ontological argument, if phrased in a certain way, can avoid it, despite being the classic example of an argument that allegedly commits said fallacy. If by begging the question you mean that they fail to define God, then I agree. A lot of arguments are vague on what it is they're proving.

Quoting Thorongil

If by begging the question you mean the petitio principii fallacy, then I disagree. There are plenty of arguments for God that don't commit this fallacy. Even the ontological argument, if phrased in a certain way, can avoid it, despite being the classic example of an argument that allegedly commits said fallacy. If by begging the question you mean that they fail to define God, then I agree. A lot of arguments are vague on what it is they're proving.

They beg the question as much as any argument that intends to prove the existence of X (rather than the possibility of X, the necessity of X, or the impossibility of X) must necessarily import, with its premises, some extraneous info about the existence of X. Arguments are not instruments to prove the existence of anything.

Curiously, only the ontological argument (which intends to prove the necessity of X) would escape this verdict :D.

Quoting Mariner

Curiously, only the ontological argument (which intends to prove the necessity of X) would escape this verdict :D.

Would you say that the necessity of X logically requires the existence of X, in the sense that the two are one and the same? Can X be necessary and non-existent?

It depends on how one is using the word "existent". Mathematical proofs refer to [the necessity of] non-existent relationships, if we are using "existent" to mean "perceptible by the senses" (which is one way to use that word). The most that any argument focusing on necessity can do is to emulate mathematical proofs. In order to establish that the so-called necessary object (or relationship) exists just as object X, Y, Z, or relation A, B, C exists, a further step is required.

Quoting Mariner

Mathematical proofs refer to [the necessity of] non-existent relationships, if we are using "existent" to mean "perceptible by the senses" (which is one way to use that word).

Why do you think that existent means just what is perceptible by the senses? Number 2 is not perceptible by the senses, but clearly it exists, albeit in a different way than a chair exists.

Quoting Mariner

They beg the question as much as any argument that intends to prove the existence of X (rather than the possibility of X, the necessity of X, or the impossibility of X) must necessarily import, with its premises, some extraneous info about the existence of X. Arguments are not instruments to prove the existence of anything.

Thinker - Higgs Bosons exist.

Agustino - No they don't.

Thinker - Look, they just detected one at CERN.

Agustino - Oh, I guess you're right.

Quoting Mariner

Arguments are not instruments to prove the existence of anything.

I don't understand this at all. How are they not?

Quoting Thorongil

I don't understand this at all. How are they not?

Clearly if existent means what is perceptible by the senses, then an argument cannot prove the existence of anything. Only perception can.

Quoting Mariner

The idea here is to condense your experience of religious discussions in very short aphorisms, intended to summarize some recurrent traits of these discussions.

Atheists tend to neglect the nature of religious feeling.

Believers tend to exaggerate the importance of rational-sounding arguments.

Quoting Agustino

Clearly if existent means what is perceptible by the senses

Okay, but this is clearly false.

Quoting Thorongil

Okay, but this is clearly false.

Quoting Mariner

It depends on how one is using the word "existent". Mathematical proofs refer to [the necessity of] non-existent relationships, if we are using "existent" to mean "perceptible by the senses" (which is one way to use that word).

Reply to Agustino Yeah, that statement is clearly false. Lots of things exist (are not nothing) that are not perceptible.

Quoting Thorongil

Yeah, that statement is clearly false. Lots of things exist (are not nothing) that are not perceptible.

Quoting Agustino

Why do you think that existent means just what is perceptible by the senses? Number 2 is not perceptible by the senses, but clearly it exists, albeit in a different way than a chair exists.

Why are you telling me? :P

Reply to Agustino Because you responded to me, silly!

Quoting Thorongil

Because you responded to me, silly!

>:O

Quoting mcdoodle

Believers tend to exaggerate the importance of rational-sounding arguments.

I think that's unavoidable when you build a religion that makes claims about actual events which did or did not take place in the world.

Be prepared.

Reply to Mariner
God is an advocate for my point of view.

God prefers me over others.

God believes in my worth and virtuosity, especially when others do not.

Quoting mcdoodle

Atheists tend to neglect the nature of religious feeling.

Believers tend to exaggerate the importance of rational-sounding arguments.

Good ones. I think the second is more prevalent than the first (at least in the case of, er, rational atheists :D).

If it's really a matter of experience may I suggest:

Don't.

There is much equivocation as to what belief consists of. Part of my creed is that I believe in a hearty breakfast, and I don't lose my faith whenever the bacon runs short. The existence to whatever extent of a hearty breakfast is a consequence of folks believing in the benign hearty breakfast rather than a precondition.

Reply to unenlightened You may be interested in this.

The usual definition of polytheism is (according to Wikipedia): the worship of or belief in multiple deities, which are usually assembled into a pantheon of gods and goddesses, along with their own religions and rituals. In most religions which accept polytheism, the different gods and goddesses are representations of forces of nature or ancestral principles, and can be viewed either as autonomous or as aspects or emanations of a creator God or transcendental absolute principle (monistic theologies), which manifests immanently in nature (panentheistic and pantheistic theologies).

It seems that what has arisen is a sort of an "accidental polytheism". Or maybe an "antagonistic polytheism". By which I refer to the effect of clashing monotheistic systems. For example, when you have a Christian believer say in complete sincerity that "Al--h is literally the devil" (not to pick on anybody specifically, because this attitude goes both ways), there is a major disconnect in what monotheism means beneath its tribal roots. Perhaps a particular understanding of the Deity worked for a particular relatively small group of people at one time. That belief system gave the group a unity. But trying to have a global religion with a small-group mentality is beyond an ill-fit, it is more like having a roaring campfire in a drought-stricken forest. If a religious belief system cannot adapt to changing circumstances, then a million hard-core fundamentalist "true believers" hunting heretics and witches will not save it.

The solution to this clash of beliefs? Maybe God only knows. Even so, we best hazard an educated guess. Flexibility? Compassion? Non-literal interpretations? Another possible view of the "holy writ"? Something else? Your educated guess is as good as mine.

Quoting 0 thru 9

The solution to this clash of beliefs? Maybe God only knows. Even so, we best hazard an educated guess. Flexibility? Compassion? Non-literal interpretations? Another possible view of the "holy writ"? Something else? Your educated guess is as good as mine.

Getting back to the experience behind the texts. For those who are hooked on texts, of course.

When God is the topic, specify what you think God is or is not. If your God is unknowable, say no more. If your God has attributes which you can not explain to the rest of us, say no more.

Confess what your source of knowledge is about God. If you have personal evidence, great. If all you have is hearsay evidence, admit it. Religious books are hearsay evidence.

Before you say anything, decide whether your God has to be Perfectly Nice. Maybe your God isn't. God could very well be inconsistent, contradictory, arbitrary, and capricious, peevish, periodically unloving, unkind, indifferent to your problems, etc. If God is not nice, that would explain a lot.

If you are an atheist, EDIT: isn't there some burden of proof for you to bear?

Quoting Agustino

?unenlightened You may be interested in this.

Yes, I was.

Nobody understands that what is real and what exists are not the same.

Quoting unenlightened

?unenlightened You may be interested in this.
— Agustino

Yes, I was.

Which was William James' infamous reply to this.

In the beginning the world was formless and void, and then there was the word, and the word was God, and the word was with God.

It goes something like that right? God is the logos. There is a reason that Aristotle was such a big deal to the church founders. Adam gave everything it's name. Adam was in communion with God in the garden and gave everything it's name. Jesus attained the kingdom again, and become the second adam.

The meaning, the forms the word, the categories. The unintelligible through which all else is rendered intelligible. The ground.

Read a book... don't listen modern rabble rousers.

Quoting unenlightened

Yes, I was.

:D And what did you think?

Quoting Wayfarer

Nobody understands that what is real and what exists are not the same.

Could you say more about this, and in what sense you meant it? I am having a little difficulty (in this thread) detecting irony. And figuring out when aphorisms are demonstrating an example of a "wrong" approach, or are simple statements of one's particular belief. In any case, yours is an interesting point. Thanks! (Y)

Reply to 0 thru 9 First post on 'old' forum, January 2009:

"Here I want to consider whether there is a difference between what is real and what exists.

'Exist' is derived from a root meaning to 'be apart', where 'ex' = apart from or outside, and 'ist' = to stand, to be. Ex-ist then means to be a separable object, to be 'this thing' as distinct from 'that thing'. This applies to all the existing objects of perception - chairs, tables, stars, planets, and so on - everything which we would normally call 'a thing'. So we could say that 'things exist'. No surprises there, and I don't think anyone would disagree with that proposition.

Now to introduce a metaphysical concern. I was thinking about 'God', in the sense understood by classical metaphysics and theology. Whereas the things of perception are composed of parts and have a beginning and an end in time, 'God' is, according to classical theology, 'simple' - that is, not composed of parts- and 'eternal', that is, not beginning or ending in time.

Therefore, 'God' does not 'exist', being of a different nature to anything we normally perceive. Theologians would say 'God' was superior to or beyond existence (for example, Pseudo-Dionysius; Eckhardt; Tillich; also here.) I don't think this is a controversial statement either, when the terms are defined this way (and leaving aside whether you believe in God or not, although if you don't the discussion might be irrelevant or meaningless.)

But this made me wonder whether 'what exists' and 'what is real' might, in fact, be different. For example, consider number. Obviously we all concur on what a number is, and mathematics is lawful; in other words, we can't just make up our own laws of numbers. But numbers don't 'exist' in the same sense that objects of perception do; there is no object called 'seven'. You might point at the numeral, 7, but that is just a symbol. What we concur on is a number of objects, but the number cannot be said to exist independent of its apprehension, at least, not in the same way objects apparently do. In what realm or sphere do numbers exist? 'Where' are numbers? Surely in the intellectual realm, of which perception is an irreducible part. So numbers are not 'objective' in the same way that 'things' are. Sure, mathematical laws are there to be discovered; but can you argue that maths existed before humans discovered it?

I started wondering whether this was related to the platonist distinction between 'intelligible objects' and 'objects of perception' 1 . Objects of perception - ordinary things - only exist, in the Platonic view, because they conform to, and are instances of, laws. Particular things are simply ephemeral instances of the eternal forms, but in themselves, they have no actual being. Their actual being is conferred by the fact that they conform to laws (in the original sense of 'logos'). So mere existence , and I think this is the sense it was intended by the Platonic and neo-Platonic schools, is illusory. Earthly objects of perception exist, but only in a transitory and imperfect way. They are 'mortal' - perishable, never perfect, and always transient. Whereas the archetypal Forms exist in the One Mind and are apprehended by Nous: while they do not exist they provide the basis for all existing things by creating the pattern, the ratio, whereby things are formed. They are real, above and beyond the existence of wordly things; but they don't actually exist. They don't need to exist; things do the hard work of existence.

So the ordinary worldly person is caught up in 'his or her particular things', and thus is ensnared in illusory and ephemeral concerns. Whereas the Philosopher, by realising the transitory nature of ordinary objects of perception, learns to contemplate within him or herself, the eternal Law whereby things become manifest according to their ratio, and by being Disinterested, in the original sense of that word."

There are no philosophical arguments for the existence of the god that people go to church to worship.

Reply to Reformed Nihilist true, and it's not something I do.

//ps//but then, this is a philosophy forum.

Reply to Wayfarer Do you think that philosophy is, or should be, detached from the everyday activities of our lives? If so, I disagree, and wonder why you would think so?

Quoting Reformed Nihilist

?Wayfarer Do you think that philosophy is, or should be, detached from the everyday activities of our lives? If so, I disagree, and wonder why you would think so?

It's not detached from the living of life, but you need to detach yourself from 'what everyone thinks', the consensus reality, to pursue it. Most people to be honest would neither understand nor care about philosophical questions.

Reply to Wayfarer I guess that what I'm saying is that philosophy directly informs my everyday approach to religion, spirituality, and theism. Namely, it informs my rejection of all of the above. Religion, as it is commonly practiced, is at best (by my reckoning, informed by philosophy) a waste of time and a distraction, commonly is a means to romanticize irrationality, and at worst a means to subvert critical thinking in morally charged situations. That means that (again, by my reckoning), I am to some degree morally obligated to speak out.

By the same reasoning, how would the ontological argument or the first mover argument obligate someone to go the their local church?

Quoting Reformed Nihilist

I guess that what I'm saying is that philosophy directly informs my everyday approach to religion, spirituality, and theism

Mine also.

Quoting Reformed Nihilist

Religion, as it is commonly practiced, is at best (by my reckoning, informed by philosophy) a waste of time and a distraction, commonly is a means to romanticize irrationality, and at worst a means to subvert critical thinking in morally charged situations.

It depends a lot on the individual practicing it.


Quoting Reformed Nihilist

how would the ontological argument or the first mover argument obligate someone to go the their local church?

Again, varies a lot from person to person. I imagine in any congregation, there's philosophical types, who read and contemplate theological doctrines, and others whose practice consists of helping out at the Church fair and probably never give any thought to such things.

Reply to Wayfarer I am skeptical that anyone's religious practices are products of the first mover argument (or it's analogues). There is exactly zero reason to conclude that the first mover, God of the ontological argument, God of Pascal's wager, et al, are the commonly worshipped God from whatever neighborhood you live in or grew up in. In most cases, there's no line of reasoning that the God in question even has most of the properties we commonly associate with gods, like intentionally, moral goodness (being worthy of worship), or interest in our behaviours.

Quoting Reformed Nihilist

There is exactly zero reason to conclude that the first mover, God of the ontological argument, God of Pascal's wager, at al, are the commonly worshipped God from whatever neighborhood you live in or grew up in. In most cases, there's no line of reasoning that the God in question even has most of the properties we commonly associate with gods, like intentionally, moral goodness (being worthy of worship), or interest in our behaviours.

The ontological argument entails the existence a morally perfect being. And a morally perfect being would be worthy of worship. A morally perfect being would also be concerned with the well-being of His creatures and therefore have an interest in our behaviors (and consequently must have intentionality as well). So it looks like you're wrong on all three counts. The 'argument from religious experiences' is another argument for a God worthy of worship too.

Reply to lambda Sorry, perhaps I wasn't clear. When I said "in most cases", I was making an allowance for the ontological god to be worthy of worship. None the less, the ontological argument doesn't imply an intentional god that has interest in our behaviors (so still a god that doesn't resemble the one most people worship in their churches, mosques or synagogues). The first mover, Pascal's wager doesn't imply a worthy, intentional or caring god.

I'm not sure how you conclude that "A morally perfect being would also be concerned with the well-being of his creatures and therefore have an interest in our behaviors (and consequently must have intentionality as well)". That just sounds like an intuition that meets your personal image of god and perfection (which is really the problem with the ontological argument, and why Aquinas rejected it... it requires someone's conception of perfection, so god becomes contingent on man's mind).

Is there another philosophical argument for god that offers evidence for Jehovah/Yaweh/Elohim/Allah as described in various texts?

Quoting Reformed Nihilist

the ontological argument doesn't imply an intentional god that has interest in our behaviors

I disagree since a being who is uninterested in the welfare of others obviously wouldn't be morally perfect....

Quoting Reformed Nihilist

The first mover ... doesn't imply a worthy, intentional or caring god.

I agree.

Quoting Reformed Nihilist

Pascal's wager doesn't imply a worthy, intentional or caring god.

I disagree since Pascal's wager is specifically an argument for Christianity and I would say the God described in the Sermon on the Mount is morally perfect (and therefore worthy of worship), intentional, and caring.

[quote=lambda]I disagree since a being who is uninterested in the welfare of others wouldn't be morally perfect....[/quote]

Sorry again. Added on edit: "I'm not sure how you conclude that "A morally perfect being would also be concerned with the well-being of his creatures and therefore have an interest in our behaviors (and consequently must have intentionality as well)". That just sounds like an intuition that meets your personal image of god and perfection (which is really the problem with the ontological argument, and why Aquinas rejected it... it requires someone's conception of perfection, so god becomes contingent on man's mind).".

I disagree since Pascal's wager is specifically an argument for Christianity and I would say the God described in the Sermon on the Mount is morally perfect, worthy of worship, intentional, and caring.

The historical context of Pascal's wager was the christian god, but the argument itself makes no distinction. It is as compelling (or not) an argument for any god who requires belief in order to achieve eternal happiness or avoid eternal punishment. Edit: It's also morally sketchy in itself, as it proposes subjugating a desire for truth to a desire for personal gain. A god that rewarded this prioritization could reasonably be considered a little morally sketchy as well.

By the way, I editted the OP to include many contributions from the thread. It's growing to be a nice User's Manual :).

Reply to Mariner What a surprise! Nothing I contributed made the cut.

Quoting Mariner

Other suggestions were not specific to religious discussions.

Okay, that's true of mine, although the suggestion was that it is especially good advice when it comes to religious discussions.

Quoting Sapientia

What a surprise! Nothing I contributed made the cut.

Nor I, and I thought my comment about theological arguments not proving the existence of any god people actually worship at a church was particularly insightful (to toot my own horn).

Both comments were added now (I didn't think that RN's comment was supposed to be an addition to the list. My mistake).