Ask not what is the purpose of religion, but what purpose each individual has in practising their religion. The answers will vary widely between individuals. Common answers would be:
- exploring and expressing spiritual feelings
- using rituals to mark and help cope with important life events
- belonging to a community
- tradition
- providing an efficient and supportive framework within which to help others
Some less attractive reasons that some people have, but would mostly not admit to, are:
- so I can feel superior to others
- so I can wield power over others
- so I can validate my dislike for people from cultures different from my own
In the interests of charity, I assume that most people's reasons belong to the first set. Unfortunately, people motivated by the second set are often prevalent amongst those in power at the top echelons of organised religions.
Grey Vs GraySeptember 16, 2018 at 00:40#2127330 likes
There's a law of distribution in this universe, the name escapes me, where the amount you have determine how much you will get. Obviously there are exceptions but there are always exceptions.
Religions fundamentally are an expression of culture, at least, in their origin. Stories of the brave, the honest, whatever that culture accepts as good. Some stories are passed on more than others; their telling becomes exponential. People hold onto them, cherish them and most importantly follow the lessons they tell.
Religion is the collection of these stories. Each region has different ones that became popular. Some stories are seen across many cultures.
The problem however is when some stories do more harm than good as the world changes. As we gather more information with science the stories are being dropped off one by one. Religion will be either to be turned into a conglomeration or eventually lost entirely.
On modern cults: the mechanism is the same but they are composed, usually by one person, of many borrowed stories combined with a magnetic personality and a sprinkle of altered or new stories. Religions are mostly random, cults are mostly devised.
Your question of interaction. I think it needs a little clarification.
The essential or primary purpose is to provide a system of meaning that can bind a community in common values and purpose, like a kind of glue that holds a tribe together. For the vast majority of human evolution, survival may have depended on being part of a tightknit community, so it would seem natural to have developed a strong desire for meaning, at least once more basic needs (water, food, shelter) were met.
Given the above, we necessarily interact with religion socially. Glue has no purpose without things to bind.
RelativistSeptember 20, 2018 at 14:08#2137800 likes
The "purpose" of religion is to provide a context for consideration of the other, beyond the self, and an inter-subjective understanding of our place in the world. As such, it helps shape our interactions with other people.
'“Half the people in the world think that the metaphors of their religious traditions are facts. And the other half contends that they are not facts at all. As a result we have people who consider themselves 'believers' because they accept metaphors as facts, and others who classify themselves as 'atheists' because they think religious metaphors are lies.” ~ Joseph Campbell
Deleted UserSeptember 20, 2018 at 14:32#2137830 likes
This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.
Rank AmateurSeptember 20, 2018 at 16:19#2137930 likes
What do you think religion's purpose is & how does one interact with it?
Religion is an emergent set of behaviors, beliefs, or rituals that first came about in the form of entertaining and question-answering stories told by shaman of forest and jungle dwelling great apes (animism). It invariably takes the form of metaphysical assumption or a fallacy of superstition, and it has become ubiquitous because humans really like to be entertained (we tend to like emotional roller coasters), and also because humans are very curious (so when someone has no grasp of science or the cosmos, they are very vulnerable to being persuaded by any compelling answer placed before them).
Religion's purpose, as such, is to service humans. It does so by making some of us happy, by keeping some of us in line, by giving some of us answers to existential questions, and by assisting with communal organization (in the past various religions have gotten out of control, so to speak, but presumably the secular post-enlightenment governments we have today limit religion for the better).
We interact with religion by participating in it, which is also how and why it changes and evolves.
Personally I prefer not to participate in religion (to not interact with it). I've found answers elsewhere, entertainment elsewhere, and moral foundations elsewhere too.
I think that far too many religious people fail to recognise where the real value in religion lies, and fail to treat it as it ought to be treated. It's real value is as a philosophy, and it ought to be treated as such, and compared to other philosophies as though on a level playing field, not mindlessly worshipped or placed on a pedestal, unless it has truly earned its place there, which is open to debate.
By finding those aspects of religion which one can personally put to constructive use in their own life, and then putting what one has found in to action.
The essential or primary purpose is to provide a system of meaning that can bind a community in common values and purpose, like a kind of glue that holds a tribe together.
Surely this is a big factor. An essential purpose of religion? Ok, agreed.
But the primary purpose of religion is ultimately personal. Religions don't go on for thousands of years based on abstractions like "binding a community together".
MountainDwarfSeptember 21, 2018 at 20:38#2140810 likes
Ask not what is the purpose of religion, but what purpose each individual has in practising their religion. The answers will vary widely between individuals.
Yes. That much I know. That's why I asked in such a way to get more individual responses. Quoting andrewk
Unfortunately, people motivated by the second set are often prevalent amongst those in power at the top echelons of organised religions.
Quite a sad reality. We need more honest spiritual leaders. Quoting Grey Vs Gray
Your question of interaction. I think it needs a little clarification.
Alright. What level of interaction or devotion do you (all) express in regard to spirituality? Quoting praxis
Given the above, we necessarily interact with religion socially. Glue has no purpose without things to bind.
So religion is only good if it brings people toward a common goal? Quoting Relativist
The "purpose" of religion is to provide a context for consideration of the other, beyond the self, and an inter-subjective understanding of our place in the world. As such, it helps shape our interactions with other people.
I admire existentialism because it has a mystical feeling along with a feeling of simplicity of mission in life. Love people. Quoting Wayfarer
'“Half the people in the world think that the metaphors of their religious traditions are facts. And the other half contends that they are not facts at all. As a result we have people who consider themselves 'believers' because they accept metaphors as facts, and others who classify themselves as 'atheists' because they think religious metaphors are lies.” ~ Joseph Campbell
So how does one interpret their faith if meanings are hidden? What are the metaphors symbols of? Quoting tim wood
Religion is the appeal to the ineffable for answers to questions not otherwise answered.
As you can probably tell from my other recent thread, I am a skeptical theist. Nice to know I'm not the only one who thinks along these lines. Quoting VagabondSpectre
Religion's purpose, as such, is to service humans.
What I gather from your post here is that is society's or the majority of humanity's purpose for religion and you're dissatisfied with that. I commend you if this is the case. I notice the Ouroboros sign as your avatar. The question is, is religion about connecting to something bigger than yourself and finding answers there or is it all a sham? Quoting S
I think that far too many religious people fail to recognise where the real value in religion lies, and fail to treat it as it ought to be treated. It's real value is as a philosophy, and it ought to be treated as such, and compared to other philosophies as though on a level playing field, not mindlessly worshipped or placed on a pedestal, unless it has truly earned its place there, which is open to debate.
So you're not militantly against religion, you just respect all paths? Quoting Jake
To address the illusion of division which is a fundamental reality of the human condition.
The eastern ways are as old time itself. Brahman is in all and is all to that way of thinking. Are you Hindu?
VagabondSpectreSeptember 21, 2018 at 21:00#2140880 likes
I notice the Ouroboros sign as your avatar. The question is, is religion about connecting to something bigger than yourself and finding answers there or is it all a sham?
It's somewhere in between finding answers and sham.
Religion can give people personal reasons to go on living, and in it they can find community that can help them enjoy life. They're almost certainly not going to actually connect with some ultimate creator deity who will impart anything useful, but sometimes, for some people, the illusion of that is a worthwhile placebo.
I do not consider myself one of those people...
My fascination with the ouroboros began when I encountered it as the name of an informal fallacy ("a self defeating argument") and used it as a description for ideologies and worldviews which lead to the subversion of their own founding premises (notably, the brand of intersectional feminism which ultimately advocates for racist/sexist practices, thereby promoting the thing it set out to destroy). I have come to think of it as the ultimate fallacy of self-contradiction and circularity. Also it looks pretty cool...
I chose it as my avatar because it's an intriguing reminder of all things fallacious, but also because it has other interesting symbolism. If it was an unambiguously religious symbol, I would not have chosen it. If I recall correctly it mainly is a representation of creation and destruction, of cycles, of eternity, and of unity (depending on the specific cultural/religious conception/representation).
So how does one interpret their faith if meanings are hidden? What are the metaphors symbols of?
If religions aren't symbolic, then what are they? Have you ever encountered a Carl Jung book called Man and his Symbols? They are symbolic expressions of all manner of existential and cultural meanings.
RelativistSeptember 21, 2018 at 21:59#2141040 likes
Reply to `MountainDwarf
Relativist: “The "purpose" of religion is to provide a context for consideration of the other, beyond the self, and an inter-subjective understanding of our place in the world. As such, it helps shape our interactions with other people.”
MountainDwarf: “So religion is only good if it brings people toward a common goal?”
I wasn’t addressing what is “good” about religion, but it is good to consider the “other.” By “other” I mean everything that isn’t self: the external world, other people, etc. This is better than narcissism. Interactions with other people doesn’t have to be about common goals; I think we benefit (both individually and collectively) from positive socialization. So there’s a lot of good that can come out of religion. Some bad comes out as well (e.g. child molestation, organizing hate against gays, …) but on balance, I think there is more good than harm.
Rank AmateurSeptember 21, 2018 at 22:13#2141060 likes
There also is a chance that Jesus is actually the Son of God, and the purpose of His Church is our salvation. Just sayin.
Religion is to offer a unifying vision of human life. One interacts with a religion (and its adherents) if one finds its vision of human life inspiring, or even merely satisfying.
You have a perfect right to believe it, but it's not really that relevant in a philosophy forum. Paul, after all, was dismissive of philosophy; 'What has Athens to do with Jerusalem'? I think what's interesting is 'what does it mean?' and 'how does it realise its goals'?
The point about mainstream Christianity is specifically to exclude those kinds of questions. It's 'believe and be saved'. Asking 'why' is a no-no. This doesn't mean that having such beliefs is wrong, or that the belief is wrong - but it's not particularly amenable to discussion.
Rank AmateurSeptember 21, 2018 at 23:15#2141120 likes
Reply to Wayfarer thanks, just thought the actual stated purpose was worth a line, along with the various philosophical and psychological conjectures.
All sightSeptember 21, 2018 at 23:39#2141130 likes
Reply to All sightI know it was Tertullian, although the point stands. The relationship between Platonism and Christianity is actually very interesting; Origen, Clement and Philo, to mention a few. The problem is, they are very well-tilled fields of scholarship, and the texts are arcane, which makes studying them a bit daunting.
And there's a definite tension within Christianity itself between the influence of Platonism and the Gospels. I think that is why evangelical Protestantism has generally tended to reject the Greek influence in an attempt to return to a more purely Biblical stance.
Actually one web author whose works I have learned from is John Uebersax who has an excellent index here.
There is no God but Allah. Islam is the true religion, Allah is our Creator.
How anyone can look at creation and believe it all just came out of nowhere, randomly- baffles me.
People insult me for believing in God and act like I'm a neanderthal.... I am wary of posting here and think I'll be met with a bunch of belligerant liberals. But whether you agree with my views or not- I represent a viewpoint which might not be otherwise represented here.
All sightSeptember 22, 2018 at 04:56#2141440 likes
You said that Paul thought something, and then quoted someone else unattributed? Point being (seeing as Tertullian was versed in and influenced by stoicism) that Christianity is a revealed religion, and the ancient Greek philosophers and philosophies that Christian theologians thought to be in accord with Christian doctrine was explained by God having revealed something in part to them, rather than them being the influences or origins of Christian thought.
Paul didn't have a problem per se with Philosophy (neither did Tertullian), but he held different schools to be in conflict with his view, and inferior to revelation.
What do you think religion's purpose is & how does one interact with it?
Religion's purpose is to educate and give people methods of expressing themselves to the benefit of the greater 'whole' (family, community, culture, etc) instead of just themselves. One accomplishes service by understanding what is necessary. Purpose is choice aligned to necessity (my take).
Religion as a principle may have a decent purpose and the teachings given by the pioneers of the various sects (especially the really big ones) may be intelligent, ethical and geared towards the individual's progress, however, of the current practitioners (leaders and followers alike) very few seem to understand the purpose of religion and consequently their interactions are flawed.
As an example,
'Archbishop' Gilbert Deya and his 'miracle' babies who developed in less than 9 months from conception to birth:
=> "He (Gilbert Deya) was ordained by the United Evangelical Church of Kenya and styles himself "Archbishop".[3] He was an evangelist in Kenya in the late 1980s to early 1990s, but moved to the UK, establishing Gilbert Deya Ministries in 1997. The ministry now[when?] has churches in Liverpool, London, Birmingham, Nottingham, Luton, Reading, and Manchester, Sheffield and in 2006 acquired a building and planning permission in Leeds.[4] The church claims to be 'the fastest growing Ministry in the UK and worldwide'."
"The Gilbert Deya Ministries claim that Deya's powers allow him to be able to cause infertile women to become pregnant. Mr Deya claims that "through the power of prayer and the Lord Jesus" he has helped sterile women give birth. In the UK, one woman is claimed to have had three children in less than a year. The women travelled to Kenya in order to 'give birth'."
"Ten children, none of whom had any genetic connection to the Deya family, were found at Mr Deya's House.[5] Twenty babies have been placed in foster care in Kenya after DNA tests showed they had no connection to their alleged mothers.[8] Rose Atieno Kiserem, a former pastor with Deya's ministry was jailed along with Mrs Deya. Upon her release from jail, Kiserem confessed that the 'miracle babies' were "a hoax created by the Deyas and their accomplices to deceive me and other God-fearing people."
"On 3 August 2017, Deya was extradited from the UK to Kenya to face child trafficking charges. He was immediately arraigned in court for child trafficking offences."
[Extracts from Gilbert Deya's Wikipedia Page]
The sad reality is that most of Deya's congregation chose to believe that the 'miracle-babies' were God's work. The sadder reality is that most religious people are expecting such kind of 'miracles' and, instead of investing their mental capacity to achieving greater reasoning abilities (to better be able to explore life for themselves), they wait and, most often, for a conman to take them for a ride. Worse, they believe it is worth their while in the journey towards 'eternal salvation'.
I wasn’t addressing what is “good” about religion, but it is good to consider the “other.” By “other” I mean everything that isn’t self: the external world, other people, etc.
And it might also be good to consider whether what we perceive to be "other" actually exists. Well, consider as a first step, which may evolve in to experiencing the non-existence of "other".
Point being, there are different levels of religion. At one level there are the doctrines and moral teachings etc, at another level there are the experiences the doctrines and moral teachings are attempting to take us to.
Christian doctrine suggests that we "love our neighbor as ourselves". The bottom line goal of such a suggestion isn't just that we be "good", but that we experience a weakening of the boundary between ourselves and everything else. The experience is true religion, the rest of it often devolves in to the chanting of memorized slogans.
So you're not militantly against religion, you just respect all paths?
No. It might be right to say that, in some ways, I'm militantly against certain aspects of religion and certain interpretations of religion, in general, as well as of particular religions. I'm highly critical, yet I'll also give credit where credit's due.
And I don't respect all paths. Why would I? I respect only those paths which I judge to be deserving of respect. My point wasn't about equal treatment in terms of respect, but rather equal treatment in terms of how we should think about religion in comparison to philosophies. In other words, I'm against special treatment for religion. All religions, like all philosophies, have their pros and cons. Yet some religious folks would have you believe that their religion is the one true religion that everyone should follow, that's it's wrong to be critical of their religion, that their religion gets a special exemption, and should not be viewed in a similar vein to philosophies or even other religions.
Yet some religious folks would have you believe that their religion is the one true religion that everyone should follow, that's it's wrong to be critical of their religion, that their religion gets a special exemption, and should not be viewed in a similar vein to philosophies or even other religions.
And the same can be said for some atheist ideologues. The mindset you are reasonably objecting to isn't a function of religion particularly, but the human condition more generally. It's very important to some of us to possess The Answer, whatever the chosen answer may be.
There also is a chance that Jesus is actually the Son of God, and the purpose of His Church is our salvation. Just sayin.
Do you know how many chances there are? There's also a chance that I'm actually the Son of Zeus and Liza Minnelli, and the purpose of My Sarcasm is the complete and utter destruction of the universe as we know it.
And the same can be said for some atheist ideologues. The mindset you are reasonably objecting to isn't a function of religion particularly, but the human condition more generally. It's very important to some of us to possess The Answer, whatever the chosen answer may be.
And the same can be said for some political ideologues. (Nuclear weapons, cough cough).
But it is a requirement of some religions according to the testimony of many adherents of these religions themselves. Ram is a good example of that.
If you keep coughing like that it's going to lead directly to the immediate end of all life in the universe, and you'd better agree with that right now or you're going to hell!!!! :smile:
But it is a requirement of some religions according to the testimony of many adherents of these religions themselves. Ram is a good example of that.
Some religions are just another example of ideological certainty. This forum, all philosophy forums, are filled with comments from those who suffer from atheist certainty.
Some religions are just another example of ideological certainty. This forum, all philosophy forums, are filled with comments from those who suffer from atheist certainty.
In my assessment, some religions are better than others, just as some forms of atheism are better than others, and misplaced certainty is a factor-against in this assessment. But the topic is religion, not atheism.
Paul didn't have a problem per se with Philosophy (neither did Tertullian), but he held different schools to be in conflict with his view, and inferior to revelation.
Fair point. But I still feel that appealing to scriptural authority doesn’t have a place in a philosophy forum, unless in support of a philosophical argument. I did a search on Apostle Paul and Greek Philosophy and found a very good post on the subject:
the role of Greek thought on Christian is not only paramount but foundational. That is why evangelical theology seems so patently ridiculous, the rich vein of philosophy hidden under the sentimental display of "enthusiastic prayer". In fact many Chrurch Fathers condemn such "enthusiasm" as part of an old orgiastic pagan way of worshiping unfit for the Christian, who should use contemplation (theoria) and the intellect (nous) to know God, a God who is simultaneously hidden and revealed, transcendent and immanent, known through his energies in creation but whose essence is fundamentally unknowable--finally God is an awe inspiring living fire not for the fainthearted. The ideal is both an individual philosophical understanding, and a community of the spirit (pneuma).
My overall attitude is, I suppose, nearer what the Church would designate ‘pagan’ or perhaps ‘gnostic’ in that I don’t accept that any religious tradition has a monopoly on revelation, but that religions generally are evidence of a reality which is not comprehended by natural philosophy.
Harry HinduSeptember 22, 2018 at 14:13#2141890 likes
What do you think religion's purpose is & how does one interact with it?
Put simply: Religion is a method for dealing with the stresses of life (no inherent meaning to life, unfairness of society, worrying about death and dead loved ones, etc.), just as delusions help some people get through life. It allows them to cover up reality with a fake one that makes them feel more comfortable with themselves and their place in the world.
Harry HinduSeptember 22, 2018 at 14:20#2141900 likes
How anyone can look at creation and believe it all just came out of nowhere, randomly- baffles me.
Who said that it came out of nowhere randomly? How anyone can believe that a universe can't just exist, but a god can, baffles me. What makes god so special that is doesn't need a creator, but the universe does?
People insult me for believing in God and act like I'm a neanderthal.... I am wary of posting here and think I'll be met with a bunch of belligerant liberals. But whether you agree with my views or not- I represent a viewpoint which might not be otherwise represented here.
But you have insulted us (our intelligence) with your incoherent post with no evidence or logic. When you do that, expect to be rejected and insulted yourself.
I also think you are misusing the term, "liberal". The people that are commonly called "liberals" in America are actually authoritarian socialists, not liberals at all. Libertarians are the only true liberals.
Rank AmateurSeptember 22, 2018 at 15:22#2141930 likes
You have a perfect right to believe it, but it's not really that relevant in a philosophy forum.
All due respect, I disagree. The proposition that God is, and the purpose of religion is salvation, is as valid a proposition as the others proposed here. And although agreed, the ultimate belief would be based on faith, it is a proposition that can be tested by reason.
I see no philosophical difference between this proposition as an answer to the op, as many of the others expressed, sitting on an equally faith based belief that God is not.
At the core it is a human hubris in some that we have the ability to reason all, and that which with can not exist by reason does not exist. Interestingly, there are almost an unlimited number of historical examples showning this to be false. Yet, the intellectual high ground is still claimed by many, who paradoxically by their faith in reason, declare its superiority to faith.
All sightSeptember 22, 2018 at 15:50#2142000 likes
Reply to Wayfarer There certainly is no technical reason as to why scripture doesn't count as authoritative philosophically (as if theology and religion isn't a philosophical subject), but an authority holds sway because we agree that it is authoritative in the first place. Normally we reason about stuff, and use various sources as references, evidences, and things, rather than just "this says it, therefore it is true" (though, just look at the unsupported assertions that fly around the place with zero support of any kind, not even a reason given... just flat "this is the way it is" assertions that don't even leave room for response).
The only real reason to avoid scripture as an authority is when not everyone accepts it as an authority, and doing so would be offensive, or ineffective. It of course would always be bad for to just assert something is the case without giving any reasons whatsoever. Though I think that what is philosophical is the subjects, and not really particular forms of engagement with them.
I would even add that traditionally "philosophy" is not mere idle talk, but meant a way of life, which is precisely why religion is one of the center stage subjects, and the idle musings on technical subjects that one in no sense practices is what is not philosophical.
MountainDwarfSeptember 22, 2018 at 16:45#2142140 likes
I wasn’t addressing what is “good” about religion, but it is good to consider the “other.” By “other” I mean everything that isn’t self: the external world, other people, etc. This is better than narcissism. Interactions with other people doesn’t have to be about common goals; I think we benefit (both individually and collectively) from positive socialization. So there’s a lot of good that can come out of religion. Some bad comes out as well (e.g. child molestation, organizing hate against gays, …) but on balance, I think there is more good than harm.
You make the multi-faith movement sound really cool. :up:
Religion is to offer a unifying vision of human life. One interacts with a religion (and its adherents) if one finds its vision of human life inspiring, or even merely satisfying.
I even find that there are some aspects of non-religion that can be satisfying.
People insult me for believing in God and act like I'm a neanderthal....
You're not, you're a highly developed neanderthal blessed by the God of creation with the ability to believe.
Reply to BrianW Sad. (I sound like Donald Trump) :lol: I wonder if it's just natural for religious leaders to abuse people or if it's a product of the modern church.
Yet some religious folks would have you believe that their religion is the one true religion that everyone should follow, that's it's wrong to be critical of their religion, that their religion gets a special exemption, and should not be viewed in a similar vein to philosophies or even other religions.
This is why I believe Christianity went through a reformation.
Rank AmateurSeptember 22, 2018 at 16:54#2142170 likes
I wonder if it's just natural for religious leaders to abuse people or if it's a product of the modern church.
I think most people are drawn to religion by its power instead of its wisdom and so inevitably stray from the path to some degree. However, towards modern times religious leaders have been abusing their authority with increasing deliberateness.
The proposition that God is, and the purpose of religion is salvation, is as valid a proposition as the others proposed here. And although agreed, the ultimate belief would be based on faith, it is a proposition that can be tested by reason.
Right. But here, you’re putting forward a philosophical argument, rather than evangelising as such. I am very open to reasoned argument for religious ideas, and I read quite a lot of philosophical theology. What I'm wary of is evangelicals seeking to convert. OK, sometimes the distinction is a fine line, but still. And also I'm particularly wary of Protestant evangelism, because of its prior rejection of most of Christian Platonism.
Reply to All sight I agree with most of what you say here, too. But the question of the nature of authority is still a delicate one. Authority of any kind can easily be abused, and trust manipulated. Sincere believers are capable of appalling things. But that said, I do accept that the testomony of sages and prophets may be trustworthy and sources of knowledge whereas these are all mostly rejected holus bolus in secular culture.
Years ago, I learned something from a book by Swami Vivekananda (who spoke at the World Parliament of Religions in 1893 and then toured the USA, one of the first Eastern spiritual teachers in the US.) He spoke of the 'six limbs of yoga' - raja, bhakti, jñ?na, karma, mantra, and hatha. Each of these were adapted to a particular kind of mentality or disposition. jñ?na is something like 'gnosis' - you can even see the etymological relationship between the two terms (as they come from the same indo-european root). Jñ?na it is the 'yoga of discriminating wisdom' which enables the 'sadhaka' (aspirant) to 'discern the truth' (brahman).
'Bhakti' on the other hand, is devotional religion - like for instance the Hare Krishna movement but also evident in popular Christianity (i.e. the Mary cult) and in Pure Land Buddhism.
So these are like different levels of understanding within Hindu spiritual philosophies, adapted to different audiences and types of person.
Whereas, in Western culture, a kind of 'devotional' and populist attitude of 'bhakti' became predominant at the expense of the others. This is what is behind the emphasis in Christianity on 'right belief' (orthodoxy) at the expense of philosophical analysis. And that in turn is why we have this tremendous polarisation between belief and unbelief in Western culture; you're given the choice to either sign up, and believe what you're told, or reject belief altogether. I suppose when put in such peremptory terms it sounds rather a sweeping statement, but I have done quite a lot of reading on it, and I'm sure that this is one of the dynamics in Western culture.
I have a completely different epistemology than others here likely do.
I am operating from an entirely different framework.
I doubt you are going to accept my starting premises, I doubt I will accept yours. Our fundamental assumptions I doubt are the same.
The person here thus far are more interested in "winning" than discussion.
For me, it is very simple. I believe what I believe. Others believe the same, others don't believe the same. I am interested in discussion sure but I cannot make anyone believe things. If there's a specific question people have, people can ask it.
For me, it is very simple. I believe what I believe. Others believe the same, others don't believe the same.
Which is exactly why you ought not to be wasting time here. And I'm not saying that to flame you or troll you, but because your attitude makes 'reasoned debate' pointless.
Furthermore, the whole concept that a theist has to be able to provide some sort of "proof" that other people can see is absurd.
I've never seen Alaska. Alaska exists whether I've seen it or not.
The non-theists don't know why the theists believe. You don't know what the person has experienced to make them believe. I've read Bertrand Russell, Dawkins, Sagan, etc. I've studied the atheist side and I know it pretty well.
Dawkins is pretty shallow philosophically. Same for Sagan.
Russell is above them but I still think his arguments are weak. If anyone wants to discuss arguments, let them discuss them.
We are not disembodied minds. We are people and we have experiences. Allah guides whom He wills.
Epistemology from an Islamic perspective is totally different from most Western epistemology and Western-minded people will likely attack it because the epistemologies are alien to each other. My thinking won't necessarily fit into someone else's preconceived framework (frequently based on the presuppositions of the Enlightenment).
I wrote a blog post discussing this further https://entranceofcave.blogspot.com/2018/07/where-is-your-proof.html
I express what I believe, I believe what I believe. You believe differently. If you have an argument you'd like to discuss, let's discuss it.
Atheists tend to rely a whole lot on snark and this demonstrates that they are not operating from the vantage point of some sort of philosophical mountain top. Otherwise, they wouldn't need the gimmick of snark.
All sightSeptember 22, 2018 at 21:05#2142610 likes
Christianity is based in grace though, not in deeds, not analysis, not even necessarily practice. It works for even the worst human beings. It's so easy, and effective. You can get as much as you can handle, as much as you're willing. You don't have to master yoga, spend 20 years meditating under the bodi tree. It's freely given, unmerited.
It's by far the easiest one. It seems so simple, repent, and accept Jesus, and there is no longer any need for the same sacrifices, mastery of practices as before. There is something about most other practices, and that is that the insights they gained through it, and the practices themselves differ greatly. They are not identical, and I wouldn't say that they don't work, but that doesn't make them equivalent. Most require ascetic dedication, but you could always just ask, and maybe you'll receive.
There is something about the arcane, philosophical, methodological mastery that renders other methods elitist. The ancient heroes, the masters, the unsurpassable, they speak to a special few. They tend to even recognize this, that for the layperson what is required is too involving, and thus the real high level discernment is only available to the dedicated ascetic. You have to be a special type of person to gain enlightenment, to be born into it, almost. To be a genius. Exceptional human being. Only the few can be freed.
Paul thought that education was good, and even helpful, but not necessary. I'm interested in ideas, in philosophy, but Christianity is indeed, through grace. Believe it, repent, be saved. Everyone, even the worst. Unmerited, nothing to discuss.
Similarly, one cannot get the results of yoga without mastery, or meditation without mastery, or virtue without mastery, and there is nothing to discuss, with respect to the necessity of that mastery. Plenty to discuss, but discussion will never deliver the results.
I also think you are misusing the term, "liberal". The people that are commonly called "liberals" in America are actually authoritarian socialists, not liberals at all. Libertarians are the only true liberals.
Also, just so you understand- I am against liberalism. I am not talking about The Democratic Party. I mean liberals.
I don't believe in liberalism. I am well aware of this line of thought that the liberals are wrong because they have strayed from liberalism. However, I'm against 19th century liberalism and previous liberalism too. I am not a liberal. Not remotely.
In fairness, though, I think it is the "modern" liberals I was referring to. But even the old-school liberals... I don't have anything to do with that either. I'm not for either of the two.
The essential or primary purpose is to provide a system of meaning that can bind a community in common values and purpose, like a kind of glue that holds a tribe together.
— praxis
Surely this is a big factor. An essential purpose of religion? Ok, agreed.
But the primary purpose of religion is ultimately personal.
Social or personal doesn’t speak to purpose, and in any case, pretty much anything could be construed as ultimately personal, so I’m not sure what you’re trying to say here. Perhaps you mean something along the lines that salvation, which is experienced personally, is the purpose of religion. This cannot be the essential or primary purpose simply because salvation is unnecessary, or rather, salvation could mean being saved from a life of meaninglessness or anxious feelings of separateness.
There is no such thing as a personal religion. The enlightenment endowed us the freedom to seek out and develop our own spiritual experiences, insights, and philosophies.
The non-theists don't know why the theists believe. You don't know what the person has experienced to make them believe. I've read Bertrand Russell, Dawkins, Sagan, etc. I've studied the atheist side and I know it pretty well.
I used to be a theist. Now I'm an atheist. I know what theists believe because I used to believe. Knowing what I know now, it would be absurd for me to go back to believing it. Think about as trying to go back and believe in the Tooth Fairy - which has the same amount and type of evidence as the existence of any god.
We are not disembodied minds. We are people and we have experiences. Allah guides whom He wills
Then we believe what we believe based on his will and therefore are not responsible for own actions or beliefs. We believe what we believe because he wills it. You have no independence and are not in control of your own actions.
Epistemology from an Islamic perspective is totally different from most Western epistemology and Western-minded people will likely attack it because the epistemologies are alien to each other. My thinking won't necessarily fit into someone else's preconceived framework (frequently based on the presuppositions of the Enlightenment).
No. You haven't even made any argument that is any different from any other religious belief or the result of a delusion.
Then we believe what we believe based on his will and therefore are not responsible for own actions or beliefs. We believe what we believe because he wills it. You have no independence and are not in control of your own actions.
It is more complex than that. Allah chooses who He guides and Allah is Just.
Michael OssipoffSeptember 23, 2018 at 00:57#2143540 likes
I used to be a theist. Now I'm an atheist. I know what theists believe because I used to believe.
.
No, you don’t.
.
You know what some Theists believe.
.
You know what you used to believe, and what your acquaintances and co-worshippers, you pastor, and your Bible said.
.
Knowing what I know now, it would be absurd for me to go back to believing it.
.
Depending on what you used to believe, that may very well be true.
.
Think about as trying to go back and believe in the Tooth Fairy - which has the same amount and type of evidence as the existence of any god.
.
…that you believed in :D
.
Alright, if the Tooth-Fairy “has the same evidence and existence as” the God that you used to believe in, then speak for yourself when you talk about Theists.
.
As I’ve said many times, the aggressive Atheist’s God, his One True God that he fervently and loudly believes in disbelieving in, is always the God of the Fundamentalist Biblical-Literalists.
.
In that sense, it isn’t an exaggeration to say that the aggressive Atheist is a Fundamentalist Biblical-Literalist.
.
Michael Ossipoff
Harry HinduSeptember 23, 2018 at 05:04#2144060 likes
No, you don’t.
.
You know what some Theists believe.
.
You know what you used to believe, and what your acquaintances and co-worshippers, you pastor, and your Bible said.
After over 20 years of being a theist and then the next 26 years of being an atheist that interacted with theists, I have yet to meet one theist that didn't make the same kind of arguments and make the same mistakes in logic. You and Ram are making the same claims. They are no different than any other theist's claims.
Alright, if the Tooth-Fairy “has the same evidence and existence as” the God that you used to believe in, then speak for yourself when you talk about Theists.
.
As I’ve said many times, the aggressive Atheist’s God, his One True God that he fervently and loudly believes in disbelieving in, is always the God of the Fundamentalist Biblical-Literalists.
.
In that sense, it isn’t an exaggeration to say that the aggressive Atheist is a Fundamentalist Biblical-Literalist.
So then you must be an Aggressive Atheist against the Greek and Norse gods, or the Hindu gods, or Egyptian gods, and Muslim gods, even Tooth Fairies and unicorns, elves, hobbits, dragons, demons, angels, etc., because you make claims of disbelief in such things, no? Strange that you seem to be an "Aggressive Atheist" yourself when it comes to all these other things. We both agree that those things do not exist. I am just declaring my disbelief in one more thing than you do - your particular god that you claim exists while rejecting all the others that have been claimed to exist. Why the particular preference for the god of the Jews? What does Ram say about the existence of the god of the Jews?
It is not fundamental to be open-minded to reasonable and logical solutions. You and Ram have yet to provide any.
Harry HinduSeptember 23, 2018 at 05:11#2144070 likes
It is more complex than that. Allah chooses who He guides and Allah is Just.
Uh huh. If it is so complex, and Allah's intentions are beyond our understanding, how is it that you have come to understand? Are you not making similar claims that one with delusions of grandeur would make?
Just replace "Allah" with the name of some other god and you have what every theist claims - that their god is just and omniscient. Again, what is so different from other theists claim? What reason would I have to choose Allah over the god of the Jews, or the Hindus?
Social or personal doesn’t speak to purpose, and in any case, pretty much anything could be construed as ultimately personal, so I’m not sure what you’re trying to say here.
A personal purpose can be any methodology which helps heal the illusion of division which is fundamental to the human experience.
So for example, Christianity has lasted 2,000 years because the experience of love which it suggests works in helping people dilute an experience of reality as being divided between "me" and "everything else", an experience which generates fear and suffering. The typical person is not overly concerned with abstractions like enhancing social unity, but is instead engaging in religion to address their own personal situation.
Michael OssipoffSeptember 23, 2018 at 16:23#2145140 likes
[i]”No, you don’t.
.
“You know what some Theists believe.
.
“You know what you used to believe, and what your acquaintances and co-worshippers, you pastor, and your Bible said.” — Michael Ossipoff[/i]
.
After over 20 years of being a theist and then the next 26 years of being an atheist that interacted with theists, I have yet to meet one theist that didn't make the same kind of arguments and make the same mistakes in logic.
.
If you want to make a claim about mistakes in logic, you’d need to be more specific.
.
You and Ram are making the same claims. They are no different than any other theist's claims.
.
For one thing, different Theists (the ones who make claims) make different claims. For another thing, I don’t make claims, assertions or arguments in the Theism vs Atheism issue, because I don’t regard it as that kind of a subject (…though I’ve expressed my own impressions—not assertions). I merely comment on some funny things about Atheist beliefs.
.
You’re still a Fundamentalist Literalist, Harry. You’ve traded one dogmatic Fundamentalist Literalist, denomination or belief for another.
.
[i]”Alright, if the Tooth-Fairy “has the same evidence and existence as” the God that you used to believe in, then speak for yourself when you talk about Theists.
.
“As I’ve said many times, the aggressive Atheist’s God, his One True God that he fervently and loudly believes in disbelieving in, is always the God of the Fundamentalist Biblical-Literalists.
.
“In that sense, it isn’t an exaggeration to say that the aggressive Atheist is a Fundamentalist Biblical-Literalist.” — Michael Ossipoff[/i]
.
So then you must be an Aggressive Atheist against the Greek and Norse gods, or the Hindu gods, or Egyptian gods, and Muslim gods, even Tooth Fairies and unicorns, elves, hobbits, dragons, demons, angels, etc., because you make claims of disbelief in such things, no? Strange that you seem to be an "Aggressive Atheist" yourself when it comes to all these other things. We both agree that those things do not exist. I am just declaring my disbelief in one more thing than you do
…rather more than one :D
.
Your use of the word “one”, when it’s pointed out to you, should help you to understand your fallacy of your sweeping blanket criticism of all of the various meanings when God is spoken of. …your dogmatic belief that they’re all one.
.
Criticisms about belief should refer to one or more beliefs well-specified by the speaker. Otherwise such claims are meaningless.
.
(As I said, I usually avoid using the word “God” (except when answering people who use it, including Fundamentalists like you), because it has an anthropomorphic connotation.)
.
- your particular god that you claim exists…
.
Wrong. I didn’t make that claim, because, as I said, I don’t regard that matter as an issue for claims, assertions, arguments, debates or proof. In various other threads, I’ve expressed impressions.
.
But I accept your assurance that you were making claims when you were a Theist, just as you now are. …claims about the same doctrinaire, dogmatic Biblical Literalism that you formerly believed in, and now loudly disbelieve in.
.
Thank you for clarifying that the God that you believed in when you were a Theist, and now express disbelief in, is, to you, like the Greek and Norse gods, or the Hindu gods, or Egyptian gods, and Muslim gods, even Tooth Fairies and unicorns, elves, hobbits, dragons, demons, angels, etc.
.
Your beliefs, when you were a Theist, may very well have been like that. I take your word for it that they were.
.
…while rejecting all the others that have been claimed to exist.
.
I don’t “reject” them in the spirit in which you do. They aren’t as important to me as they are to you. But I must admit I just don’t know of a reason to believe in them.
.
And you likewise don’t know of any reason to believe anything that could be called Theism. No one should say that you should believe what you don’t know of a reason to believe.
.
But when you blanket-criticize widely-varied beliefs unspecified by you, then you can expect some people to remind you that you don’t know what you mean.
.
Why the particular preference for the god of the Jews?
.
It’s been said that Aristotle spoke of what you’d call God. Was that, too, the God of the Jews?
.
Theism isn’t specifically about the God of the Jews.
.
I don’t subscribe to a denomination.
.
It is not fundamental to be open-minded to reasonable and logical solutions. You and Ram have yet to provide any.
.
You aren’t being very clear with us about what kind of a reasonable and logical solution you have. What is your reasonable and logical solution?
.
Michael Ossipoff
Harry HinduSeptember 23, 2018 at 17:24#2145230 likes
You aren’t being very clear with us about what kind of a reasonable and logical solution you have. What is your reasonable and logical solution?
Simple. Claims that are made without any evidence (like the claims of the existence of some god (like the god of the Jews)) are placed in the heap with all the other claims with no evidence (like the claims that some other god exists (like the god of the Muslims). They both carry the same amount of evidence - none. Which one should I believe in? Or should it be some other god? Please help me determine which claim with no evidence I should go with. Why would I choose one over some other? Isn't it the existence of evidence that drives us one way or the other?
If you can't answer that, then maybe we should just go with what we do have evidence for - that we exist and the universe exists. Why would we need to inject a god - something for which we have no evidence - as a solution for the the cause of our existence? Why could it not simply be that the universe just exists with us being a part of it? That is what theists claim about their god - that it just exists and has always existed.
Also, we have a problem in defining "god", no? I mean "god" could really be aliens that created this pocket universe with us in it, but does that really qualify them as "gods"? Aren't they just aliens with advanced technology? What is a "god"?
Christianity has lasted 2,000 years because the experience of love which it suggests works in helping people dilute an experience of reality as being divided between "me" and "everything else", an experience which generates fear and suffering
Do you have a doctrinal reference for this ‘suggestion’? Maybe it will help to make some sense of this.
The typical person is not overly concerned with abstractions like enhancing social unity, but is instead engaging in religion to address their own personal situation.
Or it’s just something they were brought up believing.
Of course folks aren’t always consciously aware of what drives them.
Reply to All sight The point is, this is a philosophy forum, and philosophy is what is being discussed. I am not at all opposed to the Christian faith, but it seems to me that if that is your belief, then there ought to be something better to do than debating it online.
All sightSeptember 24, 2018 at 04:04#2146910 likes
Reply to Wayfarer I don't know what to say? It certainly doesn't follow that if one believed it, they ought to therefore go and discuss it in a conceptual, historical, philosophical way, but it certainly doesn't follow that you shouldn't either. Clearly the church fathers did discuss it, and study it, but not everyone does or has to. Why would you suggest that?
I'm not convinced that religion has a single purpose. (Or a single definition, for that matter.)
The 'primal' sort of religion seems to be about inducing whatever cosmic powers might exist to bestow favors like good fortune, abundant harvests, healthy children or victory in battle. To achieve that end, people would perform sacrifices, utter prayers and perform ceremonies before undertaking activities.
Later religion seemed to place more emphasis on rescuing people from death. Heavens became more pronounced. Ethical concerns were highlighted, since entry into whatever heaven they imagined typically required meeting some standard and passing some sort of judgement.
And this gradually expanded into other more esoteric sorts of salvation, such as the Buddhist salvation from 'dukkha'.
There often seems to be a metaphysical aspect to religion, a feeling that it facilitates access to transcendent realities that exceed the conditions of earthly life.
Don’t need religion for this purpose. If fact, religious beliefs and practices may get in the way of fulfilling this purpose.
Agreed. My point is only that many people have used religion for this purpose. Religion is probably the largest longest most organized system to address these needs. But I do agree it's not a requirement. I also agree that a key problem for religion is that it typically tries to use thought (beliefs etc) to solve the problem, when in fact thought is the source of the problem. It's a process which can be like an alcoholic trying to cure his disease with a case of scotch.
You asked about this...
Jake:Christianity has lasted 2,000 years because the experience of love which it suggests works in helping people dilute an experience of reality as being divided between "me" and "everything else", an experience which generates fear and suffering
First, we can observe in our own lives that we experience reality as being divided between "me" and "everything else". "Me" is very very small, and "everything else" is very very big. This is a perspective which naturally generates fear, which in turn generates inner and outer conflict and all kinds of related problems.
Jesus suggested "dying to be reborn", sometimes called love, a process of surrendering the "me" to something or somebody else. To the degree the "me" melts away in a particular situation, so does the perceived division, and thus the fear, and thus the inner conflict, and thus the outer conflict. The user dies to division and fear, and is reborn in to peace.
Of course no human being has perfected this process, so it's an ongoing day to day struggle to accept psychological death (the surrender of "me") as the price of peace. Jesus sometimes yelled at people, priests sometimes rape children, we are all immersed in "sin" as the Catholics might put it.
I'm speculating now, but the Christian concept of "original sin" may be referring to the source of this experience of division (and thus all the other problems), thought itself. Or at least that is my own preferred interpretation, I don't speak for Christians or anybody else here.
Thought operates by dividing a single unified reality in to conceptual parts. So for instance, we have words like "mind" and "body" even though mind and body are really one thing. It's this built-in process of conceptual division which creates the concepts "me" and "everything else" which all other problems arise from.
So for instance, the idea of "getting back to God" could be interpreted as an attempt to heal the perceived division between "me" and "everything else". I would agree with you (if I understand you) that the God concept is not a necessary ingredient, but only a personalization of reality that some people find helpful.
For the atheist, "getting back to reality" can work just as well, but like with religion, it should ideally be primarily an emotional experience and not just an intellectual abstraction. Atheist meditators can reach for these experiences beyond the illusion of division without any reference to anything religious.
Sorry for all the words, hopefully something in there addresses your question.
I am responding to what you say here which is about ‘salvation by faith’. That is what I am saying is not amenable to debate or discussion, whereas the Church fathers and scholastic philosophers were also philosophers. I read an interesting book a while back which contains an account of the correspondence between Erasmus and Luther. Erasmus was very much the humanist whereas Luthers’ dogmatism verges on the fundamentalist. Erasmus is known as one of the founders of Renaissance humanism, whereas Luther [and Calvin] loom large in evangelical Christianity. And that is what I left behind when I declined confirmation. Had I not done so, I very much doubt I would be posting here.
I would even add that traditionally "philosophy" is not mere idle talk, but meant a way of life, which is precisely why religion is one of the center stage subjects, and the idle musings on technical subjects that one in no sense practices is what is not philosophical.
Completely agree. That is why I like Pierre Hadot’s work.
Reply to Jake:up: I see things in much the same way, but it’s much more difficult than it can be made to sound in that kind of analysis.
Pattern-chaserSeptember 24, 2018 at 14:14#2147540 likes
The essential or primary purpose is to provide a system of meaning that can bind a community in common values and purpose, like a kind of glue that holds a tribe together.
The "purpose" of religion is to provide a context for consideration of the other, beyond the self, and an inter-subjective understanding of our place in the world.
I think it’s an early attempt at building a metaphysical model of the universe
These are good answers. Much more constructive than the usual knee-jerk stuff. :up: And much closer to the mark, IMO. :smile: Hail Eris! :joke:
All sightSeptember 24, 2018 at 14:28#2147570 likes
Reply to Wayfarer "Completely agree. That is why I like Pierre Hadot’s work."
Ah. Do you, like Hadot, think (as Socrates did) that philosophy is discussed in person, face to face. Is spoken, and is distorted and ineffective in written form such as this?
Just skimming over his wiki page, I am not familiar with him myself.
Pattern-chaserSeptember 24, 2018 at 14:31#2147580 likes
[Religion]'s real value is as a philosophy, and it ought to be treated as such
Yes, that's a fair observation. :up: Religion seeks to explain certain things; that's philosophy. But it offers no evidence, in the sense that a scientist would mean it, and this puts a lot of philosophers off. Many humans, including philosophers, have problems confronting vague and ill-defined problems and issues, even though our real, everyday, world is full of nothing but. :wink: We need ways of thinking about vague things, IMO. It's not acceptable to just dismiss that which we can't deal with. :chin: [Also IMO :smile: ]
...it ought to be treated as such, and compared to other philosophies as though on a level playing field, not mindlessly worshipped or placed on a pedestal
Compared to similar philosophies, perhaps. To compare religion with (say) Objectivism seems unlikely to lead to any useful conclusions. While comparing it to the Eastern 'religions' - which resemble philosophy more to Western eyes than other religions do - might prove fruitful? Then there are moral/ethical matters, which religions regularly speak of. Comparison here might also prove useful.
I think the "mindlessly" is unhelpful. People who don't believe tend to say things like this, genuinely unaware of the number of unjustified beliefs they themselves hold. We all do. If one believes in a particular religion, one respects its teachings. From the outside, we could reasonably describe this is being "placed on a pedestal", but showing respect is what we all do toward things we, er, respect.
If you do not care to treat religion with respect, that's your business. But ad hominem attacks on those who disagree with you is hardly structured thought, never mind philosophy.... :chin:
Reply to All sightthis is the better entry. I like him because I think philosophy is, properly, 'philo~sophia' - love-wisdom, as a way of living. Key paragraph:
For Hadot...the means for the philosophical student to achieve the “complete reversal of our usual ways of looking at things” epitomized by the Sage were a series of spiritual exercises. These exercises encompassed all of those practices still associated with philosophical teaching and study: reading, listening, dialogue, inquiry, and research. However, they also included practices deliberately aimed at addressing the student’s larger way of life, and demanding daily or continuous repetition: practices of attention (prosoche), meditations (meletai), memorizations of dogmata, self-mastery (enkrateia), the therapy of the passions, the remembrance of good things, the accomplishment of duties, and the cultivation of indifference towards indifferent things (PWL 84).
Transpose the terminology to Sanskrit instead of Greek, and you could be describing the discipline of Vedanta or Buddhism. It has a religious side but only in a sense - Socrates was, after all, sentenced for for encouraging atheism. [Have to go, back later.]
All sightSeptember 24, 2018 at 15:13#2147650 likes
Reply to Wayfarer Socrates denied that he was an atheist, as that didn't make any sense, as he was acting on what he heard that the Oracle of Delphi said about him, and to the complete inverse, thought himself to be on a divine mission. He just thought that there was nothing wrong with questioning everything, including that.
I definitely agree that philosophy was originally a way of life, and involved practices, and not what it is now taken to be academically. I really don't find academic philosophy to be very interesting, but then, as has been mentioned before, it is almost never brought up or discussed here in any case, so I'm definitely not alone. I too prefer the more traditional approach.
Though, I'm a common man, and think that one needs to work with their hands, move their bodies around. Craftsmen, artists, they're the religiously inclined, though being half an idler, I like philosophy too.
All sightSeptember 24, 2018 at 15:36#2147670 likes
Just to say, some good lyrics on the subject: "Go ahead as you waste your days with thinking
When you fall, everyone stands
Another day, and you've had your fill of sinking
With the life held in your
Hands are shaking cold
These hands are meant to hold
Speak to me
When all you got to keep is strong
Move along, move along like I know you do
And even when your hope is gone
Move along, move along just to make it through
Move along
Move along
So a day when you've lost yourself completely
Could be a night when your life ends
Such a heart that will lead you to deceiving
All the pain held in your
Hands are shaking cold
Your hands are mine to hold
Speak to me
When all you got to keep is strong
Move along, move along like I know you do
And even when your hope is gone
Move along, move along just to make it through
Move along
(Go on, go on, go on, go on)
When everything is wrong, we move along
(Go on, go on, go on, go on)
When everything is wrong, we move along
Along, along, along, along
When all you got to keep is strong
Move along, move along like I know you do
And even when your hope is gone
Move along, move along just to make it through
When all you got to keep is strong
Move along, move along like I know you do
And even when your hope is gone
Move along, move along just to make it through
When all you got to keep is strong
Move along, move along like I know you do (Know you do)
And even when your hope is gone
Move along, move along just to make it through
Right back what is wrong
We move along
(Go on, go on, go on, go on)
Right back what is wrong
We move along
(Go on, go on, go on, go on)
Right back what is wrong
We move along
(Go on, go on, go on, go on)
Right back what is wrong
We move along" - all american rejects
Or there is also that song that they sing in game of thrones, "hands of gold are always cold"?
Is this wisdom? And if it is, it itself may not be philosophy, but I think that it is precisely the kind of thing that a philosopher ought to love.
All sightSeptember 24, 2018 at 15:43#2147680 likes
Music at work is also hilarious, by tragically hip: "Everything is bleak
It's the middle of the night
You're all alone and
The dummies might be right
You feel like a jerk
My music at work
My music at work"
Michael OssipoffSeptember 24, 2018 at 17:18#2147730 likes
The answer to most of Harry’s post:
.
I refer Harry to my post that he’s “replying to”. He shouldn’t need for it to be repeated to him. He’s just continuing to repeat what I’ve already answered.
.
He’s claiming that there’s no evidence for any of the wide variety of diverse beliefs of people who use the word “God”. He’d need to specify a particular belief, in order to speak of whether or not there’s evidence for it.
.
The first definition listed in Merriam-Webster, for “evidence” is “outward sign”. One thing for Harry to understand is that evidence isn’t necessarily proof.
.
We all get that Harry himself doesn’t know of any evidence or reason to believe anything that can be called Theism. No one’s criticizing him for that. But Harry has the astounding conceit to believe that he knows all the beliefs of all Theists, and the reason or motivation for that variety of beliefs, and that that none of the diverse beliefs of any Theists are supported by evidence.
.
Aside from that, Harry doesn’t understand that the topic here is Reality itself. In such matters, different, separate from, and outside the specifically-self-circumscribed describable realm of physical science and describable metaphysics, the burden of proof is on anyone who claims that he can validly apply the rules that we’re familiar with in the describable realm of physical science and describable metaphysics outside of their specific domain, where the pseudoscientists known as Science-Worshippers want to apply to it.
.
So, in matters outside the describable realm of physics and describable metaphysics, the matter of the justification for faith (often, and probably best, defined as trust), aside from any evidence, Harry’s pseudoscientific approach just isn’t relevant.
.
There, the “scientific method” becomes the pseudoscientific method.
.
In other threads, I’ve amply discussed my own impressions, beliefs, and reasons for them (the “outward signs” that fit Merriam-Webster’s definition of evidence). No, I’m not going to repeat it all here for Harry.
.
When I discussed those reasons, I wasn’t arguing or asserting about the Theism vs Atheism issue. I was merely telling of some reasons, without claiming that Harry should agree about them, or that Atheists should change their beliefs.
.
Additionally, the Scholastics have discussed justification for faith, aside from evidence. …regarding a matter not within the purview of the scientific method and logic. Those “arguments” (I call them “discussions”) are intriguing. There are of course more elaborate, more modern versions, but also other, similarly-intriguing, but simpler and more modest discussions. Does Harry have a sweeping demonstration that all of those are wrong?
.
No doubt there are other Theists similar to me, and maybe or probably, a wide variety of them different from me, but also completely different from what Harry understands from his own dogmatic Theism.
.
I don’t directly argue the Theism vs Atheism issue. I indirectly discuss it when I discuss the matter of what Atheists are trying to say, and the matter of their typical dogmatic belief in their own religion of Science-Worship and Materialism.
.
Most aggressive Atheists firmly, unshakably and dogmatically believe in Materialism. From the definitions, in Merriam-Webster and Houghton-Mifflin, of “Materialism” and “Religion”, Materialism is a religion.
.
But whether or not Harry agrees with those dictionaries, the fact remains that Materialism claims an unsupportable, unverifiable, unfalsifiable brute-fact in the physical world and in metaphysics…where there’s no need for a brute-fact, and where a brute-fact is regarded as discrediting. Harry needs to understand that, if he believes in Materialism, he’s very much a believer in something without support.
.
Please help me determine which claim with no evidence I should go with.
.
Sure, I’d be glad to help you: There’s no reason why you should believe anything that you don’t know of any reason to believe.
.
But shed some of your conceit. You aren’t qualified to authoritatively blanket-rule on justification for all (unspecified by you) beliefs of all Theists.
.
If you’d wanted to find out more about their beliefs, then you’d need to have approached them a lot more politely. No one’s obligated to talk to someone conceited, rude and aggressive. No one’s obligated to participate in an argument. Would it be surprising if Theists aren’t interested in conversation with the likes of you?
.
If you want an argument about Theism vs Atheism, then I declare you the winner of your argument, by default.
.
Why could it not simply be that the universe just exists with us being a part of it?
.
…Materialism’s brute-fact that you believe in. …you who don’t think that you’re a believer.
.
That is what theists claim about their god - that it just exists and has always existed.
.
Even in metaphysics there uncontroversially are timeless things. We’ve discussed them in other threads, though they’re off-topic here. Timelessness isn’t unheard of, even in describable metaphysics.
.
As for “uncaused”, the difference is that Materialism’s brute-fact is in the physical world and describable metaphysics, where the familiar rules of logic and science apply, and where a brute-fact is quite unnecessary and usually disapproved-of.
.
Also, we have a problem in defining "god", no?
.
Yes.
.
You have a problem specifying what you’re talking about.
.
What is a "god"?
.
If you don’t know what you mean by it, then maybe you aren’t in a position to rule, or decide for others, about it.
.
Michael Ossipoff
Michael OssipoffSeptember 24, 2018 at 17:28#2147740 likes
Yes, Theists shouldn't waste time debating Atheists.
As I said, I don't directly debate the matter. I've just been questioning what Atheists mean or are trying to say, and their own uncritical belief in Materialism's brute-fact.
Michael Ossipoff
Rank AmateurSeptember 24, 2018 at 18:13#2147770 likes
If you do not care to treat religion with respect, that's your business. But ad hominem attacks on those who disagree with you is hardly structured thought, never mind philosophy.... :chin:
that covers about 99% of the reason i enter into discussions such as these. I have no issue with atheism as a belief. I have always acknowledged that there are reasonable arguments in its favor.
My only issues are, do not say as a matter of fact that God is not. And do not directly or indirectly with the oft used " fairy tale" "spaghetti monster" "Santa Clause" type language say that theism is unreasonable.
The Hitchens- esk smugness and sarcasm of the pseudo intellectual atheist is trying.
I also agree that a key problem for religion is that it typically tries to use thought (beliefs etc) to solve the problem, when in fact thought is the source of the problem. It's a process which can be like an alcoholic trying to cure his disease with a case of scotch.
Good metaphor.
I disagree that "thought" or dualism is the problem, however. I believe the problem may center around particular thoughts, or rather concepts, that arise in our cultural conditioning, particularly those involving our self-concept, our personal narratives, etc. This may be an unavoidable evolutionary artifact, I don't know, but I do know that it can be dealt with without religion.
First, we can observe in our own lives that we experience reality as being divided between "me" and "everything else". "Me" is very very small, and "everything else" is very very big. This is a perspective which naturally generates fear, which in turn generates inner and outer conflict and all kinds of related problems.
In all practicality, I think this works the other way around in our minds. "Me" is very big or significant, and "everything else" is small or of less significance, and it's this selfishness that makes us fail to act cooperatively.
In a perfect world, religion functions to reduce our selfishness and increase our cooperation for the mutual benefit of all. I believe it does function this way to some extent, in some circumstances, and that's great, but, as you suggest, it's ultimately like trying to cure alcoholism with a case of scotch. Our personal narrative merges with the overarching religious narrative, reify our sense of self and escalate our self-concept to cosmic proportions. When this happens, there is no horror that can't be rationalized.
Incidentally, I watched an interview with a Trump supporter the other day on YouTube who was explaining why she still supports him (despite all the shenanigans, I suppose). She said it was because he has conservative and evangelical values. Trump claims to have such values, and for this woman the mere claim is good enough. He doesn't need to express these values. How could just saying so be good enough? Because she doesn't actually have these values herself. It's only really about being part of the tribe.
Jesus suggested "dying to be reborn", sometimes called love, a process of surrendering the "me" to something or somebody else. To the degree the "me" melts away in a particular situation, so does the perceived division, and thus the fear, and thus the inner conflict, and thus the outer conflict. The user dies to division and fear, and is reborn in to peace.
Love necessarily has an object, so love cannot transcend the duality of self and other. If you love everything, which would include war, suffering, disease, evil, escargo, and all things bad, then love has no meaning.
Harry HinduSeptember 24, 2018 at 19:16#2147880 likes
First, we can observe in our own lives that we experience reality as being divided between "me" and "everything else". "Me" is very very small, and "everything else" is very very big. This is a perspective which naturally generates fear, which in turn generates inner and outer conflict and all kinds of related problems.
Speak for yourself.
It seems to me, thanks to the knowledge science is providing, that everything is interconnected. I don't experience a fear of everything else. I experience curiosity. If it is fear that you experience, then no wonder you turn to a delusion - to alleviate that fear.
He’s claiming that there’s no evidence for any of the wide variety of diverse beliefs of people who use the word “God”. He’d need to specify a particular belief, in order to speak of whether or not there’s evidence for it.
All of them. Now the ball is in your court to show evidence for just one.
The first definition listed in Merriam-Webster, for “evidence” is “outward sign”. One thing for Harry to understand is that evidence isn’t necessarily proof.
Exactly. It is a conglomeration of evidence that provides proof, and there isn't one bit of evidence for the existence of god that can't be explained better without invoking the word, "god". Again, the ball is in your court.
If you’d wanted to find out more about their beliefs, then you’d need to have approached them a lot more politely. No one’s obligated to talk to someone conceited, rude and aggressive. No one’s obligated to participate in an argument. Would it be surprising if Theists aren’t interested in conversation with the likes of you?
It is they that approach me, or create posts on this forum. I merely question their unfounded claims. I don't go around announcing my atheism. There is nothing to announce.
You have a problem specifying what you’re talking about.
If you don’t know what you mean by it, then maybe you aren’t in a position to rule, or decide for others, about it.
The burden to define god is on the person making the claim.
The rest of your post seems to attack the scientific method and to make a claim that there are things outside of "physical" science. Yeah, I've heard it all before. It comes down to answering this question:
Does god have a causal influence on reality? If it does, then why would science not be able to explain it and find evidence of it?
Everything is natural. There is no such thing as the supernatural. Everything is interconnected and therefore should be explainable by one consistent method - science. Religion is inconsistent to the point where people of different religions try to kill each other for believing in a different god. Science knows no contextual limitations. True science is open to new evidence for anything, all you have to do is provide it.
Rank AmateurSeptember 24, 2018 at 19:31#2147910 likes
Reply to Harry Hindu Do you think science will be able to definitely answer how the universe was created one day ??
First, we can observe in our own lives that we experience reality as being divided between "me" and "everything else". "Me" is very very small, and "everything else" is very very big. This is a perspective which naturally generates fear, which in turn generates inner and outer conflict and all kinds of related problems.
— Jake
Speak for yourself.
It seems to me, thanks to the knowledge science is providing, that everything is interconnected. I don't experience a fear of everything else. I experience curiosity. If it is fear that you experience, then no wonder you turn to a delusion - to alleviate that fear.
I think that Jake may be generally referring to existential anxiety. I don’t see how it could be natural to fear largeness or otherness.
Existential anxiety could be a natural consequence of how our minds evolved and, in a sense, is caused by ‘thought’. Our ability to form concepts of self and death, combined with our ability simulate and anticipate future events may naturally lead to it.
Harry HinduSeptember 25, 2018 at 11:31#2149920 likes
I think that Jake may be generally referring to existential anxiety. I don’t see how it could be natural to fear largeness or otherness.
Existential anxiety could be a natural consequence of how our minds evolved and, in a sense, is caused by ‘thought’. Our ability to form concepts of self and death, combined with our ability simulate and anticipate future events may naturally lead to it.
It seems that your first and second paragraph contradict each other. If existential anxiety is a natural consequence of how our minds evolved, then existential anxiety is natural. Any attempt to separate human beings from nature would be a mistake. Every animal has it's own unique set of physical and psychological adaptations to its environment. Humans are no different.
Humans beings are the products of natural processes and therefore everything we do and create is natural. Separating the creations of man from other natural products (artificial vs natural) stems from the notion that humans are separate from nature. We aren't. Other animals create things and manipulate their environment and they are still considered natural. Stars create new elements in their cores and spew them out into the universe when they explode and they are considered natural. It is only humans that are somehow different. Religion has played a big role in how we see ourselves in relation to the rest of nature and has influenced this idea of separateness and it could be the implications of religion that is the cause of Jake's anxiety.
As for the existential anxiety that we experience from time to time, there are many non-religious methods for alleviating it. Take a look at these two links:
They both seem to indicate that many people attempt to coverup the causes of their anxiety with delusional thoughts. They don't want to face those questions, so they come up with an answer that allows them to keep going on with their lives. I think that they should be embraced and discussed, as it helps to provide real solutions, not delusional ones.
It seems to me that alleviating this anxiety is just a matter of changing your thoughts. It is also a matter of changing your view about meaning. It shouldn't be scary to discover that meaning is within your own power to create and not in the hands of someone else. It is empowering. The influence the world has on our decisions is just evidence that we are part of the world and we also have an influence on it. We do have the power to make change. Questioning prior decisions is a waste of time and should only be thought about to make better decisions in the future. Making mistakes isn't bad. It is how we learn and grow as individuals. We also shouldn't be looking at ourselves as victims of procreation, rather we should see ourselves as lucky to be here to experience the roller coaster of life.
Harry HinduSeptember 25, 2018 at 11:32#2149930 likes
What is sad is that belief has been mutated into some sort of dialectic. "Everything that can be believed is an image of truth." William Blake
If you have beliefs that would perhaps, after some sort of assimilation and a lack of accommodation on the part of the focal point of such an assimilation, be shown to be commensurable with those of an organized religion... You are attacked. You are told that you are stupid, a moron, illogical, etc etc, subterfuge this, circumlocution that, and blah blah blah.
If you have the ability to TRULY believe something... Which... Even those who blow themselves up I daresay don't have it... Then you must be firmly based... For the only things that can be truly believed are those which are proximal, sure, certain... FEW!
Rank AmateurSeptember 25, 2018 at 11:52#2150040 likes
I disagree that "thought" or dualism is the problem, however. I believe the problem may center around particular thoughts, or rather concepts, that arise in our cultural conditioning, particularly those involving our self-concept, our personal narratives, etc.
If this were true, if these problems arise from bad thought content, then over thousands of years some group of people would have found the correct thought content and would be living in peace. Other people would see their experience of peace, desire it, and adopt the correct thought content. Over time everyone would jump onboard and we'd be living in utopia.
What we see instead is that the problems which afflict human beings are universal, arising in every time and place. This suggests a source of such problems which is also universal. And so we should ask, what do all human beings have in common? It's on this reasoning that I suggest that the source of these problems is the nature of thought itself, the way it works.
If true, this has huge implications for philosophy. If the source of our problems is thought itself then no collection of thoughts, however clever, are likely to solve the problem. And this is what we in fact see in the real world. The best minds among us all over the world have been searching for the correct thought content for thousands of years, and here we still are, killing each other with abandon, enduring inner personal conflict etc.
"Me" is very big or significant, and "everything else" is small or of less significance, and it's this selfishness that makes us fail to act cooperatively.
We try to make "me" very big by a variety of means out of the realistic understanding that it is actually very very small in comparison to the environment it inhabits.
In a perfect world, religion functions to reduce our selfishness and increase our cooperation for the mutual benefit of all.
Imho, religion is ultimately not about social cohesion, but personal "salvation", by which I mean achieving psychological reunion with nature, reality, god, whatever one wishes to call it.
Imho, such reunion is not technically possible because we have never been divided in the first place. So it's more accurate to say that religion (and other techniques) are about easing the illusion that we are alone, isolated, vulnerable, divided from reality.
Imho, that illusion is generated by the divisive nature of thought. Thought is a medium that operates by a process of conceptual division, and so everywhere we look we see division. The illusion is profound because not only are we observing reality through thought, we ourselves are made of thought psychologically. Thus, we are fully immersed in a medium whose primary function is division.
This might be compared to being born wearing pink tinted sunglasses. Everywhere we go all our lives all of reality will appear to be pink colored. But the pink isn't a property of what we are observing, but rather of the tool being used to make the observation.
Belief based religions might be compared to an attempt to buy bigger pink tinted sunglasses with a stronger prescription. :-)
I see things in much the same way, but it’s much more difficult than it can be made to sound in that kind of analysis.
It's difficult if we want it to be difficult, as we often do.
Most expert commentators on these subjects want it to be difficult and complicated, because otherwise they can't play the role of expert. :smile:
And to be fair, the primary problem most of us face is that we spend way too much time thinking about ourselves, a problem we attempt to solve by thinking about ourselves some more. And then some expert comes along and says, "Our situation is very complicated, we need to think about it in great detail!" and we can't wait to jump onboard because the expert is offering us just what we most want, a reason to think, think, think, more, more, more about me, me, me.
I have this fantasy image in my mind of a real priest (not one of the fakey ones). We take our problems to the priest and he listens patiently. When we're done talking we await his response to all our problems. The priest says, "That's very interesting, thank you so much for sharing your situation". Then he looks at his watch and says, "Oh my, it's time for lunch already, let's go work in the soup kitchen together."
This is why I believe Christianity went through a reformation.
It didn't go far enough, and it can't go far enough without ceasing to be Christianity. Fiction spun as fact is at the core of Christianity, and that's a line that myself and many others are not willing to cross.
Russell is above them but I still think his arguments are weak.
Speaking of weak arguments...
LD SaundersSeptember 25, 2018 at 16:23#2150530 likes
I only have two problems with religion --- 1. when a religious belief is used to deny a scientific theory, and 2. when religion is used as a basis for abusing people who fall outside the religion, or even a hierarchy of abuse within the religious group. Sometimes religion is used to fight the good fight, like it was used during the civil rights movement in the USA. Other times, it is used to oppress others and persecute those with new ideas, especially in science, in which case religion is a bad thing.
Based on the historical evidence I don't see all religions falling under some universal banner of either good or bad, and evaluate each religious belief separately. Like, if someone believes that God created white people to rule over colored people, I would consider such beliefs immoral and absurd. But, if someone believes that giving to the poor is a good thing, then I would support such a belief.
As I’ve said many times, the aggressive Atheist’s God, his One True God that he fervently and loudly believes in disbelieving in, is always the God of the Fundamentalist Biblical-Literalists.
As opposed to what? If you're going to be like that, then how about you put forward [i]your[/I] understanding of God, and I'll tell you what's wrong with it, thereby showing that there are atheists - aggressive atheists even (who here would deny my aggression?) - that aren't tied down to this single straw man notion of God which you've flung in their direction.
If you actually stepped back from your usual schtick of characterising atheists in the worst possible light, and you took a moment to stop and listen to what atheists, such as I, are actually saying, then you might just find that you're mistaken. For example, I've explicitly acknowledged in another discussion on this forum that the concept of God is one of the most variable concepts out there, which is quite the opposite of what you suggest. And that, I think, may have even occurred in the baited 'Magical Sky Daddy' discussion. But then, if this God-as-metaphor contains nothing inherently theistic, then the question you must answer is why should the atheist disbelieve it in the first place? (E.g. God is love, or God is the world). They would be atheists no less. And that would just be empty wordplay.
I think that Jake may be generally referring to existential anxiety. I don’t see how it could be natural to fear largeness or otherness.
Existential anxiety could be a natural consequence of how our minds evolved and, in a sense, is caused by ‘thought’. Our ability to form concepts of self and death, combined with our ability to simulate and anticipate future events may naturally lead to it.
— praxis
It seems that your first and second paragraph contradict each other. If existential anxiety is a natural consequence of how our minds evolved, then existential anxiety is natural. Any attempt to separate human beings from nature would be a mistake. Every animal has it's own unique set of physical and psychological adaptations to its environment. Humans are no different.
I meant to say that I don't think it's natural to fear largeness or otherness, as Jake appeared to claim. If this were true then we'd have a natural fear of looking up at the sky, for example. We don't. Many look up at the sky with a yearning to explore the unknown.
As for the existential anxiety that we experience from time to time, there are many non-religious methods for alleviating it. Take a look at these two links:
when a religious belief is used to deny a scientific theory
“The truth of our faith becomes a matter of ridicule among the infidels if any Catholic, not gifted with the necessary scientific learning, presents as dogma what scientific scrutiny shows to be false.”
? St. Thomas Aquinas
LD SaundersSeptember 25, 2018 at 16:33#2150570 likes
But then the Catholics went off on a crusade against scientists that claimed the Earth revolved around the Sun and was not the immovable center of the universe, as well as against evolution.
Rank AmateurSeptember 25, 2018 at 16:38#2150590 likes
But then the Catholics went off on a crusade against scientists that claimed the Earth revolved around the Sun and was not the immovable center of the universe, as well as against evolution
true - add it to a very long list of stuff they got wrong. Which goes alongside another long list of stuff they got right.
LD SaundersSeptember 25, 2018 at 16:42#2150600 likes
I'm not sure what the Catholics got right. The Inquisition? Burning of witches and stealing their property? Being against birth-control?
Religion is only good if a community finds it meaningful.
That doesn't necessarily make it good. Is the religion of the cave prisoners, the primary meaning of which stems from shadows on the cave wall, good? Good compared to what? That's the question. Good compared to the same situation, but without shadows on the wall? That's understandable. Good compared to breaking free and seeing the world as it is? Much less understandable. Who needs cave shadows when there's a whole world full of natural wonder to explore? Suddenly the significance of cave shadows and the lives of the prisoners seems extraordinarily impoverished.
A daughter of Hope and Fear, explaining to Ignorance the nature of the Unknowable.
"What is your religion my son?" inquired the Archbishop of Rheims.
"Pardon, monseigneur," replied Rochebriant; "I am ashamed of it."
"Then why do you not become an atheist?"
"Impossible! I should be ashamed of atheism."
"In that case, monsieur, you should join the Protestants."
Elsewhere written:
Theology (noun)
systematic universal reduction to magic;
fossilized remains of superstition acquired by non-teleological evolution
You aren’t being very clear with us about what kind of a reasonable and logical solution you have. What is your reasonable and logical solution?
And you aren't being very clear with us about your notion of God. You've taken the liberty of assigning a God to "Aggressive Atheists", without saying anything at all, in contrast, about your own notion of God. Perhaps we should assign you one. Reading between the lines, presumably your notion of God is your One of Many True Gods that you timidly and quietly believe in believing in, and is always the God of the Moderate Biblical Non-Literalists. Tell us more. Why should an atheist invest significant time and effort into what, I suspect, amounts to speculation or wordplay? Do you think that you've got a notion which doesn't amount to speculation or wordplay? If so, I'd be interested to hear it.
I disagree that "thought" or dualism is the problem, however. I believe the problem may center around particular thoughts, or rather concepts, that arise in our cultural conditioning, particularly those involving our self-concept, our personal narratives, etc.
— praxis
If this were true, if these problems arise from bad thought content, then over thousands of years some group of people would have found the correct thought content and would be living in peace. Other people would see their experience of peace, desire it, and adopt the correct thought content. Over time everyone would jump onboard and we'd be living in utopia.
We're not rational beings, Jake. This is not how the world works. We're not necessarily geared to 'live in peace', we're geared to pass on our genes.
For example, I eat pretty well, say fit and maintain an ideal weight, and consequently I'm in good health. Do overweight, unfit and unhealthy people look at me, desire health, and adopt a similar lifestyle to mine? That would be the rational thing to do, but unfortunately we have many ingrained and learned habits to contend with.
If true, this has huge implications for philosophy. If the source of our problems is thought itself then no collection of thoughts, however clever, are likely to solve the problem. And this is what we in fact see in the real world. The best minds among us all over the world have been searching for the correct thought content for thousands of years, and here we still are, killing each other with abandon, enduring inner personal conflict etc.
This is incorrect, measurable progress has been achieved in most areas.
Also, it's not clear what you mean when you refer to "thought." Much of what goes on in the human mind is subconscious.
Imho, religion is ultimately not about social cohesion, but personal "salvation", by which I mean achieving psychological reunion with nature, reality, god, whatever one wishes to call it.
Imho, such reunion is not technically possible because we have never been divided in the first place. So it's more accurate to say that religion (and other techniques) are about easing the illusion that we are alone, isolated, vulnerable, divided from reality.
Being a social species it makes sense that we might have an instinctual aversion to being alone, isolated, vulnerable, and divided from reality. For the vast majority of our evolutionary history, expulsion from the tribe meant almost certain death. It's also hard to pass on genes in isolation.
It feels meaningful to be part of something larger than yourself, particularly with people who share your goals and values. Right? What better expression of this natural desire than a religion?
Imho, that illusion is generated by the divisive nature of thought. Thought is a medium that operates by a process of conceptual division, and so everywhere we look we see division. The illusion is profound because not only are we observing reality through thought, we ourselves are made of thought psychologically. Thus, we are fully immersed in a medium whose primary function is division.
All mammals use this 'process of conceptual division' yet not all mammals appear to suffer the consequences you seem to be suggesting. How do you explain that?
But is it accurate? Yes, sadly, for a large segment of the population, I think it is. The willful ignorance and weak rationalisations stand out like a sore thumb to those with the ability to see them for what they are, and some prime examples here in this discussion have been the comparisons that have been made between God and wind or Alaska. These kinds of arguments are typical of the mindlessness I spoke of. They simply cannot have thought them through well, otherwise they'd be aware of the blinding faults and would avoid them like the plague. I've heard and seen these arguments before, most disgustingly in religious propaganda aimed at converting children and simpletons. Occasionally it comes through my door.
People who don't believe tend to say things like this, genuinely unaware of the number of unjustified beliefs they themselves hold.
If I put forward an argument as piss poor as the examples that I've pointed to, then I would [I]want[/I] it to be subjected to scrutiny. I would much rather that then a mild mannered pussyfooting around it, leaving me none the wiser or with a lingering attachment. Maybe think some more about what would be the greater disservice here.
If one believes in a particular religion, one respects its teachings. From the outside, we could reasonably describe this [as] being "placed on a pedestal", but showing respect is what we all do toward things we, er, respect.
Yes, I understand that. Of course I do. But, notably, that says nothing about whether the respect is deserved. If it requires a mindless or uncritical devotion; a kind of blocking out or sheepish submission; or leaps of logic and faith; then it automatically goes down in my estimation.
If you do not care to treat religion with respect, that's your business. But ad hominem attacks on those who disagree with you is hardly structured thought, never mind philosophy....
What [I]ad hominem[/I] attacks? The real [I]ad hominem[/I] is your tone policing. Why must my talk of mindlessness be censored? If mindlessness is what it is, then mindlessness is what I'll call it. What else would you call what I've described? Flawless reasoning? A painstaking commitment to impartial rational enquiry? I don't think so. It looks very much to me like the work of a novice with an agenda. It looks like there's certainly an element of mindless commitment behind the scenes.
Michael OssipoffSeptember 25, 2018 at 18:07#2150740 likes
Harry Hindu quoted me:
”He’s claiming that there’s no evidence for any of the wide variety of diverse beliefs of people who use the word “God”. He’d need to specify a particular belief, in order to speak of whether or not there’s evidence for it.” — Michael Ossipoff
...and replied:
.
All of them. Now the ball is in your court to show evidence for just one.
.
No, You’re the one making a sweeping blanket-claim. If you claim that there’s no evidence for any of the diverse variety of beliefs that you’re referring to, then you need to establish that for every one of those many diverse beliefs.
.
If I assert that there’s evidence for one of them, then it would be necessary for me to demonstrate that there’s evidence for one of them. But I’m not making an assertion or a claim.
.
But you are.
.
”The first definition listed in Merriam-Webster, for “evidence” is “outward sign”. One thing for Harry to understand is that evidence isn’t necessarily proof.” — Michael Ossipoff
.
Exactly. It is a conglomeration of evidence that provides proof
.
No, it doesn’t necessarily. In physics there can be a big accumulation of evidence that gives a high probability that a theory is correct.
.
, and there isn't one bit of evidence for the existence of god that can't be explained better without invoking the word, "god".
.
Presumably Harry is saying that there’s no such evidence that can’t be explained by physical science. If that’s what Harry is trying to say, then he’s again repeating his unsupported sweeping blanket claim.
.
As for the word “God”, I’ve been saying that I don’t usually use that word unless I’m replying to someone who has used it, including Fundamentalist Literalists like Harry.
.
”If you’d wanted to find out more about their beliefs, then you’d need to have approached them a lot more politely. No one’s obligated to talk to someone conceited, rude and aggressive. No one’s obligated to participate in an argument. Would it be surprising if Theists aren’t interested in conversation with the likes of you?” — Michael Ossipoff
It is they that approach me, or create posts on this forum. I merely question their unfounded claims.
Wrong. Not all Theists have approached Harry.
.
But maybe Harry’s changing his story, and now he’s only referring to the beliefs of those relatively few Theists who have approached Harry. That would be an improvement, for which I would commend Harry. …for backing away from his previous claim that the beliefs of all Theists are without evidence.
.
So now, it’s only necessary for Harry to show that beliefs of those Theists in that much more limited set are unfounded. He’d now only have to specify who has approached him, and specifically what their particular beliefs or claims are, and demonstrating that each is without evidence. (…and of course that would include actually demonstrating that each of their beliefs and claims are without evidence.)
.
But that would definitely be more do-able.
.
I don't go around announcing my atheism.
.
:D
.
”You have a problem specifying what you’re talking about.
.
“If you don’t know what you mean by it, then maybe you aren’t in a position to rule, or decide for others, about it.” — Michael Ossipoff[/i]
.
The burden to define god is on the person making the claim.
.
Then refer to a particular claimer who hasn’t given a definition (…and no, I’m not making a claim or assertion, other than about your vagueness). Or refer to a specific definition, and show that the claim based on that definition is without evidence.
.
In other words, don’t be so sloppy-vague.
.
The rest of your post seems to attack the scientific method
.
No, I say that the scientific method is valid and useful in the physical sciences. What I criticized is the pseudoscientific method, wherein pseudoscientists who don’t know what science is try to apply science outside its self-defined, self-circumscribed, range of applicability.
.
…and to make a claim that there are things outside of "physical" science.
.
Even in describable metaphysics, there are plenty of things that are outside of “physical” science. (Why are we putting “physical” in quotes. Is physical science not really physical?)
.
Yeah, I've heard it all before. It comes down to answering this question:
Does god have a causal influence on reality? If it does, then why would science not be able to explain it and find evidence of it?
.
Science seeks to describe and explain the relations among the things and events in this physical universe. That’s all.
.
Harry is expressing a belief that if there’s God, then God must be an element of the physical world.
.
But is Harry sure that Theists are saying that? Or is that just Harry’s religion.
.
Everything is natural.
.
Of course, if you define “natural” so broadly that it includes pavement and industrial air-pollution.
.
I doubt that any Theist would say that God isn’t natural.
.
There is no such thing as the supernatural.
.
Of course. “The supernatural” refers to the contraventions of physical law that occur in fiction, such as movies about vampires, werewolves, witches, and murderous mummies. It’s something that’s only in movies and other fiction.
.
Or, if Harry means something else by “The Supernatural”, then whether there is or isn’t “The Supernatural” would depend on specifically what Harry means by it.
.
But let’s look at what dictionaries say about what the supernatural is. The dictionaries I consulted didn’t give “Supernatural” as a noun. So we can defined “The Supernatural” as “That which is supernatural”.
.
Merriam-Webster’s first definition of “supernatural”:
.
“Of or relating to an order of existence beyond the visible observable universe.”
.
Presuming that all that is physical is potentially “observable” in some manner, then, by the above definition something supernatural would have to be nonphysical.
.
Abstract implications about hypothetical propositions are nonphysical, but they can be “observed” when they’re described, in print for example. So they aren’t the Supernatural.
.
No finite dictionary can non-circularly define any of its words.
.
Therefore, the meanings of words (other than the ones whose meaning can be physically expressed in some sort of physical directly-demonstrative sign-language) are part of The Supernatural.
.
So there indeed is The Supernatural.
.
I haven’t yet mentioned Houghton-Mifflin’s definition:
.
“Of or relating to experience outside the natural world.”
.
In other words, The Supernatural is experience of what isn’t natural.
.
So, of course the next thing would be to look up how Houghton-Mifflin defines natural. Its first definition of “natural” is:
.
“Present in or produced by nature”
.
So now we should find out how Houghton-Mifflin defines “nature”.
.
Houghton-Mifflin’s first definition of “nature” is:
.
“The material world and its phenomena”.
.
I’ve mentioned things that aren’t part of the material world and its phenomena. …such as abstract implications about hypothetical propositions. …which “there are”, in the sense that we can speak of and refer to them.
.
So, by Houghton-Mifflin too, there is The Supernatural.
.
Verdict:
.
By Merrian-Webster, and by Houghton-Mifflin, there is The Supernatural.
.
Sorry if you don’t like that.
.
But, aside from that:
.
I don’t believe that there are contraventions of physical law. If a supposed physical law is violated, then it isn’t a physical law, and it needs to be rewritten or discarded…as has happened in the history of physics. A contravened “physical law” isn’t a physical law.
.
So, if The Supernatural is contravention of physical law, then yes, there’s no such thing as The Supernatural.
.
But I doubt that any Theists would say that God isn’t natural.
.
I’ll take a guess: Maybe by “natural”, Harry means “physical”. Are there things that aren’t physical? Of course. As I said above, there are such things in metaphysics. …such as abstract implications about hypothetical propositions about hypothetical things. And you needn’t quibble about whether “there are” such things. There are such things in the sense that we can speak of and refer to them.
.
Everything is interconnected
.
That’s a questionable statement. There are completely unrelated, separate, mutually-isolated, mutually-independent systems of inter-referring abstract implications.
.
and therefore should be explainable by one consistent method - science.
.
As I said, science seeks to describe and explain elements of the physical world in terms of eachother. Period. (Full-stop.)
.
Maybe Harry means that this physical universe is inter-connected and its internal relations are potentially explainable in terms of science. Sure, that’s a reasonable thing to say.
.
Religion is inconsistent to the point where people of different religions try to kill each other for believing in a different god.
.
Religious wars have a way of being wars with material motivation, cloaked in religious justification. (But I’m not claiming that that’s always the case.) But that’s a whole other topic for a different thread.
.
But sure, religions, and conceptions of God, differ so much that it’s ridiculous and astoundingly conceited for Harry to claim that none of those conceptions have evidence, unless he finds out each of them, and then demonstrates that each one of them is without evidence.
.
Science knows no contextual limitations.
.
Spoken like a true Science-Worshipper.
.
Harry’s speaking from his devout religious belief, and that’s why it’s not really possible to worthwhile-ly talk to him.
.
True science is open to new evidence for anything
:D …anything that’s physically-measurable or physically-observable.
.
Michael Ossipoff
Reply to Jake Religion is socialized ego dissociation, and/or socialized art.
Keep in mind though, that the prototype of man could have already passed, and civilization could indeed be a post-case scenario in which problems like severe depression, schizophrenia, autism, genetic abnormalities, cancer and many other modern afflictions represent the never again attainable closestness to what would be a Utopian society.
Personally I think this 'utopia' was before surplus and civilization.
LD SaundersSeptember 25, 2018 at 19:02#2150900 likes
Cancer is basically another way of saying people are dying from old age, which is a sign of improving conditions, not worsening ones. While there are sad cases of children getting cancer, what we typically see is cancer increasing with age. As we are now living longer, we are more and more likely to die from cancer. How this gets turned into a bad thing is unclear to me. Especially since our cancer treatments are also vastly improving.
Michael OssipoffSeptember 25, 2018 at 19:35#2151050 likes
”As I’ve said many times, the aggressive Atheist’s God, his One True God that he fervently and loudly believes in disbelieving in, is always the God of the Fundamentalist Biblical-Literalists. — Michael Ossipoff
.
As opposed to what?
.
As opposed to other Theisms.
.
If you're going to be like that, then how about you put forward your understanding of God, and I'll tell you what's wrong with it
.
As I’ve already explained, I’ve amply discussed my impressions, beliefs, and reasons for them, at other threads.
.
If I wanted to argue the Theism vs Atheism issue with you, I’d re-post all of that here for you. But I’ve many times clarified that I don’t argue Theism vs Atheism. To post those reasons to this thread would constitute argument, and I don’t do argument about this matter, because I don’t regard it as a topic for assertion, argument or proof. I’m not interested in proselytizing you.
.
…but nothing’s stopping you from finding those discussions of mine, in those other threads, and then showing us, in this thread, how you refute what I said there. …if you can refute an impression.
.
But if I were to challenge you to do so, that would be arguing, which I don’t do on this matter.
.
I’m at this thread merely to show that aggressive Atheists either don’t know, or aren’t being clear about, what they mean.
.
But, aside from any of that, suppose I re-posted all that here for you, and you refuted it. That would show that you’ve refuted not one, but two Theisms. That would be meaningless and worthless, unless you can demonstrate that there are only two Theisms.
.
Besides, as I’ve many times pointed out, I don’t usually use the word “God”, other than when replying to someone who has used it, including Fundamentalist Literalists like you.
.
, thereby showing that there are atheists - aggressive atheists even (who here would deny my aggression?) - that aren't tied down to this single straw man notion of God which you've flung in their direction.
.
It isn’t that I’ve flung it in your direction. It’s the One True God of the aggressive Atheists, which they fling every time they fling something.
.If you actually stepped back from your usual schtick of characterising atheists in the worst possible light
.
They don’t need my help to do that.
.
, and you took a moment to stop and listen to what atheists, such as I, are actually saying, then you might just find that you're mistaken. For example, I've explicitly acknowledged in another discussion on this forum that the concept of God is one of the most variable concepts out there, which is quite the opposite of what you suggest.
.
No, I suggest that you and other aggressive Atheists think that your characterization of Biblical-Literalism applies to all Theisms.
.
But then, if this God-as-metaphor…
.
I didn’t say “metaphor”. Yes, a lot of people, including some Atheists, use “God” as a metaphor. What I said was that I don’t usually use that word (except when replying to those who have used it), because it has an anthropomorphic implication.
.
…contains nothing inherently theistic…
.
I didn’t say that either. Strictly-speaking, it would be an obvious contradiction to say that mention of God isn’t Theistic, given the meaning of “Theism”. But the use, by many Theists, of allegorical or anthropomorphic terminology doesn’t change the fact that (…at least it’s my impression that…), behind that terminology, lie unexpressed impressions and beliefs that are in common with those of some other people who don’t use that terminology. ..justifying designation of those other people as “Theists” too
.
In other words, in terms of belief (…in spite of many of them expressing dogmatism that I don’t share, or allegorical anthropomorphic language that I don’t share), I have more in common with a Fundamentalist Biblical-Literalist Theist than with someone like you.
.
However, behaviorally, and in terms of manners, arrogance, conceit, and dogmatism, the Mormons on my porch have a lot more in common with you than with me.
.
, then the question you must answer is why should the atheist disbelieve it in the first place? (E.g. God is love, or God is the world). They would be atheists no less. And that would just be empty wordplay.
.
There’s no reason why Atheists should disbelieve the use of “God” as a metaphor. That metaphor is sometimes used by Atheists.
.
At one Science-&-Philosophy forum there was a phony self-designated “physicist” (who later changed into a “population-ecologist” when he was shown to have said something that a physicist wouldn’t say) who said that he believed in “Spinoza’s God”, which, according to him (I don’t know Spinoza) is synonymous with this physical Universe. That’s a good example as the use of God as a metaphor by an Atheist.
.
But yes, maybe some professed Atheists would agree with some non-Literalist Theisms. But I doubt it, because I don’t think any non-Literalist Theisms support Materialism or Science-Worship, a religion believed-in by most Atheists.
.
Michael Ossipoff
Religion is only good if a community finds it meaningful.
— praxis
That doesn't necessarily make it good. Is the religion of the cave prisoners, the primary meaning of which stems from shadows on the cave wall, good? Good compared to what? That's the question. Good compared to the same situation, but without shadows on the wall? That's understandable. Good compared to breaking free and seeing the world as it is? Much less understandable. Who needs cave shadows when there's a whole world full of natural wonder to explore? Suddenly the significance of cave shadows and the lives of the prisoners seems extraordinarily impoverished.
A believer might argue that meaninglessness is impoverished.
I would argue that meaning is all around us and we are free to discover and develop it as we see fit. We don't need to be spoon-fed by some authority figure an outdated prepackaged system.
Michael OssipoffSeptember 25, 2018 at 20:06#2151100 likes
”You aren’t being very clear with us about what kind of a reasonable and logical solution you have. What is your reasonable and logical solution?” — Michael Ossipoff
.
And you aren't being very clear to us about your notion of God. You've taken the liberty of assigning a God to "Aggressive Atheists", without saying anything at all, in contrast, about your own notion of God.
.
1. First, of course I’ve repeatedly said during this discussion that I don’t usually use the word “God”, other than when replying to someone who has used it, including Fundamentalist Biblical-Literalists like you.
.
2. As I’ve already mentioned at least twice in this thread, I’ve amply discussed my impressions, beliefs and reasons for them, at other threads at this forum website. Feel free to find them and refute them if you want to (…if it means anything to speak of refuting an impression). If I were to post all of that here, in this thread, it would amount to argument, and, as I’ve said, I don’t do argument or assertion on the Theism vs Atheism topic. Go for it if you want to, but I’d be arguing if I challenged you to—and, as I said, I don’t argue about Theism vs Atheism.
.
Tell us more. Why should an atheist invest significant time and effort into what, I suspect, amounts to speculation or wordplay?
.
Are you sure that I said that Atheists should invest time and effort into my impressions and beliefs?
.
Remember that if you refute my Theism, in addition to that of Fundamentalist Biblical-Literalism, then you’ll have refuted not one, but two, Theisms. Hardly more than a beginning, for your task of refuting every Theism.
.
Do you think that you've got a notion which doesn't amount to speculation or wordplay? If so, I'd be interested to hear it.
.
Feel free to find it in other threads if you want to “invest time and effort” on it.
.
Michael Ossipoff
LD SaundersSeptember 25, 2018 at 20:26#2151140 likes
It's disingenuous to say that it is only a religious position if someone claims "because God said so." That's hardly the case for numerous religions. In fact, not all religions even believe in a God. I suppose if you misrepresent religion, and paint it into a corner, falsely claiming that all religious assertions are of the form, "Because God, therefore X," you would have a "logical" point, but, empirically, it would be way off the mark and false.
Can any specific religious claims be rationally argued for without support from dogmatic premises? Karma, reincarnation, resurrection, personal God or impersonal deity, eternal punishment or temporary hell, one God or many gods? Can any of those be philosophically argued for without the support of dogmatic faith? I would say no. Therefore religion has no place in philosophy.
The philosophical dimension of religion is theology; a discipline distinct from philosophy. Philosophy of religion concerns itself with religious phenomena and their philosophical implications, with comparative religion and the general human significance of religious ideas and the philosophical significance of the fact that humans have religious ideas at all, so it is not theology.
As I’ve already explained, I’ve amply discussed my impressions, beliefs, and reasons for them, at other threads.
I'm not going to hunt around through your comments in other discussions. You should be capable of summarising your own views like you summarised (uncharitably) those of your opponents.
If I wanted to argue the Theism vs Atheism issue with you, I’d re-post all of that here for you. But I’ve many times clarified that I don’t argue Theism vs Atheism. To post those reasons to this thread would constitute argument, and I don’t do argument about this matter, because I don’t regard it as a topic for assertion, argument or proof. I’m not interested in proselytizing you.
If you [I]didn't[/I] want to delve further into the theism vs. atheism discussion, then you shouldn't have begun delving into it by ranting about a kind of atheism.
…but nothing’s stopping you from finding those discussions of mine, in those other threads, and then showing us, in this thread, how you refute what I said there. …if you can refute an impression.
Wrong. There [i]is[/I] something stopping me from doing so: [I]quid pro quo[/I]. As if I'm going to do all of the work for you!
I’m at this thread merely to show that aggressive Atheists either don’t know, or aren’t being clear about, what they mean.
And there it is. But you haven't succeeded in your goal. I'm clear that it can mean a variety of things, that it ultimately depends on the theist, and that, withstanding any clear meaning, we could, for argument's sake, talk about, say, this One True God of Fundamental Biblical-Literalists. And why not? Since you have spoken about this God more than any other conception, and you seem unwilling to go into any other conception, even when pressed.
But, aside from any of that, suppose I re-posted all that here for you, and you refuted it. That would show that you’ve refuted not one, but two Theisms. That would be meaningless and worthless, unless you can demonstrate that there are only two Theisms.
Well, for one thing, it would show that I can't be an aggressive atheist, since, according to you, aggressive atheists only have one God which they're concerned with refuting.
And what's this nonsense about refuting "only" two theisms? I don't have to refute [i]every single[/I] version of theism, you silly goose! I'm an atheist until I'm convinced of a different view, which I'm not, as of yet.
A piece of advice: maybe if you put more time and effort into actually understanding the different types and meanings of atheism, and asking atheists about their position, instead of speaking "at" atheists, imposing your characterisations and straw man onto them, telling them exactly what they believe or don't believe, what kind of atheist they are, what they need to refute, and so on, and so forth, then you would avoid running into this problem in future.
Besides, as I’ve many times pointed out, I don’t usually use the word “God”, other than when replying to someone who has used it, including Fundamentalist Literalists like you.
I'm not a fundamentalist or a literalist. I'm quite happy to get into a discussion of a different kind of theism, and I have attempted to go down that path once already. It is [I]you[/I] who is trying to force the path of fundamentalism and literalism. We wouldn't even be talking about it now if it weren't for you!
No, I suggest that you and other aggressive Atheists think that your characterization of Biblical-Literalism applies to all Theisms.
Haha! Yeah, except that that clearly contradicts what I've actually said. Gosh, you're really desperate to pigeon hole me, aren't you? It seems to be your [I]modus operandi[/I].
Step 1. Call opponent Aggressive Atheist Fundamentalist Literalist, Materialist Science-Worshipper, or Something Along those Lines.
Yes, a lot of people, including some Atheists, use “God” as a metaphor. What I said was that I don’t usually use that word (except when replying to those who have used it), because it has an anthropomorphic implication.
And that doesn't really say much either. Out of curiosity, what word [i]do[/I] you use, then? Supreme Being? The One? The Great Holy Non-Anthropomorphic Thingamajig?
Strictly-speaking, it would be an obvious contradiction to say that mention of God isn’t Theistic, given the meaning of “Theism”. But the use, by many Theists, of allegorical or anthropomorphic terminology doesn’t change the fact that (…at least it’s my impression that…), behind that terminology, lie unexpressed impressions and beliefs that are in common with those of some other people who don’t use that terminology. ..justifying designation of those other people as “Theists” too
There are two possibilities:
1. They're saying something trivial which amounts to wordplay. E.g. "God is the world". Atheists believe in the world. Therefore atheists believe in God? Therefore atheists are theists? Obviously that's a load of nonsense.
2. They're being sneaky. E.g. "God is the world". (But what I really mean is ________________, which is what distinguishes me from an atheist). Then say what you really mean!
In other words, in terms of belief (…in spite of many of them expressing dogmatism that I don’t share, or allegorical anthropomorphic language that I don’t share), I have more in common with a Fundamentalist Biblical-Literalist Theist than with someone like you.
However, behaviorally, and in terms of manners, arrogance, conceit, and dogmatism, the Mormons on my porch have a lot more in common with you than with me.
Yes, of course, I'm a dastardadly villain, and you're a white knight. Me bad, you good. You're smart, I'm dumb; You're big, I'm little; You're right, I'm wrong, and there's nothing I can do about it.
I see what you're doing. If only name calling was a substitute for argumentation, eh?
There’s no reason why Atheists should disbelieve the use of “God” as a metaphor. That metaphor is sometimes used by Atheists.
Then what's your problem? You were moaning about the only God that aggressive atheists disbelieve being a [i]literal[/I] God. Now you're saying there's no reason why atheists should disbelieve the use of “God” as a [i]metaphor[/I]. What other alternative is there, then?
At one Science-&-Philosophy forum there was a phony self-designated “physicist” (who later changed into a “population-ecologist” when he was shown to have said something that a physicist wouldn’t say) who said that he believed in “Spinoza’s God”, which, according to him (I don’t know Spinoza) is synonymous with this physical Universe. That’s a good example as the use of God as a metaphor by an Atheist.
Yeah, and I don't have a major problem with that, I just wouldn't call the physical universe "God", anymore than I'd call it "David Letterman", "Buddha" or "Flying Fish", because it seems silly, redundant and unclear. But sure, call the physical universe whatever you want.
But again, this gets back to: what's your problem, then?
But yes, maybe some professed Atheists would agree with some non-Literalist Theisms. But I doubt it, because I don’t think any non-Literalist Theisms support Materialism or Science-Worship, a religion believed-in by most Atheists.
Ha! That's funny. You really don't like to concede any ground, do you? You have to get a little jab in there. Sling a little mud.
Of course they would agree, with the qualification that it's just meaningless wordplay. If I call my toaster God, then that hardly makes me a theist for believing that my toaster exists! That's sophism, not philosophy. There's a big difference.
It's disingenuous to say that it is only a religious position if someone claims "because God said so." That's hardly the case for numerous religions. In fact, not all religions even believe in a God. I suppose if you misrepresent religion, and paint it into a corner, falsely claiming that all religious assertions are of the form, "Because God, therefore X," you would have a "logical" point, but, empirically, it would be way off the mark and false.
Is that supposed to be a reply to me? Because I didn't say that.
There's something unique to a general concept of religion which distinguishes it from philosophy, whether it's God, ritual, tradition, divinity, worship, faith, devotion, the supernatural, whatever.
Enlightenment rationalists, religions haven’t simply shrivelled and died, but are still hugely influential in culture and society. And that’s because they stand for something, they represent realities which can’t be depicted in any other terms.
— Wayfarer
What realities would that be?
To think of a few examples at random - the sacred feminine/motherhood/Mother Mary/Kwan Yin
The Hero's Journey, the hero with a thousand faces.
Suffering/sacrifice/loss
Redemption/salvation/transcendence.
In Jung's terms, these are themes that will surface in dreams, in art, literature and drama - arising from the unconscious or the archetypal domain. You see them in popular culture the same as in the Caves of Altimira.
___
The point I want to make is that in Western culture, due to the emphasis on, and conflicts over, right belief - a.k.a. 'orthodoxy' - the culture as a whole tends to firewall religion off.
Consider as an example the founding charter of The Royal Society, the first scientific society, founded 1660, which said at the very outset, to paraphrase, 'leave metaphysics alone'. This, mind you, was in the aftermath (or was it the midst?) of the 30 Years War, where bands of Catholic and Protestant militia were engaged in unholy slaughter. The turmoil of the reformation and counter-reformation. So the Enlightenment wanted to be quit of all that, and quite understandably so. And I say that modern culture is still living the shadow, often without much awareness of what has happened.
t's interesting pondering about Kant's position in his Religion within the Bounds of Bare Reason where he equates Christianity as the advent where a pure morality is made possible; but only by removing the dogma out of the equation you will find its kernel.
I'm very much a fan of neo-Kantianism and Kant's 'copernican revolution in philosophy'. But I think he lacked the essential dash of mystical insight to complement his brilliant rational analysis of knowledge. I agree with the statement that The Critique of Pure Reason is the key philosophical text of our age. But Kant did not have any hint of 'gnosis' about him, which I think Hegel did. (Now there's a massive can of worms.)
Can any of those be philosophically argued for without the support of dogmatic faith?
I think the key term is not dogma but revealed truth. All of the higher religions claim to represent or have originated with a revealed truth. And one point about a revealed truth is that you're not going to guess it or arrive at it by any empirical process or indeed by any other meanings. Alan Watts says in The Supreme Identity, that all the great metaphysical texts start without preamble, introduction or apology, with a statement of the Absolute; this, he says, goes against all the inclinations of our day, in that we want to proceed stepwise towards a conclusion.
But that is, I suggest, that religious philosophies are radical. They originate (or claim to) with an insight into the fact that nearly everyone, that the human condition, is one of delusion or ignorance. Whereas much of the aim of post-Enlightenment culture is to make the world a safe space for the ignorant. :-)
So in the case of Buddhism, the Buddha proclaimed his 'truth of the origin and end of suffering'. Only later did that become a dogma, which is simply the regular expression of particular philosophical tenets or ideas. In Western culture, I don't know if it's dogma that is so much the problem, but authoritarianism supported by dogma.
So, they have dogmatic faith in a revealed truth? Or...?
They might. Or they might not. A parish priest might know nothing else, but a Tantrik Sadhaka might cook a meal on pages of scripture.
What I'm getting at is that most people have a really stereotyped understanding of 'religion' based on the hellfire-and-brimstone Christianity that dominated early Europe. If that is religion, then they don't want a bar of it, and neither would I. But that is something very specific to the way it has been constructed in Western culture.
That a scripture or oral teaching is "revealed truth" is obviously a dogma, a matter of faith; something that cannot be philosophically argued for.
'Come Kalamas. Do not go upon what has been acquired by repeated hearing; nor upon tradition; nor upon rumor; nor upon what is in a scripture; nor upon surmise; nor upon an axiom; nor upon specious reasoning; nor upon a bias towards a notion that has been pondered over; nor upon another's seeming ability; nor upon the consideration, "The monk is our teacher." Kalamas, when you yourselves know: "These things are good; these things are not blamable; these things are praised by the wise; undertaken and observed, these things lead to benefit and happiness," enter on and abide in them.'
The Buddha, Kalama Sutta, in response to a question from the Kalama people on which religious teachers ought to be trusted.
(I should note, this passage is frequently referenced by Western Buddhists in support of a pretty free-wheeling interpretation of Buddhism. I don't think it is really that, but the emphasis on 'finding out for yourself' is indisputable.)
Rank AmateurSeptember 25, 2018 at 21:29#2151390 likes
Reply to S
Again - There is no basis to believe as a matter of fact that God is not. You can not say, as a matter of fact that unicorns do not exist on earth. Simply because no one has seen a unicorn does not make it a matter of fact that they do not exist. If somehow you have scientific proof equal to 2 + 2 = 4, or the world is round - that it is a matter of fact that God does not exist - you would be the first one in history to do so.
There are many reasoned arguments for theism - and many reasoned arguments against - they are all very well know - hopefully you do not need a list. Both positions are reasonable.
Religions need to be unified. They basically have the same ethical guidelines, the same fundamental metaphysics and operate within practically the same social and psychological parameters. So, why not?
1. First, of course I’ve repeatedly said during this discussion that I don’t usually use the word “God”, other than when replying to someone who has used it, including Fundamentalist Biblical-Literalists like you.
Trivial. Just imagine that when I use the word "God" it's whatever word you use instead, which you have yet to actually state. (I'm no psychic).
2. As I’ve already mentioned at least twice in this thread, I’ve amply discussed my impressions, beliefs and reasons for them, at other threads at this forum website.
If I were to post all of that here, in this thread, it would amount to argument, and, as I’ve said, I don’t do argument or assertion on the Theism vs Atheism topic. Go for it if you want to, but I’d be arguing if I challenged you to—and, as I said, I don’t argue about Theism vs Atheism.
Right, and I don't do housework. But I'm just going to keep on moaning about the dishes, the dirty clothes, the dusty surfaces, and so on. Go for it and do all of my housework if you want to, but, as I said, I don't do housework, I just expect you to put up with my moaning about it, and when you confront me about it and ask why I don't just shut up and get on with it, I'll just revert back to my complaining and denialism.
Remember that if you refute my Theism, in addition to that of Fundamentalist Biblical-Literalism, then you’ll have refuted not one, but two, Theisms. Hardly more than a beginning, for your task of refuting every Theism.
Ha! That's not my task. The burden is on the theist. First, I need to be presented with a version of theism. Then I'll examine it. And we can take it from there. I'm content with having never come across a version of theism, in all of my years, which isn't so problematic that it doesn't warrant acceptance. [I]That[/I] is my position.
I'm very much a fan of neo-Kantianism and Kant's 'copernican revolution in philosophy'. But I think he lacked the essential dash of mystical insight to complement his brilliant rational analysis of knowledge. I agree with the statement that The Critique of Pure Reason is the key philosophical text of our age. But Kant did not have any hint of 'gnosis' about him, which I think Hegel did. (Now there's a massive can of worms.)
I was mostly interested in lifting the fact that arguably the most influential philosopher of the enlightenment lifted Christianity right into the heart of its project. Nietzsche makes a scolding remark about this and the romantics in his later writings (I believe it is The Anti-Christ) and makes us aware that all the germans (philosophers) were bottom-and-up pietists.
*Edited my post about secular as I was a bit to generalising*
What I'm getting at is that most people have a really stereotyped understanding of 'religion' based on the hellfire-and-brimstone Christianity that dominated early Europe. If that is religion, then they don't want a bar of it, and neither would I. But that is something very specific to the way it has been constructed in Western culture.
Religions need to be unified. They basically have the same ethical guidelines, the same fundamental metaphysics and operate within practically the same social and psychological parameters. So, why not?
Wow, that's such an interesting idea. It brings to mind identities and communities such as theosophy, yoga, spiritism and spiritualism (also buddhism, taoism and others based on ethics/morals instead of focus on a deity) whose ways are respectable in these modern times and seem to lack antagonism to both the scientific and metaphysical paradigms. They accept all religions; are based on unity (togetherness); encourage personal choice in all matters; and are not focused on expressing the strength of one's convictions, instead, they focus on how better an individual can serve the community after having recognized their personal value first.
I agree that in a fully developed argument one would need to define "God". Here and in other places it is convenient shorthand for a supernatural being.
Since all arguments are based on natural reasoning and evidence there can never be any rational or empirical demonstration of the existence of supernatural being. It is the archetypal object of faith.
They might. Or they might not. A parish priest might know nothing else, but a Tantrik Sadhaka might cook a meal on pages of scripture.
What I'm getting at is that most people have a really stereotyped understanding of 'religion' based on the hellfire-and-brimstone Christianity that dominated early Europe. If that is religion, then they don't want a bar of it, and neither would I. But that is something very specific to the way it has been constructed in Western culture.
Okay. You say they might or might not. So, getting back to the question, if they don't have dogmatic faith in a revealed truth, then how else might they get to a revealed truth? Divine intervention? A miracle? Puh-lease...
Thanks. It makes you wonder, why would anyone discuss those tired old dinosaurs which seem to only bring misery to discussions about religions. There's so much positivity everywhere else, why not direct towards that? What good is all this senseless conflict, I wonder? The Buddha taught, "violence begets violence." Is it not the same here? The more we attack each other the further we go from a resolution. As a philosopher would ask, "where is the sense or integrity in that?"
Again - There is no basis to believe as a matter of fact that God is not. You can not say, as a matter of fact that unicorns do not exist on earth. Simply because no one has seen a unicorn does not make it a matter of fact that they do not exist. If somehow you have scientific proof equal to 2 + 2 = 4, or the world is round - that it is a matter of fact that God does not exist - you would be the first one in history to do so.
There are many reasoned arguments for theism - and many reasoned arguments against - they are all very well know - hopefully you do not need a list. Both positions are reasonable.
Ah, so you confuse fact and justification. Thanks for making that clear. There's a fact of the matter, even in the absence of justification for or against.
So, getting back to the question, if they don't have dogmatic faith in a revealed truth, then how else might they get to a revealed truth? Divine intervention? A miracle? Puh-lease...
Sadhana:
[quote=Wikipedia]Buddhist s?dhana (Japan)
Buddhist s?dhana (Japan)
Shugend? s?dhana (Japan)
Shugend? s?dhana (Japan)
S?dhana (Sanskrit ????; Tibetan: ??????????, THL: druptap; Chinese: ??), literally "a means of accomplishing something",[1] is a generic term coming from the yogic tradition and it refers to any spiritual exercise that is aimed at progressing the s?dhaka towards the very ultimate expression of his or her life in this reality.[2] It includes a variety of disciplines in Hindu,[3] Buddhist,[4] Jain[5] and Sikh traditions that are followed in order to achieve various spiritual or ritual objectives.[/quote]
You see, because Protestant Christianity has made 'religion' a matter of believing the dogma, on pain of eternal hell, then we have collectively walked away. But I am arguing, this is because of deficiencies in the way 'religion' has been understood and practiced from the outset in Western culture. Something fundamental was lost in the tumult which sorrounded the formation of the Christian Churches.
The cosmological argument is, if sound, at most an argument for a 'prime mover'. If we are to have a comprehensive, unified vision of what the prime mover could be, it must encompass and integrate science and all the rest of human experience. Any single "revealed truth' is inadequate; but the range of revealed truths, as showing the ambit of natural metaphysical reasoning is anthropologically relevant to the question.
I’m not following. You mention things (“realities”) that you claim can’t be depicted in non-religious terms. Indeed you mentioned the unconscious yourself. That’s not a domain restricted to religious belief.
But, what is 'religion'? There are actually two derivations: one is 'religio', 'attitude of awe and reverence towards the Gods'. But there's also another - 're-ligare', to tie or to bind, yoke or join. 'Religion' had originally many sources; most of what is remembered relates to the former category. But, I would argue, in the latter category, are the sources that flowed from the shamans, from ascetic practices, accessing particular modes of consciousness - the kinds of things that are preserved in Buddhism.
OK, you might say - that's not 'religion'. But if not - what is it? Where does it belong? Who teaches it? Where do you learn about it? 'Western culture' is stuck in this death role of 'enlightenment science' vs 'superstitious religion' which is where a lot of people seem to be.
I have no idea at all what that was suppose to mean. You asked for an argument - I gave you one. I think you are just getting semantic - but I am not sure. Are we in disagreement with what a fact is?
Yes, we seem to be in disagreement with what a fact is, because in a previous post, you were describing justification when you were supposed to be explaining why there's no fact of the matter, which suggests either that you're confusing fact with justification or you think that fact depends on justification. Both are mistaken.
Let me break down your comment for you to make it clearer:
"Basis to believe": justification.
"There is a God": fact (assumed for sake of argument).
"Unicorns do not exist on Earth": fact (assumed for sake of argument).
"No one has seen a unicorn": justification, arguable.
"If somehow you have scientific proof equal to 2 + 2 = 4, or the world is round - that it is a matter of fact that God does not exist - you would be the first one in history to do so": Misunderstanding - justification not needed for there [i]to be[/I] a fact of the matter, say, that God does not exist. Justification only required for [i]supporting claim[/I] that it is a fact that God does not exist.
I'll leave it at that, as hopefully that'll do. My dispute with you is that you're claiming that there's no fact of the matter. There is. But that's as far as the dispute goes for now, and I want you to understand that. I don't need to provide justification that it's a fact that God doesn't exist, because I'm only going as far as claiming, contrary to your claim, that there is a fact of the matter, one way or the other.
No, it's recognizing the need to include science, since it is the most reliable method of investigating the nature of the real. Science cannot reasonably be excluded; it would be a mistake.Scientism consists in excluding the merely human, the aspects of the manifest dimension of experience that the scientific method alone is not adequate to investigate; of course that is also a mistake.
Rank AmateurSeptember 25, 2018 at 22:28#2151840 likes
2 + 2 = 4 is a fact.
the world is round is a fact.
the cat is in fact on the chair
that which is confirmed to be consistent with an observed reality is a fact.
It is not a fact that unicorns to not exist, and no self respecting biologist would ever make such a claim.
Because no one has ever seen a unicorn, does not mean they, as a matter of fact, do not exist. It is possible that in some dark jungle somewhere there are a few unicorns. New species are found all the time - that no one new existed before.
It is, however a very reasonable belief that unicorns do not exist.
(I should note, this passage is frequently referenced by Western Buddhists in support of a pretty free-wheeling interpretation of Buddhism. I don't think it is really that, but the emphasis on 'finding out for yourself' is indisputable.)
If a belief is not supported by logical or empirical evidence, then it must (purportedly at least) be supported by intuition or personal experience. But then it is always your personal intuition and experience, or my personal intuition and experience!
Does your conservatism and penchant for dogma preclude you from "a pretty free-wheeling interpretation of Buddhism"? Or if that is not it, then what is your reason?
Of course you can, and will be (as we all are) governed by your intuition and what you believe your experience shows you when it comes to what to believe in those matters for which there cannot be logical demonstration or empirical evidence; but the point is that all that is merely subjective. What merely seems right to you, the mere fact that it seems right to you, can never be reason for someone else to accept it against their own intuitions and experience. That is why such matters do not belong to philosophical discussion; people just end up talking past one another.
that which is confirmed to be consistent with an observed reality is a fact.
Yes, but as a definition, that would be overcomplicated and would lead to problems. You'd need a simplified definition which avoids those problems. A fact is just what is the case. A state of affairs. It needn't be confirmed to be consistent with observed reality. Again, that's basically saying that for there to be a fact, it needs justification. No, it doesn't! There can be unknown, unconfirmed, unobserved, unjustified facts! And, as a definition, that would rule out that possibility, which would be a mistake. For example, let's say that there's a galaxy out there that we have yet to observe. That is possible, if not highly probable. And if it is so, then it'd be a fact that there's a galaxy out there, despite it not being confirmed to be consistent with observed reality.
It is not a fact that unicorns [d]o not exist, and no self respecting biologist would ever make such a claim.
Your mistake here is to fail to realise that you aren't justified in claiming that it's [i]not[/I] a fact that unicorns don't exist. It [i]could be[/I] a fact that unicorns don't exist, even if we can't yet justify that fact! How could you possibly know that it's [I]not[/I] a fact? Have you searched the entire universe for unicorns? You're making the same mistake you suspect of me. The biologist, to follow this reasoning to its logical conclusion, wouldn't say one way or the other whether it's a fact, and for the same reason.
Because no one has ever seen a unicorn, does not mean they, as a matter of fact, do not exist. It is possible that in some dark jungle somewhere there are a few unicorns. New species are found all the time - that no one new existed before.
I agree to some extent, as with the historic case of black swans, and then black swans were of course discovered. However, if we know enough about them and their habitats, and we have searched well enough, in all the right places, over a long enough period of time, then we can say that it's very unlikely that unicorns exist on Earth. And that likelihood can be so low that for all intents and purposes, unicorns don't exist. Absence of evidence, in some cases, [i]can[/I] be evidence of absence. If a unicorn would leave traces, which it almost certainly would, then it can be traced. No unicorn traces have been found. Possibility alone is insufficient. What if it were possible, yet 99.9% improbable? That's no good reason to believe that it's a serious prospect, and it's very good reason not to believe that you'll ever encounter a unicorn in your lifetime.
Your belief in God, like a belief in unicorns, is unscientific and requires a leap of faith.
It is, however a very reasonable belief that unicorns do not exist.
Then, for that same reason, it is a very reasonable belief that God does not exist.
And that also contradicts your earlier claim, because, if it is very reasonable to believe that unicorns do not exist, then it is very reasonable to believe that [i]it's a fact[/I] that unicorns do not exist.
If a belief is not supported by logical or empirical evidence, then it must (purportedly at least) be supported by intuition or personal experience. But then it is always your personal intuition and experience, or my personal intuition and experience!
But it's not - it's situated in a domain of discourse. Again - your only modes of interpretation are limited to positivist (empirical-mathematical), or personal and subjective - science, poetry, or an elusive feeling of the ineffable. If it doesn't fit into those categories, then you can't understand it.
But it's not - it's situated in a domain of discourse. Again - your only modes of interpretation are limited to positivist (empirical-mathematical), or personal and subjective - science, poetry, or an elusive feeling of the ineffable. If it doesn't fit into those categories, then you can't understand it.
"Can't understand it": how presumptuous you are! If someone disagrees with you it shows a failure of understanding. And yet you seem to be able to offer no cogent arguments to support your assertions; the hallmark of the fundamentalist!
Of course "domains of discourse" can be based on shared personal faiths; I haven't said that people cannot agree with one another about their personal intuitions and experiences. That's just what religions are. The point is that there is no way to logically or empirically demonstrate the soundness or even the coherency of their agreement; and thus it does not qualify as actually corroborable; and thus it is merely a matter of sentiment.
And of course, as usual, you haven't attempted to answer the questions that raise difficulties for your conservative, dogmatic standpoint; and nor do you want to openly admit that it is conservative and dogmatic it seems. All of this is fair enough, but it's not philosophy; it's religion...or politics...
If you could provide an actual argument as opposed to mere assertions it would be a start to the process of transcending 'talking past one another". But whenever I present arguments that refute, or at least purport to refute, your position, instead of countering them with argument you become offended, and say I am being rude, or insult me by claiming I don't understand.
The philosophical failure to engage is yours. If you're tired of trying, why not recognize that you either need to try harder or recognize that you are barking up the wrong tree, and just accept your religious beliefs for what they are: religious beliefs. (And as I always say, there's nothing whatsoever wrong with religious belief, but religious belief posing as philosophy is offensive).
Buddhist s?dhana (Japan)
Buddhist s?dhana (Japan)
Shugend? s?dhana (Japan)
Shugend? s?dhana (Japan)
S?dhana (Sanskrit ????; Tibetan: ??????????, THL: druptap; Chinese: ??), literally "a means of accomplishing something",[1] is a generic term coming from the yogic tradition and it refers to any spiritual exercise that is aimed at progressing the s?dhaka towards the very ultimate expression of his or her life in this reality.[2] It includes a variety of disciplines in Hindu,[3] Buddhist,[4] Jain[5] and Sikh traditions that are followed in order to achieve various spiritual or ritual objectives.
— Wikipedia
You see, because Protestant Christianity has made 'religion' a matter of believing the dogma, on pain of eternal hell, then we have collectively walked away. But I am arguing, this is because of deficiencies in the way 'religion' has been understood and practiced from the outset in Western culture. Something fundamental was lost in the tumult which sorrounded the formation of the Christian Churches.
A spiritual exercise? Seriously? Then can you please give me an example of a revealed truth that can be gained in this way? Because surely it can't be the kind of things which I at first had in mind when we were talking about dogmatic devotion. I am now thinking that we're at cross purposes, and that your answer will only, in a sense, trivialise what we were talking about. When there was mention of the requirement of dogmatic devotion, obviously that brings to mind, say, that God exists and is our personal saviour. Now, that can't be discovered through spiritual exercise. But I'm certainly not disputing that you can enter a peaceful and profound state of mind, and come to, say, some enlightening realisation about yourself or your view of life, how to live it, and so on. But that's [I]not[/I] the same thing. That's changing the subject.
But, what is 'religion'? There are actually two derivations: one is 'religio', 'attitude of awe and reverence towards the Gods'. But there's also another - 're-ligare', to tie or to bind, yoke or join. 'Religion' had originally many sources; most of what is remembered relates to the former category. But, I would argue, in the latter category, are the sources that flowed from the shamans, from ascetic practices, accessing particular modes of consciousness - the kinds of things that are preserved in Buddhism.
OK, you might say - that's not 'religion'. But if not - what is it? Where does it belong? Who teaches it? Where do you learn about it?
Modern psychedelic guides could be seen as contemporary shamans. There may be better examples but they at least fill the criteria of being non-religious.
Accessing particular modes of consciousness can be aided by science, and may actually be better suited to the task, at least in terms of efficiency and consistency, and also not constrained by the binding ('re-ligare') effect of religious devotion. You can't transcend if you are bound, and there may actually be a negative incentive to unbind.
'Western culture' is stuck in this death role of 'enlightenment science' vs 'superstitious religion' which is where a lot of people seem to be.
Mindfulness and similar secular practices are all over the place these days. There's even secular buddhism: http://secularbuddhism.org
I don't think the picture has as much contrast as you paint it.
I'm certainly not disputing that you can enter a peaceful and profound state of mind, and come to, say, some enlightening realisation about yourself or your view of life, how to live it, and so on. But that's not the same thing. That's changing the subject.
No it's not - it's an alternative understanding of the meaning of 'religion', which has been overwhelmed by the dominant narrative.
Modern psychedelic guides could be seen as contemporary shamans.
Sorry but that's bollocks, unless you're talking about people like Jung, and nobody takes Jung seriously outside arts faculties. Psychiatry is a branch of medicine, whose sole aim is, in Freud's words, to 'transform hysterical misery into ordinary unhappiness'. There is no category for this kind of teacher or education in post-Enlightenment culture; why do you think Buddhism has suddenly become popular?
You can't transcend if you are bound, and there may actually be a negative incentive to unbind.
The problem here is that science is bound to a worldview in which the universe is essentially meaningless. So meaning itself can only ever be personal or social - it can't have any referent beyond either the individual or the collective.
No it's not - it's an alternative understanding of the meaning of 'religion', which has been overwhelmed by the dominant narrative.
With due respect, come off it. You interjected in the wrong context to push your own preference that yoga can make you feel all zinged out, maaaan. No one was disputing that.
Can any specific religious claims be rationally argued for without support from dogmatic premises? Karma, reincarnation, resurrection, personal God or impersonal deity, eternal punishment or temporary hell, one God or many gods? Can any of those be philosophically argued for without the support of dogmatic faith? I would say no
You left out those examples in the bit that you quoted in your reply. You can't get to karma, reincarnation, resurrection, personal God, and so on, from some spiritual bloody exercise. Or do you disagree? If so, I would love to hear how you can get from, say, the mountain pose, to discovering that reincarnation really happens. That just sounds like delusion.
We're not necessarily geared to 'live in peace', we're geared to pass on our genes.
Please provide the names of everyone who enjoys psychological suffering and wants theirs to continue.
If you agree that psychological suffering is universal, then we should be looking for a source that is also universal. Thought content, ideas, concepts, philosophies etc are not universal, they vary greatly.
No, it's also a matter of faith and practice (which are really inseparable). the beliefs associated with religion, taken as propositions (which many fundamentalist apologists and opponents of religion do) are "not even wrong".
We're not necessarily geared to 'live in peace', we're geared to pass on our genes.
— praxis
Please provide the names of everyone who enjoys psychological suffering and wants theirs to continue.
It's not that simple, as I tried to explain.
Doesn't everyone want to be physically healthy? It is well know how to go about achieving this, so why are so many people overweight, unfit, and apparently content with less than optimal health?
The point is, this is a philosophy forum, and philosophy is what is being discussed. I am not at all opposed to the Christian faith, but it seems to me that if that is your belief, then there ought to be something better to do than debating it online.
This seems to be a monstrous irony coming from you!
There is no point in discussing your religion with anyone who doesn't share your particular preconceptions/ beliefs. Discussion with other adherents, whether the religion is Buddhism, Hinduism, Islam, Judaism or Christianity is a part of the theology of that religion, not part of philosophy. Yet within the context of a faith such discussion may be fruitful, but not without it.
All sightSeptember 26, 2018 at 04:39#2152950 likes
Why? Should you only ever preach to the choir, and only ever talk to people that already agree with you? For me personally, I don't find that nearly as fruitful, or time as well spent as sharing differing perspectives. I already know what I think, and personally like to learn new things.
Within the context of faith it is not possible to have significantly "differing perspectives" when it comes to the essential elements of that faith. If you do have significantly differing perspectives from your particular sect, then you will be joining another sect or creating a new one.
Philosophy does not consist in "preaching" to anyone, but rather in seeking to understand or create unified consistent visions of life and reality and then testing them the utmost to see if they are consistent with and explanatorily adequate to the whole range of human experience.
All sightSeptember 26, 2018 at 04:50#2153010 likes
I haven't spoken of essential elements of faith, or advocated for any particular sects, and have rather said that I thought that they all worked. I don't recognize what you suggest. With a proper philosophical dialogue, I could tell you what I think, and you could tell me what you think, rather than the reverse.
I thought you said you like to discuss different perspectives. I was asking for some examples, and an account of how such a discussion might proceed.
All sightSeptember 26, 2018 at 05:01#2153090 likes
Reply to Janus Perhaps you could give a demonstration. I still don't understand what you want me to do? Make up someone with different views to mine and then pretend to have a discussing with them? Lol?
I said there was no philosophical point in discussing religious beliefs with those who do not share them. What would be the point of discussing the fine points of, for example, karma with someone who rejects it wholesale. Could it be a fruitful discussion?That was the kind of point I was making and you disagreed with me. You are yet to explain why you would disagree except to say you like to "share different perspectives". What does that mean, and what philosophical interest could doing it have? if you just want to find out what others think, that is doing sociology or anthropology, not philosophy.
All sightSeptember 26, 2018 at 05:52#2153250 likes
I did answer that. You're saying that you should only discuss the finer details of positions and doctrines with people that already agree with you and those doctrines. To always preach to the choir, and I disagree, that isn't what interests me.
Share different perspectives means to talk to people that think different things, because you don't learn anything from just talking to people that think all the same things. Talking about different positions, and perspectives? Discussing different views and ideas about fundamental subjects is what philosophy is about.
Why do you want me to shut up? The reasons you're given are not very good, or cogent.
What I said specifically related to religious dogmas. Sure if you are interested you can investigate other religious dogmas than your own. But there would be no point having a philosophical argument over whether reincarnation or resurrection is true, for example, as such dogmas are taken on faith, and are not supportable by philosophical argument. And there would be no point having a discussion with someone about the fine points of resurrection with someone who believes in reincarnation.
In any case discussions of dogma are theology, not philosophy. So, I still have no idea why you disagreed in the first place. It you can't explain it, then fine, I'm more than happy to drop it.
Why do you want me to shut up? The reasons you're given are not very good, or cogent.
LOL! I didn't ask you to shut up; you responded to my post, and all I have done is explain my position. You, however, have not explained your disagreement.
I did answer that. You're saying that you should only discuss the finer details of positions and doctrines with people that already agree with you and those doctrines. To always preach to the choir, and I disagree, that isn't what interests me.
Just to reiterate, I am saying that it would be unfruitful to discuss "fine points of positions and doctrines" with those who reject the premises that underpin those positions and doctrines, because you will end up talking past one another, as we have perhaps been doing. I also said that I think philosophy is not about preaching at all, whether to "the choir" or otherwise.
And I'm still not clear what exactly about other people's doctrines and positions interests you. Is it just the fact that they hold them, or are you keen to challenge your own positions and doctrines? The thing is that I think it is fruitless to challenge one's own doctrines if one has already acknowledged that they are a matter of faith; and not of evidence or plausible argument. Positions that are founded upon evidence or upon plausible argument can, of course, and certainly should, be challenged.
I do agree that comparative religion is an important area of study. Although I'm not sure that it or even metaphysics, if based on religious dogma, really qualifies as philosophy; Collingwood's notion of metaphysics is that it is an historical science; the study of the absolute presuppositions upon which various metaphysical systems have been founded.
It's true that many believers do seem to need to discuss their beliefs with those who disagree with them. To me that seems like a form of insecurity; a need to prove to oneself that one's beliefs are absolutely true for all, and potentially capable of convincing anyone, if only they would allow themselves to understand. It's a complex topic, to be sure.
So, that division by itself shows that there's room to at least show the other that his commitment on such beliefs is extra-rational, contrary to what he believes.
That's true and I agree that such discussion could be constructive for one who has not acknowledged that her beliefs are extra-rational.
Reply to ????????????? Thanks for the link; that paper looks interesting, although I am not sure if it is available free? I'm outta time now, anyway, so later....
I said there was no philosophical point in discussing religious beliefs with those who do not share them.
Do you really believe that? Of course there's a point, as with discussing [i]any[/I] other beliefs with those who don't share them. What do you think philosophy forums are for, if not the examination of beliefs, whether your own or someone else's which differ from your own.
What I said specifically related to religious dogmas. Sure if you are interested you can investigate other religious dogmas than your own. But there would be no point having a philosophical argument over whether reincarnation or resurrection is true, for example, as such dogmas are taken on faith, and are not supportable by philosophical argument.
Oh. Well, you just said "religious beliefs" in the other quote, not "religious dogmas".
Why is psychological suffering (ie. a shortage of personal peace leading to a shortage of social peace) a universal human condition in all times and places?
Why have a seemingly endless number of philosophies in every part of the world attempted to solve this problem for thousands of years, but never really succeeded?
The theory I am offering to explain the universal existence of suffering and the universal failure of all philosophies to end that suffering is that the source of suffering is not found at the level of the content of thought, but arises instead from the medium of thought itself, a universal property of the human condition.
Harry HinduSeptember 26, 2018 at 11:17#2154100 likes
I meant to say that I don't think it's natural to fear largeness or otherness, as Jake appeared to claim. If this were true then we'd have a natural fear of looking up at the sky, for example. We don't. Many look up at the sky with a yearning to explore the unknown.
But, I already said that in my previous post where I pointed out how I don't experience fear, rather I experience curiosity. I just didn't use the word "natural". I think a better word would be, "common". It isn't common to fear largeness or otherness. Some people can have a fear of largeness or otherness, and it would be considered a phobia.
Harry HinduSeptember 26, 2018 at 11:21#2154170 likes
"Faith" isn't an accurate term. Faith is for those where reason does not give the desired results. I used reason to come to the conclusion that science can provide the answers that religion hasn't been able to. Religion has had several thousand years to answer these questions and has only come up with inconsistent answers. Science, however, has only been around for a few hundred years and has already improved the lives of everyone, including people that follow different religions.
Faith is for those who have emotional attachments to their beliefs and where reason provides answers that are not consoling. Having faith is not much different from saying that you have a delusion.
Read the links I provided earlier. In the first one, it states:
Neel Burton, M.D. psychologytoday.com:Many people who have met all their deficiency needs do not self-actualize, instead inventing more deficiency needs for themselves, because to contemplate the meaning of their life and of life in general would lead them to entertain the possibility of their meaninglessness and the prospect of their own death and annihilation.
A person who begins to contemplate his bigger picture may come to fear that life is meaningless and death inevitable, but at the same time cling on to the cherished belief that his life is eternal or important or at least significant. This gives rise to an inner conflict that is sometimes referred to as ‘existential anxiety’ or, more colourfully, ‘the trauma of non-being’.
While fear and anxiety and their pathological forms (such as agoraphobia, panic disorder, or PTSD) are grounded in threats to life, existential anxiety is rooted in the brevity and apparent meaninglessness or absurdity of life. Existential anxiety is so disturbing and unsettling that most people avoid it at all costs, constructing a false reality out of goals, ambitions, habits, customs, values, culture, and religion so as to deceive themselves that their lives are special and meaningful and that death is distant or delusory.
You can't get to karma, reincarnation, resurrection, personal God, and so on, from some spiritual bloody exercise. Or do you disagree? If so, I would love to hear how you can get from, say, the mountain pose, to discovering that reincarnation really happens
No you wouldn’t. What you would like, is to argue about it. Your sole interest here is bating theists. What I’m trying to explain, obviously to no avail, is that your whole grasp of the subject is a culturally-conditioned stererotype, but unless you can drag the debate back to your terms then you have no intetrest n it.
This seems to be a monstrous irony coming from you!
— Janus
I will try to explain something. You and I have met personally, one of the only such actual acquaintances I have made via philosophy forums, and I thought we got along quite well, and I do like you. But I don't discuss philosophy (or my particular version of philosophy) with any of the people I like in the real world, or not much anyway. They have no interest in it and would likely not understand what I'm on about.
My philosophical interest has been researching the idea of enlightenment or 'spiritual illumination' cross-culturally, through reading, discussion, study, and meditation. My view is that 'spiritual illumination' (and I really don't like the term, but the modern lexicon is notably sparse in this regard) was originally foundational to religion, but that it is easily forgotten. Metaphorically, it is as if it like a kind of essence or elixir which is preserved in a vessel; but soon the elixir is forgotten and only the vessel remains. That is an analogy for dogmatic religion.
Besides, one of the main principles of those who went on to form the Christian church out of the ferment of first century spiritual culture, was the necessity of hammering out a doctrine that promised salvation for all. It deliberately rejected most of gnosticism and the very idea that enlightenment depended on any kind of insight or illumination, because it was associated with 'elitism' and clearly incompatible with the universalising outlook of the Church. (This is one of the reasons why mystics were to frequently run afoul of ecclesiastical authority in the centuries to come.)
Actually there's an article in SEP on divine illumination which conveys some insights about this topic, although in my opinion it loses its way. But its connection with Augustine, and thence neo-Platonism, is important. It commences:
Divine illumination is the oldest and most influential alternative to naturalism in the areas of mind and knowledge. The doctrine holds that human beings require a special divine assistance in their ordinary cognitive activities.
But it's predictable that as soon as anything of this kind is posted on a forum, it's like tossing bloodied meat into the Piranha River. 'See! Divine! Superstitious dogma!' Then off swims the horde in search of the next hapless victim. Regardless, I believe that something of this kind is visible in the annals of mysticism from many cultures, and that it signifies an actual faculty or form of insight. But I do get that not many people understand it, or are interested in it, and that besides its proximity to religion is not welcome in a secular age; as the article on Pierre Hadot notes, 'Hadot acknowledges his use of the term “spiritual exercises” may create anxieties, by associating philosophical practices more closely with religious devotion'. And as Nagel notes, our culture is characterised by a deep-seated 'fear of religion'.
So, my general view is that secularism or the scientific worldview as an outlook on life, is rooted in Enlightenment attitudes which in turn were deeply sceptical of the mainstream religions of the day, Catholic and Protestant. This attitude wants to bracket out any 'questions of ultimate meaning and value' and proceed purely on the basis of what can be ascertained by empirical observation and mathematical reasoning. That, overall, is a description of positivism, which is the overwhelming, indeed only possible, orientation in a secular philosophical framework. The kind of 'illumination' which I think was fundamental to Platonism, gnosticism and many other early philosophies has, unfortunately, become caught up in those polemics, kind of like by-catch.
if metaphysics is philosophy and you consider metaphysics to be a theory of absolute presuppositions..., then the content of comparative religion studies is an incredible raw material for such analysis.
as Nagel notes, our culture is characterised by a deep-seated 'fear of religion'.
Don't you think we should fear it, or at least regard it with a good amount of caution? Religion can be a powerful tool in the hands of a charismatic leader. A tool that can be used for selfish gain rather than the benefit of its adherents. There are countless examples of this. Once you devalue reason and overvalue faith anything is possible. Subscribing to conspiracy theories and 'alternative facts' can become a sign of solidarity, rather than a sign of madness.
Michael OssipoffSeptember 26, 2018 at 15:55#2154790 likes
”1. First, of course I’ve repeatedly said during this discussion that I don’t usually use the word “God”, other than when replying to someone who has used it, including Fundamentalist Biblical-Literalists like you.” — Michael Ossipoff
.
Trivial. Just imagine that when I use the word "God" it's whatever word you use instead [quote]
.
…because you don’t know what you mean by it, though you seem to always be talking about the God of the Fundamentalist Biblical-Literalists.
.
[quote]
, which you have yet to actually state.
.
I’ve stated the purpose of my participation in this thread. It isn’t to provide religious instruction or explanation to you. ….or to propose or advocate a Theism. Neither is it to argue the “issue” of Theism vs Atheism. …about which, at these forums, only aggressive Atheists are making an issue. I have no idea what motivates you to pursue that “issue” of yours.
.
I’ve merely been letting you know that you aren’t being at all clear about what it is that you’re talking about.
. ”2. As I’ve already mentioned at least twice in this thread, I’ve amply discussed my impressions, beliefs and reasons for them, at other threads at this forum website.” — Michael Ossipoff
.
Yes, at other threads. :roll:
.
See above.
.
That is of no help.
.
What help did you want? (rhetorical question)
.
[i]”Feel free to find them and refute them if you want to.
.
”(…if it means anything to speak of refuting an impression).” — Michael Ossipoff[/i]
.
Feel free to come round my house, put on a little maid outfit, and do all of my housework.
.
Surely there are other forums where S. could invite people to his house to satisfy his peculiar needs.
.
”If I were to post all of that here, in this thread, it would amount to argument, and, as I’ve said, I don’t do argument or assertion on the Theism vs Atheism topic. Go for it if you want to, but I’d be arguing if I challenged you to—and, as I said, I don’t argue about Theism vs Atheism.” — Michael Ossipoff
.
Right, and I don't do housework. But I'm just going to keep on moaning about the dishes, the dirty clothes, the dusty surfaces, and so on. Go for it and do all of my housework if you want to, but, as I said, I don't do housework, I just expect you to put up with my moaning about it, and when you confront me about it and ask why I don't just shut up and get on with it, I'll just revert back to my complaining and denialism.
.
S. seems to want to imply that I’m neglecting an obligation to explain Theism to him, or to argue Theism vs Atheism with him. Above, in this reply, I stated what I’ve meant to say in this thread.
.
”Are you sure that I said that Atheists should invest time and effort into my impressions and beliefs?” — Michael Ossipoff
.
[quote]
You didn't say anything. You just made vague suggestions which I'm having to tease out of you like blood out of a stone.
.
I said what I meant to. No one asked you to “tease out” anything additional.
.
”Remember that if you refute my Theism, in addition to that of Fundamentalist Biblical-Literalism, then you’ll have refuted not one, but two, Theisms. Hardly more than a beginning, for your task of refuting every Theism.” — Michael Ossipoff
.
Ha! That's not my task.
.
Wrong. If you say that all Theism is without evidence, then it’s your “task” to show that.
.
The burden is on the theist.
.
The burden is on whoever is making assertions here about Theism vs Atheism.
.
Here, loud aggressive Atheists are the only ones making an issue about Atheism vs Theism.
.
First, I need to be presented with a version of theism.
.
There are Theists who present their version to you, publicly and door-to-door. You’ve been addressing their version. Your error is to believe and claim that your answer applies to Theism as a whole.
.
No one has any obligation to present anything to you about anything that they aren’t asserting to you.
.
I'm content with having never come across a version of theism, in all of my years, which isn't so problematic that it doesn't warrant acceptance. That is my position.
.
Good. That’s would be much more modest position, if you can limit yourself to it.
.
”Feel free to find it in other threads if you want to “invest time and effort” on it.” — Michael Ossipoff
.
Feel free to present it to me if you want me to invest my time and effort on it.
.
You’re too kind. But I didn’t ask you to invest your time and effort in it. First you asked me to present it, and then, after that, I invited you to look it up in posting-records if you want to invest your time and effort in it. In other words, suit yourself.
.
Michael Ossipoff
I just didn't use the word "natural". I think a better word would be, "common". It isn't common to fear largeness or otherness. Some people can have a fear of largeness or otherness, and it would be considered a phobia.
I know what you mean. I tend to think of the term as an established structure, whereby if significantly disturbed will throw the surrounding order out of balance. For instance, we have a natural craving for fat and sweetness. This craving is out of balance with the current availability of fat and sugar today, and our health suffers for it. If this continues we would eventually adapt to it, but for now things are out of balance and we might say the current availability of fat and sugar is unnatural.
LD SaundersSeptember 26, 2018 at 16:01#2154820 likes
Actually, it's very difficult to even define what a religion is and there are examples of religions as well as religious members who do not engage in supernatural beliefs of any kind. Defining a religion in such a way that it ignores the actual empirical evidence we have regarding religion, is a foul. Basically, you end up with a false premise, so one's conclusion then cannot be logically supported. Religious people have for thousands of years come up with actual secular arguments justifying their moral rules, or at least attempting to, and have often not resorted to the simplistic notion of "because God said so."
The theory I am offering to explain the universal existence of suffering and the universal failure of all philosophies to end that suffering is that the source of suffering is not found at the level of the content of thought, but arises instead from the medium of thought itself, a universal property of the human condition.
You appear to be unwilling to clarify what you mean by 'thought'. Most neural activity is subconscious.
Again I'll point out that all mammals use this 'process of conceptual division' but don't suffer the kinds of psychological issues, such as existential anxiety, that we do. How does this fit with your theory??
Michael OssipoffSeptember 26, 2018 at 16:12#2154850 likes
Moderators &/or administrators:
The reason why I flagged a post by S. on this page was because it's inappropriate for him to share about and solicit for his unusual needs at a philosophy forum.
Feel free to come round my house, put on a little maid outfit, and do all of my housework.
Aside from that though, I'm not saying that it should be based on religious dogma. Only in the sense that religious dogma is its subject matter, the raw material which it analyses, not the premises from which its analysis begins.
So, you envisage (part at least) of metaphysics as a kind of phenomenology of religion? I would agree with that.
I agree that insecurity is a common reason religious folk engage in debate, but I think it's not the only one. I can't exclude the possibility that some religious folk are honestly intellectually curious.
I have no doubt that is true. Maybe my conception of philosophy is too narrow; but I see it as primarily consisting in developing a coherent worldview. And different worldviews are always based on premises; so I just don't see much point arguing over the fundamental premises. Doing this is what leads the to the interminable intractable debates like realism vs antirealism, free will vs determinism, materialism vs idealism, internaiism vs externalism and so on. My approach is: choose your fundamental premises and develop your ideas from there; so fruitful discussion would be with those who share your starting assumptions.
I will try to explain something. You and I have met personally, one of the only such actual acquaintances I have made via philosophy forums, and I thought we got along quite well, and I do like you. But I don't discuss philosophy (or my particular version of philosophy) with any of the people I like in the real world, or not much anyway. They have no interest in it and would likely not understand what I'm on about.
I thought we got on well too, and I still do. I can engage in heated disagreement with you and still respect you in the morning! :grin:
I think the one area in philosophy where fruitful discussion may be enjoyed with those who have different starting premises is on the subject of the proper ambit of philosophy itself; it's strengths and limitations. I don't mean to be rude in censoring you for holding certain ideas as sacrosanct. I have my own set of sacrosanct beliefs which I never discuss, because i don't believe they are the proper subject of philosophical discussion. My criticism is rather for including such ideas, which are really not up for discussion, in the discussion, not for excluding them.
But it's predictable that as soon as anything of this kind is posted on a forum, it's like tossing bloodied meat into the Piranha River.
Here's an example: the idea you refer to here (divine illumination) is an article f faith; not something that can fruitfully be discussed in a philosophical context (except perhaps if you were merely discussing the historical development of the idea and its cross-cultural commonalities, or something like that; in other words treating the idea phenomenologically).
Here's an example: the idea you refer to here (divine illumination) is an article of faith; not something that can fruitfully be discussed in a philosophical context
I don't agree; there is voluminous evidence for the reality of such states, trans-historically and cross-culturally. It is a major aspect of neo-Platonism which is in turn one of the main sources of Western philosophy. My argument is that this is something important to philosophy which has become forgotten or rejected. What I am arguing is that this is not 'an article of faith' but because the philosophies that incorporated this insight are regarded as 'religious', then it's categorised that way. And that is the exact issue which I'm trying to articulate in this and many other threads. It is categorised as 'faith' because it is not 'data derived from empirical experience, and logical and mathematical treatments of such data'.
as Nagel notes, our culture is characterised by a deep-seated 'fear of religion'.
— Wayfarer
Don't you think we should fear it, or at least regard it with a good amount of caution?
Of course. But that isn't what Nagel meant. To provide the often-quoted passage in full:
In speaking of the fear of the fear of religion, I don't mean to refer to the entirely reasonable hostility toward certain established religions and religious institutions, in virtue of their objectionable moral doctrines, social policies, and political influence. Nor am I referring to the association of many religious beliefs with superstition and the acceptance of evident empirical falsehoods. I am talking about something much deeper - namely, the fear of religion itself. I speak from experience, being strongly subject to this fear myself. I want atheism to be true and am made uneasy by the fact that some of the most intelligent and well-informed people I know are religious believers. It isn't just that I don't believe in God and, naturally, hope that I'm right in my belief. It's that I hope there is no God! I don't want there to be a God; I don't want the universe to be like that.
My guess is that this cosmic authority problem is not a rare condition and that it is responsible for much of the scientism and reductionism of our time. One of the tendencies it supports is the ludicrous overuse of evolutionary biology to explain everything about life, including everything about the human mind. Darwin enabled modern secular culture to heave a great collective sigh of relief, by apparently providing a way to eliminate purpose, meaning, and design as fundamental features of the world. Instead they become epiphenomena, generated incidentally by a process that can be entirely explained by the operation of the non-teleological laws of physics on the material of which we and our environments are all composed.
No you wouldn’t. What you would like, is to argue about it. Your sole interest here is bating theists. What I’m trying to explain, obviously to no avail, is that your whole grasp of the subject is a culturally-conditioned stererotype, but unless you can drag the debate back to your terms then you have no intetrest n it.
Yeah, yeah, I've heard it all before. I asked a simple question. You've made it clear that you'd rather dictate my motives than answer it - a reoccurring problem with you.
And don't pretend that we're so different, you and I. You want to drag the debate in your own direction as much as I do. You hijacked the point that Janus was making to talk about your preference for Buddhism.
I'm just pressing his point, whereas you seem to have seen it as another opportunity for digression, and exploited it.
There is evidence for the experiences, but not that they are actually cases of divine revelation. It could never be conclusively demonstrated whether or not such experiences are caused by divine revelation or brain chemistry. If you disagtee then explain how either could be shown to be the case either logically or empirically.
I’ve stated the purpose of my participation in this thread. It isn’t to provide religious instruction or explanation to you. ….or to propose or advocate a Theism. Neither is it to argue the “issue” of Theism vs Atheism. …about which, at these forums, only aggressive Atheists are making an issue. I have no idea what motivates you to pursue that “issue” of yours.
I’ve merely been letting you know that you aren’t being at all clear about what it is that you’re talking about.
Oh the irony. In fact, right here in this discussion, you've said quite a bit on atheism vs. theism, yet, bizarrely, you deny to be engaging in that very discussion. Well, whatever floats your boat, I guess.
The rest of your post is filled with deflection and misunderstanding, and I refuse to be sucked into that. That's your problem.
If you disagree then explain how either could be shown to be the case either logically or empirically.
[quote=David Hume]If we take in our hand any volume; of divinity or school metaphysics, for instance; let us ask, Does it contain any abstract reasoning concerning quantity or number? No. Does it contain any experimental reasoning concerning matter of fact and existence? No. Commit it then to the flames: for it can contain nothing but sophistry and illusion.[/quote]
David Stove, under whom I studied Hume, observed that all of these questions could also be asked of Hume’s book, and that the answer would be negative. It’s like the uroboros, the mythical snake that eats itself. ‘The hardest part’, he would always say, ‘is the last bite’.
Harry HinduSeptember 26, 2018 at 23:49#2155570 likes
I know what you mean. I tend to think of the term as an established structure, whereby if significantly disturbed will throw the surrounding order out of balance. For instance, we have a natural craving for fat and sweetness. This craving is out of balance with the current availability of fat and sugar today, and our health suffers for it. If this continues we would eventually adapt to it, but for now things are out of balance and we might say the current availability of fat and sugar is unnatural.
Environments change. There is no established structure except that things change. Therfore it is natural for environments to change and species to adapt. That whole process is called NATURAL selection. So it would be inaccurate to call some part if that process, "unnatural".
You appear to be unwilling to clarify what you mean by 'thought'. Most neural activity is subconscious.
Again I'll point out that all mammals use this 'process of conceptual division' but don't suffer the kinds of psychological issues, such as existential anxiety, that we do. How does this fit with your theory??
Until you're willing to address the universal nature of human psychological suffering I don't see the point of further exchanges on this particular topic. Happy to engage with you on other topics where the opportunity arises.
Sorry, I didn’t realize that I wasn’t addressing it.
No problem, you're under no obligation to do so. I'm just suggesting that the universal nature of psychological suffering seems an important clue which merits our attention. If others don't find this interesting, ok, that's their call.
Again I'll point out that all mammals use this 'process of conceptual division' but don't suffer the kinds of psychological issues, such as existential anxiety, that we do. How does this fit with your theory??
This seems a quite useful and relevant question to the subject of religion, so thanks. I agree, thought has been evolving in the animal world for a long time.
As I see it, religion emerged in response to thought evolving to such a degree in humans that our experience became dominated by abstraction. That is, our focus became increasingly dominated by the symbols in our mind. This took much of our focus off of the real world, thus seriously diluting a deep psychic connection with reality that animals and previous humans enjoyed.
Religion is an attempt to restore that psychic bond. But as we've discussed above, it typically uses thought as it's methodology, the very thing which has broken the bond. And so it's often the case in religion that the harder we try, the behinder we get.
As example, Christianity was intended to unite humans in peace, but before long we're burning each other at the stake for being a different flavor of Christian than we are. We can observe that it's the people most wound up in the thought content, ie. ideology, that do most of the burning.
Thought operates by a process of division. Understand that, and many other pieces of the human story fall in to place.
Reply to MountainDwarf At times religion has seemed a lot like a poke in the eye with a sharp stick, and other times it has felt better than that.
I haven't read the thread, but complex human organizations need glue to hold them together. I think @praxis talked about glue.
We need various things to establish controls, order, hierarchies, meaning, and so on. Religion is one piece among several systems for holding societies together. Just because we are alive in the 21st century doesn't mean that we are different than we were 15 centuries or 150 centuries ago. We still need institutions like religion, law, courts, schools, etc. We still need to make many things, grow food, trade, and what not -- and manage all of that economic activity. And more besides.
The trick with religion is to prevent them from becoming static and irrelevant on the one hand and tyrannous on the other hand. Something in between. Reformations have to happen periodically.
There are way too many full-time professional religious apologists making lots of $s trying to talk their respective deities into existence, catering to adherents' confirmation biases.
Heck, they've been at it for centuries on end.
What better place to show them the door than the Philosophy of Religion sub-forum? ;)
[quote=Thomas Nagel]It isn't just that I don't believe in God and, naturally, hope that I'm right in my belief. It's that I hope there is no God! I don't want there to be a God; I don't want the universe to be like that.[/quote]
Who in their right mind would want the universe to be like that? The Bible, for example, sounds every bit like a story developed by human beings, so it’s like God is designed by human beings. I wouldn’t want a God designed by human beings!
This is a disappointing notion by Nagel, I must say, that within atheists lies a deep-seated fear that there may actually be a sky father. Children may fear the monster under the bed but in maturity they usually come to understand the nature of such fears and outgrow them. There may be a God or designer, but I seriously doubt it could be anything even remotely like a human could even begin to conceive.
Darwin enabled modern secular culture to heave a great collective sigh of relief, by apparently providing a way to eliminate purpose, meaning, and design as fundamental features of the world.
Is that what Darwin did? How does one accomplish anything without purpose?
... our focus became increasingly dominated by the symbols in our mind. This took much of our focus off of the real world, thus seriously diluting a deep psychic connection with reality that animals and previous humans enjoyed.
Thought operates by a process of division. Understand that, and many other pieces of the human story fall into place.
The problem here appears to be that you're pointing to the 'process of conceptual division' as the cause of human psychological suffering (or a diluted deep psychic connection with reality) and fail to acknowledge that mammals use the same process of conceptual division but don't share the same affliction. All mammals distinguish things in the same basic manner that we do. The issue must be something unique to humans besides simple conceptual division, right?
The problem here appears to be that you're pointing to the 'process of conceptual division' as the cause of human psychological suffering (or a diluted deep psychic connection with reality) and fail to acknowledge that mammals use the same process of conceptual division but don't share the same affliction.
I don't fail to acknowledge this, and already have done so above. Perhaps I didn't make this clear enough.
My theory is that thought has been evolving in animals and primitive humans for a long time, and continues to do so today. This evolution involves a long slow gradual shift of focus from the real world beyond our minds, towards the symbolic realm within our minds. As example...
I've gone to a lot of trouble to travel to the beach for a vacation, and now I'm walking down an empty gloriously beautiful north Florida beach. My body is there, but my mind is still here on the forum going blah, blah, blah. I'm lost in thought. And so while I'm on the beach, I don't really see it, don't really experience it. And so my psychic connection with reality is diluted, broken.
My theory is that at some point in human history this "lost in thought" experience became dominant enough that the loss of psychic connection with reality became problematic and we began looking for solutions, and religion was invented. Religion personalized reality in the form of a God to make it more relatable, and the focus became "getting back to God", or re-establishing the connection with reality.
As example of the connection with reality, consider your dog with his head out the window as you drive down the road. You're lost in thought to a significant degree as you drive, but your dog is totally in the moment, his focus is right here right now, in the real world.
The Bible, for example, sounds every bit like a story developed by human beings, so it’s like God is designed by human beings.
Actually, the Jehovah character seems remarkably similar to nature. He's both a gloriously beautiful giver of life, and an utterly ruthless killer of the innocent, just like the real world is.
And what is the rational relationship to have with such a character (theism) or with such a reality (atheism)? The rational relationship is to make peace with this situation, to love it with all your heart if you can, because it's way to big to change so there's no point arguing with Him, or if one prefers, It.
The rational person doesn't waste a lot of time in the God debate, but instead picks which ever system one can best relate to, and then focus on the falling in love part.
The bottom line question for all humans, religious or secular, is that we are here in this place for a very short time, so how do we want to experience it? The rational answer is to embrace this place and love it, by whatever method works best for us.
The thread isn't about theism or even atheism. It's a broad question, in which the only demonstrable interest you have is baiting 'theists'.
Allow me to explain. This discussion is about religion. The comment that you chose to reply to made a specific point about how religious people can get to karma, reincarnation, resurrection, a personal God, and that kind of thing. The suggestion was that these kind of things require dogmatic faith.
My interest, which I have demonstrated by pursuing the point in multiple comments, and in spite of your red herrings, is whether you or anyone else here disagrees, and if so, the reasons behind that disagreement.
If that is "baiting theists", then so be it. There's nothing wrong with my line of enquiry. It's on topic and appropriate. Yes, I have a combative and critical style. Get over it. If your thoughts and justifications for religion can't withstand that kind of exposure, then they can't be of much worth, philosophically. I'm done explaining myself. I shouldn't even have to. Either answer the question or do not, but stick to the topic. This is not the place to speculate about malicious intent. In future, please either keep those kind of thoughts to yourself or at least express them somewhere more appropriate. Thanks.
Pattern-chaserSeptember 27, 2018 at 12:44#2156560 likes
I think the "mindlessly" is unhelpful. — Pattern-chaser
But is it accurate? Yes, sadly, for a large segment of the population, I think it is
Then why are you posting here? The topic asks for how we feel about religion, and you clearly feel it is a waste of time. For you. Fair enough. But if all you can do is to insult those who believe, there will be no constructive dialogue here. Or, at least, not with you. Which is a shame. :fear:
Pattern-chaserSeptember 27, 2018 at 12:51#2156600 likes
Yes, I have a combative and critical style. Get over it. If your thoughts and justifications for religion can't withstand that kind of exposure, then they can't be of much worth, philosophically.
If you think philosophical matters are best addressed combatively, then we must disagree. Discussion is a co-operative consideration of matters concerning (in this case) religion. It's not a fight (combat), or it shouldn't be if we hope to gain the most benefit from our discussions.
This is not the place to speculate about malicious intent. In future, please either keep those kind of thoughts to yourself or at least express them somewhere more appropriate. Thanks.
You proclaimed your own combative attitude. It seems a bit much to object when someone else calls you out for it. Your attitude isn't helpful. You simply seek to ridicule a topic that you cannot support, or see any benefit in. Fair enough: don't participate. :roll:
Then why are you posting here? The topic asks for how we feel about religion, and you clearly feel it is a waste of time. For you. Fair enough. But if all you can do is to insult those who believe, there will be no constructive dialogue here. Or, at least, not with you. Which is a shame. :fear:
Why am I posting here? To express my views in an environment whereby they can be subjected to intellectual scrutiny, and to challenge the views of others.
What has my statement - a true statement, I'd argue - that a large segment of the population unthinkingly give the main tenets of religion special treatment, got to do with why I am posting here? Again, whether it's insulting or not, that's secondary to whether or not it's accurate. This is a philosophy forum, not a tea party. Speaking the truth should take precedence over hurt egos. If your bum looks big in that dress, then, whilst we're here, and so long as it's relevant to the topic, I'm going to tell you so, whether you like it or not. That's much more constructive than telling a white lie, but if you'd rather keep up appearances than get to the heart of the matter, then that's the real shame. If all you can see is someone hellbent on insulting for the sake of insulting, then look harder.
If you think philosophical matters are best addressed combatively, then we must disagree. Discussion is a co-operative consideration of matters concerning (in this case) religion. It's not a fight (combat), or it shouldn't be if we hope to gain the most benefit from our discussions.
If you want to cooperate, then stick to the point and be more combative. Then we might get somewhere.
You proclaimed your own combative attitude. It seems a bit much to object when someone else calls you out for it. Your attitude isn't helpful. You simply seek to ridicule a topic that you cannot support, or see any benefit in. Fair enough: don't participate. :roll:
I didn't object to that, I objected to his bad habit of going off into an ad hominem, making it about my motive - or rather, what he suspects to be my motive - and such.
There's an important difference, on the one hand, between speaking bluntly and remaining on point, even if some might find the language I use insulting, and on the other hand, going off on one in a disapproving manner about my tone or what you suspect to be my motive, when that's completely off topic. You're guilty of this too, by the way.
May I remind you, and all to whom it may concern, that the topic is actually religion, not me.
Pattern-chaserSeptember 27, 2018 at 14:16#2156870 likes
My only issues are, do not say as a matter of fact that God is not. And do not directly or indirectly with the oft used " fairy tale" "spaghetti monster" "Santa Clause" type language say that theism is unreasonable.
there isn't one bit of evidence for the existence of god that can't be explained better without invoking the word, "god".
There isn't one bit of evidence - in a strictly scientific sense, which is how you meant it, I think? - for the existence of God. Not one bit. If you think attacking the Objective existence of God is relevant to an investigation of religion, you don't understand religion or God.
And, to be even-handed, if you are a believer, and you assert the Objective existence of God, then the same applies to you too.
God is about different things to different people. God is an impression, an inspiration, a role model, and so on. Religion is a belief system. It is not based in science, or on science, which is fine. God is not an Objective concept. Neither is religion. If it is important to you, or to anyone reading this, I (as a believer) am happy to agree with you that God and religion cannot be Objectively or scientifically justified. There is no such justification, as far as I know. And this does not devalue God or religion in the slightest.
Pattern-chaserSeptember 27, 2018 at 14:36#2156910 likes
Separating the creations of man from other natural products (artificial vs natural) stems from the notion that humans are separate from nature. We aren't.
Agreed. :up: But we do have a tendency to think, speak and act so as to establish ourselves as separate from 'nature', even though, as you say, we are not. But because we work so hard to convince ourselves of this odd notion, our very efforts require consideration. We need, if we can, to accept that we are all interconnected, and that we are part of everything else, not distinct from it. But that's ought, not is. What is is that we consider ourselves apart from the rest of nature. Why do we do this, I wonder? Is it wrong of us to think this way? If so, in what way? Perhaps there's a good reason for us to act this way, although I can't think of one. Let's not just dismiss this attitude; let's try to understand it. Maybe then we can reach useful and helpful conclusions.... :chin:
Reply to Pattern-chaser Again, you're merely putting on show your shortsighted analysis if you think that comparisons to the flying spaghetti monster, fairy tales, and so on, are only made simply to be insulting. Do you know the background of how the flying spaghetti monster became a thing? How about Russell's teapot? Are these just simple insults to you? If so, you're missing the point. But whatever, carry on cheerleading and taking cheap shots at me indirectly.
Pattern-chaserSeptember 27, 2018 at 14:42#2156940 likes
If all you can see is someone hellbent on insulting for the sake of insulting, then look harder.
If all you can do is to insult those who believe, instead of addressing that which they believe, then all you can hope to achieve is to make entrenched beliefs more entrenched. It's a human thing. :roll: If you are here to persuade, then express your thoughts about the message, not the messengers. If you are here to browbeat others with your superior views, go ahead; you're doing great! :confused:
Pattern-chaserSeptember 27, 2018 at 14:44#2156950 likes
But whatever, carry on cheerleading and taking cheap shots at me indirectly.
I don't think they are cheap shots, and I don't think they're indirect either. :up: Address the beliefs, please, instead of insulting believers. That would be nice. :smile:
I don't think they are cheap shots, and I don't think they're indirect either. :up: Address the beliefs, please, instead of insulting believers. That would be nice. :smile:
I have done so, but you let yourself be distracted by my choice of terms.
Pattern-chaserSeptember 27, 2018 at 14:55#2157000 likes
I have done so, but you let yourself be distracted by my choice of terms
Then perhaps you could choose terms which do not characterise believers (not their beliefs) in such a negative way? Attacks on believers are distracting. They distract from our consideration of their beliefs. So yes, I let my self get distracted, as you intended, when you started insulting those who believe.
You say "I have done so", but your words, particularly those you use to describe believers, say otherwise.
Then perhaps you could choose terms which do not characterise believers (not their beliefs) in such a negative way? Attacks on believers are distracting. They distract from our consideration of their beliefs. So yes, I let my self get distracted, as you intended, when you started insulting those who believe.
You say "I have done so", but your words, particularly those you use to describe believers, say otherwise.
I choose whatever terms seem best fitting at the time, and I intend to continue with that method. I have no intention of adding a filter to protect vulnerable egos from having to face up to the possibility that everything might not be so hunky dory. That would be anathema to getting to the truth of the matter, come what may.
If you see criticism of belief as personal attack, if you see telling it as it is as going out of your way to insult, and if you allow yourself to become distracted because you do not have thick enough skin, then these are your problems for you to work on. Don't put that on me.
Going back to the original point I made, the wording of which you objected to, do you actually have anything of substance to say about that? Or did you just want to cry about how offensive you find my choice of words? If the shoe fits, accept it. What good will relenting achieve? Is it just virtue signalling? You feel duty bound to defend the vulnerable? Heaven forbid we draw attention to the unthinking mindset of the dogmatic devotee! Thou shalt not address the elephant in the room.
Rank AmateurSeptember 27, 2018 at 15:27#2157090 likes
Your mistake here is to fail to realise that you aren't justified in claiming that it's not a fact that unicorns don't exist. It could be a fact that unicorns don't exist, even if we can't yet justify that fact! How could you possibly know that it's not a fact? Have you searched the entire universe for unicorns? You're making the same mistake you suspect of me. The biologist, to follow this reasoning to its logical conclusion, wouldn't say one way or the other whether it's a fact, and for the same reason
i am, and always have been in complete agreement with this point. Yet again it is not a matter of fact that unicorns are or are not. And it is not a matter of fact that God is or God is not.
I agree to some extent, as with the historic case of black swans, and then black swans were of course discovered. However, if we know enough about them and their habitats, and we have searched well enough, in all the right places, over a long enough period of time, then we can say that it's very unlikely that unicorns exist on Earth. And that likelihood can be so low that for all intents and purposes, unicorns don't exist
Seems a restatement of my point that it is reasonable to believe that unicorns do not exist -
Absence of evidence, in some cases, can be evidence of absence. If a unicorn would leave traces, which it almost certainly would, then it can be traced. No unicorn traces have been found. Possibility alone is insufficient. What if it were possible, yet 99.9% improbable? That's no good reason to believe that it's a serious prospect, and it's very good reason not to believe that you'll ever encounter a unicorn in your lifetime.
This is in conflict with science - in science absence of evidence is only absence of evidence - the rest to this paragraph is using reason to believe a truth that unicorns do not exist - which is fine, but not science. It is reason, not fact.
Your belief in God, like a belief in unicorns, is unscientific and requires a leap of faith.
Agree - and have never said my theism is supported by science. And the same can be said of any claim that God does not exist can not be supported by science.
Then, for that same reason, it is a very reasonable belief that God does not exist.
I have never said anywhere that atheism is not a reasonable position, as is theism - both have reasonable arguments, neither argument has been shown to in conflict with fact.
It seems we are violent agreement on many things - other than your belief that theism in unreasonable. I have not seen, or if you have I don't remember any supported argument you have made yet that theism is an unreasonable position.
All sightSeptember 27, 2018 at 15:34#2157110 likes
Values are constitutional, they imply physical arrangements and health. You can say no evidence, they're stupid and wrong, but if your values are toxic, and theirs elixirs, I think I'll be "stupid", and "wrong" then.
Really all of the hatred and name calling is just control. Not reason, it's checking what one dare think and feel, precisely because they abuse themselves into their constitutions, and wish to do the same to you.
Pattern-chaserSeptember 27, 2018 at 15:39#2157140 likes
I see criticism of believers as personal attack, which it is. If you have anything substantive to add to the discussion, go ahead. So far, all I have seen is you being rude about those who believe....
I see criticism of believers as personal attack, which it is. If you have anything substantive to add to the discussion, go ahead. So far, all I have seen is you being rude about those who believe....
If I have criticised believers, I have only done so on the basis of what they believe, and how they ascertain those beliefs. It is hardly a personal attack to claim that a large segment of the population ascertain certain religious beliefs in an uncritical manner, through dogmatic faith, which is just a different way of saying what I said originally.
You have turned a molehill into a mountain. It is you who is digressing away from the substance of my remarks, which you have avoided getting into, choosing instead to focus on your own outrage at the wording.
Bravo. I'm now going to be the bigger man and end my part in letting this tangent get out of control.
Michael OssipoffSeptember 27, 2018 at 16:12#2157240 likes
But there would be no point having a philosophical argument over whether reincarnation or resurrection is true, for example, as such dogmas are taken on faith, and are not supportable by philosophical argument.
Incorrect. Reincarnation follows from the Eliminative Ontic Structural Subjective Idealism metaphysics that I've been describing here.
There have been objections to that metaphysics in these forums. Those objections always end when the objector is asked what he means by "Objectively Real", "Objectively Existent", "Substantial", "Substantive", or "Actual".
Michael Ossipoff
Michael OssipoffSeptember 27, 2018 at 16:23#2157260 likes
And isn't that the whole point for aggressive Atheists? Abuse is the purpose, not the result, of their evangelistic Atheist zeal.
Some people have a need for proving themselves to be More-Scientific-Than-Thou. So, latch on to the Materialist dogma, and then, having cloaked oneself in that official holy mantle, one entitles oneself to abuse those who don't share that belief.
My theory is that at some point in human history this "lost in thought" experience became dominant enough that the loss of psychic connection with reality became problematic and we began looking for solutions, and religion was invented. Religion personalized reality in the form of a God to make it more relatable, and the focus became "getting back to God", or re-establishing the connection with reality.
This is self-contradictory. Making reality relatable via a theistic narrative is a step removed from reality.
But at least you seem to have moved from pointing to the 'process of conceptual division' as the core issue to that of being 'lost in thought', so we appear to be making progress.
We're neurologically distinct from other species in the development of what is known as the DMN (default mode network). It's believed to be the neurological basis of the self and is active when "lost in thought."
When this network is less active, such as in 'task-positive' activities, our sense of self diminishes ("re-establishing the connection with reality").
The Bible, for example, sounds every bit like a story developed by human beings, so it’s like God is designed by human beings.
— praxis
Actually, the Jehovah character seems remarkably similar to nature. He's both a gloriously beautiful giver of life, and an utterly ruthless killer of the innocent, just like the real world is.
But we do have a tendency to think, speak and act so as to establish ourselves as separate from 'nature', even though, as you say, we are not.
We think, speak and act as if we were separate from nature because that's how we experience our existence. And that's just the beginning. We experience ourselves as being separate from ourselves. Consider the expression "I am thinking XYZ". The thinker and the thought are experienced as two different things.
It's this perceived division within our own minds that allows us to argue with ourselves, to suffer. It's this perceived division within our own minds which is the well spring of religion. We feel divided within ourselves, and divided from everything around us. It's that experience of division which makes us feel isolated, alone and fearful (the fear is typically buried beneath a mountain of distractions) and causes some to try to "get back to god", that is, achieve a reunion with something larger than ourselves which feels like it might be at the heart of our existence.
All this division experience is generated by the nature of thought, by the way it works.
1) That's why the experience of division is universal, because thought is universally present in all humans.
2) That's why no philosophy is history has succeeded in overcoming the division experience, because all philosophies are made of thought, the source of the perceived division.
The best that philosophies can do is point to experiences outside of philosophy. That can be useful, but what typically happens is that users wind up worshiping the philosophy which is pointing to elsewhere, instead of what the philosophy is pointing to.
If we want to understand religion and most other human endeavors, the place to start is in understanding the nature of what we're all made of psychologically, the electro-chemical information medium we call thought. Everything else is basically just symptoms.
Making reality relatable via a theistic narrative is a step removed from reality.
Religion is not science. Religion is not about facts about reality. This common misconception condemns most discussions of religion on philosophy forums to irrelevance.
Religion is about our RELATIONSHIP with reality.
Most human beings are not abstraction obsessed nerds such as ourselves. Many or most human beings will find it easier to fall in love with reality if it is presented in the form of a familiar human-like character. The evidence for this is that the God character has dominated many cultures around the world for thousands of years.
Falling in love with where we find ourselves is a rational act.
But at least you seem to have moved from pointing to the 'process of conceptual division' as the core issue to that of being 'lost in thought', so we appear to be making progress.
I'm sorry to report we are making no such progress. :smile:
Some people have a need for proving themselves to be More-Scientific-Than-Thou. So, latch on to the Materialist dogma, and then, having cloaked oneself in that official holy mantle, one entitles oneself to abuse those who don't share that belief
Yes, adamant atheism is little more than a replication of some of the worst properties of religion, posed as a revolutionary new product. However, most adamant atheists sincerely don't understand that what they're selling is no more rational than theism. And once they've staked out a big public ego position, they typically can't afford to understand.
It is hardly a personal attack to claim that a large segment of the population ascertain certain religious beliefs in an uncritical manner, through dogmatic faith
Agreed. And it's equally true that a large segment of the population clings to certain atheist beliefs in an uncritical manner, through dogmatic faith. Faith is the human condition, not the religious condition.
This also raises the question of what counts as religious.
Religious positions attempt to explain the mysteries that science doesn't touch on. They are in essence pre-scientific answers that are easily reinterpreted by modern findings. To me, evolution doesn't cancel out divinity.
... I can't believe so many Christians believe that God created the world in 6 literal 24 hour periods. Have they ever taken biology?
MountainDwarfSeptember 28, 2018 at 02:26#2158660 likes
hence the function of religion to placate those who can't cope with the world as it is.
You know, I don't think that's all religion does. People are given ethical codes to live by through religion. And no, I'm not saying that people can't be moral without religion. Creating religions are fun too. Just to see what kind of stuff you can come up with. Quoting S
It didn't go far enough, and it can't go far enough without ceasing to be Christianity.
Quite the LaVeyan statement. The reformers knew Christianity would have to change with time. Search semper reformanda in Google.
MountainDwarfSeptember 28, 2018 at 02:39#2158690 likes
Go ahead and say it the way you want to, Jake:
Religion is about our RELATIONSHIP with God.
You will find it exceedingly difficult to shoehorn me in to the God debate, should that be your goal here. :smile:
My claim would be that it doesn't really matter whether we call it "reality" or "God" or something else. What matters is what relationship we have with where we find ourselves.
Harry HinduSeptember 28, 2018 at 11:29#2159460 likes
God is about different things to different people. God is an impression, an inspiration, a role model, and so on. Religion is a belief system. It is not based in science, or on science, which is fine. God is not an Objective concept. Neither is religion. If it is important to you, or to anyone reading this, I (as a believer) am happy to agree with you that God and religion cannot be Objectively or scientifically justified. There is no such justification, as far as I know. And this does not devalue God or religion in the slightest.
This is the same nonsense I read in the "Gender" Identity thread - that gender is subjective and means different things to different people. The problem is that no one is being consistent, which just means that concept ("god" or "gender") is meaningless. When there is no consistent definition of some term, then we have essentially defined that thing as nothing other than a "feeling".
I have inspirations, role models, experience wonder, etc., but I don't call those things "god". I call them "inspirations", "role models" and "wonder". All you and believers are doing here is taking a concept for which we already have an agreed-upon term and then making up your own term and using that instead for no reason other than to alleviate your own existential turmoil.
Harry HinduSeptember 28, 2018 at 12:13#2159510 likes
But that's ought, not is. What is is that we consider ourselves apart from the rest of nature. Why do we do this, I wonder? Is it wrong of us to think this way? If so, in what way? Perhaps there's a good reason for us to act this way, although I can't think of one. Let's not just dismiss this attitude; let's try to understand it. Maybe then we can reach useful and helpful conclusions....
We consider ourselves apart from nature because we consider ourselves as specially-created by some omnipotent entity. It's like our belief that Earth was the center of the universe at one point in our history. Science has shown in both cases that Earth is not special, and humans are not special. Earth is one planet among an uncountable number of start, galaxies and planets, hidden away in a distant corner of the universe. We are just one species out of millions on the evolutionary tree that continues to grow new branches while pruning others.
We are part of nature - as is everything (even a god, if one existed). We are all interconnected by causation. I have defined meaning/information as the relationship between cause and effect. Meaning surrounds us and is created every moment. We create meaning. Meaning/information is everywhere and seems to be the very substance of reality (or maybe it's processes/relationships).
Nature is the same as reality. There is only one, and if there are others and they do not interact in some way with ours, then what really is the point in wondering about them? God and heaven/hell would be in a causal relationship with our universe. What we do here has an effect on what happens in heaven/hell and vice versa. It is all interconnected and therefore one reality. There is no supernatural because that term implies that nature comes prior to the supernatural, when theists claim that God existed prior to the universe (inconsistent). The universe is seen as something temporary within this reality, whereas God and heaven/hell are eternal, but it is all still part of the same reality. Even though the universe may disappear, what happened here will have an effect on what happens for the rest of eternity. So the universe can't be temporary when its effects continue to influence eternal time. We can even say the same about ourselves. Even though our "existence" is "temporary", we continue to exist through the effects we had on the world - for the rest of eternity.
At the end of the book, Childhood's End, one of the Overlords is trying to comfort Rodricks when he begins to contemplate his death. The Overlord says to him in a affirming tone, "You existed." - as if to say, "Take comfort that you got to take part in this and that nothing, not even the infiniteness of time, can deny the truth of your existence." That is kind of what it is like for me. That is how I alleviate my existential fears. I look to truth - not delusion.
Pattern-chaserSeptember 28, 2018 at 13:00#2159620 likes
The problem is that no one is being consistent, which just means that concept ("god" or "gender") is meaningless.
I think it means that the concept - "God", in this case - is not well defined. Not undefined, but only not defined precisely. There are very many such concepts. Quality, beauty, consciousness, and so on. These terms are vague and ill-defined, but they are not meaningless. Our challenge is to learn how to deal with such concepts. ... Or we could take your route, and dismiss or ignore them. Maybe they'll just go away if we do...? :confused:
Agreed. And it's equally true that a large segment of the population clings to certain atheist beliefs in an uncritical manner, through dogmatic faith. Faith is the human condition, not the religious condition.
Why do you feel the need to keep making these comparisons? You could create a discussion titled, "How do you feel about atheism?", and we could discuss it further. But this discussion is supposed to be about religion.
As for faith, it has an obvious link to religion, and a greater link to religion than atheism. Most people who don't believe in God, don't believe in God because of the lack of compelling evidence, yet most people believe in God through either faith or erroneous reasoning.
Quite the LaVeyan statement. The reformers knew Christianity would have to change with time. Search semper reformanda in Google.
It means, "The church must always be reformed", and although I think that that's a step in the right direction, I can't see how it could ever go far enough in that direction without losing its foundation. My disagreements with Christianity go right down to the roots.
I think it means that the concept - "God", in this case - is not well defined. Not undefined, but only not defined precisely. There are very many such concepts. Quality, beauty, consciousness, and so on. These terms are vague and ill-defined, but they are not meaningless. Our challenge is to learn how to deal with such concepts. ... Or we could take your route, and dismiss or ignore them. Maybe they'll just go away if we do...? :confused:
Why shouldn't that kind of thing be dismissed? If I were to use the term "consciousness" to refer to my armchair, then it would likely get in the way of sensible discussion about consciousness. People would find it weird and would question why I don't just refer to my armchair with a more suitable term, like, say, "armchair". I would have to keep explaining myself all the time, as people would expect a different meaning. It would likely become a problem, and the people trying to have a serious discussion would probably find it annoying, and yes, they might well ignore me and want me to go away.
This is just another example of special treatment. In any other context, I doubt you would be cutting as much slack. But because it's talk about God, you're more sympathetic and lenient. Is that not a reflection of bias?
Pattern-chaserSeptember 28, 2018 at 14:30#2160110 likes
most people believe in God through either faith or erroneous reasoning.
But, given the lack of evidence, which you cite in the same post, it must be the case that "most people do not believe in God through either faith or erroneous reasoning." For there is no compelling evidence, as you observe, to believe or not. To stand apart from a conclusion, and neither believe nor disbelieve, is logical, and consistent with the (lack of) evidence. To believe or disbelieve must be a faith position, given the lack of evidence.
The "erroneous reasoning" you refer to is to draw a conclusion when there is no basis for one. And it applies to all except agnostics, I think. :chin:
This misunderstanding is why I keep making the comparison.
So, if a survey was conducted about what word comes to mind when the word "faith" is mentioned, you don't think that words like "religion" or "God" would be very close to the top of the list? Would the word "atheism" even make the list?
There's a reason for that, don't you think?
Pattern-chaserSeptember 28, 2018 at 14:34#2160160 likes
Yes, those links are of exactly the same strength as each other. :up:
No, they're quite clearly not, actually. Why is there a name for the reliance upon faith in religions thinking, fideism, yet atheism is just called atheism?
To stand apart from a conclusion, and neither believe nor disbelieve, is logical, and consistent with the (lack of) evidence.
Enthusiastically agree, except to quibble that we do have evidence. The best minds among us have conducted an extensive God debate inquiry over thousands of years and have developed evidence of something important. Nobody can prove anything on this topic, no matter how smart they are, or how hard they try. We are ignorant.
So we should believe. We should believe in what the investigation has uncovered, because the evidence for our ignorance is very compelling.
The next step in being logical would be to look for ways to make constructive use of the ignorance we've discovered. Imagine some miners who were searching for gold but instead found silver. The rational miner says, "Ok, this silver is not what we were hoping to find, but here it is, and there's tons of it, so how can we profit from it?"
Pattern-chaserSeptember 28, 2018 at 14:49#2160280 likes
Reply to S An atheist who finds the concept of God impossible to believe, and who gets on with their life without giving God another thought: that person is not occupying a faith position.
An atheist who asserts the non-existence of God is occupying a faith position, in exactly the same way that a believer who asserts the existence of God is occupying a faith position. Both assertions lack evidence to support them. So the link between atheism and faith is exactly as strong as the link between theism and faith. Because it is the same link, existing for the same reason.
But, given the lack of evidence, which you cite in the same post, it must be the case that "most people do not believe in God through either faith or erroneous reasoning."
For there is no compelling evidence, as you observe, to believe or not.
No, that's not an observation that I have made. I said that most people who don't believe in God, don't believe in God because of the lack of compelling evidence. What you're saying is different, and wrong. There is compelling evidence to not believe in God, and that consists in the absence of compelling evidence to believe in God. What more do you need? It doesn't need to be disproved.
To stand apart from a conclusion, and neither believe nor disbelieve, is logical, and consistent with the (lack of) evidence. To believe or disbelieve must be a faith position, given the lack of evidence.
It's not logical to refrain from disbelief in light of the lack of evidence. And that can't rightly be characterised as involving faith. The word "disbelief" is even defined as a lack of faith on Google's dictionary.
The "erroneous reasoning" you refer to is to draw a conclusion when there is no basis for one. And it applies to all except agnostics, I think. :chin:
No, it can apply to agnostics as well. But yes, taking an overly strong position either way can indeed stem from erroneous reasoning. That's why I am not a strong atheist, except in those cases where that stance is justified, of which there are some. And that's why I'm not a theist.
Pattern-chaserSeptember 28, 2018 at 14:54#2160330 likes
The next step in being logical would be to look for ways to make constructive use of the ignorance we've discovered.
Haven't we been doing this for a while? Those proverbs that tell how the wiser someone is, the less they claim to know, reflect this, I think. Those of us who have given the matter any serious amount of thought have, I think, come to this conclusion. :up: In the end, I think the antidote to this ignorance is the obvious one: learning. To counteract and overcome ignorance, we must learn. :smile: :up:
Yes, there is a reason. Public atheism is a much younger enterprise than religion and has, generally speaking on average, not yet matured to the point of understanding that it too is based on faith. This is particularly true in younger commentators, for understandable reasons.
Here's how the process often works...
1) First, a sincere misunderstanding.
2) Next, the ego is attached to the misunderstanding.
3) Finally, any new information which might threaten that ego position is automatically rejected, leaving the user trapped in the misunderstanding.
The same thing often happens on the theist side (where it's easier for the atheist to see).
Pattern-chaserSeptember 28, 2018 at 14:57#2160380 likes
An atheist who finds the concept of God impossible to believe, and who gets on with their life without giving God another thought: that person is not occupying a faith position.
An atheist who asserts the non-existence of God is occupying a faith position, in exactly the same way that a believer who asserts the existence of God is occupying a faith position. Both assertions lack evidence to support them. So the link between atheism and faith is exactly as strong as the link between theism and faith. Because it is the same link, existing for the same reason.
You might be preaching to the choir here. I'm not denying that atheists can do the same thing. However, that doesn't mean that the link is just as strong with one as with the other. Faith has a much bigger role in religion, and it is much more prevalent in religious thought. That shouldn't even be seen as controversial. It's not controversial. It's widely accepted, and one almost can't help but notice and readily make that connection.
Haven't we been doing this for a while? Those proverbs that tell how the wiser someone is, the less they claim to know, reflect this, I think. Those of us who have given the matter any serious amount of thought have, I think, come to this conclusion. :up: In the end, I think the antidote to this ignorance is the obvious one: learning. To counteract and overcome ignorance, we must learn.
Oh dear, I was with you until the last sentence. At least from the Fundie Agnostic perspective, the discovery of ignorance (on questions the scale of theist and atheist claims) isn't an obstacle to overcome, but a gift to be embraced.
The "regular agnostic" perspective typically accepts the core assumption of the God debate, that the point of the inquiry should be to move towards "The Answer", and thus further learning is suggested as part of that process. Ok, I'm not at war with this, to each their own etc.
I'm just suggesting there is another way to look at it. Instead of working within the assumptions that form the foundation of the God debate, the God debate and all it's assumptions can be discarded. Why keep looking for The Answer? Why not accept the results of the investigation (we are ignorant) and work with that?
There is compelling evidence to not believe in God, and that consists in the absence of compelling evidence to be believe in God.
Pattern Chaser:If that satisfies, you, go with it.
That could be the wisest advice.
If we are to proceed along these lines we should learn from S whether he would prefer his perspective be respected and left alone, or whether he would welcome the opportunity to see it ripped to shreds.
Fair Warning: If you are unable to be a theist, and if we demolish atheism, you will be left with nothing. I would argue that is a good thing, but this perspective is not widely shared. Your call.
Pattern-chaserSeptember 28, 2018 at 15:18#2160520 likes
There is compelling evidence to not believe in God, and that consists in the absence of compelling evidence to believe in God.
...that absence of evidence is evidence of absence, so I'll stick with my conclusion for now. Your position lacks rigour, and more seriously, it lacks correctness.
Pattern-chaserSeptember 28, 2018 at 15:21#2160550 likes
At least from the Fundie Agnostic perspective, the discovery of ignorance (on questions the scale of theist and atheist claims) isn't an obstacle to overcome, but a gift to be embraced.
:smile: I acknowledge that the realisation and recognition of our ignorance is a gift. But ignorance itself? I'm not sure about that. In what way, other than achieving knowledge of our own ignorance, can ignorance be seen as a gift? :chin:
Edited to add: I just realised you said that the discovery of our own ignorance is a gift, which seems to align with what I'm saying (above). Have I misunderstood you?
If we are to proceed along these lines we should learn from S whether he would prefer his perspective be respected and left alone, or whether he would welcome the opportunity to see it ripped to shreds.
Fair Warning: If you are unable to be a theist, and if we demolish atheism, you will be left with nothing. I would argue that is a good thing, but this perspective is not widely shared. Your call.
Haha, do you think that you can rip my position to shreds? Do you think that you can demolish [I]my kind[/I] of atheism? If so, then be my guest. But, some advice in return: first ensure that you understand my position.
Is there a god? It’s a boolean question so a gambling man would initially answer 50% yes 50% no and proceed to alter the odds in light of the evidence.
I don’t get people who are black and white yes or no on this question. How can anyone be certain about a question like this?
...that absence of evidence is evidence of absence, so I'll stick with my conclusion for now. Your position lacks rigour, and more seriously, it lacks correctness.
But do you realise that I was talking about evidence to not believe in God, which is not incompatible with agnosticism? I haven't tried to justify the conclusion that there is no God, although that can be done in some cases. Impossible concepts of God do not actually exist any more than square circles do.
I would add qualifications to, "absence of evidence is evidence of absence", so that phrase, in itself, does not accurately represent my position, which, as I suspected, you have not adequately understood. Absence of evidence [I]can be[/I] evidence of absence. In some cases, it is. But we'd have to go into more detail.
Do you think that you can demolish my kind of atheism?
Yes, I can. So can Pattern Chaser it appears. But we can't detach your self image from atheism. And if that is necessary, then nothing will be accomplished until that task is completed.
If demolishing is really what you want to explore, start a new thread making that explicit request. Otherwise, I'm going to try to be wise like Pattern Chaser and leave you in peace.
Pattern-chaserSeptember 28, 2018 at 15:32#2160650 likes
Reply to Pattern-chaserPattern Chaser says: "An atheist who asserts the non-existence of God is occupying a faith position, in exactly the same way that a believer who asserts the existence of God is occupying a faith position."
That's basically why I consider myself an agnostic.
It's actually a bit more complicated. When it comes to the named deities of monotheistic religious tradition: Yahweh, Allah and Vishnu, that crowd, I'm an atheist. I believe that none of these figures corresponds to anything in reality. (I can't 'prove' it though.)
But when it comes to the metaphysical functions associated with natural theology: first-cause, ultimate ontological ground of being, source of cosmic order, why there is something rather than nothing, and so on, I have to admit that I don't have a clue. I think that agnosticism is probably the strongest and most justifiable position to take on these kind of issues, but in real everyday life we are often forced to stick our necks out a lot further.
Pattern Chaser: "Both assertions lack evidence to support them. So the link between atheism and faith is exactly as strong as the link between theism and faith. Because it is the same link, existing for the same reason."
I'd define 'faith' as willingness to commit to the truth of a belief in the absence of sound justification for the belief's truth. And I think that religious or not, we do that every day.
Atheists often like to associate themselves with science. (As if some of science's prestige might rub off on them.) But it seems to me that science is hugely faith-based. It believes in the existence and universal applicability of things called 'laws of physics', it believes that these 'laws' (the religious origin of that idea should be obvious) will hold true into the future and not be repealed a second from now (problems of induction). Justification for belief in these laws is typically just a small set of experimental results consistent with the hypothesized law. Physicists fill chalkboards with obscure hieroglyphs, without much concern with what mathematics is, what its foundations are, how human beings know about it in the first place, or what it's precise relationship is to physical reality. Everyone is proud of their use of logic and their employment of reason, without much interest in what justifies these things. (How could logic be logically justified without circularity?) They trust that their sensory experience provides true and reliable knowledge of the external world...
I don't think that human beings could life their lives without faith in this sense, faith in many of these kind of fundamental propositions.
Michael OssipoffSeptember 28, 2018 at 16:04#2160760 likes
No, those are accepted terms for describing metaphysicses,
Okie dokie. Anyway, I have bad news for you. If reincarnation follows from the Eliminative Ontic Structural Subjective Idealism metaphysics that you've been describing here, then, off the bat, there must be something wrong with the Eliminative Ontic Structural Subjective Idealism metaphysics that you've've been describing here, because reincarnation is just a fiction.
Rank AmateurSeptember 28, 2018 at 16:28#2160820 likes
But when it comes to the metaphysical functions associated with natural theology: first-cause, ultimate ontological ground of being, source of cosmic order, why there is something rather than nothing, and so on, I have to admit that I don't have a clue. I think that agnosticism is probably the strongest and most justifiable position to take on these kind of issues, but in real everyday life we are often forced to stick our necks out a lot further.
I find the agnostic position the weakest. At its base it is not saying they are un convinced of either theism or atheism - at its base it is saying the large questions you asked above, answered by either theism of atheism are not important enough to take a side on. For some the questions demand taking a position, for some they do not. But it is the questions, not the answers that are at the base of being agnostic.
But it seems to me that science is hugely faith-based.
The true faith under science is the believe that science is capable of answering all possible questions. At its base is really a belief that humans are capable of answering all possible questions. Stepping into theology, this is original sin.
Reply to yazata What he says isn't true, which also means that the basic reason why you consider yourself to be an agnostic is an untruth.
How is it a position of faith to assert that God doesn't exist if that assertion is based on a sound argument? And that's not just a hypothetical. Here, I'll demonstrate:
Assertion: God, as per certain definitions, doesn't exist.
Argument: God, as per this definition, is a powerful being which is omniscient, omnibenevolent, and both everywhere and nowhere. A being can't be both everywhere and nowhere. Therefore God, as per this definition, doesn't exist.
Ta-dah!
Michael OssipoffSeptember 28, 2018 at 17:03#2160960 likes
But it seems to me that science is hugely faith-based.
No, science isn't faith-based. Science-Worship is faith-based. ..the faith-based belief that Science explains, applies to, and covers all.
And the metaphysics called "Materialism" is faith-based. It's based on belief in an unsupported, unverifiable, unfalsifiable and unnecessary brute-fact.
Materialists believe that this physical universe is all of reality. That suggests that, definitionally, all Materialists are Science-Worshippers, and that all Science-Worshippers are Materialists.
It [science] believes in the existence and universal applicability of things called 'laws of physics'
...applicability only with regard to physical things and events in this physical universe. And, even then, physicists aren't even sure if the same physical laws that apply in this part of the universe apply in other, distant, parts of the same universe.
...or if they really even apply in our region of this physical universe. ...because subsequent experiments might result in overall results better explained by different physical laws.
, it believes that these 'laws' (the religious origin of that idea should be obvious) will hold true into the future and not be repealed a second from now (problems of induction).
No it doesn't. It's reasonable for particular physicists to believe that currently accepted physical laws won't be overturned. ...or at least won't be overturned anytime soon. But there's so systemwide assumption that all currently accepted physical laws will apply throughout the future history of physics.
That wouldn't be science.
You haven't read much about science. Physicists have no such firm general belief. Sure, sometimes it seems as if a physical law will likely continue to be upheld. But it's well-understood by physicists that it might not.
Justification for belief in these laws is typically just a small set of experimental results consistent with the hypothesized law.
A physical law is a current working-assumption. Sure, individual physicists might believe that it's likely that some particular physical law(s) will continue to be upheld. But it'd more of a working-assumption, and it isn't something that physicists have unquestioning faith in.
Reply to Michael Ossipoff Your hyperbolic rants against materialism, or, as it's now called, physicalism, try so hard to make it appear much more unreasonable than it is.
[quote=The Stanford Encyclopaedia of Philosophy]Physicalism is the thesis that everything is physical, or as contemporary philosophers sometimes put it, that everything supervenes on the physical.[/quote]
But it's open to debate. I am not fully convinced of physicalism, but nor am I convinced that you can justifiably write it off. I don't believe that you're capable of demonstrating a counterexample; that is, that there exists something which is not physical, or does not supervene on the physical.
I don’t get people who are black and white yes or no on this question. How can anyone be certain about a question like this?
I've said it a number of times now. I can be certain if it violates the law of noncontradiction. And I can be certain if it entails evidence which is absent. But lacking these kind of reasons, sure, there is reason to accept the possibility, as a possibility, even if there's no reason to believe that it's anything more than that.
Reply to MountainDwarfReply to MountainDwarf
Religion for sure is complicated to talk about so just keep in mind that this is my opinion, so it can be wrong.
Religion today is really a big deal, not more that before in the medieval time, but i think that if you are a religious representative such as the Papa, you have more power than many countrys around.
Religion can be a way of uniting people all around the world for one only cause, that can variate, for a common god, for a life stile, but can also be for non acceptance, chaos and deaf.
I think that the pure concept of each religion is beautiful, no religion talks about deaf, no religion talks about non acceptance. The big problem is that no religion seems to follow there truth meaning and goal. when you go to the catholic church it fells more like a brainwash than anything else.
It certainly seems to be based on a whole lot of assumptions that haven't been conclusively nailed-down.
[The laws of physics only have]...applicability only with regard to physical things and events in this physical universe. And, even then, physicists aren't even sure if the same physical laws that apply in this part of the universe apply in other, distant, parts of the same universe.
Astrophysics certainly seems to make that assumption.
It's reasonable for particular physicists to believe that currently accepted physical laws won't be overturned.
Why is it reasonable? There would seem to be some uniformity-of-nature assumption sneaking in there. As David Hume argued pretty convincingly, it's hard to justify that without circularity.
You haven't read much about science.
I figured that mentioning science in conjunction with faith might gore some sacred-cows.
A physical law is a current working-assumption.
And an article of faith to the extent that people are willing to commit to its truth. Which we do every time we fly in an airplane or rely on technology.
An atheist who asserts the non-existence of God is occupying a faith position, in exactly the same way that a believer who asserts the existence of God is occupying a faith position.
This is a rather meaningless claim. A religion cannot comprise of the simple notion that 'God exists'. An entire meaning system makes up a religion. Conversely, an entire [unscientific] meaning system could be behind the person who believes in the non-existence of God. There are non-theistic religions.
Making reality relatable via a theistic narrative is a step removed from reality.
— praxis
Religion is not science. Religion is not about facts about reality. This common misconception condemns most discussions of religion on philosophy forums to irrelevance.
I haven't made a scientific or factual claim. I've merely pointed out a contradiction in your reasoning. A theistic narrative is a step removed from reality and your claim is that our fall from grace arose from a "loss of psychic connection with reality."
I think you may be having trouble separating the concepts of spirituality and religion.
Jake:Many or most human beings will find it easier to fall in love with reality if it is presented in the form of a familiar human-like character. The evidence for this is that the God character has dominated many cultures around the world for thousands of years.
Theists aren't falling in love with reality, they're falling in love with God, a concept they've learned from their culture, and again, this concept is a step removed from reality. Removed from reality in the sense of it being a 'thought', which you seem to claim is what leads to a "loss of psychic connection with reality."
Reply to praxis I agree with you that making reality relatable via a theistic narrative is a step removed from reality, but I don't agree that that's a contradiction. A bit paradoxical maybe, but not a contradiction.
You're both right to some extent. Jake's right that a theistic narrative can make reality more relatable, through things like anthropomorphism and story telling, and you're right that that actually has the effect of taking a step back from reality. There's a bit of a mismatch going on there. Personally, I'd rather relate to the world as it is, which is fascinating enough without inventions of the imagination or projected human traits. Falling back on that is a bit like leaving the stabilisers on your bike.
Michael OssipoffSeptember 28, 2018 at 18:54#2161310 likes
It certainly seems to be based on a whole lot of assumptions that haven't been conclusively nailed-down.
Quite possibly it seems like that to you. But that's because you don't know what science is. Of course there are assumptions, and they're usually known to be, and offered as, assumptions. Can physicists be mistaken about the future viability of a theory or law? Of course. They aren't psychics.
"[The laws of physics only have]...applicability only with regard to physical things and events in this physical universe. And, even then, physicists aren't even sure if the same physical laws that apply in this part of the universe apply in other, distant, parts of the same universe."
Astrophysics certainly seems to make that assumption.
As pointed out to you above, how something seems to you, and how it actually is, aren't necessarily the same thing.
Astrophysics is usually about the observable universe. It's speculative whether there are different physical laws in greatly distant different parts of this universe. But no, physicists wouldn't say that they're sure that the laws that seem to apply in our part of this physical universe are applicable throughout this entire universe.
It's probably assumed (as a working-assumption) that whatever physical laws apply here apply throughout the observable universe (excluding the region in a black-hole, or within regions smaller than a Planck-length, where that might be questionable), and probably in some universe-subset that extends some distance out beyond the observable universe.
"It's reasonable for particular physicists to believe that currently accepted physical laws won't be overturned."
[quote]
Why is it reasonable? There would seem to be some uniformity-of-nature assumption sneaking in there.
Again, how science seems to you isn't necessarily how it is. You'd need to find out more about it before making all of these statements about how it seems to you.
Though I doubt that there's an accepted and unquestioned assumption that the laws of physics are the same throughout the entire universe, of course there are working-assumptions. ...not offered as dogmatic known truth.
It isn't even known whether the universe is finite or infinite, or what its shape is. Some physicists believe that it's more likely to be finite, or more likely to be infinite.
And an individual can believe that something is so without making an assertion that it's unquestionably true. If I lend someone money it's because I believe that they'll pay me back, but it doesn't mean that I can guarantee that it's true.
That's why, elsewhere in that post, I used "likely" as an adverb when speaking of such beliefs.
"You haven't read much about science."
I figured that mentioning science in conjunction with faith might gore some sacred-cows.
It revealed some profound ignorance about science.
"A physical law is a current working-assumption."
And an article of faith to the extent that people are willing to commit to its truth. Which we do every time we fly in an airplane or rely on technology.
It's a working-assumption that what we do is probably safe, even though we know that there's a chance that it won't be safe. "Article of faith" implies something else. Science isn't about faith.
Well, "faith" is (probably best) defined as "trust". Certainly scientists, when using a working-assumption, have a limited amount of "trust" that it will hold true, at least while they're using it. But your use of the word "faith" implies a more far-reaching, complete and absolute trust.
I agree with you that making reality relatable via a theistic narrative is a step removed from reality, but I don't agree that that's a contradiction. A bit paradoxical maybe, but not a contradiction.
Unless I've misread him, Jake appears to be basically claiming that what he refers to as "thought" leads to a "loss of psychic connection with reality," which I presume leads to existential anxiety, etc., the sort of things that religion is supposed to address. God is a concept, which is "thought," so does it not contradict his theory that a thought can lead to connection with reality?
What would be consistent with his theory? Putting aside all thoughts and perhaps especially a concept like God that is so loaded with meaning.
Michael OssipoffSeptember 28, 2018 at 20:03#2161430 likes
.
All I’m saying is that Materialism is based on (or is) an unverifiable, unfalsifiable and unnecessary brute-fact.
.
That isn’t hyperbolic or a rant.
.
In fact, Materialists don’t even try to deny that Materialism has, needs, or is a brute-fact.
.
, or, as it's now called, physicalism
.
It’s regrettably called that by some people. The problem is that “Physicalism” also refers to something else, a philosophy-of-mind, distinct from its meaning as a metaphysics.
.
So I avoid using the word “Physicalism”, because it has two different meanings.
.
Nowadays, when people say “Materialism”, they mean it to include forces, fields, and not just matter. The mean it with the same meaning as the metaphysical meaning of “Physicalism”.
.
…, try so hard to make it appear much more unreasonable than it is.
.
I’ve stated specific unreasonable-ness of Materialism.
.
[metaphysical] Physicalism is the thesis that everything is physical, or as contemporary philosophers sometimes put it, that everything supervenes on the physical. — The Stanford Encyclopaedia of Philosophy
.
…meaning that this physical universe is the basis of all, that it’s the fundamental and ultimate reality.
.
That’s like the ordinary dictionary definition that I’ve been quoting.
.
But it's open to debate. I am not fully convinced of [metaphysical] physicalism, but nor am I convinced that you can justifiably write it off. I don't believe that you're capable of demonstrating a counterexample; that is, that there exists something which is not physical, or does not supervene on the physical.
.
Below is something that I’ve repeated very many times:
.
I’ve been saying:
I can’t prove that this physical world doesn’t have some kind of objective, fundamental, metaphysically-prior “reality” or “existence”, (whatever that would mean) as a superfluous, unverifiable, unfalsifiable brute-fact, alongside of, and duplicating the events and relations of, the uncontroversially-inevitable hypothetical logical system that I’ve spoken of.
.
It isn’t possible to prove a metaphysics, because it isn’t possible to disprove other metaphysicses, …to disprove an unfalsifiable proposition that has been contrived to explain physical observations.
.
All that can be established in these matters is: Which metaphysical proposal needs assumptions and brute-facts, and which one doesn’t? Uncontroversially, Materialism has and needs a brute-fact.
.
The metaphysics that I’ve been proposing doesn’t have or need any assumption or brute-fact.
.
Michael Ossipoff
I am, and always have been in complete agreement with this point. Yet again it is not a matter of fact that unicorns are or are not. And it is not a matter of fact that God is or God is not.
We're not getting anywhere with this. They are both matters of fact. It's not that difficult to grasp. Matters of fact don't have to be settled to be matters of fact. We don't have to know what the answer is regarding unicorns or God for these things to be matters of fact. We don't have to make an assertion for or against. That's just not the way that we usually we talk. It must be something like that that's getting in the way and sending you off course. You seem to be giving the term a different meaning and that's causing problems. Matters of fact are just matters of fact. A matter of what is the case. Whether or not God exists or doesn't exist is a matter concerning what is the case.
Come to think about it, perhaps what you really mean to say is that I wouldn't be justified in asserting that it's a fact that God exists, or in asserting that it's a fact that God doesn't exist.
If so, you're really not saying that in the clearest way. You're saying it in a way which can easily be misinterpreted, as I told you before, but you didn't listen and said something like, "It's absolutely not ambiguous! It's perfectly clear!".
This is in conflict with science - in science absence of evidence is only absence of evidence - the rest to this paragraph is using reason to believe a truth that unicorns do not exist - which is fine, but not science. It is reason, not fact.
No, it's not at all in conflict with science. You don't know what you're talking about. Science relates to observable evidence, reason, cause and effect, probability, biology, physics, ecology, and that sort of thing, and all of that is taken into account in order to reach the conclusion that absence of unicorn evidence where our knowledge would lead us to predict it to be means that they probably don't exist in these environments.
Agree - and have never said my theism is supported by science. And the same can be said of any claim that God does not exist can not be supported by science.
It can if the God in question is conceived as interacting in the observable world in a way which would leave a trail of evidence which we should have discovered by now.
I have never said anywhere that atheism is not a reasonable position, as is theism - both have reasonable arguments, neither argument has been shown to [be] in conflict with fact.
You can't justifiably make a blanket statement like that. Might be reasonable, might not be. Might be capable of being shown to conflict with fact, might not be. Need more detail.
other than your belief that theism in unreasonable. I have not seen, or if you have I don't remember any supported argument you have made yet that theism is an unreasonable position.
It's unreasonable, by definition, when it makes a leap of faith, or when it employs fallacious reasoning. What more needs to be said on that point? I think that that's enough.
It [science] certainly seems to be based on a whole lot of assumptions that haven't been conclusively nailed-down.
Michael writes:
Quite possibly it seems like that to you. But that's because you don't know what science is.
I'd rather not get into a pissing contest with you.
I'm just pointing out that the problems of induction, confirmation, natural kinds, substance and properties, parts and wholes, scientific realism, intertheoretical relations, reduction, emergence, parsimony and simplicity, heuristics, inference to the best explanation, and even what explanation is and what it's trying to accomplish are still open philosophical questions in the philosophy of science or metaphysics.
As are the nature of space and time, modality, the ontological nature of unactualized possibilities, counterfactuals, dispositions, regularity and necessitarian theories of natural law and providing a satisfactory account of causality.
And there's the whole cloud of problems surrounding abstract objects, what mathematics is, mathematical epistemology and the relationship of mathematics to physical reality. Similar problems arise with logic, and by extension with reason itself.
In other words, just about anything that scientists think about turns profoundly mysterious whenever somebody starts poking into the foundations.
Obviously scientists can typically do their work without worrying a whole lot about the philosophy of science and most don't. But more fundamental issues do sometimes intrude into the scientific consciousness when problematic issues arise, as with the advent of quantum mechanics.
Rank AmateurSeptember 28, 2018 at 20:40#2161550 likes
Reply to S I have come to the conclusion that you just like to argue. I’m done with engaging you.
All I’m saying is that Materialism is based on (or is) an unverifiable, unfalsifiable and unnecessary brute-fact.
.
That isn’t hyperbolic or a rant.
.
In fact, Materialists don’t even try to deny that Materialism has, needs, or is a brute-fact.
No, I don't think that that's true. If I was thinking about whether physicalism is the case, I would start by thinking about the kind of things in the world, and whether or not they have physical attributes or supervene on the physical in some way. Take a chair, for example. A chair is composed of atoms, and atoms are physical. They are physical because they are the subject of study in physics, and are used in physical explanations. You'd expect to read about things like atoms in a physics book. I would then do that with a number of things, and I would see if I could think of any exceptions. I wouldn't just take it as a brute fact. So, for that reason, and because I haven't had that many discussions with physicalists about their views, I am doubtful of your assertion that that's what physicalists do, and that they don't even deny it.
Anyway, how did we even end up talking about physicalism? That's off-topic, isn't it?
I have come to the conclusion that you just like to argue. I’m done with engaging you.
This again? Jeez. You're like a petulant child throwing his toys out of the pram. You'd prefer disingenuous agreement, just to keep the peace, so to speak? If I disagree with something, I speak my mind. Ain't nothing wrong with that.
My point was that we shouldn't be expecting religion to deliver accurate facts about reality. That's the job of science.
Religion's job is to help us manage our relationship with reality. This is something very different. Religion should be judged by whether it helps people build a positive relationship with this place we find ourselves in.
Theists aren't falling in love with reality, they're falling in love with God, a concept they've learned from their culture, and again, this concept is a step removed from reality.
Have you noticed that the God character bears a striking resemblance to nature? Huge beyond imagination, gloriously beautiful, utterly ruthless etc.
Michael OssipoffSeptember 28, 2018 at 22:16#2161930 likes
[i]”All I’m saying is that Materialism is based on (or is) an unverifiable, unfalsifiable and unnecessary brute-fact.
.
That isn’t hyperbolic or a rant.
.
In fact, Materialists don’t even try to deny that Materialism has, needs, or is a brute-fact.” — Michael Ossipoff[/i]
.
No, I don't think that that's true. If I was thinking about whether physicalism is the case, I would start by thinking about the kind of things in the world, and whether or not they have physical attributes or supervene on the physical in some way. Take a chair, for example. A chair is composed of atoms, and atoms are physical. They are physical because they are the subject of study in physics, and are used in physical explanations. You'd expect to read about things like atoms in a physics book. I would then do that with a number of things, and I would see if I could think of any exceptions.
.
No one denies that the chair is physical, and that this entire physical universe is physical. Your discovery that your chair is made of atoms doesn’t support Materialism.
.
The hypothetical logical system of inter-referring abstract implications about hypothetical propositions about hypothetical things, with various configurations of mutually-consistent hypothetical truth-values for those hypothetical propositions. …,which is your life-experience story, has one requirement: Consistency. …because there aren’t inconsistent facts, even abstract ones.
.
Your experience, in your experience-story, is of the experience of a physical animal in a physical world. So don’t be so surprised to find out that your chair is physical. It’s made of atoms. You experience that not by your own experiments, but by being told it by your pre-secondary science-teacher. I’m not denying it. Consistency (remember that requirement?) requires that there be a physical mechanism, a physical explanation for you and your surroundings.
.
At least in our physical world, life depends on there being chemistry. Chemistry depends on there being various different kinds of material, elements, that can interact and combine in various ways, in various combinations.
.
Distinct and consistent different elements depend on some consistent and discrete variation in physical systems. One way to get consistent discrete quantities is by standing-waves.
.
Hence wave-mechanics, matter-waves, quantum-mechanics.
.
Consistency in your experience-story requires that, when physicists investigate matter and its composition, they find things that are consistent with the physical animal that is you, being here. Biology, chemistry, distinctly different atoms of different distinct and consistent elements that are capable of combining in many kinds of combinations. …there via wave-mechanics.
.
None of that proves Materialism. It just shows physicists’ findings that, as required by the consistency that is the requirement of your experience-story, are consistent with the physical existence of the animal that is you.
.
The physicists had to find something when they began closely examining matter, and it had to be something consistent with your physical origin in this physical universe. So yes, your chair, like you, is made of atoms.
.
I wouldn't just take it as a brute fact.
. What wouldn’t you take as a brute fact? The “objective existence” of this physical universe? You wouldn’t take that as a brute-fact? Alright then, why is there this physical universe? Because there just is? That’s called a brute-fact.
.
Trust me, Materialists who have any idea what they’re talking about in philosophy admit that their objectively-existent physical universe is a brute-fact.
.
Then there’s another question; If you claim that this physical universe is “objectively-real” &/or “objectively-existent”, or “actual” in some way that the hypothetical logical system that I described isn’t, then what do you mean by those terms in quotes?
.
So, for that reason, and because I haven't had that many discussions with physicalists about their views, I am doubtful of your assertion that that's what physicalists do, and that they don't even deny it.
.
I’ve had many discussions with Materialists at these philosophy forums. They admit that their Materialism has a big brute-fact. They think a brute-fact is necessary and unavoidable.
.
But the metaphysics that I’ve been proposing doesn’t have, include or need any assumption or brute-fact.
.
Anyway, how did we even end up talking about physicalism? That's off-topic, isn't it?
.
For one thing, someone said that science is faith-based. I answered that, unlike Science-Worship and Materialsm, science isn’t faith-based.
.
For another thing, it isn’t off-topic. While we’re on the subject of beliefs, it’s relevant to discuss what alternative belief most aggressive Atheists believe in.
.
Much, most or all aggressive Atheist argument against Theism depends on an implicit devoted belief in the metaphysics of Materialism.
.
Michael Ossipoff
Unless I've misread him, Jake appears to be basically claiming that what he refers to as "thought" leads to a "loss of psychic connection with reality,
It's just a matter of focus. What am I focusing my attention on in any given moment, the world beyond my nose, or the symbols within my mind? Most of us are "lost in thought" most of the time and not really paying careful attention to reality, and thus not really connecting with it. Don't take my word for it, observe this in your own life.
God is a concept, which is "thought," so does it not contradict his theory that a thought can lead to connection with reality?
Great question. I do agree the God concept is just another thought, and creates the same distraction from reality as any other thoughts. In other threads I've commented that a great weakness of religion is that it often attempts to use thought, the very thing dividing us from reality, in it's search for reunification with God/reality.
So personally, I would advise direct observation of reality, as free from thought as possible. But this is asking too much for very many people, and so user friendly relatable concepts like God become the stand-in for reality. And then many folks get stuck in worshiping the symbol instead of what the symbol is pointing to.
Bottom line, what works best for a person? If worshiping a concept like God assists somebody in falling in love with life, ok, forget what I said and go for it.
I could do, and maybe I will, but I would like you to tell me in what way you think that your position differs from mine.
If demolishing atheism is really what you want to explore, start a new thread making that explicit request. Or not, as you prefer, either way is ok with me.
Michael OssipoffSeptember 28, 2018 at 22:26#2161990 likes
What a strange thing to say. Is this an Atheist defining God for us?
Admittedly praxis has concepts about God. No doubt praxis's God is a concept.
But maybe it would be best for praxis to speak only for himself.
It isn't established that words, logic and concepts cover all of Reality. They describe logic and science, but it's a big leap of faith to believe and claim that they describe and cover all of Reality.
Michael Ossipoff
Michael OssipoffSeptember 28, 2018 at 22:28#2162010 likes
If demolishing atheism is really what you want to explore, start a new thread making that explicit request. Or not, as you prefer, either way is ok with me.
But isn't it mostly Atheists who are interested in starting these threads?
Theists aren't falling in love with reality, they're falling in love with God, a concept they've learned from their culture, and again, this concept is a step removed from reality.
— praxis
Have you noticed that the God character bears a striking resemblance to nature? Huge beyond imagination, gloriously beautiful, utterly ruthless etc.
Bottom line, what works best for a person? If worshiping a concept like God assists somebody in falling in love with life, ok, forget what I said and go for it.
To reiterate, they're not falling in love with reality, they're falling in love with God, or rather, their religion ('re-ligare', to tie or to bind).
What a strange thing to say. Is this an Atheist defining God for us?
Admittedly praxis has concepts about God. No doubt praxis's God is a concept.
But maybe it would be best for praxis to speak only for himself.
It isn't established that words, logic and concepts cover all of Reality. They describe logic and science, but it's a big leap of faith to believe and claim that they describe and cover all of Reality.
Do you have the ability to know things without having a concept of them?
What wouldn’t you take as a brute fact? The “objective existence” of this physical universe? You wouldn’t take that as a brute-fact? Alright then, why is there this physical universe? Because there just is? That’s called a brute-fact.
No, that's not what I meant, and I don't think that asking [i]why[/I] there is this physical universe is a sensible or appropriate question. It's a loaded question.
I meant that I wouldn't consider it to be a brute fact that physicalism is the case, which is to say that everything is physical, or supervenes on the physical, which I thought was clear from the context where I went into detail about how I'd go about thinking about physicalism: a way which contrasts with the kind of thinking behind brute facts, where things can't be broken down or considered as thoroughly, and you just kind of go, "Everything is physical! Just because!".
Then there’s another question; If you claim that this physical universe is “objectively-real” &/or “objectively-existent”, or “actual” in some way that the hypothetical logical system that I described isn’t, then what do you mean by those terms in quotes?
Yes, I do claim that. It is objectively real, existent, and actual, although I'm not sure whether that's in some way that the "hypothetical logical system" that you've described isn't, because, with due respect, I don't really understand much of what you were banging on about for that wordy first part of your reply - experience story, hypothetical this, hypothetical that, wave mechanics - which I haven't addressed because I don't even know where to begin. The meaning of those terms - "objective", "real", "existent", "actual" - can be found in dictionaries and understood in contrast with their antonyms, so you should be capable of understanding my meaning without me having to explain it.
[i]"What a strange thing to say. Is this an Atheist defining God for us?
Admittedly praxis has concepts about God. No doubt praxis's God is a concept.
But maybe it would be best for praxis to speak only for himself.
It isn't established that words, logic and concepts cover all of Reality. They describe logic and science, but it's a big leap of faith to believe and claim that they describe and cover all of Reality." — Michael Ossipoff[/i]
Do you have the ability to know things without having a concept of them?
Do you know what mint leaves smell like? Do you have a concept by which you know the smell of mint? Write it down.
But no, I don't claim to have knowledge or understanding of matters not covered within the self-defined and self-circumscribed applicability-limits of description, logic or physical science. ...unlike you, with your conceptual knowledge about such matters.
Silly straw-man. If you’re done beating on it I’ll point out that I made no claim the concept of God corisponds to nothing real, only that it’s a concept.
Do you have a concept by which you know the smell of mint? Write it down.
If I had no concept of mint I wouldn’t be able to recognize it. Write it down? You of course realize what a silly request that is. That doesn’t make it magic, it just means that I’m not capable of expressing the neurological data in written form. I could write you a poem, if that would please you.
It isn't established that words, logic and concepts cover all of Reality.
Praxis is right, we don't even know what "all of reality" refers to in even the most basic manner, such as size, shape etc.
And thus, Ossipoff is right too, it isn't established that the rules of human reason apply to all of reality, because we don't even know what we mean by "all of reality".
If a person is willing to face this fact in a simple straightforward common sense manner, without trying to complicate it so they can look fancy....
The whole God debate comes crashing to the ground of it's own weight.
Pattern-chaserSeptember 29, 2018 at 13:02#2164340 likes
Conversely, an entire [unscientific] meaning system could be behind the person who believes in the non-existence of God. There are non-theistic religions.
What point are you making here? I agree with both sentences, but don't understand how they relate to what I wrote:
An atheist who asserts the non-existence of God is occupying a faith position, in exactly the same way that a believer who asserts the existence of God is occupying a faith position.
The person who asserts the [non-]existence of God goes beyond logic by going beyond the available evidence, and reaching a logically unjustified and unjustifiable position. Only the agnostic position can be logically justified. I am no different than anyone else here: despite what I just said about logic and agnosticism, I believe. And my belief has no logical justification. I'm human. But I'm honest ... about this, at least. :meh: :wink:
Pattern-chaserSeptember 29, 2018 at 13:03#2164350 likes
But that's because you don't know what science is. Of course there are assumptions, and they're usually known to be, and offered as, assumptions.
In fairness, they're often hidden, disguised as "axioms", when they are just assumptions; guesswork. Worse, we base further reasoning on these axioms, creating a house of cards, ready to fall as soon as the initial guess (axiom) proves unreliable. :meh: Assumptions on which we rely for further reasoning are, by far, the most dangerous sort of assumptions. All we need to do, to really drop ourselves in it, is to forget (even briefly) that our reasoning is based on sand. Then we're doomed. :smile:
Pattern-chaserSeptember 29, 2018 at 13:14#2164380 likes
The metaphysics that I’ve been proposing doesn’t have or need any assumption
I'm sorry, but I haven't followed every word you've written here. :blush: You have a metaphysics that doesn't have or need assumptions? What is this miracle of philosophy? If you don't want to repeat yourself (understandable :up: ) perhaps you could point me to the post(s) where your description lies? Thanks.
Rank AmateurSeptember 29, 2018 at 13:26#2164420 likes
Reply to Pattern-chaser what is the basis of what we hold as true based on science in 2018, is any different than what was held as true based on science in 1718, 1818, 1918 ?
The history of science is a long series of incorrect propositions held as true, until surpassed as a new truth.
This in no way diminishes the actual work of science, or mans ability to use reason to explain and understand the universe.
It is a reminder and caution to those who elevate science over its purpose to a religion. And outside of fact or reason, by faith alone believe it can and will answer all human questions. Both the physical, as designed to do, and the metaphysical, by returning them to the physical.
Pattern-chaserSeptember 29, 2018 at 13:27#2164430 likes
My point was that we shouldn't be expecting religion to deliver accurate facts about reality. That's the job of science.
Religion's job is to help us manage our relationship with reality. This is something very different. Religion should be judged by whether it helps people build a positive relationship with this place we find ourselves in.
This is, or should be, what this thread's about. Religion is a spiritual matter. It has a sort of spiritual logic, although I shouldn't call it that. It's a bit misleading to refer to logic when I really mean to say that spiritual matters have their own internal consistency. Yes, that's a better way of putting it. :smile:
Just as various posters here have been saying to one another "you misunderstand what science is", it is reasonable to say to those who are debating the Objective existence of God - a pointless enterprise if I ever saw one - you misunderstand what religion/spirituality is. It has almost nothing in common with science. It does not deal in facts, and it does not deal in incontrovertible physical evidence or repeatable experiments. It deals in aspirations and beliefs. As Jake says (above) it "helps us manage our relationship with reality". It has great merit for many humans. I has no logical justification. It is a complement to science. It is not compulsory: use it if you wish, but not if you don't. :up: :smile:
Pattern-chaserSeptember 29, 2018 at 13:31#2164450 likes
So personally, I would advise direct observation of reality, as free from thought as possible.
Zen is about as close as you'll get with this. There's too much nonconscious stuff going on as we perceive reality for us to set it all aside. We cannot help but interpret what our senses send us. :confused:
Pattern-chaserSeptember 29, 2018 at 13:33#2164470 likes
It is a reminder and caution to those who elevate science over its purpose to a religion. And outside of fact or reason, by faith alone believe it can and will answer all human questions.
Thanks for putting this so clearly. :up: :smile:
Harry HinduSeptember 29, 2018 at 14:01#2164500 likes
"What a strange thing to say. Is this an Atheist defining God for us?
Admittedly praxis has concepts about God. No doubt praxis's God is a concept.
But maybe it would be best for praxis to speak only for himself.
You have yet to speak for yourself.
These aren't atheist definitions of God we are putting forth, that would be inconsistent with being an atheist! How can anyone define something for which they have no evidence that it exists? They are theists definitions of God. If you have a different one then show us and stop going around in circles.
The burden is upon those that claim such a thing exists to define it.
I have asked you numerous times to define the God that we are rejecting without reason, and you can't do it.
The fact is that every notion of God is either contradictory or just a label for something else for which we know that exists, like trees, statues and the universe.
When are you going to define the God that we are so unreasonable to reject the existence of?
Harry HinduSeptember 29, 2018 at 14:04#2164520 likes
The history of science is a long series of incorrect propositions held as true, until surpassed as a new truth.
Exactly. When we are wrong, we admit it. Has any religion ever admitted that they were wrong, or have people simply come to reject that for which there is no evidence (like the Norse and Greek gods)?
This in no way diminishes the actual work of science, or mans ability to use reason to explain and understand the universe.
It is a reminder and caution to those who elevate science over its purpose to a religion. And outside of fact or reason, by faith alone believe it can and will answer all human questions. Both the physical, as designed to do, and the metaphysical, by returning them to the physical.
I didn't just give up and say I have faith that science will answer those questions. I showed the reasons why science can answer those questions and religion hasn't. So you're really just ignoring what I said, without any argument against, and just repeating yourself. You are the one relying on faith when you just ignore things that are said so that you can keep on saying the same thing over and over again.
It is a reminder that we need evidence and experimentation to prove anything. No one has provided either for the existence of God, so how can you blame science for that?
it is reasonable to say to those who are debating the Objective existence of God - a pointless enterprise if I ever saw one - you misunderstand what religion/spirituality is.
All philosophy forums seem to suffer from the rampant misconception that religion is primarily a matter of ideological assertions. Many posters aren't even interested in understanding religion, they just want something to debunk and religious assertions seem like an easy target.
you misunderstand what religion/spirituality is. It has almost nothing in common with science. It does not deal in facts
In fairness to the critics, religion often does claim to be dealing in facts, so the confusion can be understandable and reasonable. Understandable, but not very sophisticated. However, we might keep in mind that many posters (most?) are young men, and nobody is born knowing everything about everything.
It (religion) is not compulsory: use it if you wish, but not if you don't.
No, that's wrong. If these posters don't start singing tearful tunes to Baby Jesus pretty soon we're just going to have burn them at the stake and move on. I don't have all day for this you know. :smile:
Rank AmateurSeptember 29, 2018 at 15:03#2164640 likes
I didn't just give up and say I have faith that science will answer those questions. I showed the reasons why science can answer those questions and religion hasn't. So you're really just ignoring what I said, without any argument against, and just repeating yourself. You are the one relying on faith when you just ignore things that are said so that you can keep on saying the same thing over and over again.
We are working on different definitions. I have never said it is not reasonable to believe science will not answer every question. As I will say it is reasonable to believe in a non contingent or necessary being is. But while each is reasonable we both make a leap of faith to believe as true and act accordingly as a matter of our world view that future beliefs of our respective religions is in fact true. That trust, while reasonable, if a belief based on faith.
ChristofferSeptember 29, 2018 at 15:44#2164710 likes
What do you think religion's purpose is & how does one interact with it?
Religion has no purpose in of itself. The invention of religion is as natural as our human psyche, since we always attribute abstract explanations when there are no obvious answers found. We are a pattern seeking species that fill in blanks where there's nothing in between the known. This is how religion starts to grow and the less knowledge we have about how the world and us as humans work, the more prone to inventing religious patterns and answers we are. Over the course of history, those ideas gets corrupted by the power hunger of people of power and converted into hierarchical power structures to steer the population in a certain direction, bad or otherwise.
Essentially, religion is a form of control, that has roots in our pattern seeking way of thinking about the things we lack knowledge of.
On top of that, the spiritual part has to do with comfort, we get comfort in having a "higher power" that watches over us, we get comfort in the idea of authority guiding us. It comes out of the deep rooted comfort in our relation to our parents, all appeal to authority comes from this dynamic between parent and children and it demands a strong mind to turn away from that comfort. This comfort also exist in the moral teachings of religion, we also find comfort in having a list of rules to follow in a world seemingly without rules.
There has also been research into IQ and religious belief. Now I hope that in this forum, people will understand that this is not about being condescending, but there's a pattern of low intelligence connected to religious belief and when looking at how we act out in the world, as said, it demands a strong mind to be free of the comfort and the driving forces that pushes us out towards religious belief and patterns. People with lower IQ tend to follow authority more, they do not question the world around them and therefor are more easily manipulated into religious belief. Standing in front of the total chaos of knowledge, conflicting ideas, the unknowns of the world and universe is a very scary thing to do and it demands that people have the mental capacity and strength to actually think in new ways, to combine many conflicting perspectives to find a more rational truth etc.
Religion is comfort, it's a sense of guidance, but through that a tool of power for many different types of people.
The other aspect is the emotional aspect. There are people who have reasonably high IQ who are still believers in a certain religion. I can only argue that this is because of the comfort as an emotional aspect. They have two parts of themselves; the scared comfort seeking emotional self and the rational and thinking self, separerad. Whenever they think and feel about their own personal and subjective morals and feelings they act out and think through that inner comfort-seeking self while when working on complex things and ideas they project an external self to handle that separately. It becomes a shield of their inner self. A person who has a strong sense of how their inner self works, who understands themselves deeply, who find comfort in themselves, are rarely religious.
Now I know that all of this sounds condescending, but there are so much research pointing in a very specific direction for these questions that it's not rational to ignore them. Apologetics usually turn to arguments that's about the importance of religion in people's life, that for some it's essential for their mental well-being and that's hard to argue against, but my opinion is that because we do not have a replacement for that comfort in atheism, we do not yet have a way to open the door to atheism in a comforting way. For religious people who seek comfort, seek answers to life, the world and universe; the void in atheism is pure darkness for them. Many atheists see light in the process of learning new knowledge, in the process of asking questions and the search for true answers, but for those who find that to be a mental burden, it's pure terror for them to open that door.
This is why most arguments for atheism fail when trying to open the eyes of someone religious; they do not look at the core of why religious belief exist, only the irrationality of that belief. The irrational is only the surface level of a cognitive process that demands respect because we respect people and even if I don't think religion demands respect, the people needs to be respected. Their need for comfort is essential for their well being and respecting that is essential in order to give well being to people in a world without religion.
Harry HinduSeptember 29, 2018 at 17:17#2164810 likes
We are working on different definitions. I have never said it is not reasonable to believe science will not answer every question. As I will say it is reasonable to believe in a non contingent or necessary being is.
But it isn't reasonable to believe that. It isn't reasonable to believe that because believing that requires you to believe in another being that created the other in order to be consistent. It also adds a lot more complexity that isn't necessary to explain existence of the universe. Where does this being exist in relation to us?
But while each is reasonable we both make a leap of faith to believe as true and act accordingly as a matter of our world view that future beliefs of our respective religions is in fact true. That trust, while reasonable, if a belief based on faith.
You seem to be conflating religious faith with inductive reasoning. If you don't know the difference, I can't really engage in a reasonable conversation with you.
Rank AmateurSeptember 29, 2018 at 17:18#2164820 likes
What point are you making here? I agree with both sentences, but don't understand how they relate to what I wrote:
An atheist who asserts the non-existence of God is occupying a faith position, in exactly the same way that a believer who asserts the existence of God is occupying a faith position.
— Pattern-chaser
The person who asserts the [non-]existence of God goes beyond logic by going beyond the available evidence, and reaching a logically unjustified and unjustifiable position.
The point is as I wrote, that the claim is meaningless. Either side may or may not be a faith position. Simply asserting the existence of God may not be a faith position if there's nothing behind it. For example, if you were brought up in a culture where there was no concept of God and then one day a trusted friend said to you, "God exists." You might say something like, "Uh, okay. Tell me more." But he just leaves it at that and says nothing else about it. Then the next day you run into an atheist who says, "God is dead." And you're like, "Oh crap, I just found out it existed!" In this scenario you're not occupying a faith position, right?
A religion cannot be comprised of a simple notion such as that God exists. A religion is comprised of various elements, some more essential than others, which offer meaning. In the above scenario, the concept of God is basically meaningless to you.
A person who asserts the [non-]existence of God may reach that conclusion by examining the theists narrative. Are there elements in the Bible that are inconsistent with known facts, for instance? Yes. Again, if someone just made the claim that "God exists" and nothing else, they would pretty much be ignored.
Michael OssipoffSeptember 29, 2018 at 17:34#2164880 likes
"The metaphysics that I’ve been proposing doesn’t have or need any assumption" — Michael Ossipoff
I'm sorry, but I haven't followed every word you've written here. :blush: You have a metaphysics that doesn't have or need assumptions?
Yes.
What is this miracle of philosophy?
Admittedly, people don't like giving up assumptions.
If you don't want to repeat yourself (understandable :up: ) perhaps you could point me to the post(s) where your description lies? Thanks.
I've finally caught onto the desirability of saving some of my posts in Word. So I'll just find a good example there, and paste it into this conversation.
As Jake says (above) it [religion] "helps us manage our relationship with reality."
If I'm not mistaken, I believe Jake has agreed that religion is superfluous to the project of 're-establishing a psychic connection with reality', a connection that was lost by "thought” or rather being “lost in thought.” I wouldn’t describe the situation that way but agree with the general idea. I believe a project of this kind could accurately be described as being spiritual in nature.
There are various methods for achieving this 're-establishment', some very old, like meditation, certain kinds of breathing techniques, psychedelics, and some very new, like electrical brain stimulation, but they're all about the same thing, which is deactivating the DMN (default mode network). I've previously mentioned the DMN in this topic. The DMN is active when lost in thought and is responsible for our sense of self, self-narrative, and the like. Deactivation of the DMN has various benefits like reducing existential anxiety and addiction issues.
So in this way we can have spirituality without religion. I don't think that I need to argue that there can be religion without spirituality. Most people know that there've been contrived religions or false religious leaders who've used systems of meaning to manipulate and take advantage of naive followers.
To summarize, spirituality is essentially about transcendence or "re-establishing a psychic connection with reality" and religion is about fulfilling our natural desire for meaning (shared values, purpose, etc.) and basically amounts to tribalism. Like any other natural desire such as hunger or thirst, our desire for meaning is part of a successful evolutionary survival strategy.
Michael OssipoffSeptember 29, 2018 at 20:23#2165100 likes
First two premises that we all agree on:
.
1. We find ourselves in the experience of a life in which we’re physical animals in a physical universe.
.
2. Uncontroversially, there are abstract implications, in the sense that we can speak of and refer to them.
.
I claim no other “reality” or “existence” for them.
.
By “implication”, I mean the implying of one proposition by another. By “abstract implication”, I mean the implication of one hypothetical proposition by another hypothetical proposition.
.
So there are also infinitely-many complex systems of inter-referring abstract implications about hypothetical propositions about hypothetical things, with the many consistent configurations of mutually-consistent hypothetical truth-values for those hypothetical propositions.
.
Among that infinity of complex hypothetical logical systems, there’s one that, with suitable naming of its things and propositions, fits the description of your experience in this life.
.
I call that your “hypothetical life-experience-story”. As a hypothetical logical system, it timelessly is/was there, in the limited sense that I said that there are abstract implications.
.
There’s no reason to believe that your life and experience are other than that hypothetical logical system that I call your hypothetical life-experience-story.
.
Just as I claim no “existence” or “reality” for abstract implications, so I claim no “existence” or “reality” for the complex systems of them, including your hypothetical life-experience-story.
.
Each of the infinitely-many complex systems of inter-referring abstract implications about hypothetical propositions about hypothetical things is quite entirely separate, independent and isolated from anything else in the describable realm, including the other such logical systems.
.
Each neither has nor needs any reality or existence in any context other than its own local inter-referring context.
----------------------------
Any “fact” in this physical world implies and corresponds to an implication.
.
“There’s a traffic-roundabout at the intersection of 34th & Vine.”
.
“If you go to 34th & Vine, you’ll encounter, there, a traffic-roundabout.”
---------------------------
Every “fact” in this physical world can be regarded as a proposition that is at least part of the antecedent of some implications, and is the consequent of other implications.
.
For example:
.
A set of hypothetical physical quantity-values, and a hypothetical relation among them (called a “physical hypothesis, theory or law) together comprise the antecedent of a hypothetical implication.
.
…except that one of those hypothetical physical quantity-values can be taken as the consequent of that implication.
.
A true mathematical theorem is an implication whose antecedent includes at least a set of mathematical axioms.
---------------------------
Instead of one world of “Is”…
.
…infinitely-many worlds of “If”.
.
We’re used to declarative, indicative, grammar because it’s convenient. But conditional grammar better describes our physical world. We tend to unduly believe our grammar.
--------------------------
You, as the protagonist of your hypothetical life-experience-story, are complementary with your experiences and surroundings in that story. You and they comprise the two complementary parts of that hypothetical story.
.
By definition that story is about your experience. It’s for you, and you’re central to it. It wouldn’t be an experience-story without you. So I suggest that Consciousness is primary in the describable realm, or at least in its own part(s) of it.
.
That’s why I say that you’re the reason why you’re in a life. It has nothing to do with your parents, who were only part of the overall physical mechanism in the context of this physical world. Of course consistency in your story requires that there be evidence of a physical mechanism for the origin of the physical animal that you are.
.
Among the infinity of hypothetical life-experience-stories, there timelessly is one with you as protagonist. That protagonist, with his inclinations and predispositions, his “Will to Life”, is why you’re in a life.
.
The requirement for an experience-story is that it be consistent. …because there are no such things as inconsistent facts, even abstract ones.
.
Obviously a person’s experience isn’t just about logic and mathematics. But your story’s requirement for consistency requires that the physical events and things in the physical world that you experience are consistent. That inevitably brings logic into your story.
.
And of course, if you closely examine the physical world and is workings, then the mathematical relations in the physical world will be part of your experience. …as they also are when you read about what physicists have found by such close examinations of sthe physical world and its workings.
.
There have been times when new physical observations seemed inconsistent with existing physical laws. Again and again, newly discovered physical laws showed a consistent system of which the previously seemingly-inconsistent observations are part. But of course there remain physical observations that still aren’t explained by currently-known physical law. Previous experience suggests that those observations, too, at least potentially, will be encompassed by new physics.
.
Likely, physical explanations consisting of physical things and laws that, themselves, will later be explained by newly-discovered physical things and laws, will be an endless open-ended process…at least until such time as, maybe, further examination will be thwarted by inaccessibly small regions, large regions, or high energies. …even though that open-ended explanation is there in principle.
.
Michael Ossipoff
Zen is about as close as you'll get with this. There's too much nonconscious stuff going on as we perceive reality for us to set it all aside. We cannot help but interpret what our senses send us.
Ok, fair enough. I would agree that a failure of many commentaries, including a number of my own, is to oversimplify the subject to "thought vs. non-thought". It's likely more useful to compare the situation to the volume controls on my TV, which range from 0-100.
Michael OssipoffSeptember 29, 2018 at 23:23#2165440 likes
[i]"What a strange thing to say. Is this an Atheist defining God for us?
.
Admittedly praxis has concepts about God. No doubt praxis's God is a concept.
.
But maybe it would be best for praxis to speak only for himself.” — Michael Ossipoff[/i]
.
You have yet to speak for yourself.
.
Harry wants me to promote a religion here. Sorry, Harry. No.
.
(…but my comments about my impressions, beliefs, and reasons for them, are available throughout these forums, in various other threads.)
.
I’m visiting this thread only to comment on what Atheists are trying to say. …what they mean.
These aren't atheist definitions of God we are putting forth
.
Wrong. It becomes your definition too, when you choose it and adopt it.
.
You’ve chosen and adopted the Fundamentalist Biblical-Literalists’ God as your own One-True-God to devotedly, fanatically, loudly and never-endingly disbelieve in.
.
How can anyone define something for which they have no evidence that it exists?
.
Good question. Then don’t.
.
No one here would say that you should believe anything that you don’t know of reason to believe.
[/quote]
.
They are theists definitions of God.
[/quote]
.
…some Theists’ definition. (singular, not plural) …and now your definition too, because you’ve adopted it.
.
If you have a different one then show us and stop going around in circles.
.,
Definition? For one thing (as I’ve told you many times) I don’t usually use the word “God”, because it has anthropomorphic implications.
.
But there are Theists who agree with me, and who do use that word. There are two reasons why I won’t post a definition to this thread:
.
1. My purpose in these Atheist threads isn’t to promote a religion to you. It’s merely to show others that you aren’t clear about what you mean.
.
2. Words, definitions, descriptions are as inapplicable to the matter of the nature and character of Reality as a whole, as are proof, assertion and argument.
.
Anyone claiming to say something meaningful about that has the burden of proof to show that he is doing so.
.
What you Atheists are so loudly pursuing is a silly tempest-in-a-teapot between two Fundamenalist Biblical-Literalist factions: Atheists and Fundamentalist Biblical-Literalist Theists.
.
The burden is upon those that claim such a thing exists to define it.
.
1. You have devout faith that all that is, is definable and describable. I commend you for your faith.
.
2. Anyway, the word “exist” is metaphysically undefined. And anyway, there are Theists (including me), who suggest that, even if “exist” meant anything, it would only apply to describable things.
.
3. And, aside from all that, the matter of God, or of the character and nature of Reality or What-Is, isn’t a matter for claims. …or assertions, arguments or proof.
.
So I, and whatever other Theists agree with me, make no claims about the matter.
.
I have asked you numerous times to define the God that we are rejecting without reason, and you can't do it.
.
:D
It’s for you to define the God that you’re rejecting.
.
You always seem to be speaking of the God of the Fundamenalists Biblical-Literalists, but nearly all aggressive Atheists seem to fervently and devoutly believe that what you’re saying applies to whatever anyone does, or could ever, mean when saying “God”.
.
The fact is that every notion of God is either contradictory or just a label for something else for which we know that exists, like trees, statues and the universe.
.
:D See what I mean? (in the paragraph directly above the quote above this line). Thank you for exemplifying it.
.
You’re glibly speaking of “every notion of God”, with the astounding conceit of believing that you know every notion of God, or that what you’re saying applies to every notion of God.
.
Anyway, arguably, “notion of” only applies to what is knowable. How sure are you that God is knowable?
.
When are you going to define the God that we are so unreasonable to reject the existence of?
.
It’s for you, not me, to say what you’re talking about.
.
It’s for you to be specific about what God or Gods you’re “rejecting the existence of”.
.
But I’ve already said that, haven’t I. We wouldn’t want to keep “going around in circles”, would we.
.
So do everyone a favor, and stop embarrassing yourself, and find different topic to discuss.
.
Michael Ossipoff
Harry HinduSeptember 30, 2018 at 01:16#2165780 likes
It’s for you to define the God that you’re rejecting.
Ok. For example, let's say that I make the claim that humpalumps exist. According to you, it would be up to you to define humpalumps, not me, in order to reject their existence. Good luck with that. Don't embarrass yourself in trying to define humpalumps and rejecting their existence because you'd only be rejecting YOUR definition, not mine.
The person who asserts the [non-]existence of God goes beyond logic by going beyond the available evidence, and reaching a logically unjustified and unjustifiable position. Only the agnostic position can be logically justified.
That's not true, because there are exceptions, as I have mentioned, and I have demonstrated one such exception, logically and justifiably, here in this very discussion.
Maybe what you say here is different from what you really mean. Maybe what you really mean is something along the lines that the person who asserts the nonexistence of God, as per any conception whatsoever, goes beyond logic by going beyond the available evidence, and reaches a logically unjustified and unjustifiable position.
Would you not take a position of strong atheism, instead of agnosticism, if you found that the conception of the God under consideration entails a contradiction?
Michael OssipoffSeptember 30, 2018 at 02:34#2165920 likes
”It’s for you to define the God that you’re rejecting.” — Michael Ossipoff
.
Ok. For example, let's say that I make the claim that humpalumps exist.
.
I’ll assume that you’re referring to people who claim and argue about the existence of God.
.
Theists who believe as I do don’t make claims in those matters. It isn’t a matter for claims, assertions, argument, or proof. It isn’t a debate-issue (except to aggressive Atheists, and the Theists from whom they borrow their version of God).
.
How many times is it necessary to say that?
.
According to you, it would be up to you to define humpalumps
.
Again I’ll assume that you’re referring to your (not my) existence-issue.
.
You’re still asserting your belief that God is describable and definable.
.
, not me, in order to reject their existence.
.
Yes, so that people will know what you’re saying, you’d need to state what you’re rejecting the existence of.
.
Quite aside from all that, suppose one Theist took the time to explain his version of Theism to you. Suppose you refuted it. Now that would add up to two Theisms that you’ve refuted: His, and your usual Fundamentalist Biblical-Literalist belief that you so fervently and loudly express your disbelief in. You still won’t have supported your claim that all Theisms lack evidence or any justification for faith.
.
What, do you want me to define every Theism for you?
.
Michael Ossipoff
Harry HinduSeptember 30, 2018 at 02:56#2165970 likes
I’ll assume that you’re referring to people who claim and argue about the existence of God.
No, I'm only talking about Humpalumps. Do you believe in their existence? You should. They created the universe. Humpalumps are also indesribable and undefinable.
Grey Vs GraySeptember 30, 2018 at 02:58#2165980 likes
It wouldn't, but unfortunately most theists don't believe in "a god" but "the (one) true god/s." I'm open to a god/s but not of any human invention.
Michael OssipoffSeptember 30, 2018 at 03:10#2166000 likes
Then Harry is an asserter and claimer about Humpalumps, making him more like the usual Literalist than like anyone that I agree with...who aren't claimers or asserters.
Harry likewise believes in the antrhopmorphic notion of creation, further distancing him from anyone that I agree with.
Congratulations, Harry--You're a Humpalump Fundamentalist.
Those would be my objections to Harry's Humpalump religon--not the indescribability or indefinability of the Humpalumps that he believes in.
Odd though, because people with Harry's other Fundamentalist beliefs and tendencies would typically have a lot to say about describing and defining their deity, and would take any opportunity to do so.
You still won’t have supported your claim that all Theisms lack evidence or any justification for faith.
What, do you want me to define every Theism for you?
Wait. Are you sure he has actually claimed that? Because I haven't seen him claim that, and you did a similar thing with me, and in that case it was a straw man.
How about this? To the best of my knowledge, all theisms of which I have examined enough to reach the conclusion that they're lacking evidence strong enough to warrant belief are indeed lacking evidence strong enough to warrant belief.
Now it's on you to either present an exception, that is, present a case of theism with evidence strong enough to warrant belief, or, alternatively, accept the situation as it is.
Michael OssipoffSeptember 30, 2018 at 03:14#2166050 likes
You still won’t have supported your claim that all Theisms lack evidence or any justification for faith.
What, do you want me to define every Theism for you? — Michael Ossipoff
Wait. Are you sure he has actually claimed that? Because you did a similar thing with me, and it was a straw man.
How about this? To best of my knowledge, all theisms of which I have examined enough to reach the conclusion that they're lacking evidence are indeed evidence.
Now it's on you to either present an exception or accept the situation as it is.
I take your word for that, and accept the situation as you describe it: To the best of your knowledge, all the Theisms that you know of are ones for which you aren't aware of evidence. ...and for which you likewise aren't aware of any other justification for faith.
I take your word for that, and accept the situation as you describe it: To the best of your knowledge, all the Theisms that you know of are ones for which you aren't aware of evidence. ...and for which you likewise aren't aware of any other justification for faith.
Okay, so I predicted that response which kind of misses the point, and I tried to avoid it by altering the wording in an edit. So please see the edited version.
The point being that, under the assumption that there's an exception of which I'm not aware, and of which you are aware, it's on you to present it, not on me to refute all possible variations of theism. If Harry has claimed what you have said he has claimed, then yes, I agree with you that he has that burden, but not otherwise.
You should be able to quote him saying that, if he has said what you claim.
God is a creature that promotes great and rigorous distinctions. What is good belongs to God and must be sorted from the bad in order to secure witnesses, courtiers and courtesans, mercenaries, representatives, lucre, prestige and all that other good stuff.
Reply to Purple Pond I doubt very much that God, if such a being exists, would have much to do with human wants and reasoning. We're just apes that evolved on one little rock in a vast cosmos. Why would God be anything like us, or care whether we argued for it's existence?
1. anything necessary in general holds for all possible worlds 2. possible worlds are consistent, non-contradictory 3. a really simple world without sentience, green, soccer games, even coffee ?, does not derive a contradiction and is therefore possible 4. anything necessary would also have to hold for such simple worlds 5. sentience, green, soccer games, even coffee ?, etc, are not necessary 6. if your deity is defined as sentient, then your deity is not necessary 7. if your deity is defined as necessary, then your deity is not sentient
[quote=Richard Swinburne (2009)]All explanation, consists in trying to find something simple and ultimate on which everything else depends. And I think that by rational inference what we can get to that’s simple and ultimate is God. But it’s not logically necessary that there should be a God. The supposition ‘there is no God’ contains no contradiction.[/quote]
The latter, 7, would be a rather impoverished definition if you ask me.
(Besides, if we have to resort to defining, then that in itself is suspect, not dismissible as such, but suspect. After all, we don't define things into existence, which is known as word magic.)
Just FYI, I'm unhappy about the coffee ? thing above. Not sure what to do about it. Can we make coffee ? necessary?
Rank AmateurSeptember 30, 2018 at 13:21#2167180 likes
Reply to jorndoe in mine above, a non contingent or necessary being is one who's existence is not contingent on anything, and is necessary for the existence of everything else.
In "the old post" above, you make the point that contingent things are not necessary- I agree.
No argument with Mr. Swinburne, I have never said that atheism is not a reasonable position. My only assertion was theism is also reasonable.
Harry HinduSeptember 30, 2018 at 13:59#2167250 likes
Odd though, because people with Harry's other Fundamentalist beliefs and tendencies would typically have a lot to say about describing and defining their deity, and would take any opportunity to do so.
It's odd because you've conflated my post with some other belief and put words in my mouth that I never said.
Harry likewise believes in the antrhopmorphic notion of creation, further distancing him from anyone that I agree with.
But I said that they are indescribable and undefinable, so how do you know I was talking about some anthropomorphic notion of creation? Again, you go and put words in my mouth because you just don't want to face the fact that your own arguments are nonsensical. That is the whole point of the "Humpalumps". Haven't you gone and done the same thing you have accused me of doing - of rejecting your own notion and definition of what a "Humpalump" is, not mine? If I never define "Humpalumps" for you, then you only ever reject your own notion of what a Humpalump is. Do you see the problem with your position now?
Another possibility is that we are both talking about the same thing, but we are just using different terms to refer to that thing. What some would call a "god" or "humpalumps", I would use the term, "reality" or "universe" to refer to it.
It is you that has limited your possibilities, not I. I am willing to accept any explanation that makes sense. You are only willing to accept one - that there is something that YOU call a "god" that exists. I accept all other possibilities except that one. So who is the one that is really unacceptable of possible truths? You are.
Also claiming that something is indescribable or undefinable is basically saying that it doesn't exist. If something like that could exist, then it would be pointless to discuss it. What effect could it have on the world, or on what we can observe? If it has a causal relationship with the universe (it can observe us and has knowledge of us), then it has definable and describable qualities. If not, then who cares about it? There could be so many other indescribable and undefinable possibilities that aren't a "god".
Harry HinduSeptember 30, 2018 at 14:09#2167300 likes
I take your word for that, and accept the situation as you describe it: To the best of your knowledge, all the Theisms that you know of are ones for which you aren't aware of evidence. ...and for which you likewise aren't aware of any other justification for faith.
How do you know that other people's beliefs in something indescribable and undefinable is a "theism"? You have a big problem of putting your words in other people's mouths.
Rank AmateurSeptember 30, 2018 at 14:48#2167390 likes
Speaking for myself, and with exception, most of the theist positions on the board can be summarized into theism is reasonable, and not that atheism is not reasonable. Mine, and their arguments, have not been directed to move anyone from atheism to theism. Just to defend the reasonability of our position.
The converse is not the case. The atheist position seems to be a very aggressive position against the reasonability of theism. However in a quick look back, most seem to think this is some sort of a given, I don't believe any have actually made the argument.
So in an attempt to escape the do loop, I invite any atheist argument, with factual propositions that end with a conclusion of either:
Therefore it is a fact that God is not,
Or
Therefore it is not a reasonable position that God is not.
And in the spirit of philosophy, keep your opinion and your sarcasm to yourself, and make an argument.
Well there is the god is dead argument:
- Entropy increases with time
- When entropy gets too high, you die
- Universe is 14 billion years old
- 14 billion years of entropy means god must be dead
- 'Therefore it is a fact that God is not'
A counter argument is a timeless god. Such a god might still die due to the 2nd law but would die outside of time, thus such a God is both dead and alive at the same time from the perspective of humans.
Rank AmateurSeptember 30, 2018 at 15:01#2167440 likes
Reply to Rank Amateur The 2nd law is fundamental and it relates just to change. All change increase Entropy. Does not matter if you are timeless or in a different universe, the 2nd law still applies.
Rank AmateurSeptember 30, 2018 at 15:18#2167500 likes
Reply to Devans99 requires another proposition that God is subject to any natural law. Which I challenge as not factual.
The 2nd law is more than just a natural law; its just a common sense proposition that it applies everywhere and to everything.
But I agree with you, God could somehow dodge the 2nd law. Maybe he can create energy to re-organise himself somehow. So the 'god is dead' argument has holes.
Rank AmateurSeptember 30, 2018 at 15:39#2167580 likes
Significantly, this at least highlights the fact that God, like any other thing, changes, and if it changes then it has no static or essential nature. If it were static then it would in no way be animate or alive. Lacking an essential nature, it’s just another part of what is, or, depending on how you look at the whole, nothing at all.
It's only fair that everyone get's the chance to discover God, and not those who are lucky to posses certain qualities. Is God unfair?
No one that I have ever met claims there is only one way to know God. Most theists grasp God intuitively, not as the result of deduction. How people teach others about God is a matter of personal aptitude and preference. For good or ill, their methods have no bearing on whether or not God is fair.
So you have intelligent and rational people accepting the existence of God by the mere fact they possess the qualities of being intelligent and rational. But what about those people who don't possess those qualities and are not smart enough to understand and accept theistic arguments
Everyone can understand the prime mover; its simple.
Its easy to argue that god (if he exists) must be benevolent. So I think people argue for his existence because he is benevolent. A universe with a benevolent god is probably going to be better than a godless universe. By extension, humans seem happier if they think a benevolent god does/might exist, so the search for proof of god is a worthwhile human endeavour...
Why would God be anything like us, or care whether we argued for it's existence?
Basic facts of life like the difference between right and wrong are shared by all logical entities. Its natural for Logical entities will tend to exhibit some empathy with each other. At the core, humans maybe just very simple versions of God...
Reply to Rank Amateur, it's really not so much about a/theism as it's about general necessity.
I'll hypothesize that the only general necessity is consistency.
As shown, not sentience, green, soccer games, coffee ?, etc.
But maybe that's not so surprising, since that's where we started out, modal logic being an extension of ordinary logic.
So, if you go ahead and define something as necessary in general, then that something may turn out to simply be consistency.
Kind of anti-climaxic if we were looking for something special.
BaldMenFightingSeptember 30, 2018 at 17:26#2167850 likes
Reply to Purple Pond There are many ways of knowing God e.g.
- Rational argument
- Observing supernatural signs (which surpass mundane rationalisation)
- Just feeling it
- Divine inspiration
Maybe more ... So, rational argumentation is just one way of knowing God, not the only way as you seem to be making out.
I believe the reason for knowing God at all, is that he was a hidden treasure and desired to be known.
Rank AmateurSeptember 30, 2018 at 18:07#2168020 likes
Since terms are important, I will define non-contingent or necessary as a being whose existence is not contingent on another's existence and whose existence is necessary for every thing else to exist.
Reply to Rank Amateur, I'm going by the formal definitions. The formalities are in that other thread. Starts with ordinary logic (consistency), then extends with necessary and possible, and so on.
Say, in general, all that's necessary is consistency. Not sentience, for example. Which may rule out deities, depending on what those deities are supposed to be.
(I think Meillassoux argued similarly about contingency and necessity, except that was on a different angle altogether.)
Anyway, you can't necessitate deities into existence by such definitions; those definitions has then already implicitly defined your deities as something else.
Michael OssipoffSeptember 30, 2018 at 18:40#2168190 likes
”Odd though, because people with Harry's other Fundamentalist beliefs and tendencies would typically have a lot to say about describing and defining their deity, and would take any opportunity to do so.” — Michael Ossipoff
.
It's odd because you've conflated my post with some other belief
[/quote]
.
Yes, for some reason I thought that Harry was attempting a sloppy analogy with Theism :D
.
and put words in my mouth that I never said.
.
Incorrect. I was referring to what Harry said.
.
Harry asserted and claimed. That’s done by evangelistic Fundamentalists, but not by anyone that I agree with.
.
And one thing that Harry asserted was “creation”, by his Humpalumps. Creation is an anthropmorophic notion that Harry asserts, but which I wouldn’t suggest.
.
All I said in the passage that Harry quoted was that the people exhibiting Harry’s Fundamentalist inclinations, typically are only too willing to define and describe their deity. That’s what I said was “odd”.
.
”Harry likewise believes in the antrhopmorphic notion of creation, further distancing him from anyone that I agree with.” — Michael Ossipoff
.
But I said that they are indescribable and undefinable, so how do you know I was talking about some anthropomorphic notion of creation?
.
Creation is an anthropomorphic notion. Though you say Humpalumps are undefinable and indescribable, you give them an anthropomorphic described and defined role. That’s a bit too much description and definition for something indescribable and undefinable.
.
Again, you go and put words in my mouth
.
I referred to what you said.
.
because you just don't want to face the fact that your own arguments are nonsensical.
.
Vague. Only Harry knows what arguments he’s referring to.
.
That is the whole point of the "Humpalumps". Haven't you gone and done the same thing you have accused me of doing - of rejecting your own notion and definition of what a "Humpalump" is, not mine?
.
What definition from me is Harry referring to? Only he knows.
.
If I never define "Humpalumps" for you, then you only ever reject your own notion of what a Humpalump is. Do you see the problem with your position now?
.
If you provide no information about what “Humpalump” refers to, there’d be no basis on which to reject the notion of it. If you merely say that there are Humpalumps, and won’t say what you mean by “Humpalump”, then no, I wouldn’t deny that there are Humpalumps.
.
I might reply that I have no particular reason to believe in your undefined and undescribed Humpalumps. But, without knowing what you mean by “Humpalump”, I won’t comment on whether or not there are Humpalumps or whether or not you should believe in them.
.
If you asserted to me that Humpalumps created the universe then it would be reasonable for me to ask how you support that assertion.
.
Another possibility is that we are both talking about the same thing, but we are just using different terms to refer to that thing. What some would call a "god" or "humpalumps", I would use the term, "reality" or "universe" to refer to it.
.
Suit yourself. For you, “God” refers to this physical universe. No one should argue with or criticize your definitions. You can call the universe “Humpalump” too, and I have no objection, because it’s none of my business.
.
It is you that has limited your possibilities, not I.
.
I must admit that I have no idea what you’re talking about.
.
I am willing to accept any explanation that makes sense.
.
How very commendable. No one would fault you for that. And I’ve repeatedly said that you shouldn’t believe anything that you don’t know of reason to believe.
.
You are only willing to accept one - that there is something that YOU call a "god" that exists.
.
I don’t usually use the word “God”, unless replying to someone who has, because of that word’s anthropomorphic connotation. So no, I don’t “call something” “God”.
.
What I will say here—and I say very little in this thread about my beliefs, because, here, that would amount to argumentation, proselytization or preaching—is that there’s a core belief, of the other Theists, that I agree with, and that’s why I designate myself a Theist, though I don’t share denominational, doctrinal, dogmatic, allegorical or anthropomorphic beliefs that some (but not all) Theists express.
.
…not that I make a secret of my impressions, beliefs and reasons for them, which can be found in other threads throughout these forums.
.
But I re-emphasize that I don’t assert any beliefs, here or anywhere, or make any claims about Theism vs Atheism, here or anywhere.
.
In fact, I don’t make any assertion or claim about the matter of Theism vs Atheism. That’s your issue, not mine.
.
I’ve repeatedly said that I don’t know what the word “exist” is supposed to mean. I avoid using it.
.
So I have no idea what you’re referring to in the above quote.
.
I accept all other possibilities except that one. So who is the one that is really unacceptable [He means “unaccepting] of possible truths? You are.
.
No one here would say that you should believe what you don’t know of reason to believe.
.
Also claiming that something is indescribable or undefinable is basically saying that it doesn't exist.
.
I don’t know what you mean by “exist”.
.
I don’t make any claims about Theism vs Atheism. But I do question your apparent belief that all is describable and definable. …your belief that words are universally applicable. …your sureness that reality is completely describable.
.
When someone makes that silly claim, I remind them that no finite dictionary can non-circularly define any of its words.
.
I sometimes invite them to write down a complete description of their experience of the smell of mint, or of pretty much any experience.
.
If something like that could exist, then it would be pointless to discuss it.
.
Is that why you discuss it so much?
.
What effect could it have on the world, or on what we can observe?
.
Harry, I recommend that you study engineering, or maybe physics. But philosophy isn’t for you.
.
What effect would what have on the world, or on what we can observe? I’ve neither defined anything for you, nor made any Theist claim here.
.
Yes I’d need to define whatever I claim, but I haven’t claimed anything about God here.
.
If it has a causal relationship with the universe (it can observe us and has knowledge of us), then it has definable and describable qualities. If not, then who cares about it? There could be so many other indescribable and undefinable possibilities that aren't a "god".
.
I encourage Harry to not believe anything that he doesn’t know of reason to believe.
.
Let me guess: Is Harry a firm believer in Materialism? …a believer in the brute-fact of an objectively existent and objectively real (whatever that would mean) physical universe that is the fundamental reality, and is all of reality, and is the metaphysically-prior basis on which all else “supervenes”?
.
But Harry isn’t a believer :D
.
Michael Ossipoff
Rank AmateurSeptember 30, 2018 at 18:51#2168200 likes
Reply to jorndoe. Again not sure if that is comment or argument. I think I am allowed to use my definition of necessary being, when I use it. If it is in conflict with another definition, that is outside my argument.
If however, you are making an argument I don't see or understand, my apology. If that is so, I invite you to restate your propositions and conclusions and I will do my amateur best.
Michael OssipoffSeptember 30, 2018 at 18:51#2168210 likes
How do you know that other people's beliefs in something indescribable and undefinable is a "theism"?
If they, by their own language and word-use, express beliefs about God, I call it Theism. If they express beliefs that they call Theism, then I call it by what they call it.
Michael Ossipoff
Michael OssipoffSeptember 30, 2018 at 19:28#2168330 likes
How about this? To the best of my knowledge, all theisms of which I have examined enough to reach the conclusion that they're lacking evidence strong enough to warrant belief are indeed lacking evidence strong enough to warrant belief.
Now it's on you to either present an exception, that is, present a case of theism with evidence strong enough to warrant belief, or, alternatively, accept the situation as it is.
The point being that, under the assumption that there's an exception of which I'm not aware, and of which you are aware, it's on you to present it, not on me to refute all possible variations of theism. If Harry has claimed what you have said he has claimed, then yes, I agree with you that he has that burden, but not otherwise.
You should be able to quote him saying that, if he has said what you claim.
So you want me to study and go through all possible Theisms for you, to show you that there's one that you can't refute. I realize the difficult situation you have, wanting to challenge all Theists to your issue-argument, but not being able to communicate with every one of them. ...and not being able to get answers from all of them even if you could communcate with them.
Of course you could argue as follows: If any Theist wants to argue about your issue, then surely he or she would do so at some public forum, and you'd have found it (because you've looked hard for it).
So then, any Theist who doesn't have arguments at the many forums you've searched, can be regarded as not arguing in opposition to you, and you only have to refute the Theists whose arguments you've found.
Fine. Go for it. As far as I'm concerned: congratulations! I declare you the winner of your issue/argument, by default, because I don't regard Theism is a matter of assertion, argument, debate or proof, and I'm not interested in your issue. It's your issue, not mine.
Michael Ossipoff
Michael OssipoffSeptember 30, 2018 at 20:53#2168510 likes
t it's open to debate. I am not fully convinced of physicalism, but nor am I convinced that you can justifiably write it off. I don't believe that you're capable of demonstrating a counterexample; that is, that there exists something which is not physical, or does not supervene on the physical.
I didn't say I could disprove Materialism. I merely said that it is or has and needs a brute-fact. ...and that a brute-fact is unnecessary in the describable realm, because there's a describable metaphysics that neither has nor needs a brute fact or assumption.
Michael Ossipoff
Michael OssipoffSeptember 30, 2018 at 20:58#2168530 likes
Physicalism is the thesis that everything is physical, or as contemporary philosophers sometimes put it, that everything supervenes on the physical. — The Stanford Encyclopaedia of Philosophy
Suit yourself. I prefer to say "Materialism", because someone once objected to me that "Physicalism" is the name of a philosophy-of-mind position, not a metaphysical position.
Michael Ossipoff
Michael OssipoffSeptember 30, 2018 at 21:01#2168550 likes
Okie dokie. Anyway, I have bad news for you. If reincarnation follows from the Eliminative Ontic Structural Subjective Idealism metaphysics that you've been describing here, then, off the bat, there must be something wrong with the Eliminative Ontic Structural Subjective Idealism metaphysics that you've've been describing here, because reincarnation is just a fiction.
...on S.'s authority :D
Michael Ossipoff
Harry HinduSeptember 30, 2018 at 22:04#2168660 likes
Let me guess: Is Harry a firm believer in Materialism? …a believer in the brute-fact of an objectively existent and objectively real (whatever that would mean) physical universe that is the fundamental reality, and is all of reality, and is the metaphysically-prior basis on which all else “supervenes”?
No. You have a bad habit of doing the things that you accuse others of doing. I have never mentioned materialism nor used the term physical.
Of course you don't want to explain your beliefs because that would expose them to criticism.
By not being able to define what you believe implies that you don't believe anything, or at least anything substantive or worth discussing.
Weak. That sums up your participation in this thread.
a non contingent or necessary being is one who's existence is not contingent on anything, and is necessary for the existence of everything else.
This is the idea used in an argumentum a contingentia mundi. This argument supposes too much, and seems to be associated with a similar argument, namely the ontological argument--the position that ideas of perfection or totality or omniscience, truth, etc. designate, because humans seemingly cannot be the root of these ideas, because humans are seemingly imperfect, not all-knowing, total, etc., the necessary existence of such a thing in reality representing that existent capable of delivering us to a reference of knowing ourselves. And these qualities must refer to God, for there would be no other alternative... This is a very unsettling argument. The argument referring to the contingency of the world upon a supposedly necessitated existent 'per the faculty of reason' has simply had the soil shaken out of its roots and tossed aside to decay.
Rank AmateurSeptember 30, 2018 at 23:19#2168930 likes
Reply to Blue Lux it wasn't an argument it was the definition I used.
To be clear, yet again, if one wants to make an argument that atheism is a reasonable position, I agree.
If however one wants to make an argument that it is a fact that God is not, or that theism is not reasonable, I would invite the argument.
DingoJonesSeptember 30, 2018 at 23:41#2169000 likes
Reply to Rank Amateur
Ill give it a shot. What god are we talking about, and what theism would you mean here..any belief in god or gods? Do I get to pick one and show it is unreasonable or do you have something specific in mind?
Michael OssipoffSeptember 30, 2018 at 23:47#2169040 likes
”Let me guess: Is Harry a firm believer in Materialism? …a believer in the brute-fact of an objectively existent and objectively real (whatever that would mean) physical universe that is the fundamental reality, and is all of reality, and is the metaphysically-prior basis on which all else “supervenes”? ” — Michael Ossipoff
.
No. You have a bad habit of doing the things that you accuse others of doing. I have never mentioned materialism nor used the term physical.
.
That’s why I asked. A glance at the passage that you quoted will show that it was a question, not an assumption or statement.
.
Of course you don't want to explain your beliefs because that would expose them to criticism.
.
As I’ve explained to you many times, my impressions, beliefs, and reasons for them are all over these forums, in various threads.
.
By not being able to define what you believe…
.
I’ve stated my impressions, beliefs and reasons for them throughout these forums, in various threads.
.
…implies that you don't believe anything, or at least anything substantive or worth discussing.
.
I don’t regard it as a matter for assertion, argument, debate or proof. I’m not going to argue the matter with you. That’s why I don’t go into the matter here, though I did in various other threads at the various forums here.
.
What “it implies” is that I have no interest in arguing with you about your issue. If you want an argument, then congratulations! You win your argument by default. The Theism vs Atheism issue is your issue, not mine.
.
Michael Ossipoff
Rank AmateurSeptember 30, 2018 at 23:49#2169050 likes
Reply to DingoJones use my definition as non-contingent or necessary being above
Reply to Rank Amateur
Hmmm, I wouldnt call that theism. You are basically proffering first cause/unmoved mover?
The nature of such a thing need not be a god, it could just as easily be an alien, or a cosmic byproduct of something unknown.
Does it ruin the spirit of your challenge to be more specific?
Rank AmateurOctober 01, 2018 at 00:23#2169210 likes
Reply to DingoJones I, like Aquinas will call this "God". However, yet again, I have no issue at all that it is a reasonable position if you want to believe in a cosmic byproduct. My challenge was to show theism is not reasonable.
...but my opinion is that because we do not have a replacement for that (religious) comfort in atheism, we do not yet have a way to open the door to atheism in a comforting way.
I like where you're going here. A few thoughts...
1) The target shouldn't be opening the door to atheism, but opening the door to reason. Atheism is not reason, but just another ideology built upon faith. If one is going to adopt an ideology built upon faith, one might as well just stick with the ideology one already has.
2) While religion is not necessarily realistic in it's cosmic claims it is realistic about the human condition which is why it continues to exist in every time and place. The human condition is primarily emotional, and atheist ideologues tend to be nerds like us, typically superficially clever at working with abstract concepts, but emotionally unsophisticated. Thus, atheist ideologues do a poor job of opening the door to atheism because they're working the wrong door, as your quoted words above suggest.
Here's an example. For the moment, let's forget all about anything to do with theism. Put all that off the table for now. Pretend it never existed.
What is our relationship with falling in love with reality? Is one of our goals that we fall to our knees weeping tears of joy at the glorious beauty of a sunrise? These kind of ideas are foreign to atheist ideology culture, generally speaking. Look through the threads on theism/atheism on the forum. How many of them explore such topics in earnest?
Want to convert theists? Teach them how to fall in love with reality, with a handful of dirt, without the supernatural middleman. And in order to do that, you'll first have to learn how to do it yourself.
And members have no interest in this, right? Ok, no problem. But that's why you're stuck here talking to yourselves, having no effect on theism at all, enjoying the fantasy that your fantastic logic dancing calculations have meaning or value to anyone but yourselves.
Harry HinduOctober 01, 2018 at 00:42#2169290 likes
I’ve stated my impressions, beliefs and reasons for them throughout these forums, in various threads.
Sorry, I'm not searching the forums for your incoherent nonsense. If you can't post your position here then I guess it really isn't that important after all.
If you have the time to type these long posts that don't have any substance, then I don't see why you wouldnt post your position as it would probably just be more of the same.
Michael OssipoffOctober 01, 2018 at 02:07#2169460 likes
We've been over that before. No one asked you to search for anything.
...for your incoherent nonsense.
Aggressive Atheists rely heavily on namecalling. In fact, as we all know, such behavior is the motive for, not the result of, aggressive Atheism.
How often does a Theist start a thread to criticize Atheism? We have no inclination, and wouldn't bother. It wouldn't occur to me to take the time to do that.
If you can't post your position here then I guess it really isn't that important after all.
Suit yourself. As I said, I'm not going to argue the matter with you.
----------------------------
By the way, I've been trying to answer at least most of the aggressive-Atheist posts, claims and comments, over the past few days. But I don't have time to continue these replies.
Anyway, it would be pointless, because you all seem to be singing from the same hymn-book.
So:
After this reply, there will be no more answers from me to aggressive-Atheists, on anything relating to their Theism vs Atheism issue.
I am not without strife, and aggression. Aggression is a combination of desire and blame, in that it is a reaction to an obstacle, delay, or obstruction that is something else' fault. So that it is this combination of "I don't want that", and "this is your doing!". It's rather bratty. This is one of the miracles of accepting responsibility, of refraining from excuses, and blame as the ego reaches for them splashing in the depths of failure, denied upon every request until finally it drowns in the guilt and responsibility in which it rightfully owns, and cannot displace. Sometimes anger and aggression is justified and necessary, but most of the time it is just of this bratty "I'm not getting what I want because of you" kind of thing.
It is easy to respond to someone with hints of aggression because they aren't doing what you want them to, or in response to aggression, though I do believe that it isn't fruitful, and is childish, so I attempt my best to not just show no aggression, but to take all of the responsibility for failure to get my point across, or lack of persuasion, or failure to understand. To not just show no aggression, but to feel no aggression, just shame and disappointment.
It's the comfortable that aren't religious. People want to be happy, but being wrong, particularly with respect to sin, and your own doing feels terrible. People that feel bad, feel wrong. People that feel happy feel right. We want to feel right, and comfortable, complacent, and we don't want to feel bad, and wrong.
We don't want to be told what to do, and how to live our lives, and don't like the idea that some authority knows, and we have no choice. That isn't very comforting at all. That's obliging, terrifying, and guilt and shame generating. It's the complete inverse, the rebelling, the decadent, the addict, the seeker of happiness... they're looking for comfort. The seeker of truth is looking for agony, terror.
So you want me to study and go through all possible Theisms for you, to show you that there's one that you can't refute.
No, I told you what I want, and that isn't it, nor does it follow from what I said. It's quite simple. Either you're aware of an exception, in which case I request that you present it, or you're not, in which case I request an acknowledgement of the situation as it is, meaning an acknowledgment that neither of us are aware of any exception, meaning that there's no warrant for either of us to believe in any theism.
What I want is for you to address this one simple thing instead of something else that you've imagined. Is that so difficult?
There is an alternative, which is to refuse my requests, but that means A) you don't have a position or B) you do have a position, but are not willing and able to back it up. If it's A) you shouldn't act like you have a position and you should be more careful with what you say. If it's B) what you claim can be dismissed.
I predict that you'll go with A). But it seems that you can't help but get more involved than your "no position" allows.
Anyway, I'm not trying to force you to get involved or anything. This began with my questioning the accuracy of your representation of Harry's position, and contrasting it with my own position. I think that my position is much stronger than your representation of questionable accuracy which you decided to target. But you seem to have misunderstood what I was doing and why I was doing it.
ChatteringMonkeyOctober 01, 2018 at 11:19#2170440 likes
2.) Is it reasonable/unreasonable to believe or disbelieve in deity/deities? - No. The common reference to deistic belief is based on choice, not logic. And if logic were to be the basis, there is still the problem of ignorance or lack of facts. However, there is no sanction against the use of reason to justify, to a relative capacity, the basis of such belief/disbelief.
I think it's not unreasonable to believe in 'a deity' in itself, because that is indeed a question of choice in a matter that can't really be verified one way or the other.
I do think that it's somewhat unreasonable to believe in one or more of the specific gods put forward by the major existing religions... and especially in the whole moral system that is typically based that deity. In light of current scientific insight on the vastness of the universe, it would seem kind of strange that a deity who is the creator of all that is, would occupy itself with regulating the minutia of the behaviour of a species on one the many many planets.
Furthermore, now that we understand human beings a little better, there are perfectly reasonable human all to human explanations for why we would want to believe in God and have moral systems based on that. Ockam's razor would suggest, if we have a choice in explanations, we should choose the more simple explanation. And the more simple explanation to me seems the one that doesn't require supernatural entities.
Finally there also is something fundamentally un-reasonable about the methodology of religion and the morals it proscribes. In essence it's based on revelation and faith with the 'word of God' being the final word, and not on experience and reason.
4.) Should we accept all beliefs? - Yes, but only if those beliefs do not contribute to harm of self or others. Every human has a right to their own beliefs.
This is a difficult one, and depends on what you mean by 'accept'. And it also depends on what you mean by 'harm'.
It seems obvious to me that people can believe what they want, I don't think anyone has a business with what other people believe, because mere belief itself doesn't effect other people. And it impossible anyway to check the beliefs of other people to some standard of belief, even if we would want to. So in that sense I agree that we should accept all beliefs... but this is maybe a bit of a trivial point.
Problems only arise when people act on their beliefs. And here I think most Western societies are somewhat inconsistent, in that they usually subscribe to an array of different fundamental principles that are not allways compatible with eachother. For instance we have a secular state with a system of law of it's own, the principles of equality and non-discrimination... but also freedom of religion. Here, it don't think we should accept people acting on their religious beliefs if they are incompatible with the principles of a secular state.
ChristofferOctober 01, 2018 at 11:56#2170470 likes
Atheism is not reason, but just another ideology built upon faith. If one is going to adopt an ideology built upon faith, one might as well just stick with the ideology one already has.
I think this is a misinterpretation of what atheism is, since it's not about faith, but about rejecting faith as a means to explain the world. In a sense, everything you do in science is in a form, atheistic or agnostic, but agnostics use the unknown factor as a way to accept the existence of a god by that fact, which means it's closer to cognitive bias. Atheistic viewpoints just deny anything that isn't proven, it's not about faith, it's about the process of proving. An atheist will never believe in a god, but they will accept that there is a god if the existence of one is proven to them. Therefor it's not based on faith. I don't think reason and religion can co-exist. Of course they overlap in the sense that a religious person can be reasonable, but a truly reasonable person cannot give up reason whenever the subject at hand crosses their faith or belief. When that happens, that person is no longer working with reason. An atheist would never reject reason, even if it's about proving the existence of a god, but no one has proven the existence of a god and all arguments for a god or pantheons fail to connect the argument to that kind of a deity or deities. If atheists change their perspective on the world, universe and life based on what is proved and what is not, then that's not faith, it's external objective knowledge that guides what is accepted as truth. Atheism is never about faith, it's about facts.
2) While religion is not necessarily realistic in it's cosmic claims it is realistic about the human condition which is why it continues to exist in every time and place. The human condition is primarily emotional, and atheist ideologues tend to be nerds like us, typically superficially clever at working with abstract concepts, but emotionally unsophisticated. Thus, atheist ideologues do a poor job of opening the door to atheism because they're working the wrong door, as your quoted words above suggest.
Agreed, that's what I basically meant with atheism being a bit cold in it's approach to life. Because, as I stated above, atheism being focused on facts, there is no emotion connected to the knowledge it's about. So it's like staring into the unknown when you open the door to atheism and that is scary, which is why most people react emotionally when their faith is challenged. However, that doesn't mean atheists are cold or that life as an atheist isn't emotionally rich, on the opposite, atheists fill their life with other things that gives them that emotionally rich life; art, causes, knowledge etc. The search for knowledge and knowing more than you did yesterday is as emotionally charged as subjective religious quests. Emotion doesn't cease to exist because one is an atheist.
But atheists aren't ideologues either, it's not an ideology. Rejecting faith as a means to explain the world, universe and life; working with facts and living with knowledge, isn't an ideology and atheists aren't gathered within one. That's also a misinterpretation of what atheism is.
What is our relationship with falling in love with reality? Is one of our goals that we fall to our knees weeping tears of joy at the glorious beauty of a sunrise? These kind of ideas are foreign to atheist ideology culture, generally speaking. Look through the threads on theism/atheism on the forum. How many of them explore such topics in earnest?
Is this foreign because you haven't seen it or foreign because you have knowledge that this is the truth about atheists? Do you mean to say that atheists cannot feel a rush of emotions when confronted with something truly beautiful? That they cannot fall to their knees because of that rush of emotions? Weeping tears of joy by that sunrise? The problem here is that you have a prejudice about atheists inner life. Just because you don't see atheists in a forum about knowledge and philosophy, showing any signs of tears of joy and emotion does not correlate to them not having a rich emotional inner life. The only difference between an atheist and a religious person looking into the sunrise with tears of joy is that the religious person claims it's the beauty of god and externalise themselves into an almost cosmic horror point of view in fornt of that fact. An atheist falls in love with the fact that all the entropy and chaos the universe went through led to such beautiful outcomes, despite it's simplicity. An atheist wouldn't abandon reason about why this sunrise looks the way it does just because it's beautiful and it gives them this emotional rush, they can actually get emotional by the fact that it's a simple scientific explanation behind it and it still looks that beautiful, a celebration of nature as it is.
What you are suggesting here, really says that atheists cannot enjoy art, cannot find it emotionally satisfying, when the opposite is more true and there are plenty of artists who are atheists. I think that this idea that atheists don't see or care for the beautify of the world is rather bonkers and based on another misinterpretation of atheism, based on external observation and prejudice. Just because atheists tend to talk in terms of hard facts on a philosophy forum doesn't mean they don't shut off their computer and have tears of joy in front of a sunrise, I see no correlation in your argument here other than wild guesses about atheists.
Want to convert theists? Teach them how to fall in love with reality, with a handful of dirt, without the supernatural middleman. And in order to do that, you'll first have to learn how to do it yourself.
I already have, it's based on being in harmony with the chaos of the world and universe. Accepting the cold simple truth that science have shown us and accepting that we are part of the deterministic universe we live in. That we can care for what is here, what we know, instead of caring for a made up entity. By addressing god or gods and spend time seeking them, people waste time that can be given to something closer to reality. Something for other people, something for themselves, without filters. Giving themselves over to the idea of a higher power is the comforting feeling of having a parent, an authority figure that governs them, but takes up time that could be given to the short life we have.
People don't need to fall in love with reality, they need to become the masters of their own life, they need to grow beyond being a child to a parent. It's a true sadness that many religious people live to their death without ever being more than a child looking up to a parent figure. It's the nature of being a flock animal, most of us feel panic when we do not have an authority watching over us, but with the expanse of civilisation, we needed gods and pantheons to replace that group leader, otherwise we were in control of our own life. Only through the renaissance to the enlightenment period did we begin to understand that the faith we had was a lie to tell ourselves in front of a chaotic world. This is what Nietzsche was talking about when he said "God is dead". It was about how we had begun to enlighten ourselves to know that there is no god to govern us and that we need to govern life ourselves, which haven't been done on a massive scale before. He was fearing the chaos that will emerge when the "parent" of our lives disappear. He was speaking mostly out of the ethics, but the concept is supporting the idea of gods and pantheons being parent figures and that our need for authority tend to blind us from simple truths and facts about the world in favour of emotional satisfaction.
But that's why you're stuck here talking to yourselves, having no effect on theism at all, enjoying the fantasy that your fantastic logic dancing calculations have meaning or value to anyone but yourselves.
I sense a desperation in this tone of words. You're doing a straw man out of atheists by ridiculing that they only exist through logic and calculation, which is a massive simplification. You ridicule atheists of not having a rich emotional inner life and misinterpret atheism into being an ideology based on faith, which it isn't. This is prejudice, nothing more.
The reason why I think it's important to open a door to atheism is that it's about giving the option to love life for what it is, without supernatural distractions that distract up until the time of death. It's an open door to the pursuit of knowledge instead of comforting ignorance, an open door to the harmony of being free of external controlling mechanisms, free to feel and be what you are, not what a religion tells you to. Free to think what you want instead of punishing yourself with the hand of god. Free to enjoy life as it is and valuing people's lives when they live, not that they are something when they died. There are so many shackles to religious people's lives that they don't see; the blindfold that is comforting, the illusion, "ignorance is bliss" so to speak. It's like an addiction, faith is like an addiction, a substance that comforts them from the real world. They use this substance of faith in order to hide themselves from the complexities, from the chaos they feel the world has, but only when this addiction is broken, when they start to see beyond it do they realize that there actually is harmony there. Most people who went from being religious to being atheists does not show any sign of downfall, most of them feel free, that they can breathe, that a heavy burdon is gone from their chest. It should be the opposite, that they would feel the pressure of the complexity of the world as it is, but it's not, because it's not superficial anymore, it is what it is, it is real.
The most common prejudice from religious people against atheists is that atheists doesn't have appreciation for beauty, nature and emotions. I would say that the opposite is more true, that religion filters all emotions and holds them back as an authority over believers lives. They do not appreciate the sunrise because of it's actual beauty, but because of what religion has teached them. Atheists do not accept anything more than what something actually is and a sunrise's beauty is through that much more rich since it's basic simplicity makes the impact of it's beauty so much more. It shouldn't be more, but it is for us humans and that is appreciated.
I recommend not to have these prejudices about atheists, since that blinds you from understanding what atheism is really about. You're doing a straw man out of atheism in order to more easily attack it's foundation, but a misinterpretation, a straw man, simplifying about what atheism is does nothing to prove a point, only that you want to fend yourself from the truth of what atheism is. See past your own frustration, since I think it's in the way of making you able to actually balance the different ways on how we look at life, the universe and the world.
What you choose is your own choice, but ignoring the truth about atheism in order to distance yourself from it is not the way to a reasonable viewpoint. Atheists do not ignore the viewpoints of religion, atheists need knowledge and information in order to know what path to take, atheists do not choose paths because authorities chose a path for them. If you want a reasonable dialectic about atheism and theism, do not have prejudice about what atheism is.
Pattern-chaserOctober 01, 2018 at 13:04#2170510 likes
In fairness to the critics, religion often does claim to be dealing in facts, so the confusion can be understandable and reasonable.
Do they? [Genuine question.] I was raised by [s]cultists[/s] Roman Catholics. At 10 I could recite the mass, in Latin. The impression I drew from the education they gave me is that spiritual matters over-rode merely factual matters; God's stuff was more important than man's stuff. But they never represented the dogma and religious 'truths' as facts, as I understood it.
Surely some religions appear to assert facts, and some may even intend this to be so, but I have an issue with this. I'm a believer, and I try to respect all beliefs, but those who make factual claims when their claims aren't verifiably factual aren't helping, IMO. They shouldn't do it. :fear:
1.) Does any deity/deities exist? - I don't know. I haven't any proof. However, I have my choice of whether to believe or disbelieve in their existence.
I don't agree that it's a choice. I can't choose to believe anything that I'm not convinced of. I can't [i]choose[/I] to believe anything at all, it seems. That seems like a category error. Beliefs aren't the kind of things that can be chosen. I mean, I could pretend, but obviously that's not the same.
4.) Should we accept all beliefs? - Yes, but only if those beliefs do not contribute to harm of self or others. Every human has a right to their own beliefs.
In a sense, everything you do in science is in a form, atheistic or agnostic, but agnostics use the unknown factor as a way to accept the existence of a god by that fact, which means it's closer to cognitive bias. Atheistic viewpoints just deny anything that isn't proven, it's not about faith, it's about the process of proving.
Why put science into this? Anybody thinking that science can prove or disprove this question is in my view either naive or simply doesn't understand science. It would be like assuming science can prove what is moral or ethical. What with the scientific method you can do is only to find an answer that x amount people believe that something is morally or ethically good or bad. Science can make accurate models of how we think, but not answer the questions themselves as there isn't an objective answer.
It's as delirious to get science into this as it is for some religious person even to think that he might prove the existence of God. Not only would this be basically idolatry in the Abrahamic religions: as if there would be a true proof of God, why need the Bible, Koran or whatever anymore? This also goes against the fundamental character of religions: that they are based on faith, not reason. If Jesus tells us to find God in our heart, that truly isn't an order to have open heart surgery. And this is true also for attempts to disprove God by science.
Now I do agree that atheism, not having faith is simply what is said, not a faith. Yet this doesn't mean that one that has no religion would be then making the moral and ethical decisions (that basically religion has given us) on reason or based on science. This is a fallacy: moral ethics are subjective even if you don't use any religious viewpoints or answers.
Science simply isn't normative.
Pattern-chaserOctober 01, 2018 at 13:48#2170580 likes
Maybe what you really mean is something along the lines that the person who asserts the nonexistence of God, as per any conception whatsoever, goes beyond logic by going beyond the available evidence, and reaches a logically unjustified and unjustifiable position.
Would you not take a position of strong atheism, instead of agnosticism, if you found that the conception of the God under consideration entails a contradiction?
I would rather consider the specific circumstance, but yes, I would have difficulty with a definition of God that seemed to entail a contradiction. :up:
ChristofferOctober 01, 2018 at 13:50#2170590 likes
Why put science into this? Anybody thinking that science can prove or disprove this question is in my view either naive or simply doesn't understand science. It would be like assuming science can prove what is moral or ethical. What with the scientific method you can only answer is that x amount people believe that something is morally or ethically good or bad. Science can make accurate models of how we think, but not answer the questions themselves as there isn't an objective answer.
I am comparing the scientific method to that of how atheists view the world, i.e through facts and what is proven, not belief. This is a premiss countering the idea that atheism is based on faith or ideology, when it isn't.
It's as delirious to get science into this as it is for some religious person even to think that he might prove the existence of God. Not only would this be basically idolatry in the Abrahamic religions as if there would be a true proof of God, why need the Bible, Koran or whatever anymore? And this is true also for attempts to disprove God by science.
As said, if you read the argument, it's not about science disproving god or proving god, but the process being the same as the foundation of what atheism is. If you can't prove god exists, there's no reason thinking there is a god. That is not faith, that is reason and reason is closer to atheism than it is to religion, reason is also closer to science than religion. Point being, scientific methods and atheistic thinking has much in common, and none in common with faith.
Yet this doesn't mean that one that has no religion would be then making the moral and ethical decisions (that basically religion has given us) on reason or based on science. This is a fallacy: moral ethics are subjective even if you don't use any religious viewpoints or answers.
Moral and ethics was not given to us through religion, religion gathered the basic morals and ethics that was invented by the necessity of survival by the group that evolved from apes. Society and religion tried to gather those morals and ethics into a usable form during the time when society started to become much bigger and much more complex than simple packs of hunter/gatherer people.
Religion has moral and ethics based on these and therefor a lot of obvious morals and ethics stems from it into a society even if it's in the end an atheistic one; but the key difference is that many religious societies tend to keep moral and ethics that has been proven irrational, like the irrationality behind making homosexuality illegal. That kind of moral is based on emotions about disgust and the science behind disgust tells us it's about keeping the group intact from functions that seemingly would destroy it from the inside, i.e the morals from our hunter/gatherer times when the group was small. But it's irrational in the context of society today and it's irrational since it's based on the well-being of only the subject making that law, not the well-being of homosexuals. Meaning, if atheists are more commonly using deductive reasoning in everyday life and in establishing moral ethics, they are more likely to not use old teachings of religion to govern their ethics and morals, they would look at the world as it is and form the best possible morals and ethics based on it. Religion has basic morals that are obvious to us, but we shouldn't give religion credit for those morals, since they stem from older concepts than our current religions. Our current religions also has ideas about slavery (christianity) that aren't morals that we should keep using. What opposed those morals of the times? Rational and reasonable deductive thinking, the type of reasoning that are more common with atheists questioning religion. Is there then unreasonable to see a pattern in which atheistic thinking has more things in common with scientific reasoning and rational thinking than any religious way of thinking which adhears to it's authorities viewpoints, rather then reasoning by the facts at hand?
History does not give religion validity in morals and ethics, it only speaks on how we ended up with the moral system and ethics of today. How we evolve morals and ethics from here is based not on religion but on how we reason and use arguments about these morals and ethics. Atheists seem far more likely to actually be doing dialectics based on facts rather than any kind of preprogrammed beliefs and authorities who set the rules before the arguments.
Other than that I think you missed the point I was giving; that atheism and the scientific process has more in common with each other and that faith cannot be a part of an atheistic way of life.
Pattern-chaserOctober 01, 2018 at 13:54#2170600 likes
A counter argument is a timeless god. Such a god might still die due to the 2nd law but would die outside of time, thus such a God is both dead and alive at the same time from the perspective of humans
:smile: I call Her Schrodinger's God ... and I worship Her too. :up: :wink:
Pattern-chaserOctober 01, 2018 at 14:02#2170610 likes
Atheistic viewpoints just deny anything that isn't proven, it's not about faith, it's about the process of proving.
Your post looks quite articulate so I will be returning to it, and keeping an eye out for your other posts. Thanks for that. As a quick place to start....
Please prove that human reason, the poorly developed ability of a single half insane semi-suicidal species only recently living in caves on one little planet in one of billions of galaxies in who knows how many universes, is binding upon all of reality (a realm which can't be defined in even the most basic manner such as size and shape) and thus upon any gods contained within.
You feel that the authorities theism is typically built upon (holy books and clergy etc) have not proven themselves qualified to credibly speak to the largest of questions, and so you reasonably decline theism.
All that's left to do is to apply that very same procedure to atheism. There's nothing new to learn, just do the very same thing you already do with theism. If the qualifications of the chosen authority can not be proven, decline the assertions arising from that authority.
Agreed, that's what I basically meant with atheism being a bit cold in it's approach to life.
That's often true, agreed. But it doesn't have to be true. There's nothing stopping atheists from falling in love with reality with the same enthusiasm that theists fall in love with their saints and gods etc.
Pattern-chaserOctober 01, 2018 at 14:07#2170640 likes
I am comparing the scientific method to that of how atheists view the world, i.e through facts and what is proven, not belief. This is a premiss countering the idea that atheism is based on faith or ideology, when it isn't.
Please, before you go any farther, will you clarify:
Do the atheists you describe activelyassert the non-existence of God?
[ The answer to this question is central and fundamental to understanding whether your atheists (i.e. the ones you describe) occupy a faith position or not. ]
So it's like staring into the unknown when you open the door to atheism and that is scary, which is why most people react emotionally when their faith is challenged.
Having spent 20 years on philosophy and atheism forums, I can assure you that atheists also often react emotionally when their faith is challenged. As best I can recall, I've been banned from every atheist forum I ever joined, just as I've been banned from every Catholic forum I've ever joined. I see no fundamental difference between the two.
Challenging is generally ok, because the challenge gives the true believers the opportunity to rise up as a group and reinforce their dogmas in the response. That is after all why they started a forum about their beliefs to begin with, to create a mutual validation society.
Presenting an effective challenge is the crime that gets you banned, because now you are threatening the glue that holds the mutual validation society together.
The answer to this question is central and fundamental to understanding whether your atheists (i.e. the ones you describe) occupy a faith position or not.
Respectfully disagree. If a person of any position thinks that the rules of human reason are binding on all of reality, without any proof that this is so, they are a person of faith. Belief without proof = faith. This equation applies equally to everyone on all sides of the issue.
If you can't prove god exists, there's no reason thinking there is a god
If you can't prove that human reason is binding upon all of reality (and thus any gods within), there's no reason to think reason is so qualified. It's the simplest thing, and once seen, the whole God debate merry-go-round to nowhere comes screeching to a halt.
That's bad news for those who have a large collection of memorized arguments they wish to put on display, but good news for those who want to follow the investigation where ever it may lead.
Thanks. It's what I'm trying to express and impress to people's minds - that we can learn to be aware of our frustrations and choose to act against them.
ChristofferOctober 01, 2018 at 14:27#2170690 likes
Point is that atheism is purely the process of thinking about the world, life and universe in the way of facts, in the way of not giving up a pursuit for truth and knowledge and never give in to irrational faith whenever something is unexplained. Atheism is more of a process in life, not a statement. Religion however is closer to a statement without proper facts, a statement looking like a statue that when challenged starts to crumble and over the course of time, by people trying to keep it together, ends up a frankensteined version in which the true meaning is lost and the original statue doesn't exist anymore, only incoherent parts and irrational substitutes. Atheism on the other hand does not build a statue, since it's not a statement, it's a process of discussing the idea of a statue, it's more like a painting where you can paint over the original, over and over, the more knowledge and experience you get. You don't try to uphold something or keep the original, you learn something and rework the entire thing.
This is the fundamental misinterpretation of atheism. Theists view it as an ideology, as a statement, as something solid as a statue, when it's instead a concept of thought, a process and a method to understand the world, understand complexities around us, not based on a pre-build statement, but out of the malleable form our knowledge of the world is.
Just as our brain is malleable by the knowledge and experience we have, should our concepts of life, the world and universe be based on the knowledge and experience we share as humanity.
I do think that it's somewhat unreasonable to believe in one or more of the specific gods put forward by the major existing religions... and especially in the whole moral system that is typically based that deity. In light of current scientific insight on the vastness of the universe, it would seem kind of strange that a deity who is the creator of all that is, would occupy itself with regulating the minutia of the behaviour of a species on one the many many planets.
Can a law e.g., of cause and effect, apply to the whole of the universe without applying to each relative circumstance? Why not a deity/deities, if such exist?
My point is, not knowing cannot be used to validate any possibility and, no matter how scientific the approach, it still remains unknown.
Finally there also is something fundamentally un-reasonable about the methodology of religion and the morals it proscribes. In essence it's based on revelation and faith with the 'word of God' being the final word, and not on experience and reason.
Faith, Belief, Intuition, etc., are applicable to human experience because they are based on more than reason, perhaps will. We face the unknown, not because we understand it, but because we are determined to rise to the challenge. Religion is specifically directed towards instigating certain reactions in humans and among aspects like emotion, thought, intuition, will, etc., reason is not the greater cause, as proven by past human experience. Infact, the success of religion to achieve its aims may be proof of its reasonable-ness, though this is just personal opinion regardless of the probability we may assign to its practical utility.
The need of the present times may suggest administering reason in our actions and interactions. This, however, must be gradual and fundamentally dependent on individual efforts to overcome the inertia of millenia of opposition. We (human identity) haven't always been homo sapiens ('wise' or 'sensible' man), as evolution and past history reveal to us and there seems to be much progress to be made before we can claim the full capacity implied by this identity of homo sapiens.
This is a difficult one, and depends on what you mean by 'accept'. And it also depends on what you mean by 'harm'.
Yes. But that is how all our interactions are. Just as our laws of conduct keep adapting to accommodate human needs better, so do our principles, beliefs, ethics, morals, dogmas, etc. It is all relative, even when it is objective.
ChristofferOctober 01, 2018 at 14:34#2170710 likes
Do the atheists you describe actively assert the non-existence of God?
No, if god is proven, god exist. Atheism is a process of understanding everything through facts, what can be proven. Atheists accept what is proven and change viewpoint if it's disproven. Claiming the non-existence of god, is not an option, not because that's a statement, but because it's not proven. The burden of proof is on proving the existence of a god, which is why atheism is closer to the process of science than any kind of faith or belief. Faith is about claiming something without proof, atheism doesn't claim anything without proof, but claiming the non-existence of something is not under burden of proof if the existence hasn't yet been proven. If the existence of something is proven, then the burden of proof is on the side claiming it doesn't exist. So far, no proof of existence has been presented for a god, therefor the burden of proof lies on the side claiming the existence. Let's say atheists are still waiting for the argument to start before claiming anything about the existence of god. As soon as an atheist claims something that makes them act under the burden of proof and they don't prove it, they cease to be atheists or live under that way of life.
I don't agree that it's a choice. I can't choose to believe anything that I'm not convinced of. I can't choose to believe anything at all, it seems. That seems like a category error. Beliefs aren't the kind of things that can be chosen. I mean, I could pretend, but obviously that's not the same.
Whatever significance you assign to any speculation about the unknown is based on choice not fact. To claim a scientific hypothesis has greater probability than a religious one is based on the choice you have made (perhaps sub/unconsciously due to a pre-set inclination or tendency) and not on reason based on logic. Logic dictates you cannot state the probability of an unfathomable occurrence (existence) against an unknown cause. If you have any belief against the metaphysics of religion, then it's just as metaphysical as religious belief.
Whether or not either of those beliefs is reasonable or unreasonable surely depends on the reasoning or lack thereof.
Reason cannot determine logic, it only applies it. Until reason provides a means to uncover the proof of the origin and intrinsic mode of operation of the whole of existence, then we cannot claim to have an absolute reference point for any perspective. However, a relative reference point is what we use to determine whether or not those who claim belief in deity/deities or belong to any religion are being reasonable/unreasonable. And, often enough, their reasonable/unreasonable-ness is an individual factor born of perspective and the interpretation of the information we/they possess. Just as there are a lot of 'crazy' religious people, there are very 'decent' ones, too. The same applies to everyone, deistic or not.
Accept as in allow to be. Give your own beliefs the 'space' and 'nutrition' to grow and develop appropriately. And give that same opportunity to others. (By and by we are realising how much deliberate influence we have on our beliefs and convictions. Life is about progress, give it a chance. Mistakes teach us to do better, success motivates us to do more.)
Pattern-chaserOctober 01, 2018 at 14:37#2170730 likes
No, if god is proven, god exist. Atheism is a process of understanding everything through facts, what can be proven. Atheists accept what is proven and change viewpoint if it's disproven. Claiming the non-existence of god, is not an option, not because that's a statement, but because it's not proven.
Then it would be my opinion that you, and the atheists you describe, do not hold a faith position. :up: Although I am just a little confused: the way you describe "atheist" seems to be identical to the way many would describe "scientist". :chin: Was this intentional on your part? Do you equate atheism with a 'belief' in science?
ChristofferOctober 01, 2018 at 14:40#2170740 likes
I can assure you that atheists also often react emotionally when their faith is challenged.
If their faith is challenged, they have faith without any rational or reason behind it, therefor they aren't acting as atheists anymore. If you have faith in something you are acting out of a religious point of view. I am very strict on this definition, since it seems to be the key reason for theists to be confused about atheism. I can understand why theists act out aggressively against atheism when atheists start behaving with the same kind of behaviour of faith, it should not be there to represent atheism, since faith isn't what atheism is about.
Most of the time, it's probably just because many atheists, like most people, aren't capable of proper dialectic and argumentation, so they start using emotions instead, and there's wild emotions on both sides to say the least.
Pattern-chaserOctober 01, 2018 at 14:45#2170750 likes
The answer to this question is central and fundamental to understanding whether your atheists (i.e. the ones you describe) occupy a faith position or not.
If a person of any position thinks that the rules of human reason are binding on all of reality, without any proof that this is so, they are a person of faith. Belief without proof = faith. This equation applies equally to everyone on all sides of the issue.
Yes, I can't disagree with what you say. But I don't think it invalidates - or even opposes - what I said. If an atheist actively asserts the non-existence of God, they occupy a faith position, according to what you say, and to what you and I seem to believe. But if an atheist simply believes that God does not exist, without trying to make their beliefs seem authoritative or binding on others, I don't see a problem. A belief, offered as a belief, and nothing more, is not misleading. That's the point. If there is no attempt to give beliefs artificial authority, we're most of the way there. But belief without proof remains a faith position, as you say. :up:
Faith is understanding something spiritually, when one cannot explain, and precisely delineate how they know it. Reason is the process by which we make sense of things, or attempt delineation. It could be said that nearly everything is known in a faith way, and we are always attempting to picture, or capture it with reason. This is what philosophy has always been about, in my view, but this got complicated with the rise of "reason", and distrust. Things needed to be public, physical, repeatable, or don't bother me with it. Things taken on faith are things we have no clear definitions of, or explanations for, but still accept as true, and worthy of attempting to do that. Like consciousness, health, justice, beauty.
Reason is the process of framing faith. Or making explicit the implicit... but if I just adopt and repeat popular framings, so that you cannot even tell the difference between me, and a million others, because we just present the precise same model, explanation, reason, as everyone else, then I don't think that one is demonstrating faith or reason, just memory, and allegiance. Ideology.
ChristofferOctober 01, 2018 at 15:20#2170770 likes
If you can't prove that human reason is binding upon all of reality (and thus any gods within), there's no reason to think reason is so qualified.
Now we are going into the epistemological territory of what we can know and what we cannot know. An important part of this is defining objective and subjective truths and this is a vast philosophical topic that I don't think there's enough space in here to write about. But in another thread I presented the idea of defining objective truth in two different divisions. Practical objectivity and absolute objectivity. Practical objectivity is based around defining what is objective through the limits of our perception of the world and universe, i.e the limits of our understanding and to this day, the best way has been the way of the scientific method, falsifiable methods etc. Take a group of ten people, each person goes individually into a white room with only a white table and a red apple. Then they go out and they describe all the details of what they saw. The individual accounts aren't contaminated by each others observations and all accounts gets summarized down to a conclusion about what is in the room: there's white room, with a white table, with a red apple on it. The more people who observe and describe the rooms content, the less probable of errors it gets to define the truth of what's in that room. This is practical objectivity and if you add mathematical logic to it, you start defining the closest humans get to objective truth we can get through our reasoning. Absolute objectivity is questioning everything to such a degree that it gets impossible to define anything. If questioning if there even is a room, an apple, if the people exist etc. we cannot conclude anything and everything gets impractical even on a cosmic scale.
My point is that we can only answer through our human perception, but we have no other reality. The scientific method also doesn't conclude something and then change it's mind. Newtons discoveries didn't get erased because of Einstein. Every conclusion in science works like Hegel's dialectical synthesis, it builds upon, melds together.
The key here is that our reason, methods of knowledge etc. has been tools to form the world around us. If we didn't have reasoning correct we would never be able to form the world as we do. Therefor, practical objective truths about the world works within the reality that is known to us, the things we prove in science works in symbios with the results of this reality we get. In absolute objectivity we could say that there might be god, but without proof it cannot be a practical objectivity and therefor it does not relate to us as a concept of reality we live under.
What we prove has relation to the consequences of that conclusion. To say that we can't prove something because of absolute objectivity ignores the concepts of practical objectivity's result outside of direct human perception and that what we prove has direct consequences within this reality we exist under.
Absolute objectivity is irrelevant in this regard and the inability to prove a god through this concept is irrelevant for us. The non-proof of infinite lack of knowledge is not proof of any existence. As we are proving things within the reality we exist in and practical objective truths we prove and disprove as a process in science, it concludes that there is no proof of a god and therefor the existence of god is not something worth believing in when we have no evidence for it. Any absolute objectivity claims about it is irrelevant for human beings, especially since it doesn't apply to us.
In terms of atheism, the divide between speculation and fact is strict and facts are based on objective truth in the form of the practical definition and based on what can be proved within the reality of existence we exist in. An atheist can speculate that there might be an apple in the white room, but do not claim there to be, not until they have been in there and seen it, but even then they do not accept it to be true since they question their subjective experience; they wait for the result of all the people who went into that room and then conclude it to be a fact. To say that it isn't a fact based on absolute objectivity claiming we cannot be sure of anything is ignoring the probability math of the probability that if I go in there and eat the apple, it will indeed be the apple proven to be in there by the conclusion of people's observations. If our reality is governed by probability of truth and we measure the world by this probability, then practical objectivity is what has the most probable truth to it. We can only exist within this practical objective reality and within this, the probability of a god has never been proved to be high, therefor there is no reason to say that any god exist and therefor believing in a god is not a reasonable way of approaching the reality and practical objective truths that we are governed by.
ChristofferOctober 01, 2018 at 15:32#2170780 likes
Faith is understanding something spiritually, when one cannot explain, and precisely delineate how they know it. Reason is the process by which we make sense of things, or attempt delineation. It could be said that nearly everything is known in a faith way, and we are always attempting to picture, or capture it with reason. This is what philosophy has always been about, in my view, but this got complicated with the rise of reason, and distrust. Things needed to be public, physical, repeatable, or don't bother me with it. Things taken on faith are things we have no clear definitions of, or explanations for, but still accept as true, and worthy of attempting to do that. Like consciousness, health, justice, beauty.
Reason is the process of framing faith. Or making explicit the implicit... but if I just adopt and repeat popular framings, so that you cannot even tell the difference between me, and a million others, because we just present the precise same model, explanation, reason, as everyone else, then I don't think that one is demonstrating faith or reason, just memory, and allegiance.
Like how our evolution of images representing reality has been evolving. Starting out as cave paintings, we have evolved our ability to capture truth right down to capturing the light of the world onto frames of photography. But even then we've continued evolving it. 3D virtual reality captures of the world starts to chop of the framed nature of images and soon we will be standing within the captured world as if we were perfectly there, only difference is the perception forming the experience. Reasoning is much like that, faith is the abstract concept of something that we can never claim to be true, like an abstract image in our mind of something we saw. The more we reason, the more clear it becomes, the more tools, like deductive reasoning, facts, mathematical logic, physical experiments in the world and so on, the easier it becomes to frame those abstractions into truths, like all the tools we started using to capture images; paintings, sculptures, photochemistry, light field technology, VR technology and so on. The more we work on it, the less abstract it gets, the less faith it becomes and more true it becomes. At some point, we will not see the difference between the abstraction and the truth because we have then found the tools to explain the abstraction as objective truth without contamination of the abstraction.
It's intuition, nous, that we're attempting to frame and make explicit. It's sense, sensitivity, life, feeling. None of that is improved in the ways you describe. Making more and more clear images of something that presents itself to you fuzzily doesn't make it clearer, just the image is clearer. The way to improve the intuition is with health, experience, travel, community, love... and is a personal journey.
Point is that atheism is purely the process of thinking about the world, life and universe in the way of facts, in the way of not giving up a pursuit for truth and knowledge and never give in to irrational faith whenever something is unexplained.
Why do you have faith in the ability of reason to meaningfully analyze the largest of questions (scope of god claims), when there is no proof of such an ability?
All I'm asking you to do is apply the very same challenge procedure you reasonably apply to theism to atheism as well. Although your posts are very intelligent and articulate, to me they seem to boil down to an attempt to fancy talk your way out of intellectual honesty.
Is the infinite ability of holy books proven? No, theism declined.
Is the infinite ability of reason proven? No, atheism declined.
By "infinite ability" I mean a methodology proven qualified to deliver credible answers about the largest of questions regarding the most fundamental nature of all reality, ie. the scope of most god claims.
A person who walks away from theism is not automatically an atheist, for they may reject the chosen authority of the atheist as well.
Now we are going into the epistemological territory of what we can know and what we cannot know.
Imho, you're working way too hard here. You don't make it this complicated when analyzing theism. You just ask for proof, and when none is provided you walk away.
If an atheist actively asserts the non-existence of God, they occupy a faith position, according to what you say, and to what you and I seem to believe.
But if an atheist simply believes that God does not exist, without trying to make their beliefs seem authoritative or binding on others, I don't see a problem.
I don't see a problem either, but their belief is still based on faith, faith in the ability of human reason to meaningfully analyze the very largest of questions.
A complication often is that their faith is unexamined, taken to be an obvious given, a strong blind faith, so they don't experience it as faith. And so they come on a forum and with all sincerity claim that atheism is not based on faith, because they don't see the faith it is based on.
Pattern Chaser:But belief without proof remains a faith position, as you say.
Ok, we're on basically the same page. Which is refreshing, as it's often me vs. the entire forum. :smile:
Faith is about claiming something without proof, atheism doesn't claim anything without proof,
Please prove the qualifications of human reason to credibly analyze the very largest of questions about all of reality, a realm we can't define in even the most basic manner (size, shape etc).
If we apply atheist principles to atheism itself, atheism collapses. Reason is of course still proven useful in countless cases on human scale.
Rank AmateurOctober 01, 2018 at 16:02#2170880 likes
Sometimes I think just a definition of faith from the Atheist position would be helpful. Often it seems there is some inherent belief that "faith" in these chats automatically implies faith in a God.
If it is not a fact, and if reasonable cases can be made both for and against the same position, than any belief in that position, either for or against, is by definition believed by faith.
This is the fundamental misinterpretation of atheism. Theists view it as an ideology, as a statement, as something solid as a statue, when it's instead a concept of thought
The statement, the claim, is that the concept of thought you're referencing is relevant to issues the scale of gods. Prove that please.
Theism vs. atheism is just a contest between two competing authorities, neither of which has been proven qualified to usefully address the questions of vast scale being considered.
We subconsciously uphold a particular belief as a means of comfort, to provide structure in the face uncertainty. In our attempt to maintain comfort, we welcome confirmation bias into our reasoning. I argue that idolizing comfort restricts our capacity to reason. Therefore, we must consider the concepts we find comfort in with a skeptical attitude in order to think more rationally. To symbolize the potential toxicity of comfort, I propose this analogy:
Let’s say Tracy has been in a dating relationship with Jordan for twenty years. The history she has accumulated with her partner over this time period has fostered a deep familiarity and comfort between the two of them. However, Jordan emotionally and physically abuses Tracy. Tracy doesn’t break up with Jordan because of the comfort she feels in their shared history and because she’s afraid of the unknown. The most beneficial decision for Tracy is to end the relationship with Jordan because she stops the abuse, but instead her desire for comfort traps her in abuse. Tracy repeatedly enforces an irrational belief to protect her comfort.
Religion is a common belief system used for comfort because it provides structure to existence and explains purpose in existing. The validity of those beliefs must be assessed because prioritizing comfort poses a threat to rationality. In Tracy’s case, she abandoned reason for the sake of comfort. Without reason, potential for growth is limited. Therefore, we must be wary regarding beliefs that bring us comfort because philosophical complacency and ignorance may follow.
ChristofferOctober 01, 2018 at 16:46#2171080 likes
Why do you have faith in the ability of reason to meaningfully analyze the largest of questions (scope of god claims), when there is no proof of such an ability?
I don't, I am looking at the process of reasoning and with facts proving hypotheses into theories and using facts to deduct into logical conclusions as a process that has been going on and there is nothing that says it will not continue going forward. If you frame progress within the framework that we have reached the final conclusions, you are missing the point that this isn't about faith, it's a prediction of probability about the process. Faith is believing something without any rational thing pointing to it, the process points in a certain direction, the end is unclear and not something I have any faith about, but claiming to know the end point is what religion does, therefor religion is about faith, atheism and science is not.
All I'm asking you to do is apply the very same challenge procedure you reasonably apply to theism to atheism as well.
That demands a claim to be said in order for me to question as I question claims by theists. Atheism does not have a claim, it's a process of reasoning, not a claim that can be analyzed, since the process is what it is, i.e facts determine what we know, it's not much more strange than that. Any scientific method that do not adhere to facts cannot determine anything, i.e the process is true. I claim the process to be true in pursuit of knowledge and truth within the framework we exist in, the process so far has determined this to be a true claim. Does the process of facts proving claims into truth not exist you mean? In absolute objectivity, sure, but we cannot exist in that state and the fact that humans have conquered forming the world as we have done is based on the process being true within our concept of reality, within practical objectivity. Does the process atheism is based on, not exist? Is that what you mean?
Is the infinite ability of reason proven? No, atheism declined.
You are turning the burden of proof into nonsense here. You are ignoring the basics of the process, i.e facts defining truth. Is the red apple in the white room? The process predicts probability, the process does not equal infinite ability of reason, it predicts that the process will answer more complex questions. Atheism does not say it knows the truth, atheism points out that you can only know what can be proven, god isn't proven. It's the same process that we used to understand the world as we know it, the process itself is proof that it's true in understanding the universe within itself. The process does predict things outside of human perception. Is the red apple in the white room? Yes, probability demands it, low probability denies it. A cosmic scale entity cannot exist under low probability, because low probability is random and random isn't proof of existence.
Do not simplify things into nonsense. The quote above is a straw man of what I've been saying.
A person who walks away from theism is not automatically an atheist, for they may reject the chosen authority of the atheist as well.
Atheism is not authority, the process of thinking about life, the world and universe is not a claim, is not authority or solid, it's a malleable process of truth-seeking, do not mix atheism with dogma, that is a theist invention about atheism. A person who walks away from theism is an atheist if he/she is using the process to form knowledge. If that person use unproven claims or any kind of faith, they are not, it's simple as that. There are no claims in atheism, atheism is a process of thinking about knowledge that forms knowledge, ever evolving. Theism is static, atheism is even changing, that is the key difference and the process itself cannot be analyzed and "disproven", since it's a process of truth seeking by questioning what is. It doesn't make sense to question atheism as if it were acting out of the same principles as theism, since it doesn't.
Please prove the qualifications of human reason to credibly analyze the very largest of questions about all of reality, a realm we can't define in even the most basic manner (size, shape etc).
If we apply atheist principles to atheism itself, atheism collapses. Reason is of course still proven useful in countless cases on human scale
This is nonsense. You are trying to disprove a method that has been giving results by it's reasoning and logic since it was first ever used. Theists claim something without proof, atheist doesn't claim anything without proof. You cannot ask for proof about how our reasoning is valid without first claiming that proof we have right now about the world is false and that all the things we have proven isn't existing. The process and the results of that process has already given results that prove the process works. And without claiming anything without proof you can't apply anything against atheism the way you propose, it makes no sense. What you are doing is an argument that propose a premise that theism works under the same principles as atheism when they are nothing alike.
Merged from 'Why would a god want people to argue for his existence?' Op from @Purple Pond:
There are many attempts throughout history of people trying to argue for the existence of God through reasoned discussion. What are these apologists trying to achieve? Suppose for argument sake that the arguments for the existence of God were sound. What type of people are going to be convinced by logical sound arguments? Those who's intelligence are capable of understanding theistic arguments and are rational enough to except them, of course. So you have intelligent and rational people accepting the existence of God by the mere fact they possess the qualities of being intelligent and rational. But what about those people who don't possess those qualities and are not smart enough to understand and accept theistic arguments. Is it their fault that they cannot grasp them? Isn't God being unfair? I mean it's not my fault if I can't grasp theistic arguments for the existence of God.
It's only fair that everyone get's the chance to discover God, and not those who are lucky to posses certain qualities. Is God unfair?
The problem with many of this arguments is a complete absence of understanding of the historical dimension of them.
FIrst and foremost, what is 'transcendent' is also by definition, beyond the scope of empirical science. So you will reply, 'how then can anyone claim to know anything of it?' To which the revealed religions will say 'Because he/she/it choose to reveal himself in the person of Jesus, or the sayings of Muhammed, and so on. And that is also given in the context of an historical record of testimony, recorded events, mythological accounts, and so on, which frame the purported revelations and provide a context within which it can be made meaningful.
So, of course if you reject all of those sources, and demand 'evidence', then the kind of evidence you're demanding will typically be of a completely different order. This is because empiricism works by first of all only dealing with phenomena about which measurable predictions can be made. And also because it's dealing with very specific subjects - what causes the colour of light to change as iron is heated, what causes epidemics, and so on.
However there are some exceptions to this general principle, specifically in respect of the so-called 'medical miracles' which are required for the canonization of saints. In these cases, meticulous records have been kept of such cures and intercessions, which are also empirical to the extent that medical science has not been able to provide an account of why the cure happened.
But from a philosophical perspective, the real argument is about understanding why religious principles can't ever be a matter of empirical science at all, and that to demand empirical evidence is to misunderstand the whole issue. And one can say this without any kind of agenda either for or against belief in God,
ChatteringMonkeyOctober 01, 2018 at 17:18#2171180 likes
Can a law e.g., of cause and effect, apply to the whole of the universe without applying to each relative circumstance? Why not a deity/deities, if such exist?
My point is, not knowing cannot be used to validate any possibility and, no matter how scientific the approach, it still remains unknown.
Perspective is relative, so is our understanding of simplicity. Hence, the many varied choices we make. It all depends on our abilities/capacities.
But then any regular everyday event can be explained in a million different ways if complexity is not a limiting factor and all metaphysical unverifiable possibilities are up for consideration. Is that reasonable?
Faith, Belief, Intuition, etc., are applicable to human experience because they are based on more than reason, perhaps will. We face the unknown, not because we understand it, but because we are determined to rise to the challenge. Religion is specifically directed towards instigating certain reactions in humans and among aspects like emotion, thought, intuition, will, etc., reason is not the greater cause, as proven by past human experience. Infact, the success of religion to achieve its aims may be proof of its reasonable-ness, though this is just personal opinion regardless of the probability we may assign to its practical utility.
Yes, i'm not saying we should allways use reason or that reason is more important then the rest of our abilities, but the question was, "is it reasonable"... so I answered with that in mind.
And sure religion has been effective in achieving certain aims, the more salient question maybe is what aims, and are these also my or your aims?
ChristofferOctober 01, 2018 at 17:21#2171190 likes
Theism vs. atheism is just a contest between two competing authorities, neither of which has been proven qualified to usefully address the questions of vast scale being considered.
This is just untrue and you are totally ignoring history here. Religion has never explained anything that comes close to anything true about the universe. Atheism has not done that either since it has never claimed anything at all, it's just a process. You are thinking about science vs religion and within that, science has a pretty solid track record of providing answers to questions earlier defined as "too vast to be explained". The very reason you are able to write on your computer or phone and talk about these things is a result of scientific discovery and theories proven. Name one thing that religion has ever done in this regard? Both science and atheism also works under the principle of them being a process and line of thinking, they themselves does not claim a single thing. Theists on the other hand claim things that are then asked to be proved, which they don't... because "faith reasons".
Your entire line of criticism against atheism relies on the premiss that it claims specific things, same goes for science. They do not do this, they act under a process of thinking and testing the world around us and ourselves in order to find truths that we can build upon. If none of those things that this process produced were true you would for instance not be able to use GPS since Einsteins theories was crucial in order to even have satellites working with it. Atheism and science has no authority behind them and therefor your argument falls flat as a comparison to theism, which all it does is making claims that doesn't need to be proved because of "faith". I think you have a fundamental misunderstanding of what atheism is and what science does and that misunderstanding is the foundation of the argument. The premisses of your argument cannot be based on an misunderstanding. You cannot demand that atheism is governed by authority or that it makes claims, it simply doesn't, so the argument falls flat.
Sometimes I think just a definition of faith from the Atheist position would be helpful.
I agree. The question doesn't apply just to atheists, but to anyone who uses the word 'faith'.
I can't speak for all atheists and I expect that many of them use 'faith' in different ways than I use it.
But my definition would be something like:
1. Willingness to commit one's self to the truth of a belief whose justification is perceived as weak. It's similar in meaning to 'trust'.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faith
The word 'faith' seems to me to be ambiguous.
2. The usage that I favor has to be distinguished from another usage that imagines 'faith' as a kind of extrasensory spiritual sense, an additional channel for acquiring information. The hugely influential KJV translation of Hebrews 11:1 suggests this: "now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen."
The second use encounters all kinds of epistemological problems that the first doesn't. The first seems to me to be very much in accord with some current ideas in formal epistemology, in which different beliefs can have different plausibility weights and be better or worse justified. (That's what all that "Bayesian" stuff that we see everywhere in philosophy these days is all about.) 'Faith' (as I conceive of it) is just willingness to commit to the truth of propositions what have less plausibility weight than we might otherwise like.
Another idea that I want to distinguish my view from is
3. 'fideism', the idea that faith and reason are antithetical and opposed. This one is summed up by Tertullian's "...the son of God died; it is by all means to be believed, because it is absurd." Luther seems to have said similar things and it seems to be a recurring theme in Protestantism (and in philosophy influenced by Protestantism).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fideism
Often it seems there is some inherent belief that "faith" in these chats automatically implies faith in a God.
I think that's because religion, particularly Protestant Christian religion with its ideas of "justification by faith alone", is where the word 'faith' is most typically used these days. It's out of style in most of the rest of contemporary life, and one generates angry responses when one uses it in the context of things like science.
If it is not a fact, and if reasonable cases can be made both for and against the same position, than any belief in that position, either for or against, is by definition believed by faith.
Yes, I'd agree with that.
I think that I'd rather say that the facts are typically going to be whatever they are regardless of what we happen to think about them.
And while I suspect that many/most of our beliefs are poorly justified if we poke deeply enough into their foundations (poking into the foundations is what I perceive philosophy's job to be), that doesn't mean that some beliefs can't be better justified than others. I think that's even going to be true regarding religious beliefs.
Rank AmateurOctober 01, 2018 at 17:27#2171210 likes
if both the theist, or the atheist can make valid claims that their beliefs are reasonable, than neither can claim a superior position unless, they are willing to make an argument that the other position is unreasonable.
I would be interested if you think such an argument from either side is possible.
Rank AmateurOctober 01, 2018 at 17:40#2171300 likes
that doesn't mean that some beliefs can't be better justified than others. I think that's even going to be true regarding religious beliefs.
Thanks yours - I struggle a little with the concept of competing ideas - one being "more reasonable" than another as a basis of any truth claim. I am aware, in real life, that we are often but in a position of having to weigh reasonable alternatives and decide which we feel is better. In a philosophic sense, on the issue of a/theism I have no idea what basis one could use to weigh the options and decide on a winner without the outcome being actually decided by a personal prejudice - and as such is just begging the question.
ChristofferOctober 01, 2018 at 17:54#2171340 likes
if both the theist, or the atheist can make valid claims that their beliefs are reasonable
Atheism isn't about belief or faith, this is a fundamental misunderstanding of atheism that needs to be abandoned before any argument is done about atheism. Atheism doesn't believe in anything, it is a process of thinking and reasoning about the world, it is not a claim.
I do not think there is a teapot between us and the sun until someone has proven there to be. Theists say that atheists need to disprove that there isn't a teapot. Atheists does not claim or assert anything without evidence, it is therefor and cannot be anything other than the process of reaching truth, not a claim or belief in anything. Until theists understand this simple concept, the arguments against atheism will continue to be founded on a flawed foundational premiss.
ChristofferOctober 01, 2018 at 17:59#2171350 likes
Yes, there's a huge difference between faith in god and faith in the truth. Faith in the truth only means faith in what is a coming conclusion, whatever it might be, faith in god is faith in a claim that has no direct correlation with any facts or logic, only the claim itself. Therefor, because faith is so connected to the ideas of religion I am careful to use the term as "faith in the truth". It confuses the argument. Faith in this dialectic is for me meant to represent faith in god, faith int he supernatural, the unexplained without the need for reason or valid evidence. I have faith in the truth, but I do not know the truth of something I do not have the evidence for. The difference is night and day.
Rank AmateurOctober 01, 2018 at 18:05#2171370 likes
God does not exist is not a claim since it demands that God exist.
God exist, is a claim, which demands proof to be valid.
Atheists does not claim god does not exist since they cannot claim something that isn't a valid claim.
Atheists does not claim anything, they demand proof of the claim.
Conclusion, atheists does not claim anything and any argument that criticise atheists making claims is based on a false premiss.
Rank AmateurOctober 01, 2018 at 18:15#2171400 likes
Reply to Christoffer thanks - not sure any of that addresses my argument. To be clear - I am not making any point against Atheism as a reasonable belief. I am making an argument above that its claim is not superior to the theist claim. If you disagree - tell me which proposition is false, and why. or why my conclusion does not follow.
ChristofferOctober 01, 2018 at 18:20#2171430 likes
The proposition that atheism makes a claim is false, that is what the problem is. If atheists makes a claim, then theism and atheism is in opposition, but a claim needs to be supported. Theists claim the existence of god, provides proof. Proof is accepted and the general truth is that god exist, atheists claim that god doesn't exist, cannot provide proof, then atheists are wrong in their claim. Problem is that theists claims aren't proved, so the argument haven't even gotten to the point of arguments for or against, so atheism cannot be blamed for making any claim since theists claims demand the burden of proof before a counter-claim can be made.
Atheists however, do not make such claims. If theists prove the existence of god with the same level of truth as Einsteins theories, then no atheist would claim otherwise, since atheism is built upon following the truth where it is. If theists prove the existence of god, all atheists would say, "ok" then this is the truth then.
So there is no claims made from atheists, this is the truth that theists ignore in their arguments.
Rank AmateurOctober 01, 2018 at 18:27#2171450 likes
The proposition that atheism makes a claim is false, that is what the problem is
I made no such proposition -
And it seems you think my argument is saying something about the truth claim of atheism - it is not. It is simply saying neither claim is superior. I gave an easily reasoned argument in support. Yet again - if you disagree and believe the atheist claim is superior tell me which proposition is false and why, or why my conclusion does not follow.
ChristofferOctober 01, 2018 at 18:38#2171480 likes
if you disagree and believe the atheist claim is superior
This is why it's confusing. You say "atheist's claim" then saying that your proposition about atheists making claims isn't something you do.
If atheists doesn't make a claim, then there is no claim to be superior. You are balancing theists making claims to atheists making claims. Making a claim demands a statement. Atheist do not claim anything since there is nothing to claim against. The teapot flying around the sun is an example of this. Anyone could claim anything and then demand proof that it isn't, but that is not how burden of proof works. Atheists claims are always based on facts, meaning if an atheist claims anything that isn't supporting by facts, then they aren't really atheists anymore. This is key to understanding the position atheists are in. And even if an atheist makes a claim with supported proof and new proof prove that claim to be wrong, the atheist won't argue against, they would accept the newly proven claim to be the truth. Atheism never makes claims against facts this way and do not stand by a certain dogma or viewpoint outside of facts. Therefor you cannot pit theist claims against atheist claims since there are no claims from atheists. Atheists only demand to prove the claims given, that is not a claim, that is a demand for truth, which theists does not provide yet. When they do, then atheists either have counter-proofs with counter arguments or if the evidence is clearly pointing to the existence of god, atheists will accept it.
Difference here is that theists do not work under facts and proof, only belief. If atheists, or rather scientists provide a claim with proof, many theists still deny it. Proof does not matter for theists when presented. The difference between the two are fundamentally so different that you can't really put them in an argument against each other. Atheists haven't made any claims, at. all.
Rank AmateurOctober 01, 2018 at 18:49#2171490 likes
If atheists doesn't make a claim, then there is no claim to be superior.
Ok I will amend the argument:
P1 - God is, is not a fact
P2 - God is not - is not a fact
P3 - Theism - a claim that God is - is supported by reason
P4 - Chrisoffer is not making any claim about anything
Conclusion - neither God is or whatever Chrisoffer believes is a superior position
Tell me which proposition is false and why , or how the conclusion does not follow.
But then any regular everyday event can be explained in a million different ways if complexity is not a limiting factor and all metaphysical unverifiable possibilities are up for consideration. Is that reasonable?
Yes, it is reasonable. The limiting factor would be practical experience. While every circumstance is open to any number of possible considerations, there is a convergence to our shared perception and utility. There are certain specific contexts which prevent situations from being amorphous.
Yes, i'm not saying we should allways use reason or that reason is more important then the rest of our abilities, but the question was, "is it reasonable"... so I answered with that in mind.
And sure religion has been effective in achieving certain aims, the more salient question maybe is what aims, and are these also my or your aims?
I agree. Personally, I'm not a fan of religion. I wish people used reason to justify their beliefs or, at the least, to determine their conduct within those beliefs. But, I must also concede that things won't necessarily happen the way I want them to, especially if they involve other people. I may not care for religion but I must regard those who do with the due consideration.
ChristofferOctober 01, 2018 at 19:10#2171550 likes
P1 - God is, is not a fact
P2 - God is not - is not a fact
P3 - Theism - a claim that God is - is supported by reason
P4 - Chrisoffer is not making any claim about anything
Conclusion - neither God is or whatever Chrisoffer believes is a superior position
Tell me which proposition is false and why , or how the conclusion does not follow.
I laughed at this, it was very funny, truly :smile:
But you are mixing together claims and facts. A claim demands facts, the claim itself isn't a fact. Claiming there's a teapot in space needs support by evidence, claiming there isn't a teapot in space is a nonsense claim since there's no proof of any teapot in space. Therefor you can't say that atheists claim there isn't a teapot in space since they haven't even gotten to the point of hearing a reasonable argument for a teapot in space. Atheists does not make claims that aren't proved by facts, if they see a claim, they want proof of that claims, that is what burden of proof is about.
If I claimed there's a rabbit under your bed and you said to me that I need to prove it, if I were a theist I would not care to give any proof. If I were an atheists I would not claim there to be or not be a rabbit under your bed because any claim would be ridiculous without evidence of there being one. If you look under your bed and say I was lying about there being a rabbit under your bed, an atheist would say that they didn't even make the claim, since they didn't make any claim about neither, but a theist would say; "well you don't know if it ran away", "you don't know if it's an invisible one", "you cannot prove that it wasn't there".
Atheists demand proof of claims that doesn't have proof. They do not make claims. Theists makes claims that doesn't have proof and demand proof of the opposite and without any, they accept their claim as truth. This is a fundamental fallacy in how to reach a rational conclusion in any form under any situation. Atheists are still waiting for the argument to start, given the lack of evidence from theists, atheists are really asking the question, why bother with religion? The argument that atheists cannot value emotion and beautify because of this, is in any sense of the matter, bullshit (referring to earlier posts on this)
Atheism isnt a claim about anything. It is not a system of any kind, nor a way of viewing the world. You guys are getting it wrong on both sides here.
Atheism means “without belief”, that its literal meaning. The “a” means “without”, the “theism” means belief.
Theism means “belief”.
Its easy to look up the origins of the word.
In philosophy academia, certain arguements use variations or specific extrapolations on the base word. Most of you are conflating it all together, which is leading to people making confused arguments.
Atheism is specifically the lack of a belief about something. To call it a belief is to not understand what the word means. (The words “atheism” OR “belief”.)
If the question is “do you believe in god?”, and your answer is anything other than “yes”, then you are an atheist. Yes, even if you are undecided, an agnostic, you can still be an atheist. Not mutually exclusive.
If you are defining athiest/atheism in any other way, you are using an idiosyncratic definition that is in service to a specific position you hold or argument you are making. This will only lead to confusion as everyone proceeds to talk past each other. Yes, even you fence sitters (not intended as derogatory, merely descriptive) who are trying to equate the reasoning of the two positions. There are two things, the position someone holds and the how or why of that position. Atheism and theism are positions, states of belief, reasoning only comes into play when either of them encounter a proposition.
So Atheists, stop claiming ground you dont hold with the word you are using to describe your position. Science is not atheism, atheism has no method. Science does.
Theists, im sorry but the burden of proof is on you. The reasoning process starts with the claim you choose to make whatever it may be. When you call yourself a theist, you are saying “I believe”, but you have to say in what you believe in order to have a discussion about it. Be that an exercise in reason or faith is of course up to you.
Agnostic types (its hard to tell exactly what term applies to each of you, but hopefully “agnostic-ish covers it), stop trying to equate the reasoning betweeen two positions when no such reasoning exists. You have no dog in the fight until a proposition is stated and the reasoning process begins, THEN you can bitch about “militant” atheism if it rears its head, or if the process on either side of the proposition ends up beimg two equal acts of unreasonableness or reasonableness.
You will all find that if you operate from this basis, your discussions will be much more productive, assuming understanding is the goal rather than grandstanding or preaching (which is not restricted to the theistic position).
Rank AmateurOctober 01, 2018 at 19:28#2171600 likes
I challenge this. One can claim by either reason or faith something to be true and act accordingly with only caveat that it can not be in conflict with fact.
If all that can be claimed true is that which we currently believe - presumably by science - to be true. My argument is there is an almost infinite list of things and concepts that at were at one moment in time most certainly not know to be a fact, that actually were - in fact - real.
There is a hidden proposition in your view that our current understanding of what we call "facts" is the complete state of affairs of what all facts are. I challenge that as false.
If I can summarize all your posts, you are making the noseeum argument against theism. Basically the argument goes - we have looked in a lot of places that occupy time and space, and we have not seen anything we would call "God". And since we haven't seen anything that occupies time and space, or evidence in time and space there of that we would call "God" -
traditional Atheist conclusion - There is no God
Christoffers conclusion - ????
Rank AmateurOctober 01, 2018 at 19:35#2171620 likes
...is not a claim since such a claim demands that the previous claim had proof supporting it. There is not a teapot in space is a nonsense claim, since no one supported such nonsense. Same goes for god. Theists claim there is a god, atheists ask for evidence for it, theists don't give a shit.
Atheists do not make claims since claims demand a previous claim. Claiming god doesn't exist demands that we have agreed there is a god before claiming it isn't. If theists can't prove their claim true, there's nothing to argue against. Atheists do not claim anything if they do not have facts to support it and so far burden of proof is on theists to start the argument, which they can't. Atheists do not have any burden of proof, because demanding that is as nonsense as demanding proof there isn't a teapot between us and the sun.
ChristofferOctober 01, 2018 at 19:36#2171640 likes
Yes, there's a huge difference between faith in god and faith in the truth.
Contrasting "faith in god" with "faith in the truth" already seems to embody an implicit claim that "god" isn't "truth" (or that a proposition asserting God's existence isn't T) or something.
Faith in the truth only means faith in what is a coming conclusion, whatever it might be
Except that oftentimes we can't be sure that our evidence and our arguments will produce a particular conclusion, at least not without introducing a bunch of poorly justified auxiliary assumptions. It only gets more problematic when we start questioning the foundations of logic and logical inference. So oftentimes, even when the subject has nothing to do with religion, there's still going to be a bit of a 'leap of faith', however small we think it is.
faith in god is faith in a claim that has no direct correlation with any facts or logic, only the claim itself.
That's a strong assertion, if you want to insist that atheists make no claims.
Rank AmateurOctober 01, 2018 at 19:37#2171660 likes
Reply to Christoffer I am passed this point - just added that as a cheap shot and little tongue in cheek
Rank AmateurOctober 01, 2018 at 19:38#2171670 likes
Contrasting "faith in god" with "faith in the truth" already seems to embody an implicit claim that "god" isn't "truth" (or that a proposition asserting God's existence isn't T) or something.
That god isn't truth demands that someone claims that god is truth. To claim that god is truth demands that the claim that god exists is true. The line of claims ends up at the theist claim that is unsupported by facts, which means that you cannot end up with god being or not being truth if you haven't solved the validity of god in the first place.
Except that oftentimes we can't be sure that our evidence and our arguments will produce a particular conclusion, at least not without introducing a bunch of poorly justified auxiliary assumptions. It only gets more circular when we start questioning the foundations of logic and logical inference. So oftentimes, even when the subject has nothing to do with religion, there's still to be a bit of a 'leap of faith', however small we think it is.
Yet, even that is not any argument against atheists, since atheists follows the truth were it may lead. What you speak of is close to agnosticism, but agnosticism is sometimes a non-argument in favour of an existing god, meaning they us the lack of knowledge to support the possibility of the existence of god being true, which is still a kind of cop-out. Atheism will accept the existence of god if it's proven, atheists will never claim that god doesn't exist if the proof is presented. That kind of malleable viewpoint seems to only exist within atheism and that standpoint itself shows it's vastly different from theism.
That's a strong assertion, if you want to insist that atheists make no claims.
If you can show what isn't logical about that, go ahead. Atheists claim things that have proof or logic, if you can show what isn't logic I will change the claim. This is the key difference between theists and atheists. Atheists does not claim anything that doesn't have logic or evidence and will change if challenge with better logic or evidence.
Other than that I think you missed the point I was giving; that atheism and the scientific process has more in common with each other
I think you have missed my point. Science is objective, it explains how the World is, not how it should be. Ethics is subjective. We can agree or disagree in ethics, and we can make our case by trying to reason it. This I understand totally. But when you make the argument that your reasoning is from a scientific basis, for me that is different. Too many times people have fallen into this trap: that they argue their subjective, normative views are somehow deductible from science and hence superior to others. How many times Darwinism or genetics has been abused to push some idea or agenda that has nothing to do with them?
Moral and ethics was not given to us through religion, religion gathered the basic morals and ethics that was invented by the necessity of survival by the group that evolved from apes.
Are our ethics indeed invented by the necessity of survival? Really?
Perhaps we had those basic morals and ethics for the survival of our family and clan, but typically not for anyone else. Typically animals and packs of animals have their owb territories and defend them out of necessity of survival. Our own species has been the most successfull in basically turning everythin in the World (except the deep oceans) to our own territory. And most likely our species wasn't at all benevolent and peaceful with all the other hominid relatives of ours that are now extinct. The idea of getting rid of your competitors is totally logical for survival. Science indeed can show this kind of behaviour even in other animals. Yet I see it far from being a basis for ethics.
History does not give religion validity in morals and ethics, it only speaks on how we ended up with the moral system and ethics of today.
Of course. And science basically does the similar thing on a broader level: it explains how everything has ended up as it as and as we can now observe from our surroundings. Similarly, it doesn't give validity to our normative ideas on what to do as reality is anything but simple.
ChristofferOctober 01, 2018 at 19:51#2171730 likes
I believe the cosmological argument is a reasonable argument.
The cosmological argument only points to a first cause of the line of consequences in a deterministic universe, it does not point to a god. Asserting that the first cause is god is a wild conclusion that does not care for the conclusion of the actual argument. The actual argument only points to a first cause that we don't know about and it is valid in the sense that it points to that unknown, no atheist would deny that. However, theists points to this unknown and say it's god. That is not the definition of god that theists in other cases describe god as, hence, the argument does not support theists claims of a god. The argument is only valid as pointer to the unknown start of events for the universe, nothing more, nothing less. We haven't proved this first cause or how it happened, which doesn't mean it's god or anything like it. The argument is a good one, just not for any kind of god, which is an assertion dislocated from the argument and a claim by theists that does not have any relation to the argument or line of thinking about determinism.
The term atheist does not refer to anyones dedication to the truth. That is not what it describes Christoff. Following the truth is one thing, atheism another. I know a flat earther who is an atheist. The term says nothing about a mode of thought or pursuit of any kind unless it is specifically loaded to do so.
In order to make headway in this discussion, you need to stop conflating atheism with a particular atheist you might have in mind. Everyone does.
The cosmological argument only points to a first cause of the line of consequences in a deterministic universe, it does not point to a god
Aquinas would not approve of your interpretation.
The cosmological argument, that I am referencing, has a conclusion that there is a non- contingent or necessary being - whose existence in not contingent on anything, and whose existence is necessary for everything - me and Aquinas, millions of others, call this being God.
ChristofferOctober 01, 2018 at 20:07#2171780 likes
I think you have missed my point. Science is objective, it explains how the World is, not how it should be. Ethics is subjective. We can agree or disagree in ethics, and we can make our case by trying to reason it. This I understand totally. But when you make the argument that your reasoning on a scientific basis, for me that is different. Too many times people fall into this trap: that they argue their subjective, normative views are somehow deductible from science and hence superior to others.
I don't see any logic here? You are mixing subjective ethics into the argument about the existence for god? I attribute atheism to have a foundation close to the process of science, meaning that it demands evidence for any claims about life, the world and universe. That is not a claim, it's a demand for proving claims. Demanding proof for a claim is not a claim in itself.
Are our ethics indeed invented by the necessity of survival? Really?
Perhaps we had those basic morals and ethics for the survival of our family and clan, but typically not for anyone else. Typically animals and packs of animals have their owb territories and defend them out of necessity of survival. Our own species has been the most successfull in basically turning everythin in the World (except the deep oceans) to our own territory. And most likely our species wasn't at all benevolent and peaceful with all the other hominid relatives of ours that are now extinct. The idea of getting rid of your competitors is totally logical for survival. Science indeed can show this kind of behaviour even in other animals. Yet I see it far from being a basis for ethics.
I would suggest looking into the findings about how we humans evolved. There is theories in psychology and sociology about how groups of people function, that we have problems to function as a group when we reach over 12 people in a group. This is where people started to get rid of competitors, when we started doing crimes against the group to survive or become better off than others in the group. This is also my point; that when we grew larger than 12, those smaller groups, we needed systems to govern society and that is were our morals and ethics came to be. That these morals and ethics were corrupted by those in power is a later historical entry.
Of course. And science basically does the similar thing on a broader level: it explains how everything has ended up as it as and as we can now observe from our surroundings. Similarly, it doesn't give validity to our normative ideas on what to do.
You mean that neuroscience, psychology, socialogy and sciences that investigate current states does not find truths based in evidence of the present? You mean that Einstein's theoretical physics were false? Since things like gravitational waves wasn't proved until this year? Science is more than experiments proving, it's also about logic proving. Mathematical logic in line of Russel has to do with a logic that can be drawn on a whiteboard and still be as valid as experimental proof since the logic itself is solid. 2 + 2 is 4; if you demand evidence of it, you ignore the logic of that math and that math is as basic as nature itself.
Now that you're all talking about the same thing as before I'm going to merge this thread with 'How do you feel about religion?'. Comments from @BrianW apology thread have been merged here.
The OP was:
This is a personal and general apology for our misconduct especially expressed in the Atheism vs Theism threads. I/We should know better, and do better.
It may be fun to play debate at a philosophy forum but, if our objectives are not clearly defined, we may undermine the fundamental of it. It may end up being a witch hunt for mistakes and loopholes that can be used against a person instead of trying to understand what is being expressed. Without such understanding, how can we claim our arguments to be reasonable? Philosophy has to be more than just arguments reflecting people's biased opinions. It has to be more than a self-assertion that it is logical for any personal perspective to reflect absolute truth to any significant degree and to the communal human experience. It has to be more than a play at logic when we don't fully appreciate what it means to think or possess facts. We should not misrepresent our limitations as impossibilities; or use ignorance to validate any possibility. We should not stack up imaginary probabilities and statistics to beef up our hypotheses. When we don't know, it's because we are ignorant. The best we can do is learn. And above all, we should know our limits, beyond which, we can offer no significant contribution.
My point is that we don't know the first principles of existence. We don't know how it all started. No declaration or study can give a definite answer. All there is, is speculation. Therefore, it is wrong to deny others what you ask of them in return -> a speculative endeavour. In this way, myself and others have been wrong. If science, religion, metaphysics, or other, is your way of speculating and seeking insight into the mystery of where it all began or what it all is or what it all means, then have at it. It is your right. And, with respect to that, we should conduct ourselves with greater understanding, if not empathy or sympathy. For, we are all alike in that respect.
Therefore,
1.) Does any deity/deities exist? - I don't know. I haven't any proof. However, I have my choice of whether to believe or disbelieve in their existence.
2.) Is it reasonable/unreasonable to believe or disbelieve in deity/deities? - No. The common reference to deistic belief is based on choice, not logic. And if logic were to be the basis, there is still the problem of ignorance or lack of facts. However, there is no sanction against the use of reason to justify, to a relative capacity, the basis of such belief/disbelief.
3.) Is it acceptable to question belief? - Yes. But, it is uncivil to attack a person for it, especially when you do not understand its provenance.
4.) Should we accept all beliefs? - Yes, but only if those beliefs do not contribute to harm of self or others. Every human has a right to their own beliefs.
I would greatly appreciate any contribution, so please add a comment, correction or improvement with respect to civility in the discussions. My hope is that, further on, we will take better care to respect each other and the philosophical undertaking which defines our collective commitment on this forum.
ChristofferOctober 01, 2018 at 20:14#2171820 likes
The cosmological argument, that I am referencing, has a conclusion that there is a non- contingent or necessary being - whose existence in not contingent on anything, and whose existence is necessary for everything - me and Aquinas, millions of others, call this being God.
Aquinas is dead and didn't go through both the renaissance nor the enlightenment period. It's still making a claim that the first cause, the one necessary for everything we know, is "god". There is nothing about the god that exists within any of our definitions that can be asserted to being that first cause of everything. Making that connection is projecting your own ideas about god on top of an abstract concept of the first mover in a deterministic universe. That is not an argument with any validity and any claim that it proves the existence of god is a failure to understand the difference between a true conclusion and a conclusion that is converted into a cognitive bias.
A "first mover" is not god by any definition we have, it's only proof that there has too be something at the beginning of cause and effect... nothing more... nothing less.... any claim otherwise is not supported by logic or reason. This is why the cosmological argument hasn't been able to prove the existence of god. If it had, the argument would have been over. But theists doesn't care about this, they just demand this argument to have a valid conclusion, which is delusional.
Rank AmateurOctober 01, 2018 at 20:15#2171830 likes
My point is that we don't know the first principles of existence. We don't know how it all started. No declaration or study can give a definite answer. All there is, is speculation. Therefore, it is wrong to deny others what you ask of them in return -> a speculative endeavour. In this way, myself and others have been wrong. If science, religion, metaphysics, or other, is your way of speculating and seeking insight into the mystery of where it all began or what it all is or what it all means, then have at it. It is your right. And, with respect to that, we should conduct ourselves with greater understanding, if not empathy or sympathy. For, we are all alike in that respect.
Therefore,
1.) Does any deity/deities exist? - I don't know. I haven't any proof. However, I have my choice of whether to believe or disbelieve in their existence.
2.) Is it reasonable/unreasonable to believe or disbelieve in deity/deities? - No. The common reference to deistic belief is based on choice, not logic. And if logic were to be the basis, there is still the problem of ignorance or lack of facts. However, there is no sanction against the use of reason to justify, to a relative capacity, the basis of such belief/disbelief.
3.) Is it acceptable to question belief? - Yes. But, it is uncivil to attack a person for it, especially when you do not understand its provenance.
4.) Should we accept all beliefs? - Yes, but only if those beliefs do not contribute to harm of self or others. Every human has a right to their own beliefs.
I would greatly appreciate any contribution, so please add a comment, correction or improvement with respect to civility in the discussions. My hope is that, further on, we will take better care to respect each other and the philosophical undertaking which defines our collective commitment on this forum.
agree thanks for the post
ChristofferOctober 01, 2018 at 20:21#2171840 likes
Then, that person is not an atheist. Not in the sense of following evidence and logic to the truth. Sure, in the sense of denying the existence of a god, but being a flat-earther has nothing to do with being an atheist. Atheism doesn't have to do with belief, which means it demands proof, which means it cares for truth. The foundation of atheism becomes pretty clear.
The sense of following evidence and logic to the truth is not what atheism is. Atheist does not include ANY beliefs. Those are the province of each individual. Atheism just means “without belief”. Thats it. Anything over and above that is specific to another position or argument is what it is, but it isnt atheism.
You actually cherry picked that bit out now that I look back.
Why did you do that? Why didnt you address the other points that I made in the same post?
I don't see any logic here? You are mixing subjective ethics into the argument about the existence for god?
Religions basically do give answers on how to live, what is good and what is bad. And religions rely on deities as the reason for this. Is this logic so difficult to understand?
You mean that neuroscience, psychology, socialogy and sciences that investigate current states does not find truths based in evidence of the present?
No. They try to find and do find objective truths. Not normative statements. (In philosophy, normative statements make claims about how things should or ought to be, how to value them, which things are good or bad, and which actions are right or wrong.)
Whatever significance you assign to any speculation about the unknown is based on choice not fact.
Hold up, we need to rewind. I didn't say anything, specifically, about speculation about the unknown, nor any significance assigned to it. We were talking about belief or disbelief in the existence of any deity/deities. That's not necessarily speculation about the unknown, and again, that's not a choice. Here's an exception: my knowledge that any deities the existence of which would entail a contradiction do not exist cannot rightly be called speculation about the unknown, and it isn't something that I choose to believe. It's not speculation, as it has a very firm grounding in a fundamental law of logic, it's not unknown, and I can't help but find it convincing, so it's not a choice.
To claim a scientific hypothesis has greater probability than a religious one is based on the choice you have made (perhaps sub/unconsciously due to a pre-set inclination or tendency) and not on reason based on logic.
You can't just assert that it's a choice, because that's begging the question. I don't even think that what we're talking about - obtaining belief - is something which [I]can[/I] be chosen, so, for starters, you would need to explain why you think otherwise before moving on to more detailed talk of scientific hypotheses, probability, logic, religion, and so on.
Logic dictates you cannot state the probability of an unfathomable occurrence (existence) against an unknown cause.
Sorry, I'm not following. Can you break that down and explain it? Also, that seems more specific than what we were initially talking about. If so, can you also explain why you've moved from a broad topic to a subset within that broader topic? There are beliefs about what's probable [i]and[/I] beliefs about what's possible, both of which can fall under the topic of beliefs about the existence of any deity or deities.
Reason cannot determine logic, it only applies it. Until reason provides a means to uncover the proof of the origin and intrinsic mode of operation of the whole of existence, then we cannot claim to have an absolute reference point for any perspective.
However, a relative reference point is what we use to determine whether or not those who claim belief in deity/deities or belong to any religion are being reasonable/unreasonable. And, often enough, their reasonable/unreasonable-ness is an individual factor born of perspective and the interpretation of the information we/they possess. Just as there are a lot of 'crazy' religious people, there are very 'decent' ones, too.
So, you agree? I don't see how what I said is much different from saying that there's a relative reference point which we use to determine whether or not those who claim belief in deity/deities or belong to any religion are being reasonable/unreasonable. And sure, we can call it reasoning or factors or a perspective or an interpretation. Whatever is the basis for their view.
But no one here is saying that religious beliefs aren't allowed, so what's your reason for making that point? Disagreeing with beliefs is what goes on here. That's very different from saying that these beliefs aren't allowed.
Give your own beliefs the 'space' and 'nutrition' to grow and develop appropriately. And give that same opportunity to others. (By and by we are realising how much deliberate influence we have on our beliefs and convictions. Life is about progress, give it a chance. Mistakes teach us to do better, success motivates us to do more.)
I really don't agree with your general sentiment here. Not all of it, there are parts I agree with, and I'm not suggesting that I'm favour of all out war or anything of the sort, but I don't think that a kind of 'back off', 'leave it alone', 'it's all equal', 'lets all hold hands' approach is the right one. I think you mean well, but I think that there's merit in putting it all out in the open and arguing things out. Nothing should be out of bounds when it comes to the substance behind a belief, and if you happen to be the kind of person who doesn't want their beliefs exposed to scrutiny, then you have the option to keep them private, instead of expressing them on a public philosophy forum.
Rank AmateurOctober 01, 2018 at 20:44#2171900 likes
A "first mover" is not god by any definition we have, it's only proof that there has too be something at the beginning of cause and effect... nothing more... nothing less.... any claim otherwise is not supported by logic or reason. This is why the cosmological argument hasn't been able to prove the existence of god. If it had, the argument would have been over. But theists doesn't care about this, they just demand this argument to have a valid conclusion, which is delusional
Thank you for your opinion above - however it in no way challenges whether or not is reasonable to believe in the Cosmological argument as Aquinas made it. In order to do so, you will need to prove with fact or reason that the premise are wrong or the conclusion does not follow. This has not been able to be done in a few hundred years, and not from lack of effort. So you have quite a task ahead of you.
Rank AmateurOctober 01, 2018 at 20:49#2171920 likes
Religions basically do give answers how to live, what is good and what is bad. And religions rely on deities for this. Is this logic so difficult to understand?
Like morals about slavery and such? Religion is just a vessel for basic morals and ethics established long before the religions you give credit for these. You also assume that morals cannot be established by non-religious people, which is a prejudice against any kind of moral system that doesn't rely on religious belief.
This is the usual "atheists are immoral" argument that fails over and over.
They try to find and do find objective truths. Not normative statements. (In philosophy, normative statements make claims about how things should or ought to be, how to value them, which things are good or bad, and which actions are right or wrong.)
You are dividing the two, too definitively. Right and wrong can be asserted through what is true about human psychology but I agree philosophy is key to figuring out morals. However none of these has anything to do with god or religion, which claims moral truths without foundation for those claims. Philosophy and science try to find a foundation that is valid instead, which is more rational than claims based on belief in a system just because of the belief itself.
ChatteringMonkeyOctober 01, 2018 at 20:50#2171940 likes
Yes, it is reasonable. The limiting factor would be practical experience. While every circumstance is open to any number of possible considerations, there is a convergence to our shared perception and utility. There are certain specific contexts which prevent situations from being amorphous.
I very much agree with this, I feel one should start from what one knows and can know, and not from what one can't know. And how do Gods fare with practical experience as a limiting factor?
I agree. Personally, I'm not a fan of religion. I wish people used reason to justify their beliefs or, at the least, to determine their conduct within those beliefs. But, I must also concede that things won't necessarily happen the way I want them to, especially if they involve other people. I may not care for religion but I must regard those who do with the due consideration.
The aim of religion is to anchor traditional morality, to keep people from questioning that morality... Thou shall not eat the fruit from the tree of knowlegde of good and evil!
And that morality is used to keep people in line, which from the perspective of the rulers is very usefull.
But if your aim is questioning and knowledge, then that is contrary to the aims of religion. The real philosopher is the archenemy of priests and theologians.
ChristofferOctober 01, 2018 at 20:56#2171960 likes
In order to do so, you will need to prove with fact or reason that the premise are wrong or the conclusion does not follow.
You seem to miss the fact that no atheist is disapproving the conclusion of the first mover based on the logic and evidence at hand. It's the assertion that the "first mover" and "god" is the same thing that isn't proven. It's like me saying that the cosmological argument proves that the teapot in space created everything in the first place, that the teapot is the first mover. There is nothing to bind the concept of god to the "first mover" of the cosmological argument so there is nothing to disprove. No one is arguing against the first mover since we don't have enough data to disprove that logic, but saying "it is god" is a claim with no facts to back it up.
You cannot attach one argument and combine it to another conclusion just because you want to. The claim that god exists has nothing to do with the conclusion of the cosmological argument.
In what way is the "first mover", the initial cause of all causality, "god"? Explain that before claiming the cosmological argument to prove any existence of god. I see no correlation between the conclusion of god existing with the actual conclusion of there being a "first mover". There isn't any correlation here, please point it out.
Rank AmateurOctober 01, 2018 at 21:01#2171980 likes
no - you are missing the point - and you have issues with how argument works:
My Premise - theism is reasonable
you - why
Me - Cosmological argument
you - I/others disagree with the cosmological argument therefor you are unreasonable
me - that fails - i hold to my premise
ChristofferOctober 01, 2018 at 21:02#2171990 likes
This has not been able to be done in a few hundred years, and not from lack of effort. So you have quite a task ahead of you.
— Rank Amateur
If, as you state, you are a believe in reason, this last part should give you pause.
The argument has ben flawed for a few hundred years, it's not that it hasn't been able to be disproved, it's not proven anything else than a "first mover" to begin with. Attributing the cosmological argument to anything more than what it is, is ignoring the hundreds of years it hasn't been able to prove anything of what theists propose. If it hade been able to prove the existence of god through logic, it would have been a done deal. It's like saying that the cosmological argument proved the existence of god, but people are just too stupid to realize it. No, people just don't see the logic behind combining that conclusion with the notion that any god exist and theists haven't provided any answer to combine the conclusion of the argument the the conclusion that god exists. It's nonsense really.
Reply to Michael Ossipoff Well, come on. Reincarnation? If your metaphysics leads to reincarnation, don't you think that that says more about your metaphysics than anything outside of it? Don't you think that that's a sign that you've gone wrong somewhere along the line?
Unless it's some kind of trick where you're actually talking about something much less controversial than what you appear to be talking about.
You know, something a bit like this:
Person A: "God exists".
Person B: "Say what?"
Person A: "Yeah, God exists. God exists [i]as a concept[/I]".
Person B: "Motherfuuu..."
ChristofferOctober 01, 2018 at 21:07#2172050 likes
you - I/others disagree with the cosmological argument therefor you are unreasonable
me - that fails - i hold to my premise
The cosmological argument does not have any valid conclusion in favour of the existence of god. It's not about disagreement, there's no logical conclusion, case closed. What you write here just points to you ignoring the inconsistencies about the argument in support of a god. Nothing binds the conclusion of the cosmological argument to the conclusion that god exists, that's just a wild connection with no basis in logic. The first mover is not god, there's nothing to bind those together, case closed (and has been for a long time).
Reply to Christoffer
I agree with you on your points to Rank Amateur, there is no connecting tissue betweeen the first mover and sny theistic god that I know of and in fact many great philosophers have tried and failed to bridge that gap. If Rank Amateur knows the argument, he should know that as well.
Appeal to ignorance is fine, while keeping in mind that not just anything goes.
People have vivid imaginations and can, and have, come up with a lot of ignorance.
In real life, childrens' heads are filled up with that, and that has real life consequences, both for them and for others.
I don't recall having heard of any pujaris priests imams etc ending their sessions with "oh, by the way, we don't know", though that would seem the moral thing to do.
Some folk are out to learn more about whatever is indeed the case, which involves a conscious effort to minimize all the known tedious shortcomings.
So, yes, it matters.
ChristofferOctober 01, 2018 at 21:11#2172090 likes
And it doesn't mean the cosmological argument is invalid, it's just not an argument for the existence of god, but an argument that is very interesting for scientists. How do we tackle this mystery of what started the deterministic universe, the mind blowing conclusion of the argument is more interesting than any kind of claim that it proves the existence of god.
Rank AmateurOctober 01, 2018 at 21:14#2172130 likes
Reply to Christoffer all do respect, you are missing the point, your opinion on the the validity of the Cosmological argument has nothing at all to do with disproving my premise that it is reasonable to believe it. There are 2 ways, and only 2 ways to do this. 1. prove there is no God as a matter of fact. or 2. Prove that in all possible cases the conclusion is false.
Rank AmateurOctober 01, 2018 at 21:23#2172150 likes
Reply to DingoJones whether of not there are valid challenges to the argument are outside the point of my premise that - it is reasonable to believe that it it true.
If you, as him, think believing in the cosmological argument is an unreasonable position - i would be interested in the argument.
You and Christoffer want to argue the point you want to argue and not argue against the premise. The premise is NOT the Cosmological argument is true, the premise is that it is reasonable
Reply to Rank Amateur
Im made no comment in the reasonableness of the argument, you are simply mis-applying it. It is an argument about a first cause or mover. It is a reasonable, imo, argument for first mover/cuase. Theism, take your pick, does NOT follow from it.
Rank AmateurOctober 01, 2018 at 22:11#2172240 likes
Im made no comment in the reasonableness of the argument, you are simply mis-applying it. It is an argument about a first cause or mover. It is a reasonable, imo, argument for first mover/cuase. Theism, take your pick, does NOT follow from it.
Can there be an un-moved mover, an un-created creator, a non contingent being that is would be unreasonable to call "God"
It would depend on what you mean by god, but I think I see what you are getting at. You would be describing a deistic position by calling it god, not a theistic position. Theism defines god over and above a first cause/mover, it assigns one or more attributes/characteristics in addition to being the first mover.
Deism is the term to describe what I think you have in mind in this discussion, deism is what the cosmological argument does a decent job of making a case for.
”What wouldn’t you take as a brute fact? The “objective existence” of this physical universe? You wouldn’t take that as a brute-fact? Alright then, why is there this physical universe? Because there just is? That’s called a brute-fact.”— Michael Ossipoff
.
No, that's not what I meant, and I don't think that asking why there is this physical universe is a sensible or appropriate question. It's a loaded question.
.
Translation: It’s a question that S. can’t answer :D
.
Though S. believes in the “objective” existence of a physical universe that is the fundamental reality, all of reality, and the metaphysically-prior thing on which all else supervenes—he can’t say why there is that physical universe.
.
So, “Let’s not ask why it is. It just is.” That’s called posting a brute-fact.
.
I meant that I wouldn't consider it to be a brute fact that physicalism is the case, which is to say that everything is physical, or supervenes on the physical
.
Not considering that to be a brute-fact doesn’t make it not be a brute-fact.
.
, which I thought was clear from the context where I went into detail about how I'd go about thinking about physicalism: a way which contrasts with the kind of thinking behind brute facts, where things can't be broken down or considered as thoroughly, and you just kind of go, "Everything is physical! Just because!".
.
Talking about atoms doesn’t explain your Materialist world as other than a brute-fact. Idealists don’t deny that matter is made of atoms, as I fully discussed in the earlier posts that you’re referring to.
.
”Then there’s another question; If you claim that this physical universe is “objectively-real” &/or “objectively-existent”, or “actual” in some way that the hypothetical logical system that I described isn’t, then what do you mean by those terms in quotes?” — Michael Ossipoff
.
Yes, I do claim that. It is objectively real, existent, and actual, although I'm not sure whether that's in some way that the "hypothetical logical system" that you've described isn't, because, with due respect, I don't really understand much of what you were banging on about for that wordy first part of your reply - experience story, hypothetical this, hypothetical that, wave mechanics - which I haven't addressed because I don't even know where to begin.
.
Don’t worry about it. I assure you that you’ve said enough :D
.
The meaning of those terms - "objective", "real", "existent", "actual" - can be found in dictionaries and understood in contrast with their antonyms, so you should be capable of understanding my meaning without me having to explain it.
.
Then maybe S. should look those words up in a dictionary, so that he’ll know what he means. :D
.
As for the dictionary definitions of those words:
.
They’re all in one of two or three categories:
.
Some of them refer to attributes possessed by the hypothetical logical systems that I refer to.
.
Maybe, with some generous interpretation, some of them could be taken to indicate unspecified difference from those logical systems. That wouldn’t answer my question, because I’d asked, “Specifically, what attribute do those words connote that isn’t possessed by the logical systems that I’ve mentioned?” So, indicating unspecified difference from those systems wouldn’t answer my question.
.
Some of them refer to eachother.
.
In other words, none of the dictionary definitions answers my question. So, even if you meant one or more of those definitions, you haven’t answered the question (…but there’s no need for you to keep trying. As I said, you’ve said enough.)
.
Conversation concluded.
.
Michael Ossipoff
You also assume that morals cannot be established by non-religious people, which is a prejudice against any kind of moral system that doesn't rely on religious belief.
This is the usual "atheists are immoral" argument that fails over and over.
Quite an intrepretation! I truly don't have any grudge against atheists, but it seems you just assume that. I really don't know where you got the idea that I think atheists are immoral.
Anyway, I think you get my point when you agree that "philosophy is key to figuring out morals". Philosophy? Yes definately! Philosophical reasoning is very recommendable. It can be rational, perhaps even rigorously logical, but it's still philosophy. Science? Referring just to science in these matters can easily slide into scientism. To claim science as the only or primary source of human values, a traditional domain of ethics, is de facto scientism.
Perhaps my point can be confused when just thinking about religions from viewpoint of the various "Genesis" stories religions make and how science refutes that nonsense. This idea of God and deities being an invented answer to things in reality that we don't understand naturally has collided with scientific knowledge later.
However none of these has anything to do with god or religion, which claims moral truths without foundation for those claims.
Yet are the morals so totally different? The starting point is surely different, that we can agree. Is all religious moral thinking just plagiarized from common sense and earlier philosophy? Because should I point out that some religious thinkers have even been called philosophers. Just asking.
The cosmological argument does not have any valid conclusion in favour of the existence of god. It's not about disagreement, there's no logical conclusion, case closed. What you write here just points to you ignoring the inconsistencies about the argument in support of a god. Nothing binds the conclusion of the cosmological argument to the conclusion that god exists, that's just a wild connection with no basis in logic
One of the interesting facts about the state of current cosmology, is that many scientifically-inclined philosophers, or rather, scientists who philosophise, will say that one of the compelling arguments for the 'multiverse' is precisely to avoid the implications of the anthropic cosmological argument. In an article on the concept of the multiverse, George Ellis notes that this is one of the arguments frequently appealed to:
Fundamental constants are finely tuned for life. A remarkable fact about our universe is that physical constants have just the right values needed to allow for complex structures, including living things. Steven Weinberg, Martin Rees, Leonard Susskind and others contend that an exotic multiverse provides a tidy explanation for this apparent coincidence: if all possible values occur in a large enough collection of universes, then viable ones for life will surely be found somewhere.
DOES THE MULTIVERSE REALLY EXIST? (cover story). By: Ellis, George F. R. Scientific American. Aug2011, Vol. 305 Issue 2, p38-43.
This argument is so much taken for granted that it is routinely invoked as a metaphysical argument against design, even though there can be no scientific - that is, falsifiable - evidence for it, one way or the other.
Now of course it is true that cosmological arguments don't provide any kind of empirical or scientific proof for the existence of a higher intelligence either - but to demand that kind of evidence, betrays a basic misunderstanding of the difference between metaphysics and empiricism in the first place. And that, in turn, is because a major part of Enlightenment philosophy comprises getting rid of metaphysics altogether - or at least, believing that it is possible to get rid of. But it's not, because 'no metaphysics' is actually a metaphysics - and a pretty poor one.
my knowledge that any deities the existence of which would entail a contradiction do not exist cannot rightly be called speculation about the unknown
The premise and conclusion from it are based on your own perspective. It is your interpretation which concludes for you that the existence of those deities would entail a contradiction. From my experience, nobody worships a dead god, which means those who believe in them have a contradicting argument.
You can't just assert that it's a choice, because that's begging the question. I don't even think that what we're talking about - obtaining belief - is something which can be chosen, so, for starters, you would need to explain why you think otherwise before moving on to more detailed talk of scientific hypotheses, probability, logic, religion, and so on.
The claims and statements that you express, which are based on your reason infer a choice. Reason does not just conduct itself arbitrarily. The fact that you are adhering to a particular set of beliefs in accordance with certain points of reference, especially now, when you have the capacity to understand and determine whatever actions to engage in, means you have made a choice.
Sorry, I'm not following. Can you break that down and explain it?
You cannot determine by logic how scientific hypothesis are much greater in probability than religious assertions when both reference points are unknown. That is, we don't know what the origin of everything is and our perspective of reality is insufficient. Also, both religion and science can be logical concerning this discussion.
The real philosopher is the archenemy of priests and theologians.
No. The real philosopher studies facts in their right relation. There have been good religious philosophers in the past and the basic tenets of the major religions are good philosophical teachings. Right perspective is a philosopher's greatest tool.
Those who seek fault find fault. If we judge the law according to miscreant law breakers or religion by the ignorant adherents, all we'll get will be flaws. Let's judge Christianity according to Jesus Christ, Islam according to Prophet Muhammad, Buddhism -> Gautama Buddha, Hinduism -> Lord Krishna, etc.
Reply to praxis Correct me if I am wrong, but your personal view seems to be reminiscent of a sort of Naturalistic Evolutionary form of religion - at this point I would point you towards Plantinga's Evolutionary Argument Against Naturalism, which I find highly compelling. But I personally hold the Calvinist Foundationalist view of Sensus Divinitatus, whereby, even though it may seem organized religion is on the decline, even many of those not affiliated with any religion affirm some form of Spiritualism or Deism. It would seem deviant, by your standards then, to even affirm any form of Spiritualism, Deism, Atheism or Agnosticism, whereby it does not cohere with the group mentality of a certain society (should that be an Atheist in Rome or a Theist in China). It would then seem to me that a compulsion towards the divine, i.e. Sensus Divinitatus, is part of the human condition, whereby we seemed to be endowed with a "God tracker" of sorts within us - this may explain the phenomena of Spiritualism.
The essential or primary purpose is to provide a system of meaning that can bind a community in common values and purpose, like a kind of glue that holds a tribe together.
You might enjoy this review of Daniel Dennett's attempt to 'explain' religion in just these terms.
.
Translation: It’s a question that S. can’t answer :D
.
Though S. believes in the “objective” existence of a physical universe that is the fundamental reality, all of reality, and the metaphysically-prior thing on which all else supervenes—he can’t say why there is that physical universe.
.
So, “Let’s not ask why it is. It just is.” That’s called posting a brute-fact.
No, no, no. Not at all. This is a big misunderstanding on your end.
You're asking a loaded question which assumes that there's a "why" to begin with, which is controversial and needs to be justified before we go any further.
And no, please don't misrepresent my position. I haven't said that a physical universe is the fundamental reality, all of reality, and the metaphysically-prior thing on which all else supervenes. Like I said, I don't claim to be a physicalist, I'm not convinced of physicalism, and I rarely even discuss, read up on, or consider the topic.
ChatteringMonkeyOctober 02, 2018 at 05:01#2172800 likes
No. The real philosopher studies facts in their right relation. There have been good religious philosophers in the past and the basic tenets of the major religions are good philosophical teachings. Right perspective is a philosopher's greatest tool.
No they are not good philosophical teachings, with the possible exception maybe of Buddhism, they are revelation. Good philosophy starts with accurate description, not with proscription.
Those who seek fault find fault. If we judge the law according to miscreant law breakers or religion by the ignorant adherents, all we'll get will be flaws. Let's judge Christianity according to Jesus Christ, Islam according to Prophet Muhammad, Buddhism -> Gautama Buddha, Hinduism -> Lord Krishna, etc.
Yeah sure let's not judge Christianity by how it's been practiced the last 2 millenia. Never mind that the church itself has never followed the teachings of Jesus Christ, but was build on some corrupted version by Paul.
Correct me if I am wrong, but your personal view seems to be reminiscent of a sort of Naturalistic Evolutionary form of religion - at this point I would point you towards Plantinga's Evolutionary Argument Against Naturalism, which I find highly compelling.
An interesting and rich argument that, frankly, is beyond my depth, at least at a glance. It inspires a new thought for me though: that for theists there must be no kind of ultimate or nominal reality; what Buddha would call ‘emptiness’ or Nagal might call the ‘view from nowhere’. For the theist that conceptual space must be occupied by the mind of God, with its will and its purposes, forever beyond the comprehension of its creation, where happiness or salvation is only attained in total acceptance of this teleology. Unsurprisingly, dispite the discrepancy in metaphysics, Buddhist religion concludes with the same recommendation to achieve happiness: total acceptance.
It would seem deviant, by your standards then, to even affirm any form of Spiritualism, Deism, Atheism or Agnosticism, whereby it does not cohere with the group mentality of a certain society (should that be an Atheist in Rome or a Theist in China).
It would not be deviant by my standards but that of the particular society.
This idea of God and deities being an invented answer to things in reality that we don't understand naturally has collided with scientific knowledge later.
William Blake's 'All Religions Are One' is a very great read.
And also William Blake's 'The Marriage Of Heaven And Hell' is extremely interesting with regard to this subject as, in the words Plato paraphrased, Poetry expresses truths of which are inaccessible to philosophy and incapable of being known and incorporated into wisdom or true knowing. Socrates, with these words, means to say that poetry has significant truths, although they are in that 'far out' mode... For a lack of better words.
The similarities between Freud and Jung with Blake is also I thinked seriously overlooked.
"The ancient Poets animated all sensible objects with Gods or Geniuses, calling them by the names and adorning them with the properties of woods, rivers, moutains, lakes, cities, nations, and whatever their enlarged & numerous senses could perceive.
And particularly they studied the genius of each city & country, placing it under its mental deity. (Note: this sounds a lot like Freud's Totem and Taboo, where he discusses animism)
Till a system was formed, which some took advantage of, & enslav'd the vulgar by attempting to realize or abstract the mental deities from their objects: thus began priesthood;
Choosing forms of worship from poetic tales.
And at length they pronounced that the Gods had order'd such things.
Thus men forgot that All deities reside in the human breast.
(Reference to another work by Blake, "The true Man is the source, he being the Poetic Genius.")
Thus you have Jung.
I believe that belief in God is a poetic expression of Man's extraordinary, puzzling existence, which I think everyone is connected to an energy of life and phenomenality... And ego is an illusion. Btw
Atheism has not done that either since it has never claimed anything at all, it's just a process.
Atheism claims that process is relevant to issues the scale of gods. So prove that claim please. Please be loyal to your own chosen methodology. Apply that process with equal enthusiasm to all positions. Be intellectually honest.
Or, another option would be to relinquish any claim to be a person of reason in regards to these particular topics, and declare yourself to be an ideologist. There's no crime in that, all of us are entitled to adopt a position for no other reason that we wish to.
Reason is similar to faith in that it involves an act of surrender. Like with faith, to be reasoners we must follow reason where ever it takes us, we don't get to choose where the trail will lead. Ideologists on the other hand are free to pick any destination, travel there, and then build a little fort.
I'm offering no judgement as to whether a person should be a reasoner or ideologist in regards to any particular subject. That's their choice to make. All I'm saying is...
Ideologists don't get to claim to be reasoners with impunity.
Atheism does not have a claim, it's a process of reasoning
The problem here is that, like most atheists, you sincerely don't realize that atheism is built upon a claim. The next problem may perhaps be that you've built a self flattering personal identity out of atheism, thus creating a substantial built in bias against any threat to that worldview.
The premise and conclusion from it are based on your own perspective. It is your interpretation which concludes for you that the existence of those deities would entail a contradiction.
No, that's not really the case. Whether or not a contradiction is entailed is based on rules and logic. There are unwritten rules about appropriate language use, and so long as these rules are abided by, there can be unambiguous cases where a contradiction is entailed. An example would be a square-circle. Unless you decide to be silly with words, we both know what that means, and that what it means entails a contraction. If someone doesn't want to abide by these rules, then they ought to be clear from the outset so that the problem can be quickly dealt with.
From my experience, nobody worships a dead god, which means those who believe in them have a contradicting argument.
There probably are people with such beliefs, but they either don't realise the inconsistency, or they accept it on the grounds that God is above logic.
The claims and statements that you express, which are based on your reason infer a choice. Reason does not just conduct itself arbitrarily. The fact that you are adhering to a particular set of beliefs in accordance with certain points of reference, especially now, when you have the capacity to understand and determine whatever actions to engage in, means you have made a choice.
You still haven't properly explained anything on this one, you've just said that a choice is inferred, or that such-and-such means that there's a choice, but it doesn't, at least not in the relevant sense: the sense that I'm taking issue with. But we don't seem to be getting anywhere with this, so I think I'll just explain where I stand and then drop it if you can't provide the explanation that I'm seeking.
I didn't choose[/I] to become convinced by what I did, I just became convinced. I can choose, at least so it seems, to [i]do this or that, like read a book or think about something, perhaps something which provides a set up where I might become convinced, but that's not the same thing. I can't choose what I believe or do not believe. For example, I literally cannot help but believe that I'm alive or disbelieve that I'm a butterfly. There's no choice in that whatsoever. I couldn't believe things like that, whilst I'm in the right state of mind, if I tried. And even if I were delusional as a result of mind altering drugs or mental illness, it would still be out of my hands, not a matter a choice.
You cannot determine by logic how scientific hypothesis are much greater in probability than religious assertions when both reference points are unknown. That is, we don't know what the origin of everything is and our perspective of reality is insufficient. Also, both religion and science can be logical concerning this discussion.
Okay, well of course I agree that where there's sufficient evidence, as in the origin of everything, if by that you mean an explanation beyond where the current scientific consensus takes us, with the big bang and such, then I accept that for what it is. We only know so much. But the origin of the universe is not necessarily going to be what the discussion is about. These discussions can go in many varied directions, so what you're addressing only touches upon part of a much broader topic.
And yes, both religious-based thinking and scientific-based thinking can be logical or illogical.
Metaphysical part of religion is the part not determined by practical experience and cannot be explicitly defined logically (primarily involving God).
Okay, so then you were saying that any beliefs against the metaphysics of religion are not determined by practical experience and cannot be explicitly defined logically. Why not? I don't think that that's necessarily the case.
...or they accept it on the grounds that God is above logic.
I'm not claiming a God exists, or that any doctrines that arise from that belief need to be believed. However, should a God exist, it seems reasonable and sensible to propose that it is, or may be, above logic.
God is typically proposed to be the essence of reality, the creator of reality, a form of hyper-intelligence etc. That is, the God idea is in one way or another attempting to explain the very largest of scale.
Logic is the poorly developed ability of a single half insane species recently living in caves on one little planet in one of billions of galaxies etc. Human reason exists on a tiny local scale.
It seems quite speculative to presume that something as small and imperfect as the rules of human reason would be binding on everything everywhere (scope of God claims), a realm we can't even define in even the most basic manner. If someone wishes to assert this to be true it seems entirely reasonable to ask them to prove it, just as it's entirely reasonable to ask theists to prove the huge claims being made in their holy books.
We might reflect on the influence of scale upon observation.
The classic example of course is that from the surface of the Earth (a very local scale) there is a compelling illusion that all of reality is orbiting around the Earth. When the scale is enlarged to give a wider perspective this perception is seen to be thoroughly untrue, entirely wrong.
Another more modern example is the discovery that time runs at different rates, depending on the relationship between the observer and large bodies such as planets. On the surface of the Earth, a very local scale, the different rates of time are so small (billionths of a second) that they aren't noticed and are a meaningless factor. However, when the scale is expanded, we see that GPS satellites have to take the time speed difference in to account or their location data would be way off.
What's happening with our relationship with logic is that from our human scale it seems an obvious given that logic is binding on everything, and in our day to day lives this is true. But the sample of reality being examined here is extremely small. It's huge to us, but in comparison to reality it barely exists.
Another problem is that we are comparing our intelligence to the only other forms of intelligence ever observed, animals on Earth. And in that limited local scale comparison we look like geniuses, and thus this comparison is very popular. :smile: But when discussing infinite scale ideas like God, that comparison is worthless. If there is any God like thing capable of creating galaxies etc, it's intelligence would be so far beyond our own as to render the concept of intelligence meaningless.
Finally, we've all observed how Christians presume that all of reality is basically about us. We are Gods most important project etc. If one is not a Christian it's extremely easy to doubt such a wild assumption.
But atheists are doing essentially the same thing. They are assuming without proof, and typically without even realizing it, that human logic is binding on all of reality, and thus upon any gods who may be contained within. And like the Christians, their human-centric bias is so strong that it rarely seems to dawn on them that we can't define "all of reality" in even the most basic manner, such as size and shape.
Both Christians and atheists are attempting to reduce all of reality down to human scale so that we can comfort ourselves with the fantasy that we have at least some idea what is going on. This might be compared to little children who have absolute faith in their parents, an assumption born of the fear which arises from a near complete dependence.
I'm not claiming a God exists, or that any doctrines that arise from that belief need to be believed. However, should a God exist, it seems reasonable and sensible to propose that it is, or may be, above logic.
Big difference between it being reasonable and sensible that it IS, and that it MAY BE.
Do you intend the former to be a claim you are making or was it more of a semantical slip?
Also, when you say “logic”, do you mean strictly in the sense of making valid reference (such as in mathematics ie given the values assigned to the numbers “1” and “2”, 1+2=3) or do you mean something more?
Big difference between it being reasonable and sensible that it IS, and that it MAY BE.
I'm not sure I understand your question, but I see where my choice of words could be confusing.
My personal opinion is that IF there something like a God it doesn't seem credible to me that it would be bound by rules created by a species as small as ourselves. That's kind of like assuming that ants could understand the Internet, except very much more so.
By "logic" I just meant human reason, and should have used that phrase instead.
Pattern-chaserOctober 02, 2018 at 14:23#2173760 likes
But if an atheist simply believes that God does not exist, without trying to make their beliefs seem authoritative or binding on others, I don't see a problem. — Pattern-chaser
I don't see a problem either, but their belief is still based on faith, faith in the ability of human reason to meaningfully analyze the very largest of questions.
I'm in agreement with your general observations. :up: In fact, they don't go quite far enough. I think, with Objectivity being what it is, that more or less everything we believe and (think we) know is actually a faith-based thing. Almost nothing is certain or justified, in absolute terms, so almost everything is a faith position. But I'm not happy using the term "faith" for all of them.
There's something about the word that captures something specific about religious faith. It also applies to an atheist actively dismissing the existence of God, and a few other things too. But I think the term is diluted if we use it to describe every situation where we believe something without justification.
Finally, there are those (not you, Jake?) who seem to think faith is a Bad Thing. It isn't. It's a reasonable, rational, pragmatic and practical response to a world where there is little or no certainty. This, I think, is the matter that we're all failing to see: that our world, in practice, and for humans, is an uncertain place. There is no certainty, which for some means there is no comfort, no security. So we seek solace in faith. And we gain the most solace by not looking at faith closely enough to remember it means we're uncertain. On the contrary, we have faith, so how could we be uncertain? :smile: :smile: :smile:
Finally, there are those (not you, Jake?) who seem to think faith is a Bad Thing. It isn't. It's a reasonable, rational, pragmatic and practical response to a world where there is little or no certainty.
Yes, agreed, up to a point. When faith is purely personal it can often be labeled as a positive force. When the faith starts trying to influence the society beyond the personal it has sometimes been deadly, and sometimes constructive.
When I label atheists as being people of faith I'm not trying to pin a crime on them, I'm reaching for clarity. It's not clarity if one thinks one is above faith when one is not.
I have faith that if I keep patiently typing day after day after day on these subjects for another twenty years nothing at all will be accomplished, but I'll still be typing, and that seems to be my bottom line. :smile:
Reply to Jake
Ok, i understand.
Why does reason have to be a human created thing? Aren’t you just assuming that? I don’t see why it couldnt be like morality, a standard set or created by god IF he existed.
Pattern-chaserOctober 02, 2018 at 15:26#2174040 likes
Again, right perspective is a philosopher's greatest tool. Don't mistake what religion was with what modern day philosophy is. Religion was not about mere teachings, it involved social and political dimensions as well. Anyway, this discussion is past due. We can't keep insisting on personal perspective in the hopes it will somehow overcome those of others without being based on actual proof.
I prefer to add other people's perspective to mine so as to have a more comprehensive view of the situation.
I understand why religious practice is flawed, I understand which teachings are often misunderstood due to wrong perspective and a misconception of its aims, I understand why there is an increasing number of people against religion, however, I also understand what value religion has had in our society, I understand why there's still many who choose to hold on to religion, I understand that ignorance is the primary cause of the faults and corruption in religious practice not religious teachings in themselves, etc.
If it were up to me, religions would need to be revised into purely ethical teachings, which is what Jesus did to the religious doctrines by the previous prophets, Krishna also gave a revised version of Hinduism in The Bhagavad Gita, and Buddha revised most of the religious oriental doctrines into Buddhism, an ethics/morality based doctrine.
There have been exceptional people who not only believe in a religious God(s), but who understand the significance of choice and responsibility and they act accordingly. There have been great scientists and philosophers, accomplished in reasoning ability, who choose to adhere to a religion in full recognition of its limitations and the limitations of science and philosophy as well.
It's not that the information isn't there, it's just how we choose to interact with it.
We can choose to bombard others with our idea of reason, but we'll end up receiving the same because like begets like. Reason is not just pure mental logic, it should also reflect in the tactical configuration of our actions towards the aims we hope to achieve. It should also reflect our identity not just as thinking humans but also in our capacities for empathy, sympathy, etc.
As to choice, I think our disagreement is based largely on our definition of choice.
I define choice as idiosyncratic cause or idiosyncratic initiation of an impulse. It is the same definition I give to will. So, for me, to will is to choose. It also encompasses all activities carried out by a human internally and externally. For example, digestion may begin automatically when the presence of food is detected but because we determine when food is consumed, we therefore initiate the mechanism, thus, choice. The same goes for reason, we initiate the process, the mind/brain being the tool we use to carry it out.
Also, belief being a choice is again dependent on the definition we give to it. I define belief as a consequence of knowledge. For me, acquisition of knowledge is a choice. So, belief is the reference point we create to determine the measure of new experiences and a mirror through which we reflect past experiences in order to determine what value to extract from them.
I know more than I let on, but I'm attempting to fulfill my social duties here, and not tell people what to believe, but how to get their soul back, and see some things for themselves. Other drives, based in the appetites block the way, and are literally lower in the body than the heart. Need to be cleaned out, detoxified, overcome. Unlike the heart, they can just be completely tamed. The heart is too powerful for that, and requires devotion to purify -- but upon its awakening, a new dimension of language comprehension becomes available to you. Without the requisite sensitivity, it becomes far more difficult to track one's true feelings, and opinions, to stay honest. The soul is completely necessary for self-knowledge. Without it, "lifeless words carry on", language loses its personal meaning, and you start talking nonsense. Will the soul know everything about God, and have all of the answers? No, it won't, but it offers a whole new level of discernment, and allows one to transcend good and evil.
I'll punctuate it with more songs, as artists, poets really do exemplify a connection to the heart, and contrition really can skyrocket you to the celestial realm. Not the highest level, but that isn't practical for most, and I don't know of a straight forward easy method to get there at this time... plus, I'm not entirely selfless, and prefer to keep a few laps ahead.
Michael OssipoffOctober 02, 2018 at 20:58#2175040 likes
When I said that I won’t reply again to aggressive-Atheists about their issue, I didn’t say that I wouldn’t comment on the their peculiar issue itself. I’d like to post this review and summary--these comments on the “discussion”--now that I’m not busy replying to individual aggressive-Atheists.
.
If Atheists post to argue with or comment on what I say here, I won’t reply. As I said, that gets way too time-consuming. If anyone doesn’t like what I say here, and contradicts it, then he gets the last word, because I won’t resume the pointless and humungously time-consuming task of replying to aggressive-Atheists about their issue.
.
…and it is their issue, not ours. As I said, nearly everyone starting threads about that issue is an Atheist. Theists don’t care what Atheists believe, and wouldn’t take the time to start an issue about it.
.
Where should I start?
.
From the start, it’s quite odd that someone else’s belief can be so important. What’s that about? What’s the motivation? Maybe save that question for last.
.
Then what’s the general framework in which the “issue” is brought up? To those starting it, it’s a debate. What does it take, and what would it mean, to “win” that debate?
.
Well, maybe a debate has judges, or an audience that serves as judges. Which party proved the rightness of their position? There are some obvious rules applying to the determination of the winner of a debate. This isn’t supposed to be a complete discussion about debate, but one obvious thing is that if your position is that some position of mine is unsupported, and if I don’t provide support for my position, then you win the debate.
.
Say we have a debate in which one faction, a Theist faction argues that there’s a God, and the other faction, an Atheist faction argues that the Theists have no evidence for their claim. Saying that there’s a debate assumes that that claim is being made. That’s the first problem with the debate. Sure, some Theists are making a claim to Atheists. But not the Theists here. So any meaningful debate would have to be with the Theists who are claiming and asserting. Start, for example, with the pair of suited gentlemen who knock on your door proselytize you.
.
But anyway, if we disregard that for the time being and say there’s a debate here, what we’ve been hearing from the aggressive-Atheists is that they win because the Theists haven’t provided them with evidence for their beliefs.
.
Of course, if the debate is about whether or not there’s support for one party’s position, and that doesn’t provide the opposition and the judges with evidence for their position, then the other side wins the debate.
.
I’ve been telling Atheists that they don’t know all Theisms, and therefore aren’t in a position to say that they’re all unsupported. The answer is always something like, “If you can’t point to a Theism that is supported by evidence, and if you and some other Theists won’t join this debate and provide a Theism for which you tell us the evidence, then we win the debate.”
.
And yes, if 1) it’s first assumed that there’s a debate among people here; and 2) we apply the standards for winning debates (…such as the winning by default if the debate is about evidence for at least one version of a belief, and that evidence isn’t provide to the judges) then the Atheists indeed win their debate.
.
But what does that mean? …winning a debate because some who believe differently from you aren’t participating in your debate, and won’t debate you?
.
What conclusions can you draw from that victory? Not a whole lot. Yes, Atheists, you win your “debate” by default. Subject closed. (...or should be.)
------------------------------------
Someone could say, “It isn’t just a matter of debate. We’re just advising you that your beliefs aren’t reasonable. You shouldn’t believe as you. We’re more scientific than thou.”
.
[Yes, I realize that “Thou” is singular, and we’re talking about groups, but I used it because it’s part of a familiar phrasing.]
.
But, for one thing, that ignores the fact that there are many Theists whose beliefs you don’t know. Their nonparticipation with you lets you win a “debate”, but it also makes nonsense of the statement in quotes in the paragraph directly below the dotted-line above.
.
Unsurprisingly, from the point-of-view of aggressive-Atheists’ belief, it’s their perception and blanket-generalization that they’re right and all who don’t share their belief are wrong. What else is new? Anything surprising about that? No one denies that that’s their perception, from the point-of-view of their belief-system.
.
Why not leave it at that?
.
We get that. You’ve already said it. But you keep on starting more threads to say it endlessly.
-----------------------------------
One more thing: We keep hearing from Atheists about “evidence”. I’ve defined evidence and faith in a previous post to this thread, and there’s no need to repeat those definitions.
.
But (and I acknowledge that others here have pointed this out) all this talk about evidence misses the fact that faith is defined as belief without evidence. Even if you could prove that there’s no evidence for any Theism, that doesn’t mean that faith isn’t justified.
.
Without debating it with you (You win your debate by default), I’ll just mention that, for Theism, there are the kind of reasons that qualify as “evidence”, as I and Merriam-Webster have defined that word (…but it isn’t a matter for proof). But, aside from those reasons, there’s also discussion that justifies faith, which I define as trust, without or aside from evidence.
.
It has been pointed out that Theists aren’t saying that Atheists are unreasonable. It’s only Atheists that are claiming that Theists are unreasonable. I and other Theists have been emphasizing that there’s no reason for you to believe what you don’t know of reason to believe. No problem. …except to you.
.
…but it’s regrettable that you can’t disbelieve it less loudly, aggressively and stridently. Your aggressive loudness suggests insufficiency, and un-satisfied need. …evidently resulting in a need to attack. Maybe it isn’t a coincidence that the starting of these debate-threads, and the use of abusive attack-language and characterizations, is almost entirely coming from Atheists.
.
In fact, as I’ve said once before here, it’s plausible that rudeness, abusiveness and attack aren’t the result of your brand of Atheism, so much as a motivation for it. …due to some personal character fault or insufficiency-feeling, or self-esteem problem.
.
Michael Ossipoff
Michael OssipoffOctober 03, 2018 at 03:47#2175760 likes
Just to clarify, though we've been talking about aggressive-Atheists, no one here is criticizing Atheists per se, just for being Atheists.
As I've been saying, no one here would criticize you for not believing what you don't know of reason to believe.
Here's what a not-aggressive Atheists might say, if asked:
He doesn't know of any reason to believe what Theists seem to be saying. He knows what the Fundamentalist LIteralist Theists are saying,that they believe, but he probably doesn't claim to know what all Theists believe. How is he supposed to know that? It isn't any fault of his. Nor should anyone expect him to believe anything that isn't well-described or explained to him. He might reasonably point out that if various wanted ;him to believe as they do, then they'd give him some explanation, or some better more detailed explanation. If they don't tell him why they believe, or why it would make sense for him to believe, or even what they believe, then he can be excused for not believing that their beliefs are supported--not having heard those argued for, or even defined. Without knowing what people believe, of course it goes without saying that he doesn't know that there's reason to believe it.
He can reasonably say all that, and no one would criticize him.
Do you really need to say more than that, to take it farther than that?
As to choice, I think our disagreement is based largely on our definition of choice.
I define choice as idiosyncratic cause or idiosyncratic initiation of an impulse. It is the same definition I give to will. So, for me, to will is to choose. It also encompasses all activities carried out by a human internally and externally. For example, digestion may begin automatically when the presence of food is detected but because we determine when food is consumed, we therefore initiate the mechanism, thus, choice. The same goes for reason, we initiate the process, the mind/brain being the tool we use to carry it out.
Also, belief being a choice is again dependent on the definition we give to it. I define belief as a consequence of knowledge. For me, acquisition of knowledge is a choice. So, belief is the reference point we create to determine the measure of new experiences and a mirror through which we reflect past experiences in order to determine what value to extract from them.
But when I say that there's no choice, I'm not talking about any initial steps which might or might not lead to becoming convinced, I'm talking about the situation at a more immediate point, the actual becoming convinced. An initial step could be choosing to pick up a book, choosing to read about the book, and choosing to spend time thinking about it. At the very least, there seems to me to be a choice in that respect. But I can't choose the outcome of whether or not I'll be convinced. There doesn't seem to be a choice in that respect at all.
And it's a similar thing in other situations, like your food example. I can choose, or so it seems, to eat an apple. But I can't choose whether or not to digest it. That's out of my hands. My body will simply digest it automatically, even if I try to choose otherwise.
So, going back to your original comment, contrary to what you said, you don't have a choice of whether to believe or disbelieve in the existence of any deity or deities. You only have a choice to take steps which might or might not lead to you believing or disbelieving. The one and the other are not the same and so should not be conflated.
P1 - God is, is not a fact
P2 - God is not - is not a fact
P3 - Theism - a claim that God is - is supported by reason
P4 - Chrisoffer is not making any claim about anything
Conclusion - neither God is or whatever Chrisoffer believes is a superior position
Tell me which proposition is false and why , or how the conclusion does not follow.
The argument is self-defeating unless you define "fact" differently to what many here, myself included, would expect. It's self-defeating because the first premise and the second premise cannot both be true without contradiction.
I laughed at this, it was very funny, truly :smile:
But you are mixing together claims and facts. A claim demands facts, the claim itself isn't a fact.
I also pointed out this error, or a very similar one, to him, earlier on in the discussion, the difference being that, in my assessment, he seemed to be confusing justifications and facts.
But obviously, since then, the problem has persisted.
I challenge this. One can claim by either reason or faith something to be true and act accordingly with only caveat that it can not be in conflict with fact.
A claim demands justification, otherwise it can rightly be dismissed.
If your attempt at justification falls below a required standard, then it can also rightly be dismissed in accordance with such a standard. And as to whether or not such a standard is the right one, that can be discussed.
Faith falls below any intellectual standard worth having, as it would open the floodgates to all kinds of wild imaginings or commit the fallacy of special pleading.
Better to present an argument, but arguments can fail for various reasons, and I haven't seen an argument for theism which doesn't fail in some way. What's interesting is finding out how they fail.
you don't have a choice of whether to believe or disbelieve in the existence of any deity or deities. You only have a choice to take steps which might or might not lead to you believing or disbelieving. The one and the other are not the same and so should not be conflated.
I think you've just created a paradox. Isn't taking steps towards believing/disbelieving the act of choosing to believe/disbelieve? Anyway, even accepting a sequence of unfolding events is itself a choice. Back to the food analogy: there are many (ill-advised) ways to stop digestion, the fact that you allow it implies a choice, though implicit. And even at an immediate point in a situation, if there's initiation of impulse, then there's choice.
However, I think I get your position in the argument. You mean deliberate choice. What I'm saying is that there are choices which are not as deliberate as others, or better yet, are predominantly reactive.
Other people's claims demand justification, otherwise they can rightly be dismissed.
Oh shush. I meant what I said. If you want me to justify a claim that I've made then quote the claim and request a justification, assuming I haven't already provided one.
I think you've just created a paradox. Isn't taking steps towards believing/disbelieving the act of choosing to believe/disbelieve?
No. Where's the supposed paradox? Taking steps towards believing/disbelieving is just taking steps towards believing/disbelieving, and the act of choosing to believe/disbelieve is a category error. We no more choose to believe than a lamppost chooses to light up. But, unlike us humans, a lamppost isn't capable of mistakenly thinking that it has a choice where it doesn't.
Anyway, even accepting a sequence of unfolding events is itself a choice. Back to the food analogy: there are many (ill-advised) ways to stop digestion, the fact that you allow it implies a choice, though implicit. And even at an immediate point in a situation, if there's initiation of impulse, then there's choice.
I don't think that acceptance of an unfolding sequence of events has anything to do with the point that I was making, nor allowance for that matter. That is changing the subject.
And seeking out exceptions to what I was saying about digestion misses the point. Sure, I could choose to blow myself up with dynamite and thereby stop my body from digesting the apple I just ate. But that's not what I was getting at.
The point that I'm making is that I don't have a choice when something is out of my control. And without taking drastic measures, I have no real choice over whether or not digestion is going to kick in. All else being equal, it will kick in automatically. But maybe a better example would be walking out directly in front of a car speeding along at 70mph. I can choose whether or not to walk out directly in front of it, but I can't choose whether or not it will hit me. It's just going to hit me, even if I "choose" otherwise. It would be delusional to think that you could really choose the outcome in that scenario.
Going back to belief, I can't choose to believe, say, that I'm dead right now. How can I possibly choose to believe otherwise? And again, choosing to act is not choosing to become convinced or to believe. Choosing to read or listen or observe or think about something is what it is, and ain't what it ain't. At best, it could only be choosing to do something which might or might not lead to me becoming convinced or believing, which obviously isn't the same thing.
However, I think I get your position in the argument. You mean deliberate choice. What I'm saying is that there are choices which are not as deliberate as others, or better yet, are predominantly reactive.
It seems to me that making a choice is necessarily deliberate. You can't accidentally make a choice. So yes, I mean deliberate choice, because there's no alternative.
Maybe there are choices which aren't as deliberate as others, or better yet, are predominantly reactive, but what does that really mean? And what's the relevance of that in relation to what I've said?
Someone walks into their spouse having sex with another person and in a blind rage commits a crime of passion. It would still be choice but the degree of deliberateness would be questionable. I think this explains the point of a predominantly reactive choice. Also, our reactions are within our purview of control.
As to the relationship between choice and belief, what's your definition of belief?
Someone walks into their spouse having sex with another person and in a blind rage commits a crime of passion. It would still be choice but the degree of deliberateness would be questionable. I think this explains the point of predominantly reactive choice. Also, our reactions are within our purview of control.
Okay, thanks, I know exactly what you mean now, and I agree that there can be a variance in the degree of control.
If you want me to justify a claim that I've made then quote the claim and request a justification
It would be more interesting to see you challenge one of your own claims. Then you could claim to be a person of reason, instead of just another holy war ideologue waving a flag.
As example, my claim is that nobody knows. But if nobody knows, how could I know that nobody knows??
Imagine that you are an attorney. You might be hired to represent those suing, or you might be hired by those defending against the suit. Can you effectively argue both sides of the case? Or only one side?
Reply to Jake The solution would be... The only thing one can know is that they do not know. And this would be the case if it was a circle. But it has another dimension, which makes it a spiral.
And this is where the confusions lays.
This added dimension is the human-phenomenal dimension.
Reply to JakeReply to BrianWReply to S Religion is socialized art and socialized expression. There are many stages of its development, and in every crystallization of it will be something different, more or less beautiful, more or less poetic, more or less brainwashed or of a simulacra and simulation.
It would be more interesting to see you challenge one of your own claims. Then you could claim to be a person of reason, instead of just another holy war ideologue waving a flag.
As example, my claim is that nobody knows. But if nobody knows, how could I know that nobody knows??
Imagine that you are an attorney. You might be hired to represent those suing, or you might be hired by those defending against the suit. Can you effectively argue both sides of the case? Or only one side?
Yeah, that might be an interesting exercise, but I'm not here to play devil's advocate. I understand that that's what you want me to do, but I'm more concerned with a genuine discussion than pretend play.
What do you think religion's purpose is & how does one interact with it?
One could think of humanity in terms of a single individual life. We're born and we grow up. From that perspective God is the imaginary friend little children have. A phase one could say.
There are more mature religions though. Take Buddhism for instance. It's position is a reasoned argument and you need to be an adult to understand it.
Of course, God has been philosophically studied but, from what I see, the result isn't a pretty picture. Quite what one would expect given that it's the work of immature minds - inconsistencies abound.
That said, I'm still confused over whether a full grown rational adult is better than a little child with an imaginary friend.
Yeah, that might be an interesting exercise, but I'm not here to play devil's advocate. I understand that that's what you want me to do, but I'm more concerned with a genuine discussion than pretend play.
Why is intellectual honesty, the challenging of all positions with equal enthusiasm, "pretend play"?
Why is intellectual honesty, the challenging of all positions with equal enthusiasm, "pretend play"?
That's not intellectual honesty. I don't have to have equal enthusiasm for challenging all positions to be intellectually honest. You're just making that up.
Pretend play is a disparaging way to refer to the practice of playing devil's advocate. (You know, kinda like your disparaging way of referring to people who don't challenge their own position on request as "just another holy war ideologue waving a flag").
Playing devil's advocate is similar in appearance to intellectual dishonesty, and the two can be confused if you're not clear about what you're doing from the outset.
Refusing to humour you by playing devil's advocate does not mean that I'm being intellectually dishonest. I have been intellectually honest and I will continue to be intellectually honest.
I don't have to have equal enthusiasm for challenging all positions to be intellectually honest.
Being intellectually honest is examining all positions dispassionately as if one has no dog in the fight. All positions get subjected to the same process. As example, the authorities theism is based on are asked to prove their qualifications, just as the authority atheism is based on is asked to prove it's qualifications.
Being a flag waving ideologue is the relentless selling of a single position. This is what you are doing. You are only challenging the other guy's claims and chosen authorities, never your own. All positions are not subjected to the same process.
You aren't doing reason. You're doing ideology. That is, you're replicating in your own process the very thing about religion which you reasonably object to. You have met the enemy, and he is you. :smile:
PS: Everybody obviously has the right to be an ideologue. We just don't get to call that reason, that's all. Well, we can call it reason if we want to, at the cost of losing credibility.
Being intellectually honest is examining all positions dispassionately as if one has no dog in the fight. All positions get subjected to the same process. As example, the authorities theism is based on are asked to prove their qualifications, just as the authority atheism is based on is asked to prove it's qualifications.
So being intellectually honest involves being intellectually dishonest by pretending that one doesn't have a dog in the fight when one does have a dog in the fight. Yeah, that makes sense. If you're an atheist, you have a dog in the fight. If you're a theist, you have a dog in the fight. If you're an agnostic, you have a dog in the fight. Unless you have no position, you have a dog in the fight.
Like I've said, I'm okay with attempting a justification for a claim that I've made, and that can begin with a simple request.
Being a flag waving ideologue is the relentless selling of a single position. This is what you are doing. You are only challenging the other guy's claims and chosen authorities, never your own. All positions are not subjected to the same process.
So being intellectually honest involves being intellectually dishonest by pretending that one doesn't have a dog in the fight when one does have a dog in the fight.
No pretending is necessary, as you could easily figure out for yourself if your ideologist's mind wasn't set on auto-rejection mode.
"Although I would label myself as an XYZ, in this thread I'd like to spend some time examining any possible weaknesses in the XYZ position."
Isn't this just what you'd hope theists would do? If a theist did that they would gain credibility with you, right?
I've just presented a challenge to you in my last few posts above. You're not up to meeting that challenge, so you're running away in fear. And BTW, I don't have the power to pester you. If you don't wish to read my posts, don't read them, no problem.
I'm not claiming a God exists, or that any doctrines that arise from that belief need to be believed. However, should a God exist, it seems reasonable and sensible to propose that it is, or may be, above logic.
God is typically proposed to be the essence of reality, the creator of reality, a form of hyper-intelligence etc. That is, the God idea is in one way or another attempting to explain the very largest of scale.
Logic is the poorly developed ability of a single half insane species recently living in caves on one little planet in one of billions of galaxies etc. Human reason exists on a tiny local scale.
It seems quite speculative to presume that something as small and imperfect as the rules of human reason would be binding on everything everywhere (scope of God claims), a realm we can't even define in even the most basic manner. If someone wishes to assert this to be true it seems entirely reasonable to ask them to prove it, just as it's entirely reasonable to ask theists to prove the huge claims being made in their holy books.
We might reflect on the influence of scale upon observation.
The classic example of course is that from the surface of the Earth (a very local scale) there is a compelling illusion that all of reality is orbiting around the Earth. When the scale is enlarged to give a wider perspective this perception is seen to be thoroughly untrue, entirely wrong.
Another more modern example is the discovery that time runs at different rates, depending on the relationship between the observer and large bodies such as planets. On the surface of the Earth, a very local scale, the different rates of time are so small (billionths of a second) that they aren't noticed and are a meaningless factor. However, when the scale is expanded, we see that GPS satellites have to take the time speed difference in to account or their location data would be way off.
What's happening with our relationship with logic is that from our human scale it seems an obvious given that logic is binding on everything, and in our day to day lives this is true. But the sample of reality being examined here is extremely small. It's huge to us, but in comparison to reality it barely exists.
Another problem is that we are comparing our intelligence to the only other forms of intelligence ever observed, animals on Earth. And in that limited local scale comparison we look like geniuses, and thus this comparison is very popular. :smile: But when discussing infinite scale ideas like God, that comparison is worthless. If there is any God like thing capable of creating galaxies etc, it's intelligence would be so far beyond our own as to render the concept of intelligence meaningless.
Finally, we've all observed how Christians presume that all of reality is basically about us. We are Gods most important project etc. If one is not a Christian it's extremely easy to doubt such a wild assumption.
But atheists are doing essentially the same thing. They are assuming without proof, and typically without even realizing it, that human logic is binding on all of reality, and thus upon any gods who may be contained within. And like the Christians, their human-centric bias is so strong that it rarely seems to dawn on them that we can't define "all of reality" in even the most basic manner, such as size and shape.
Both Christians and atheists are attempting to reduce all of reality down to human scale so that we can comfort ourselves with the fantasy that we have at least some idea what is going on. This might be compared to little children who have absolute faith in their parents, an assumption born of the fear which arises from a near complete dependence.
I almost missed this reply. I accept that I could be wrong, but if the law of noncontradiction can be violated, then anything goes, literally, as per the principle of explosion. And that's a really big problem. An unacceptable consequence. So through a reduction to absurdity, I can demonstrate that a rejection of a God which can violate the law of noncontradiction is justified.
What typically happens to make a person an ideologist is that they use an ideology to enhance their self image.
This process is easy to see in some of the more annoying nose in the air theists. "We are the chosen people, we are saved, we are holy, we are morally superior, we have God's ear etc." The purpose of such statements is to position the speaker as being above somebody else.
We're probably all guilty of this emotional agenda to some degree or another, but some folks get really carried away with it. To the degree that this happens we tend to become imperious to reason because our primary focus is not really the topic itself, but our relationship with ourselves.
I accept that I could be wrong, but if the law of noncontradiction can be violated, then anything goes, literally, as per the principle of explosion. And that's a really big problem.
Aha, now you are getting somewhere, bravo.
Yes, whether one is a theist or atheist, the possibility that there might not be any authority which we can place our trust in can be troubling indeed. Imagine that we don't know the laws of the country we live, and have no method of learning those laws. This is a perilous position, as we could be arrested at any moment and not even know why. And so many or most people reject this possibility for the simple understandable reason that they don't want to deal with uncertainty. And then they turn to some authority or another to tell them how to think.
What I've been attempting to articulate in many of posts is that the God debate is the biggest longest investigation in human history, and it has yielded useful information. The evidence clearly shows that nobody can prove anything. So if we are people of reason, if we listen to the evidence, we don't really have any choice but to accept that on these subjects there is no proven authority that we can reference.
Is this a really big problem? No, because as the evidence clearly shows theists, atheists and agnostics have all proven they can have rewarding lives without having a proven authority to reference. Many people have a rewarding life in one position, then change that position, and go right on having rewarding lives.
Ignorance is not automatically a problem, as the following example will hope to illustrate.
Let's say you've met some guy or gal at the bus stop and they've invited you home for lunch. A few hours later you're walking hand in hand in to the bedroom. What makes this a special event which you may remember for the rest of your life? Ignorance!
Now let's say that you marry this person and 30 years later you're walking in to the bedroom with them again. What makes this an experience you may not remember until next Tuesday? Not enough ignorance!
Ignorance is much of what makes life a rich experience. If we can examine the God debate as people of reason, and not as ideologists honking memorized slogans, we might see that the God debate is trying to teach us something important.
We don't know.
And that can be a very good thing.
Perhaps this becomes easier to see as one ages. Some aspects of life which would engage a younger person become boring over time because we've already seen those same human ego melodrama situations a million times.
So through a reduction to absurdity, I can demonstrate that a rejection of a God which can violate the law of noncontradiction is justified.
It's justified emotionally. We all have the right to seek comfort where ever we can find it. And we all have the right to reject or ignore inconvenient posters such as myself who put that comfort at risk.
To the degree that one wishes to walk the path of reason, one sacrifices this right as the price of doing business. In the purest sense (which few of us ever realize) reason is just like faith, it's a process one surrenders to. We aren't the driver of the bus, but merely a passenger. We don't get to choose the destination of the bus, we don't get to use the bus of reason to travel to our preferred destination.
All of these problems are removed if one is honest enough to simply declare oneself an ideologist. In that case one is not bound by the process summarized above and is free to drive the imaginary bus to any glorious imaginary destination one desires. Thus, ideology is very popular.
No pretending is necessary, as you could easily figure out for yourself if your ideologist's mind wasn't set on auto-rejection mode.
Okay then, forget rejection for a minute. Let's do some examining. If no pretending is necessary, then how am I supposed to act as though I have no dog in the fight when I do have a dog in the fight? Wouldn't that involve a kind of pretence?
"Although I would label myself as an XYZ, in this thread I'd like to spend some time examining any possible weaknesses in the XYZ position."
And, in regard to my own position, I created a discussion for that very purpose, as you know. I would like to spend some time examining any possible weaknesses in that position, in a place where it's on-topic, and I have made that possible by presenting it on a philosophy forum for members of that forum to examine and comment upon. Unfortunately, your replies were insubstantial. That was a disappointment, as I expected more.
Isn't this just what you'd hope theists would do? If a theist did that they would gain credibility with you, right?
There's a time and a place for that. I've told you that I'm not interested in trying to pick apart my own position singlehandedly. I don't need you or anyone else for that. But you keep pressing for me to do what you want, irrespective of what I've said.
But if you, or anyone else here, want to try to pick it apart, then you are welcome to do so. Get the ball rolling.
I've just presented a challenge to you in my last few posts above. You're not up to meeting that challenge, so you're running away in fear. And BTW, I don't have the power to pester you. If you don't wish to read my posts, don't read them, no problem.
Yes, you've challenged me to challenge myself, so that you don't have to. I can challenge myself in my own time, when I feel like it, without you badgering me.
If no pretending is necessary, then how am I supposed to act as though I have no dog in the fight when I do have a dog in the fight? Wouldn't that involve a kind of pretence?
It could, but isn't required to. Take something easier as example. Let's say we're not all that political really, but we lean left. We can honestly disclose that we lean left, while at the same time pointing to problems within the Democratic Party. Ok, so this gets harder as one addresses issues that are more important to us, but it''s still possible.
I've told you that I'm not interested in trying to pick apart my own position singlehandedly. I don't need you or anyone else for that. But you keep pressing for me to do what you want, irrespective of what I've said.
Yes, I'm a reason evangelist, and like all evangelists (we won't mention any other names here) I'm annoying. Not only annoying, but truly illogical too, because none of this is ever going to lead to much of anything, thus I'm mostly wasting my life typing to hear myself talk. But please recall, the glory of this medium is that we can simply scroll right on by annoying people.
Yes, you've challenged me to challenge myself, so that you don't have to.
So I don't have to? Have you noticed that I'm investing a lot of time in to challenging you? I'm just not challenging you the way you want to be challenged, that's all.
It's possible I'm three times your age and am going too fast. Ok, if that's the case, then feel free to scroll right on by me, no offense will be taken.
Reply to Jake So, to boil all of that down, basically, you say we don't know, we're ignorant, and ignorance can be good.
Sure.
But the question then is obviously what do we know and what don't we know, how much do we or don't we know, what is the extent of our ignorance, what are we ignorant of and what aren't we ignorant of, and of that ignorance, what counts as the good kind and what counts as the bad kind.
That's what's arguable.
(And yes, I'm aware that much of that was grammatically redundant. I don't know why I did that, but hey ho).
It's justified emotionally. We all have the right to seek comfort where ever we can find it. And we all have the right to reject or ignore inconvenient posters such as myself who put that comfort at risk.
Yeah, you're a real gadfly, Socrates. Nooo. Please stop. Me just a stupey horsey. Me no like sting. You drink hemlock. Leave horsey be. :lol:
It's justified through reason. It's more reasonable to go with a theory with far superior explanatory power than a theory with nothing going for it which clashes with everything that reason has lead me to believe. Reason has lead me to believe that this isn't a world where anything goes, full of contradiction, that makes no sense whatsoever.
It could, but isn't required to. Take something easier as example. Let's say we're not all that political really, but we lean left. We can honestly disclose that we lean left, while at the same time pointing to problems within the Democratic Party. Ok, so this gets harder as one addresses issues that are more important to us, but it''s still possible.
You mean like being an atheist of a sort, but at the same time pointing to problems with atheism? Yes, I've done that. Sometimes atheists get it wrong. Sometimes they go too far.
Yes, I'm a reason evangelist, and like all evangelists (we won't mention any other names here) I'm annoying. Not only annoying, but truly illogical too, because none of this is ever going to lead to much of anything, thus I'm mostly wasting my life typing to hear myself talk. But please recall, the glory of this medium is that we can simply scroll right on by annoying people.
Where one party is unwilling, that time would be better spent by the other party producing criticism of his own. Where both parties are unwilling, we won't get anywhere. Not unless one of us budges, and that hasn't happened yet.
So I don't have to? Have you noticed that I'm investing a lot of time in to challenging you? I'm just not challenging you the way you want to be challenged, that's all.
But [i]you're[/I] not really challenging me, because I already have that challenge. That's there by default. I've already considered my position, and this is where I'm at. Now, you might have noticed that I have yet to abandon it. Perhaps consider why that is? Could it be that, instead of being ideologically or emotionally attached to it, which is how you're spinning it, rather, in my reasoned assessment, I have found it to be better than the alternatives?
It's possible I'm three times your age and am going too fast. Ok, if that's the case, then feel free to scroll right on by me, no offense will be taken.
If you were three times my age, then you would be old enough for it to be a real possibility that the aging process has hindered your mental capabilities. You'd be lucky not to have popped your clogs. But you seem to be doing okay, if not quite as polished as you might see yourself. :up:
But you're not really challenging me, because I already have that challenge. That's there by default. I've already considered my position, and this is where I'm at. Now, you might have noticed that I have yet to abandon it. Perhaps consider why that is? Could it be that, instead of being ideologically or emotionally attached to it, which is how you're spinning it, rather, in my reasoned assessment, I have found it to be better than the alternatives?
You love to do this typing back and forth, back and forth, but you never quite get around to questioning your own chosen authority in the same way you reasonably question the theist's chosen authorities. Your "reasoned assessment" is always aimed outward, at somebody else's process, somebody else's chosen authority, somebody else's conclusions. How can you "find something better than the alternatives" if your lens is aimed only in one direction?
It's justified through reason. It's more reasonable to go with a theory with far superior explanatory power than a theory with nothing going for it which clashes with everything that reason has lead me to believe. Reason has lead me to believe that this isn't a world where anything goes, full of contradiction, that makes no sense whatsoever.
Yes, reason has led you to believe this, reason has led you to believe that. But you never apply the processes of reason to reason itself. You're accepting the unlimited qualifications of human reason as a matter of faith, taking them to be an obvious given. This faith position is easily challenged given how incredibly small human beings are in relation to the arena which god claims address, the fundamental nature of everything everywhere.
Your position is like an unchallenged assumption that bacteria could understand the Internet. You're not standing on a solid rock as you appear to believe.
By the way, in your defense, you are in very good company in making these faith based assumptions.
But the question then is obviously what do we know and what don't we know, how much do we or don't we know, what is the extent of our ignorance, what are we ignorant of and what aren't we ignorant of, and of that ignorance, what counts as the good kind and what counts as the bad kind.
One could explore in that direction. And/or, one could ask..
We've discovered all this ignorance through a long investigation. What constructive use can be made of this abundant asset?
Pattern-chaserOctober 04, 2018 at 15:02#2179220 likes
I agree. Though I think if any of the current religions is to survive the ongoing onslaught, it must address the evils perpetrated by its misguided adherents in a very direct way. Most of the religions must also be universalised with every tribal aspect being eliminated and every metaphysics must be revealed to be conceptual. Otherwise, it would just be inviting more chaos.
Pattern-chaserOctober 04, 2018 at 15:42#2179360 likes
but if the law of noncontradiction can be violated, then anything goes...
So it does. Science-types say this sort of thing a lot. But contain your outrage for a moment and think. Yes, if your aim is formal and rigid structured logic, then you need such 'laws' to operate. On the other hand, if you are someone who tries to study reality, without placing artificial limits on what might or might not be studied, then maybe you don't. Of course, things would be a lot easier if these 'laws' applied universally, but that seems not always to be the case in the real world. :confused:
So we have a choice. We, like science, can limit ourselves to the easy problems, the ones that (seem to) conform to these 'laws'. Or, we can attempt some of the more difficult stuff, but only if we are prepared to study with less of a safety net (or without one altogether). Even science acknowledges some uncertainty in the world, via QM, Godel et al or wave-particle duality in light (a contradiction if ever I saw one). Maybe we should try a bit harder with the harder problems? :chin:
Religion is socialized art and socialized expression.
This is as redundant as saying ‘socialized language’. Also, aesthetic experience and expression do not require religion. Not that you were saying it does.
Reply to BrianW Religion and spirituality represent very meaningful experiences for people, and in every church there is undoubtedly something different but a part of a whole. This whole is the meaning there, as a social unit, in reaction to the civilized attitudes, dilemmas and norms they have to assimilate. Not always is religion or spirituality harmful. I recently read something about A. Crowley or I think that is how you spell his name. He said certain magical rituals have powerful psychological meaning, within the repetition, faith, interest and the ritualistic aspect. The Book is the Lesser (something) of Soloman
Religion and spirituality represent very meaningful experiences for people, and in every church there is undoubtedly something different but a part of a whole. This whole is the meaning there, as a social unit, in reaction to the civilized attitudes, dilemmas and norms they have to assimilate. Not always is religion or spirituality harmful.
True enough. And thanks to the improving social harmony across the globe, religious terrorism is on the decline. Hopefully, eventually and soon, there will be an instinctive inclination towards sharing of spiritual practices and, consequently, a coalition of religions. Maybe the 'whole' will become the new focus of religions instead of the many seemingly separate parts.
Your "reasoned assessment" is always aimed outward, at somebody else's process, somebody else's chosen authority, somebody else's conclusions.
I read an insightful and witty analysis of ‘Internet atheism’ once, comparing the species to the moray eel. Morays are always located in a crevice from which nothing can approach them from behind, and from which they will dart and sieze prey when it strays into their orbit. Ambush predators.
Religion today is really a big deal, not more that before in the medieval time, but i think that if you are a religious representative such as the Papa, you have more power than many countrys around.
Religion can be a way of uniting people all around the world for one only cause, that can variate, for a common god, for a life stile, but can also be for non acceptance, chaos and deaf.
I think that the pure concept of each religion is beautiful, no religion talks about deaf, no religion talks about non acceptance. The big problem is that no religion seems to follow there truth meaning and goal. when you go to the catholic church it fells more like a brainwash than anything else.
Yeah, it sounds like people have more of a love/hate relationship with religion here. Can't say I blame them.
Pattern-chaserOctober 13, 2018 at 16:23#2201070 likes
Reply to MountainDwarf Yes, I think perhaps the main problem with religion is humans.... :confused:
Comments (540)
- exploring and expressing spiritual feelings
- using rituals to mark and help cope with important life events
- belonging to a community
- tradition
- providing an efficient and supportive framework within which to help others
Some less attractive reasons that some people have, but would mostly not admit to, are:
- so I can feel superior to others
- so I can wield power over others
- so I can validate my dislike for people from cultures different from my own
In the interests of charity, I assume that most people's reasons belong to the first set. Unfortunately, people motivated by the second set are often prevalent amongst those in power at the top echelons of organised religions.
Religions fundamentally are an expression of culture, at least, in their origin. Stories of the brave, the honest, whatever that culture accepts as good. Some stories are passed on more than others; their telling becomes exponential. People hold onto them, cherish them and most importantly follow the lessons they tell.
Religion is the collection of these stories. Each region has different ones that became popular. Some stories are seen across many cultures.
The problem however is when some stories do more harm than good as the world changes. As we gather more information with science the stories are being dropped off one by one. Religion will be either to be turned into a conglomeration or eventually lost entirely.
On modern cults: the mechanism is the same but they are composed, usually by one person, of many borrowed stories combined with a magnetic personality and a sprinkle of altered or new stories. Religions are mostly random, cults are mostly devised.
Your question of interaction. I think it needs a little clarification.
Given the above, we necessarily interact with religion socially. Glue has no purpose without things to bind.
for some - the purpose is your eternal salvation
I feel exhausted by its pretense and doubly exhausted by the fact that most people cater to it on some level because of their emotions.
Quoting MountainDwarf
Religion is an emergent set of behaviors, beliefs, or rituals that first came about in the form of entertaining and question-answering stories told by shaman of forest and jungle dwelling great apes (animism). It invariably takes the form of metaphysical assumption or a fallacy of superstition, and it has become ubiquitous because humans really like to be entertained (we tend to like emotional roller coasters), and also because humans are very curious (so when someone has no grasp of science or the cosmos, they are very vulnerable to being persuaded by any compelling answer placed before them).
Religion's purpose, as such, is to service humans. It does so by making some of us happy, by keeping some of us in line, by giving some of us answers to existential questions, and by assisting with communal organization (in the past various religions have gotten out of control, so to speak, but presumably the secular post-enlightenment governments we have today limit religion for the better).
We interact with religion by participating in it, which is also how and why it changes and evolves.
Personally I prefer not to participate in religion (to not interact with it). I've found answers elsewhere, entertainment elsewhere, and moral foundations elsewhere too.
To address the illusion of division which is a fundamental reality of the human condition.
Quoting MountainDwarf
By finding those aspects of religion which one can personally put to constructive use in their own life, and then putting what one has found in to action.
Surely this is a big factor. An essential purpose of religion? Ok, agreed.
But the primary purpose of religion is ultimately personal. Religions don't go on for thousands of years based on abstractions like "binding a community together".
Yes. That much I know. That's why I asked in such a way to get more individual responses.
Quoting andrewk
Quite a sad reality. We need more honest spiritual leaders.
Quoting Grey Vs Gray
Alright. What level of interaction or devotion do you (all) express in regard to spirituality?
Quoting praxis
So religion is only good if it brings people toward a common goal?
Quoting Relativist
I admire existentialism because it has a mystical feeling along with a feeling of simplicity of mission in life. Love people.
Quoting Wayfarer
So how does one interpret their faith if meanings are hidden? What are the metaphors symbols of?
Quoting tim wood
As you can probably tell from my other recent thread, I am a skeptical theist. Nice to know I'm not the only one who thinks along these lines.
Quoting VagabondSpectre
What I gather from your post here is that is society's or the majority of humanity's purpose for religion and you're dissatisfied with that. I commend you if this is the case. I notice the Ouroboros sign as your avatar. The question is, is religion about connecting to something bigger than yourself and finding answers there or is it all a sham?
Quoting S
So you're not militantly against religion, you just respect all paths?
Quoting Jake
The eastern ways are as old time itself. Brahman is in all and is all to that way of thinking. Are you Hindu?
It's somewhere in between finding answers and sham.
Religion can give people personal reasons to go on living, and in it they can find community that can help them enjoy life. They're almost certainly not going to actually connect with some ultimate creator deity who will impart anything useful, but sometimes, for some people, the illusion of that is a worthwhile placebo.
I do not consider myself one of those people...
My fascination with the ouroboros began when I encountered it as the name of an informal fallacy ("a self defeating argument") and used it as a description for ideologies and worldviews which lead to the subversion of their own founding premises (notably, the brand of intersectional feminism which ultimately advocates for racist/sexist practices, thereby promoting the thing it set out to destroy). I have come to think of it as the ultimate fallacy of self-contradiction and circularity. Also it looks pretty cool...
I chose it as my avatar because it's an intriguing reminder of all things fallacious, but also because it has other interesting symbolism. If it was an unambiguously religious symbol, I would not have chosen it. If I recall correctly it mainly is a representation of creation and destruction, of cycles, of eternity, and of unity (depending on the specific cultural/religious conception/representation).
No, just logical. :smile:
If religions aren't symbolic, then what are they? Have you ever encountered a Carl Jung book called Man and his Symbols? They are symbolic expressions of all manner of existential and cultural meanings.
Relativist: “The "purpose" of religion is to provide a context for consideration of the other, beyond the self, and an inter-subjective understanding of our place in the world. As such, it helps shape our interactions with other people.”
MountainDwarf: “So religion is only good if it brings people toward a common goal?”
I wasn’t addressing what is “good” about religion, but it is good to consider the “other.” By “other” I mean everything that isn’t self: the external world, other people, etc. This is better than narcissism. Interactions with other people doesn’t have to be about common goals; I think we benefit (both individually and collectively) from positive socialization. So there’s a lot of good that can come out of religion. Some bad comes out as well (e.g. child molestation, organizing hate against gays, …) but on balance, I think there is more good than harm.
Religion is to offer a unifying vision of human life. One interacts with a religion (and its adherents) if one finds its vision of human life inspiring, or even merely satisfying.
You have a perfect right to believe it, but it's not really that relevant in a philosophy forum. Paul, after all, was dismissive of philosophy; 'What has Athens to do with Jerusalem'? I think what's interesting is 'what does it mean?' and 'how does it realise its goals'?
The point about mainstream Christianity is specifically to exclude those kinds of questions. It's 'believe and be saved'. Asking 'why' is a no-no. This doesn't mean that having such beliefs is wrong, or that the belief is wrong - but it's not particularly amenable to discussion.
That was Tertullian, Paul debated philosophy in Athens. Though he thought that their poets were on to more than their philosophers were.
And there's a definite tension within Christianity itself between the influence of Platonism and the Gospels. I think that is why evangelical Protestantism has generally tended to reject the Greek influence in an attempt to return to a more purely Biblical stance.
Actually one web author whose works I have learned from is John Uebersax who has an excellent index here.
How anyone can look at creation and believe it all just came out of nowhere, randomly- baffles me.
People insult me for believing in God and act like I'm a neanderthal.... I am wary of posting here and think I'll be met with a bunch of belligerant liberals. But whether you agree with my views or not- I represent a viewpoint which might not be otherwise represented here.
You said that Paul thought something, and then quoted someone else unattributed? Point being (seeing as Tertullian was versed in and influenced by stoicism) that Christianity is a revealed religion, and the ancient Greek philosophers and philosophies that Christian theologians thought to be in accord with Christian doctrine was explained by God having revealed something in part to them, rather than them being the influences or origins of Christian thought.
Paul didn't have a problem per se with Philosophy (neither did Tertullian), but he held different schools to be in conflict with his view, and inferior to revelation.
Religion's purpose is to educate and give people methods of expressing themselves to the benefit of the greater 'whole' (family, community, culture, etc) instead of just themselves. One accomplishes service by understanding what is necessary. Purpose is choice aligned to necessity (my take).
Religion as a principle may have a decent purpose and the teachings given by the pioneers of the various sects (especially the really big ones) may be intelligent, ethical and geared towards the individual's progress, however, of the current practitioners (leaders and followers alike) very few seem to understand the purpose of religion and consequently their interactions are flawed.
As an example,
'Archbishop' Gilbert Deya and his 'miracle' babies who developed in less than 9 months from conception to birth:
=> "He (Gilbert Deya) was ordained by the United Evangelical Church of Kenya and styles himself "Archbishop".[3] He was an evangelist in Kenya in the late 1980s to early 1990s, but moved to the UK, establishing Gilbert Deya Ministries in 1997. The ministry now[when?] has churches in Liverpool, London, Birmingham, Nottingham, Luton, Reading, and Manchester, Sheffield and in 2006 acquired a building and planning permission in Leeds.[4] The church claims to be 'the fastest growing Ministry in the UK and worldwide'."
"The Gilbert Deya Ministries claim that Deya's powers allow him to be able to cause infertile women to become pregnant. Mr Deya claims that "through the power of prayer and the Lord Jesus" he has helped sterile women give birth. In the UK, one woman is claimed to have had three children in less than a year. The women travelled to Kenya in order to 'give birth'."
"Ten children, none of whom had any genetic connection to the Deya family, were found at Mr Deya's House.[5] Twenty babies have been placed in foster care in Kenya after DNA tests showed they had no connection to their alleged mothers.[8] Rose Atieno Kiserem, a former pastor with Deya's ministry was jailed along with Mrs Deya. Upon her release from jail, Kiserem confessed that the 'miracle babies' were "a hoax created by the Deyas and their accomplices to deceive me and other God-fearing people."
"On 3 August 2017, Deya was extradited from the UK to Kenya to face child trafficking charges. He was immediately arraigned in court for child trafficking offences."
[Extracts from Gilbert Deya's Wikipedia Page]
The sad reality is that most of Deya's congregation chose to believe that the 'miracle-babies' were God's work. The sadder reality is that most religious people are expecting such kind of 'miracles' and, instead of investing their mental capacity to achieving greater reasoning abilities (to better be able to explore life for themselves), they wait and, most often, for a conman to take them for a ride. Worse, they believe it is worth their while in the journey towards 'eternal salvation'.
And it might also be good to consider whether what we perceive to be "other" actually exists. Well, consider as a first step, which may evolve in to experiencing the non-existence of "other".
Point being, there are different levels of religion. At one level there are the doctrines and moral teachings etc, at another level there are the experiences the doctrines and moral teachings are attempting to take us to.
Christian doctrine suggests that we "love our neighbor as ourselves". The bottom line goal of such a suggestion isn't just that we be "good", but that we experience a weakening of the boundary between ourselves and everything else. The experience is true religion, the rest of it often devolves in to the chanting of memorized slogans.
No. It might be right to say that, in some ways, I'm militantly against certain aspects of religion and certain interpretations of religion, in general, as well as of particular religions. I'm highly critical, yet I'll also give credit where credit's due.
And I don't respect all paths. Why would I? I respect only those paths which I judge to be deserving of respect. My point wasn't about equal treatment in terms of respect, but rather equal treatment in terms of how we should think about religion in comparison to philosophies. In other words, I'm against special treatment for religion. All religions, like all philosophies, have their pros and cons. Yet some religious folks would have you believe that their religion is the one true religion that everyone should follow, that's it's wrong to be critical of their religion, that their religion gets a special exemption, and should not be viewed in a similar vein to philosophies or even other religions.
And the same can be said for some atheist ideologues. The mindset you are reasonably objecting to isn't a function of religion particularly, but the human condition more generally. It's very important to some of us to possess The Answer, whatever the chosen answer may be.
Do you know how many chances there are? There's also a chance that I'm actually the Son of Zeus and Liza Minnelli, and the purpose of My Sarcasm is the complete and utter destruction of the universe as we know it.
Just sayin'.
And the same can be said for some political ideologues. (Nuclear weapons, cough cough).
But it is a requirement of some religions according to the testimony of many adherents of these religions themselves. Ram is a good example of that.
Yes, agreed.
Quoting S
If you keep coughing like that it's going to lead directly to the immediate end of all life in the universe, and you'd better agree with that right now or you're going to hell!!!! :smile:
Quoting S
Some religions are just another example of ideological certainty. This forum, all philosophy forums, are filled with comments from those who suffer from atheist certainty.
In my assessment, some religions are better than others, just as some forms of atheism are better than others, and misplaced certainty is a factor-against in this assessment. But the topic is religion, not atheism.
Fair point. But I still feel that appealing to scriptural authority doesn’t have a place in a philosophy forum, unless in support of a philosophical argument. I did a search on Apostle Paul and Greek Philosophy and found a very good post on the subject:
My overall attitude is, I suppose, nearer what the Church would designate ‘pagan’ or perhaps ‘gnostic’ in that I don’t accept that any religious tradition has a monopoly on revelation, but that religions generally are evidence of a reality which is not comprehended by natural philosophy.
Put simply: Religion is a method for dealing with the stresses of life (no inherent meaning to life, unfairness of society, worrying about death and dead loved ones, etc.), just as delusions help some people get through life. It allows them to cover up reality with a fake one that makes them feel more comfortable with themselves and their place in the world.
Quoting RamWho said that it came out of nowhere randomly? How anyone can believe that a universe can't just exist, but a god can, baffles me. What makes god so special that is doesn't need a creator, but the universe does?
Quoting RamBut you have insulted us (our intelligence) with your incoherent post with no evidence or logic. When you do that, expect to be rejected and insulted yourself.
I also think you are misusing the term, "liberal". The people that are commonly called "liberals" in America are actually authoritarian socialists, not liberals at all. Libertarians are the only true liberals.
All due respect, I disagree. The proposition that God is, and the purpose of religion is salvation, is as valid a proposition as the others proposed here. And although agreed, the ultimate belief would be based on faith, it is a proposition that can be tested by reason.
I see no philosophical difference between this proposition as an answer to the op, as many of the others expressed, sitting on an equally faith based belief that God is not.
At the core it is a human hubris in some that we have the ability to reason all, and that which with can not exist by reason does not exist. Interestingly, there are almost an unlimited number of historical examples showning this to be false. Yet, the intellectual high ground is still claimed by many, who paradoxically by their faith in reason, declare its superiority to faith.
The only real reason to avoid scripture as an authority is when not everyone accepts it as an authority, and doing so would be offensive, or ineffective. It of course would always be bad for to just assert something is the case without giving any reasons whatsoever. Though I think that what is philosophical is the subjects, and not really particular forms of engagement with them.
I would even add that traditionally "philosophy" is not mere idle talk, but meant a way of life, which is precisely why religion is one of the center stage subjects, and the idle musings on technical subjects that one in no sense practices is what is not philosophical.
Okay. :smile: That's cool too.
Quoting Wayfarer Never actually had the privilege of reading it myself.
Quoting Wayfarer So basically it is whatever it says to you?
Quoting Relativist You make the multi-faith movement sound really cool. :up:
Quoting Rank Amateur
Right, and I would agree. I think that mainline churches make a lot of sense in a post truth age.
Quoting Janus
I even find that there are some aspects of non-religion that can be satisfying.
Quoting Ram
You're not, you're a highly developed neanderthal blessed by the God of creation with the ability to believe.
Sad. (I sound like Donald Trump) :lol: I wonder if it's just natural for religious leaders to abuse people or if it's a product of the modern church.
Quoting S
True, truth can be hard to take in. I know that's not what you mean but I just thought I'd just add to the argument.
Quoting S This is why I believe Christianity went through a reformation.
And you know, as a matter of fact, what truth is. That will certainly save us all a great deal of angst.
I think most people are drawn to religion by its power instead of its wisdom and so inevitably stray from the path to some degree. However, towards modern times religious leaders have been abusing their authority with increasing deliberateness.
Right. But here, you’re putting forward a philosophical argument, rather than evangelising as such. I am very open to reasoned argument for religious ideas, and I read quite a lot of philosophical theology. What I'm wary of is evangelicals seeking to convert. OK, sometimes the distinction is a fine line, but still. And also I'm particularly wary of Protestant evangelism, because of its prior rejection of most of Christian Platonism.
I agree with most of what you say here, too. But the question of the nature of authority is still a delicate one. Authority of any kind can easily be abused, and trust manipulated. Sincere believers are capable of appalling things. But that said, I do accept that the testomony of sages and prophets may be trustworthy and sources of knowledge whereas these are all mostly rejected holus bolus in secular culture.
Years ago, I learned something from a book by Swami Vivekananda (who spoke at the World Parliament of Religions in 1893 and then toured the USA, one of the first Eastern spiritual teachers in the US.) He spoke of the 'six limbs of yoga' - raja, bhakti, jñ?na, karma, mantra, and hatha. Each of these were adapted to a particular kind of mentality or disposition. jñ?na is something like 'gnosis' - you can even see the etymological relationship between the two terms (as they come from the same indo-european root). Jñ?na it is the 'yoga of discriminating wisdom' which enables the 'sadhaka' (aspirant) to 'discern the truth' (brahman).
'Bhakti' on the other hand, is devotional religion - like for instance the Hare Krishna movement but also evident in popular Christianity (i.e. the Mary cult) and in Pure Land Buddhism.
So these are like different levels of understanding within Hindu spiritual philosophies, adapted to different audiences and types of person.
Whereas, in Western culture, a kind of 'devotional' and populist attitude of 'bhakti' became predominant at the expense of the others. This is what is behind the emphasis in Christianity on 'right belief' (orthodoxy) at the expense of philosophical analysis. And that in turn is why we have this tremendous polarisation between belief and unbelief in Western culture; you're given the choice to either sign up, and believe what you're told, or reject belief altogether. I suppose when put in such peremptory terms it sounds rather a sweeping statement, but I have done quite a lot of reading on it, and I'm sure that this is one of the dynamics in Western culture.
I have a completely different epistemology than others here likely do.
I am operating from an entirely different framework.
I doubt you are going to accept my starting premises, I doubt I will accept yours. Our fundamental assumptions I doubt are the same.
The person here thus far are more interested in "winning" than discussion.
For me, it is very simple. I believe what I believe. Others believe the same, others don't believe the same. I am interested in discussion sure but I cannot make anyone believe things. If there's a specific question people have, people can ask it.
Which is exactly why you ought not to be wasting time here. And I'm not saying that to flame you or troll you, but because your attitude makes 'reasoned debate' pointless.
I've never seen Alaska. Alaska exists whether I've seen it or not.
The non-theists don't know why the theists believe. You don't know what the person has experienced to make them believe. I've read Bertrand Russell, Dawkins, Sagan, etc. I've studied the atheist side and I know it pretty well.
Dawkins is pretty shallow philosophically. Same for Sagan.
Russell is above them but I still think his arguments are weak. If anyone wants to discuss arguments, let them discuss them.
We are not disembodied minds. We are people and we have experiences. Allah guides whom He wills.
Epistemology from an Islamic perspective is totally different from most Western epistemology and Western-minded people will likely attack it because the epistemologies are alien to each other. My thinking won't necessarily fit into someone else's preconceived framework (frequently based on the presuppositions of the Enlightenment).
I wrote a blog post discussing this further https://entranceofcave.blogspot.com/2018/07/where-is-your-proof.html
I express what I believe, I believe what I believe. You believe differently. If you have an argument you'd like to discuss, let's discuss it.
Atheists tend to rely a whole lot on snark and this demonstrates that they are not operating from the vantage point of some sort of philosophical mountain top. Otherwise, they wouldn't need the gimmick of snark.
Christianity is based in grace though, not in deeds, not analysis, not even necessarily practice. It works for even the worst human beings. It's so easy, and effective. You can get as much as you can handle, as much as you're willing. You don't have to master yoga, spend 20 years meditating under the bodi tree. It's freely given, unmerited.
It's by far the easiest one. It seems so simple, repent, and accept Jesus, and there is no longer any need for the same sacrifices, mastery of practices as before. There is something about most other practices, and that is that the insights they gained through it, and the practices themselves differ greatly. They are not identical, and I wouldn't say that they don't work, but that doesn't make them equivalent. Most require ascetic dedication, but you could always just ask, and maybe you'll receive.
There is something about the arcane, philosophical, methodological mastery that renders other methods elitist. The ancient heroes, the masters, the unsurpassable, they speak to a special few. They tend to even recognize this, that for the layperson what is required is too involving, and thus the real high level discernment is only available to the dedicated ascetic. You have to be a special type of person to gain enlightenment, to be born into it, almost. To be a genius. Exceptional human being. Only the few can be freed.
Paul thought that education was good, and even helpful, but not necessary. I'm interested in ideas, in philosophy, but Christianity is indeed, through grace. Believe it, repent, be saved. Everyone, even the worst. Unmerited, nothing to discuss.
Similarly, one cannot get the results of yoga without mastery, or meditation without mastery, or virtue without mastery, and there is nothing to discuss, with respect to the necessity of that mastery. Plenty to discuss, but discussion will never deliver the results.
Do these non-religious "aspects" offer a unifying vision of life? This also raises the question of what counts as religious.
Also, just so you understand- I am against liberalism. I am not talking about The Democratic Party. I mean liberals.
I don't believe in liberalism. I am well aware of this line of thought that the liberals are wrong because they have strayed from liberalism. However, I'm against 19th century liberalism and previous liberalism too. I am not a liberal. Not remotely.
In fairness, though, I think it is the "modern" liberals I was referring to. But even the old-school liberals... I don't have anything to do with that either. I'm not for either of the two.
Social or personal doesn’t speak to purpose, and in any case, pretty much anything could be construed as ultimately personal, so I’m not sure what you’re trying to say here. Perhaps you mean something along the lines that salvation, which is experienced personally, is the purpose of religion. This cannot be the essential or primary purpose simply because salvation is unnecessary, or rather, salvation could mean being saved from a life of meaninglessness or anxious feelings of separateness.
There is no such thing as a personal religion. The enlightenment endowed us the freedom to seek out and develop our own spiritual experiences, insights, and philosophies.
Quoting Jake
Successful religions last because they are meaningful. Purpose and values are components of meaning.
Religion is only good if a community finds it meaningful.
You could make the same arguments for the other religions, so you haven't yet differentiated yourself from any other religion.
Quoting Ram
I used to be a theist. Now I'm an atheist. I know what theists believe because I used to believe. Knowing what I know now, it would be absurd for me to go back to believing it. Think about as trying to go back and believe in the Tooth Fairy - which has the same amount and type of evidence as the existence of any god.
Quoting Ram Then we believe what we believe based on his will and therefore are not responsible for own actions or beliefs. We believe what we believe because he wills it. You have no independence and are not in control of your own actions.
Quoting Ram No. You haven't even made any argument that is any different from any other religious belief or the result of a delusion.
It is more complex than that. Allah chooses who He guides and Allah is Just.
.
No, you don’t.
.
You know what some Theists believe.
.
You know what you used to believe, and what your acquaintances and co-worshippers, you pastor, and your Bible said.
.
.
Depending on what you used to believe, that may very well be true.
.
.
…that you believed in :D
.
Alright, if the Tooth-Fairy “has the same evidence and existence as” the God that you used to believe in, then speak for yourself when you talk about Theists.
.
As I’ve said many times, the aggressive Atheist’s God, his One True God that he fervently and loudly believes in disbelieving in, is always the God of the Fundamentalist Biblical-Literalists.
.
In that sense, it isn’t an exaggeration to say that the aggressive Atheist is a Fundamentalist Biblical-Literalist.
.
Michael Ossipoff
After over 20 years of being a theist and then the next 26 years of being an atheist that interacted with theists, I have yet to meet one theist that didn't make the same kind of arguments and make the same mistakes in logic. You and Ram are making the same claims. They are no different than any other theist's claims.
Quoting Michael Ossipoff
So then you must be an Aggressive Atheist against the Greek and Norse gods, or the Hindu gods, or Egyptian gods, and Muslim gods, even Tooth Fairies and unicorns, elves, hobbits, dragons, demons, angels, etc., because you make claims of disbelief in such things, no? Strange that you seem to be an "Aggressive Atheist" yourself when it comes to all these other things. We both agree that those things do not exist. I am just declaring my disbelief in one more thing than you do - your particular god that you claim exists while rejecting all the others that have been claimed to exist. Why the particular preference for the god of the Jews? What does Ram say about the existence of the god of the Jews?
It is not fundamental to be open-minded to reasonable and logical solutions. You and Ram have yet to provide any.
Uh huh. If it is so complex, and Allah's intentions are beyond our understanding, how is it that you have come to understand? Are you not making similar claims that one with delusions of grandeur would make?
Just replace "Allah" with the name of some other god and you have what every theist claims - that their god is just and omniscient. Again, what is so different from other theists claim? What reason would I have to choose Allah over the god of the Jews, or the Hindus?
A personal purpose can be any methodology which helps heal the illusion of division which is fundamental to the human experience.
So for example, Christianity has lasted 2,000 years because the experience of love which it suggests works in helping people dilute an experience of reality as being divided between "me" and "everything else", an experience which generates fear and suffering. The typical person is not overly concerned with abstractions like enhancing social unity, but is instead engaging in religion to address their own personal situation.
.
If you want to make a claim about mistakes in logic, you’d need to be more specific.
.
.
For one thing, different Theists (the ones who make claims) make different claims. For another thing, I don’t make claims, assertions or arguments in the Theism vs Atheism issue, because I don’t regard it as that kind of a subject (…though I’ve expressed my own impressions—not assertions). I merely comment on some funny things about Atheist beliefs.
.
You’re still a Fundamentalist Literalist, Harry. You’ve traded one dogmatic Fundamentalist Literalist, denomination or belief for another.
.
…rather more than one :D
.
Your use of the word “one”, when it’s pointed out to you, should help you to understand your fallacy of your sweeping blanket criticism of all of the various meanings when God is spoken of. …your dogmatic belief that they’re all one.
.
Criticisms about belief should refer to one or more beliefs well-specified by the speaker. Otherwise such claims are meaningless.
.
(As I said, I usually avoid using the word “God” (except when answering people who use it, including Fundamentalists like you), because it has an anthropomorphic connotation.)
.
.
Wrong. I didn’t make that claim, because, as I said, I don’t regard that matter as an issue for claims, assertions, arguments, debates or proof. In various other threads, I’ve expressed impressions.
.
But I accept your assurance that you were making claims when you were a Theist, just as you now are. …claims about the same doctrinaire, dogmatic Biblical Literalism that you formerly believed in, and now loudly disbelieve in.
.
Thank you for clarifying that the God that you believed in when you were a Theist, and now express disbelief in, is, to you, like the Greek and Norse gods, or the Hindu gods, or Egyptian gods, and Muslim gods, even Tooth Fairies and unicorns, elves, hobbits, dragons, demons, angels, etc.
.
Your beliefs, when you were a Theist, may very well have been like that. I take your word for it that they were.
.
.
I don’t “reject” them in the spirit in which you do. They aren’t as important to me as they are to you. But I must admit I just don’t know of a reason to believe in them.
.
And you likewise don’t know of any reason to believe anything that could be called Theism. No one should say that you should believe what you don’t know of a reason to believe.
.
But when you blanket-criticize widely-varied beliefs unspecified by you, then you can expect some people to remind you that you don’t know what you mean.
.
.
It’s been said that Aristotle spoke of what you’d call God. Was that, too, the God of the Jews?
.
Theism isn’t specifically about the God of the Jews.
.
I don’t subscribe to a denomination.
.
.
You aren’t being very clear with us about what kind of a reasonable and logical solution you have. What is your reasonable and logical solution?
.
Michael Ossipoff
Simple. Claims that are made without any evidence (like the claims of the existence of some god (like the god of the Jews)) are placed in the heap with all the other claims with no evidence (like the claims that some other god exists (like the god of the Muslims). They both carry the same amount of evidence - none. Which one should I believe in? Or should it be some other god? Please help me determine which claim with no evidence I should go with. Why would I choose one over some other? Isn't it the existence of evidence that drives us one way or the other?
If you can't answer that, then maybe we should just go with what we do have evidence for - that we exist and the universe exists. Why would we need to inject a god - something for which we have no evidence - as a solution for the the cause of our existence? Why could it not simply be that the universe just exists with us being a part of it? That is what theists claim about their god - that it just exists and has always existed.
Also, we have a problem in defining "god", no? I mean "god" could really be aliens that created this pocket universe with us in it, but does that really qualify them as "gods"? Aren't they just aliens with advanced technology? What is a "god"?
Don’t need religion for this purpose. If fact, religious beliefs and practices may get in the way of fulfilling this purpose.
Quoting Jake
Do you have a doctrinal reference for this ‘suggestion’? Maybe it will help to make some sense of this.
Quoting Jake
Or it’s just something they were brought up believing.
Of course folks aren’t always consciously aware of what drives them.
I believed in it, I woudn’t bother with a philosophy forum.
While you believed in it, you wouldn't bother, or because I do I shouldn't?
The 'primal' sort of religion seems to be about inducing whatever cosmic powers might exist to bestow favors like good fortune, abundant harvests, healthy children or victory in battle. To achieve that end, people would perform sacrifices, utter prayers and perform ceremonies before undertaking activities.
Later religion seemed to place more emphasis on rescuing people from death. Heavens became more pronounced. Ethical concerns were highlighted, since entry into whatever heaven they imagined typically required meeting some standard and passing some sort of judgement.
And this gradually expanded into other more esoteric sorts of salvation, such as the Buddhist salvation from 'dukkha'.
There often seems to be a metaphysical aspect to religion, a feeling that it facilitates access to transcendent realities that exceed the conditions of earthly life.
Agreed. My point is only that many people have used religion for this purpose. Religion is probably the largest longest most organized system to address these needs. But I do agree it's not a requirement. I also agree that a key problem for religion is that it typically tries to use thought (beliefs etc) to solve the problem, when in fact thought is the source of the problem. It's a process which can be like an alcoholic trying to cure his disease with a case of scotch.
You asked about this...
First, we can observe in our own lives that we experience reality as being divided between "me" and "everything else". "Me" is very very small, and "everything else" is very very big. This is a perspective which naturally generates fear, which in turn generates inner and outer conflict and all kinds of related problems.
Jesus suggested "dying to be reborn", sometimes called love, a process of surrendering the "me" to something or somebody else. To the degree the "me" melts away in a particular situation, so does the perceived division, and thus the fear, and thus the inner conflict, and thus the outer conflict. The user dies to division and fear, and is reborn in to peace.
Of course no human being has perfected this process, so it's an ongoing day to day struggle to accept psychological death (the surrender of "me") as the price of peace. Jesus sometimes yelled at people, priests sometimes rape children, we are all immersed in "sin" as the Catholics might put it.
I'm speculating now, but the Christian concept of "original sin" may be referring to the source of this experience of division (and thus all the other problems), thought itself. Or at least that is my own preferred interpretation, I don't speak for Christians or anybody else here.
Thought operates by dividing a single unified reality in to conceptual parts. So for instance, we have words like "mind" and "body" even though mind and body are really one thing. It's this built-in process of conceptual division which creates the concepts "me" and "everything else" which all other problems arise from.
So for instance, the idea of "getting back to God" could be interpreted as an attempt to heal the perceived division between "me" and "everything else". I would agree with you (if I understand you) that the God concept is not a necessary ingredient, but only a personalization of reality that some people find helpful.
For the atheist, "getting back to reality" can work just as well, but like with religion, it should ideally be primarily an emotional experience and not just an intellectual abstraction. Atheist meditators can reach for these experiences beyond the illusion of division without any reference to anything religious.
Sorry for all the words, hopefully something in there addresses your question.
I am responding to what you say here which is about ‘salvation by faith’. That is what I am saying is not amenable to debate or discussion, whereas the Church fathers and scholastic philosophers were also philosophers. I read an interesting book a while back which contains an account of the correspondence between Erasmus and Luther. Erasmus was very much the humanist whereas Luthers’ dogmatism verges on the fundamentalist. Erasmus is known as one of the founders of Renaissance humanism, whereas Luther [and Calvin] loom large in evangelical Christianity. And that is what I left behind when I declined confirmation. Had I not done so, I very much doubt I would be posting here.
Quoting All sight
Completely agree. That is why I like Pierre Hadot’s work.
:up: I see things in much the same way, but it’s much more difficult than it can be made to sound in that kind of analysis.
Quoting Relativist
Quoting tim wood
Quoting Devans99
These are good answers. Much more constructive than the usual knee-jerk stuff. :up: And much closer to the mark, IMO. :smile: Hail Eris! :joke:
Ah. Do you, like Hadot, think (as Socrates did) that philosophy is discussed in person, face to face. Is spoken, and is distorted and ineffective in written form such as this?
Just skimming over his wiki page, I am not familiar with him myself.
Yes, that's a fair observation. :up: Religion seeks to explain certain things; that's philosophy. But it offers no evidence, in the sense that a scientist would mean it, and this puts a lot of philosophers off. Many humans, including philosophers, have problems confronting vague and ill-defined problems and issues, even though our real, everyday, world is full of nothing but. :wink: We need ways of thinking about vague things, IMO. It's not acceptable to just dismiss that which we can't deal with. :chin: [Also IMO :smile: ]
Quoting S
Compared to similar philosophies, perhaps. To compare religion with (say) Objectivism seems unlikely to lead to any useful conclusions. While comparing it to the Eastern 'religions' - which resemble philosophy more to Western eyes than other religions do - might prove fruitful? Then there are moral/ethical matters, which religions regularly speak of. Comparison here might also prove useful.
I think the "mindlessly" is unhelpful. People who don't believe tend to say things like this, genuinely unaware of the number of unjustified beliefs they themselves hold. We all do. If one believes in a particular religion, one respects its teachings. From the outside, we could reasonably describe this is being "placed on a pedestal", but showing respect is what we all do toward things we, er, respect.
If you do not care to treat religion with respect, that's your business. But ad hominem attacks on those who disagree with you is hardly structured thought, never mind philosophy.... :chin:
Transpose the terminology to Sanskrit instead of Greek, and you could be describing the discipline of Vedanta or Buddhism. It has a religious side but only in a sense - Socrates was, after all, sentenced for for encouraging atheism. [Have to go, back later.]
I definitely agree that philosophy was originally a way of life, and involved practices, and not what it is now taken to be academically. I really don't find academic philosophy to be very interesting, but then, as has been mentioned before, it is almost never brought up or discussed here in any case, so I'm definitely not alone. I too prefer the more traditional approach.
Though, I'm a common man, and think that one needs to work with their hands, move their bodies around. Craftsmen, artists, they're the religiously inclined, though being half an idler, I like philosophy too.
Just to say, some good lyrics on the subject: "Go ahead as you waste your days with thinking
When you fall, everyone stands
Another day, and you've had your fill of sinking
With the life held in your
Hands are shaking cold
These hands are meant to hold
Speak to me
When all you got to keep is strong
Move along, move along like I know you do
And even when your hope is gone
Move along, move along just to make it through
Move along
Move along
So a day when you've lost yourself completely
Could be a night when your life ends
Such a heart that will lead you to deceiving
All the pain held in your
Hands are shaking cold
Your hands are mine to hold
Speak to me
When all you got to keep is strong
Move along, move along like I know you do
And even when your hope is gone
Move along, move along just to make it through
Move along
(Go on, go on, go on, go on)
When everything is wrong, we move along
(Go on, go on, go on, go on)
When everything is wrong, we move along
Along, along, along, along
When all you got to keep is strong
Move along, move along like I know you do
And even when your hope is gone
Move along, move along just to make it through
When all you got to keep is strong
Move along, move along like I know you do
And even when your hope is gone
Move along, move along just to make it through
When all you got to keep is strong
Move along, move along like I know you do (Know you do)
And even when your hope is gone
Move along, move along just to make it through
Right back what is wrong
We move along
(Go on, go on, go on, go on)
Right back what is wrong
We move along
(Go on, go on, go on, go on)
Right back what is wrong
We move along
(Go on, go on, go on, go on)
Right back what is wrong
We move along" - all american rejects
Or there is also that song that they sing in game of thrones, "hands of gold are always cold"?
Is this wisdom? And if it is, it itself may not be philosophy, but I think that it is precisely the kind of thing that a philosopher ought to love.
It's the middle of the night
You're all alone and
The dummies might be right
You feel like a jerk
My music at work
My music at work"
The answer to most of Harry’s post:
.
I refer Harry to my post that he’s “replying to”. He shouldn’t need for it to be repeated to him. He’s just continuing to repeat what I’ve already answered.
.
He’s claiming that there’s no evidence for any of the wide variety of diverse beliefs of people who use the word “God”. He’d need to specify a particular belief, in order to speak of whether or not there’s evidence for it.
.
The first definition listed in Merriam-Webster, for “evidence” is “outward sign”. One thing for Harry to understand is that evidence isn’t necessarily proof.
.
We all get that Harry himself doesn’t know of any evidence or reason to believe anything that can be called Theism. No one’s criticizing him for that. But Harry has the astounding conceit to believe that he knows all the beliefs of all Theists, and the reason or motivation for that variety of beliefs, and that that none of the diverse beliefs of any Theists are supported by evidence.
.
Aside from that, Harry doesn’t understand that the topic here is Reality itself. In such matters, different, separate from, and outside the specifically-self-circumscribed describable realm of physical science and describable metaphysics, the burden of proof is on anyone who claims that he can validly apply the rules that we’re familiar with in the describable realm of physical science and describable metaphysics outside of their specific domain, where the pseudoscientists known as Science-Worshippers want to apply to it.
.
So, in matters outside the describable realm of physics and describable metaphysics, the matter of the justification for faith (often, and probably best, defined as trust), aside from any evidence, Harry’s pseudoscientific approach just isn’t relevant.
.
There, the “scientific method” becomes the pseudoscientific method.
.
In other threads, I’ve amply discussed my own impressions, beliefs, and reasons for them (the “outward signs” that fit Merriam-Webster’s definition of evidence). No, I’m not going to repeat it all here for Harry.
.
When I discussed those reasons, I wasn’t arguing or asserting about the Theism vs Atheism issue. I was merely telling of some reasons, without claiming that Harry should agree about them, or that Atheists should change their beliefs.
.
Additionally, the Scholastics have discussed justification for faith, aside from evidence. …regarding a matter not within the purview of the scientific method and logic. Those “arguments” (I call them “discussions”) are intriguing. There are of course more elaborate, more modern versions, but also other, similarly-intriguing, but simpler and more modest discussions. Does Harry have a sweeping demonstration that all of those are wrong?
.
No doubt there are other Theists similar to me, and maybe or probably, a wide variety of them different from me, but also completely different from what Harry understands from his own dogmatic Theism.
.
I don’t directly argue the Theism vs Atheism issue. I indirectly discuss it when I discuss the matter of what Atheists are trying to say, and the matter of their typical dogmatic belief in their own religion of Science-Worship and Materialism.
.
Most aggressive Atheists firmly, unshakably and dogmatically believe in Materialism. From the definitions, in Merriam-Webster and Houghton-Mifflin, of “Materialism” and “Religion”, Materialism is a religion.
.
But whether or not Harry agrees with those dictionaries, the fact remains that Materialism claims an unsupportable, unverifiable, unfalsifiable brute-fact in the physical world and in metaphysics…where there’s no need for a brute-fact, and where a brute-fact is regarded as discrediting. Harry needs to understand that, if he believes in Materialism, he’s very much a believer in something without support.
.
.
Sure, I’d be glad to help you: There’s no reason why you should believe anything that you don’t know of any reason to believe.
.
But shed some of your conceit. You aren’t qualified to authoritatively blanket-rule on justification for all (unspecified by you) beliefs of all Theists.
.
If you’d wanted to find out more about their beliefs, then you’d need to have approached them a lot more politely. No one’s obligated to talk to someone conceited, rude and aggressive. No one’s obligated to participate in an argument. Would it be surprising if Theists aren’t interested in conversation with the likes of you?
.
If you want an argument about Theism vs Atheism, then I declare you the winner of your argument, by default.
.
.
…Materialism’s brute-fact that you believe in. …you who don’t think that you’re a believer.
.
.
Even in metaphysics there uncontroversially are timeless things. We’ve discussed them in other threads, though they’re off-topic here. Timelessness isn’t unheard of, even in describable metaphysics.
.
As for “uncaused”, the difference is that Materialism’s brute-fact is in the physical world and describable metaphysics, where the familiar rules of logic and science apply, and where a brute-fact is quite unnecessary and usually disapproved-of.
.
.
Yes.
.
You have a problem specifying what you’re talking about.
.
.
If you don’t know what you mean by it, then maybe you aren’t in a position to rule, or decide for others, about it.
.
Michael Ossipoff
Yes, Theists shouldn't waste time debating Atheists.
As I said, I don't directly debate the matter. I've just been questioning what Atheists mean or are trying to say, and their own uncritical belief in Materialism's brute-fact.
Michael Ossipoff
that covers about 99% of the reason i enter into discussions such as these. I have no issue with atheism as a belief. I have always acknowledged that there are reasonable arguments in its favor.
My only issues are, do not say as a matter of fact that God is not. And do not directly or indirectly with the oft used " fairy tale" "spaghetti monster" "Santa Clause" type language say that theism is unreasonable.
The Hitchens- esk smugness and sarcasm of the pseudo intellectual atheist is trying.
Good metaphor.
I disagree that "thought" or dualism is the problem, however. I believe the problem may center around particular thoughts, or rather concepts, that arise in our cultural conditioning, particularly those involving our self-concept, our personal narratives, etc. This may be an unavoidable evolutionary artifact, I don't know, but I do know that it can be dealt with without religion.
Quoting Jake
In all practicality, I think this works the other way around in our minds. "Me" is very big or significant, and "everything else" is small or of less significance, and it's this selfishness that makes us fail to act cooperatively.
In a perfect world, religion functions to reduce our selfishness and increase our cooperation for the mutual benefit of all. I believe it does function this way to some extent, in some circumstances, and that's great, but, as you suggest, it's ultimately like trying to cure alcoholism with a case of scotch. Our personal narrative merges with the overarching religious narrative, reify our sense of self and escalate our self-concept to cosmic proportions. When this happens, there is no horror that can't be rationalized.
Incidentally, I watched an interview with a Trump supporter the other day on YouTube who was explaining why she still supports him (despite all the shenanigans, I suppose). She said it was because he has conservative and evangelical values. Trump claims to have such values, and for this woman the mere claim is good enough. He doesn't need to express these values. How could just saying so be good enough? Because she doesn't actually have these values herself. It's only really about being part of the tribe.
Quoting Jake
Love necessarily has an object, so love cannot transcend the duality of self and other. If you love everything, which would include war, suffering, disease, evil, escargo, and all things bad, then love has no meaning.
Speak for yourself.
It seems to me, thanks to the knowledge science is providing, that everything is interconnected. I don't experience a fear of everything else. I experience curiosity. If it is fear that you experience, then no wonder you turn to a delusion - to alleviate that fear.
Quoting Michael Ossipoff All of them. Now the ball is in your court to show evidence for just one.
Quoting Michael Ossipoff
Exactly. It is a conglomeration of evidence that provides proof, and there isn't one bit of evidence for the existence of god that can't be explained better without invoking the word, "god". Again, the ball is in your court.
Quoting Michael OssipoffIt is they that approach me, or create posts on this forum. I merely question their unfounded claims. I don't go around announcing my atheism. There is nothing to announce.
Quoting Michael Ossipoff
The burden to define god is on the person making the claim.
The rest of your post seems to attack the scientific method and to make a claim that there are things outside of "physical" science. Yeah, I've heard it all before. It comes down to answering this question:
Does god have a causal influence on reality? If it does, then why would science not be able to explain it and find evidence of it?
Everything is natural. There is no such thing as the supernatural. Everything is interconnected and therefore should be explainable by one consistent method - science. Religion is inconsistent to the point where people of different religions try to kill each other for believing in a different god. Science knows no contextual limitations. True science is open to new evidence for anything, all you have to do is provide it.
I think that Jake may be generally referring to existential anxiety. I don’t see how it could be natural to fear largeness or otherness.
Existential anxiety could be a natural consequence of how our minds evolved and, in a sense, is caused by ‘thought’. Our ability to form concepts of self and death, combined with our ability simulate and anticipate future events may naturally lead to it.
It seems that your first and second paragraph contradict each other. If existential anxiety is a natural consequence of how our minds evolved, then existential anxiety is natural. Any attempt to separate human beings from nature would be a mistake. Every animal has it's own unique set of physical and psychological adaptations to its environment. Humans are no different.
Humans beings are the products of natural processes and therefore everything we do and create is natural. Separating the creations of man from other natural products (artificial vs natural) stems from the notion that humans are separate from nature. We aren't. Other animals create things and manipulate their environment and they are still considered natural. Stars create new elements in their cores and spew them out into the universe when they explode and they are considered natural. It is only humans that are somehow different. Religion has played a big role in how we see ourselves in relation to the rest of nature and has influenced this idea of separateness and it could be the implications of religion that is the cause of Jake's anxiety.
As for the existential anxiety that we experience from time to time, there are many non-religious methods for alleviating it. Take a look at these two links:
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/hide-and-seek/201509/philosophical-cure-anxiety
https://psychcentral.com/blog/existential-despair-a-deeper-cause-of-human-anxiety/
They both seem to indicate that many people attempt to coverup the causes of their anxiety with delusional thoughts. They don't want to face those questions, so they come up with an answer that allows them to keep going on with their lives. I think that they should be embraced and discussed, as it helps to provide real solutions, not delusional ones.
It seems to me that alleviating this anxiety is just a matter of changing your thoughts. It is also a matter of changing your view about meaning. It shouldn't be scary to discover that meaning is within your own power to create and not in the hands of someone else. It is empowering. The influence the world has on our decisions is just evidence that we are part of the world and we also have an influence on it. We do have the power to make change. Questioning prior decisions is a waste of time and should only be thought about to make better decisions in the future. Making mistakes isn't bad. It is how we learn and grow as individuals. We also shouldn't be looking at ourselves as victims of procreation, rather we should see ourselves as lucky to be here to experience the roller coaster of life.
If the universe has a cause, then yes, science should be able to explain that causal relationship.
If you have beliefs that would perhaps, after some sort of assimilation and a lack of accommodation on the part of the focal point of such an assimilation, be shown to be commensurable with those of an organized religion... You are attacked. You are told that you are stupid, a moron, illogical, etc etc, subterfuge this, circumlocution that, and blah blah blah.
If you have the ability to TRULY believe something... Which... Even those who blow themselves up I daresay don't have it... Then you must be firmly based... For the only things that can be truly believed are those which are proximal, sure, certain... FEW!
Seems like you have faith in science.
If this were true, if these problems arise from bad thought content, then over thousands of years some group of people would have found the correct thought content and would be living in peace. Other people would see their experience of peace, desire it, and adopt the correct thought content. Over time everyone would jump onboard and we'd be living in utopia.
What we see instead is that the problems which afflict human beings are universal, arising in every time and place. This suggests a source of such problems which is also universal. And so we should ask, what do all human beings have in common? It's on this reasoning that I suggest that the source of these problems is the nature of thought itself, the way it works.
If true, this has huge implications for philosophy. If the source of our problems is thought itself then no collection of thoughts, however clever, are likely to solve the problem. And this is what we in fact see in the real world. The best minds among us all over the world have been searching for the correct thought content for thousands of years, and here we still are, killing each other with abandon, enduring inner personal conflict etc.
Quoting praxis
We try to make "me" very big by a variety of means out of the realistic understanding that it is actually very very small in comparison to the environment it inhabits.
Quoting praxis
Imho, religion is ultimately not about social cohesion, but personal "salvation", by which I mean achieving psychological reunion with nature, reality, god, whatever one wishes to call it.
Imho, such reunion is not technically possible because we have never been divided in the first place. So it's more accurate to say that religion (and other techniques) are about easing the illusion that we are alone, isolated, vulnerable, divided from reality.
Imho, that illusion is generated by the divisive nature of thought. Thought is a medium that operates by a process of conceptual division, and so everywhere we look we see division. The illusion is profound because not only are we observing reality through thought, we ourselves are made of thought psychologically. Thus, we are fully immersed in a medium whose primary function is division.
This might be compared to being born wearing pink tinted sunglasses. Everywhere we go all our lives all of reality will appear to be pink colored. But the pink isn't a property of what we are observing, but rather of the tool being used to make the observation.
Belief based religions might be compared to an attempt to buy bigger pink tinted sunglasses with a stronger prescription. :-)
It's difficult if we want it to be difficult, as we often do.
Most expert commentators on these subjects want it to be difficult and complicated, because otherwise they can't play the role of expert. :smile:
And to be fair, the primary problem most of us face is that we spend way too much time thinking about ourselves, a problem we attempt to solve by thinking about ourselves some more. And then some expert comes along and says, "Our situation is very complicated, we need to think about it in great detail!" and we can't wait to jump onboard because the expert is offering us just what we most want, a reason to think, think, think, more, more, more about me, me, me.
I have this fantasy image in my mind of a real priest (not one of the fakey ones). We take our problems to the priest and he listens patiently. When we're done talking we await his response to all our problems. The priest says, "That's very interesting, thank you so much for sharing your situation". Then he looks at his watch and says, "Oh my, it's time for lunch already, let's go work in the soup kitchen together."
Yes, truth can be hard to take in, hence the function of religion to placate those who can't cope with the world as it is.
Quoting MountainDwarf
It didn't go far enough, and it can't go far enough without ceasing to be Christianity. Fiction spun as fact is at the core of Christianity, and that's a line that myself and many others are not willing to cross.
Can you provide similar evidence for the existence of God as can be provided for the existence of Alaska? Yes or no?
If no, then drop the false analogy. (And be honest, it's a no).
Quoting Ram
Speaking of weak arguments...
Based on the historical evidence I don't see all religions falling under some universal banner of either good or bad, and evaluate each religious belief separately. Like, if someone believes that God created white people to rule over colored people, I would consider such beliefs immoral and absurd. But, if someone believes that giving to the poor is a good thing, then I would support such a belief.
As opposed to what? If you're going to be like that, then how about you put forward [i]your[/I] understanding of God, and I'll tell you what's wrong with it, thereby showing that there are atheists - aggressive atheists even (who here would deny my aggression?) - that aren't tied down to this single straw man notion of God which you've flung in their direction.
If you actually stepped back from your usual schtick of characterising atheists in the worst possible light, and you took a moment to stop and listen to what atheists, such as I, are actually saying, then you might just find that you're mistaken. For example, I've explicitly acknowledged in another discussion on this forum that the concept of God is one of the most variable concepts out there, which is quite the opposite of what you suggest. And that, I think, may have even occurred in the baited 'Magical Sky Daddy' discussion. But then, if this God-as-metaphor contains nothing inherently theistic, then the question you must answer is why should the atheist disbelieve it in the first place? (E.g. God is love, or God is the world). They would be atheists no less. And that would just be empty wordplay.
I meant to say that I don't think it's natural to fear largeness or otherness, as Jake appeared to claim. If this were true then we'd have a natural fear of looking up at the sky, for example. We don't. Many look up at the sky with a yearning to explore the unknown.
Quoting Harry Hindu
Indeed, check out this method: Hallucinogenic Drug Psilocybin Eases Existential Anxiety in People With Life-Threatening Cancer
Quoting Harry Hindu
Maybe not just empowering but increasingly imperative.
“The truth of our faith becomes a matter of ridicule among the infidels if any Catholic, not gifted with the necessary scientific learning, presents as dogma what scientific scrutiny shows to be false.”
? St. Thomas Aquinas
true - add it to a very long list of stuff they got wrong. Which goes alongside another long list of stuff they got right.
That doesn't necessarily make it good. Is the religion of the cave prisoners, the primary meaning of which stems from shadows on the cave wall, good? Good compared to what? That's the question. Good compared to the same situation, but without shadows on the wall? That's understandable. Good compared to breaking free and seeing the world as it is? Much less understandable. Who needs cave shadows when there's a whole world full of natural wonder to explore? Suddenly the significance of cave shadows and the lives of the prisoners seems extraordinarily impoverished.
Elsewhere written:
And you aren't being very clear with us about your notion of God. You've taken the liberty of assigning a God to "Aggressive Atheists", without saying anything at all, in contrast, about your own notion of God. Perhaps we should assign you one. Reading between the lines, presumably your notion of God is your One of Many True Gods that you timidly and quietly believe in believing in, and is always the God of the Moderate Biblical Non-Literalists. Tell us more. Why should an atheist invest significant time and effort into what, I suspect, amounts to speculation or wordplay? Do you think that you've got a notion which doesn't amount to speculation or wordplay? If so, I'd be interested to hear it.
We're not rational beings, Jake. This is not how the world works. We're not necessarily geared to 'live in peace', we're geared to pass on our genes.
For example, I eat pretty well, say fit and maintain an ideal weight, and consequently I'm in good health. Do overweight, unfit and unhealthy people look at me, desire health, and adopt a similar lifestyle to mine? That would be the rational thing to do, but unfortunately we have many ingrained and learned habits to contend with.
Quoting Jake
This is incorrect, measurable progress has been achieved in most areas.
Also, it's not clear what you mean when you refer to "thought." Much of what goes on in the human mind is subconscious.
Quoting Jake
Being a social species it makes sense that we might have an instinctual aversion to being alone, isolated, vulnerable, and divided from reality. For the vast majority of our evolutionary history, expulsion from the tribe meant almost certain death. It's also hard to pass on genes in isolation.
It feels meaningful to be part of something larger than yourself, particularly with people who share your goals and values. Right? What better expression of this natural desire than a religion?
Quoting Jake
All mammals use this 'process of conceptual division' yet not all mammals appear to suffer the consequences you seem to be suggesting. How do you explain that?
But is it accurate? Yes, sadly, for a large segment of the population, I think it is. The willful ignorance and weak rationalisations stand out like a sore thumb to those with the ability to see them for what they are, and some prime examples here in this discussion have been the comparisons that have been made between God and wind or Alaska. These kinds of arguments are typical of the mindlessness I spoke of. They simply cannot have thought them through well, otherwise they'd be aware of the blinding faults and would avoid them like the plague. I've heard and seen these arguments before, most disgustingly in religious propaganda aimed at converting children and simpletons. Occasionally it comes through my door.
Quoting Pattern-chaser
If I put forward an argument as piss poor as the examples that I've pointed to, then I would [I]want[/I] it to be subjected to scrutiny. I would much rather that then a mild mannered pussyfooting around it, leaving me none the wiser or with a lingering attachment. Maybe think some more about what would be the greater disservice here.
Quoting Pattern-chaser
Yes, I understand that. Of course I do. But, notably, that says nothing about whether the respect is deserved. If it requires a mindless or uncritical devotion; a kind of blocking out or sheepish submission; or leaps of logic and faith; then it automatically goes down in my estimation.
Quoting Pattern-chaser
What [I]ad hominem[/I] attacks? The real [I]ad hominem[/I] is your tone policing. Why must my talk of mindlessness be censored? If mindlessness is what it is, then mindlessness is what I'll call it. What else would you call what I've described? Flawless reasoning? A painstaking commitment to impartial rational enquiry? I don't think so. It looks very much to me like the work of a novice with an agenda. It looks like there's certainly an element of mindless commitment behind the scenes.
Harry Hindu quoted me:
.
No, You’re the one making a sweeping blanket-claim. If you claim that there’s no evidence for any of the diverse variety of beliefs that you’re referring to, then you need to establish that for every one of those many diverse beliefs.
.
If I assert that there’s evidence for one of them, then it would be necessary for me to demonstrate that there’s evidence for one of them. But I’m not making an assertion or a claim.
.
But you are.
.
.
No, it doesn’t necessarily. In physics there can be a big accumulation of evidence that gives a high probability that a theory is correct.
.
.
Presumably Harry is saying that there’s no such evidence that can’t be explained by physical science. If that’s what Harry is trying to say, then he’s again repeating his unsupported sweeping blanket claim.
.
As for the word “God”, I’ve been saying that I don’t usually use that word unless I’m replying to someone who has used it, including Fundamentalist Literalists like Harry.
.
Wrong. Not all Theists have approached Harry.
.
But maybe Harry’s changing his story, and now he’s only referring to the beliefs of those relatively few Theists who have approached Harry. That would be an improvement, for which I would commend Harry. …for backing away from his previous claim that the beliefs of all Theists are without evidence.
.
So now, it’s only necessary for Harry to show that beliefs of those Theists in that much more limited set are unfounded. He’d now only have to specify who has approached him, and specifically what their particular beliefs or claims are, and demonstrating that each is without evidence. (…and of course that would include actually demonstrating that each of their beliefs and claims are without evidence.)
.
But that would definitely be more do-able.
.
.
:D
.
.
Then refer to a particular claimer who hasn’t given a definition (…and no, I’m not making a claim or assertion, other than about your vagueness). Or refer to a specific definition, and show that the claim based on that definition is without evidence.
.
In other words, don’t be so sloppy-vague.
.
.
No, I say that the scientific method is valid and useful in the physical sciences. What I criticized is the pseudoscientific method, wherein pseudoscientists who don’t know what science is try to apply science outside its self-defined, self-circumscribed, range of applicability.
.
.
Even in describable metaphysics, there are plenty of things that are outside of “physical” science. (Why are we putting “physical” in quotes. Is physical science not really physical?)
.
.
Science seeks to describe and explain the relations among the things and events in this physical universe. That’s all.
.
Harry is expressing a belief that if there’s God, then God must be an element of the physical world.
.
But is Harry sure that Theists are saying that? Or is that just Harry’s religion.
.
.
Of course, if you define “natural” so broadly that it includes pavement and industrial air-pollution.
.
I doubt that any Theist would say that God isn’t natural.
.
.
Of course. “The supernatural” refers to the contraventions of physical law that occur in fiction, such as movies about vampires, werewolves, witches, and murderous mummies. It’s something that’s only in movies and other fiction.
.
Or, if Harry means something else by “The Supernatural”, then whether there is or isn’t “The Supernatural” would depend on specifically what Harry means by it.
.
But let’s look at what dictionaries say about what the supernatural is. The dictionaries I consulted didn’t give “Supernatural” as a noun. So we can defined “The Supernatural” as “That which is supernatural”.
.
Merriam-Webster’s first definition of “supernatural”:
.
“Of or relating to an order of existence beyond the visible observable universe.”
.
Presuming that all that is physical is potentially “observable” in some manner, then, by the above definition something supernatural would have to be nonphysical.
.
Abstract implications about hypothetical propositions are nonphysical, but they can be “observed” when they’re described, in print for example. So they aren’t the Supernatural.
.
No finite dictionary can non-circularly define any of its words.
.
Therefore, the meanings of words (other than the ones whose meaning can be physically expressed in some sort of physical directly-demonstrative sign-language) are part of The Supernatural.
.
So there indeed is The Supernatural.
.
I haven’t yet mentioned Houghton-Mifflin’s definition:
.
“Of or relating to experience outside the natural world.”
.
In other words, The Supernatural is experience of what isn’t natural.
.
So, of course the next thing would be to look up how Houghton-Mifflin defines natural. Its first definition of “natural” is:
.
“Present in or produced by nature”
.
So now we should find out how Houghton-Mifflin defines “nature”.
.
Houghton-Mifflin’s first definition of “nature” is:
.
“The material world and its phenomena”.
.
I’ve mentioned things that aren’t part of the material world and its phenomena. …such as abstract implications about hypothetical propositions. …which “there are”, in the sense that we can speak of and refer to them.
.
So, by Houghton-Mifflin too, there is The Supernatural.
.
Verdict:
.
By Merrian-Webster, and by Houghton-Mifflin, there is The Supernatural.
.
Sorry if you don’t like that.
.
But, aside from that:
.
I don’t believe that there are contraventions of physical law. If a supposed physical law is violated, then it isn’t a physical law, and it needs to be rewritten or discarded…as has happened in the history of physics. A contravened “physical law” isn’t a physical law.
.
So, if The Supernatural is contravention of physical law, then yes, there’s no such thing as The Supernatural.
.
But I doubt that any Theists would say that God isn’t natural.
.
I’ll take a guess: Maybe by “natural”, Harry means “physical”. Are there things that aren’t physical? Of course. As I said above, there are such things in metaphysics. …such as abstract implications about hypothetical propositions about hypothetical things. And you needn’t quibble about whether “there are” such things. There are such things in the sense that we can speak of and refer to them.
.
.
That’s a questionable statement. There are completely unrelated, separate, mutually-isolated, mutually-independent systems of inter-referring abstract implications.
.
.
As I said, science seeks to describe and explain elements of the physical world in terms of eachother. Period. (Full-stop.)
.
Maybe Harry means that this physical universe is inter-connected and its internal relations are potentially explainable in terms of science. Sure, that’s a reasonable thing to say.
.
.
Religious wars have a way of being wars with material motivation, cloaked in religious justification. (But I’m not claiming that that’s always the case.) But that’s a whole other topic for a different thread.
.
But sure, religions, and conceptions of God, differ so much that it’s ridiculous and astoundingly conceited for Harry to claim that none of those conceptions have evidence, unless he finds out each of them, and then demonstrates that each one of them is without evidence.
.
.
Spoken like a true Science-Worshipper.
.
Harry’s speaking from his devout religious belief, and that’s why it’s not really possible to worthwhile-ly talk to him.
.
:D …anything that’s physically-measurable or physically-observable.
.
Michael Ossipoff
Keep in mind though, that the prototype of man could have already passed, and civilization could indeed be a post-case scenario in which problems like severe depression, schizophrenia, autism, genetic abnormalities, cancer and many other modern afflictions represent the never again attainable closestness to what would be a Utopian society.
Personally I think this 'utopia' was before surplus and civilization.
.
As opposed to other Theisms.
.
.
As I’ve already explained, I’ve amply discussed my impressions, beliefs, and reasons for them, at other threads.
.
If I wanted to argue the Theism vs Atheism issue with you, I’d re-post all of that here for you. But I’ve many times clarified that I don’t argue Theism vs Atheism. To post those reasons to this thread would constitute argument, and I don’t do argument about this matter, because I don’t regard it as a topic for assertion, argument or proof. I’m not interested in proselytizing you.
.
…but nothing’s stopping you from finding those discussions of mine, in those other threads, and then showing us, in this thread, how you refute what I said there. …if you can refute an impression.
.
But if I were to challenge you to do so, that would be arguing, which I don’t do on this matter.
.
I’m at this thread merely to show that aggressive Atheists either don’t know, or aren’t being clear about, what they mean.
.
But, aside from any of that, suppose I re-posted all that here for you, and you refuted it. That would show that you’ve refuted not one, but two Theisms. That would be meaningless and worthless, unless you can demonstrate that there are only two Theisms.
.
Besides, as I’ve many times pointed out, I don’t usually use the word “God”, other than when replying to someone who has used it, including Fundamentalist Literalists like you.
.
.
It isn’t that I’ve flung it in your direction. It’s the One True God of the aggressive Atheists, which they fling every time they fling something.
.
They don’t need my help to do that.
.
.
No, I suggest that you and other aggressive Atheists think that your characterization of Biblical-Literalism applies to all Theisms.
.
.
I didn’t say “metaphor”. Yes, a lot of people, including some Atheists, use “God” as a metaphor. What I said was that I don’t usually use that word (except when replying to those who have used it), because it has an anthropomorphic implication.
.
.
I didn’t say that either. Strictly-speaking, it would be an obvious contradiction to say that mention of God isn’t Theistic, given the meaning of “Theism”. But the use, by many Theists, of allegorical or anthropomorphic terminology doesn’t change the fact that (…at least it’s my impression that…), behind that terminology, lie unexpressed impressions and beliefs that are in common with those of some other people who don’t use that terminology. ..justifying designation of those other people as “Theists” too
.
In other words, in terms of belief (…in spite of many of them expressing dogmatism that I don’t share, or allegorical anthropomorphic language that I don’t share), I have more in common with a Fundamentalist Biblical-Literalist Theist than with someone like you.
.
However, behaviorally, and in terms of manners, arrogance, conceit, and dogmatism, the Mormons on my porch have a lot more in common with you than with me.
.
.
There’s no reason why Atheists should disbelieve the use of “God” as a metaphor. That metaphor is sometimes used by Atheists.
.
At one Science-&-Philosophy forum there was a phony self-designated “physicist” (who later changed into a “population-ecologist” when he was shown to have said something that a physicist wouldn’t say) who said that he believed in “Spinoza’s God”, which, according to him (I don’t know Spinoza) is synonymous with this physical Universe. That’s a good example as the use of God as a metaphor by an Atheist.
.
But yes, maybe some professed Atheists would agree with some non-Literalist Theisms. But I doubt it, because I don’t think any non-Literalist Theisms support Materialism or Science-Worship, a religion believed-in by most Atheists.
.
Michael Ossipoff
A believer might argue that meaninglessness is impoverished.
I would argue that meaning is all around us and we are free to discover and develop it as we see fit. We don't need to be spoon-fed by some authority figure an outdated prepackaged system.
.
1. First, of course I’ve repeatedly said during this discussion that I don’t usually use the word “God”, other than when replying to someone who has used it, including Fundamentalist Biblical-Literalists like you.
.
2. As I’ve already mentioned at least twice in this thread, I’ve amply discussed my impressions, beliefs and reasons for them, at other threads at this forum website. Feel free to find them and refute them if you want to (…if it means anything to speak of refuting an impression). If I were to post all of that here, in this thread, it would amount to argument, and, as I’ve said, I don’t do argument or assertion on the Theism vs Atheism topic. Go for it if you want to, but I’d be arguing if I challenged you to—and, as I said, I don’t argue about Theism vs Atheism.
.
.
Are you sure that I said that Atheists should invest time and effort into my impressions and beliefs?
.
Remember that if you refute my Theism, in addition to that of Fundamentalist Biblical-Literalism, then you’ll have refuted not one, but two, Theisms. Hardly more than a beginning, for your task of refuting every Theism.
.
.
Feel free to find it in other threads if you want to “invest time and effort” on it.
.
Michael Ossipoff
The philosophical dimension of religion is theology; a discipline distinct from philosophy. Philosophy of religion concerns itself with religious phenomena and their philosophical implications, with comparative religion and the general human significance of religious ideas and the philosophical significance of the fact that humans have religious ideas at all, so it is not theology.
Then either A) I'm not an aggressive atheist or B) I am an agressive atheist, but you're mistaken about them, given that I reject other theisms too.
Quoting Michael Ossipoff
I'm not going to hunt around through your comments in other discussions. You should be capable of summarising your own views like you summarised (uncharitably) those of your opponents.
Quoting Michael Ossipoff
If you [I]didn't[/I] want to delve further into the theism vs. atheism discussion, then you shouldn't have begun delving into it by ranting about a kind of atheism.
Quoting Michael Ossipoff
Wrong. There [i]is[/I] something stopping me from doing so: [I]quid pro quo[/I]. As if I'm going to do all of the work for you!
Quoting Michael Ossipoff
Sure, nothing you've said is at all contentious or argumentative. Those comments of yours must have been a figment of my imagination.
You clearly have a stake in this debate and an axe to grind. You haven't done a great job of concealing that fact. Why deny it?
Quoting Michael Ossipoff
And there it is. But you haven't succeeded in your goal. I'm clear that it can mean a variety of things, that it ultimately depends on the theist, and that, withstanding any clear meaning, we could, for argument's sake, talk about, say, this One True God of Fundamental Biblical-Literalists. And why not? Since you have spoken about this God more than any other conception, and you seem unwilling to go into any other conception, even when pressed.
Quoting Michael Ossipoff
Well, for one thing, it would show that I can't be an aggressive atheist, since, according to you, aggressive atheists only have one God which they're concerned with refuting.
And what's this nonsense about refuting "only" two theisms? I don't have to refute [i]every single[/I] version of theism, you silly goose! I'm an atheist until I'm convinced of a different view, which I'm not, as of yet.
A piece of advice: maybe if you put more time and effort into actually understanding the different types and meanings of atheism, and asking atheists about their position, instead of speaking "at" atheists, imposing your characterisations and straw man onto them, telling them exactly what they believe or don't believe, what kind of atheist they are, what they need to refute, and so on, and so forth, then you would avoid running into this problem in future.
Quoting Michael Ossipoff
I'm not a fundamentalist or a literalist. I'm quite happy to get into a discussion of a different kind of theism, and I have attempted to go down that path once already. It is [I]you[/I] who is trying to force the path of fundamentalism and literalism. We wouldn't even be talking about it now if it weren't for you!
Quoting Michael Ossipoff
And this is your favourite subject?
Quoting Michael Ossipoff
Haha! Yeah, except that that clearly contradicts what I've actually said. Gosh, you're really desperate to pigeon hole me, aren't you? It seems to be your [I]modus operandi[/I].
Step 1. Call opponent Aggressive Atheist Fundamentalist Literalist, Materialist Science-Worshipper, or Something Along those Lines.
Step 2. ???
Step 3. WIN!
Quoting Michael Ossipoff
You didn't really say [i]anything[/I]. That's the problem. So yes, I had to do a bit of guess work.
Quoting Michael Ossipoff
And that doesn't really say much either. Out of curiosity, what word [i]do[/I] you use, then? Supreme Being? The One? The Great Holy Non-Anthropomorphic Thingamajig?
Quoting Michael Ossipoff
I know, you didn't say anything.
Quoting Michael Ossipoff
There are two possibilities:
1. They're saying something trivial which amounts to wordplay. E.g. "God is the world". Atheists believe in the world. Therefore atheists believe in God? Therefore atheists are theists? Obviously that's a load of nonsense.
2. They're being sneaky. E.g. "God is the world". (But what I really mean is ________________, which is what distinguishes me from an atheist). Then say what you really mean!
Quoting Michael Ossipoff
All the worse for you!
Quoting Michael Ossipoff
Yes, of course, I'm a dastardadly villain, and you're a white knight. Me bad, you good. You're smart, I'm dumb; You're big, I'm little; You're right, I'm wrong, and there's nothing I can do about it.
I see what you're doing. If only name calling was a substitute for argumentation, eh?
Quoting Michael Ossipoff
Then what's your problem? You were moaning about the only God that aggressive atheists disbelieve being a [i]literal[/I] God. Now you're saying there's no reason why atheists should disbelieve the use of “God” as a [i]metaphor[/I]. What other alternative is there, then?
Quoting Michael Ossipoff
Yeah, and I don't have a major problem with that, I just wouldn't call the physical universe "God", anymore than I'd call it "David Letterman", "Buddha" or "Flying Fish", because it seems silly, redundant and unclear. But sure, call the physical universe whatever you want.
But again, this gets back to: what's your problem, then?
Quoting Michael Ossipoff
Ha! That's funny. You really don't like to concede any ground, do you? You have to get a little jab in there. Sling a little mud.
Of course they would agree, with the qualification that it's just meaningless wordplay. If I call my toaster God, then that hardly makes me a theist for believing that my toaster exists! That's sophism, not philosophy. There's a big difference.
Is that supposed to be a reply to me? Because I didn't say that.
There's something unique to a general concept of religion which distinguishes it from philosophy, whether it's God, ritual, tradition, divinity, worship, faith, devotion, the supernatural, whatever.
To think of a few examples at random - the sacred feminine/motherhood/Mother Mary/Kwan Yin
The Hero's Journey, the hero with a thousand faces.
Suffering/sacrifice/loss
Redemption/salvation/transcendence.
In Jung's terms, these are themes that will surface in dreams, in art, literature and drama - arising from the unconscious or the archetypal domain. You see them in popular culture the same as in the Caves of Altimira.
___
The point I want to make is that in Western culture, due to the emphasis on, and conflicts over, right belief - a.k.a. 'orthodoxy' - the culture as a whole tends to firewall religion off.
Consider as an example the founding charter of The Royal Society, the first scientific society, founded 1660, which said at the very outset, to paraphrase, 'leave metaphysics alone'. This, mind you, was in the aftermath (or was it the midst?) of the 30 Years War, where bands of Catholic and Protestant militia were engaged in unholy slaughter. The turmoil of the reformation and counter-reformation. So the Enlightenment wanted to be quit of all that, and quite understandably so. And I say that modern culture is still living the shadow, often without much awareness of what has happened.
Quoting Simon H
I'm very much a fan of neo-Kantianism and Kant's 'copernican revolution in philosophy'. But I think he lacked the essential dash of mystical insight to complement his brilliant rational analysis of knowledge. I agree with the statement that The Critique of Pure Reason is the key philosophical text of our age. But Kant did not have any hint of 'gnosis' about him, which I think Hegel did. (Now there's a massive can of worms.)
Quoting Janus
I think the key term is not dogma but revealed truth. All of the higher religions claim to represent or have originated with a revealed truth. And one point about a revealed truth is that you're not going to guess it or arrive at it by any empirical process or indeed by any other meanings. Alan Watts says in The Supreme Identity, that all the great metaphysical texts start without preamble, introduction or apology, with a statement of the Absolute; this, he says, goes against all the inclinations of our day, in that we want to proceed stepwise towards a conclusion.
But that is, I suggest, that religious philosophies are radical. They originate (or claim to) with an insight into the fact that nearly everyone, that the human condition, is one of delusion or ignorance. Whereas much of the aim of post-Enlightenment culture is to make the world a safe space for the ignorant. :-)
So in the case of Buddhism, the Buddha proclaimed his 'truth of the origin and end of suffering'. Only later did that become a dogma, which is simply the regular expression of particular philosophical tenets or ideas. In Western culture, I don't know if it's dogma that is so much the problem, but authoritarianism supported by dogma.
I believe the Schoolmen acknowledged that the so-called rational arguments for God's existence were based on faith: "faith seeking understanding".
They might. Or they might not. A parish priest might know nothing else, but a Tantrik Sadhaka might cook a meal on pages of scripture.
What I'm getting at is that most people have a really stereotyped understanding of 'religion' based on the hellfire-and-brimstone Christianity that dominated early Europe. If that is religion, then they don't want a bar of it, and neither would I. But that is something very specific to the way it has been constructed in Western culture.
Quoting Janus
The Buddha, Kalama Sutta, in response to a question from the Kalama people on which religious teachers ought to be trusted.
(I should note, this passage is frequently referenced by Western Buddhists in support of a pretty free-wheeling interpretation of Buddhism. I don't think it is really that, but the emphasis on 'finding out for yourself' is indisputable.)
Again - There is no basis to believe as a matter of fact that God is not. You can not say, as a matter of fact that unicorns do not exist on earth. Simply because no one has seen a unicorn does not make it a matter of fact that they do not exist. If somehow you have scientific proof equal to 2 + 2 = 4, or the world is round - that it is a matter of fact that God does not exist - you would be the first one in history to do so.
There are many reasoned arguments for theism - and many reasoned arguments against - they are all very well know - hopefully you do not need a list. Both positions are reasonable.
Trivial. Just imagine that when I use the word "God" it's whatever word you use instead, which you have yet to actually state. (I'm no psychic).
Quoting Michael Ossipoff
Yes, at [i]other[/I] threads. :roll:
That is of no help.
Quoting Michael Ossipoff
Feel free to come round my house, put on a little maid outfit, and do all of my housework.
Quoting Michael Ossipoff
Right, and I don't do housework. But I'm just going to keep on moaning about the dishes, the dirty clothes, the dusty surfaces, and so on. Go for it and do all of my housework if you want to, but, as I said, I don't do housework, I just expect you to put up with my moaning about it, and when you confront me about it and ask why I don't just shut up and get on with it, I'll just revert back to my complaining and denialism.
Quoting Michael Ossipoff
You didn't say anything. You just made vague suggestions which I'm having to tease out of you like blood out of a stone.
Quoting Michael Ossipoff
Ha! That's not my task. The burden is on the theist. First, I need to be presented with a version of theism. Then I'll examine it. And we can take it from there. I'm content with having never come across a version of theism, in all of my years, which isn't so problematic that it doesn't warrant acceptance. [I]That[/I] is my position.
Quoting Michael Ossipoff
Feel free to present it to me if you want me to invest my time and effort on it.
I was mostly interested in lifting the fact that arguably the most influential philosopher of the enlightenment lifted Christianity right into the heart of its project. Nietzsche makes a scolding remark about this and the romantics in his later writings (I believe it is The Anti-Christ) and makes us aware that all the germans (philosophers) were bottom-and-up pietists.
*Edited my post about secular as I was a bit to generalising*
Quoting Wayfarer
I very much agree with this.
Wow, that's such an interesting idea. It brings to mind identities and communities such as theosophy, yoga, spiritism and spiritualism (also buddhism, taoism and others based on ethics/morals instead of focus on a deity) whose ways are respectable in these modern times and seem to lack antagonism to both the scientific and metaphysical paradigms. They accept all religions; are based on unity (togetherness); encourage personal choice in all matters; and are not focused on expressing the strength of one's convictions, instead, they focus on how better an individual can serve the community after having recognized their personal value first.
Truly an inspired idea.
Since all arguments are based on natural reasoning and evidence there can never be any rational or empirical demonstration of the existence of supernatural being. It is the archetypal object of faith.
Okay. You say they might or might not. So, getting back to the question, if they don't have dogmatic faith in a revealed truth, then how else might they get to a revealed truth? Divine intervention? A miracle? Puh-lease...
Thanks. It makes you wonder, why would anyone discuss those tired old dinosaurs which seem to only bring misery to discussions about religions. There's so much positivity everywhere else, why not direct towards that? What good is all this senseless conflict, I wonder? The Buddha taught, "violence begets violence." Is it not the same here? The more we attack each other the further we go from a resolution. As a philosopher would ask, "where is the sense or integrity in that?"
Ah, so you confuse fact and justification. Thanks for making that clear. There's a fact of the matter, even in the absence of justification for or against.
:starstruck: [Mind-socks blown off!]
Sadhana:
[quote=Wikipedia]Buddhist s?dhana (Japan)
Buddhist s?dhana (Japan)
Shugend? s?dhana (Japan)
Shugend? s?dhana (Japan)
S?dhana (Sanskrit ????; Tibetan: ??????????, THL: druptap; Chinese: ??), literally "a means of accomplishing something",[1] is a generic term coming from the yogic tradition and it refers to any spiritual exercise that is aimed at progressing the s?dhaka towards the very ultimate expression of his or her life in this reality.[2] It includes a variety of disciplines in Hindu,[3] Buddhist,[4] Jain[5] and Sikh traditions that are followed in order to achieve various spiritual or ritual objectives.[/quote]
You see, because Protestant Christianity has made 'religion' a matter of believing the dogma, on pain of eternal hell, then we have collectively walked away. But I am arguing, this is because of deficiencies in the way 'religion' has been understood and practiced from the outset in Western culture. Something fundamental was lost in the tumult which sorrounded the formation of the Christian Churches.
Quoting Banno
About whether there really is a cup in the cupboard, and whether it's really red.
The cosmological argument is, if sound, at most an argument for a 'prime mover'. If we are to have a comprehensive, unified vision of what the prime mover could be, it must encompass and integrate science and all the rest of human experience. Any single "revealed truth' is inadequate; but the range of revealed truths, as showing the ambit of natural metaphysical reasoning is anthropologically relevant to the question.
But, what is 'religion'? There are actually two derivations: one is 'religio', 'attitude of awe and reverence towards the Gods'. But there's also another - 're-ligare', to tie or to bind, yoke or join. 'Religion' had originally many sources; most of what is remembered relates to the former category. But, I would argue, in the latter category, are the sources that flowed from the shamans, from ascetic practices, accessing particular modes of consciousness - the kinds of things that are preserved in Buddhism.
OK, you might say - that's not 'religion'. But if not - what is it? Where does it belong? Who teaches it? Where do you learn about it? 'Western culture' is stuck in this death role of 'enlightenment science' vs 'superstitious religion' which is where a lot of people seem to be.
Yes, we seem to be in disagreement with what a fact is, because in a previous post, you were describing justification when you were supposed to be explaining why there's no fact of the matter, which suggests either that you're confusing fact with justification or you think that fact depends on justification. Both are mistaken.
Let me break down your comment for you to make it clearer:
"Basis to believe": justification.
"There is a God": fact (assumed for sake of argument).
"Unicorns do not exist on Earth": fact (assumed for sake of argument).
"No one has seen a unicorn": justification, arguable.
"If somehow you have scientific proof equal to 2 + 2 = 4, or the world is round - that it is a matter of fact that God does not exist - you would be the first one in history to do so": Misunderstanding - justification not needed for there [i]to be[/I] a fact of the matter, say, that God does not exist. Justification only required for [i]supporting claim[/I] that it is a fact that God does not exist.
I'll leave it at that, as hopefully that'll do. My dispute with you is that you're claiming that there's no fact of the matter. There is. But that's as far as the dispute goes for now, and I want you to understand that. I don't need to provide justification that it's a fact that God doesn't exist, because I'm only going as far as claiming, contrary to your claim, that there is a fact of the matter, one way or the other.
No, it's recognizing the need to include science, since it is the most reliable method of investigating the nature of the real. Science cannot reasonably be excluded; it would be a mistake.Scientism consists in excluding the merely human, the aspects of the manifest dimension of experience that the scientific method alone is not adequate to investigate; of course that is also a mistake.
2 + 2 = 4 is a fact.
the world is round is a fact.
the cat is in fact on the chair
that which is confirmed to be consistent with an observed reality is a fact.
It is not a fact that unicorns to not exist, and no self respecting biologist would ever make such a claim.
Because no one has ever seen a unicorn, does not mean they, as a matter of fact, do not exist. It is possible that in some dark jungle somewhere there are a few unicorns. New species are found all the time - that no one new existed before.
It is, however a very reasonable belief that unicorns do not exist.
If a belief is not supported by logical or empirical evidence, then it must (purportedly at least) be supported by intuition or personal experience. But then it is always your personal intuition and experience, or my personal intuition and experience!
Does your conservatism and penchant for dogma preclude you from "a pretty free-wheeling interpretation of Buddhism"? Or if that is not it, then what is your reason?
Of course you can, and will be (as we all are) governed by your intuition and what you believe your experience shows you when it comes to what to believe in those matters for which there cannot be logical demonstration or empirical evidence; but the point is that all that is merely subjective. What merely seems right to you, the mere fact that it seems right to you, can never be reason for someone else to accept it against their own intuitions and experience. That is why such matters do not belong to philosophical discussion; people just end up talking past one another.
All fine examples of facts.
Quoting Rank Amateur
Yes, but as a definition, that would be overcomplicated and would lead to problems. You'd need a simplified definition which avoids those problems. A fact is just what is the case. A state of affairs. It needn't be confirmed to be consistent with observed reality. Again, that's basically saying that for there to be a fact, it needs justification. No, it doesn't! There can be unknown, unconfirmed, unobserved, unjustified facts! And, as a definition, that would rule out that possibility, which would be a mistake. For example, let's say that there's a galaxy out there that we have yet to observe. That is possible, if not highly probable. And if it is so, then it'd be a fact that there's a galaxy out there, despite it not being confirmed to be consistent with observed reality.
Quoting Rank Amateur
Your mistake here is to fail to realise that you aren't justified in claiming that it's [i]not[/I] a fact that unicorns don't exist. It [i]could be[/I] a fact that unicorns don't exist, even if we can't yet justify that fact! How could you possibly know that it's [I]not[/I] a fact? Have you searched the entire universe for unicorns? You're making the same mistake you suspect of me. The biologist, to follow this reasoning to its logical conclusion, wouldn't say one way or the other whether it's a fact, and for the same reason.
Quoting Rank Amateur
I agree to some extent, as with the historic case of black swans, and then black swans were of course discovered. However, if we know enough about them and their habitats, and we have searched well enough, in all the right places, over a long enough period of time, then we can say that it's very unlikely that unicorns exist on Earth. And that likelihood can be so low that for all intents and purposes, unicorns don't exist. Absence of evidence, in some cases, [i]can[/I] be evidence of absence. If a unicorn would leave traces, which it almost certainly would, then it can be traced. No unicorn traces have been found. Possibility alone is insufficient. What if it were possible, yet 99.9% improbable? That's no good reason to believe that it's a serious prospect, and it's very good reason not to believe that you'll ever encounter a unicorn in your lifetime.
Your belief in God, like a belief in unicorns, is unscientific and requires a leap of faith.
Quoting Rank Amateur
Then, for that same reason, it is a very reasonable belief that God does not exist.
And that also contradicts your earlier claim, because, if it is very reasonable to believe that unicorns do not exist, then it is very reasonable to believe that [i]it's a fact[/I] that unicorns do not exist.
But it's not - it's situated in a domain of discourse. Again - your only modes of interpretation are limited to positivist (empirical-mathematical), or personal and subjective - science, poetry, or an elusive feeling of the ineffable. If it doesn't fit into those categories, then you can't understand it.
Quoting Janus
You're right about that, and I'm tired of trying.
"Can't understand it": how presumptuous you are! If someone disagrees with you it shows a failure of understanding. And yet you seem to be able to offer no cogent arguments to support your assertions; the hallmark of the fundamentalist!
Of course "domains of discourse" can be based on shared personal faiths; I haven't said that people cannot agree with one another about their personal intuitions and experiences. That's just what religions are. The point is that there is no way to logically or empirically demonstrate the soundness or even the coherency of their agreement; and thus it does not qualify as actually corroborable; and thus it is merely a matter of sentiment.
And of course, as usual, you haven't attempted to answer the questions that raise difficulties for your conservative, dogmatic standpoint; and nor do you want to openly admit that it is conservative and dogmatic it seems. All of this is fair enough, but it's not philosophy; it's religion...or politics...
Quoting Wayfarer
If you could provide an actual argument as opposed to mere assertions it would be a start to the process of transcending 'talking past one another". But whenever I present arguments that refute, or at least purport to refute, your position, instead of countering them with argument you become offended, and say I am being rude, or insult me by claiming I don't understand.
The philosophical failure to engage is yours. If you're tired of trying, why not recognize that you either need to try harder or recognize that you are barking up the wrong tree, and just accept your religious beliefs for what they are: religious beliefs. (And as I always say, there's nothing whatsoever wrong with religious belief, but religious belief posing as philosophy is offensive).
A spiritual exercise? Seriously? Then can you please give me an example of a revealed truth that can be gained in this way? Because surely it can't be the kind of things which I at first had in mind when we were talking about dogmatic devotion. I am now thinking that we're at cross purposes, and that your answer will only, in a sense, trivialise what we were talking about. When there was mention of the requirement of dogmatic devotion, obviously that brings to mind, say, that God exists and is our personal saviour. Now, that can't be discovered through spiritual exercise. But I'm certainly not disputing that you can enter a peaceful and profound state of mind, and come to, say, some enlightening realisation about yourself or your view of life, how to live it, and so on. But that's [I]not[/I] the same thing. That's changing the subject.
Modern psychedelic guides could be seen as contemporary shamans. There may be better examples but they at least fill the criteria of being non-religious.
Accessing particular modes of consciousness can be aided by science, and may actually be better suited to the task, at least in terms of efficiency and consistency, and also not constrained by the binding ('re-ligare') effect of religious devotion. You can't transcend if you are bound, and there may actually be a negative incentive to unbind.
Mindfulness and similar secular practices are all over the place these days. There's even secular buddhism: http://secularbuddhism.org
I don't think the picture has as much contrast as you paint it.
No it's not - it's an alternative understanding of the meaning of 'religion', which has been overwhelmed by the dominant narrative.
Sorry but that's bollocks, unless you're talking about people like Jung, and nobody takes Jung seriously outside arts faculties. Psychiatry is a branch of medicine, whose sole aim is, in Freud's words, to 'transform hysterical misery into ordinary unhappiness'. There is no category for this kind of teacher or education in post-Enlightenment culture; why do you think Buddhism has suddenly become popular?
Quoting praxis
The problem here is that science is bound to a worldview in which the universe is essentially meaningless. So meaning itself can only ever be personal or social - it can't have any referent beyond either the individual or the collective.
With due respect, come off it. You interjected in the wrong context to push your own preference that yoga can make you feel all zinged out, maaaan. No one was disputing that.
This was the context:
Quoting Janus
You left out those examples in the bit that you quoted in your reply. You can't get to karma, reincarnation, resurrection, personal God, and so on, from some spiritual bloody exercise. Or do you disagree? If so, I would love to hear how you can get from, say, the mountain pose, to discovering that reincarnation really happens. That just sounds like delusion.
Please provide the names of everyone who enjoys psychological suffering and wants theirs to continue.
If you agree that psychological suffering is universal, then we should be looking for a source that is also universal. Thought content, ideas, concepts, philosophies etc are not universal, they vary greatly.
No, it's also a matter of faith and practice (which are really inseparable). the beliefs associated with religion, taken as propositions (which many fundamentalist apologists and opponents of religion do) are "not even wrong".
It's not that simple, as I tried to explain.
Doesn't everyone want to be physically healthy? It is well know how to go about achieving this, so why are so many people overweight, unfit, and apparently content with less than optimal health?
This seems to be a monstrous irony coming from you!
There is no point in discussing your religion with anyone who doesn't share your particular preconceptions/ beliefs. Discussion with other adherents, whether the religion is Buddhism, Hinduism, Islam, Judaism or Christianity is a part of the theology of that religion, not part of philosophy. Yet within the context of a faith such discussion may be fruitful, but not without it.
Why? Should you only ever preach to the choir, and only ever talk to people that already agree with you? For me personally, I don't find that nearly as fruitful, or time as well spent as sharing differing perspectives. I already know what I think, and personally like to learn new things.
Within the context of faith it is not possible to have significantly "differing perspectives" when it comes to the essential elements of that faith. If you do have significantly differing perspectives from your particular sect, then you will be joining another sect or creating a new one.
Philosophy does not consist in "preaching" to anyone, but rather in seeking to understand or create unified consistent visions of life and reality and then testing them the utmost to see if they are consistent with and explanatorily adequate to the whole range of human experience.
I haven't spoken of essential elements of faith, or advocated for any particular sects, and have rather said that I thought that they all worked. I don't recognize what you suggest. With a proper philosophical dialogue, I could tell you what I think, and you could tell me what you think, rather than the reverse.
What kinds of things would you like to discuss then? Examples?
What do you mean?
I thought you said you like to discuss different perspectives. I was asking for some examples, and an account of how such a discussion might proceed.
Also, why?
I said there was no philosophical point in discussing religious beliefs with those who do not share them. What would be the point of discussing the fine points of, for example, karma with someone who rejects it wholesale. Could it be a fruitful discussion?That was the kind of point I was making and you disagreed with me. You are yet to explain why you would disagree except to say you like to "share different perspectives". What does that mean, and what philosophical interest could doing it have? if you just want to find out what others think, that is doing sociology or anthropology, not philosophy.
I did answer that. You're saying that you should only discuss the finer details of positions and doctrines with people that already agree with you and those doctrines. To always preach to the choir, and I disagree, that isn't what interests me.
Share different perspectives means to talk to people that think different things, because you don't learn anything from just talking to people that think all the same things. Talking about different positions, and perspectives? Discussing different views and ideas about fundamental subjects is what philosophy is about.
Why do you want me to shut up? The reasons you're given are not very good, or cogent.
What I said specifically related to religious dogmas. Sure if you are interested you can investigate other religious dogmas than your own. But there would be no point having a philosophical argument over whether reincarnation or resurrection is true, for example, as such dogmas are taken on faith, and are not supportable by philosophical argument. And there would be no point having a discussion with someone about the fine points of resurrection with someone who believes in reincarnation.
In any case discussions of dogma are theology, not philosophy. So, I still have no idea why you disagreed in the first place. It you can't explain it, then fine, I'm more than happy to drop it.
Quoting All sight
LOL! I didn't ask you to shut up; you responded to my post, and all I have done is explain my position. You, however, have not explained your disagreement.
Quoting All sight
What is "a proper philosophical dialogue" according to you, and what is "the reverse"?
Quoting All sight
Just to reiterate, I am saying that it would be unfruitful to discuss "fine points of positions and doctrines" with those who reject the premises that underpin those positions and doctrines, because you will end up talking past one another, as we have perhaps been doing. I also said that I think philosophy is not about preaching at all, whether to "the choir" or otherwise.
And I'm still not clear what exactly about other people's doctrines and positions interests you. Is it just the fact that they hold them, or are you keen to challenge your own positions and doctrines? The thing is that I think it is fruitless to challenge one's own doctrines if one has already acknowledged that they are a matter of faith; and not of evidence or plausible argument. Positions that are founded upon evidence or upon plausible argument can, of course, and certainly should, be challenged.
I do agree that comparative religion is an important area of study. Although I'm not sure that it or even metaphysics, if based on religious dogma, really qualifies as philosophy; Collingwood's notion of metaphysics is that it is an historical science; the study of the absolute presuppositions upon which various metaphysical systems have been founded.
It's true that many believers do seem to need to discuss their beliefs with those who disagree with them. To me that seems like a form of insecurity; a need to prove to oneself that one's beliefs are absolutely true for all, and potentially capable of convincing anyone, if only they would allow themselves to understand. It's a complex topic, to be sure.
That's true and I agree that such discussion could be constructive for one who has not acknowledged that her beliefs are extra-rational.
Do you really believe that? Of course there's a point, as with discussing [i]any[/I] other beliefs with those who don't share them. What do you think philosophy forums are for, if not the examination of beliefs, whether your own or someone else's which differ from your own.
Oh. Well, you just said "religious beliefs" in the other quote, not "religious dogmas".
“I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending, saith the Lord, which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty”
Surely an early example of a metaphysical argument for an timeless god...
Why is psychological suffering (ie. a shortage of personal peace leading to a shortage of social peace) a universal human condition in all times and places?
Why have a seemingly endless number of philosophies in every part of the world attempted to solve this problem for thousands of years, but never really succeeded?
The theory I am offering to explain the universal existence of suffering and the universal failure of all philosophies to end that suffering is that the source of suffering is not found at the level of the content of thought, but arises instead from the medium of thought itself, a universal property of the human condition.
But, I already said that in my previous post where I pointed out how I don't experience fear, rather I experience curiosity. I just didn't use the word "natural". I think a better word would be, "common". It isn't common to fear largeness or otherness. Some people can have a fear of largeness or otherness, and it would be considered a phobia.
"Faith" isn't an accurate term. Faith is for those where reason does not give the desired results. I used reason to come to the conclusion that science can provide the answers that religion hasn't been able to. Religion has had several thousand years to answer these questions and has only come up with inconsistent answers. Science, however, has only been around for a few hundred years and has already improved the lives of everyone, including people that follow different religions.
Faith is for those who have emotional attachments to their beliefs and where reason provides answers that are not consoling. Having faith is not much different from saying that you have a delusion.
Read the links I provided earlier. In the first one, it states:
Many of your arguments mine begin with ‘I can’t see why......’
Quoting S
No you wouldn’t. What you would like, is to argue about it. Your sole interest here is bating theists. What I’m trying to explain, obviously to no avail, is that your whole grasp of the subject is a culturally-conditioned stererotype, but unless you can drag the debate back to your terms then you have no intetrest n it.
I will try to explain something. You and I have met personally, one of the only such actual acquaintances I have made via philosophy forums, and I thought we got along quite well, and I do like you. But I don't discuss philosophy (or my particular version of philosophy) with any of the people I like in the real world, or not much anyway. They have no interest in it and would likely not understand what I'm on about.
My philosophical interest has been researching the idea of enlightenment or 'spiritual illumination' cross-culturally, through reading, discussion, study, and meditation. My view is that 'spiritual illumination' (and I really don't like the term, but the modern lexicon is notably sparse in this regard) was originally foundational to religion, but that it is easily forgotten. Metaphorically, it is as if it like a kind of essence or elixir which is preserved in a vessel; but soon the elixir is forgotten and only the vessel remains. That is an analogy for dogmatic religion.
Besides, one of the main principles of those who went on to form the Christian church out of the ferment of first century spiritual culture, was the necessity of hammering out a doctrine that promised salvation for all. It deliberately rejected most of gnosticism and the very idea that enlightenment depended on any kind of insight or illumination, because it was associated with 'elitism' and clearly incompatible with the universalising outlook of the Church. (This is one of the reasons why mystics were to frequently run afoul of ecclesiastical authority in the centuries to come.)
Actually there's an article in SEP on divine illumination which conveys some insights about this topic, although in my opinion it loses its way. But its connection with Augustine, and thence neo-Platonism, is important. It commences:
But it's predictable that as soon as anything of this kind is posted on a forum, it's like tossing bloodied meat into the Piranha River. 'See! Divine! Superstitious dogma!' Then off swims the horde in search of the next hapless victim. Regardless, I believe that something of this kind is visible in the annals of mysticism from many cultures, and that it signifies an actual faculty or form of insight. But I do get that not many people understand it, or are interested in it, and that besides its proximity to religion is not welcome in a secular age; as the article on Pierre Hadot notes, 'Hadot acknowledges his use of the term “spiritual exercises” may create anxieties, by associating philosophical practices more closely with religious devotion'. And as Nagel notes, our culture is characterised by a deep-seated 'fear of religion'.
So, my general view is that secularism or the scientific worldview as an outlook on life, is rooted in Enlightenment attitudes which in turn were deeply sceptical of the mainstream religions of the day, Catholic and Protestant. This attitude wants to bracket out any 'questions of ultimate meaning and value' and proceed purely on the basis of what can be ascertained by empirical observation and mathematical reasoning. That, overall, is a description of positivism, which is the overwhelming, indeed only possible, orientation in a secular philosophical framework. The kind of 'illumination' which I think was fundamental to Platonism, gnosticism and many other early philosophies has, unfortunately, become caught up in those polemics, kind of like by-catch.
Quoting ?????????????
:up:
Don't you think we should fear it, or at least regard it with a good amount of caution? Religion can be a powerful tool in the hands of a charismatic leader. A tool that can be used for selfish gain rather than the benefit of its adherents. There are countless examples of this. Once you devalue reason and overvalue faith anything is possible. Subscribing to conspiracy theories and 'alternative facts' can become a sign of solidarity, rather than a sign of madness.
.
I’ve stated the purpose of my participation in this thread. It isn’t to provide religious instruction or explanation to you. ….or to propose or advocate a Theism. Neither is it to argue the “issue” of Theism vs Atheism. …about which, at these forums, only aggressive Atheists are making an issue. I have no idea what motivates you to pursue that “issue” of yours.
.
I’ve merely been letting you know that you aren’t being at all clear about what it is that you’re talking about.
.
”2. As I’ve already mentioned at least twice in this thread, I’ve amply discussed my impressions, beliefs and reasons for them, at other threads at this forum website.” — Michael Ossipoff
.
.
See above.
.
.
What help did you want? (rhetorical question)
.
.
Surely there are other forums where S. could invite people to his house to satisfy his peculiar needs.
.
.
S. seems to want to imply that I’m neglecting an obligation to explain Theism to him, or to argue Theism vs Atheism with him. Above, in this reply, I stated what I’ve meant to say in this thread.
.
.
I said what I meant to. No one asked you to “tease out” anything additional.
.
.
Wrong. If you say that all Theism is without evidence, then it’s your “task” to show that.
.
.
The burden is on whoever is making assertions here about Theism vs Atheism.
.
Here, loud aggressive Atheists are the only ones making an issue about Atheism vs Theism.
.
.
There are Theists who present their version to you, publicly and door-to-door. You’ve been addressing their version. Your error is to believe and claim that your answer applies to Theism as a whole.
.
No one has any obligation to present anything to you about anything that they aren’t asserting to you.
.
.
Good. That’s would be much more modest position, if you can limit yourself to it.
.
.
You’re too kind. But I didn’t ask you to invest your time and effort in it. First you asked me to present it, and then, after that, I invited you to look it up in posting-records if you want to invest your time and effort in it. In other words, suit yourself.
.
Michael Ossipoff
I know what you mean. I tend to think of the term as an established structure, whereby if significantly disturbed will throw the surrounding order out of balance. For instance, we have a natural craving for fat and sweetness. This craving is out of balance with the current availability of fat and sugar today, and our health suffers for it. If this continues we would eventually adapt to it, but for now things are out of balance and we might say the current availability of fat and sugar is unnatural.
You appear to be unwilling to clarify what you mean by 'thought'. Most neural activity is subconscious.
Again I'll point out that all mammals use this 'process of conceptual division' but don't suffer the kinds of psychological issues, such as existential anxiety, that we do. How does this fit with your theory??
Moderators &/or administrators:
The reason why I flagged a post by S. on this page was because it's inappropriate for him to share about and solicit for his unusual needs at a philosophy forum.
Michael Ossipoff
So, you envisage (part at least) of metaphysics as a kind of phenomenology of religion? I would agree with that.
Quoting ?????????????
I have no doubt that is true. Maybe my conception of philosophy is too narrow; but I see it as primarily consisting in developing a coherent worldview. And different worldviews are always based on premises; so I just don't see much point arguing over the fundamental premises. Doing this is what leads the to the interminable intractable debates like realism vs antirealism, free will vs determinism, materialism vs idealism, internaiism vs externalism and so on. My approach is: choose your fundamental premises and develop your ideas from there; so fruitful discussion would be with those who share your starting assumptions.
I thought we got on well too, and I still do. I can engage in heated disagreement with you and still respect you in the morning! :grin:
I think the one area in philosophy where fruitful discussion may be enjoyed with those who have different starting premises is on the subject of the proper ambit of philosophy itself; it's strengths and limitations. I don't mean to be rude in censoring you for holding certain ideas as sacrosanct. I have my own set of sacrosanct beliefs which I never discuss, because i don't believe they are the proper subject of philosophical discussion. My criticism is rather for including such ideas, which are really not up for discussion, in the discussion, not for excluding them.
Quoting Wayfarer
Here's an example: the idea you refer to here (divine illumination) is an article f faith; not something that can fruitfully be discussed in a philosophical context (except perhaps if you were merely discussing the historical development of the idea and its cross-cultural commonalities, or something like that; in other words treating the idea phenomenologically).
I don't think most of what occurs on philosophy forums consists in what I would count as 'doing philosophy'.
For me religious beliefs (the publicly shared ones at least) just are are religious dogmas.
I don't agree; there is voluminous evidence for the reality of such states, trans-historically and cross-culturally. It is a major aspect of neo-Platonism which is in turn one of the main sources of Western philosophy. My argument is that this is something important to philosophy which has become forgotten or rejected. What I am arguing is that this is not 'an article of faith' but because the philosophies that incorporated this insight are regarded as 'religious', then it's categorised that way. And that is the exact issue which I'm trying to articulate in this and many other threads. It is categorised as 'faith' because it is not 'data derived from empirical experience, and logical and mathematical treatments of such data'.
Quoting praxis
Of course. But that isn't what Nagel meant. To provide the often-quoted passage in full:
Thomas Nagel, Evolutionary Naturalism and the Fear of Religion.
Yeah, yeah, I've heard it all before. I asked a simple question. You've made it clear that you'd rather dictate my motives than answer it - a reoccurring problem with you.
And don't pretend that we're so different, you and I. You want to drag the debate in your own direction as much as I do. You hijacked the point that Janus was making to talk about your preference for Buddhism.
I'm just pressing his point, whereas you seem to have seen it as another opportunity for digression, and exploited it.
There is evidence for the experiences, but not that they are actually cases of divine revelation. It could never be conclusively demonstrated whether or not such experiences are caused by divine revelation or brain chemistry. If you disagtee then explain how either could be shown to be the case either logically or empirically.
Oh the irony. In fact, right here in this discussion, you've said quite a bit on atheism vs. theism, yet, bizarrely, you deny to be engaging in that very discussion. Well, whatever floats your boat, I guess.
The rest of your post is filled with deflection and misunderstanding, and I refuse to be sucked into that. That's your problem.
[quote=David Hume]If we take in our hand any volume; of divinity or school metaphysics, for instance; let us ask, Does it contain any abstract reasoning concerning quantity or number? No. Does it contain any experimental reasoning concerning matter of fact and existence? No. Commit it then to the flames: for it can contain nothing but sophistry and illusion.[/quote]
David Stove, under whom I studied Hume, observed that all of these questions could also be asked of Hume’s book, and that the answer would be negative. It’s like the uroboros, the mythical snake that eats itself. ‘The hardest part’, he would always say, ‘is the last bite’.
Environments change. There is no established structure except that things change. Therfore it is natural for environments to change and species to adapt. That whole process is called NATURAL selection. So it would be inaccurate to call some part if that process, "unnatural".
The thread isn't about theism or even atheism. It's a broad question, in which the only demonstrable interest you have is baiting 'theists'.
Until you're willing to address the universal nature of human psychological suffering I don't see the point of further exchanges on this particular topic. Happy to engage with you on other topics where the opportunity arises.
We apparently have somewhat differing views about the nature of this suffering.
No problem, you're under no obligation to do so. I'm just suggesting that the universal nature of psychological suffering seems an important clue which merits our attention. If others don't find this interesting, ok, that's their call.
Quoting praxis
This seems a quite useful and relevant question to the subject of religion, so thanks. I agree, thought has been evolving in the animal world for a long time.
As I see it, religion emerged in response to thought evolving to such a degree in humans that our experience became dominated by abstraction. That is, our focus became increasingly dominated by the symbols in our mind. This took much of our focus off of the real world, thus seriously diluting a deep psychic connection with reality that animals and previous humans enjoyed.
Religion is an attempt to restore that psychic bond. But as we've discussed above, it typically uses thought as it's methodology, the very thing which has broken the bond. And so it's often the case in religion that the harder we try, the behinder we get.
As example, Christianity was intended to unite humans in peace, but before long we're burning each other at the stake for being a different flavor of Christian than we are. We can observe that it's the people most wound up in the thought content, ie. ideology, that do most of the burning.
Thought operates by a process of division. Understand that, and many other pieces of the human story fall in to place.
Hope this response is at least somewhat helpful.
I haven't read the thread, but complex human organizations need glue to hold them together. I think @praxis talked about glue.
We need various things to establish controls, order, hierarchies, meaning, and so on. Religion is one piece among several systems for holding societies together. Just because we are alive in the 21st century doesn't mean that we are different than we were 15 centuries or 150 centuries ago. We still need institutions like religion, law, courts, schools, etc. We still need to make many things, grow food, trade, and what not -- and manage all of that economic activity. And more besides.
The trick with religion is to prevent them from becoming static and irrelevant on the one hand and tyrannous on the other hand. Something in between. Reformations have to happen periodically.
As amusing as that anecdote might be, I'm afraid I can't see the relevance; could you explain?
There are way too many full-time professional religious apologists making lots of $s trying to talk their respective deities into existence, catering to adherents' confirmation biases.
Heck, they've been at it for centuries on end.
What better place to show them the door than the Philosophy of Religion sub-forum? ;)
[quote=Thomas Nagel]It isn't just that I don't believe in God and, naturally, hope that I'm right in my belief. It's that I hope there is no God! I don't want there to be a God; I don't want the universe to be like that.[/quote]
Who in their right mind would want the universe to be like that? The Bible, for example, sounds every bit like a story developed by human beings, so it’s like God is designed by human beings. I wouldn’t want a God designed by human beings!
This is a disappointing notion by Nagel, I must say, that within atheists lies a deep-seated fear that there may actually be a sky father. Children may fear the monster under the bed but in maturity they usually come to understand the nature of such fears and outgrow them. There may be a God or designer, but I seriously doubt it could be anything even remotely like a human could even begin to conceive.
Is that what Darwin did? How does one accomplish anything without purpose?
Quoting Jake
The problem here appears to be that you're pointing to the 'process of conceptual division' as the cause of human psychological suffering (or a diluted deep psychic connection with reality) and fail to acknowledge that mammals use the same process of conceptual division but don't share the same affliction. All mammals distinguish things in the same basic manner that we do. The issue must be something unique to humans besides simple conceptual division, right?
I don't fail to acknowledge this, and already have done so above. Perhaps I didn't make this clear enough.
My theory is that thought has been evolving in animals and primitive humans for a long time, and continues to do so today. This evolution involves a long slow gradual shift of focus from the real world beyond our minds, towards the symbolic realm within our minds. As example...
I've gone to a lot of trouble to travel to the beach for a vacation, and now I'm walking down an empty gloriously beautiful north Florida beach. My body is there, but my mind is still here on the forum going blah, blah, blah. I'm lost in thought. And so while I'm on the beach, I don't really see it, don't really experience it. And so my psychic connection with reality is diluted, broken.
My theory is that at some point in human history this "lost in thought" experience became dominant enough that the loss of psychic connection with reality became problematic and we began looking for solutions, and religion was invented. Religion personalized reality in the form of a God to make it more relatable, and the focus became "getting back to God", or re-establishing the connection with reality.
As example of the connection with reality, consider your dog with his head out the window as you drive down the road. You're lost in thought to a significant degree as you drive, but your dog is totally in the moment, his focus is right here right now, in the real world.
Actually, the Jehovah character seems remarkably similar to nature. He's both a gloriously beautiful giver of life, and an utterly ruthless killer of the innocent, just like the real world is.
And what is the rational relationship to have with such a character (theism) or with such a reality (atheism)? The rational relationship is to make peace with this situation, to love it with all your heart if you can, because it's way to big to change so there's no point arguing with Him, or if one prefers, It.
The rational person doesn't waste a lot of time in the God debate, but instead picks which ever system one can best relate to, and then focus on the falling in love part.
The bottom line question for all humans, religious or secular, is that we are here in this place for a very short time, so how do we want to experience it? The rational answer is to embrace this place and love it, by whatever method works best for us.
Allow me to explain. This discussion is about religion. The comment that you chose to reply to made a specific point about how religious people can get to karma, reincarnation, resurrection, a personal God, and that kind of thing. The suggestion was that these kind of things require dogmatic faith.
My interest, which I have demonstrated by pursuing the point in multiple comments, and in spite of your red herrings, is whether you or anyone else here disagrees, and if so, the reasons behind that disagreement.
If that is "baiting theists", then so be it. There's nothing wrong with my line of enquiry. It's on topic and appropriate. Yes, I have a combative and critical style. Get over it. If your thoughts and justifications for religion can't withstand that kind of exposure, then they can't be of much worth, philosophically. I'm done explaining myself. I shouldn't even have to. Either answer the question or do not, but stick to the topic. This is not the place to speculate about malicious intent. In future, please either keep those kind of thoughts to yourself or at least express them somewhere more appropriate. Thanks.
Then why are you posting here? The topic asks for how we feel about religion, and you clearly feel it is a waste of time. For you. Fair enough. But if all you can do is to insult those who believe, there will be no constructive dialogue here. Or, at least, not with you. Which is a shame. :fear:
If you think philosophical matters are best addressed combatively, then we must disagree. Discussion is a co-operative consideration of matters concerning (in this case) religion. It's not a fight (combat), or it shouldn't be if we hope to gain the most benefit from our discussions.
Quoting S
You proclaimed your own combative attitude. It seems a bit much to object when someone else calls you out for it. Your attitude isn't helpful. You simply seek to ridicule a topic that you cannot support, or see any benefit in. Fair enough: don't participate. :roll:
Why am I posting here? To express my views in an environment whereby they can be subjected to intellectual scrutiny, and to challenge the views of others.
What has my statement - a true statement, I'd argue - that a large segment of the population unthinkingly give the main tenets of religion special treatment, got to do with why I am posting here? Again, whether it's insulting or not, that's secondary to whether or not it's accurate. This is a philosophy forum, not a tea party. Speaking the truth should take precedence over hurt egos. If your bum looks big in that dress, then, whilst we're here, and so long as it's relevant to the topic, I'm going to tell you so, whether you like it or not. That's much more constructive than telling a white lie, but if you'd rather keep up appearances than get to the heart of the matter, then that's the real shame. If all you can see is someone hellbent on insulting for the sake of insulting, then look harder.
Quoting Pattern-chaser
If you want to cooperate, then stick to the point and be more combative. Then we might get somewhere.
Quoting Pattern-chaser
I didn't object to that, I objected to his bad habit of going off into an ad hominem, making it about my motive - or rather, what he suspects to be my motive - and such.
There's an important difference, on the one hand, between speaking bluntly and remaining on point, even if some might find the language I use insulting, and on the other hand, going off on one in a disapproving manner about my tone or what you suspect to be my motive, when that's completely off topic. You're guilty of this too, by the way.
May I remind you, and all to whom it may concern, that the topic is actually religion, not me.
Yes, simple insults achieve nothing. :up:
Quoting Rank Amateur
I can't disagree! :wink:
There isn't one bit of evidence - in a strictly scientific sense, which is how you meant it, I think? - for the existence of God. Not one bit. If you think attacking the Objective existence of God is relevant to an investigation of religion, you don't understand religion or God.
And, to be even-handed, if you are a believer, and you assert the Objective existence of God, then the same applies to you too.
God is about different things to different people. God is an impression, an inspiration, a role model, and so on. Religion is a belief system. It is not based in science, or on science, which is fine. God is not an Objective concept. Neither is religion. If it is important to you, or to anyone reading this, I (as a believer) am happy to agree with you that God and religion cannot be Objectively or scientifically justified. There is no such justification, as far as I know. And this does not devalue God or religion in the slightest.
Agreed. :up: But we do have a tendency to think, speak and act so as to establish ourselves as separate from 'nature', even though, as you say, we are not. But because we work so hard to convince ourselves of this odd notion, our very efforts require consideration. We need, if we can, to accept that we are all interconnected, and that we are part of everything else, not distinct from it. But that's ought, not is. What is is that we consider ourselves apart from the rest of nature. Why do we do this, I wonder? Is it wrong of us to think this way? If so, in what way? Perhaps there's a good reason for us to act this way, although I can't think of one. Let's not just dismiss this attitude; let's try to understand it. Maybe then we can reach useful and helpful conclusions.... :chin:
If all you can do is to insult those who believe, instead of addressing that which they believe, then all you can hope to achieve is to make entrenched beliefs more entrenched. It's a human thing. :roll: If you are here to persuade, then express your thoughts about the message, not the messengers. If you are here to browbeat others with your superior views, go ahead; you're doing great! :confused:
I don't think they are cheap shots, and I don't think they're indirect either. :up: Address the beliefs, please, instead of insulting believers. That would be nice. :smile:
It isn't. But it seems as though you're determined to mischaracterise me in that way.
I have done so, but you let yourself be distracted by my choice of terms.
Then perhaps you could choose terms which do not characterise believers (not their beliefs) in such a negative way? Attacks on believers are distracting. They distract from our consideration of their beliefs. So yes, I let my self get distracted, as you intended, when you started insulting those who believe.
You say "I have done so", but your words, particularly those you use to describe believers, say otherwise.
I choose whatever terms seem best fitting at the time, and I intend to continue with that method. I have no intention of adding a filter to protect vulnerable egos from having to face up to the possibility that everything might not be so hunky dory. That would be anathema to getting to the truth of the matter, come what may.
If you see criticism of belief as personal attack, if you see telling it as it is as going out of your way to insult, and if you allow yourself to become distracted because you do not have thick enough skin, then these are your problems for you to work on. Don't put that on me.
Going back to the original point I made, the wording of which you objected to, do you actually have anything of substance to say about that? Or did you just want to cry about how offensive you find my choice of words? If the shoe fits, accept it. What good will relenting achieve? Is it just virtue signalling? You feel duty bound to defend the vulnerable? Heaven forbid we draw attention to the unthinking mindset of the dogmatic devotee! Thou shalt not address the elephant in the room.
i am, and always have been in complete agreement with this point. Yet again it is not a matter of fact that unicorns are or are not. And it is not a matter of fact that God is or God is not.
Quoting S
Seems a restatement of my point that it is reasonable to believe that unicorns do not exist -
Quoting S
This is in conflict with science - in science absence of evidence is only absence of evidence - the rest to this paragraph is using reason to believe a truth that unicorns do not exist - which is fine, but not science. It is reason, not fact.
Quoting S
Agree - and have never said my theism is supported by science. And the same can be said of any claim that God does not exist can not be supported by science.
Quoting S
I have never said anywhere that atheism is not a reasonable position, as is theism - both have reasonable arguments, neither argument has been shown to in conflict with fact.
It seems we are violent agreement on many things - other than your belief that theism in unreasonable. I have not seen, or if you have I don't remember any supported argument you have made yet that theism is an unreasonable position.
Really all of the hatred and name calling is just control. Not reason, it's checking what one dare think and feel, precisely because they abuse themselves into their constitutions, and wish to do the same to you.
I see criticism of believers as personal attack, which it is. If you have anything substantive to add to the discussion, go ahead. So far, all I have seen is you being rude about those who believe....
If I have criticised believers, I have only done so on the basis of what they believe, and how they ascertain those beliefs. It is hardly a personal attack to claim that a large segment of the population ascertain certain religious beliefs in an uncritical manner, through dogmatic faith, which is just a different way of saying what I said originally.
You have turned a molehill into a mountain. It is you who is digressing away from the substance of my remarks, which you have avoided getting into, choosing instead to focus on your own outrage at the wording.
Bravo. I'm now going to be the bigger man and end my part in letting this tangent get out of control.
Incorrect. Reincarnation follows from the Eliminative Ontic Structural Subjective Idealism metaphysics that I've been describing here.
There have been objections to that metaphysics in these forums. Those objections always end when the objector is asked what he means by "Objectively Real", "Objectively Existent", "Substantial", "Substantive", or "Actual".
Michael Ossipoff
And isn't that the whole point for aggressive Atheists? Abuse is the purpose, not the result, of their evangelistic Atheist zeal.
Some people have a need for proving themselves to be More-Scientific-Than-Thou. So, latch on to the Materialist dogma, and then, having cloaked oneself in that official holy mantle, one entitles oneself to abuse those who don't share that belief.
Michael Ossipoff
This is self-contradictory. Making reality relatable via a theistic narrative is a step removed from reality.
But at least you seem to have moved from pointing to the 'process of conceptual division' as the core issue to that of being 'lost in thought', so we appear to be making progress.
We're neurologically distinct from other species in the development of what is known as the DMN (default mode network). It's believed to be the neurological basis of the self and is active when "lost in thought."
When this network is less active, such as in 'task-positive' activities, our sense of self diminishes ("re-establishing the connection with reality").
Sounds like a bad after school special to me.
We think, speak and act as if we were separate from nature because that's how we experience our existence. And that's just the beginning. We experience ourselves as being separate from ourselves. Consider the expression "I am thinking XYZ". The thinker and the thought are experienced as two different things.
It's this perceived division within our own minds that allows us to argue with ourselves, to suffer. It's this perceived division within our own minds which is the well spring of religion. We feel divided within ourselves, and divided from everything around us. It's that experience of division which makes us feel isolated, alone and fearful (the fear is typically buried beneath a mountain of distractions) and causes some to try to "get back to god", that is, achieve a reunion with something larger than ourselves which feels like it might be at the heart of our existence.
All this division experience is generated by the nature of thought, by the way it works.
1) That's why the experience of division is universal, because thought is universally present in all humans.
2) That's why no philosophy is history has succeeded in overcoming the division experience, because all philosophies are made of thought, the source of the perceived division.
The best that philosophies can do is point to experiences outside of philosophy. That can be useful, but what typically happens is that users wind up worshiping the philosophy which is pointing to elsewhere, instead of what the philosophy is pointing to.
If we want to understand religion and most other human endeavors, the place to start is in understanding the nature of what we're all made of psychologically, the electro-chemical information medium we call thought. Everything else is basically just symptoms.
Religion is not science. Religion is not about facts about reality. This common misconception condemns most discussions of religion on philosophy forums to irrelevance.
Religion is about our RELATIONSHIP with reality.
Most human beings are not abstraction obsessed nerds such as ourselves. Many or most human beings will find it easier to fall in love with reality if it is presented in the form of a familiar human-like character. The evidence for this is that the God character has dominated many cultures around the world for thousands of years.
Falling in love with where we find ourselves is a rational act.
Quoting praxis
I'm sorry to report we are making no such progress. :smile:
Yes, adamant atheism is little more than a replication of some of the worst properties of religion, posed as a revolutionary new product. However, most adamant atheists sincerely don't understand that what they're selling is no more rational than theism. And once they've staked out a big public ego position, they typically can't afford to understand.
Agreed. And it's equally true that a large segment of the population clings to certain atheist beliefs in an uncritical manner, through dogmatic faith. Faith is the human condition, not the religious condition.
Go ahead and say it the way you want to, Jake:
No, they just kind of make sense of some things like (possibly) suffering and why people abuse power.
Quoting Janus
Religious positions attempt to explain the mysteries that science doesn't touch on. They are in essence pre-scientific answers that are easily reinterpreted by modern findings. To me, evolution doesn't cancel out divinity.
... I can't believe so many Christians believe that God created the world in 6 literal 24 hour periods. Have they ever taken biology?
You might have just lead me to my next thread question. Thanks.
You know, I don't think that's all religion does. People are given ethical codes to live by through religion. And no, I'm not saying that people can't be moral without religion. Creating religions are fun too. Just to see what kind of stuff you can come up with.
Quoting S
Quite the LaVeyan statement. The reformers knew Christianity would have to change with time. Search semper reformanda in Google.
I would agree. I wrote a paper in my intro to philosophy class about Thomas Aquinas being a theologian rather than a philosopher.
You will find it exceedingly difficult to shoehorn me in to the God debate, should that be your goal here. :smile:
My claim would be that it doesn't really matter whether we call it "reality" or "God" or something else. What matters is what relationship we have with where we find ourselves.
This is the same nonsense I read in the "Gender" Identity thread - that gender is subjective and means different things to different people. The problem is that no one is being consistent, which just means that concept ("god" or "gender") is meaningless. When there is no consistent definition of some term, then we have essentially defined that thing as nothing other than a "feeling".
I have inspirations, role models, experience wonder, etc., but I don't call those things "god". I call them "inspirations", "role models" and "wonder". All you and believers are doing here is taking a concept for which we already have an agreed-upon term and then making up your own term and using that instead for no reason other than to alleviate your own existential turmoil.
We consider ourselves apart from nature because we consider ourselves as specially-created by some omnipotent entity. It's like our belief that Earth was the center of the universe at one point in our history. Science has shown in both cases that Earth is not special, and humans are not special. Earth is one planet among an uncountable number of start, galaxies and planets, hidden away in a distant corner of the universe. We are just one species out of millions on the evolutionary tree that continues to grow new branches while pruning others.
We are part of nature - as is everything (even a god, if one existed). We are all interconnected by causation. I have defined meaning/information as the relationship between cause and effect. Meaning surrounds us and is created every moment. We create meaning. Meaning/information is everywhere and seems to be the very substance of reality (or maybe it's processes/relationships).
Nature is the same as reality. There is only one, and if there are others and they do not interact in some way with ours, then what really is the point in wondering about them? God and heaven/hell would be in a causal relationship with our universe. What we do here has an effect on what happens in heaven/hell and vice versa. It is all interconnected and therefore one reality. There is no supernatural because that term implies that nature comes prior to the supernatural, when theists claim that God existed prior to the universe (inconsistent). The universe is seen as something temporary within this reality, whereas God and heaven/hell are eternal, but it is all still part of the same reality. Even though the universe may disappear, what happened here will have an effect on what happens for the rest of eternity. So the universe can't be temporary when its effects continue to influence eternal time. We can even say the same about ourselves. Even though our "existence" is "temporary", we continue to exist through the effects we had on the world - for the rest of eternity.
At the end of the book, Childhood's End, one of the Overlords is trying to comfort Rodricks when he begins to contemplate his death. The Overlord says to him in a affirming tone, "You existed." - as if to say, "Take comfort that you got to take part in this and that nothing, not even the infiniteness of time, can deny the truth of your existence." That is kind of what it is like for me. That is how I alleviate my existential fears. I look to truth - not delusion.
I think it means that the concept - "God", in this case - is not well defined. Not undefined, but only not defined precisely. There are very many such concepts. Quality, beauty, consciousness, and so on. These terms are vague and ill-defined, but they are not meaningless. Our challenge is to learn how to deal with such concepts. ... Or we could take your route, and dismiss or ignore them. Maybe they'll just go away if we do...? :confused:
Lol. That's quite a mouthful. Do did you come up with that yourself?
Why do you feel the need to keep making these comparisons? You could create a discussion titled, "How do you feel about atheism?", and we could discuss it further. But this discussion is supposed to be about religion.
As for faith, it has an obvious link to religion, and a greater link to religion than atheism. Most people who don't believe in God, don't believe in God because of the lack of compelling evidence, yet most people believe in God through either faith or erroneous reasoning.
I agree, but it's one of its functions.
Quoting MountainDwarf
Okay, but as you acknowledge, one doesn't need religion for that, so that function is redundant.
Quoting MountainDwarf
It means, "The church must always be reformed", and although I think that that's a step in the right direction, I can't see how it could ever go far enough in that direction without losing its foundation. My disagreements with Christianity go right down to the roots.
Yes, it's weird, isn't it? A sort of nonsensical halfway house for people who don't believe in God, but who can't quite let go.
This misunderstanding is why I keep making the comparison.
Why shouldn't that kind of thing be dismissed? If I were to use the term "consciousness" to refer to my armchair, then it would likely get in the way of sensible discussion about consciousness. People would find it weird and would question why I don't just refer to my armchair with a more suitable term, like, say, "armchair". I would have to keep explaining myself all the time, as people would expect a different meaning. It would likely become a problem, and the people trying to have a serious discussion would probably find it annoying, and yes, they might well ignore me and want me to go away.
This is just another example of special treatment. In any other context, I doubt you would be cutting as much slack. But because it's talk about God, you're more sympathetic and lenient. Is that not a reflection of bias?
But, given the lack of evidence, which you cite in the same post, it must be the case that "most people do not believe in God through either faith or erroneous reasoning." For there is no compelling evidence, as you observe, to believe or not. To stand apart from a conclusion, and neither believe nor disbelieve, is logical, and consistent with the (lack of) evidence. To believe or disbelieve must be a faith position, given the lack of evidence.
The "erroneous reasoning" you refer to is to draw a conclusion when there is no basis for one. And it applies to all except agnostics, I think. :chin:
So, if a survey was conducted about what word comes to mind when the word "faith" is mentioned, you don't think that words like "religion" or "God" would be very close to the top of the list? Would the word "atheism" even make the list?
There's a reason for that, don't you think?
Yes, those links are of exactly the same strength as each other. :up:
No, they're quite clearly not, actually. Why is there a name for the reliance upon faith in religions thinking, fideism, yet atheism is just called atheism?
Enthusiastically agree, except to quibble that we do have evidence. The best minds among us have conducted an extensive God debate inquiry over thousands of years and have developed evidence of something important. Nobody can prove anything on this topic, no matter how smart they are, or how hard they try. We are ignorant.
So we should believe. We should believe in what the investigation has uncovered, because the evidence for our ignorance is very compelling.
The next step in being logical would be to look for ways to make constructive use of the ignorance we've discovered. Imagine some miners who were searching for gold but instead found silver. The rational miner says, "Ok, this silver is not what we were hoping to find, but here it is, and there's tons of it, so how can we profit from it?"
An atheist who asserts the non-existence of God is occupying a faith position, in exactly the same way that a believer who asserts the existence of God is occupying a faith position. Both assertions lack evidence to support them. So the link between atheism and faith is exactly as strong as the link between theism and faith. Because it is the same link, existing for the same reason.
What? Why must it?
Quoting Pattern-chaser
No, that's not an observation that I have made. I said that most people who don't believe in God, don't believe in God because of the lack of compelling evidence. What you're saying is different, and wrong. There is compelling evidence to not believe in God, and that consists in the absence of compelling evidence to believe in God. What more do you need? It doesn't need to be disproved.
Quoting Pattern-chaser
It's not logical to refrain from disbelief in light of the lack of evidence. And that can't rightly be characterised as involving faith. The word "disbelief" is even defined as a lack of faith on Google's dictionary.
Quoting Pattern-chaser
No, it can apply to agnostics as well. But yes, taking an overly strong position either way can indeed stem from erroneous reasoning. That's why I am not a strong atheist, except in those cases where that stance is justified, of which there are some. And that's why I'm not a theist.
Haven't we been doing this for a while? Those proverbs that tell how the wiser someone is, the less they claim to know, reflect this, I think. Those of us who have given the matter any serious amount of thought have, I think, come to this conclusion. :up: In the end, I think the antidote to this ignorance is the obvious one: learning. To counteract and overcome ignorance, we must learn. :smile: :up:
Yes, there is a reason. Public atheism is a much younger enterprise than religion and has, generally speaking on average, not yet matured to the point of understanding that it too is based on faith. This is particularly true in younger commentators, for understandable reasons.
Here's how the process often works...
1) First, a sincere misunderstanding.
2) Next, the ego is attached to the misunderstanding.
3) Finally, any new information which might threaten that ego position is automatically rejected, leaving the user trapped in the misunderstanding.
The same thing often happens on the theist side (where it's easier for the atheist to see).
If that satisfies, you, go with it. Personally, I find your position lacks rigour.
You might be preaching to the choir here. I'm not denying that atheists can do the same thing. However, that doesn't mean that the link is just as strong with one as with the other. Faith has a much bigger role in religion, and it is much more prevalent in religious thought. That shouldn't even be seen as controversial. It's not controversial. It's widely accepted, and one almost can't help but notice and readily make that connection.
Oh dear, I was with you until the last sentence. At least from the Fundie Agnostic perspective, the discovery of ignorance (on questions the scale of theist and atheist claims) isn't an obstacle to overcome, but a gift to be embraced.
The "regular agnostic" perspective typically accepts the core assumption of the God debate, that the point of the inquiry should be to move towards "The Answer", and thus further learning is suggested as part of that process. Ok, I'm not at war with this, to each their own etc.
I'm just suggesting there is another way to look at it. Instead of working within the assumptions that form the foundation of the God debate, the God debate and all it's assumptions can be discarded. Why keep looking for The Answer? Why not accept the results of the investigation (we are ignorant) and work with that?
I'm not confident that you actually understand my position. In what way do you think that it lacks rigour?
That could be the wisest advice.
If we are to proceed along these lines we should learn from S whether he would prefer his perspective be respected and left alone, or whether he would welcome the opportunity to see it ripped to shreds.
Fair Warning: If you are unable to be a theist, and if we demolish atheism, you will be left with nothing. I would argue that is a good thing, but this perspective is not widely shared. Your call.
Quoting S
Well, you argue...
Quoting S
...that absence of evidence is evidence of absence, so I'll stick with my conclusion for now. Your position lacks rigour, and more seriously, it lacks correctness.
:smile: I acknowledge that the realisation and recognition of our ignorance is a gift. But ignorance itself? I'm not sure about that. In what way, other than achieving knowledge of our own ignorance, can ignorance be seen as a gift? :chin:
Edited to add: I just realised you said that the discovery of our own ignorance is a gift, which seems to align with what I'm saying (above). Have I misunderstood you?
Haha, do you think that you can rip my position to shreds? Do you think that you can demolish [I]my kind[/I] of atheism? If so, then be my guest. But, some advice in return: first ensure that you understand my position.
I don’t get people who are black and white yes or no on this question. How can anyone be certain about a question like this?
But do you realise that I was talking about evidence to not believe in God, which is not incompatible with agnosticism? I haven't tried to justify the conclusion that there is no God, although that can be done in some cases. Impossible concepts of God do not actually exist any more than square circles do.
I would add qualifications to, "absence of evidence is evidence of absence", so that phrase, in itself, does not accurately represent my position, which, as I suspected, you have not adequately understood. Absence of evidence [I]can be[/I] evidence of absence. In some cases, it is. But we'd have to go into more detail.
Yes, I can. So can Pattern Chaser it appears. But we can't detach your self image from atheism. And if that is necessary, then nothing will be accomplished until that task is completed.
Quoting S
If demolishing is really what you want to explore, start a new thread making that explicit request. Otherwise, I'm going to try to be wise like Pattern Chaser and leave you in peace.
No?
Quoting S
It looks to me as though that's exactly what you have argued. I'm sorry if I have misunderstood your position. It seems so clear.... :chin:
Bloody Hell! :rofl:
No. But it seems that I was right to suspect that this was your misunderstanding.
Quoting Pattern-chaser
Where does it conclude that there's no God? :brow:
That's basically why I consider myself an agnostic.
It's actually a bit more complicated. When it comes to the named deities of monotheistic religious tradition: Yahweh, Allah and Vishnu, that crowd, I'm an atheist. I believe that none of these figures corresponds to anything in reality. (I can't 'prove' it though.)
But when it comes to the metaphysical functions associated with natural theology: first-cause, ultimate ontological ground of being, source of cosmic order, why there is something rather than nothing, and so on, I have to admit that I don't have a clue. I think that agnosticism is probably the strongest and most justifiable position to take on these kind of issues, but in real everyday life we are often forced to stick our necks out a lot further.
Pattern Chaser: "Both assertions lack evidence to support them. So the link between atheism and faith is exactly as strong as the link between theism and faith. Because it is the same link, existing for the same reason."
I'd define 'faith' as willingness to commit to the truth of a belief in the absence of sound justification for the belief's truth. And I think that religious or not, we do that every day.
Atheists often like to associate themselves with science. (As if some of science's prestige might rub off on them.) But it seems to me that science is hugely faith-based. It believes in the existence and universal applicability of things called 'laws of physics', it believes that these 'laws' (the religious origin of that idea should be obvious) will hold true into the future and not be repealed a second from now (problems of induction). Justification for belief in these laws is typically just a small set of experimental results consistent with the hypothesized law. Physicists fill chalkboards with obscure hieroglyphs, without much concern with what mathematics is, what its foundations are, how human beings know about it in the first place, or what it's precise relationship is to physical reality. Everyone is proud of their use of logic and their employment of reason, without much interest in what justifies these things. (How could logic be logically justified without circularity?) They trust that their sensory experience provides true and reliable knowledge of the external world...
I don't think that human beings could life their lives without faith in this sense, faith in many of these kind of fundamental propositions.
No, those are accepted terms for describing metaphysicses,
Michael Ossipoff
Okie dokie. Anyway, I have bad news for you. If reincarnation follows from the Eliminative Ontic Structural Subjective Idealism metaphysics that you've been describing here, then, off the bat, there must be something wrong with the Eliminative Ontic Structural Subjective Idealism metaphysics that you've've been describing here, because reincarnation is just a fiction.
I find the agnostic position the weakest. At its base it is not saying they are un convinced of either theism or atheism - at its base it is saying the large questions you asked above, answered by either theism of atheism are not important enough to take a side on. For some the questions demand taking a position, for some they do not. But it is the questions, not the answers that are at the base of being agnostic.
Quoting yazata
The true faith under science is the believe that science is capable of answering all possible questions. At its base is really a belief that humans are capable of answering all possible questions. Stepping into theology, this is original sin.
How is it a position of faith to assert that God doesn't exist if that assertion is based on a sound argument? And that's not just a hypothetical. Here, I'll demonstrate:
Assertion: God, as per certain definitions, doesn't exist.
Argument: God, as per this definition, is a powerful being which is omniscient, omnibenevolent, and both everywhere and nowhere. A being can't be both everywhere and nowhere. Therefore God, as per this definition, doesn't exist.
Ta-dah!
No, science isn't faith-based. Science-Worship is faith-based. ..the faith-based belief that Science explains, applies to, and covers all.
And the metaphysics called "Materialism" is faith-based. It's based on belief in an unsupported, unverifiable, unfalsifiable and unnecessary brute-fact.
Materialists believe that this physical universe is all of reality. That suggests that, definitionally, all Materialists are Science-Worshippers, and that all Science-Worshippers are Materialists.
...applicability only with regard to physical things and events in this physical universe. And, even then, physicists aren't even sure if the same physical laws that apply in this part of the universe apply in other, distant, parts of the same universe.
...or if they really even apply in our region of this physical universe. ...because subsequent experiments might result in overall results better explained by different physical laws.
No it doesn't. It's reasonable for particular physicists to believe that currently accepted physical laws won't be overturned. ...or at least won't be overturned anytime soon. But there's so systemwide assumption that all currently accepted physical laws will apply throughout the future history of physics.
That wouldn't be science.
You haven't read much about science. Physicists have no such firm general belief. Sure, sometimes it seems as if a physical law will likely continue to be upheld. But it's well-understood by physicists that it might not.
A physical law is a current working-assumption. Sure, individual physicists might believe that it's likely that some particular physical law(s) will continue to be upheld. But it'd more of a working-assumption, and it isn't something that physicists have unquestioning faith in.
Michael Ossipoff
[quote=The Stanford Encyclopaedia of Philosophy]Physicalism is the thesis that everything is physical, or as contemporary philosophers sometimes put it, that everything supervenes on the physical.[/quote]
But it's open to debate. I am not fully convinced of physicalism, but nor am I convinced that you can justifiably write it off. I don't believe that you're capable of demonstrating a counterexample; that is, that there exists something which is not physical, or does not supervene on the physical.
I've said it a number of times now. I can be certain if it violates the law of noncontradiction. And I can be certain if it entails evidence which is absent. But lacking these kind of reasons, sure, there is reason to accept the possibility, as a possibility, even if there's no reason to believe that it's anything more than that.
Religion for sure is complicated to talk about so just keep in mind that this is my opinion, so it can be wrong.
Religion today is really a big deal, not more that before in the medieval time, but i think that if you are a religious representative such as the Papa, you have more power than many countrys around.
Religion can be a way of uniting people all around the world for one only cause, that can variate, for a common god, for a life stile, but can also be for non acceptance, chaos and deaf.
I think that the pure concept of each religion is beautiful, no religion talks about deaf, no religion talks about non acceptance. The big problem is that no religion seems to follow there truth meaning and goal. when you go to the catholic church it fells more like a brainwash than anything else.
It certainly seems to be based on a whole lot of assumptions that haven't been conclusively nailed-down.
Astrophysics certainly seems to make that assumption.
Why is it reasonable? There would seem to be some uniformity-of-nature assumption sneaking in there. As David Hume argued pretty convincingly, it's hard to justify that without circularity.
I figured that mentioning science in conjunction with faith might gore some sacred-cows.
And an article of faith to the extent that people are willing to commit to its truth. Which we do every time we fly in an airplane or rely on technology.
This is a rather meaningless claim. A religion cannot comprise of the simple notion that 'God exists'. An entire meaning system makes up a religion. Conversely, an entire [unscientific] meaning system could be behind the person who believes in the non-existence of God. There are non-theistic religions.
I haven't made a scientific or factual claim. I've merely pointed out a contradiction in your reasoning. A theistic narrative is a step removed from reality and your claim is that our fall from grace arose from a "loss of psychic connection with reality."
I think you may be having trouble separating the concepts of spirituality and religion.
Theists aren't falling in love with reality, they're falling in love with God, a concept they've learned from their culture, and again, this concept is a step removed from reality. Removed from reality in the sense of it being a 'thought', which you seem to claim is what leads to a "loss of psychic connection with reality."
You're both right to some extent. Jake's right that a theistic narrative can make reality more relatable, through things like anthropomorphism and story telling, and you're right that that actually has the effect of taking a step back from reality. There's a bit of a mismatch going on there. Personally, I'd rather relate to the world as it is, which is fascinating enough without inventions of the imagination or projected human traits. Falling back on that is a bit like leaving the stabilisers on your bike.
Quite possibly it seems like that to you. But that's because you don't know what science is. Of course there are assumptions, and they're usually known to be, and offered as, assumptions. Can physicists be mistaken about the future viability of a theory or law? Of course. They aren't psychics.
As pointed out to you above, how something seems to you, and how it actually is, aren't necessarily the same thing.
Astrophysics is usually about the observable universe. It's speculative whether there are different physical laws in greatly distant different parts of this universe. But no, physicists wouldn't say that they're sure that the laws that seem to apply in our part of this physical universe are applicable throughout this entire universe.
It's probably assumed (as a working-assumption) that whatever physical laws apply here apply throughout the observable universe (excluding the region in a black-hole, or within regions smaller than a Planck-length, where that might be questionable), and probably in some universe-subset that extends some distance out beyond the observable universe.
Again, how science seems to you isn't necessarily how it is. You'd need to find out more about it before making all of these statements about how it seems to you.
Though I doubt that there's an accepted and unquestioned assumption that the laws of physics are the same throughout the entire universe, of course there are working-assumptions. ...not offered as dogmatic known truth.
It isn't even known whether the universe is finite or infinite, or what its shape is. Some physicists believe that it's more likely to be finite, or more likely to be infinite.
And an individual can believe that something is so without making an assertion that it's unquestionably true. If I lend someone money it's because I believe that they'll pay me back, but it doesn't mean that I can guarantee that it's true.
That's why, elsewhere in that post, I used "likely" as an adverb when speaking of such beliefs.
It revealed some profound ignorance about science.
It's a working-assumption that what we do is probably safe, even though we know that there's a chance that it won't be safe. "Article of faith" implies something else. Science isn't about faith.
Well, "faith" is (probably best) defined as "trust". Certainly scientists, when using a working-assumption, have a limited amount of "trust" that it will hold true, at least while they're using it. But your use of the word "faith" implies a more far-reaching, complete and absolute trust.
Michael Ossipoff
My word. And I thought [I]I[/I] was bad! :lol:
I'm pretty sure he knows what science is. Most of us here would have studied it at school.
Unless I've misread him, Jake appears to be basically claiming that what he refers to as "thought" leads to a "loss of psychic connection with reality," which I presume leads to existential anxiety, etc., the sort of things that religion is supposed to address. God is a concept, which is "thought," so does it not contradict his theory that a thought can lead to connection with reality?
What would be consistent with his theory? Putting aside all thoughts and perhaps especially a concept like God that is so loaded with meaning.
.
All I’m saying is that Materialism is based on (or is) an unverifiable, unfalsifiable and unnecessary brute-fact.
.
That isn’t hyperbolic or a rant.
.
In fact, Materialists don’t even try to deny that Materialism has, needs, or is a brute-fact.
.
.
It’s regrettably called that by some people. The problem is that “Physicalism” also refers to something else, a philosophy-of-mind, distinct from its meaning as a metaphysics.
.
So I avoid using the word “Physicalism”, because it has two different meanings.
.
Nowadays, when people say “Materialism”, they mean it to include forces, fields, and not just matter. The mean it with the same meaning as the metaphysical meaning of “Physicalism”.
.
.
I’ve stated specific unreasonable-ness of Materialism.
.
.
…meaning that this physical universe is the basis of all, that it’s the fundamental and ultimate reality.
.
That’s like the ordinary dictionary definition that I’ve been quoting.
.
.
Below is something that I’ve repeated very many times:
.
I’ve been saying:
.
It isn’t possible to prove a metaphysics, because it isn’t possible to disprove other metaphysicses, …to disprove an unfalsifiable proposition that has been contrived to explain physical observations.
.
All that can be established in these matters is: Which metaphysical proposal needs assumptions and brute-facts, and which one doesn’t? Uncontroversially, Materialism has and needs a brute-fact.
.
The metaphysics that I’ve been proposing doesn’t have or need any assumption or brute-fact.
.
Michael Ossipoff
We're not getting anywhere with this. They are both matters of fact. It's not that difficult to grasp. Matters of fact don't have to be settled to be matters of fact. We don't have to know what the answer is regarding unicorns or God for these things to be matters of fact. We don't have to make an assertion for or against. That's just not the way that we usually we talk. It must be something like that that's getting in the way and sending you off course. You seem to be giving the term a different meaning and that's causing problems. Matters of fact are just matters of fact. A matter of what is the case. Whether or not God exists or doesn't exist is a matter concerning what is the case.
Come to think about it, perhaps what you really mean to say is that I wouldn't be justified in asserting that it's a fact that God exists, or in asserting that it's a fact that God doesn't exist.
If so, you're really not saying that in the clearest way. You're saying it in a way which can easily be misinterpreted, as I told you before, but you didn't listen and said something like, "It's absolutely not ambiguous! It's perfectly clear!".
Quoting Rank Amateur
It is reasonable to believe that unicorns probably don't exist, and goblins, and fairies, and God. All for the same reason. That's consistency.
Quoting Rank Amateur
No, it's not at all in conflict with science. You don't know what you're talking about. Science relates to observable evidence, reason, cause and effect, probability, biology, physics, ecology, and that sort of thing, and all of that is taken into account in order to reach the conclusion that absence of unicorn evidence where our knowledge would lead us to predict it to be means that they probably don't exist in these environments.
Quoting Rank Amateur
It can if the God in question is conceived as interacting in the observable world in a way which would leave a trail of evidence which we should have discovered by now.
Quoting Rank Amateur
You can't justifiably make a blanket statement like that. Might be reasonable, might not be. Might be capable of being shown to conflict with fact, might not be. Need more detail.
Quoting Rank Amateur
We strongly disagree over a number of things.
Quoting Rank Amateur
It's unreasonable, by definition, when it makes a leap of faith, or when it employs fallacious reasoning. What more needs to be said on that point? I think that that's enough.
Michael writes:
I'd rather not get into a pissing contest with you.
I'm just pointing out that the problems of induction, confirmation, natural kinds, substance and properties, parts and wholes, scientific realism, intertheoretical relations, reduction, emergence, parsimony and simplicity, heuristics, inference to the best explanation, and even what explanation is and what it's trying to accomplish are still open philosophical questions in the philosophy of science or metaphysics.
As are the nature of space and time, modality, the ontological nature of unactualized possibilities, counterfactuals, dispositions, regularity and necessitarian theories of natural law and providing a satisfactory account of causality.
And there's the whole cloud of problems surrounding abstract objects, what mathematics is, mathematical epistemology and the relationship of mathematics to physical reality. Similar problems arise with logic, and by extension with reason itself.
In other words, just about anything that scientists think about turns profoundly mysterious whenever somebody starts poking into the foundations.
Obviously scientists can typically do their work without worrying a whole lot about the philosophy of science and most don't. But more fundamental issues do sometimes intrude into the scientific consciousness when problematic issues arise, as with the advent of quantum mechanics.
No, I don't think that that's true. If I was thinking about whether physicalism is the case, I would start by thinking about the kind of things in the world, and whether or not they have physical attributes or supervene on the physical in some way. Take a chair, for example. A chair is composed of atoms, and atoms are physical. They are physical because they are the subject of study in physics, and are used in physical explanations. You'd expect to read about things like atoms in a physics book. I would then do that with a number of things, and I would see if I could think of any exceptions. I wouldn't just take it as a brute fact. So, for that reason, and because I haven't had that many discussions with physicalists about their views, I am doubtful of your assertion that that's what physicalists do, and that they don't even deny it.
Anyway, how did we even end up talking about physicalism? That's off-topic, isn't it?
This again? Jeez. You're like a petulant child throwing his toys out of the pram. You'd prefer disingenuous agreement, just to keep the peace, so to speak? If I disagree with something, I speak my mind. Ain't nothing wrong with that.
I didn't say you did.
My point was that we shouldn't be expecting religion to deliver accurate facts about reality. That's the job of science.
Religion's job is to help us manage our relationship with reality. This is something very different. Religion should be judged by whether it helps people build a positive relationship with this place we find ourselves in.
Quoting praxis
So what? So is a novel, or a play. Entirely fictional, but the good ones help us develop deeper insights in to our relationship with our lives.
Quoting praxis
Have you noticed that the God character bears a striking resemblance to nature? Huge beyond imagination, gloriously beautiful, utterly ruthless etc.
.
No one denies that the chair is physical, and that this entire physical universe is physical. Your discovery that your chair is made of atoms doesn’t support Materialism.
.
The hypothetical logical system of inter-referring abstract implications about hypothetical propositions about hypothetical things, with various configurations of mutually-consistent hypothetical truth-values for those hypothetical propositions. …,which is your life-experience story, has one requirement: Consistency. …because there aren’t inconsistent facts, even abstract ones.
.
Your experience, in your experience-story, is of the experience of a physical animal in a physical world. So don’t be so surprised to find out that your chair is physical. It’s made of atoms. You experience that not by your own experiments, but by being told it by your pre-secondary science-teacher. I’m not denying it. Consistency (remember that requirement?) requires that there be a physical mechanism, a physical explanation for you and your surroundings.
.
At least in our physical world, life depends on there being chemistry. Chemistry depends on there being various different kinds of material, elements, that can interact and combine in various ways, in various combinations.
.
Distinct and consistent different elements depend on some consistent and discrete variation in physical systems. One way to get consistent discrete quantities is by standing-waves.
.
Hence wave-mechanics, matter-waves, quantum-mechanics.
.
Consistency in your experience-story requires that, when physicists investigate matter and its composition, they find things that are consistent with the physical animal that is you, being here. Biology, chemistry, distinctly different atoms of different distinct and consistent elements that are capable of combining in many kinds of combinations. …there via wave-mechanics.
.
None of that proves Materialism. It just shows physicists’ findings that, as required by the consistency that is the requirement of your experience-story, are consistent with the physical existence of the animal that is you.
.
The physicists had to find something when they began closely examining matter, and it had to be something consistent with your physical origin in this physical universe. So yes, your chair, like you, is made of atoms.
.
.
What wouldn’t you take as a brute fact? The “objective existence” of this physical universe? You wouldn’t take that as a brute-fact? Alright then, why is there this physical universe? Because there just is? That’s called a brute-fact.
.
Trust me, Materialists who have any idea what they’re talking about in philosophy admit that their objectively-existent physical universe is a brute-fact.
.
Then there’s another question; If you claim that this physical universe is “objectively-real” &/or “objectively-existent”, or “actual” in some way that the hypothetical logical system that I described isn’t, then what do you mean by those terms in quotes?
.
.
I’ve had many discussions with Materialists at these philosophy forums. They admit that their Materialism has a big brute-fact. They think a brute-fact is necessary and unavoidable.
.
But the metaphysics that I’ve been proposing doesn’t have, include or need any assumption or brute-fact.
.
.
For one thing, someone said that science is faith-based. I answered that, unlike Science-Worship and Materialsm, science isn’t faith-based.
.
For another thing, it isn’t off-topic. While we’re on the subject of beliefs, it’s relevant to discuss what alternative belief most aggressive Atheists believe in.
.
Much, most or all aggressive Atheist argument against Theism depends on an implicit devoted belief in the metaphysics of Materialism.
.
Michael Ossipoff
.
It's just a matter of focus. What am I focusing my attention on in any given moment, the world beyond my nose, or the symbols within my mind? Most of us are "lost in thought" most of the time and not really paying careful attention to reality, and thus not really connecting with it. Don't take my word for it, observe this in your own life.
Quoting praxis
Great question. I do agree the God concept is just another thought, and creates the same distraction from reality as any other thoughts. In other threads I've commented that a great weakness of religion is that it often attempts to use thought, the very thing dividing us from reality, in it's search for reunification with God/reality.
So personally, I would advise direct observation of reality, as free from thought as possible. But this is asking too much for very many people, and so user friendly relatable concepts like God become the stand-in for reality. And then many folks get stuck in worshiping the symbol instead of what the symbol is pointing to.
Bottom line, what works best for a person? If worshiping a concept like God assists somebody in falling in love with life, ok, forget what I said and go for it.
If demolishing atheism is really what you want to explore, start a new thread making that explicit request. Or not, as you prefer, either way is ok with me.
What a strange thing to say. Is this an Atheist defining God for us?
Admittedly praxis has concepts about God. No doubt praxis's God is a concept.
But maybe it would be best for praxis to speak only for himself.
It isn't established that words, logic and concepts cover all of Reality. They describe logic and science, but it's a big leap of faith to believe and claim that they describe and cover all of Reality.
Michael Ossipoff
But isn't it mostly Atheists who are interested in starting these threads?
Michael Ossipoff
Is this supposed to resolve the contradiction?
I'm attempting to express a theory as to how the God idea came in to being.
To reiterate, they're not falling in love with reality, they're falling in love with God, or rather, their religion ('re-ligare', to tie or to bind).
Do you have the ability to know things without having a concept of them?
No, that's not what I meant, and I don't think that asking [i]why[/I] there is this physical universe is a sensible or appropriate question. It's a loaded question.
I meant that I wouldn't consider it to be a brute fact that physicalism is the case, which is to say that everything is physical, or supervenes on the physical, which I thought was clear from the context where I went into detail about how I'd go about thinking about physicalism: a way which contrasts with the kind of thinking behind brute facts, where things can't be broken down or considered as thoroughly, and you just kind of go, "Everything is physical! Just because!".
Quoting Michael Ossipoff
Yes, I do claim that. It is objectively real, existent, and actual, although I'm not sure whether that's in some way that the "hypothetical logical system" that you've described isn't, because, with due respect, I don't really understand much of what you were banging on about for that wordy first part of your reply - experience story, hypothetical this, hypothetical that, wave mechanics - which I haven't addressed because I don't even know where to begin. The meaning of those terms - "objective", "real", "existent", "actual" - can be found in dictionaries and understood in contrast with their antonyms, so you should be capable of understanding my meaning without me having to explain it.
Ok, whatever, you win. Better now?
It was never bad.
It’s unfortunate that you feel defeated rather than feeling like you’ve gain something from the exchange, if only mild amusement.
I then said:
[i]"What a strange thing to say. Is this an Atheist defining God for us?
Admittedly praxis has concepts about God. No doubt praxis's God is a concept.
But maybe it would be best for praxis to speak only for himself.
It isn't established that words, logic and concepts cover all of Reality. They describe logic and science, but it's a big leap of faith to believe and claim that they describe and cover all of Reality." — Michael Ossipoff[/i]
Do you know what mint leaves smell like? Do you have a concept by which you know the smell of mint? Write it down.
But no, I don't claim to have knowledge or understanding of matters not covered within the self-defined and self-circumscribed applicability-limits of description, logic or physical science. ...unlike you, with your conceptual knowledge about such matters.
Michael Ossipoff
Silly straw-man. If you’re done beating on it I’ll point out that I made no claim the concept of God corisponds to nothing real, only that it’s a concept.
Quoting Michael Ossipoff
Seriously? What does “cover all of reality” even supposed to mean? You seem to have an inflated sense of human capability.
Quoting Michael Ossipoff
If I had no concept of mint I wouldn’t be able to recognize it. Write it down? You of course realize what a silly request that is. That doesn’t make it magic, it just means that I’m not capable of expressing the neurological data in written form. I could write you a poem, if that would please you.
Without realizing it, you've just made Ossipoff's point, which was...
Quoting Michael Ossipoff
Praxis is right, we don't even know what "all of reality" refers to in even the most basic manner, such as size, shape etc.
And thus, Ossipoff is right too, it isn't established that the rules of human reason apply to all of reality, because we don't even know what we mean by "all of reality".
If a person is willing to face this fact in a simple straightforward common sense manner, without trying to complicate it so they can look fancy....
The whole God debate comes crashing to the ground of it's own weight.
Agreed, but discussions such as we are having here inevitably converge on claims of God's [non-]existence. It's a shame. :confused:
Quoting praxis
What point are you making here? I agree with both sentences, but don't understand how they relate to what I wrote:
Quoting Pattern-chaser
The person who asserts the [non-]existence of God goes beyond logic by going beyond the available evidence, and reaching a logically unjustified and unjustifiable position. Only the agnostic position can be logically justified. I am no different than anyone else here: despite what I just said about logic and agnosticism, I believe. And my belief has no logical justification. I'm human. But I'm honest ... about this, at least. :meh: :wink:
Me too. I see no significant difference between the two. :chin:
In fairness, they're often hidden, disguised as "axioms", when they are just assumptions; guesswork. Worse, we base further reasoning on these axioms, creating a house of cards, ready to fall as soon as the initial guess (axiom) proves unreliable. :meh: Assumptions on which we rely for further reasoning are, by far, the most dangerous sort of assumptions. All we need to do, to really drop ourselves in it, is to forget (even briefly) that our reasoning is based on sand. Then we're doomed. :smile:
I'm sorry, but I haven't followed every word you've written here. :blush: You have a metaphysics that doesn't have or need assumptions? What is this miracle of philosophy? If you don't want to repeat yourself (understandable :up: ) perhaps you could point me to the post(s) where your description lies? Thanks.
The history of science is a long series of incorrect propositions held as true, until surpassed as a new truth.
This in no way diminishes the actual work of science, or mans ability to use reason to explain and understand the universe.
It is a reminder and caution to those who elevate science over its purpose to a religion. And outside of fact or reason, by faith alone believe it can and will answer all human questions. Both the physical, as designed to do, and the metaphysical, by returning them to the physical.
This is, or should be, what this thread's about. Religion is a spiritual matter. It has a sort of spiritual logic, although I shouldn't call it that. It's a bit misleading to refer to logic when I really mean to say that spiritual matters have their own internal consistency. Yes, that's a better way of putting it. :smile:
Just as various posters here have been saying to one another "you misunderstand what science is", it is reasonable to say to those who are debating the Objective existence of God - a pointless enterprise if I ever saw one - you misunderstand what religion/spirituality is. It has almost nothing in common with science. It does not deal in facts, and it does not deal in incontrovertible physical evidence or repeatable experiments. It deals in aspirations and beliefs. As Jake says (above) it "helps us manage our relationship with reality". It has great merit for many humans. I has no logical justification. It is a complement to science. It is not compulsory: use it if you wish, but not if you don't. :up: :smile:
Zen is about as close as you'll get with this. There's too much nonconscious stuff going on as we perceive reality for us to set it all aside. We cannot help but interpret what our senses send us. :confused:
Thanks for putting this so clearly. :up: :smile:
You have yet to speak for yourself.
These aren't atheist definitions of God we are putting forth, that would be inconsistent with being an atheist! How can anyone define something for which they have no evidence that it exists? They are theists definitions of God. If you have a different one then show us and stop going around in circles.
The burden is upon those that claim such a thing exists to define it.
I have asked you numerous times to define the God that we are rejecting without reason, and you can't do it.
The fact is that every notion of God is either contradictory or just a label for something else for which we know that exists, like trees, statues and the universe.
When are you going to define the God that we are so unreasonable to reject the existence of?
Quoting Rank Amateur
I didn't just give up and say I have faith that science will answer those questions. I showed the reasons why science can answer those questions and religion hasn't. So you're really just ignoring what I said, without any argument against, and just repeating yourself. You are the one relying on faith when you just ignore things that are said so that you can keep on saying the same thing over and over again.
It is a reminder that we need evidence and experimentation to prove anything. No one has provided either for the existence of God, so how can you blame science for that?
Why not? If love works in helping a person enhance their life, it's logical to love. If a belief works in the same way, again logical.
Quoting Pattern-chaser
All philosophy forums seem to suffer from the rampant misconception that religion is primarily a matter of ideological assertions. Many posters aren't even interested in understanding religion, they just want something to debunk and religious assertions seem like an easy target.
Quoting Pattern-chaser
In fairness to the critics, religion often does claim to be dealing in facts, so the confusion can be understandable and reasonable. Understandable, but not very sophisticated. However, we might keep in mind that many posters (most?) are young men, and nobody is born knowing everything about everything.
Quoting Pattern-chaser
No, that's wrong. If these posters don't start singing tearful tunes to Baby Jesus pretty soon we're just going to have burn them at the stake and move on. I don't have all day for this you know. :smile:
We are working on different definitions. I have never said it is not reasonable to believe science will not answer every question. As I will say it is reasonable to believe in a non contingent or necessary being is. But while each is reasonable we both make a leap of faith to believe as true and act accordingly as a matter of our world view that future beliefs of our respective religions is in fact true. That trust, while reasonable, if a belief based on faith.
Religion has no purpose in of itself. The invention of religion is as natural as our human psyche, since we always attribute abstract explanations when there are no obvious answers found. We are a pattern seeking species that fill in blanks where there's nothing in between the known. This is how religion starts to grow and the less knowledge we have about how the world and us as humans work, the more prone to inventing religious patterns and answers we are. Over the course of history, those ideas gets corrupted by the power hunger of people of power and converted into hierarchical power structures to steer the population in a certain direction, bad or otherwise.
Essentially, religion is a form of control, that has roots in our pattern seeking way of thinking about the things we lack knowledge of.
On top of that, the spiritual part has to do with comfort, we get comfort in having a "higher power" that watches over us, we get comfort in the idea of authority guiding us. It comes out of the deep rooted comfort in our relation to our parents, all appeal to authority comes from this dynamic between parent and children and it demands a strong mind to turn away from that comfort. This comfort also exist in the moral teachings of religion, we also find comfort in having a list of rules to follow in a world seemingly without rules.
There has also been research into IQ and religious belief. Now I hope that in this forum, people will understand that this is not about being condescending, but there's a pattern of low intelligence connected to religious belief and when looking at how we act out in the world, as said, it demands a strong mind to be free of the comfort and the driving forces that pushes us out towards religious belief and patterns. People with lower IQ tend to follow authority more, they do not question the world around them and therefor are more easily manipulated into religious belief. Standing in front of the total chaos of knowledge, conflicting ideas, the unknowns of the world and universe is a very scary thing to do and it demands that people have the mental capacity and strength to actually think in new ways, to combine many conflicting perspectives to find a more rational truth etc.
Religion is comfort, it's a sense of guidance, but through that a tool of power for many different types of people.
The other aspect is the emotional aspect. There are people who have reasonably high IQ who are still believers in a certain religion. I can only argue that this is because of the comfort as an emotional aspect. They have two parts of themselves; the scared comfort seeking emotional self and the rational and thinking self, separerad. Whenever they think and feel about their own personal and subjective morals and feelings they act out and think through that inner comfort-seeking self while when working on complex things and ideas they project an external self to handle that separately. It becomes a shield of their inner self. A person who has a strong sense of how their inner self works, who understands themselves deeply, who find comfort in themselves, are rarely religious.
Now I know that all of this sounds condescending, but there are so much research pointing in a very specific direction for these questions that it's not rational to ignore them. Apologetics usually turn to arguments that's about the importance of religion in people's life, that for some it's essential for their mental well-being and that's hard to argue against, but my opinion is that because we do not have a replacement for that comfort in atheism, we do not yet have a way to open the door to atheism in a comforting way. For religious people who seek comfort, seek answers to life, the world and universe; the void in atheism is pure darkness for them. Many atheists see light in the process of learning new knowledge, in the process of asking questions and the search for true answers, but for those who find that to be a mental burden, it's pure terror for them to open that door.
This is why most arguments for atheism fail when trying to open the eyes of someone religious; they do not look at the core of why religious belief exist, only the irrationality of that belief. The irrational is only the surface level of a cognitive process that demands respect because we respect people and even if I don't think religion demands respect, the people needs to be respected. Their need for comfort is essential for their well being and respecting that is essential in order to give well being to people in a world without religion.
But it isn't reasonable to believe that. It isn't reasonable to believe that because believing that requires you to believe in another being that created the other in order to be consistent. It also adds a lot more complexity that isn't necessary to explain existence of the universe. Where does this being exist in relation to us?
Quoting Rank Amateur You seem to be conflating religious faith with inductive reasoning. If you don't know the difference, I can't really engage in a reasonable conversation with you.
The point is as I wrote, that the claim is meaningless. Either side may or may not be a faith position. Simply asserting the existence of God may not be a faith position if there's nothing behind it. For example, if you were brought up in a culture where there was no concept of God and then one day a trusted friend said to you, "God exists." You might say something like, "Uh, okay. Tell me more." But he just leaves it at that and says nothing else about it. Then the next day you run into an atheist who says, "God is dead." And you're like, "Oh crap, I just found out it existed!" In this scenario you're not occupying a faith position, right?
A religion cannot be comprised of a simple notion such as that God exists. A religion is comprised of various elements, some more essential than others, which offer meaning. In the above scenario, the concept of God is basically meaningless to you.
A person who asserts the [non-]existence of God may reach that conclusion by examining the theists narrative. Are there elements in the Bible that are inconsistent with known facts, for instance? Yes. Again, if someone just made the claim that "God exists" and nothing else, they would pretty much be ignored.
Yes.
Admittedly, people don't like giving up assumptions.
I've finally caught onto the desirability of saving some of my posts in Word. So I'll just find a good example there, and paste it into this conversation.
Michael Ossipoff
4 hours ago
Reply
Options[/quote]
Quoting Pattern-chaser
If I'm not mistaken, I believe Jake has agreed that religion is superfluous to the project of 're-establishing a psychic connection with reality', a connection that was lost by "thought” or rather being “lost in thought.” I wouldn’t describe the situation that way but agree with the general idea. I believe a project of this kind could accurately be described as being spiritual in nature.
There are various methods for achieving this 're-establishment', some very old, like meditation, certain kinds of breathing techniques, psychedelics, and some very new, like electrical brain stimulation, but they're all about the same thing, which is deactivating the DMN (default mode network). I've previously mentioned the DMN in this topic. The DMN is active when lost in thought and is responsible for our sense of self, self-narrative, and the like. Deactivation of the DMN has various benefits like reducing existential anxiety and addiction issues.
So in this way we can have spirituality without religion. I don't think that I need to argue that there can be religion without spirituality. Most people know that there've been contrived religions or false religious leaders who've used systems of meaning to manipulate and take advantage of naive followers.
To summarize, spirituality is essentially about transcendence or "re-establishing a psychic connection with reality" and religion is about fulfilling our natural desire for meaning (shared values, purpose, etc.) and basically amounts to tribalism. Like any other natural desire such as hunger or thirst, our desire for meaning is part of a successful evolutionary survival strategy.
First two premises that we all agree on:
.
1. We find ourselves in the experience of a life in which we’re physical animals in a physical universe.
.
2. Uncontroversially, there are abstract implications, in the sense that we can speak of and refer to them.
.
I claim no other “reality” or “existence” for them.
.
By “implication”, I mean the implying of one proposition by another. By “abstract implication”, I mean the implication of one hypothetical proposition by another hypothetical proposition.
.
So there are also infinitely-many complex systems of inter-referring abstract implications about hypothetical propositions about hypothetical things, with the many consistent configurations of mutually-consistent hypothetical truth-values for those hypothetical propositions.
.
Among that infinity of complex hypothetical logical systems, there’s one that, with suitable naming of its things and propositions, fits the description of your experience in this life.
.
I call that your “hypothetical life-experience-story”. As a hypothetical logical system, it timelessly is/was there, in the limited sense that I said that there are abstract implications.
.
There’s no reason to believe that your life and experience are other than that hypothetical logical system that I call your hypothetical life-experience-story.
.
Just as I claim no “existence” or “reality” for abstract implications, so I claim no “existence” or “reality” for the complex systems of them, including your hypothetical life-experience-story.
.
Each of the infinitely-many complex systems of inter-referring abstract implications about hypothetical propositions about hypothetical things is quite entirely separate, independent and isolated from anything else in the describable realm, including the other such logical systems.
.
Each neither has nor needs any reality or existence in any context other than its own local inter-referring context.
----------------------------
Any “fact” in this physical world implies and corresponds to an implication.
.
“There’s a traffic-roundabout at the intersection of 34th & Vine.”
.
“If you go to 34th & Vine, you’ll encounter, there, a traffic-roundabout.”
---------------------------
Every “fact” in this physical world can be regarded as a proposition that is at least part of the antecedent of some implications, and is the consequent of other implications.
.
For example:
.
A set of hypothetical physical quantity-values, and a hypothetical relation among them (called a “physical hypothesis, theory or law) together comprise the antecedent of a hypothetical implication.
.
…except that one of those hypothetical physical quantity-values can be taken as the consequent of that implication.
.
A true mathematical theorem is an implication whose antecedent includes at least a set of mathematical axioms.
---------------------------
Instead of one world of “Is”…
.
…infinitely-many worlds of “If”.
.
We’re used to declarative, indicative, grammar because it’s convenient. But conditional grammar better describes our physical world. We tend to unduly believe our grammar.
--------------------------
You, as the protagonist of your hypothetical life-experience-story, are complementary with your experiences and surroundings in that story. You and they comprise the two complementary parts of that hypothetical story.
.
By definition that story is about your experience. It’s for you, and you’re central to it. It wouldn’t be an experience-story without you. So I suggest that Consciousness is primary in the describable realm, or at least in its own part(s) of it.
.
That’s why I say that you’re the reason why you’re in a life. It has nothing to do with your parents, who were only part of the overall physical mechanism in the context of this physical world. Of course consistency in your story requires that there be evidence of a physical mechanism for the origin of the physical animal that you are.
.
Among the infinity of hypothetical life-experience-stories, there timelessly is one with you as protagonist. That protagonist, with his inclinations and predispositions, his “Will to Life”, is why you’re in a life.
.
The requirement for an experience-story is that it be consistent. …because there are no such things as inconsistent facts, even abstract ones.
.
Obviously a person’s experience isn’t just about logic and mathematics. But your story’s requirement for consistency requires that the physical events and things in the physical world that you experience are consistent. That inevitably brings logic into your story.
.
And of course, if you closely examine the physical world and is workings, then the mathematical relations in the physical world will be part of your experience. …as they also are when you read about what physicists have found by such close examinations of sthe physical world and its workings.
.
There have been times when new physical observations seemed inconsistent with existing physical laws. Again and again, newly discovered physical laws showed a consistent system of which the previously seemingly-inconsistent observations are part. But of course there remain physical observations that still aren’t explained by currently-known physical law. Previous experience suggests that those observations, too, at least potentially, will be encompassed by new physics.
.
Likely, physical explanations consisting of physical things and laws that, themselves, will later be explained by newly-discovered physical things and laws, will be an endless open-ended process…at least until such time as, maybe, further examination will be thwarted by inaccessibly small regions, large regions, or high energies. …even though that open-ended explanation is there in principle.
.
Michael Ossipoff
Ok, fair enough. I would agree that a failure of many commentaries, including a number of my own, is to oversimplify the subject to "thought vs. non-thought". It's likely more useful to compare the situation to the volume controls on my TV, which range from 0-100.
.
Harry wants me to promote a religion here. Sorry, Harry. No.
.
(…but my comments about my impressions, beliefs, and reasons for them, are available throughout these forums, in various other threads.)
.
I’m visiting this thread only to comment on what Atheists are trying to say. …what they mean.
.
Wrong. It becomes your definition too, when you choose it and adopt it.
.
You’ve chosen and adopted the Fundamentalist Biblical-Literalists’ God as your own One-True-God to devotedly, fanatically, loudly and never-endingly disbelieve in.
.
.
Good question. Then don’t.
.
No one here would say that you should believe anything that you don’t know of reason to believe.
[/quote]
.
They are theists definitions of God.
[/quote]
.
…some Theists’ definition. (singular, not plural) …and now your definition too, because you’ve adopted it.
.
.,
Definition? For one thing (as I’ve told you many times) I don’t usually use the word “God”, because it has anthropomorphic implications.
.
But there are Theists who agree with me, and who do use that word. There are two reasons why I won’t post a definition to this thread:
.
1. My purpose in these Atheist threads isn’t to promote a religion to you. It’s merely to show others that you aren’t clear about what you mean.
.
2. Words, definitions, descriptions are as inapplicable to the matter of the nature and character of Reality as a whole, as are proof, assertion and argument.
.
Anyone claiming to say something meaningful about that has the burden of proof to show that he is doing so.
.
What you Atheists are so loudly pursuing is a silly tempest-in-a-teapot between two Fundamenalist Biblical-Literalist factions: Atheists and Fundamentalist Biblical-Literalist Theists.
.
.
1. You have devout faith that all that is, is definable and describable. I commend you for your faith.
.
2. Anyway, the word “exist” is metaphysically undefined. And anyway, there are Theists (including me), who suggest that, even if “exist” meant anything, it would only apply to describable things.
.
3. And, aside from all that, the matter of God, or of the character and nature of Reality or What-Is, isn’t a matter for claims. …or assertions, arguments or proof.
.
So I, and whatever other Theists agree with me, make no claims about the matter.
.
.
:D
It’s for you to define the God that you’re rejecting.
.
You always seem to be speaking of the God of the Fundamenalists Biblical-Literalists, but nearly all aggressive Atheists seem to fervently and devoutly believe that what you’re saying applies to whatever anyone does, or could ever, mean when saying “God”.
.
.
:D See what I mean? (in the paragraph directly above the quote above this line). Thank you for exemplifying it.
.
You’re glibly speaking of “every notion of God”, with the astounding conceit of believing that you know every notion of God, or that what you’re saying applies to every notion of God.
.
Anyway, arguably, “notion of” only applies to what is knowable. How sure are you that God is knowable?
.
.
It’s for you, not me, to say what you’re talking about.
.
It’s for you to be specific about what God or Gods you’re “rejecting the existence of”.
.
But I’ve already said that, haven’t I. We wouldn’t want to keep “going around in circles”, would we.
.
So do everyone a favor, and stop embarrassing yourself, and find different topic to discuss.
.
Michael Ossipoff
Ok. For example, let's say that I make the claim that humpalumps exist. According to you, it would be up to you to define humpalumps, not me, in order to reject their existence. Good luck with that. Don't embarrass yourself in trying to define humpalumps and rejecting their existence because you'd only be rejecting YOUR definition, not mine.
That's not true, because there are exceptions, as I have mentioned, and I have demonstrated one such exception, logically and justifiably, here in this very discussion.
Maybe what you say here is different from what you really mean. Maybe what you really mean is something along the lines that the person who asserts the nonexistence of God, as per any conception whatsoever, goes beyond logic by going beyond the available evidence, and reaches a logically unjustified and unjustifiable position.
Would you not take a position of strong atheism, instead of agnosticism, if you found that the conception of the God under consideration entails a contradiction?
.
I’ll assume that you’re referring to people who claim and argue about the existence of God.
.
Theists who believe as I do don’t make claims in those matters. It isn’t a matter for claims, assertions, argument, or proof. It isn’t a debate-issue (except to aggressive Atheists, and the Theists from whom they borrow their version of God).
.
How many times is it necessary to say that?
.
.
Again I’ll assume that you’re referring to your (not my) existence-issue.
.
You’re still asserting your belief that God is describable and definable.
.
.
Yes, so that people will know what you’re saying, you’d need to state what you’re rejecting the existence of.
.
Quite aside from all that, suppose one Theist took the time to explain his version of Theism to you. Suppose you refuted it. Now that would add up to two Theisms that you’ve refuted: His, and your usual Fundamentalist Biblical-Literalist belief that you so fervently and loudly express your disbelief in. You still won’t have supported your claim that all Theisms lack evidence or any justification for faith.
.
What, do you want me to define every Theism for you?
.
Michael Ossipoff
No, I'm only talking about Humpalumps. Do you believe in their existence? You should. They created the universe. Humpalumps are also indesribable and undefinable.
Then Harry is an asserter and claimer about Humpalumps, making him more like the usual Literalist than like anyone that I agree with...who aren't claimers or asserters.
Harry likewise believes in the antrhopmorphic notion of creation, further distancing him from anyone that I agree with.
Congratulations, Harry--You're a Humpalump Fundamentalist.
Those would be my objections to Harry's Humpalump religon--not the indescribability or indefinability of the Humpalumps that he believes in.
Odd though, because people with Harry's other Fundamentalist beliefs and tendencies would typically have a lot to say about describing and defining their deity, and would take any opportunity to do so.
Michael Ossipoff
Wait. Are you sure he has actually claimed that? Because I haven't seen him claim that, and you did a similar thing with me, and in that case it was a straw man.
How about this? To the best of my knowledge, all theisms of which I have examined enough to reach the conclusion that they're lacking evidence strong enough to warrant belief are indeed lacking evidence strong enough to warrant belief.
Now it's on you to either present an exception, that is, present a case of theism with evidence strong enough to warrant belief, or, alternatively, accept the situation as it is.
I take your word for that, and accept the situation as you describe it: To the best of your knowledge, all the Theisms that you know of are ones for which you aren't aware of evidence. ...and for which you likewise aren't aware of any other justification for faith.
Michael Ossipoff
Okay, so I predicted that response which kind of misses the point, and I tried to avoid it by altering the wording in an edit. So please see the edited version.
The point being that, under the assumption that there's an exception of which I'm not aware, and of which you are aware, it's on you to present it, not on me to refute all possible variations of theism. If Harry has claimed what you have said he has claimed, then yes, I agree with you that he has that burden, but not otherwise.
You should be able to quote him saying that, if he has said what you claim.
Old post: The Bare Necessities
1. anything necessary in general holds for all possible worlds
2. possible worlds are consistent, non-contradictory
3. a really simple world without sentience, green, soccer games, even coffee ?, does not derive a contradiction and is therefore possible
4. anything necessary would also have to hold for such simple worlds
5. sentience, green, soccer games, even coffee ?, etc, are not necessary
6. if your deity is defined as sentient, then your deity is not necessary
7. if your deity is defined as necessary, then your deity is not sentient
Swinburne concurs:
[quote=Richard Swinburne (2009)]All explanation, consists in trying to find something simple and ultimate on which everything else depends. And I think that by rational inference what we can get to that’s simple and ultimate is God. But it’s not logically necessary that there should be a God. The supposition ‘there is no God’ contains no contradiction.[/quote]
The latter, 7, would be a rather impoverished definition if you ask me.
(Besides, if we have to resort to defining, then that in itself is suspect, not dismissible as such, but suspect. After all, we don't define things into existence, which is known as word magic.)
Just FYI, I'm unhappy about the coffee ? thing above. Not sure what to do about it. Can we make coffee ? necessary?
In "the old post" above, you make the point that contingent things are not necessary- I agree.
No argument with Mr. Swinburne, I have never said that atheism is not a reasonable position. My only assertion was theism is also reasonable.
It's odd because you've conflated my post with some other belief and put words in my mouth that I never said.
Quoting Michael Ossipoff
But I said that they are indescribable and undefinable, so how do you know I was talking about some anthropomorphic notion of creation? Again, you go and put words in my mouth because you just don't want to face the fact that your own arguments are nonsensical. That is the whole point of the "Humpalumps". Haven't you gone and done the same thing you have accused me of doing - of rejecting your own notion and definition of what a "Humpalump" is, not mine? If I never define "Humpalumps" for you, then you only ever reject your own notion of what a Humpalump is. Do you see the problem with your position now?
Another possibility is that we are both talking about the same thing, but we are just using different terms to refer to that thing. What some would call a "god" or "humpalumps", I would use the term, "reality" or "universe" to refer to it.
It is you that has limited your possibilities, not I. I am willing to accept any explanation that makes sense. You are only willing to accept one - that there is something that YOU call a "god" that exists. I accept all other possibilities except that one. So who is the one that is really unacceptable of possible truths? You are.
Also claiming that something is indescribable or undefinable is basically saying that it doesn't exist. If something like that could exist, then it would be pointless to discuss it. What effect could it have on the world, or on what we can observe? If it has a causal relationship with the universe (it can observe us and has knowledge of us), then it has definable and describable qualities. If not, then who cares about it? There could be so many other indescribable and undefinable possibilities that aren't a "god".
How do you know that other people's beliefs in something indescribable and undefinable is a "theism"? You have a big problem of putting your words in other people's mouths.
The converse is not the case. The atheist position seems to be a very aggressive position against the reasonability of theism. However in a quick look back, most seem to think this is some sort of a given, I don't believe any have actually made the argument.
So in an attempt to escape the do loop, I invite any atheist argument, with factual propositions that end with a conclusion of either:
Therefore it is a fact that God is not,
Or
Therefore it is not a reasonable position that God is not.
And in the spirit of philosophy, keep your opinion and your sarcasm to yourself, and make an argument.
Well there is the god is dead argument:
- Entropy increases with time
- When entropy gets too high, you die
- Universe is 14 billion years old
- 14 billion years of entropy means god must be dead
- 'Therefore it is a fact that God is not'
A counter argument is a timeless god. Such a god might still die due to the 2nd law but would die outside of time, thus such a God is both dead and alive at the same time from the perspective of humans.
A proposition that begs the question
But I agree with you, God could somehow dodge the 2nd law. Maybe he can create energy to re-organise himself somehow. So the 'god is dead' argument has holes.
Significantly, this at least highlights the fact that God, like any other thing, changes, and if it changes then it has no static or essential nature. If it were static then it would in no way be animate or alive. Lacking an essential nature, it’s just another part of what is, or, depending on how you look at the whole, nothing at all.
No one that I have ever met claims there is only one way to know God. Most theists grasp God intuitively, not as the result of deduction. How people teach others about God is a matter of personal aptitude and preference. For good or ill, their methods have no bearing on whether or not God is fair.
Everyone can understand the prime mover; its simple.
Its easy to argue that god (if he exists) must be benevolent. So I think people argue for his existence because he is benevolent. A universe with a benevolent god is probably going to be better than a godless universe. By extension, humans seem happier if they think a benevolent god does/might exist, so the search for proof of god is a worthwhile human endeavour...
Quoting Marchesk
Basic facts of life like the difference between right and wrong are shared by all logical entities. Its natural for Logical entities will tend to exhibit some empathy with each other. At the core, humans maybe just very simple versions of God...
I'll hypothesize that the only general necessity is consistency.
As shown, not sentience, green, soccer games, coffee ?, etc.
But maybe that's not so surprising, since that's where we started out, modal logic being an extension of ordinary logic.
So, if you go ahead and define something as necessary in general, then that something may turn out to simply be consistency.
Kind of anti-climaxic if we were looking for something special.
- Rational argument
- Observing supernatural signs (which surpass mundane rationalisation)
- Just feeling it
- Divine inspiration
Maybe more ... So, rational argumentation is just one way of knowing God, not the only way as you seem to be making out.
I believe the reason for knowing God at all, is that he was a hidden treasure and desired to be known.
Since terms are important, I will define non-contingent or necessary as a being whose existence is not contingent on another's existence and whose existence is necessary for every thing else to exist.
Say, in general, all that's necessary is consistency. Not sentience, for example. Which may rule out deities, depending on what those deities are supposed to be.
(I think Meillassoux argued similarly about contingency and necessity, except that was on a different angle altogether.)
Anyway, you can't necessitate deities into existence by such definitions; those definitions has then already implicitly defined your deities as something else.
”Odd though, because people with Harry's other Fundamentalist beliefs and tendencies would typically have a lot to say about describing and defining their deity, and would take any opportunity to do so.” — Michael Ossipoff
.
It's odd because you've conflated my post with some other belief
[/quote]
.
Yes, for some reason I thought that Harry was attempting a sloppy analogy with Theism :D
.
.
Incorrect. I was referring to what Harry said.
.
Harry asserted and claimed. That’s done by evangelistic Fundamentalists, but not by anyone that I agree with.
.
And one thing that Harry asserted was “creation”, by his Humpalumps. Creation is an anthropmorophic notion that Harry asserts, but which I wouldn’t suggest.
.
All I said in the passage that Harry quoted was that the people exhibiting Harry’s Fundamentalist inclinations, typically are only too willing to define and describe their deity. That’s what I said was “odd”.
.
.
Creation is an anthropomorphic notion. Though you say Humpalumps are undefinable and indescribable, you give them an anthropomorphic described and defined role. That’s a bit too much description and definition for something indescribable and undefinable.
.
.
I referred to what you said.
.
.
Vague. Only Harry knows what arguments he’s referring to.
.
.
What definition from me is Harry referring to? Only he knows.
.
.
If you provide no information about what “Humpalump” refers to, there’d be no basis on which to reject the notion of it. If you merely say that there are Humpalumps, and won’t say what you mean by “Humpalump”, then no, I wouldn’t deny that there are Humpalumps.
.
I might reply that I have no particular reason to believe in your undefined and undescribed Humpalumps. But, without knowing what you mean by “Humpalump”, I won’t comment on whether or not there are Humpalumps or whether or not you should believe in them.
.
If you asserted to me that Humpalumps created the universe then it would be reasonable for me to ask how you support that assertion.
.
.
Suit yourself. For you, “God” refers to this physical universe. No one should argue with or criticize your definitions. You can call the universe “Humpalump” too, and I have no objection, because it’s none of my business.
.
.
I must admit that I have no idea what you’re talking about.
.
.
How very commendable. No one would fault you for that. And I’ve repeatedly said that you shouldn’t believe anything that you don’t know of reason to believe.
.
.
I don’t usually use the word “God”, unless replying to someone who has, because of that word’s anthropomorphic connotation. So no, I don’t “call something” “God”.
.
What I will say here—and I say very little in this thread about my beliefs, because, here, that would amount to argumentation, proselytization or preaching—is that there’s a core belief, of the other Theists, that I agree with, and that’s why I designate myself a Theist, though I don’t share denominational, doctrinal, dogmatic, allegorical or anthropomorphic beliefs that some (but not all) Theists express.
.
…not that I make a secret of my impressions, beliefs and reasons for them, which can be found in other threads throughout these forums.
.
But I re-emphasize that I don’t assert any beliefs, here or anywhere, or make any claims about Theism vs Atheism, here or anywhere.
.
In fact, I don’t make any assertion or claim about the matter of Theism vs Atheism. That’s your issue, not mine.
.
I’ve repeatedly said that I don’t know what the word “exist” is supposed to mean. I avoid using it.
.
So I have no idea what you’re referring to in the above quote.
.
.
No one here would say that you should believe what you don’t know of reason to believe.
.
.
I don’t know what you mean by “exist”.
.
I don’t make any claims about Theism vs Atheism. But I do question your apparent belief that all is describable and definable. …your belief that words are universally applicable. …your sureness that reality is completely describable.
.
When someone makes that silly claim, I remind them that no finite dictionary can non-circularly define any of its words.
.
I sometimes invite them to write down a complete description of their experience of the smell of mint, or of pretty much any experience.
.
.
Is that why you discuss it so much?
.
.
Harry, I recommend that you study engineering, or maybe physics. But philosophy isn’t for you.
.
What effect would what have on the world, or on what we can observe? I’ve neither defined anything for you, nor made any Theist claim here.
.
Yes I’d need to define whatever I claim, but I haven’t claimed anything about God here.
.
.
I encourage Harry to not believe anything that he doesn’t know of reason to believe.
.
Let me guess: Is Harry a firm believer in Materialism? …a believer in the brute-fact of an objectively existent and objectively real (whatever that would mean) physical universe that is the fundamental reality, and is all of reality, and is the metaphysically-prior basis on which all else “supervenes”?
.
But Harry isn’t a believer :D
.
Michael Ossipoff
If however, you are making an argument I don't see or understand, my apology. If that is so, I invite you to restate your propositions and conclusions and I will do my amateur best.
If they, by their own language and word-use, express beliefs about God, I call it Theism. If they express beliefs that they call Theism, then I call it by what they call it.
Michael Ossipoff
Quoting S
So you want me to study and go through all possible Theisms for you, to show you that there's one that you can't refute. I realize the difficult situation you have, wanting to challenge all Theists to your issue-argument, but not being able to communicate with every one of them. ...and not being able to get answers from all of them even if you could communcate with them.
Of course you could argue as follows: If any Theist wants to argue about your issue, then surely he or she would do so at some public forum, and you'd have found it (because you've looked hard for it).
So then, any Theist who doesn't have arguments at the many forums you've searched, can be regarded as not arguing in opposition to you, and you only have to refute the Theists whose arguments you've found.
Fine. Go for it. As far as I'm concerned: congratulations! I declare you the winner of your issue/argument, by default, because I don't regard Theism is a matter of assertion, argument, debate or proof, and I'm not interested in your issue. It's your issue, not mine.
Michael Ossipoff
I didn't say I could disprove Materialism. I merely said that it is or has and needs a brute-fact. ...and that a brute-fact is unnecessary in the describable realm, because there's a describable metaphysics that neither has nor needs a brute fact or assumption.
Michael Ossipoff
Suit yourself. I prefer to say "Materialism", because someone once objected to me that "Physicalism" is the name of a philosophy-of-mind position, not a metaphysical position.
Michael Ossipoff
...on S.'s authority :D
Michael Ossipoff
No. You have a bad habit of doing the things that you accuse others of doing. I have never mentioned materialism nor used the term physical.
Of course you don't want to explain your beliefs because that would expose them to criticism.
By not being able to define what you believe implies that you don't believe anything, or at least anything substantive or worth discussing.
Weak. That sums up your participation in this thread.
This is the idea used in an argumentum a contingentia mundi. This argument supposes too much, and seems to be associated with a similar argument, namely the ontological argument--the position that ideas of perfection or totality or omniscience, truth, etc. designate, because humans seemingly cannot be the root of these ideas, because humans are seemingly imperfect, not all-knowing, total, etc., the necessary existence of such a thing in reality representing that existent capable of delivering us to a reference of knowing ourselves. And these qualities must refer to God, for there would be no other alternative... This is a very unsettling argument. The argument referring to the contingency of the world upon a supposedly necessitated existent 'per the faculty of reason' has simply had the soil shaken out of its roots and tossed aside to decay.
To be clear, yet again, if one wants to make an argument that atheism is a reasonable position, I agree.
If however one wants to make an argument that it is a fact that God is not, or that theism is not reasonable, I would invite the argument.
Ill give it a shot. What god are we talking about, and what theism would you mean here..any belief in god or gods? Do I get to pick one and show it is unreasonable or do you have something specific in mind?
.
That’s why I asked. A glance at the passage that you quoted will show that it was a question, not an assumption or statement.
.
.
As I’ve explained to you many times, my impressions, beliefs, and reasons for them are all over these forums, in various threads.
.
.
I’ve stated my impressions, beliefs and reasons for them throughout these forums, in various threads.
.
.
I don’t regard it as a matter for assertion, argument, debate or proof. I’m not going to argue the matter with you. That’s why I don’t go into the matter here, though I did in various other threads at the various forums here.
.
What “it implies” is that I have no interest in arguing with you about your issue. If you want an argument, then congratulations! You win your argument by default. The Theism vs Atheism issue is your issue, not mine.
.
Michael Ossipoff
Hmmm, I wouldnt call that theism. You are basically proffering first cause/unmoved mover?
The nature of such a thing need not be a god, it could just as easily be an alien, or a cosmic byproduct of something unknown.
Does it ruin the spirit of your challenge to be more specific?
I like where you're going here. A few thoughts...
1) The target shouldn't be opening the door to atheism, but opening the door to reason. Atheism is not reason, but just another ideology built upon faith. If one is going to adopt an ideology built upon faith, one might as well just stick with the ideology one already has.
2) While religion is not necessarily realistic in it's cosmic claims it is realistic about the human condition which is why it continues to exist in every time and place. The human condition is primarily emotional, and atheist ideologues tend to be nerds like us, typically superficially clever at working with abstract concepts, but emotionally unsophisticated. Thus, atheist ideologues do a poor job of opening the door to atheism because they're working the wrong door, as your quoted words above suggest.
Here's an example. For the moment, let's forget all about anything to do with theism. Put all that off the table for now. Pretend it never existed.
What is our relationship with falling in love with reality? Is one of our goals that we fall to our knees weeping tears of joy at the glorious beauty of a sunrise? These kind of ideas are foreign to atheist ideology culture, generally speaking. Look through the threads on theism/atheism on the forum. How many of them explore such topics in earnest?
Want to convert theists? Teach them how to fall in love with reality, with a handful of dirt, without the supernatural middleman. And in order to do that, you'll first have to learn how to do it yourself.
And members have no interest in this, right? Ok, no problem. But that's why you're stuck here talking to yourselves, having no effect on theism at all, enjoying the fantasy that your fantastic logic dancing calculations have meaning or value to anyone but yourselves.
Sorry, I'm not searching the forums for your incoherent nonsense. If you can't post your position here then I guess it really isn't that important after all.
If you have the time to type these long posts that don't have any substance, then I don't see why you wouldnt post your position as it would probably just be more of the same.
We've been over that before. No one asked you to search for anything.
Aggressive Atheists rely heavily on namecalling. In fact, as we all know, such behavior is the motive for, not the result of, aggressive Atheism.
How often does a Theist start a thread to criticize Atheism? We have no inclination, and wouldn't bother. It wouldn't occur to me to take the time to do that.
Suit yourself. As I said, I'm not going to argue the matter with you.
----------------------------
By the way, I've been trying to answer at least most of the aggressive-Atheist posts, claims and comments, over the past few days. But I don't have time to continue these replies.
Anyway, it would be pointless, because you all seem to be singing from the same hymn-book.
So:
After this reply, there will be no more answers from me to aggressive-Atheists, on anything relating to their Theism vs Atheism issue.
As I said, I don't have time for this.
Michael Ossipoff
It is easy to respond to someone with hints of aggression because they aren't doing what you want them to, or in response to aggression, though I do believe that it isn't fruitful, and is childish, so I attempt my best to not just show no aggression, but to take all of the responsibility for failure to get my point across, or lack of persuasion, or failure to understand. To not just show no aggression, but to feel no aggression, just shame and disappointment.
We don't want to be told what to do, and how to live our lives, and don't like the idea that some authority knows, and we have no choice. That isn't very comforting at all. That's obliging, terrifying, and guilt and shame generating. It's the complete inverse, the rebelling, the decadent, the addict, the seeker of happiness... they're looking for comfort. The seeker of truth is looking for agony, terror.
No, I told you what I want, and that isn't it, nor does it follow from what I said. It's quite simple. Either you're aware of an exception, in which case I request that you present it, or you're not, in which case I request an acknowledgement of the situation as it is, meaning an acknowledgment that neither of us are aware of any exception, meaning that there's no warrant for either of us to believe in any theism.
What I want is for you to address this one simple thing instead of something else that you've imagined. Is that so difficult?
There is an alternative, which is to refuse my requests, but that means A) you don't have a position or B) you do have a position, but are not willing and able to back it up. If it's A) you shouldn't act like you have a position and you should be more careful with what you say. If it's B) what you claim can be dismissed.
I predict that you'll go with A). But it seems that you can't help but get more involved than your "no position" allows.
Anyway, I'm not trying to force you to get involved or anything. This began with my questioning the accuracy of your representation of Harry's position, and contrasting it with my own position. I think that my position is much stronger than your representation of questionable accuracy which you decided to target. But you seem to have misunderstood what I was doing and why I was doing it.
I think it's not unreasonable to believe in 'a deity' in itself, because that is indeed a question of choice in a matter that can't really be verified one way or the other.
I do think that it's somewhat unreasonable to believe in one or more of the specific gods put forward by the major existing religions... and especially in the whole moral system that is typically based that deity. In light of current scientific insight on the vastness of the universe, it would seem kind of strange that a deity who is the creator of all that is, would occupy itself with regulating the minutia of the behaviour of a species on one the many many planets.
Furthermore, now that we understand human beings a little better, there are perfectly reasonable human all to human explanations for why we would want to believe in God and have moral systems based on that. Ockam's razor would suggest, if we have a choice in explanations, we should choose the more simple explanation. And the more simple explanation to me seems the one that doesn't require supernatural entities.
Finally there also is something fundamentally un-reasonable about the methodology of religion and the morals it proscribes. In essence it's based on revelation and faith with the 'word of God' being the final word, and not on experience and reason.
This is a difficult one, and depends on what you mean by 'accept'. And it also depends on what you mean by 'harm'.
It seems obvious to me that people can believe what they want, I don't think anyone has a business with what other people believe, because mere belief itself doesn't effect other people. And it impossible anyway to check the beliefs of other people to some standard of belief, even if we would want to. So in that sense I agree that we should accept all beliefs... but this is maybe a bit of a trivial point.
Problems only arise when people act on their beliefs. And here I think most Western societies are somewhat inconsistent, in that they usually subscribe to an array of different fundamental principles that are not allways compatible with eachother. For instance we have a secular state with a system of law of it's own, the principles of equality and non-discrimination... but also freedom of religion. Here, it don't think we should accept people acting on their religious beliefs if they are incompatible with the principles of a secular state.
I think this is a misinterpretation of what atheism is, since it's not about faith, but about rejecting faith as a means to explain the world. In a sense, everything you do in science is in a form, atheistic or agnostic, but agnostics use the unknown factor as a way to accept the existence of a god by that fact, which means it's closer to cognitive bias. Atheistic viewpoints just deny anything that isn't proven, it's not about faith, it's about the process of proving. An atheist will never believe in a god, but they will accept that there is a god if the existence of one is proven to them. Therefor it's not based on faith. I don't think reason and religion can co-exist. Of course they overlap in the sense that a religious person can be reasonable, but a truly reasonable person cannot give up reason whenever the subject at hand crosses their faith or belief. When that happens, that person is no longer working with reason. An atheist would never reject reason, even if it's about proving the existence of a god, but no one has proven the existence of a god and all arguments for a god or pantheons fail to connect the argument to that kind of a deity or deities. If atheists change their perspective on the world, universe and life based on what is proved and what is not, then that's not faith, it's external objective knowledge that guides what is accepted as truth. Atheism is never about faith, it's about facts.
Quoting Jake
Agreed, that's what I basically meant with atheism being a bit cold in it's approach to life. Because, as I stated above, atheism being focused on facts, there is no emotion connected to the knowledge it's about. So it's like staring into the unknown when you open the door to atheism and that is scary, which is why most people react emotionally when their faith is challenged. However, that doesn't mean atheists are cold or that life as an atheist isn't emotionally rich, on the opposite, atheists fill their life with other things that gives them that emotionally rich life; art, causes, knowledge etc. The search for knowledge and knowing more than you did yesterday is as emotionally charged as subjective religious quests. Emotion doesn't cease to exist because one is an atheist.
But atheists aren't ideologues either, it's not an ideology. Rejecting faith as a means to explain the world, universe and life; working with facts and living with knowledge, isn't an ideology and atheists aren't gathered within one. That's also a misinterpretation of what atheism is.
Quoting Jake
Is this foreign because you haven't seen it or foreign because you have knowledge that this is the truth about atheists? Do you mean to say that atheists cannot feel a rush of emotions when confronted with something truly beautiful? That they cannot fall to their knees because of that rush of emotions? Weeping tears of joy by that sunrise? The problem here is that you have a prejudice about atheists inner life. Just because you don't see atheists in a forum about knowledge and philosophy, showing any signs of tears of joy and emotion does not correlate to them not having a rich emotional inner life. The only difference between an atheist and a religious person looking into the sunrise with tears of joy is that the religious person claims it's the beauty of god and externalise themselves into an almost cosmic horror point of view in fornt of that fact. An atheist falls in love with the fact that all the entropy and chaos the universe went through led to such beautiful outcomes, despite it's simplicity. An atheist wouldn't abandon reason about why this sunrise looks the way it does just because it's beautiful and it gives them this emotional rush, they can actually get emotional by the fact that it's a simple scientific explanation behind it and it still looks that beautiful, a celebration of nature as it is.
What you are suggesting here, really says that atheists cannot enjoy art, cannot find it emotionally satisfying, when the opposite is more true and there are plenty of artists who are atheists. I think that this idea that atheists don't see or care for the beautify of the world is rather bonkers and based on another misinterpretation of atheism, based on external observation and prejudice. Just because atheists tend to talk in terms of hard facts on a philosophy forum doesn't mean they don't shut off their computer and have tears of joy in front of a sunrise, I see no correlation in your argument here other than wild guesses about atheists.
Quoting Jake
I already have, it's based on being in harmony with the chaos of the world and universe. Accepting the cold simple truth that science have shown us and accepting that we are part of the deterministic universe we live in. That we can care for what is here, what we know, instead of caring for a made up entity. By addressing god or gods and spend time seeking them, people waste time that can be given to something closer to reality. Something for other people, something for themselves, without filters. Giving themselves over to the idea of a higher power is the comforting feeling of having a parent, an authority figure that governs them, but takes up time that could be given to the short life we have.
People don't need to fall in love with reality, they need to become the masters of their own life, they need to grow beyond being a child to a parent. It's a true sadness that many religious people live to their death without ever being more than a child looking up to a parent figure. It's the nature of being a flock animal, most of us feel panic when we do not have an authority watching over us, but with the expanse of civilisation, we needed gods and pantheons to replace that group leader, otherwise we were in control of our own life. Only through the renaissance to the enlightenment period did we begin to understand that the faith we had was a lie to tell ourselves in front of a chaotic world. This is what Nietzsche was talking about when he said "God is dead". It was about how we had begun to enlighten ourselves to know that there is no god to govern us and that we need to govern life ourselves, which haven't been done on a massive scale before. He was fearing the chaos that will emerge when the "parent" of our lives disappear. He was speaking mostly out of the ethics, but the concept is supporting the idea of gods and pantheons being parent figures and that our need for authority tend to blind us from simple truths and facts about the world in favour of emotional satisfaction.
Quoting Jake
I sense a desperation in this tone of words. You're doing a straw man out of atheists by ridiculing that they only exist through logic and calculation, which is a massive simplification. You ridicule atheists of not having a rich emotional inner life and misinterpret atheism into being an ideology based on faith, which it isn't. This is prejudice, nothing more.
The reason why I think it's important to open a door to atheism is that it's about giving the option to love life for what it is, without supernatural distractions that distract up until the time of death. It's an open door to the pursuit of knowledge instead of comforting ignorance, an open door to the harmony of being free of external controlling mechanisms, free to feel and be what you are, not what a religion tells you to. Free to think what you want instead of punishing yourself with the hand of god. Free to enjoy life as it is and valuing people's lives when they live, not that they are something when they died. There are so many shackles to religious people's lives that they don't see; the blindfold that is comforting, the illusion, "ignorance is bliss" so to speak. It's like an addiction, faith is like an addiction, a substance that comforts them from the real world. They use this substance of faith in order to hide themselves from the complexities, from the chaos they feel the world has, but only when this addiction is broken, when they start to see beyond it do they realize that there actually is harmony there. Most people who went from being religious to being atheists does not show any sign of downfall, most of them feel free, that they can breathe, that a heavy burdon is gone from their chest. It should be the opposite, that they would feel the pressure of the complexity of the world as it is, but it's not, because it's not superficial anymore, it is what it is, it is real.
The most common prejudice from religious people against atheists is that atheists doesn't have appreciation for beauty, nature and emotions. I would say that the opposite is more true, that religion filters all emotions and holds them back as an authority over believers lives. They do not appreciate the sunrise because of it's actual beauty, but because of what religion has teached them. Atheists do not accept anything more than what something actually is and a sunrise's beauty is through that much more rich since it's basic simplicity makes the impact of it's beauty so much more. It shouldn't be more, but it is for us humans and that is appreciated.
I recommend not to have these prejudices about atheists, since that blinds you from understanding what atheism is really about. You're doing a straw man out of atheism in order to more easily attack it's foundation, but a misinterpretation, a straw man, simplifying about what atheism is does nothing to prove a point, only that you want to fend yourself from the truth of what atheism is. See past your own frustration, since I think it's in the way of making you able to actually balance the different ways on how we look at life, the universe and the world.
What you choose is your own choice, but ignoring the truth about atheism in order to distance yourself from it is not the way to a reasonable viewpoint. Atheists do not ignore the viewpoints of religion, atheists need knowledge and information in order to know what path to take, atheists do not choose paths because authorities chose a path for them. If you want a reasonable dialectic about atheism and theism, do not have prejudice about what atheism is.
Oh, it's a joy, in this day and age, to meet a man who truly respects the old traditions. :up: :smile:
Quoting Jake
Do they? [Genuine question.] I was raised by [s]cultists[/s] Roman Catholics. At 10 I could recite the mass, in Latin. The impression I drew from the education they gave me is that spiritual matters over-rode merely factual matters; God's stuff was more important than man's stuff. But they never represented the dogma and religious 'truths' as facts, as I understood it.
Surely some religions appear to assert facts, and some may even intend this to be so, but I have an issue with this. I'm a believer, and I try to respect all beliefs, but those who make factual claims when their claims aren't verifiably factual aren't helping, IMO. They shouldn't do it. :fear:
I don't agree that it's a choice. I can't choose to believe anything that I'm not convinced of. I can't [i]choose[/I] to believe anything at all, it seems. That seems like a category error. Beliefs aren't the kind of things that can be chosen. I mean, I could pretend, but obviously that's not the same.
Quoting BrianW
Whether or not either of those beliefs is reasonable or unreasonable surely depends on the reasoning or lack thereof.
Quoting BrianW
Accept in what way??
Why put science into this? Anybody thinking that science can prove or disprove this question is in my view either naive or simply doesn't understand science. It would be like assuming science can prove what is moral or ethical. What with the scientific method you can do is only to find an answer that x amount people believe that something is morally or ethically good or bad. Science can make accurate models of how we think, but not answer the questions themselves as there isn't an objective answer.
It's as delirious to get science into this as it is for some religious person even to think that he might prove the existence of God. Not only would this be basically idolatry in the Abrahamic religions: as if there would be a true proof of God, why need the Bible, Koran or whatever anymore? This also goes against the fundamental character of religions: that they are based on faith, not reason. If Jesus tells us to find God in our heart, that truly isn't an order to have open heart surgery. And this is true also for attempts to disprove God by science.
Now I do agree that atheism, not having faith is simply what is said, not a faith. Yet this doesn't mean that one that has no religion would be then making the moral and ethical decisions (that basically religion has given us) on reason or based on science. This is a fallacy: moral ethics are subjective even if you don't use any religious viewpoints or answers.
Science simply isn't normative.
Yes, I thought that's what I said. :smile: :up:
Quoting S
I would rather consider the specific circumstance, but yes, I would have difficulty with a definition of God that seemed to entail a contradiction. :up:
I am comparing the scientific method to that of how atheists view the world, i.e through facts and what is proven, not belief. This is a premiss countering the idea that atheism is based on faith or ideology, when it isn't.
Quoting ssu
As said, if you read the argument, it's not about science disproving god or proving god, but the process being the same as the foundation of what atheism is. If you can't prove god exists, there's no reason thinking there is a god. That is not faith, that is reason and reason is closer to atheism than it is to religion, reason is also closer to science than religion. Point being, scientific methods and atheistic thinking has much in common, and none in common with faith.
Quoting ssu
Moral and ethics was not given to us through religion, religion gathered the basic morals and ethics that was invented by the necessity of survival by the group that evolved from apes. Society and religion tried to gather those morals and ethics into a usable form during the time when society started to become much bigger and much more complex than simple packs of hunter/gatherer people.
Religion has moral and ethics based on these and therefor a lot of obvious morals and ethics stems from it into a society even if it's in the end an atheistic one; but the key difference is that many religious societies tend to keep moral and ethics that has been proven irrational, like the irrationality behind making homosexuality illegal. That kind of moral is based on emotions about disgust and the science behind disgust tells us it's about keeping the group intact from functions that seemingly would destroy it from the inside, i.e the morals from our hunter/gatherer times when the group was small. But it's irrational in the context of society today and it's irrational since it's based on the well-being of only the subject making that law, not the well-being of homosexuals. Meaning, if atheists are more commonly using deductive reasoning in everyday life and in establishing moral ethics, they are more likely to not use old teachings of religion to govern their ethics and morals, they would look at the world as it is and form the best possible morals and ethics based on it. Religion has basic morals that are obvious to us, but we shouldn't give religion credit for those morals, since they stem from older concepts than our current religions. Our current religions also has ideas about slavery (christianity) that aren't morals that we should keep using. What opposed those morals of the times? Rational and reasonable deductive thinking, the type of reasoning that are more common with atheists questioning religion. Is there then unreasonable to see a pattern in which atheistic thinking has more things in common with scientific reasoning and rational thinking than any religious way of thinking which adhears to it's authorities viewpoints, rather then reasoning by the facts at hand?
History does not give religion validity in morals and ethics, it only speaks on how we ended up with the moral system and ethics of today. How we evolve morals and ethics from here is based not on religion but on how we reason and use arguments about these morals and ethics. Atheists seem far more likely to actually be doing dialectics based on facts rather than any kind of preprogrammed beliefs and authorities who set the rules before the arguments.
Other than that I think you missed the point I was giving; that atheism and the scientific process has more in common with each other and that faith cannot be a part of an atheistic way of life.
:smile: I call Her Schrodinger's God ... and I worship Her too. :up: :wink:
:smile: Oh, thank you for that! :smile: :up:
Your post looks quite articulate so I will be returning to it, and keeping an eye out for your other posts. Thanks for that. As a quick place to start....
Please prove that human reason, the poorly developed ability of a single half insane semi-suicidal species only recently living in caves on one little planet in one of billions of galaxies in who knows how many universes, is binding upon all of reality (a realm which can't be defined in even the most basic manner such as size and shape) and thus upon any gods contained within.
You feel that the authorities theism is typically built upon (holy books and clergy etc) have not proven themselves qualified to credibly speak to the largest of questions, and so you reasonably decline theism.
All that's left to do is to apply that very same procedure to atheism. There's nothing new to learn, just do the very same thing you already do with theism. If the qualifications of the chosen authority can not be proven, decline the assertions arising from that authority.
That's often true, agreed. But it doesn't have to be true. There's nothing stopping atheists from falling in love with reality with the same enthusiasm that theists fall in love with their saints and gods etc.
Please, before you go any farther, will you clarify:
Do the atheists you describe actively assert the non-existence of God?
[ The answer to this question is central and fundamental to understanding whether your atheists (i.e. the ones you describe) occupy a faith position or not. ]
Having spent 20 years on philosophy and atheism forums, I can assure you that atheists also often react emotionally when their faith is challenged. As best I can recall, I've been banned from every atheist forum I ever joined, just as I've been banned from every Catholic forum I've ever joined. I see no fundamental difference between the two.
Challenging is generally ok, because the challenge gives the true believers the opportunity to rise up as a group and reinforce their dogmas in the response. That is after all why they started a forum about their beliefs to begin with, to create a mutual validation society.
Presenting an effective challenge is the crime that gets you banned, because now you are threatening the glue that holds the mutual validation society together.
Respectfully disagree. If a person of any position thinks that the rules of human reason are binding on all of reality, without any proof that this is so, they are a person of faith. Belief without proof = faith. This equation applies equally to everyone on all sides of the issue.
If you can't prove that human reason is binding upon all of reality (and thus any gods within), there's no reason to think reason is so qualified. It's the simplest thing, and once seen, the whole God debate merry-go-round to nowhere comes screeching to a halt.
That's bad news for those who have a large collection of memorized arguments they wish to put on display, but good news for those who want to follow the investigation where ever it may lead.
Thanks. It's what I'm trying to express and impress to people's minds - that we can learn to be aware of our frustrations and choose to act against them.
Point is that atheism is purely the process of thinking about the world, life and universe in the way of facts, in the way of not giving up a pursuit for truth and knowledge and never give in to irrational faith whenever something is unexplained. Atheism is more of a process in life, not a statement. Religion however is closer to a statement without proper facts, a statement looking like a statue that when challenged starts to crumble and over the course of time, by people trying to keep it together, ends up a frankensteined version in which the true meaning is lost and the original statue doesn't exist anymore, only incoherent parts and irrational substitutes. Atheism on the other hand does not build a statue, since it's not a statement, it's a process of discussing the idea of a statue, it's more like a painting where you can paint over the original, over and over, the more knowledge and experience you get. You don't try to uphold something or keep the original, you learn something and rework the entire thing.
This is the fundamental misinterpretation of atheism. Theists view it as an ideology, as a statement, as something solid as a statue, when it's instead a concept of thought, a process and a method to understand the world, understand complexities around us, not based on a pre-build statement, but out of the malleable form our knowledge of the world is.
Just as our brain is malleable by the knowledge and experience we have, should our concepts of life, the world and universe be based on the knowledge and experience we share as humanity.
Can a law e.g., of cause and effect, apply to the whole of the universe without applying to each relative circumstance? Why not a deity/deities, if such exist?
My point is, not knowing cannot be used to validate any possibility and, no matter how scientific the approach, it still remains unknown.
Quoting ChatteringMonkey
Perspective is relative, so is our understanding of simplicity. Hence, the many varied choices we make. It all depends on our abilities/capacities.
Quoting ChatteringMonkey
Faith, Belief, Intuition, etc., are applicable to human experience because they are based on more than reason, perhaps will. We face the unknown, not because we understand it, but because we are determined to rise to the challenge. Religion is specifically directed towards instigating certain reactions in humans and among aspects like emotion, thought, intuition, will, etc., reason is not the greater cause, as proven by past human experience. Infact, the success of religion to achieve its aims may be proof of its reasonable-ness, though this is just personal opinion regardless of the probability we may assign to its practical utility.
The need of the present times may suggest administering reason in our actions and interactions. This, however, must be gradual and fundamentally dependent on individual efforts to overcome the inertia of millenia of opposition. We (human identity) haven't always been homo sapiens ('wise' or 'sensible' man), as evolution and past history reveal to us and there seems to be much progress to be made before we can claim the full capacity implied by this identity of homo sapiens.
Quoting ChatteringMonkey
Yes. But that is how all our interactions are. Just as our laws of conduct keep adapting to accommodate human needs better, so do our principles, beliefs, ethics, morals, dogmas, etc. It is all relative, even when it is objective.
No, if god is proven, god exist. Atheism is a process of understanding everything through facts, what can be proven. Atheists accept what is proven and change viewpoint if it's disproven. Claiming the non-existence of god, is not an option, not because that's a statement, but because it's not proven. The burden of proof is on proving the existence of a god, which is why atheism is closer to the process of science than any kind of faith or belief. Faith is about claiming something without proof, atheism doesn't claim anything without proof, but claiming the non-existence of something is not under burden of proof if the existence hasn't yet been proven. If the existence of something is proven, then the burden of proof is on the side claiming it doesn't exist. So far, no proof of existence has been presented for a god, therefor the burden of proof lies on the side claiming the existence. Let's say atheists are still waiting for the argument to start before claiming anything about the existence of god. As soon as an atheist claims something that makes them act under the burden of proof and they don't prove it, they cease to be atheists or live under that way of life.
Whatever significance you assign to any speculation about the unknown is based on choice not fact. To claim a scientific hypothesis has greater probability than a religious one is based on the choice you have made (perhaps sub/unconsciously due to a pre-set inclination or tendency) and not on reason based on logic. Logic dictates you cannot state the probability of an unfathomable occurrence (existence) against an unknown cause. If you have any belief against the metaphysics of religion, then it's just as metaphysical as religious belief.
Quoting S
Reason cannot determine logic, it only applies it. Until reason provides a means to uncover the proof of the origin and intrinsic mode of operation of the whole of existence, then we cannot claim to have an absolute reference point for any perspective. However, a relative reference point is what we use to determine whether or not those who claim belief in deity/deities or belong to any religion are being reasonable/unreasonable. And, often enough, their reasonable/unreasonable-ness is an individual factor born of perspective and the interpretation of the information we/they possess. Just as there are a lot of 'crazy' religious people, there are very 'decent' ones, too. The same applies to everyone, deistic or not.
Quoting S
Accept as in allow to be. Give your own beliefs the 'space' and 'nutrition' to grow and develop appropriately. And give that same opportunity to others. (By and by we are realising how much deliberate influence we have on our beliefs and convictions. Life is about progress, give it a chance. Mistakes teach us to do better, success motivates us to do more.)
Quoting Christoffer
Then it would be my opinion that you, and the atheists you describe, do not hold a faith position. :up: Although I am just a little confused: the way you describe "atheist" seems to be identical to the way many would describe "scientist". :chin: Was this intentional on your part? Do you equate atheism with a 'belief' in science?
If their faith is challenged, they have faith without any rational or reason behind it, therefor they aren't acting as atheists anymore. If you have faith in something you are acting out of a religious point of view. I am very strict on this definition, since it seems to be the key reason for theists to be confused about atheism. I can understand why theists act out aggressively against atheism when atheists start behaving with the same kind of behaviour of faith, it should not be there to represent atheism, since faith isn't what atheism is about.
Most of the time, it's probably just because many atheists, like most people, aren't capable of proper dialectic and argumentation, so they start using emotions instead, and there's wild emotions on both sides to say the least.
Quoting Jake
Yes, I can't disagree with what you say. But I don't think it invalidates - or even opposes - what I said. If an atheist actively asserts the non-existence of God, they occupy a faith position, according to what you say, and to what you and I seem to believe. But if an atheist simply believes that God does not exist, without trying to make their beliefs seem authoritative or binding on others, I don't see a problem. A belief, offered as a belief, and nothing more, is not misleading. That's the point. If there is no attempt to give beliefs artificial authority, we're most of the way there. But belief without proof remains a faith position, as you say. :up:
Reason is the process of framing faith. Or making explicit the implicit... but if I just adopt and repeat popular framings, so that you cannot even tell the difference between me, and a million others, because we just present the precise same model, explanation, reason, as everyone else, then I don't think that one is demonstrating faith or reason, just memory, and allegiance. Ideology.
Now we are going into the epistemological territory of what we can know and what we cannot know. An important part of this is defining objective and subjective truths and this is a vast philosophical topic that I don't think there's enough space in here to write about. But in another thread I presented the idea of defining objective truth in two different divisions. Practical objectivity and absolute objectivity. Practical objectivity is based around defining what is objective through the limits of our perception of the world and universe, i.e the limits of our understanding and to this day, the best way has been the way of the scientific method, falsifiable methods etc. Take a group of ten people, each person goes individually into a white room with only a white table and a red apple. Then they go out and they describe all the details of what they saw. The individual accounts aren't contaminated by each others observations and all accounts gets summarized down to a conclusion about what is in the room: there's white room, with a white table, with a red apple on it. The more people who observe and describe the rooms content, the less probable of errors it gets to define the truth of what's in that room. This is practical objectivity and if you add mathematical logic to it, you start defining the closest humans get to objective truth we can get through our reasoning. Absolute objectivity is questioning everything to such a degree that it gets impossible to define anything. If questioning if there even is a room, an apple, if the people exist etc. we cannot conclude anything and everything gets impractical even on a cosmic scale.
My point is that we can only answer through our human perception, but we have no other reality. The scientific method also doesn't conclude something and then change it's mind. Newtons discoveries didn't get erased because of Einstein. Every conclusion in science works like Hegel's dialectical synthesis, it builds upon, melds together.
The key here is that our reason, methods of knowledge etc. has been tools to form the world around us. If we didn't have reasoning correct we would never be able to form the world as we do. Therefor, practical objective truths about the world works within the reality that is known to us, the things we prove in science works in symbios with the results of this reality we get. In absolute objectivity we could say that there might be god, but without proof it cannot be a practical objectivity and therefor it does not relate to us as a concept of reality we live under.
What we prove has relation to the consequences of that conclusion. To say that we can't prove something because of absolute objectivity ignores the concepts of practical objectivity's result outside of direct human perception and that what we prove has direct consequences within this reality we exist under.
Absolute objectivity is irrelevant in this regard and the inability to prove a god through this concept is irrelevant for us. The non-proof of infinite lack of knowledge is not proof of any existence. As we are proving things within the reality we exist in and practical objective truths we prove and disprove as a process in science, it concludes that there is no proof of a god and therefor the existence of god is not something worth believing in when we have no evidence for it. Any absolute objectivity claims about it is irrelevant for human beings, especially since it doesn't apply to us.
In terms of atheism, the divide between speculation and fact is strict and facts are based on objective truth in the form of the practical definition and based on what can be proved within the reality of existence we exist in. An atheist can speculate that there might be an apple in the white room, but do not claim there to be, not until they have been in there and seen it, but even then they do not accept it to be true since they question their subjective experience; they wait for the result of all the people who went into that room and then conclude it to be a fact. To say that it isn't a fact based on absolute objectivity claiming we cannot be sure of anything is ignoring the probability math of the probability that if I go in there and eat the apple, it will indeed be the apple proven to be in there by the conclusion of people's observations. If our reality is governed by probability of truth and we measure the world by this probability, then practical objectivity is what has the most probable truth to it. We can only exist within this practical objective reality and within this, the probability of a god has never been proved to be high, therefor there is no reason to say that any god exist and therefor believing in a god is not a reasonable way of approaching the reality and practical objective truths that we are governed by.
Like how our evolution of images representing reality has been evolving. Starting out as cave paintings, we have evolved our ability to capture truth right down to capturing the light of the world onto frames of photography. But even then we've continued evolving it. 3D virtual reality captures of the world starts to chop of the framed nature of images and soon we will be standing within the captured world as if we were perfectly there, only difference is the perception forming the experience. Reasoning is much like that, faith is the abstract concept of something that we can never claim to be true, like an abstract image in our mind of something we saw. The more we reason, the more clear it becomes, the more tools, like deductive reasoning, facts, mathematical logic, physical experiments in the world and so on, the easier it becomes to frame those abstractions into truths, like all the tools we started using to capture images; paintings, sculptures, photochemistry, light field technology, VR technology and so on. The more we work on it, the less abstract it gets, the less faith it becomes and more true it becomes. At some point, we will not see the difference between the abstraction and the truth because we have then found the tools to explain the abstraction as objective truth without contamination of the abstraction.
It's intuition, nous, that we're attempting to frame and make explicit. It's sense, sensitivity, life, feeling. None of that is improved in the ways you describe. Making more and more clear images of something that presents itself to you fuzzily doesn't make it clearer, just the image is clearer. The way to improve the intuition is with health, experience, travel, community, love... and is a personal journey.
Why do you have faith in the ability of reason to meaningfully analyze the largest of questions (scope of god claims), when there is no proof of such an ability?
All I'm asking you to do is apply the very same challenge procedure you reasonably apply to theism to atheism as well. Although your posts are very intelligent and articulate, to me they seem to boil down to an attempt to fancy talk your way out of intellectual honesty.
Is the infinite ability of holy books proven? No, theism declined.
Is the infinite ability of reason proven? No, atheism declined.
By "infinite ability" I mean a methodology proven qualified to deliver credible answers about the largest of questions regarding the most fundamental nature of all reality, ie. the scope of most god claims.
A person who walks away from theism is not automatically an atheist, for they may reject the chosen authority of the atheist as well.
Imho, you're working way too hard here. You don't make it this complicated when analyzing theism. You just ask for proof, and when none is provided you walk away.
Yes, agreed.
Quoting Pattern-chaser
I don't see a problem either, but their belief is still based on faith, faith in the ability of human reason to meaningfully analyze the very largest of questions.
A complication often is that their faith is unexamined, taken to be an obvious given, a strong blind faith, so they don't experience it as faith. And so they come on a forum and with all sincerity claim that atheism is not based on faith, because they don't see the faith it is based on.
Ok, we're on basically the same page. Which is refreshing, as it's often me vs. the entire forum. :smile:
Please prove the qualifications of human reason to credibly analyze the very largest of questions about all of reality, a realm we can't define in even the most basic manner (size, shape etc).
If we apply atheist principles to atheism itself, atheism collapses. Reason is of course still proven useful in countless cases on human scale.
If it is not a fact, and if reasonable cases can be made both for and against the same position, than any belief in that position, either for or against, is by definition believed by faith.
The statement, the claim, is that the concept of thought you're referencing is relevant to issues the scale of gods. Prove that please.
Theism vs. atheism is just a contest between two competing authorities, neither of which has been proven qualified to usefully address the questions of vast scale being considered.
I don't, I am looking at the process of reasoning and with facts proving hypotheses into theories and using facts to deduct into logical conclusions as a process that has been going on and there is nothing that says it will not continue going forward. If you frame progress within the framework that we have reached the final conclusions, you are missing the point that this isn't about faith, it's a prediction of probability about the process. Faith is believing something without any rational thing pointing to it, the process points in a certain direction, the end is unclear and not something I have any faith about, but claiming to know the end point is what religion does, therefor religion is about faith, atheism and science is not.
Quoting Jake
That demands a claim to be said in order for me to question as I question claims by theists. Atheism does not have a claim, it's a process of reasoning, not a claim that can be analyzed, since the process is what it is, i.e facts determine what we know, it's not much more strange than that. Any scientific method that do not adhere to facts cannot determine anything, i.e the process is true. I claim the process to be true in pursuit of knowledge and truth within the framework we exist in, the process so far has determined this to be a true claim. Does the process of facts proving claims into truth not exist you mean? In absolute objectivity, sure, but we cannot exist in that state and the fact that humans have conquered forming the world as we have done is based on the process being true within our concept of reality, within practical objectivity. Does the process atheism is based on, not exist? Is that what you mean?
Quoting Jake
You are turning the burden of proof into nonsense here. You are ignoring the basics of the process, i.e facts defining truth. Is the red apple in the white room? The process predicts probability, the process does not equal infinite ability of reason, it predicts that the process will answer more complex questions. Atheism does not say it knows the truth, atheism points out that you can only know what can be proven, god isn't proven. It's the same process that we used to understand the world as we know it, the process itself is proof that it's true in understanding the universe within itself. The process does predict things outside of human perception. Is the red apple in the white room? Yes, probability demands it, low probability denies it. A cosmic scale entity cannot exist under low probability, because low probability is random and random isn't proof of existence.
Do not simplify things into nonsense. The quote above is a straw man of what I've been saying.
Quoting Jake
Atheism is not authority, the process of thinking about life, the world and universe is not a claim, is not authority or solid, it's a malleable process of truth-seeking, do not mix atheism with dogma, that is a theist invention about atheism. A person who walks away from theism is an atheist if he/she is using the process to form knowledge. If that person use unproven claims or any kind of faith, they are not, it's simple as that. There are no claims in atheism, atheism is a process of thinking about knowledge that forms knowledge, ever evolving. Theism is static, atheism is even changing, that is the key difference and the process itself cannot be analyzed and "disproven", since it's a process of truth seeking by questioning what is. It doesn't make sense to question atheism as if it were acting out of the same principles as theism, since it doesn't.
Quoting Jake
This is nonsense. You are trying to disprove a method that has been giving results by it's reasoning and logic since it was first ever used. Theists claim something without proof, atheist doesn't claim anything without proof. You cannot ask for proof about how our reasoning is valid without first claiming that proof we have right now about the world is false and that all the things we have proven isn't existing. The process and the results of that process has already given results that prove the process works. And without claiming anything without proof you can't apply anything against atheism the way you propose, it makes no sense. What you are doing is an argument that propose a premise that theism works under the same principles as atheism when they are nothing alike.
FIrst and foremost, what is 'transcendent' is also by definition, beyond the scope of empirical science. So you will reply, 'how then can anyone claim to know anything of it?' To which the revealed religions will say 'Because he/she/it choose to reveal himself in the person of Jesus, or the sayings of Muhammed, and so on. And that is also given in the context of an historical record of testimony, recorded events, mythological accounts, and so on, which frame the purported revelations and provide a context within which it can be made meaningful.
So, of course if you reject all of those sources, and demand 'evidence', then the kind of evidence you're demanding will typically be of a completely different order. This is because empiricism works by first of all only dealing with phenomena about which measurable predictions can be made. And also because it's dealing with very specific subjects - what causes the colour of light to change as iron is heated, what causes epidemics, and so on.
However there are some exceptions to this general principle, specifically in respect of the so-called 'medical miracles' which are required for the canonization of saints. In these cases, meticulous records have been kept of such cures and intercessions, which are also empirical to the extent that medical science has not been able to provide an account of why the cure happened.
But from a philosophical perspective, the real argument is about understanding why religious principles can't ever be a matter of empirical science at all, and that to demand empirical evidence is to misunderstand the whole issue. And one can say this without any kind of agenda either for or against belief in God,
But then any regular everyday event can be explained in a million different ways if complexity is not a limiting factor and all metaphysical unverifiable possibilities are up for consideration. Is that reasonable?
Quoting BrianW
Yes, i'm not saying we should allways use reason or that reason is more important then the rest of our abilities, but the question was, "is it reasonable"... so I answered with that in mind.
And sure religion has been effective in achieving certain aims, the more salient question maybe is what aims, and are these also my or your aims?
This is just untrue and you are totally ignoring history here. Religion has never explained anything that comes close to anything true about the universe. Atheism has not done that either since it has never claimed anything at all, it's just a process. You are thinking about science vs religion and within that, science has a pretty solid track record of providing answers to questions earlier defined as "too vast to be explained". The very reason you are able to write on your computer or phone and talk about these things is a result of scientific discovery and theories proven. Name one thing that religion has ever done in this regard? Both science and atheism also works under the principle of them being a process and line of thinking, they themselves does not claim a single thing. Theists on the other hand claim things that are then asked to be proved, which they don't... because "faith reasons".
Your entire line of criticism against atheism relies on the premiss that it claims specific things, same goes for science. They do not do this, they act under a process of thinking and testing the world around us and ourselves in order to find truths that we can build upon. If none of those things that this process produced were true you would for instance not be able to use GPS since Einsteins theories was crucial in order to even have satellites working with it. Atheism and science has no authority behind them and therefor your argument falls flat as a comparison to theism, which all it does is making claims that doesn't need to be proved because of "faith". I think you have a fundamental misunderstanding of what atheism is and what science does and that misunderstanding is the foundation of the argument. The premisses of your argument cannot be based on an misunderstanding. You cannot demand that atheism is governed by authority or that it makes claims, it simply doesn't, so the argument falls flat.
I agree. The question doesn't apply just to atheists, but to anyone who uses the word 'faith'.
I can't speak for all atheists and I expect that many of them use 'faith' in different ways than I use it.
But my definition would be something like:
1. Willingness to commit one's self to the truth of a belief whose justification is perceived as weak. It's similar in meaning to 'trust'.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faith
The word 'faith' seems to me to be ambiguous.
2. The usage that I favor has to be distinguished from another usage that imagines 'faith' as a kind of extrasensory spiritual sense, an additional channel for acquiring information. The hugely influential KJV translation of Hebrews 11:1 suggests this: "now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen."
The second use encounters all kinds of epistemological problems that the first doesn't. The first seems to me to be very much in accord with some current ideas in formal epistemology, in which different beliefs can have different plausibility weights and be better or worse justified. (That's what all that "Bayesian" stuff that we see everywhere in philosophy these days is all about.) 'Faith' (as I conceive of it) is just willingness to commit to the truth of propositions what have less plausibility weight than we might otherwise like.
Another idea that I want to distinguish my view from is
3. 'fideism', the idea that faith and reason are antithetical and opposed. This one is summed up by Tertullian's "...the son of God died; it is by all means to be believed, because it is absurd." Luther seems to have said similar things and it seems to be a recurring theme in Protestantism (and in philosophy influenced by Protestantism).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fideism
I think that's because religion, particularly Protestant Christian religion with its ideas of "justification by faith alone", is where the word 'faith' is most typically used these days. It's out of style in most of the rest of contemporary life, and one generates angry responses when one uses it in the context of things like science.
Yes, I'd agree with that.
I think that I'd rather say that the facts are typically going to be whatever they are regardless of what we happen to think about them.
And while I suspect that many/most of our beliefs are poorly justified if we poke deeply enough into their foundations (poking into the foundations is what I perceive philosophy's job to be), that doesn't mean that some beliefs can't be better justified than others. I think that's even going to be true regarding religious beliefs.
An appeal to reason.
if both the theist, or the atheist can make valid claims that their beliefs are reasonable, than neither can claim a superior position unless, they are willing to make an argument that the other position is unreasonable.
I would be interested if you think such an argument from either side is possible.
Thanks yours - I struggle a little with the concept of competing ideas - one being "more reasonable" than another as a basis of any truth claim. I am aware, in real life, that we are often but in a position of having to weigh reasonable alternatives and decide which we feel is better. In a philosophic sense, on the issue of a/theism I have no idea what basis one could use to weigh the options and decide on a winner without the outcome being actually decided by a personal prejudice - and as such is just begging the question.
Atheism isn't about belief or faith, this is a fundamental misunderstanding of atheism that needs to be abandoned before any argument is done about atheism. Atheism doesn't believe in anything, it is a process of thinking and reasoning about the world, it is not a claim.
I do not think there is a teapot between us and the sun until someone has proven there to be. Theists say that atheists need to disprove that there isn't a teapot. Atheists does not claim or assert anything without evidence, it is therefor and cannot be anything other than the process of reaching truth, not a claim or belief in anything. Until theists understand this simple concept, the arguments against atheism will continue to be founded on a flawed foundational premiss.
Yes, there's a huge difference between faith in god and faith in the truth. Faith in the truth only means faith in what is a coming conclusion, whatever it might be, faith in god is faith in a claim that has no direct correlation with any facts or logic, only the claim itself. Therefor, because faith is so connected to the ideas of religion I am careful to use the term as "faith in the truth". It confuses the argument. Faith in this dialectic is for me meant to represent faith in god, faith int he supernatural, the unexplained without the need for reason or valid evidence. I have faith in the truth, but I do not know the truth of something I do not have the evidence for. The difference is night and day.
P1 - God is, is not a fact
P2 - God is not - is not a fact
P3 - God is - is supported by reason
P4 - God is not - is supported by reason
Conclusion - neither God is, or God is not, is a superior position.
God does not exist is not a claim since it demands that God exist.
God exist, is a claim, which demands proof to be valid.
Atheists does not claim god does not exist since they cannot claim something that isn't a valid claim.
Atheists does not claim anything, they demand proof of the claim.
Conclusion, atheists does not claim anything and any argument that criticise atheists making claims is based on a false premiss.
The proposition that atheism makes a claim is false, that is what the problem is. If atheists makes a claim, then theism and atheism is in opposition, but a claim needs to be supported. Theists claim the existence of god, provides proof. Proof is accepted and the general truth is that god exist, atheists claim that god doesn't exist, cannot provide proof, then atheists are wrong in their claim. Problem is that theists claims aren't proved, so the argument haven't even gotten to the point of arguments for or against, so atheism cannot be blamed for making any claim since theists claims demand the burden of proof before a counter-claim can be made.
Atheists however, do not make such claims. If theists prove the existence of god with the same level of truth as Einsteins theories, then no atheist would claim otherwise, since atheism is built upon following the truth where it is. If theists prove the existence of god, all atheists would say, "ok" then this is the truth then.
So there is no claims made from atheists, this is the truth that theists ignore in their arguments.
I made no such proposition -
And it seems you think my argument is saying something about the truth claim of atheism - it is not. It is simply saying neither claim is superior. I gave an easily reasoned argument in support. Yet again - if you disagree and believe the atheist claim is superior tell me which proposition is false and why, or why my conclusion does not follow.
Quoting Rank Amateur
Then
Quoting Rank Amateur
This is why it's confusing. You say "atheist's claim" then saying that your proposition about atheists making claims isn't something you do.
If atheists doesn't make a claim, then there is no claim to be superior. You are balancing theists making claims to atheists making claims. Making a claim demands a statement. Atheist do not claim anything since there is nothing to claim against. The teapot flying around the sun is an example of this. Anyone could claim anything and then demand proof that it isn't, but that is not how burden of proof works. Atheists claims are always based on facts, meaning if an atheist claims anything that isn't supporting by facts, then they aren't really atheists anymore. This is key to understanding the position atheists are in. And even if an atheist makes a claim with supported proof and new proof prove that claim to be wrong, the atheist won't argue against, they would accept the newly proven claim to be the truth. Atheism never makes claims against facts this way and do not stand by a certain dogma or viewpoint outside of facts. Therefor you cannot pit theist claims against atheist claims since there are no claims from atheists. Atheists only demand to prove the claims given, that is not a claim, that is a demand for truth, which theists does not provide yet. When they do, then atheists either have counter-proofs with counter arguments or if the evidence is clearly pointing to the existence of god, atheists will accept it.
Difference here is that theists do not work under facts and proof, only belief. If atheists, or rather scientists provide a claim with proof, many theists still deny it. Proof does not matter for theists when presented. The difference between the two are fundamentally so different that you can't really put them in an argument against each other. Atheists haven't made any claims, at. all.
Ok I will amend the argument:
P1 - God is, is not a fact
P2 - God is not - is not a fact
P3 - Theism - a claim that God is - is supported by reason
P4 - Chrisoffer is not making any claim about anything
Conclusion - neither God is or whatever Chrisoffer believes is a superior position
Tell me which proposition is false and why , or how the conclusion does not follow.
Yes, it is reasonable. The limiting factor would be practical experience. While every circumstance is open to any number of possible considerations, there is a convergence to our shared perception and utility. There are certain specific contexts which prevent situations from being amorphous.
Quoting ChatteringMonkey
I agree. Personally, I'm not a fan of religion. I wish people used reason to justify their beliefs or, at the least, to determine their conduct within those beliefs. But, I must also concede that things won't necessarily happen the way I want them to, especially if they involve other people. I may not care for religion but I must regard those who do with the due consideration.
I laughed at this, it was very funny, truly :smile:
But you are mixing together claims and facts. A claim demands facts, the claim itself isn't a fact. Claiming there's a teapot in space needs support by evidence, claiming there isn't a teapot in space is a nonsense claim since there's no proof of any teapot in space. Therefor you can't say that atheists claim there isn't a teapot in space since they haven't even gotten to the point of hearing a reasonable argument for a teapot in space. Atheists does not make claims that aren't proved by facts, if they see a claim, they want proof of that claims, that is what burden of proof is about.
If I claimed there's a rabbit under your bed and you said to me that I need to prove it, if I were a theist I would not care to give any proof. If I were an atheists I would not claim there to be or not be a rabbit under your bed because any claim would be ridiculous without evidence of there being one. If you look under your bed and say I was lying about there being a rabbit under your bed, an atheist would say that they didn't even make the claim, since they didn't make any claim about neither, but a theist would say; "well you don't know if it ran away", "you don't know if it's an invisible one", "you cannot prove that it wasn't there".
Atheists demand proof of claims that doesn't have proof. They do not make claims. Theists makes claims that doesn't have proof and demand proof of the opposite and without any, they accept their claim as truth. This is a fundamental fallacy in how to reach a rational conclusion in any form under any situation. Atheists are still waiting for the argument to start, given the lack of evidence from theists, atheists are really asking the question, why bother with religion? The argument that atheists cannot value emotion and beautify because of this, is in any sense of the matter, bullshit (referring to earlier posts on this)
Atheism means “without belief”, that its literal meaning. The “a” means “without”, the “theism” means belief.
Theism means “belief”.
Its easy to look up the origins of the word.
In philosophy academia, certain arguements use variations or specific extrapolations on the base word. Most of you are conflating it all together, which is leading to people making confused arguments.
Atheism is specifically the lack of a belief about something. To call it a belief is to not understand what the word means. (The words “atheism” OR “belief”.)
If the question is “do you believe in god?”, and your answer is anything other than “yes”, then you are an atheist. Yes, even if you are undecided, an agnostic, you can still be an atheist. Not mutually exclusive.
If you are defining athiest/atheism in any other way, you are using an idiosyncratic definition that is in service to a specific position you hold or argument you are making. This will only lead to confusion as everyone proceeds to talk past each other. Yes, even you fence sitters (not intended as derogatory, merely descriptive) who are trying to equate the reasoning of the two positions. There are two things, the position someone holds and the how or why of that position. Atheism and theism are positions, states of belief, reasoning only comes into play when either of them encounter a proposition.
So Atheists, stop claiming ground you dont hold with the word you are using to describe your position. Science is not atheism, atheism has no method. Science does.
Theists, im sorry but the burden of proof is on you. The reasoning process starts with the claim you choose to make whatever it may be. When you call yourself a theist, you are saying “I believe”, but you have to say in what you believe in order to have a discussion about it. Be that an exercise in reason or faith is of course up to you.
Agnostic types (its hard to tell exactly what term applies to each of you, but hopefully “agnostic-ish covers it), stop trying to equate the reasoning betweeen two positions when no such reasoning exists. You have no dog in the fight until a proposition is stated and the reasoning process begins, THEN you can bitch about “militant” atheism if it rears its head, or if the process on either side of the proposition ends up beimg two equal acts of unreasonableness or reasonableness.
You will all find that if you operate from this basis, your discussions will be much more productive, assuming understanding is the goal rather than grandstanding or preaching (which is not restricted to the theistic position).
I challenge this. One can claim by either reason or faith something to be true and act accordingly with only caveat that it can not be in conflict with fact.
If all that can be claimed true is that which we currently believe - presumably by science - to be true. My argument is there is an almost infinite list of things and concepts that at were at one moment in time most certainly not know to be a fact, that actually were - in fact - real.
There is a hidden proposition in your view that our current understanding of what we call "facts" is the complete state of affairs of what all facts are. I challenge that as false.
If I can summarize all your posts, you are making the noseeum argument against theism. Basically the argument goes - we have looked in a lot of places that occupy time and space, and we have not seen anything we would call "God". And since we haven't seen anything that occupies time and space, or evidence in time and space there of that we would call "God" -
traditional Atheist conclusion - There is no God
Christoffers conclusion - ????
Ok - I amend to
P1 - God is, is not a fact
P2 - God is not - is not a fact
P3 - God is - is supported by reason
P4 - I reject God is - is supported by reason
Conclusion - neither God is, or I reject God is, is a superior position.
...is not a claim since such a claim demands that the previous claim had proof supporting it. There is not a teapot in space is a nonsense claim, since no one supported such nonsense. Same goes for god. Theists claim there is a god, atheists ask for evidence for it, theists don't give a shit.
Atheists do not make claims since claims demand a previous claim. Claiming god doesn't exist demands that we have agreed there is a god before claiming it isn't. If theists can't prove their claim true, there's nothing to argue against. Atheists do not claim anything if they do not have facts to support it and so far burden of proof is on theists to start the argument, which they can't. Atheists do not have any burden of proof, because demanding that is as nonsense as demanding proof there isn't a teapot between us and the sun.
How is this a valid premiss?
Contrasting "faith in god" with "faith in the truth" already seems to embody an implicit claim that "god" isn't "truth" (or that a proposition asserting God's existence isn't T) or something.
Except that oftentimes we can't be sure that our evidence and our arguments will produce a particular conclusion, at least not without introducing a bunch of poorly justified auxiliary assumptions. It only gets more problematic when we start questioning the foundations of logic and logical inference. So oftentimes, even when the subject has nothing to do with religion, there's still going to be a bit of a 'leap of faith', however small we think it is.
That's a strong assertion, if you want to insist that atheists make no claims.
I believe the cosmological argument is a reasonable argument.
That god isn't truth demands that someone claims that god is truth. To claim that god is truth demands that the claim that god exists is true. The line of claims ends up at the theist claim that is unsupported by facts, which means that you cannot end up with god being or not being truth if you haven't solved the validity of god in the first place.
Quoting yazata
Yet, even that is not any argument against atheists, since atheists follows the truth were it may lead. What you speak of is close to agnosticism, but agnosticism is sometimes a non-argument in favour of an existing god, meaning they us the lack of knowledge to support the possibility of the existence of god being true, which is still a kind of cop-out. Atheism will accept the existence of god if it's proven, atheists will never claim that god doesn't exist if the proof is presented. That kind of malleable viewpoint seems to only exist within atheism and that standpoint itself shows it's vastly different from theism.
Quoting yazata
If you can show what isn't logical about that, go ahead. Atheists claim things that have proof or logic, if you can show what isn't logic I will change the claim. This is the key difference between theists and atheists. Atheists does not claim anything that doesn't have logic or evidence and will change if challenge with better logic or evidence.
I think you have missed my point. Science is objective, it explains how the World is, not how it should be. Ethics is subjective. We can agree or disagree in ethics, and we can make our case by trying to reason it. This I understand totally. But when you make the argument that your reasoning is from a scientific basis, for me that is different. Too many times people have fallen into this trap: that they argue their subjective, normative views are somehow deductible from science and hence superior to others. How many times Darwinism or genetics has been abused to push some idea or agenda that has nothing to do with them?
Quoting ChristofferAre our ethics indeed invented by the necessity of survival? Really?
Perhaps we had those basic morals and ethics for the survival of our family and clan, but typically not for anyone else. Typically animals and packs of animals have their owb territories and defend them out of necessity of survival. Our own species has been the most successfull in basically turning everythin in the World (except the deep oceans) to our own territory. And most likely our species wasn't at all benevolent and peaceful with all the other hominid relatives of ours that are now extinct. The idea of getting rid of your competitors is totally logical for survival. Science indeed can show this kind of behaviour even in other animals. Yet I see it far from being a basis for ethics.
Quoting Christoffer
Of course. And science basically does the similar thing on a broader level: it explains how everything has ended up as it as and as we can now observe from our surroundings. Similarly, it doesn't give validity to our normative ideas on what to do as reality is anything but simple.
The cosmological argument only points to a first cause of the line of consequences in a deterministic universe, it does not point to a god. Asserting that the first cause is god is a wild conclusion that does not care for the conclusion of the actual argument. The actual argument only points to a first cause that we don't know about and it is valid in the sense that it points to that unknown, no atheist would deny that. However, theists points to this unknown and say it's god. That is not the definition of god that theists in other cases describe god as, hence, the argument does not support theists claims of a god. The argument is only valid as pointer to the unknown start of events for the universe, nothing more, nothing less. We haven't proved this first cause or how it happened, which doesn't mean it's god or anything like it. The argument is a good one, just not for any kind of god, which is an assertion dislocated from the argument and a claim by theists that does not have any relation to the argument or line of thinking about determinism.
In order to make headway in this discussion, you need to stop conflating atheism with a particular atheist you might have in mind. Everyone does.
Aquinas would not approve of your interpretation.
The cosmological argument, that I am referencing, has a conclusion that there is a non- contingent or necessary being - whose existence in not contingent on anything, and whose existence is necessary for everything - me and Aquinas, millions of others, call this being God.
I don't see any logic here? You are mixing subjective ethics into the argument about the existence for god? I attribute atheism to have a foundation close to the process of science, meaning that it demands evidence for any claims about life, the world and universe. That is not a claim, it's a demand for proving claims. Demanding proof for a claim is not a claim in itself.
Quoting ssu
I would suggest looking into the findings about how we humans evolved. There is theories in psychology and sociology about how groups of people function, that we have problems to function as a group when we reach over 12 people in a group. This is where people started to get rid of competitors, when we started doing crimes against the group to survive or become better off than others in the group. This is also my point; that when we grew larger than 12, those smaller groups, we needed systems to govern society and that is were our morals and ethics came to be. That these morals and ethics were corrupted by those in power is a later historical entry.
Quoting ssu
You mean that neuroscience, psychology, socialogy and sciences that investigate current states does not find truths based in evidence of the present? You mean that Einstein's theoretical physics were false? Since things like gravitational waves wasn't proved until this year? Science is more than experiments proving, it's also about logic proving. Mathematical logic in line of Russel has to do with a logic that can be drawn on a whiteboard and still be as valid as experimental proof since the logic itself is solid. 2 + 2 is 4; if you demand evidence of it, you ignore the logic of that math and that math is as basic as nature itself.
The OP was:
Aquinas is dead and didn't go through both the renaissance nor the enlightenment period. It's still making a claim that the first cause, the one necessary for everything we know, is "god". There is nothing about the god that exists within any of our definitions that can be asserted to being that first cause of everything. Making that connection is projecting your own ideas about god on top of an abstract concept of the first mover in a deterministic universe. That is not an argument with any validity and any claim that it proves the existence of god is a failure to understand the difference between a true conclusion and a conclusion that is converted into a cognitive bias.
A "first mover" is not god by any definition we have, it's only proof that there has too be something at the beginning of cause and effect... nothing more... nothing less.... any claim otherwise is not supported by logic or reason. This is why the cosmological argument hasn't been able to prove the existence of god. If it had, the argument would have been over. But theists doesn't care about this, they just demand this argument to have a valid conclusion, which is delusional.
agree thanks for the post
Then, that person is not an atheist. Not in the sense of following evidence and logic to the truth. Sure, in the sense of denying the existence of a god, but being a flat-earther has nothing to do with being an atheist. Atheism doesn't have to do with belief, which means it demands proof, which means it cares for truth. The foundation of atheism becomes pretty clear.
Why did you do that? Why didnt you address the other points that I made in the same post?
Religions basically do give answers on how to live, what is good and what is bad. And religions rely on deities as the reason for this. Is this logic so difficult to understand?
Quoting ChristofferNo. They try to find and do find objective truths. Not normative statements. (In philosophy, normative statements make claims about how things should or ought to be, how to value them, which things are good or bad, and which actions are right or wrong.)
Hold up, we need to rewind. I didn't say anything, specifically, about speculation about the unknown, nor any significance assigned to it. We were talking about belief or disbelief in the existence of any deity/deities. That's not necessarily speculation about the unknown, and again, that's not a choice. Here's an exception: my knowledge that any deities the existence of which would entail a contradiction do not exist cannot rightly be called speculation about the unknown, and it isn't something that I choose to believe. It's not speculation, as it has a very firm grounding in a fundamental law of logic, it's not unknown, and I can't help but find it convincing, so it's not a choice.
Quoting BrianW
You can't just assert that it's a choice, because that's begging the question. I don't even think that what we're talking about - obtaining belief - is something which [I]can[/I] be chosen, so, for starters, you would need to explain why you think otherwise before moving on to more detailed talk of scientific hypotheses, probability, logic, religion, and so on.
Quoting BrianW
Sorry, I'm not following. Can you break that down and explain it? Also, that seems more specific than what we were initially talking about. If so, can you also explain why you've moved from a broad topic to a subset within that broader topic? There are beliefs about what's probable [i]and[/I] beliefs about what's possible, both of which can fall under the topic of beliefs about the existence of any deity or deities.
Quoting BrianW
What do you mean by that? How are you using the term "metaphysical"?
Quoting BrianW
So, you agree? I don't see how what I said is much different from saying that there's a relative reference point which we use to determine whether or not those who claim belief in deity/deities or belong to any religion are being reasonable/unreasonable. And sure, we can call it reasoning or factors or a perspective or an interpretation. Whatever is the basis for their view.
Quoting BrianW
But no one here is saying that religious beliefs aren't allowed, so what's your reason for making that point? Disagreeing with beliefs is what goes on here. That's very different from saying that these beliefs aren't allowed.
Quoting BrianW
I really don't agree with your general sentiment here. Not all of it, there are parts I agree with, and I'm not suggesting that I'm favour of all out war or anything of the sort, but I don't think that a kind of 'back off', 'leave it alone', 'it's all equal', 'lets all hold hands' approach is the right one. I think you mean well, but I think that there's merit in putting it all out in the open and arguing things out. Nothing should be out of bounds when it comes to the substance behind a belief, and if you happen to be the kind of person who doesn't want their beliefs exposed to scrutiny, then you have the option to keep them private, instead of expressing them on a public philosophy forum.
Thank you for your opinion above - however it in no way challenges whether or not is reasonable to believe in the Cosmological argument as Aquinas made it. In order to do so, you will need to prove with fact or reason that the premise are wrong or the conclusion does not follow. This has not been able to be done in a few hundred years, and not from lack of effort. So you have quite a task ahead of you.
Quoting Rank Amateur
If, as you state, you are a believe in reason, this last part should give you pause.
Like morals about slavery and such? Religion is just a vessel for basic morals and ethics established long before the religions you give credit for these. You also assume that morals cannot be established by non-religious people, which is a prejudice against any kind of moral system that doesn't rely on religious belief.
This is the usual "atheists are immoral" argument that fails over and over.
Quoting ssu
You are dividing the two, too definitively. Right and wrong can be asserted through what is true about human psychology but I agree philosophy is key to figuring out morals. However none of these has anything to do with god or religion, which claims moral truths without foundation for those claims. Philosophy and science try to find a foundation that is valid instead, which is more rational than claims based on belief in a system just because of the belief itself.
I very much agree with this, I feel one should start from what one knows and can know, and not from what one can't know. And how do Gods fare with practical experience as a limiting factor?
Quoting BrianW
The aim of religion is to anchor traditional morality, to keep people from questioning that morality... Thou shall not eat the fruit from the tree of knowlegde of good and evil!
And that morality is used to keep people in line, which from the perspective of the rulers is very usefull.
But if your aim is questioning and knowledge, then that is contrary to the aims of religion. The real philosopher is the archenemy of priests and theologians.
You seem to miss the fact that no atheist is disapproving the conclusion of the first mover based on the logic and evidence at hand. It's the assertion that the "first mover" and "god" is the same thing that isn't proven. It's like me saying that the cosmological argument proves that the teapot in space created everything in the first place, that the teapot is the first mover. There is nothing to bind the concept of god to the "first mover" of the cosmological argument so there is nothing to disprove. No one is arguing against the first mover since we don't have enough data to disprove that logic, but saying "it is god" is a claim with no facts to back it up.
You cannot attach one argument and combine it to another conclusion just because you want to. The claim that god exists has nothing to do with the conclusion of the cosmological argument.
In what way is the "first mover", the initial cause of all causality, "god"? Explain that before claiming the cosmological argument to prove any existence of god. I see no correlation between the conclusion of god existing with the actual conclusion of there being a "first mover". There isn't any correlation here, please point it out.
My Premise - theism is reasonable
you - why
Me - Cosmological argument
you - I/others disagree with the cosmological argument therefor you are unreasonable
me - that fails - i hold to my premise
The argument has ben flawed for a few hundred years, it's not that it hasn't been able to be disproved, it's not proven anything else than a "first mover" to begin with. Attributing the cosmological argument to anything more than what it is, is ignoring the hundreds of years it hasn't been able to prove anything of what theists propose. If it hade been able to prove the existence of god through logic, it would have been a done deal. It's like saying that the cosmological argument proved the existence of god, but people are just too stupid to realize it. No, people just don't see the logic behind combining that conclusion with the notion that any god exist and theists haven't provided any answer to combine the conclusion of the argument the the conclusion that god exists. It's nonsense really.
Unless it's some kind of trick where you're actually talking about something much less controversial than what you appear to be talking about.
You know, something a bit like this:
Person A: "God exists".
Person B: "Say what?"
Person A: "Yeah, God exists. God exists [i]as a concept[/I]".
Person B: "Motherfuuu..."
The cosmological argument does not have any valid conclusion in favour of the existence of god. It's not about disagreement, there's no logical conclusion, case closed. What you write here just points to you ignoring the inconsistencies about the argument in support of a god. Nothing binds the conclusion of the cosmological argument to the conclusion that god exists, that's just a wild connection with no basis in logic. The first mover is not god, there's nothing to bind those together, case closed (and has been for a long time).
I agree with you on your points to Rank Amateur, there is no connecting tissue betweeen the first mover and sny theistic god that I know of and in fact many great philosophers have tried and failed to bridge that gap. If Rank Amateur knows the argument, he should know that as well.
People have vivid imaginations and can, and have, come up with a lot of ignorance.
In real life, childrens' heads are filled up with that, and that has real life consequences, both for them and for others.
I don't recall having heard of any pujaris priests imams etc ending their sessions with "oh, by the way, we don't know", though that would seem the moral thing to do.
Some folk are out to learn more about whatever is indeed the case, which involves a conscious effort to minimize all the known tedious shortcomings.
So, yes, it matters.
And it doesn't mean the cosmological argument is invalid, it's just not an argument for the existence of god, but an argument that is very interesting for scientists. How do we tackle this mystery of what started the deterministic universe, the mind blowing conclusion of the argument is more interesting than any kind of claim that it proves the existence of god.
If you, as him, think believing in the cosmological argument is an unreasonable position - i would be interested in the argument.
You and Christoffer want to argue the point you want to argue and not argue against the premise. The premise is NOT the Cosmological argument is true, the premise is that it is reasonable
Im made no comment in the reasonableness of the argument, you are simply mis-applying it. It is an argument about a first cause or mover. It is a reasonable, imo, argument for first mover/cuase. Theism, take your pick, does NOT follow from it.
Can there be an un-moved mover, an un-created creator, a non contingent being that is would be unreasonable to call "God"
In the 18th century, Mikhail Lomonosov discovered the atmosphere of Venus and the law of conservation of mass in chemical reactions.
In the 19th century, you had Ohm's Law, the Doppler effect, and electromagnetic induction.
In the 20th century, there was the third law of thermodynamics and the discovery that the Milky Way is just one of many galaxies.
Don't we still have this today, in the 21st century? What was incorrect about this? What have these things been surpassed by?
Deism is the term to describe what I think you have in mind in this discussion, deism is what the cosmological argument does a decent job of making a case for.
Oops, firgot to tag you in that last post.
.
Translation: It’s a question that S. can’t answer :D
.
Though S. believes in the “objective” existence of a physical universe that is the fundamental reality, all of reality, and the metaphysically-prior thing on which all else supervenes—he can’t say why there is that physical universe.
.
So, “Let’s not ask why it is. It just is.” That’s called posting a brute-fact.
.
.
Not considering that to be a brute-fact doesn’t make it not be a brute-fact.
.
.
Talking about atoms doesn’t explain your Materialist world as other than a brute-fact. Idealists don’t deny that matter is made of atoms, as I fully discussed in the earlier posts that you’re referring to.
.
.
Don’t worry about it. I assure you that you’ve said enough :D
.
.
Then maybe S. should look those words up in a dictionary, so that he’ll know what he means. :D
.
As for the dictionary definitions of those words:
.
They’re all in one of two or three categories:
.
Some of them refer to attributes possessed by the hypothetical logical systems that I refer to.
.
Maybe, with some generous interpretation, some of them could be taken to indicate unspecified difference from those logical systems. That wouldn’t answer my question, because I’d asked, “Specifically, what attribute do those words connote that isn’t possessed by the logical systems that I’ve mentioned?” So, indicating unspecified difference from those systems wouldn’t answer my question.
.
Some of them refer to eachother.
.
In other words, none of the dictionary definitions answers my question. So, even if you meant one or more of those definitions, you haven’t answered the question (…but there’s no need for you to keep trying. As I said, you’ve said enough.)
.
Conversation concluded.
.
Michael Ossipoff
Quite an intrepretation! I truly don't have any grudge against atheists, but it seems you just assume that. I really don't know where you got the idea that I think atheists are immoral.
Anyway, I think you get my point when you agree that "philosophy is key to figuring out morals". Philosophy? Yes definately! Philosophical reasoning is very recommendable. It can be rational, perhaps even rigorously logical, but it's still philosophy. Science? Referring just to science in these matters can easily slide into scientism. To claim science as the only or primary source of human values, a traditional domain of ethics, is de facto scientism.
Perhaps my point can be confused when just thinking about religions from viewpoint of the various "Genesis" stories religions make and how science refutes that nonsense. This idea of God and deities being an invented answer to things in reality that we don't understand naturally has collided with scientific knowledge later.
Quoting Christoffer
Yet are the morals so totally different? The starting point is surely different, that we can agree. Is all religious moral thinking just plagiarized from common sense and earlier philosophy? Because should I point out that some religious thinkers have even been called philosophers. Just asking.
One of the interesting facts about the state of current cosmology, is that many scientifically-inclined philosophers, or rather, scientists who philosophise, will say that one of the compelling arguments for the 'multiverse' is precisely to avoid the implications of the anthropic cosmological argument. In an article on the concept of the multiverse, George Ellis notes that this is one of the arguments frequently appealed to:
DOES THE MULTIVERSE REALLY EXIST? (cover story). By: Ellis, George F. R. Scientific American. Aug2011, Vol. 305 Issue 2, p38-43.
This argument is so much taken for granted that it is routinely invoked as a metaphysical argument against design, even though there can be no scientific - that is, falsifiable - evidence for it, one way or the other.
Now of course it is true that cosmological arguments don't provide any kind of empirical or scientific proof for the existence of a higher intelligence either - but to demand that kind of evidence, betrays a basic misunderstanding of the difference between metaphysics and empiricism in the first place. And that, in turn, is because a major part of Enlightenment philosophy comprises getting rid of metaphysics altogether - or at least, believing that it is possible to get rid of. But it's not, because 'no metaphysics' is actually a metaphysics - and a pretty poor one.
The premise and conclusion from it are based on your own perspective. It is your interpretation which concludes for you that the existence of those deities would entail a contradiction. From my experience, nobody worships a dead god, which means those who believe in them have a contradicting argument.
Quoting S
The claims and statements that you express, which are based on your reason infer a choice. Reason does not just conduct itself arbitrarily. The fact that you are adhering to a particular set of beliefs in accordance with certain points of reference, especially now, when you have the capacity to understand and determine whatever actions to engage in, means you have made a choice.
Quoting S
You cannot determine by logic how scientific hypothesis are much greater in probability than religious assertions when both reference points are unknown. That is, we don't know what the origin of everything is and our perspective of reality is insufficient. Also, both religion and science can be logical concerning this discussion.
Quoting S
Metaphysical part of religion is the part not determined by practical experience and cannot be explicitly defined logically (primarily involving God).
Quoting S
I'm okay with scrutiny if it means a logical unbiased analysis not an attempt to impose personal bias on others.
Not Gods, but the human conception of Gods.
Quoting ChatteringMonkey
No. The real philosopher studies facts in their right relation. There have been good religious philosophers in the past and the basic tenets of the major religions are good philosophical teachings. Right perspective is a philosopher's greatest tool.
According to Christianity, by experiencing the very worst of it.
Those who seek fault find fault. If we judge the law according to miscreant law breakers or religion by the ignorant adherents, all we'll get will be flaws. Let's judge Christianity according to Jesus Christ, Islam according to Prophet Muhammad, Buddhism -> Gautama Buddha, Hinduism -> Lord Krishna, etc.
Sorry if I hadn't made my point clear.
You might enjoy this review of Daniel Dennett's attempt to 'explain' religion in just these terms.
No, no, no. Not at all. This is a big misunderstanding on your end.
You're asking a loaded question which assumes that there's a "why" to begin with, which is controversial and needs to be justified before we go any further.
And no, please don't misrepresent my position. I haven't said that a physical universe is the fundamental reality, all of reality, and the metaphysically-prior thing on which all else supervenes. Like I said, I don't claim to be a physicalist, I'm not convinced of physicalism, and I rarely even discuss, read up on, or consider the topic.
No they are not good philosophical teachings, with the possible exception maybe of Buddhism, they are revelation. Good philosophy starts with accurate description, not with proscription.
Quoting BrianW
Yeah sure let's not judge Christianity by how it's been practiced the last 2 millenia. Never mind that the church itself has never followed the teachings of Jesus Christ, but was build on some corrupted version by Paul.
An interesting and rich argument that, frankly, is beyond my depth, at least at a glance. It inspires a new thought for me though: that for theists there must be no kind of ultimate or nominal reality; what Buddha would call ‘emptiness’ or Nagal might call the ‘view from nowhere’. For the theist that conceptual space must be occupied by the mind of God, with its will and its purposes, forever beyond the comprehension of its creation, where happiness or salvation is only attained in total acceptance of this teleology. Unsurprisingly, dispite the discrepancy in metaphysics, Buddhist religion concludes with the same recommendation to achieve happiness: total acceptance.
Quoting alsterling
It would not be deviant by my standards but that of the particular society.
I can’t tell from the review, being so thickly anti-Dennett.
William Blake's 'All Religions Are One' is a very great read.
And also William Blake's 'The Marriage Of Heaven And Hell' is extremely interesting with regard to this subject as, in the words Plato paraphrased, Poetry expresses truths of which are inaccessible to philosophy and incapable of being known and incorporated into wisdom or true knowing. Socrates, with these words, means to say that poetry has significant truths, although they are in that 'far out' mode... For a lack of better words.
The similarities between Freud and Jung with Blake is also I thinked seriously overlooked.
"The ancient Poets animated all sensible objects with Gods or Geniuses, calling them by the names and adorning them with the properties of woods, rivers, moutains, lakes, cities, nations, and whatever their enlarged & numerous senses could perceive.
And particularly they studied the genius of each city & country, placing it under its mental deity. (Note: this sounds a lot like Freud's Totem and Taboo, where he discusses animism)
Till a system was formed, which some took advantage of, & enslav'd the vulgar by attempting to realize or abstract the mental deities from their objects: thus began priesthood;
Choosing forms of worship from poetic tales.
And at length they pronounced that the Gods had order'd such things.
Thus men forgot that All deities reside in the human breast.
(Reference to another work by Blake, "The true Man is the source, he being the Poetic Genius.")
Thus you have Jung.
I believe that belief in God is a poetic expression of Man's extraordinary, puzzling existence, which I think everyone is connected to an energy of life and phenomenality... And ego is an illusion. Btw
He is a con artist of the genius who spoke of musicophilia.
RIP Oliver Sacks!
Atheism claims that process is relevant to issues the scale of gods. So prove that claim please. Please be loyal to your own chosen methodology. Apply that process with equal enthusiasm to all positions. Be intellectually honest.
Or, another option would be to relinquish any claim to be a person of reason in regards to these particular topics, and declare yourself to be an ideologist. There's no crime in that, all of us are entitled to adopt a position for no other reason that we wish to.
Reason is similar to faith in that it involves an act of surrender. Like with faith, to be reasoners we must follow reason where ever it takes us, we don't get to choose where the trail will lead. Ideologists on the other hand are free to pick any destination, travel there, and then build a little fort.
I'm offering no judgement as to whether a person should be a reasoner or ideologist in regards to any particular subject. That's their choice to make. All I'm saying is...
Ideologists don't get to claim to be reasoners with impunity.
The problem here is that, like most atheists, you sincerely don't realize that atheism is built upon a claim. The next problem may perhaps be that you've built a self flattering personal identity out of atheism, thus creating a substantial built in bias against any threat to that worldview.
No, that's not really the case. Whether or not a contradiction is entailed is based on rules and logic. There are unwritten rules about appropriate language use, and so long as these rules are abided by, there can be unambiguous cases where a contradiction is entailed. An example would be a square-circle. Unless you decide to be silly with words, we both know what that means, and that what it means entails a contraction. If someone doesn't want to abide by these rules, then they ought to be clear from the outset so that the problem can be quickly dealt with.
Quoting BrianW
There probably are people with such beliefs, but they either don't realise the inconsistency, or they accept it on the grounds that God is above logic.
Quoting BrianW
You still haven't properly explained anything on this one, you've just said that a choice is inferred, or that such-and-such means that there's a choice, but it doesn't, at least not in the relevant sense: the sense that I'm taking issue with. But we don't seem to be getting anywhere with this, so I think I'll just explain where I stand and then drop it if you can't provide the explanation that I'm seeking.
I didn't choose[/I] to become convinced by what I did, I just became convinced. I can choose, at least so it seems, to [i]do this or that, like read a book or think about something, perhaps something which provides a set up where I might become convinced, but that's not the same thing. I can't choose what I believe or do not believe. For example, I literally cannot help but believe that I'm alive or disbelieve that I'm a butterfly. There's no choice in that whatsoever. I couldn't believe things like that, whilst I'm in the right state of mind, if I tried. And even if I were delusional as a result of mind altering drugs or mental illness, it would still be out of my hands, not a matter a choice.
Quoting BrianW
Okay, well of course I agree that where there's sufficient evidence, as in the origin of everything, if by that you mean an explanation beyond where the current scientific consensus takes us, with the big bang and such, then I accept that for what it is. We only know so much. But the origin of the universe is not necessarily going to be what the discussion is about. These discussions can go in many varied directions, so what you're addressing only touches upon part of a much broader topic.
And yes, both religious-based thinking and scientific-based thinking can be logical or illogical.
Quoting BrianW
Okay, so then you were saying that any beliefs against the metaphysics of religion are not determined by practical experience and cannot be explicitly defined logically. Why not? I don't think that that's necessarily the case.
Quoting BrianW
Well, I for one am not trying to impose anything at all. I'm just expressing what I think and the like.
I'm not claiming a God exists, or that any doctrines that arise from that belief need to be believed. However, should a God exist, it seems reasonable and sensible to propose that it is, or may be, above logic.
God is typically proposed to be the essence of reality, the creator of reality, a form of hyper-intelligence etc. That is, the God idea is in one way or another attempting to explain the very largest of scale.
Logic is the poorly developed ability of a single half insane species recently living in caves on one little planet in one of billions of galaxies etc. Human reason exists on a tiny local scale.
It seems quite speculative to presume that something as small and imperfect as the rules of human reason would be binding on everything everywhere (scope of God claims), a realm we can't even define in even the most basic manner. If someone wishes to assert this to be true it seems entirely reasonable to ask them to prove it, just as it's entirely reasonable to ask theists to prove the huge claims being made in their holy books.
We might reflect on the influence of scale upon observation.
The classic example of course is that from the surface of the Earth (a very local scale) there is a compelling illusion that all of reality is orbiting around the Earth. When the scale is enlarged to give a wider perspective this perception is seen to be thoroughly untrue, entirely wrong.
Another more modern example is the discovery that time runs at different rates, depending on the relationship between the observer and large bodies such as planets. On the surface of the Earth, a very local scale, the different rates of time are so small (billionths of a second) that they aren't noticed and are a meaningless factor. However, when the scale is expanded, we see that GPS satellites have to take the time speed difference in to account or their location data would be way off.
What's happening with our relationship with logic is that from our human scale it seems an obvious given that logic is binding on everything, and in our day to day lives this is true. But the sample of reality being examined here is extremely small. It's huge to us, but in comparison to reality it barely exists.
Another problem is that we are comparing our intelligence to the only other forms of intelligence ever observed, animals on Earth. And in that limited local scale comparison we look like geniuses, and thus this comparison is very popular. :smile: But when discussing infinite scale ideas like God, that comparison is worthless. If there is any God like thing capable of creating galaxies etc, it's intelligence would be so far beyond our own as to render the concept of intelligence meaningless.
Finally, we've all observed how Christians presume that all of reality is basically about us. We are Gods most important project etc. If one is not a Christian it's extremely easy to doubt such a wild assumption.
But atheists are doing essentially the same thing. They are assuming without proof, and typically without even realizing it, that human logic is binding on all of reality, and thus upon any gods who may be contained within. And like the Christians, their human-centric bias is so strong that it rarely seems to dawn on them that we can't define "all of reality" in even the most basic manner, such as size and shape.
Both Christians and atheists are attempting to reduce all of reality down to human scale so that we can comfort ourselves with the fantasy that we have at least some idea what is going on. This might be compared to little children who have absolute faith in their parents, an assumption born of the fear which arises from a near complete dependence.
Big difference between it being reasonable and sensible that it IS, and that it MAY BE.
Do you intend the former to be a claim you are making or was it more of a semantical slip?
Also, when you say “logic”, do you mean strictly in the sense of making valid reference (such as in mathematics ie given the values assigned to the numbers “1” and “2”, 1+2=3) or do you mean something more?
I'm not sure I understand your question, but I see where my choice of words could be confusing.
My personal opinion is that IF there something like a God it doesn't seem credible to me that it would be bound by rules created by a species as small as ourselves. That's kind of like assuming that ants could understand the Internet, except very much more so.
By "logic" I just meant human reason, and should have used that phrase instead.
I'm in agreement with your general observations. :up: In fact, they don't go quite far enough. I think, with Objectivity being what it is, that more or less everything we believe and (think we) know is actually a faith-based thing. Almost nothing is certain or justified, in absolute terms, so almost everything is a faith position. But I'm not happy using the term "faith" for all of them.
There's something about the word that captures something specific about religious faith. It also applies to an atheist actively dismissing the existence of God, and a few other things too. But I think the term is diluted if we use it to describe every situation where we believe something without justification.
Finally, there are those (not you, Jake?) who seem to think faith is a Bad Thing. It isn't. It's a reasonable, rational, pragmatic and practical response to a world where there is little or no certainty. This, I think, is the matter that we're all failing to see: that our world, in practice, and for humans, is an uncertain place. There is no certainty, which for some means there is no comfort, no security. So we seek solace in faith. And we gain the most solace by not looking at faith closely enough to remember it means we're uncertain. On the contrary, we have faith, so how could we be uncertain? :smile: :smile: :smile:
Yes, agreed, up to a point. When faith is purely personal it can often be labeled as a positive force. When the faith starts trying to influence the society beyond the personal it has sometimes been deadly, and sometimes constructive.
When I label atheists as being people of faith I'm not trying to pin a crime on them, I'm reaching for clarity. It's not clarity if one thinks one is above faith when one is not.
I have faith that if I keep patiently typing day after day after day on these subjects for another twenty years nothing at all will be accomplished, but I'll still be typing, and that seems to be my bottom line. :smile:
Ok, i understand.
Why does reason have to be a human created thing? Aren’t you just assuming that? I don’t see why it couldnt be like morality, a standard set or created by god IF he existed.
:up: Clarity is next to Godliness, as the old proverb should say. :wink:
Quoting Jake
If Lord Cthulhu grants me another 20 years, I'll still be at it too. :smile:
Again, right perspective is a philosopher's greatest tool. Don't mistake what religion was with what modern day philosophy is. Religion was not about mere teachings, it involved social and political dimensions as well. Anyway, this discussion is past due. We can't keep insisting on personal perspective in the hopes it will somehow overcome those of others without being based on actual proof.
I prefer to add other people's perspective to mine so as to have a more comprehensive view of the situation.
I understand why religious practice is flawed, I understand which teachings are often misunderstood due to wrong perspective and a misconception of its aims, I understand why there is an increasing number of people against religion, however, I also understand what value religion has had in our society, I understand why there's still many who choose to hold on to religion, I understand that ignorance is the primary cause of the faults and corruption in religious practice not religious teachings in themselves, etc.
If it were up to me, religions would need to be revised into purely ethical teachings, which is what Jesus did to the religious doctrines by the previous prophets, Krishna also gave a revised version of Hinduism in The Bhagavad Gita, and Buddha revised most of the religious oriental doctrines into Buddhism, an ethics/morality based doctrine.
There have been exceptional people who not only believe in a religious God(s), but who understand the significance of choice and responsibility and they act accordingly. There have been great scientists and philosophers, accomplished in reasoning ability, who choose to adhere to a religion in full recognition of its limitations and the limitations of science and philosophy as well.
It's not that the information isn't there, it's just how we choose to interact with it.
We can choose to bombard others with our idea of reason, but we'll end up receiving the same because like begets like. Reason is not just pure mental logic, it should also reflect in the tactical configuration of our actions towards the aims we hope to achieve. It should also reflect our identity not just as thinking humans but also in our capacities for empathy, sympathy, etc.
As to choice, I think our disagreement is based largely on our definition of choice.
I define choice as idiosyncratic cause or idiosyncratic initiation of an impulse. It is the same definition I give to will. So, for me, to will is to choose. It also encompasses all activities carried out by a human internally and externally. For example, digestion may begin automatically when the presence of food is detected but because we determine when food is consumed, we therefore initiate the mechanism, thus, choice. The same goes for reason, we initiate the process, the mind/brain being the tool we use to carry it out.
Also, belief being a choice is again dependent on the definition we give to it. I define belief as a consequence of knowledge. For me, acquisition of knowledge is a choice. So, belief is the reference point we create to determine the measure of new experiences and a mirror through which we reflect past experiences in order to determine what value to extract from them.
I'll punctuate it with more songs, as artists, poets really do exemplify a connection to the heart, and contrition really can skyrocket you to the celestial realm. Not the highest level, but that isn't practical for most, and I don't know of a straight forward easy method to get there at this time... plus, I'm not entirely selfless, and prefer to keep a few laps ahead.
When I said that I won’t reply again to aggressive-Atheists about their issue, I didn’t say that I wouldn’t comment on the their peculiar issue itself. I’d like to post this review and summary--these comments on the “discussion”--now that I’m not busy replying to individual aggressive-Atheists.
.
If Atheists post to argue with or comment on what I say here, I won’t reply. As I said, that gets way too time-consuming. If anyone doesn’t like what I say here, and contradicts it, then he gets the last word, because I won’t resume the pointless and humungously time-consuming task of replying to aggressive-Atheists about their issue.
.
…and it is their issue, not ours. As I said, nearly everyone starting threads about that issue is an Atheist. Theists don’t care what Atheists believe, and wouldn’t take the time to start an issue about it.
.
Where should I start?
.
From the start, it’s quite odd that someone else’s belief can be so important. What’s that about? What’s the motivation? Maybe save that question for last.
.
Then what’s the general framework in which the “issue” is brought up? To those starting it, it’s a debate. What does it take, and what would it mean, to “win” that debate?
.
Well, maybe a debate has judges, or an audience that serves as judges. Which party proved the rightness of their position? There are some obvious rules applying to the determination of the winner of a debate. This isn’t supposed to be a complete discussion about debate, but one obvious thing is that if your position is that some position of mine is unsupported, and if I don’t provide support for my position, then you win the debate.
.
Say we have a debate in which one faction, a Theist faction argues that there’s a God, and the other faction, an Atheist faction argues that the Theists have no evidence for their claim. Saying that there’s a debate assumes that that claim is being made. That’s the first problem with the debate. Sure, some Theists are making a claim to Atheists. But not the Theists here. So any meaningful debate would have to be with the Theists who are claiming and asserting. Start, for example, with the pair of suited gentlemen who knock on your door proselytize you.
.
But anyway, if we disregard that for the time being and say there’s a debate here, what we’ve been hearing from the aggressive-Atheists is that they win because the Theists haven’t provided them with evidence for their beliefs.
.
Of course, if the debate is about whether or not there’s support for one party’s position, and that doesn’t provide the opposition and the judges with evidence for their position, then the other side wins the debate.
.
I’ve been telling Atheists that they don’t know all Theisms, and therefore aren’t in a position to say that they’re all unsupported. The answer is always something like, “If you can’t point to a Theism that is supported by evidence, and if you and some other Theists won’t join this debate and provide a Theism for which you tell us the evidence, then we win the debate.”
.
And yes, if 1) it’s first assumed that there’s a debate among people here; and 2) we apply the standards for winning debates (…such as the winning by default if the debate is about evidence for at least one version of a belief, and that evidence isn’t provide to the judges) then the Atheists indeed win their debate.
.
But what does that mean? …winning a debate because some who believe differently from you aren’t participating in your debate, and won’t debate you?
.
What conclusions can you draw from that victory? Not a whole lot. Yes, Atheists, you win your “debate” by default. Subject closed. (...or should be.)
------------------------------------
Someone could say, “It isn’t just a matter of debate. We’re just advising you that your beliefs aren’t reasonable. You shouldn’t believe as you. We’re more scientific than thou.”
.
[Yes, I realize that “Thou” is singular, and we’re talking about groups, but I used it because it’s part of a familiar phrasing.]
.
But, for one thing, that ignores the fact that there are many Theists whose beliefs you don’t know. Their nonparticipation with you lets you win a “debate”, but it also makes nonsense of the statement in quotes in the paragraph directly below the dotted-line above.
.
Unsurprisingly, from the point-of-view of aggressive-Atheists’ belief, it’s their perception and blanket-generalization that they’re right and all who don’t share their belief are wrong. What else is new? Anything surprising about that? No one denies that that’s their perception, from the point-of-view of their belief-system.
.
Why not leave it at that?
.
We get that. You’ve already said it. But you keep on starting more threads to say it endlessly.
-----------------------------------
One more thing: We keep hearing from Atheists about “evidence”. I’ve defined evidence and faith in a previous post to this thread, and there’s no need to repeat those definitions.
.
But (and I acknowledge that others here have pointed this out) all this talk about evidence misses the fact that faith is defined as belief without evidence. Even if you could prove that there’s no evidence for any Theism, that doesn’t mean that faith isn’t justified.
.
Without debating it with you (You win your debate by default), I’ll just mention that, for Theism, there are the kind of reasons that qualify as “evidence”, as I and Merriam-Webster have defined that word (…but it isn’t a matter for proof). But, aside from those reasons, there’s also discussion that justifies faith, which I define as trust, without or aside from evidence.
.
It has been pointed out that Theists aren’t saying that Atheists are unreasonable. It’s only Atheists that are claiming that Theists are unreasonable. I and other Theists have been emphasizing that there’s no reason for you to believe what you don’t know of reason to believe. No problem. …except to you.
.
…but it’s regrettable that you can’t disbelieve it less loudly, aggressively and stridently. Your aggressive loudness suggests insufficiency, and un-satisfied need. …evidently resulting in a need to attack. Maybe it isn’t a coincidence that the starting of these debate-threads, and the use of abusive attack-language and characterizations, is almost entirely coming from Atheists.
.
In fact, as I’ve said once before here, it’s plausible that rudeness, abusiveness and attack aren’t the result of your brand of Atheism, so much as a motivation for it. …due to some personal character fault or insufficiency-feeling, or self-esteem problem.
.
Michael Ossipoff
Just to clarify, though we've been talking about aggressive-Atheists, no one here is criticizing Atheists per se, just for being Atheists.
As I've been saying, no one here would criticize you for not believing what you don't know of reason to believe.
Here's what a not-aggressive Atheists might say, if asked:
He doesn't know of any reason to believe what Theists seem to be saying. He knows what the Fundamentalist LIteralist Theists are saying,that they believe, but he probably doesn't claim to know what all Theists believe. How is he supposed to know that? It isn't any fault of his. Nor should anyone expect him to believe anything that isn't well-described or explained to him. He might reasonably point out that if various wanted ;him to believe as they do, then they'd give him some explanation, or some better more detailed explanation. If they don't tell him why they believe, or why it would make sense for him to believe, or even what they believe, then he can be excused for not believing that their beliefs are supported--not having heard those argued for, or even defined. Without knowing what people believe, of course it goes without saying that he doesn't know that there's reason to believe it.
He can reasonably say all that, and no one would criticize him.
Do you really need to say more than that, to take it farther than that?
Michael Ossipoff
But when I say that there's no choice, I'm not talking about any initial steps which might or might not lead to becoming convinced, I'm talking about the situation at a more immediate point, the actual becoming convinced. An initial step could be choosing to pick up a book, choosing to read about the book, and choosing to spend time thinking about it. At the very least, there seems to me to be a choice in that respect. But I can't choose the outcome of whether or not I'll be convinced. There doesn't seem to be a choice in that respect at all.
And it's a similar thing in other situations, like your food example. I can choose, or so it seems, to eat an apple. But I can't choose whether or not to digest it. That's out of my hands. My body will simply digest it automatically, even if I try to choose otherwise.
So, going back to your original comment, contrary to what you said, you don't have a choice of whether to believe or disbelieve in the existence of any deity or deities. You only have a choice to take steps which might or might not lead to you believing or disbelieving. The one and the other are not the same and so should not be conflated.
The argument is self-defeating unless you define "fact" differently to what many here, myself included, would expect. It's self-defeating because the first premise and the second premise cannot both be true without contradiction.
I also pointed out this error, or a very similar one, to him, earlier on in the discussion, the difference being that, in my assessment, he seemed to be confusing justifications and facts.
But obviously, since then, the problem has persisted.
Quoting Rank Amateur
A claim demands justification, otherwise it can rightly be dismissed.
If your attempt at justification falls below a required standard, then it can also rightly be dismissed in accordance with such a standard. And as to whether or not such a standard is the right one, that can be discussed.
Faith falls below any intellectual standard worth having, as it would open the floodgates to all kinds of wild imaginings or commit the fallacy of special pleading.
Better to present an argument, but arguments can fail for various reasons, and I haven't seen an argument for theism which doesn't fail in some way. What's interesting is finding out how they fail.
Hmm, it seems what you meant to say was...
Other people's claims demand justification, otherwise they can rightly be dismissed.
I think you've just created a paradox. Isn't taking steps towards believing/disbelieving the act of choosing to believe/disbelieve? Anyway, even accepting a sequence of unfolding events is itself a choice. Back to the food analogy: there are many (ill-advised) ways to stop digestion, the fact that you allow it implies a choice, though implicit. And even at an immediate point in a situation, if there's initiation of impulse, then there's choice.
However, I think I get your position in the argument. You mean deliberate choice. What I'm saying is that there are choices which are not as deliberate as others, or better yet, are predominantly reactive.
Oh shush. I meant what I said. If you want me to justify a claim that I've made then quote the claim and request a justification, assuming I haven't already provided one.
No. Where's the supposed paradox? Taking steps towards believing/disbelieving is just taking steps towards believing/disbelieving, and the act of choosing to believe/disbelieve is a category error. We no more choose to believe than a lamppost chooses to light up. But, unlike us humans, a lamppost isn't capable of mistakenly thinking that it has a choice where it doesn't.
Quoting BrianW
I don't think that acceptance of an unfolding sequence of events has anything to do with the point that I was making, nor allowance for that matter. That is changing the subject.
And seeking out exceptions to what I was saying about digestion misses the point. Sure, I could choose to blow myself up with dynamite and thereby stop my body from digesting the apple I just ate. But that's not what I was getting at.
The point that I'm making is that I don't have a choice when something is out of my control. And without taking drastic measures, I have no real choice over whether or not digestion is going to kick in. All else being equal, it will kick in automatically. But maybe a better example would be walking out directly in front of a car speeding along at 70mph. I can choose whether or not to walk out directly in front of it, but I can't choose whether or not it will hit me. It's just going to hit me, even if I "choose" otherwise. It would be delusional to think that you could really choose the outcome in that scenario.
Going back to belief, I can't choose to believe, say, that I'm dead right now. How can I possibly choose to believe otherwise? And again, choosing to act is not choosing to become convinced or to believe. Choosing to read or listen or observe or think about something is what it is, and ain't what it ain't. At best, it could only be choosing to do something which might or might not lead to me becoming convinced or believing, which obviously isn't the same thing.
Quoting BrianW
It seems to me that making a choice is necessarily deliberate. You can't accidentally make a choice. So yes, I mean deliberate choice, because there's no alternative.
Maybe there are choices which aren't as deliberate as others, or better yet, are predominantly reactive, but what does that really mean? And what's the relevance of that in relation to what I've said?
Like I said, the disagreement is based on our different definitions of choice and belief.
Quoting S
Someone walks into their spouse having sex with another person and in a blind rage commits a crime of passion. It would still be choice but the degree of deliberateness would be questionable. I think this explains the point of a predominantly reactive choice. Also, our reactions are within our purview of control.
As to the relationship between choice and belief, what's your definition of belief?
Okay, thanks, I know exactly what you mean now, and I agree that there can be a variance in the degree of control.
Quoting BrianW
A belief is that of which you're convinced.
It would be more interesting to see you challenge one of your own claims. Then you could claim to be a person of reason, instead of just another holy war ideologue waving a flag.
As example, my claim is that nobody knows. But if nobody knows, how could I know that nobody knows??
Imagine that you are an attorney. You might be hired to represent those suing, or you might be hired by those defending against the suit. Can you effectively argue both sides of the case? Or only one side?
And this is where the confusions lays.
This added dimension is the human-phenomenal dimension.
Yeah, that might be an interesting exercise, but I'm not here to play devil's advocate. I understand that that's what you want me to do, but I'm more concerned with a genuine discussion than pretend play.
One could think of humanity in terms of a single individual life. We're born and we grow up. From that perspective God is the imaginary friend little children have. A phase one could say.
There are more mature religions though. Take Buddhism for instance. It's position is a reasoned argument and you need to be an adult to understand it.
Of course, God has been philosophically studied but, from what I see, the result isn't a pretty picture. Quite what one would expect given that it's the work of immature minds - inconsistencies abound.
That said, I'm still confused over whether a full grown rational adult is better than a little child with an imaginary friend.
Why is intellectual honesty, the challenging of all positions with equal enthusiasm, "pretend play"?
That's not intellectual honesty. I don't have to have equal enthusiasm for challenging all positions to be intellectually honest. You're just making that up.
Pretend play is a disparaging way to refer to the practice of playing devil's advocate. (You know, kinda like your disparaging way of referring to people who don't challenge their own position on request as "just another holy war ideologue waving a flag").
Playing devil's advocate is similar in appearance to intellectual dishonesty, and the two can be confused if you're not clear about what you're doing from the outset.
Refusing to humour you by playing devil's advocate does not mean that I'm being intellectually dishonest. I have been intellectually honest and I will continue to be intellectually honest.
Being intellectually honest is examining all positions dispassionately as if one has no dog in the fight. All positions get subjected to the same process. As example, the authorities theism is based on are asked to prove their qualifications, just as the authority atheism is based on is asked to prove it's qualifications.
Being a flag waving ideologue is the relentless selling of a single position. This is what you are doing. You are only challenging the other guy's claims and chosen authorities, never your own. All positions are not subjected to the same process.
You aren't doing reason. You're doing ideology. That is, you're replicating in your own process the very thing about religion which you reasonably object to. You have met the enemy, and he is you. :smile:
So being intellectually honest involves being intellectually dishonest by pretending that one doesn't have a dog in the fight when one does have a dog in the fight. Yeah, that makes sense. If you're an atheist, you have a dog in the fight. If you're a theist, you have a dog in the fight. If you're an agnostic, you have a dog in the fight. Unless you have no position, you have a dog in the fight.
Like I've said, I'm okay with attempting a justification for a claim that I've made, and that can begin with a simple request.
Quoting Jake
So present a challenge. Or quit pestering me.
No pretending is necessary, as you could easily figure out for yourself if your ideologist's mind wasn't set on auto-rejection mode.
"Although I would label myself as an XYZ, in this thread I'd like to spend some time examining any possible weaknesses in the XYZ position."
Isn't this just what you'd hope theists would do? If a theist did that they would gain credibility with you, right?
Quoting S
I've just presented a challenge to you in my last few posts above. You're not up to meeting that challenge, so you're running away in fear. And BTW, I don't have the power to pester you. If you don't wish to read my posts, don't read them, no problem.
I almost missed this reply. I accept that I could be wrong, but if the law of noncontradiction can be violated, then anything goes, literally, as per the principle of explosion. And that's a really big problem. An unacceptable consequence. So through a reduction to absurdity, I can demonstrate that a rejection of a God which can violate the law of noncontradiction is justified.
This process is easy to see in some of the more annoying nose in the air theists. "We are the chosen people, we are saved, we are holy, we are morally superior, we have God's ear etc." The purpose of such statements is to position the speaker as being above somebody else.
We're probably all guilty of this emotional agenda to some degree or another, but some folks get really carried away with it. To the degree that this happens we tend to become imperious to reason because our primary focus is not really the topic itself, but our relationship with ourselves.
Aha, now you are getting somewhere, bravo.
Yes, whether one is a theist or atheist, the possibility that there might not be any authority which we can place our trust in can be troubling indeed. Imagine that we don't know the laws of the country we live, and have no method of learning those laws. This is a perilous position, as we could be arrested at any moment and not even know why. And so many or most people reject this possibility for the simple understandable reason that they don't want to deal with uncertainty. And then they turn to some authority or another to tell them how to think.
What I've been attempting to articulate in many of posts is that the God debate is the biggest longest investigation in human history, and it has yielded useful information. The evidence clearly shows that nobody can prove anything. So if we are people of reason, if we listen to the evidence, we don't really have any choice but to accept that on these subjects there is no proven authority that we can reference.
Is this a really big problem? No, because as the evidence clearly shows theists, atheists and agnostics have all proven they can have rewarding lives without having a proven authority to reference. Many people have a rewarding life in one position, then change that position, and go right on having rewarding lives.
Ignorance is not automatically a problem, as the following example will hope to illustrate.
Let's say you've met some guy or gal at the bus stop and they've invited you home for lunch. A few hours later you're walking hand in hand in to the bedroom. What makes this a special event which you may remember for the rest of your life? Ignorance!
Now let's say that you marry this person and 30 years later you're walking in to the bedroom with them again. What makes this an experience you may not remember until next Tuesday? Not enough ignorance!
Ignorance is much of what makes life a rich experience. If we can examine the God debate as people of reason, and not as ideologists honking memorized slogans, we might see that the God debate is trying to teach us something important.
We don't know.
And that can be a very good thing.
Perhaps this becomes easier to see as one ages. Some aspects of life which would engage a younger person become boring over time because we've already seen those same human ego melodrama situations a million times.
It's justified emotionally. We all have the right to seek comfort where ever we can find it. And we all have the right to reject or ignore inconvenient posters such as myself who put that comfort at risk.
To the degree that one wishes to walk the path of reason, one sacrifices this right as the price of doing business. In the purest sense (which few of us ever realize) reason is just like faith, it's a process one surrenders to. We aren't the driver of the bus, but merely a passenger. We don't get to choose the destination of the bus, we don't get to use the bus of reason to travel to our preferred destination.
All of these problems are removed if one is honest enough to simply declare oneself an ideologist. In that case one is not bound by the process summarized above and is free to drive the imaginary bus to any glorious imaginary destination one desires. Thus, ideology is very popular.
Okay then, forget rejection for a minute. Let's do some examining. If no pretending is necessary, then how am I supposed to act as though I have no dog in the fight when I do have a dog in the fight? Wouldn't that involve a kind of pretence?
Quoting Jake
And, in regard to my own position, I created a discussion for that very purpose, as you know. I would like to spend some time examining any possible weaknesses in that position, in a place where it's on-topic, and I have made that possible by presenting it on a philosophy forum for members of that forum to examine and comment upon. Unfortunately, your replies were insubstantial. That was a disappointment, as I expected more.
Quoting Jake
There's a time and a place for that. I've told you that I'm not interested in trying to pick apart my own position singlehandedly. I don't need you or anyone else for that. But you keep pressing for me to do what you want, irrespective of what I've said.
But if you, or anyone else here, want to try to pick it apart, then you are welcome to do so. Get the ball rolling.
Quoting Jake
Yes, you've challenged me to challenge myself, so that you don't have to. I can challenge myself in my own time, when I feel like it, without you badgering me.
It could, but isn't required to. Take something easier as example. Let's say we're not all that political really, but we lean left. We can honestly disclose that we lean left, while at the same time pointing to problems within the Democratic Party. Ok, so this gets harder as one addresses issues that are more important to us, but it''s still possible.
Quoting S
Yes, I'm a reason evangelist, and like all evangelists (we won't mention any other names here) I'm annoying. Not only annoying, but truly illogical too, because none of this is ever going to lead to much of anything, thus I'm mostly wasting my life typing to hear myself talk. But please recall, the glory of this medium is that we can simply scroll right on by annoying people.
Quoting S
So I don't have to? Have you noticed that I'm investing a lot of time in to challenging you? I'm just not challenging you the way you want to be challenged, that's all.
It's possible I'm three times your age and am going too fast. Ok, if that's the case, then feel free to scroll right on by me, no offense will be taken.
Sure.
But the question then is obviously what do we know and what don't we know, how much do we or don't we know, what is the extent of our ignorance, what are we ignorant of and what aren't we ignorant of, and of that ignorance, what counts as the good kind and what counts as the bad kind.
That's what's arguable.
(And yes, I'm aware that much of that was grammatically redundant. I don't know why I did that, but hey ho).
Yeah, you're a real gadfly, Socrates. Nooo. Please stop. Me just a stupey horsey. Me no like sting. You drink hemlock. Leave horsey be. :lol:
It's justified through reason. It's more reasonable to go with a theory with far superior explanatory power than a theory with nothing going for it which clashes with everything that reason has lead me to believe. Reason has lead me to believe that this isn't a world where anything goes, full of contradiction, that makes no sense whatsoever.
You mean like being an atheist of a sort, but at the same time pointing to problems with atheism? Yes, I've done that. Sometimes atheists get it wrong. Sometimes they go too far.
Quoting Jake
Where one party is unwilling, that time would be better spent by the other party producing criticism of his own. Where both parties are unwilling, we won't get anywhere. Not unless one of us budges, and that hasn't happened yet.
Quoting Jake
But [i]you're[/I] not really challenging me, because I already have that challenge. That's there by default. I've already considered my position, and this is where I'm at. Now, you might have noticed that I have yet to abandon it. Perhaps consider why that is? Could it be that, instead of being ideologically or emotionally attached to it, which is how you're spinning it, rather, in my reasoned assessment, I have found it to be better than the alternatives?
Quoting Jake
If you were three times my age, then you would be old enough for it to be a real possibility that the aging process has hindered your mental capabilities. You'd be lucky not to have popped your clogs. But you seem to be doing okay, if not quite as polished as you might see yourself. :up:
You love to do this typing back and forth, back and forth, but you never quite get around to questioning your own chosen authority in the same way you reasonably question the theist's chosen authorities. Your "reasoned assessment" is always aimed outward, at somebody else's process, somebody else's chosen authority, somebody else's conclusions. How can you "find something better than the alternatives" if your lens is aimed only in one direction?
Yes, reason has led you to believe this, reason has led you to believe that. But you never apply the processes of reason to reason itself. You're accepting the unlimited qualifications of human reason as a matter of faith, taking them to be an obvious given. This faith position is easily challenged given how incredibly small human beings are in relation to the arena which god claims address, the fundamental nature of everything everywhere.
Your position is like an unchallenged assumption that bacteria could understand the Internet. You're not standing on a solid rock as you appear to believe.
By the way, in your defense, you are in very good company in making these faith based assumptions.
That's a beginning to it, yes.
Quoting S
One could explore in that direction. And/or, one could ask..
We've discovered all this ignorance through a long investigation. What constructive use can be made of this abundant asset?
If you subscribe to logic, and a logical viewpoint, then you don't just dismiss things without a logical reason.
I agree. Though I think if any of the current religions is to survive the ongoing onslaught, it must address the evils perpetrated by its misguided adherents in a very direct way. Most of the religions must also be universalised with every tribal aspect being eliminated and every metaphysics must be revealed to be conceptual. Otherwise, it would just be inviting more chaos.
So it does. Science-types say this sort of thing a lot. But contain your outrage for a moment and think. Yes, if your aim is formal and rigid structured logic, then you need such 'laws' to operate. On the other hand, if you are someone who tries to study reality, without placing artificial limits on what might or might not be studied, then maybe you don't. Of course, things would be a lot easier if these 'laws' applied universally, but that seems not always to be the case in the real world. :confused:
So we have a choice. We, like science, can limit ourselves to the easy problems, the ones that (seem to) conform to these 'laws'. Or, we can attempt some of the more difficult stuff, but only if we are prepared to study with less of a safety net (or without one altogether). Even science acknowledges some uncertainty in the world, via QM, Godel et al or wave-particle duality in light (a contradiction if ever I saw one). Maybe we should try a bit harder with the harder problems? :chin:
This is as redundant as saying ‘socialized language’. Also, aesthetic experience and expression do not require religion. Not that you were saying it does.
True enough. And thanks to the improving social harmony across the globe, religious terrorism is on the decline. Hopefully, eventually and soon, there will be an instinctive inclination towards sharing of spiritual practices and, consequently, a coalition of religions. Maybe the 'whole' will become the new focus of religions instead of the many seemingly separate parts.
Quoting Blue Lux
Don't like his teachings. He didn't apply a strict ethical orientation to his teachings which gave them the appeal of black magic.
I read an insightful and witty analysis of ‘Internet atheism’ once, comparing the species to the moray eel. Morays are always located in a crevice from which nothing can approach them from behind, and from which they will dart and sieze prey when it strays into their orbit. Ambush predators.
I’ve run across many moray eels while diving but I’ve never seen one crewing on its own tail like some samsaric uroborus.
Nice preface.
Quoting Yuuky002
Yeah, it sounds like people have more of a love/hate relationship with religion here. Can't say I blame them.