My Kind Of Atheism
Note to readers: at present, many of the replies that you will find here are not replies to this opening post, but to a completely different opening post. For example, all of the replies immediately following this opening post on the first page of the discussion. This mess was caused by one of the moderators and unfortunately it has yet to be rectified.
Recently, there have been a few people on the forum who aren't as familiar with my stance in relation to God, and have had trouble understanding it. Some have even declared that they can rip it to shreds. Hence the creation of this discussion.
I'm an atheist. But what does that mean? What kind of atheist am I? It means that I don't believe that God exists, and it means that I don't believe that any god or gods going by any other name or even no name at all exist. I try to be reasonable, so I try to proportion my belief to the evidence, and I try to avoid adopting conclusions that can't be supported.
In some cases, I think that it is justified to conclude that God doesn't exist. Those cases include each and every case whereby the existence of God would entail a contradiction.
In other cases, I accept that it is possible that God exists. However, there is no case I know of where I think it would be right to conclude that there is a good enough basis to believe that God exists.
I discount those cases whereby God is merely used as label for something that I do believe exists, such as the world. That is just wordplay - a triviality.
I am aware of the traditional arguments for the existence of God, such as the ontological argument, the cosmological argument, and the teleological argument. I think that there are big problems with all of them.
Absence of evidence can be, and in some cases is, evidence of absence. For example, if a filthy dog were to run through my house and jump onto my freshly washed white duvet, it would leave evidence. In the absence of any such evidence, or any good reason to believe that there has been some sort of cover up or something along those lines, it is reasonable to reject the claim about that dog jumping on my bed. I have no reason to believe in magical dogs which do not leave any trace of evidence behind. Why would I?
So, there you have it. That's a summary of my position. Have at it. Any questions, ask away.
Recently, there have been a few people on the forum who aren't as familiar with my stance in relation to God, and have had trouble understanding it. Some have even declared that they can rip it to shreds. Hence the creation of this discussion.
I'm an atheist. But what does that mean? What kind of atheist am I? It means that I don't believe that God exists, and it means that I don't believe that any god or gods going by any other name or even no name at all exist. I try to be reasonable, so I try to proportion my belief to the evidence, and I try to avoid adopting conclusions that can't be supported.
In some cases, I think that it is justified to conclude that God doesn't exist. Those cases include each and every case whereby the existence of God would entail a contradiction.
In other cases, I accept that it is possible that God exists. However, there is no case I know of where I think it would be right to conclude that there is a good enough basis to believe that God exists.
I discount those cases whereby God is merely used as label for something that I do believe exists, such as the world. That is just wordplay - a triviality.
I am aware of the traditional arguments for the existence of God, such as the ontological argument, the cosmological argument, and the teleological argument. I think that there are big problems with all of them.
Absence of evidence can be, and in some cases is, evidence of absence. For example, if a filthy dog were to run through my house and jump onto my freshly washed white duvet, it would leave evidence. In the absence of any such evidence, or any good reason to believe that there has been some sort of cover up or something along those lines, it is reasonable to reject the claim about that dog jumping on my bed. I have no reason to believe in magical dogs which do not leave any trace of evidence behind. Why would I?
So, there you have it. That's a summary of my position. Have at it. Any questions, ask away.
Comments (332)
Grey vs Gray's reply to SnoringKitten continues:
No one will follow your reasoning. No one will care. Of course your concept will influence people but ultimately their understanding of the words has to do with their experience and current attitude of a god.
What an atheist will say is (what I am): You claim that there is a god? Wow that is amazing, but where is the proof? (The argument or lack there of is given and their attitude is unchanged.) Oh, we'll I don't believe that, I am not convinced. I am an atheist.
What a theist will say: The universe was created, I just can't conceive of it starting from nothing. Nothing can't come from nothing. There must be a god.
What a dogmatic theist will say: My god is the real god, everyone else is wrong and will suffer forever if they don't believe. I want to impose my beliefs because they are right. There is one true god.
What an agnostic will say: The universe could have been created. I don't know. The universe could also have come to be from something else or nothing. Who knows. Is this really important? We don't have enough information to believe either, why be so convinced either way and argue over something no one can prove for a long time yet if at all.
Of course the agnostic position is real, there is a spectral distribution of every human attribute.
Please keep it civil, and understand that the same could be said of your words. Also note that Appeal to Authority is a logical fallacy.
Quoting Grey Vs Gray
I suspect you completely missed the point of the OP. I am talking about the definition of the words used to represent attitudes, not the attitudes themselves, except maybe near the end where l discuss how Agnosticism and Atheist Agnosticism are both untenable & the field should be between Atheism and Theism only.
Quoting Grey Vs Gray
I have covered all this, regardless your misrepresentation of each camp.
Current usage: take all different thoughts fielded within one cranium. Create a chimaeric term to represent all of them under one banner e.g. "dogmatic agnostic atheist with suprachiasmal leanings."
My proposal: It is about what they say, the lip profession of belief, that defines which camp one is in, e.g. "Therefore, there is no God / there is a God".
Quoting Grey Vs Gray
I can no longer make excuses for you, you really have not read the OP. I have already covered this in the OP. Please re-read the OP.
As such I lack belief, so I'm not a theist, but does that make me an atheist?
My main objection is that you're altering the original philosophical uses of these terms. Agnosticism is meant to refer to the knowability of god, not whether or not belief in god is held (theism/atheism). Agnostic, ignostic, theological non-cognitivist. There are hundreds of terms people can choose to use, and there's not need to expect theism/agnosticism/atheism to conform to some kind of spectrum of statistical based belief.
The main reason why your proposal is probably not a good idea is that most atheists don't claim to have knowledge about god's non-existence, they just to lack belief in god.
Strong and weak atheism is the more useful distinction because it differentiates between an atheist who believes no gods exist vs an atheist who simply lacks belief in the existence of any gods. Once claims knowledge, the other claims ignorance and abstinence.
As for dialogue and *then* Agnosticism: ok l edit myself: if both camps have been faithfully presented in their fullest, then the Agnostic has no excuse to be Agnostic, there must be an inclination one way, however slight.
So, consider that both camps will likely not be fully summarised and the search for answers may span a lifetime, a person may say "for now, l am Agnostic". Still, that's in line with my OP. It's about what the lips profess.
Re: agnosticism = the knowability of God, maybe that is the current definition but it is erratic because:
- the debate about the knowability of God won't exist without the person giving the views lip service
- it should be a pre-requisite that belief in God is unfalsifiable
Re: strong & weak atheism: you see this is what l'm talking about. It crushes everything and puts it all on the same plane, whereas my system separates the arguments - which are many and complex - from the current lip profession. The current lip profession of a person is what makes them Atheist or Theist or even Agnostic. Simple, elegant.
I may still be missing the point but if minds change why assume theism and atheism are fixed positions? Why throw out any labels for that matter? A person's label is what they are now not what they will be after they've mulled and chewed.
In fact it appears you're agreeing with me?
Atheism =/= scientism. What agnostic atheism basically means is aknowledging their beliefs as beliefs, and as such subjective and not knowledge - if that's not an option, one can only be a theist.
Quoting SnoringKitten
So you're judging what the term agnostic atheism means with your definitions instead of the concept that the term refers to?
Quoting SnoringKitten
How not? An easy example is rejecting every argument of both sides.
Quoting SnoringKitten
A rational being would recognize such as not a valid argument and try to disregard it.
Next:
So i'm judging with regard to my own redefinitions? Yes, hence l made this thread.
Next:
Rejecting every argument of both sides is apathy not agnosticism. Either God exists or does not exist, so there is no middle ground, as we are talking about absolutes.
Next:
Aesthetic inclination - pah?
Look at it this way: l have redefined Ag/Ath/Theism as lip profession, no longer about the backend processing that leads up to the lip profession. Therefore the backend stuff is free to be aesthetic preferences or whatever. It's all so simple now.
Furthermore, Religious inspiration is on the same stratum as aesthetics.
Furthermore, because Ath / Theism are unfalisifiable, what remains after all is said and done is: what moves you? Hence, has the Agnostic at least no feeling on the matter? Should they , though? Yes, because they are, as you so tout, rational beings, not stones or trees or even sheep for that matter. Where's that aesthetic feeling, the highest expression of the rational mind?
Ok, within that context what's the problem with objectively aknowledging the difference between one's beliefs and knowledge?
Quoting SnoringKitten
Does not follow. When you redefine terms it's like creating a new language: you have to translate the terms. Example:
I define "your" as "the smell of" and "opinion" as "the smell of purple". Therefore, your opinions are incoherent and their existence paradoxal.
That does not mean your opinions are incoherent, because those words don't refer to your opinion. Similarly, you did not prove anything about agnostic atheism, only about what those terms mean with your definitions. That meaning is not what one refers to when they say they identify as an agnostic atheist.
Quoting SnoringKitten
Not if it's the logical conclusion.
Do I have a beard? I say I do because 2+2=5 AND that's false, although also true, and you can derive the conclusion from contradiction. Is your rejection of this reasoning apathy?
Quoting SnoringKitten
It's also free to be the voice of rationality telling you to recognize and disregard irrationality when making objective claims.
Quoting SnoringKitten
Eh?
Quoting SnoringKitten
That's the highest expression of mind, if anything, and I'd debate that even further. The highest expressions of rational mind are rationality, questioning and logic.
Seems easy enough to be an Agnostic to me. Suppose you hear a set of arguments in favour of God's existence and a set of arguments against. You find both arguments somewhat convincing but you also see some defects in them. You decide you don't really have enough information. You refrain from judging the matter either way. What is unthinkable about that? If you tell me that John robbed the safe and someone else tells me that John didn't rob the safe, and I have nothing else to go on, I might well find myself unable to decide between the two. I don't see why such a state of mind is so difficult for you to understand.
You should also note that your definitions of Theism and Atheism are in terms of what someone would be willing to [I]say[/I]. I might have a very slight inclination towards the view that there is a God, but not be all that sure about it, and so be unwilling to [I]say[/I] that there is a God. As such the mere inclination towards belief is not sufficient for Theism by your own definition. It is possible, then, for there to be a person with an inclination towards belief (or disbelief) who is still neither an Atheist nor a Theist. Why not call that person, as traditionally was done, an Agnostic?
I think it still useful to distinguish Agnostics from others. I wonder if this will make it to page 2 so that you never read it...
PA
That's not agnosticism. Agnosticism, as explained by William L. Rowe, is "the view that human reason is incapable of providing sufficient rational grounds to justify either the belief that God exists or the belief that God does not exist."
If you're interested in a history lesson, the term "agnostic" was coined by Thomas Henry Huxley to mean "that a man shall not say he knows or believes that which he has no scientific grounds for professing to know or believe".
Quoting SnoringKitten
Well, you might be confused, but we're not. The solution isn't to redefine the terms but for you to just learn them.
What?
Let me explain again: We cannot ourselves prove that God exists or not therefore God / Atheism are unfalsifiable beliefs. That is taken for granted in all of my arguments in the OP.
Atheists claim God does not exist. Therefore Atheism is unscientific.
[b]"Does not follow. When you redefine terms it's like creating a new language: you have to translate the terms. Example:
I define "your" as "the smell of" and "opinion" as "the smell of purple". Therefore, your opinions are incoherent and their existence paradoxal."[/b]
Reductio ad absurdum. Not that you've reduced by logic a thing to its absurd core, but rather, you've used an absurdity and applied it to a logical statement, then declared it to be illogical.
I am NOT making random substitutions as you are in your example. I have reasoned my redefenitions out. My redefenitions cut through the morass of complexity that currently surrounds the terms and simplifies them, separating the dialogue around them, from the person commenting on them.
[b]"Not if it's the logical conclusion.
Do I have a beard? I say I do because 2+2=5 AND that's false, although also true, and you can derive the conclusion from contradiction. Is your rejection of this reasoning apathy?"[/b]
Again reductio ad absurdum. I have also already explained the folly in agnosticism, in a post directed to you, you have yet to counter that. You are not reading my replies.
I have literally answered everything you have re-stated. Think of when two arguments are perfectly matched, there yet remains one's feelings on the matter. Also, as l've said, either God exists or not, there is no actual middle ground, the middle ground is only when the two camps are perfectly balanced, regarding which, l've already explained: where are a person's feelings on the matter?
As you are causing repetition of my arguments directly given to you, by ignoring them and just re-stating your own, l shall therefore not answer your further posts. Sorry. Peace :)
Please do not reply with a yet more inflammatory post, either reason it out, or l shall not discuss with you because anything beyond that is ego-war. Peace :)
This is a very common assumption which unites the vast majority of atheists and theists. This assumption is easily questioned by using the atheist principle of referring to an observation of reality.
The overwhelming vast majority of reality is space. Does space exist? This isn't such a simple black and white question. Something separates the Earth and Moon, but whatever it is between them appears to have none of the properties we associate with existence. Space is there, and yet it is not.
The point here is that if the vast overwhelming majority of reality can not be firmly said to either exist or not exist, there's no logical reason to assume that a God would be limited to either existence or non-existence. And yet, the vast majority of God debate discussion for centuries has made the dualistic "exists or not" assumption, and rarely questions that assumption.
This is the state of the God debate. We love to argue over competing answers, but the truth is we actually have little idea how to even frame the questions. Which leads us to....
A Fundie Agnostic rejects not just particular positions within the God debate but the God debate itself, embraces the reality of our vast ignorance, and looks for ways to put that ignorance to constructive use.
We've conducted a long investigation in the form of the God debate. That investigation has revealed that none of us really know what the #$%%^ we're talking about. The rational person accepts the ignorance the investigation has discovered, and attempts to make good use of what has been found.
Space contains things such as what we call space, plus dust, plus stars, planets, and so on.
However, God being omnipresent, omnipotent & actually infinite, is primordial, and there is nothing but him. Therefore you cannot analogise his existence with something (our visible universe) that exists as a frozen thought within him.
Furthermore, space has many different things, whereas the plane of our discussion: "God exists or not?" - is defined as two possibilities. There is no middle ground in the definition, nor can there be.
The meaning of a word isn't a viewpoint that needs to be argued.
They don't. The agnostic position is a position even if we redefine the word "agnostic" out of existence as you have tried to do. But what problem does that solve? The position remains; now we just don't have a name for it.
Yes, those things within space can be said to fit the definition of existence for they have weight, mass, shape, size etc. Space itself has none of those properties, or at least it is unclear what properties space may have.
I'm not making a physics point. I'm pointing only to the fact that it's very unclear whether the vast majority of reality (space) exists or not, according our definition of existence. As currently observed, space seems to occupy a place outside of our simplistic definition of existence. Thus, there's no logical reason to insist that a God must either exist or not, one or the other.
You will have to reject this of course, as do almost all God debate commentators, because if you accept it the entire thread collapses under it's own weight.
- We have many different, often contradictory viewpoints in mind. These view points are often changing in their levels day to day, hour by hour.
Labelling onesself by putting all our different viewpoints into one chimaeric appellation is inelegant. Moreover, with terms such as Agnostic Atheist, it becomes contradictory.
Also, take terms such as "Hard / Soft Atheist". OK fair enough it tells you what you can expect of a person. But it also seals off debate.
What i do is reduce the label to the simplest aspect: lip profession (profession of faith is important in Islam, it's one of the five pillars, but also Muslims make a profession of faith before embarking on any big thing, including the slaughter of animals for food).
That leaves the bourgeoning debate behind the lip profession still open to debate. Still able to grow. Whereas the current style is to make a person's label a thought terminating cliche. A hard atheist, a soft atheist, an atheist agnostic. No further debate possible. However, if a person is called a Believer, they acknowledge the unfalisifiability of their conviction that Theism is correct, and when we reduce the labels to lip profession, we also leave open debate.
I believe you are telling me l cannot prove God exists. However, as per the OP, my redefenitions are predicated on precisely accepting the unfalisifiability of God / No-God.
Ok, yes, in the realm of artificially constructed conceptual boundaries you can if you prefer will middle ground to vanish. Ignore the evidence provided by reality if you wish, that's your choice to make.
This is where you're going wrong. "Agnostic atheist" isn't a contradiction (using the ordinary definitions of "agnostic" and "atheist").
Agnosticism = either way, l cannot decide, though l've tried to
Atheism = I've considered the options, and l bear witness that there is no God
Thus there is a contradiction in bringing the two together
I'm telling you that the "exists or doesn't exist" paradigm at the heart of the God debate has a serious conflict with observations of the vast majority of reality, space, which can not be firmly said to either exist or not exist.
Like almost all God debate commentators you're basing everything on the unexamined assumption that a God must either exist, or not exist, one or the other. An observation of reality reveals this assumption is likely to be excessively simplistic.
I prefer to pull the rug out from under the entire structure your arguments are built upon. If that doesn't interest you, ok, no problem, so continue as you wish.
What other stable option is there?
I've tackled and crushed your points, but you're not ready to have them crushed. This is very very normal. You aren't really interested in the God topic, but in the experience of debate. Thus, like almost everyone else, you will decline any theory which takes away all the clever debate arguments which you have carefully assembled.
That's cool, I don't mind. Feel free to continue with the God debate process which thousands of years of evidence has decisively shown to lead to nothing but more of the same. That's what pretty much everyone does, so you should feel to do so as well.
You've set up a vicious circle. You're trying to justify your redefinition of "agnosticism" as a means to solve the contradiction in calling oneself an "agnostic atheist" but the term "agnostic atheist" is only a contradiction because you're using your redefinition of "agnosticism".
The simplest solution is to just accept the ordinary definition of "agnosticism" where "agnostic atheist" isn't a contradiction. Then what reason is there to adopt your redefinition?
Again, the vast overwhelming majority of reality in the form of space suggests another option. Something which appears to fit neither our definition of existence or non-existence.
I believe my redefinitions are anything but vicious, l have explained their merits, i.e.:
- They encourage profession of belief after reasonable debate, because such is the re-definition
- They leave the debate ongoing
- They acknowledge that the debate is ongoing
- They acknowledge the unfalsifiability of Theism/Atheism
The existing defintions do no such thing.
Does space exist, or not, yes or no? Once you are willing to admit that none of us can firmly answer that question, you'll get that we are not required to apply the "exist or not" assumption to the issue of God either.
You like the "exist or not" rule because you're comfortable within those limits, which is completely normal. But reality is not required to limit itself to what is understandable and comfortable to human beings. Reality is not required to follow the rules of reason, which are after all a human invention.
Changing the definition of a term doesn't change anything about the debate. It just means that instead of being able to call myself an agnostic theist I have to say that I believe in God but that this can only be as a matter of faith because there are no arguments or empirical evidence that can show God to exist (or not exist).
It's a pointless redefinition.
The entire structure of your arguments is built upon the very common assumption that our simplistic yes/no, either/or definition of existence is binding upon all of reality, and thus any gods which may contained within. An observation of reality suggests this assumption may be false.
You want to skip over this inconvenient possibility and dive right in to the usual God debate arguments and definitions, because those arguments are familiar and comfortable to you. This is completely normal. But not very interesting.
Few people wold fit your definition of atheist, because it conveys a certainty that most would consider unwarrantable. In addition, it diverges from common usage. A "theist" believes there is a god (or gods). A-theist (or atheist) is taken as the converse, so there's a clear dichotomy: everyone fits into one or the other buckets.
The agnostic label was coined by Huxley, and adopted by Russell and others. The etymology is "not knowing", so it is taken to refer to anyone who doesn't know if there is a god (or gods). One could be an agnostic atheist or an agnostic theist. It is problematic to use "agnostic" to label those who believe there is exactly a 50% epistemic probability of god(s) - who can really calculate such a thing? The principle of indifference is problematic because it depends on how you break down the unknowns. It is problematic to propose a trichotomy (atheist-agnostic-theist) because the boundaries would be vague. Agnostic is best thought of as a different dimension.
Your definition of "theist" is fine because it's consistent with typical self-identification: everyone who considers himself a Christian, Muslim, religious Jew, Hindu, or any other mono- or poly- theistic religion fits. But again, it is equally reasonable to identify the set of people who do not fit into the "theist" category.
Not my fault you repeat irrelevant points instead of expanding your arguments.
Quoting SnoringKitten
Hypocrisy.
Quoting SnoringKitten
If you wish to end the discussion, do so. Replying to me to have the last word is childish and rude.
Quoting SnoringKitten
Both false. You missed the central step of showing the redefinitions match the existing ones.
Quoting SnoringKitten
See, this is the problem with changing the meaning of the words: that is agnostic atheism, so when you said that's incompatible with atheism I drew the conclusion you meant atheism must be scientific.
Quoting SnoringKitten
I read your replies and countered your point, literally in the thing you quoted. Reductio ad absurdum is not a fallacy, it's a valid form of proof by contradiction. Believing arguments to be invalid is not apathy, and neither is apathy a valid basis for being ruled not agnostic.
Quoting SnoringKitten
Excuse me, which one of us were you just accusing of not reading the replies and repeating their points? Literally answered this as well in the point you're referring to. The feelings remain, and are not a basis for an opinion. Stating that the feelings remain is "not even wrong".
So anyway:
You said:
[i][b]Changing the definition of a term doesn't change anything about the debate. It just means that instead of being able to call myself an agnostic theist I have to say that I believe in God but that this can only be as a matter of faith because there are no arguments or empirical evidence that can show God to exist (or not exist).
It's a pointless redefinition.[/b][/i]
I think l know your issue here: you are saying that by redefining, l am making a circular argument.
I agree: Antics with semantics have no place in debate.
Exception: when the debate is actually about semantics. So, l'm redefining a term, so l am absolved of the crime of circular reasoning, because that's what definitions are.
God / No-God is unfalsifiable yes, but you still have a vast backdrop of arguments / evidence for God existing.
Maybe you have evidence against too e.g. God allowed me to massacre a section of my gut bacteria while the other bacteria were forced to look on, how can a loving God alow this. Of course that is not evidence against God, because it is non sequitur that God has to dislike / like stuff. In fact, consider that nothing but God actually exists.
Failing evidence against God's existence, maybe you can have a vague sense of resentment toward God (as l often have).
So, sans proof either way, we have arguments, evidence, and utlimately: our royal prerogative, our fellings.
As an Agnostic Theist, you are now what you profess in your rites: e.g. Lo! We are helpers of Christ. (= you are now just "Theist")
Privately, you may have a crisis in faith? Or maybe you're have a really good day faithwise.
The good thing is, your crisis in faith is no longer ringfenced from critique, because it was part of your identity. Now, your identity is your lip profession (Theism), anterior to the debate.
Your reasoning is now separate, and thus open to debate. SO, my new system at once simplifies the labels, and encourages them to be debated (or attacked, if you will).
Few people wold fit your definition of atheist, because it conveys a certainty that most would consider unwarrantable.
I agree it seems unfair doesn't it, that i attribute the foolhardy self-assured certainty to Atheism whilst giving Theism a disclaimer that Theists don't claim to know, they merely believe.
However, consider:
- Islamic texts specifically call the religious folk "Moomins" = believers - not knowers.
- I think there is a clear precedent in calling adherents of other religions "Believers" too.
- Also, religions are commonly known as "Faiths" and the adherents are "the Faithful".
So, it's clear that the Theist stance is uncertain belief.
Atheists may claim uncertainty too. Maybe l'm letting my bad experiences speak but it seems that many Atheists act as if they know God does not exist. I'd have thought many Atheists would be pleased with being assigned that stance.
However, maybe l should be equitable and say Atheism = I've looked into the arguments / counterarguments, and l profess with my lips that there is NO God, but l don't know it, l just believe so.
Better?
[b]
The agnostic label was coined by Huxley, and adopted by Russell and others. The etymology is "not knowing", so it is taken to refer to anyone who doesn't know if there is a god (or gods). [/b]
And recently: It got revised by me
Btw, as l've shown, becuase God/No-God are unfalsifiable, the literal meaning of agnostic is not fit for purpose, lo! it is the starting point of each of my definitions of Theist / Atheist / Agnostic.
One could be an agnostic atheist or an agnostic theist. It is problematic to use "agnostic" to label those who believe there is exactly a 50% epistemic probability of god(s) - who can really calculate such a thing?
Agnosticism would be measured by feelings for both camps being perfectly stacked l suppose. That's why feelings hold sway in the agnostic position.
In any case, all the more reason to ditch the whole Agnostic label. How do you measure feelings? Maybe when they are perfectly stacked against each other there's a special case where you actually can measure feelings, just as during an eclipse the moon perfectly slides over the sun, their discs appearing the same size, perfectly matched, and suddenly you see the corona.
But when does that happen in Agnosticism? It doesn't.
You can see for yourself Agnosticism is new fangled, probably hitherto unknown in reli philo because it doesn't stand to reason, such a fine line is impossible for a rational higher being such as humans are, with their overarching sense of aesthetic - and still nothing to sway them either way between Atheism and Theism?
The principle of indifference is problematic because it depends on how you break down the unknowns. It is problematic to propose a trichotomy (atheist-agnostic-theist) because the boundaries would be vague.
No longer vague: it's what the lips profess, anterior to the raging debate that led to the professing. Simple!
Then you're a sensible chap, Bitter Crank. I'm not even sure whether those who have recently purported to disagree with it have any kind of problem with it. I suspect that they might have just jumped to the conclusion that my position must be as immoderate as my style of writing can be. But, believe it or not, it is quite possible to be cocksure and blunt in speech, yet remain within the bounds of reason.
It goes without saying that there's no reason why you should believe what you don't know of reason to believe. No one here would criticize you for that.
...if that's all that you're saying.
But, saying that there isn't reason to believe something is different from saying that you don't know of reason to believe it.
Sometimes you said that you were only referring to the particular beliefs that I referred to as Fundamentalist Biblical-Literalism. But, at other times you've said that there' s no evidence for any god or gods going by any other name or even no name at all. As long as you're only saying (as you did above) that you don't know of such evidence, then you're reasonable.
But, if people here have misunderstood you, it's because you've contradicted yourself.
Aside from the matter of "evidence", there is the fact that faith, by definition, is belief without, or aside from, evidence. You can say that you don't have faith (except in Materialism and Science-Worship), and that's fine. That's your business, and no one cares.
But if you want to claim that science and logic rule on the validity of religious faith, then you're an evangelistic proselytizing Science-Worshipper, trying to assert the rightness of your own faith and dogma.
Can you understand that science and logic don't apply to the matter of faith? ...and that it's questionable to try to apply science and logic to the matter of Reality itself? Can you just say that you don't know of evidence or any reason for faith? ...and that you just don't know about all religious beliefs and positions? There's nothing wrong with admitting that you don't know everyone or everything.
You like science? Then study science.
Michael Ossipoff
Actually, to be precise, that's not what I said. I said that I don't believe that God exists, and that I don't believe that any god or gods going by any other name or even no name at all exist. In terms of evidence, I wouldn't say that there is none, but rather that it isn't strong enough to warrant belief. And of course, by that I mean the evidence of which I am aware and have considered. I can't say much about evidence of which I'm not aware or have yet to consider.
Quoting Michael Ossipoff
No I haven't. Show me where you think that I've contradicted myself. And it must be something that I've actually said, as opposed to something that you've imagined I might say.
Quoting Michael Ossipoff
Validity in what sense? Science and logic can rule on the validity of religious faith on their own terms, but not outside of it. Meaning that if religious faith clashes with, say, logic, then on that basis, it can be said to be invalid. But if you are the kind of person who has abandoned logical restraint, then that probably won't mean much to you, and you might seek validity for your religious faith elsewhere.
Quoting Michael Ossipoff
I've pressed the point elsewhere that they're categorically different, like chalk and cheese. If you have faith, then you don't need reason, and if you have reason, then you don't need faith. So, yes, of course there's a sense in which reason, logic, science, investigation, thinking things through, doesn't fit with matters of faith, where all you need is a sort of blind, unthinking, emotional acceptance.
Quoting Michael Ossipoff
No, that's not questionable, that's understandable. Science is and has been applied to reality, as with logic. (And there's no need to capitalise the first letter of the word. Why do you do that?)
Quoting Michael Ossipoff
None that I judge to be good enough. I accept that there are others with lower standards or who lack my good judgement.
To treat God like we treat Quetzalcoatl: an artefact of distant bemusement.
I have plenty of indifference to it in my day-to-day life, outside of this forum. It only gets my attention on occasions like this. But I see your argument in broader terms. If I should care less about God, shouldn't I also care less about, say, idealism, and other whacky ideas? Sometimes I can't help but want to understand how and why people can actually believe this shit.
So is the quote, just above, you know.
But thank you for the unsolicited declaration. Secretly, I've always hoped you would explain your "stance in relation to God." I was too shy to ask.
A triviality? Why thank you, kind sir.
Quoting Ciceronianus the White
You're welcome, but it was solicited by Jake, who suggested that I create a discussion about my position so that he may have an opportunity to rip it to pieces.
Quoting Ciceronianus the White
I know, I don't pipe up enough on that topic, do I? I'm always pussyfooting around it, treading delicately, so as not to ruffle any feathers.
Well, from now on, that's going to change!
What do you mean "lip profession?
Quoting SnoringKitten
I don't know what you're trying to say with this "lip" stuff. If you mean that "this is what atheists and agnostics actually profess", then you're just wrong. Atheists overwhelmingly do not claim to have proof no god's exist, and overwhelmingly do not claim to posses the positive belief that no possible gods could exist. Many people do misuse the term agnosticism to refer to some kind of fence-sitting position, but that definition is a complete departure from how it is used in philosophical literature.
The simplest and most elegant definitions for theism and atheism are as follows:
Theist: Someone who believes in god
Atheist: Someone who lacks belief in god (a.k.a [i]non-theists)
Yes.
Im new to the forum, And sense im missing some previous discussion points but...
Why is this YOUR kind of atheism? As far as I can tell, your just describing atheism.
What am I missing? I noticed a few topics on the subject, is it common on this forum for people to not understand what atheism is?
I understand this position, but I don't think it is very practical because most people in this world still believe there is a god and think it is a perfectly legitimate question. To a theist, this just comes off as arrogant and condescending. They will not come to the conclusion that you are wiser than they, and that they should just give up on the idea as well. They will think your arrogance has blinded you and that you are only uninformed on the subject.
That attitude would be absurd towards many things like Santa Claus or unicorns, but that's only because nobody really believes in them. If you have any interest in people changing their beliefs to better reflect reality, it is often necessary to understand what they believe and challenge them on their own terms.
Like I said though, I understand the sentiment. I sometimes regret the amount of time I've spent studying popular fairy tales.
Praemonitus praemunitus then, I suppose. My personal feeling is that people should refrain from telling others whether they do or don't believe in God, but far too many of us seem unable to do so, thus inducing others to say yea or nay and perpetuating this tiresome debate (such as it is). When, oh when, will there be a respite?
If theists didn't promote and obsess about Amun-Ra Zeus Vishnu Yahweh Asherah Allah Vedas Bible Quran etc, then there wouldn't be much to talk about here.
Leave it to theists to come up with all kinds of diversions (occasionally to avoid the onus probandi). :)
But, if we're talking belief disbelief doubt absence thereof etc, then we could perhaps come up with more general classifications.
This need not be about theism, but more about whatever attitudes (and absence thereof) towards propositions claims statements postulates etc.
We do have an endless series of labels which denote various positions pertaining to these matters. Problem is they get so specific that less people are aware of them, and hashing the scope of their definitions takes just as long as stating your position without the use of labels in the first place. Here are some examples
Ignosticism
Apatheism
Practical atheism
Indifferentism
Non-theism
Theological noncognitivism
Ietsism
ignoramus et ignorabimus (hard agnosticism)
Possibilianism
Implicit atheism
Explicit atheism
Negative atheism
Positive atheism
And the list goes on (especially if we include every variation on theism)
Welcome to the forum. There are different types of atheism, even though it is true that I have described something common to all types. All atheists don't believe in God. But some go further than others, and that's the distinction.
And yes, sometimes there are misunderstandings about what a particular atheist is or is not committed to. Some people will just assume without checking, and it's often strong atheism which is assumed, and often by people with an axe to grind. Some people will steadfastly adhere to certain definitions which might not reflect the views of a large group of self-identifying atheists, and that's another way that misunderstandings can arise.
For example, I am not committed to the claim that there is no God, without qualification. Yet some people have challenged me as though I have a burden of proof on that. I do not. That's a much stronger stance than just saying that you don't believe that there is a God, due to a lack of compelling evidence, which is more like my default stance. The former stance requires much stronger support, hence I will take that position if, for example, I think that the possibility can be justifiably ruled out by the law of noncontradiction, which I think constitutes strong enough support for the stance.
Atheism, in a sense, is a reaction to theism. So, whether I take the stronger stance or the weaker stance will depend on what kind of theism, and more specifically what kind of God, we're talking about. The ball's in their court.
Yep, babies are implicit atheists by this colorful diagram:
They never heard of Amun-Ra Vishnu Yahweh Allah etc.
I suppose that's the unpolluted default.
When we're extinct, I predict.
Well, some atheists go further, but that is representitive of the individual atheist, not atheism and what the word means. For example, an atheist could also be an anti-theist and becuase of that, separate trait they “go further than others”.
The misundestandings someone has about how exactly you think about god or form your arguments is a misunderstanding about you. If they then also think atheism means something other than a simple lack of belief in a god/gods then they would be twice mistaken (or have misunderstood two things if you prefer).
I understand there are different forms of atheism that are described in academia, hard and soft etc, but those are specific to philisophical arguements and I think its a mistake to tap them for general usage. In my experience this leads to confusion, and plays into the semantic games used by theists to justify thier position.
My query was more about this specific forum, and the “culture” within it. It seems like things are less than ideal if you must specifically reinforce the simple definition of what atheism is as if your view is in some way idiosyncratic.
My question has been answered though, I should be prepared to quibble with theists on here about atheism being a belief and other such nonsense.
True faith is mystical union with our Creator, where light from His grace shines onto and off of a true believer's face. It's not proselytizing or philosophical theology. So in that much I agree with you, the god of the philosopher is a stuffed animal.
Yet to treat the question of God's existence and His relationship to material existence as a kind of apathetic ball practice is revealing and embarrassing. Your languor and lethargy reminds me of Socrates' interlocutors who sighed: 'enough already, give me rest from such questions'. You caution others to 'refrain from perpetuating this tiresome debate', but you've only shown the numbness and stillness that resides in your soul. The debate itself will forever be on fire.
Almost every colossal thinker from every civilization confronts the question of God and transcendence with seriousness and awe.
"Everyone with the least sense always calls on god at the beginning of any undertaking, small or great'. (Plato, Timaeus 27c)
What would you be looking for? What would constitute such a basis?
You might wish to read what Bitter Crank said a bit more carefully. :smile:
Quoting Bitter Crank
That's not necessarily agreement with your position. Maybe it is, and he can clarify that to be so. I may be wrong, but I read him to be saying that he doesn't have any argument with whatever you want to believe. If you believe in Baby Jesus, my guess is he has no complaint with that either.
I would be looking for a similar basis as that which is behind other beliefs of mine. Why do I believe that there are planets and stars? Why do I believe that I have a body? Why do I believe that I can see and hear? Why do I believe that there's a country in Europe called France? And many other such beliefs. All of those beliefs can be justified in a way in which belief in God cannot be, as far as I can discern. In other words, no special pleading.
If not, then what's the problem? Oh, that's right, he doesn't have any problems with it. :grin:
Quoting Jake
So, anyway, when are you going to rip my position to pieces, like a ferocious clawed Baby Jesus on steroids?
Correct. People believe in all sorts of things. Jesus, Abraham, Mohammed, Buddha, the god of the swamp, the god of the wind, Odin, Demeter, Brahma Shiva, Vishnu, etc. And no gods whatsoever. People also believe in the likelihood that they will win the lottery (even though the odds are at least 100,000,000 to 1 that they won't). Some people believe in unfettered capitalism, others in rigorous regulation.
I've been a believer and I know from that experience that there are pleasant features of belief, so I don't have anything against people believing in Baby Jesus or Shiva. It isn't that I think Jesus is going to do anything on their behalf, just that the opposite nullity isn't either. We're on our own. We're on our own in a lonely universe. IF most people are less lonely because of Allah or Ahura Mazda, fine by me.
I get upset when believers want gods to do more than alleviate their loneliness -- like boost their GDP, smite their enemies, lay gold and jewels on them (the believers), fix their parking tickets, cause pond scum to be approved by the Senate, and so forth.
I also get upset when I am informed of my imminent damnation because I don't happen to believe what they believe.
I guess I am a laissez faire atheist.
We see them.
Quoting S
These are what are called apodictic truths - those truths it would be implausible to deny./
Quoting S
The declaration that you don't believe in a God, because it's not obvious to common sense, is not an argument. I get that you don't believe in God, but you haven't really offered anything beyond a profession of non-belief.
You're getting ahead of yourself. I haven't even mentioned common sense. I also believe things which aren't obvious to common sense. I believe that E = mc2. I believe things which have a good explanation. What's the good explanation for the existence of God? If there's a good explanation, there's a good chance I'll believe in God. Come now, don't be shy.
One thing some believers do is live out aspects of their belief: The feed the poor or slay heathens, whatever they are inclined to do. The least they do is get together with other believers for an official validation of their belief, every now and then.
What is it you would expect from S? Personally, I can't offer you any evidence for either belief or disbelief, and I doubt very much if you can, either. (Suggesting nothing inadequate about you, of course. Just that... how could you?)
It's a philosophy forum, there are philosophical arguments for and against, which are the subject matter of 'philosophy of religion'.
Quoting S
The question is, what would constitute evidence? What would you look for, and how? The LHC? The Hubble Telescope? Is God 'out there somewhere'?
Can we cut to the chase? Are you suggesting that it requires special pleading? If so, then that's simply not good enough. I have standards to maintain and I need consistency, and I think that that's perfectly sensible.
It must have an evidential basis consistent with my other beliefs, in whatever form, whether it's something I can see, obvious to common sense, an apodictic truth, has a good explanation like E = mc2...
Take your pick.
Chomsky: 'I'll tell you if I'm an atheist if you can tell me what it is I'm supposed not to believe in'.
At that level, the issue is the reverse: what is it that one believes about existing states ?
Without setting up which states are the presence of a god, the [i]theist[/I] doesn't have a belief in an existing being to investigate in the first place.
If you continue in this vein, I predict that we'll go around in circles. I've given you enough rope to hang yourself with. You are more than capable of figuring out what kind of things constitute evidence for various beliefs of mine without me needing to go into excruciating detail. The funny thing is, you share these same beliefs and these same standards. Think about why you believe the things that you believe as I do. Why do you believe that E = mc2? Then think about why you make an exception, assuming you do, when it comes to God. Or, if you can't answer that question because you don't believe in God, then that's the question that any believer in God ought to be asking themselves.
I'm not saying that there's no basis. I'm asking, if there is a basis, then what is it? And if there is a basis, and I find out what it is, then I intend to compare it to the basis for other beliefs, then reach a conclusion. What's unreasonable about that? That seems fair enough.
Yeah, I've found the arguments presented for religion unpersuasive. If god, God, the gods are ineffable, beyond our ken, immortal, invisible, omnipotent, and so forth -- then our attempts to explain or prove their existence ought to be unsuccessful, and I think they are. Our pious inventions are constructed such that the gods are not explainable by logic.
So why do people believe? The vast majority are taught to believe; some experience conversion (see visions, smell pancakes, whatever...) and maybe several read logical arguments and were convinced. There is nothing wrong with teaching children to pray to god, or whatever else about religion they teach them.
We are religious because we can be religious -- we have the wherewithal between our ears to have faith and everything that goes with it. It serves many functions individually and socially.
I’ve asked a simple question directly relevant to the OP. But I know, already, if I or another poster was to venture ‘a basis’, then that would provide the entertainment that you’re really seeking, which is something like ‘the coconut shy’.
[quote=Wikipedia]A coconut shy is a traditional game frequently found as a sidestall at funfairs and fêtes. The game consists of throwing wooden balls at a row of coconuts balanced on posts. Typically a player buys three balls and wins each coconut successfully dislodged.[/quote]
Sorry for depriving you of the opportunity.
That's fine. I don't care enough to want to convince a theist otherwise. If they're happy beliving in a God, more power to them.
When you meet the conditions I set, so probably never. :smile:
You're quite predictable. Has anyone ever told you that? I've answered your question in my own way. Just because I won't dance to your tune, you're threatening to leave the party. Well, no one is forcing you to take part.
As for the purpose of this discussion, I've already explained that in the opening post. Blame Jake. Whether or not you believe me is neither here nor there. I don't know why you wouldn't believe though. Everyone around here knows that butter wouldn't melt in my mouth.
*picks up a wooden ball*
But we do have evidence. After thousands of years of investigation and dialog led by some of the best minds among us, we have compelling evidence that we have no compelling evidence to support either belief or disbelief. That is, we have strong evidence of our ignorance.
1) We had a huge investigation.
2) We uncovered an important fact.
3) We don't like that fact.
4) So we keep doing the same thing (God debate) over and over again expecting different results, ie. the definition of stupidity.
There is an alternative to this stupidity.
1) Have a huge investigation.
2) Discover our ignorance.
3) Accept what the investigation has revealed.
3) Continue the investigation and look for ways to put what we've found to constructive use.
What conditions would they be?
I'm a Jedi. We're friends, aren't we? Wait, don't answer that.
Oh, nevermind @StreetlightX.
1) hasn't happened because most of the stuff around "God exists" hasn't defined the state or the evidence we would see if God exists.
We cannot investigate whether an atom exists without the terms of how it appears. The same with (a) God. Before we begin 1), we need understanding how (a) God would appear if (a) God existed.
There's compelling evidence that we're only ignorant to the extent that it's possible that there's a God that is no different in practical terms to no God whatsoever, which, in my opinion, isn't any God which merits believing in or worshiping or following rituals, commandments, and so on and so forth. That religious shtick might have some merit - might - but if so, it has nothing to do with this useless God, who may as well not be there.
This sounds more like curiosity than indifference. Unfortunately, it is the kind of response that is much too rare among atheists. They are so very sure of knowing the answers that they no longer feel the need to ask the questions.
Which is not to say curiosity isn't relavent. I'm curious about Quetzalcoatl. The stories are cute and of course sometimes gruesome. The social and anthropological dimensions of belief are interesting. Theology is a grand exercise, well worth studying. Lots of fun to be had with artefacts.
Let a thousand flowers bloom; they just don't have to take root in me.
I’m writing this because you so far strike me as a warm soul and because your comments are of some interest to me. And I’ve wanted to enquire into this matter for some time.
Some background:
Broadly speaking, I find that this is what a good deal of the whole theism v atheism debate is about—with some reservations, here stated vulgarly so as to better make my intended point: Is there an omnipotent creator of everything whose ass I must both politely and sincerely kiss in order to not loose “grace” / be punished or, otherwise, is there no such thing? The latter being a belief that doesn’t like the proverbial bathwater of authoritarian deities/religions and finds that to fully eliminate this wrong the baby must be thrown out as well—the proverbial baby here being any rationally consistent system of thought which is not a soulless materialism/physicalism.
To be fair, as a disclosure, I’m a disbeliever in both Theist and Atheism thus understood. Yup, I uphold both these types of theists and atheists are plain wrong. And this conviction, fully independent of anything else, makes me a very liked guy everywhere I go (My sarcasm, if it’s not clear. No, both hardcore theists and atheist detest any such belief as an abomination to be spit upon—this for gutturally emotive reasons rather than reasoning itself). At any rate, these are my beliefs/non-beliefs laid bare.
To address some concrete examples, here are some philosophers’ notions of divinity: Aristotle’s principle teleological cause as “unmoved mover”, Neo-Platonic notions of the “the One”, Spinoza’s understanding of Nature as being Divinity and vice versa, many an Eastern philosophical notion of, roughly expressed, a perfect (and non-hypocritical) state of non-duality wherein all suffering and impermanence eternally cease, this being what is professed as our ultimate reality … I’ll stop short, but there are other examples to be found.
To be again explicit: None of these reasoning-supported notions of divinity imply or encourage the kissing of the behind pertaining to some absolute and authoritarian psychological power—be this hypothetical psyche one of love, of hate, or of both. I phrased it this way to make clear what I take to be at least one of the typical atheist’s dislikes when it comes to notions of divinity. However, reverence, for example, is something that can well be found in many, if not all, of the philosophical notions of God/divinity … Spinoza’s much included.
I sincerely hope I have not been upsetting with the brash means in which I’ve expressed myself. No need to answer, but, with the aforementioned as background, my earnest questions:
Is the intrinsic lack of a bowing down to a superlative, authoritarian, psychological power that which makes philosophers’ notions of divinity nothing other than “stuffed animals”? Otherwise, do you find reasoning about the nature of reality which, in the process, addresses non-materialistic facets of what is real—aspects which materialists would address as “spiritual” or as reeking of divinity—to be proselytizing? If "no" to both questions, what other motive do you hold for saying that philosophers’ notions of divinity are “stuffed animals”?
Thanks in advance if you decide to reply. I’m just curious.
Can you explain that a bit more? Not surevwhat you mean.
Cute. But wholly imaginary.
Quips are the best that atheists can come up with. Not that this is their exclusive fault -- theists can be very annoying with their own quips. But the clash of memes is hardly interesting or illuminating.
Vou are assuming that I am lamenting a decline in belief, and in reaction to that vou are indulging in Internet clichés.
If I was lamenting something, it was the scarcity of true curiosity about this subject. (It is not exclusive of atheists, note). You are one of the best thinkers of this forum, and even your reaction does nothing but prove the point.
Incidentally, although you assume otherwise for no particular reason, I am very curious about the reasons for the substitution of polytheism by monotheism -- this being the quite interesting subject that you brought up as a, let's be frank, red herring -- but the question of "what is God" precedes it, logically and historically. Polytheists everywhere did not react to monotheistic expansion by asking what that God (of monotheism) was. They were not theologians or philosophers, and, being polytheists, they had the advantage (over modern theists) of being sufficiently acquainted with the instrumental use of the word "god" to focus on the salient (and too real) disagreements.
This handicap of modern atheists is not even realized by them (and no wonder, if even their smartest representatives try stuff like "just one extra god" rather that engaging the subject).
Note, though, that the handicap is not exclusive of modern atheists. Modern theists are also representatives of it in large numbers.
I see no reason to criticise your position, because in the OP, you do not suggest that people are mistaken if they have a different position.
Taken literally, the OP just says - I don't believe in god(s) and here's why. Tell me if you think you have an objective criticism of that.
As a devout pluralist, my response is Absolutely Not. It seems from some of the posts since, that some have interpreted your post as implying that you think people are being unreasonable if they do not share your position. I don't get that sense from reading the OP. Did you mean to imply that, or are others just over-interpreting your post?
But I don't understand what gives you licence to dismiss my own nonchalance as 'quips' or 'not taking it seriously'. Why is the default position that religious ought to be taken seriously? Why is this the baseline from which discussion ought to proceed? It's easy - much too easy - to call my own position arrogance - which, sure, for the sake of ease of discussion, I'll take. But I don't see why it isn't equally arrogant to assume that taking religion seriously simply is the default? As if religion is a position that a priori is owed any dignity of engagement. Call it a tu quoque if you like. But I don't see why your God or Gods are owed anything more than the anthropological interest owed to Zeus or Naga. What makes you special? What makes your belief exempt from being just one in a long line or other curious beliefs, that, like all other belief, will be seen as a mere historical artefact in the light of time? Call it an 'internet meme argument'. That's no less arrogant dismissal as far as I'm concerned.
All this kind of logic dancing has been going on for at least the last 500 years, including by many brilliant minds, and still nobody on any side has proven anything. There's really little if anything that can be said on the God debate subject that hasn't already been said a million times, with no useful result.
The God debate is like a children's merry-go-round. There are lots of blinking lights and carnival music which simulate movement, but when we look a little closer we see the merry-go-round is going eternally round and round and round in the same small circle to nowhere.
So we might ask ourselves, do we wish to get off the merry-go-round, or keep going round and round in the same small circle? To each, their own.
That you go look up the conditions which have already been stated a couple of times.
I'll note that @Mariner has at least espoused polytheist views. I don't know where he is at now of course, but I've always read his posts on religion with interest because he is an honest soul who was searching through the questions of religion in a way that I find enlightening.
As to why: I suppose I would say, just to speak for myself for once rather than interpret others, that it is interesting. Isn't that the sort of thing philosophers really grab after?
It may not be universal. But then the truth conditions of propositions isn't interesting to all philosophers.
And so on. I don't think it's necessary to continue elaborating that point.
Then there is the fact that people do, in fact, believe such and such because of religion. Perhaps it is not of philosophic merit in the sense that these questions have been asked and talked about long enough that anyone interested can investigate the history -- but most people will not investigate the history. However, they will listen to arguments given and at least consider them, even if only to reject the arguments.
As an apatheist I wouldn't say that your nonchalance is dismissable. That would kind of defeat the point. I'm just trying to go some way as to show why the question might be interesting.
Interest doesn't make engagement with religion a baseline. I'm not arguing that you (or anyone) shouldn't be interested in religion. One can be interested all one likes. I'm just saying, one shouldn't pretend that interest is, or ought to be, some kind of default, from which deviation is some kind of intellectual dishonesty or unseriousness. That's self-serving bullshit. Curiosity and intellectual openness is not owed to every position. It's self-aggrandising crap to say, without clear motivation, that 'oh, look at you, if you don't care, then you're closed minded'. Every-two bit conspiracy theorist ever has argued along the same lines. Religion doesn't get to claim intellectual defaultness by fiat. To speak of indifference as a handicap is just self-serving waff. I mean really - how is the refusal of engagement any more arrogant than the demand for it? - along with the subsequent attempt at intellectual shaming.
I too like Mariner's posts on religion, which are generally thoughtful and interesting. But claiming the intellectual baseline - "engage with me/religion or you're 'handicapped'" - is the equivalent of intellectual blackmail, and it's a load of hogwash. If religion has no bearing on one's life, and if one is equally not trying to engage the religious, then one has every right to ignore wholesale the entire enterprise without being blackmailed into the idea one is thus unserious. I don't give a flying hoot about Hathor, and I imagine most who claim to believe in some religion or another today don't either. And that's perfectly fine. Your God - whoever 'you' is, and whichever God is in question - ought to be subject to the same standard of utter indifference. Entirely and completely ignorable.
The comparison to Mayan Gods was dismissed as a cliche. Why? Because one's own personal God-pick is somehow arrogated to a status of not-cliche, the real-deal-God; "'My' God is not like those primitive Gods, and cannot be spoken about in the same breath. That's silly talk. My God is special - not like those Gods - and is deserving of non-cliche engagement". Well, no. They're all the same, and it's a failure of imagination to think comparisons to other God artefacts is just some kind of cheap-shot. It's only a cheap-shot if one really thinks those other Gods really are cheap to begin with, in comparison to yours. If it's ridiculous and cliche to invoke Quetzalcoatl - and of course it is - I don't see how any other God or Gods is miraculously exempt from the self-same ridiculousness. It is no more arrogance to not care about every other backwater unheard-of religion than it is one's favoured God artefact.
:roll:
I'll pass.
Thanks what I was looking for, a clear straightforward unambiguous answer. Thank you! Huge time saver.
This stuff isn't epistemic, it's highly elaborate superstitious faith. Fabulation and creative story-telling upheld as if literal truth, which is why others keep pointing out the lack of justification.
Holding such faith is fine, declaring it the be-all-end-all truth applicable to all less so. It's too bad that the doctrinators aren't listening.
Might be worth mentioning that a majority of non-theists out there are ex-theists.
If I genuinely and honestly thought that some population group were bound for hell due to their (non/dis)belief, then I'd be rather busy trying to tell them that and how I'd arrived at that.
Analogous to how I'd try talking someone out of jumping off a tall building.
Quoting StreetlightX
Nothing. I never said it was exempt. You are still rehashing the meme battles rather than engaging on what is being said.
The subject is the discussion of your (paraphrase) statement that a "true atheist would show indifference rather than antagonism". Without going into "true scotsman" territory, I pointed out that your examples of reactions denoting (presumably) indifference would be more adequate as expressions of curiosity, and I said that this is a sentiment that is lacking in many atheists.
And since then you have referred to irrelevant, stock "internet atheist" pseudo-arguments which are not (at all!) pertinent to the theme as a way to avoid engaging it. After all, I did not defend "religion" (as you presume in your latest post), nor did I "exempt" any belief from scrutiny (on the contrary, I was commending curiosity! While pointing out that lack of curiosity is a non-denominational shortcoming, affecting people on all sides of all divides). I did not say that belief in Quetzalcoatl is wrong. I did not say, basically, any of the stuff that you are putting into my mouth in order to refute it and then pat yourself in the back (complete with suggestions of my "arrogance").
This "indifference" of yours sounds harder than it looks. Antagonism has its attractions, apparently :D.
Sure. It is perfectly fine. But it is not a stance informed by curiosity (even though it is perfectly fine). And if a forum member started to talk about Hathor and how it is important to do some stuff because of Hathor and how Hathor's wisdom is important for your life etc. etc., you can dismiss it out of hand (which would be perfectly fine -- our resources are limited after all), but you cannot do it while claiming that your stance is informed by curiosity.
I'm defending curiosity here, not any specific belief or religion.
Well, no. I had nothing like that in my mind when I called it a cliché. I called it a cliché because I have seen it dozens (hundreds?) of times in these discussions. After all, this is what makes something a cliché; not whether it is right or wrong, but whether it is referred to without any hint of reflection and adaptation to the dialogue at hand. As the "just one extra God" argument. etc. A cliché may even be right, but it will still be a cliché.
Now I'm curious (:D). Why did you presume that this "real-deal-God" stupidity was the motivation for the cliché comment?
Just FYI, your theology is bad, that is not a Catholic belief.
Right, I seem to recall the current Pope has declared a less stringent admission to heaven. :)
That said, there are people on this forum that has declared the above, thoughtful people if you will.
I'm wondering, though, why wouldn't Catholics (and Hindus) make such declarations...?
There's no arbiter around to set the record straight, they can only go by some scripture reading.
Surely it's not a matter of some personal moral sentiments or preferences?
And to be clear, theological debates are great and even fascinating. I think they have alot of value, and have alot of lessons to teach (primarily about how not to think...). I'm indifferent in the same way I'm indifferent about the present king of France. You can wring alot of great philosophical points with some sustained attention to the topic - as Russell did - without actually thinking you're talking about the present king of France. Or to use a nice distinction - I'm curious and think it's healthy to be curious about God and religion de dicito and not de re. And not caring about religion or God de re - that's the indifference I think is worthy of a healthy atheism. One that isn't 'invested' in debates about God's existence, while perfectly able to entertain such debates as the cultural artefacts and intellectual curiosities they are.
I am not talking about religion.
But I repeat myself.
The subject of atheist's curiosity (or lack of it) is, if you recall, "God? What is that? Never heard of it".
Quoting StreetlightX
There is an indifference that is born of reflection and research -- one that was informed by curiosity in its early stage. I see nothing wrong with that indifference. There is also an indifference that is born of a lack of resources to investigate all imaginable claims. Nothing wrong with that either. As you see, I'm not antagonistic to indifference. (I can imagine indifferences that are not so pristine, but they are not the subject here).
I was not saying "indifference is bad". I was pointing out that your examples of an indifferent reaction looked more like curiosity than indifference. Your examples. Not mine. And I was noting that curiosity is great and should be seen more often in these debates.
Do you have anything to say in response to these claims?
And by the way I'm still curious as to why you would think that the cliché diagnosis was motivated by chauvinism. Is it a default reaction when speaking with a presumed believer? Is it specific to me? Is there some old discussion of ours in which this stance was perceived by you?
I mean look, if one is trying to 'argue against' religion, sure, you ought to know what you're talking about. But if you just don't care, then I don't see why anyone should care. What I find 'antagonistic' is the asphixiating and fake bind where, if you're interested in arguments about God, then you should know the arguments, and if you're not interested in God, then you should also know the arguments. As if all roads lead back to knowing and investing time in the arguments. I think this is crap. Religion doesn't get to be the default ground around which everything else is arrayed as if derivatively and parasitically. There needs to be a space on the intellectual map where people are simply allowed to not give a flying fig about any of it and not be deemed 'incurious' or whatever negative connotation that goes along with not giving a fig. One can simply have better, more interesting, and more pressing things to be curious about than something that has no possible bearing on one's life.
As for the cliché thing - I was being dismissive of your dismissiveness. Not much more too it.
Your theology just got incredibly worse if you think any pope could change anything at all about the Catholic teaching on salvation.
To help, Catholics believe with incredibly limited exceptions (virgin Mary, canonized saints) that they can say nothing at all definitively about anyone's salvation because you can not know the heart of another or the mind of God.
It also specifically says that salvation is not in anyway denied to anyone who is through no fault of their own outside the faith.
I am too, in some of my moods. Other times, I prefer to think of myself as an agnostic.
That sounds like an expression of strong atheism. I share it when it comes to Allah, Yahweh, Vishnu and all of the named deities of religious myth. I don't believe that they exist either, though I acknowledge that my reasons are imperfect and that I might turn out to be wrong. I don't believe that the Bible, the Quran or the Vedas are divine revelations and I don't believe that Jesus was God's incarnation or that Muhammed was God's prophet.
I'm inclined to think that way when it comes to the arguments of natural theology: First-cause, source of cosmic order, why there is something rather than nothing, and so on. To me, these are among the most fundamental metaphysical problems, and I don't have a clue what the answers might be. I don't think that any human being knows the answers, or even whether there are answers. This is when I enter into my agnostic mood.
The problem with natural theology is that it delivers us to a set of hypothetical metaphysical functions. Tradition has long associated them with God, but I'm skeptical about that connection. Whatever fulfills the metaphysical functions, if anything, needn't be divine in any religious sense. The 'Big Bang' might arguably represent a first cause, but it isn't something that most people would want to fall on their knees and worship, or that people would consider holy.
So my view is that natural theology's metaphysical functions, should they exist, still aren't "good enough basis to believe that God exists" as you put it.
I agree. And more rhetorically, it's certainly good reason to say that 'There's nothing that persuades me'.
I will disagree with you a bit, and say that I don't want to entirely dismiss things like religious experience or purported miracles as evidence. But I certainly do agree that I remain unpersuaded by it, and think that there are serious problems with these kind of evidences. So I'm more inclined to think that there is evidence for 'the supernatural' we might say, although I consider it very weak evidence and remain unmoved by it.
Epistemology certainly seems to apply, at least if the faithful one is making propositional claims about what does and doesn't exist and what is and isn't true. And epistemology is joined at the hip with logic (in ways that remain a bit mysterious).
A problem that I see with divorcing faith from logic and evidenciary justification entirely is that it leaves the content of faith seemingly indistinguishable from the content of psychotic delusions.
I'm inclined to define 'faith' as something like 'willingness to commit one's self to the truth of a belief when that belief is imperfectly justified.' In that sense, we are exhibiting faith in our beliefs almost every moment of our lives.
Defined this way, religious faith is just a rather extreme subset of faith-in-general. And obviously many of our imperfectly justified beliefs are nevertheless better justified than others.
Why must atheists be indifferent? I'm certainly not, for at least two good reasons:
1. If theistic religious claims were true, it's hard to imagine any other fact being more important. No other consideration would even come close. I personally weight that possibility fairly low, so it doesn't really move me all that much. But...
2. The philosophy of religion provides philosophy with some of its most interesting problem cases, both metaphysically and epistemologically.
Which suggests that you are assuming that it isn't a legitimate question. That needs more argument if you want to convince me.
I agree.
But "I don't give a damn about whether or not God exists" is not the same thing as "God? What is that?" (with or without the shrug). The first is true indifference. The second is curiosity. If your current example is supposed to replace the first one, then I have no further comment to make about it. (While still commending curiosity on all sides -- of all questions -- as the best intellectual stance, even though I recognize that we cannot be curious about all things, we must select, and selecting non-God stuff is a perfectly fine selection).
That's enough of the meta-debate. On the debate proper, I must note that the word "god" and its equivalents is used by all cultures, and understood even by very young children (of all cultures). There must be a referent of the word (even if it is a fictional referent). And "what is that" is a perfectly good question to be asked of it. (Needless to say, it is not a religious question).
That's what adherents of the elaborate religions do. And act on.
You can't have missed the trees in the forests.
Quoting Rank Amateur
Or multiple referents?
It's not like there's anything in particular to show.
That you need what is being talked about to be something ridiculous and cartoonish, so that everyone can be stupid, and you can be so smart is just killing you. You interpret everything everyone says to be nonsense, stupid, and wrong, so that they can be wrong, and you can be right, but the reality is that the opposite is occurring, and you're just handicapping yourself, indeed.
Unified by an underlying commonality. Sure. But the question "what are gods?" is about this common trait of gods (and equivalent beings), not about any given god. "What are dogs?" is not properly answered by "Lassie", or by a description of Lassie.
They might be mistaken and they might be unreasonable. Some almost certainly are.
I wish I could share your in your glee, but you've been a disappointment. You have failed to rip my position to pieces or demolish it, as you claimed. You haven't even scratched the surface. And an unclear reference to a set of conditions isn't very helpful.
"What do you mean "lip profession?"
The profession of the lips, the declared profession of faith in this case.
[i]Re: agnosticism = the knowability of God, maybe that is the current definition but it is erratic because:
- the debate about the knowability of God won't exist without the person giving the views lip service — SnoringKitten[/i]
What l'm trying to say is: the person's lip service is as important to the definition of -ism, as the -ism-per-se definition. So, you have Atheism the system (= the -ism per se), and you have the lip-profession of Atheism of the Atheist.
Consider this though: we don't know if God exists / does not exist. These are unfalsifiable beliefs.
So therefore what remains is what the person professes, the definition pivots on that only.
"I don't know what you're trying to say with this "lip" stuff. If you mean that "this is what atheists and agnostics actually profess", then you're just wrong. Atheists overwhelmingly do not claim to have proof no god's exist, and overwhelmingly do not claim to posses the positive belief that no possible gods could exist. Many people do misuse the term agnosticism to refer to some kind of fence-sitting position, but that definition is a complete departure from how it is used in philosophical literature."
You have not read the OP, please read the OP. I am arguing for a redefining. Whatever the previous definitions were, and whosoever was that much of a grand authority to have thought up of them, l care not.
If you think it is pertinent to reply with a restatement of the old definitions that l am arguing against, then you have not grasped the OP.
You say that Atheism = not KNOWING there is no God but thinking there is no God. Okay as l've said earlier in the replies: OK let's have it that Atheism = lip profession that "I have looked at the arguments for/against, and for NOW, l BELIEVE there to be no God".
As for Agnosticism NOT being fencesitting, then what is it? A belief that a person doesn't know either way? Seriously do you even consider this? It is the time-honoured basis of Theism / Atheism. Why deny for Theists the scientific confession that we don't know God exists / does not exist for a fact, and turn it into a cargo cult called Agnosticism and when someone comes to point out how illegit it is as a separate belief, you respond "ahhh but you don't get it, ahhh" well how about answering the objections to it in the OP? Those objections destroy Agnosticism.
I put it to you that the destruction of "Agnosticism" which l am proposing, leaves Atheism barenaked as a frail position, because previously Agnosticism had served as the basic truth of unfalsifiability of God/No-God, & Atheism chirps in by saying "give me proof, all i ask is that".
No, the unfalisifiability of God/No-God was the basis of Atheism & Theism before the newfangled term Agnosticism sashayed in.
So now that the confession that we do not KNOW God exists / does not exist has been restored as the universal basis for both Atheism AND Theism, what does Atheism have left to cling to? What evidence is there against God existing, compared to an endless stream of evidence FOR God existing? Maybe relegate that to another thread where it'd be more pertinent, a thread wherein if you bring up Neo-Darwinian evolution you will fail, just saying (maybe folks'll offer me a truce, likely at the start of the thread - "pssst ... you can believe in Neo-Darwinian Evo AND be religious, you know?").
To continue: Agnosticism is illegitimate & is done away with in my overhaul of the terminology. Agnosticism claims that a person doesn't know. Well golly, for millennia, we haven't known, that was the basis of belief. See my OP.
Why object when l claim Atheists claim to KNOW there is no God, when previously Agnosticism had been used to delegitimise Theism as if Theists claimed to KNOW there was a God, and you were fine with that because it gave a way to misrepresent and discredit Theism?
Also why does JornDoe (see below) add another axis, about the knowability of God, when either way, Atheism & Theism do not differ on this matter? They differ in the DEBATE about the existence of God, a debate which folks seem to run like mad from.
My redefinitions bring the debate back.
[b]"The simplest and most elegant definitions for theism and atheism are as follows:
Theist: Someone who believes in god
Atheist: Someone who lacks belief in god (a.k.a non-theists)"[/b]
Atheism as the LACK of belief in God is a new-fangled redefinition of Atheism, when Atheism kept losing in debates, it is not the traditional definition of Atheism. How's that for redefining.
So, it was decided that Atheism says and does nothing, hence need not appear in court, it has no case to answer.
A lack of belief in God, if it were a negatively existing thing, would be best represented by a zero, or a complete silence. Yet, Atheists cluster around the axis of theological debates and philosophy, how strange.
Atheism literally defines itself in respect to God. It has a policy on God. It is on the plane of the debate about the existence of God, not, say, anything to do with the timber / food canning industry. You may note that timber and machinery and cans have an absence of belief in God and you are defining matters arbitrarily if you think they are excluded from your new-fangled "Atheism as lack of" definition.
Also: I wonder what you call the belief that God does not exist?
Also: you define Theist as someone who believes in God. However, as l've stated in the OP (did you read the OP fully?) faith wavers, and if we carve out a noun for every fluctuation in thought within one person, and throw into the works the spanner of Agnosticism which is totally illegit, then we end up with a carnival of chimaeric terms, each tracing their illegitimacy to the illegit term "Agnosticism" in one way or another.
Add to the chaos: now that we've given our inner feelings a noun, a station, these inner feelings become inviolable and cut off from debate. There is also a gradual subliminal teasing away from Theism into doubt enshrined (Atheism). Agnosticism was ever just a tool for Atheism, but it's an illegit term. Agnosticism is deleted.
My redefinitions:
* Simplify the terms
* Open up the debate
* Delete Agnosticism because it's completely illegit and a subverise tool to take doubt as a halfway house and eventually enshrine it as Atheism, which when exposed to debate tends to wilt away, so, the next measure is denial: l don't need to say nothing, l said nothing, l know of nothing because ... Atheism isa lack of belief
[b]"you know, theism is the name of this game.
If theists didn't promote and obsess about Amun-Ra Zeus Vishnu Yahweh Asherah Allah Vedas Bible Quran etc, then there wouldn't be much to talk about here.
Leave it to theists to come up with all kinds of diversions (occasionally to avoid the onus probandi). :)
But, if we're talking belief disbelief doubt absence thereof etc, then we could perhaps come up with more general classifications.
This need not be about theism, but more about whatever attitudes (and absence thereof) towards propositions claims statements postulates etc."[/b]
Hello, this relates to my OP how?
[b]"The more general the label the less it reveals, the more it misleads/confuses, and the less useful as a label it becomes (why have a 50 page argument about whether or not "babies are atheists" (they are ;) ) when we could just say exactly what we mean and get to the root of disagreements quickly?).
We do have an endless series of labels which denote various positions pertaining to these matters. Problem is they get so specific that less people are aware of them, and hashing the scope of their definitions takes just as long as stating your position without the use of labels in the first place. Here are some examples
Ignosticism
Apatheism
Practical atheism
Indifferentism
Non-theism
Theological noncognitivism
Ietsism
ignoramus et ignorabimus (hard agnosticism)
Possibilianism
Implicit atheism
Explicit atheism
Negative atheism
Positive atheism
And the list goes on (especially if we include every variation on theism)"[/b]
You realise that is what my OP solves, right?
And no, what misleads / confuses, is when different zones are mixed up. The back end arguments (Reasoning / Debate) are conflated with the lip profession (Conclusion), all given one composite noun.
You are Ruritanian. Maybe you are a Ruritanian with neo-liberal economic tendencies who supports the Orange party. But your nationality is Ruritanian. This is a generalisation. This makes things simpler, by segregating the reasoning from the conclusion. Or would you have specific passport categories for each Ruritanian?
In the same vein:
No longer are you an Agnostic Theist because you are an Agnostic Theist.
Conclusion is no longer conflated with the Reasoning and thereby ringfenced as your personal identity, inviolable, undebatable.
You are now a Theist by lip profession, and you have the following crisis in faith: A means B therefore surely C could also mean D?
So the debate is open.
As for your diagram, my redefinitions do away with all that.
The lip profession is either: Atheist or Theist.
The debate is there to prove itself. The debate is now alive with everything to play for. Who would sincerely put nouns on these stances whilst standing off from actually debating them? I would guess someone that always loses these debates (Atheists). Is God unknowable or knowable? Prove it via facts or reasoning. Instead of giving it names and colours and making it look like a pie, that's not even debate.
Btw, why add this other axis, about the knowability of God, to this context, when either way, Atheism & Theism do not differ on this matter? They differ in the DEBATE about the existence of God, a debate which folks seem to run like mad from.
[EDIT: Oh l get it, this is just another ploy to hide Agnosticism, smuggling it away from criticism (notice how Agnosticism doesn't raise its head above the parapets in your piechart, it is no longer an independent position, it can't be assailed, but it still gets its own chimaeric nouns, woohoo!), so keeping it as a half way house toward Atheism, all the while forbidding debate because debate then attacks a person's self-identity which is a major no-no]
If you actually wanted to see if/how your position might be ripped to shreds you would have complied with the very easy and simple instructions I've provided to you about 4 times now.
If you actually wanted to see if/how your position might be ripped to shreds you'd already be engaged in trying to do that yourself. What we've learned is that, at the best, your level of motivation for such an inquiry is extremely low. And there's nothing wrong with that.
And there's also nothing wrong with an old fellow who has already typed all this up about a billion times over 20 years declining to spoon feed you analysis you don't actually want so that you can burp it back up on my shoes. Sorry, you missed this boat, and should have caught me ten years ago when I was foolish enough to engage in such operations.
I've provided you with all the clarity on your position that you currently deserve or desire. I've taught you that you don't actually want an effective challenge to your position. And I'm placing my hand on your shoulder to assure you that there's nothing at all wrong with that.
On the contrary, it sounds like an expression of weak atheism, not strong atheism, as it uses "I don't believe" instead of "I believe".
Quoting yazata
You seem like more of an agnostic, at least in spirit, than I am, in the sense that you seem to take more of a neutral stance. I don't think that that impression best sums up my view, so I call myself an atheist more often. I am an agnostic in the sense that there are things that I don't know, and which I'm willing to admit to. However, I wouldn't sit on the fence if I thought that the cosmological argument was a terrible argument, even if I wouldn't go as far as ruling out the possibility that I'm wrong about it, or that it's actually a sound argument. I think that most people aren't willing to go that far, actually. If I find something to be implausible or to be lacking explanatory power or to be lacking a strong evidential basis or to be going against the principle of Ockham's razor or something similar, then these kind of things factor against it in my view.
Quoting yazata
Yeah, I get that, and I've made a similar point.
Quoting yazata
We're actually in agreement on that. I clarified somewhere that I don't claim that there's no evidence. There are examples of weak evidence.
I don't know if I agree or not with you, since I don't know what you mean by the word "god". To keep up with the meme theme (if only because it is a nice turn of phrase), if you mean "the angry old man in the sky", then I agree with you, and I don't believe that exists; at least not if we take this to be a description of another object (actual or potential) of our experience. But if you use the expression "angry old man in the sky" (which is, after all, only an aspect of, say, the Christian God) as meaning "the love of justice that, without having a clear source from among our objects of experience, finds an authoritative voice in the heart of anyone who has been wronged", I cannot agree that this does not exist.
One of the problems with theist/atheist interactions is that they usually don't take the time to sort out the proper use of symbolism in discourse, and plunge into the debate without realizing that they are speaking different languages.
That's not necessary. Surely you know whether you believe in anything that you'd call "god"? I don't see how you could catch me out on that one, since I don't believe in, say, "the angry old man in the sky" sort of god, or the kind of "doesn't make any real difference" impersonal, noninterventionist sort of god, and I've discounted all instances of wordplay whereby what's called "god" is actually just something that I already believe in, or which I could believe in as an atheist, and is compatible with atheism, despite any superficial appearance to the contrary. What's the alternative? I don't think that there is one. I've covered all bases.
Quoting Mariner
The latter falls into the discounted category. Anything that an atheist can believe without contradiction should be discounted for obvious reason; and an atheist can believe, without in doing so contradicting his position, that there exists a love of justice that, without having a clear source from among our objects of experience, finds an authoritative voice in the heart of anyone who has been wronged.
You probably won't like having your interpretation discounted, but I base my thinking on what's sensible, not on what others like or do not like.
Quoting Mariner
That can be avoided with a sort of disclaimer, so to speak. You can speak your different language, just don't expect me to go along with it.
I'm an Atheist who grew up and still lives amidst Catholics, and what you say is certainly what they preach. But it's also, generally, what they do. Nobody's ever told me I'll go to hell for not believing in God. I generally come away with the impression that all "good" people go to heaven, and when I ask what "good" might mean, I'm a lot more likely to get counter questions than a sermon (which is consistent with the idea that your relationship with God is personal). There are probably regional differences when it comes to practise, though. I live in Austria. How about Ireland? Brazil? Indonesia?
I'm a relativist, so I'm fairly sure what millieu you start out in is rather important. Nobody's an atheist because the cornerstone of their worldview is the non-existance of God. Generally, an atheist has a world view of his own, like any other person, and that world view does fine without God, but they only ever notice that when they consider theists, and so your atheism will likely have certain focus, depending on what theist intrusion in your life looks like.
I grew out of God (the Roman Catholic variety) together with the Easter Bunny, so the image of God I have inside is rather childish. Other people grew up and their concept of God grew up with them, but they have problems making themselves understood by me, because it all looks equally childish to me. But, see, the childishness is mine. I'm aware of that. None of the people around me believe in that childish God who is the only one I can imagine. Curiosity? At that point, people very rarely tell me things I haven't heard before. The likelihood that I spend a lot of time listening to things I've heard multiple times before is high, and the likelihood that I finally get it now is low. That puts a dampener on my curioristy, to be honest.
I'm lucky in that people who talk to me, generally don't try to convert me, so I don't have much in the way of an aversion to God talk. My childhood God memories are full boredom and repetitiveness and unenlightening religious education, so the concept of God is vaguely associated with boredom. I'm not really curious about God at all, but I do want to understand theists, and that's a minor interior conflict that can at times escalate.
Generally, there are points of friction in daily life. My mum, for example, thinks I'd be happier if I could talk to God. Well, that may be true, but I can't, since I don't believe He's there. Now, when I'm visibly depressed is when she most wants to bring it up, and when I least want to hear about it.
It's also a little grating, when you're trying to figure out the details of what you believe in (emotional reactions and self-observations are the cue), and all the present theists have to contribute is "What about God." Being an atheist is, as strange as it may sound, already a concession to theists. On my own, I'm fine just being primarily a relativist, a not-quite naturalist, a hardly-at-all-but-maybe-a-little humanist, and so on. It's not easy to figure out what I believe, so, dear theists, please don't distract me with God. We'll talk later, yes?
Those aren't grave problems, but they do provide little hiccup in the daily praxis of theist/atheist interaction. Now imagine, if an atheist were to face grave problems (say, legal persecution), wouldn't they have more of a baggage with the concept of God than I have?
Atheism isn't a philosophical position; it's a way to classify various philosophical positions (from naturalism over secular humanism to nihilism). And often for an atheist to talk about God at all is to abandon their home-territory: God just isn't a very important concept in their native believe structure. (Ex-theists may have it easier, at least, if their memory is good. And I imagine for some I-don't-believe-in-God-but-I-used-to is a rather important mental gestalt.)
Would I believe in God, if I had evidence? To me that line is a red herring. No theist I know personally is waiting for evidence for God. One once told me that everything is evidence for God. Nobody's trying to set up God experiments with the hope of creating a miracle machine. Prayers suffice (and are more respectful to God, too). If there were such a thing as "scientific evidence for God", I'd expect theists to tell me what it is. "God" is their concept not mine. Nobody I know personally has ever put forward such thing. Nobody's ever seemed in interested in such a thing. I can't accept evidence for a blank concept in my mind, and even theists would laugh at me if I were to look for evidence for that childish God-concept I have inside. If I ever have a change of heart, it's going to have to come from some personal experience, rather than empiricist reasoning.
I've typed up and deleted replies to some of the other threads that float around. It's fiendishly hard for me to come up with posts that I wouldn't immediately regret after clicking "post comment". It's probably easier here, since this thread is more about what being an atheist is like than it is about proving or disproving things that aren't very relevant to my day-to-day business.
I was not expecting to catch anything. I wanted to know what you meant by the sentence I highlighted. I still do. Let me know if you want to explain it later.
Behind of all of those words is nothing but posturing. It's all bark and no bite. Excuses.
You expect me to comply with your request, even though I've expressed to you that it is unclear to me what you're referring to. That's unreasonable.
Are you referring to the following?
Quoting Jake
I'll address this anyway, because I haven't directly addressed it for a few reasons. You're not saying anything disagreeable enough to attract much of my attention, despite all of your bravado and fighting talk. And it doesn't directly address my position.
1) Have a huge investigation? We've already done that to some extent, and it's still ongoing. For that reason, it's a redundant instruction. And it's also impractical, as it goes against the purpose of this discussion, which is about talking about what we know so far, what we're justified in concluding, and so on, and not stopping what we're doing to go out on a huge investigation. If you're into investigation, we can investigate our belief or lack of belief regarding the topic of discussion and our reasons for them here.
2) Discover our ignorance? Already done to some extent, and further potential discoveries is what this discussion is for. So, just another redundant instruction.
3) Accept what the investigation has revealed? Useless without further detail.
4) Continue the investigation and look for ways to put what we've found to constructive use? Okay.
Now what? Your four instructions, or whatever you want to call them, haven't done a thing. We're no further towards any kind of meaningful or productive discussion. You've just needlessly outlined what you seem to think would help in achieving that goal or some similar goal.
You seem to have completely misunderstood the point of this discussion or you're just not willing or able to engage it in the proper way. Either way, I see that as more your problem than mine.
You don't seem to have taken into account what I just explained to you in my last reply. Why is that? I'll use less words this time and spell it out to you.
There is no set meaning for "god" which I'm going by, so it makes zero sense to seek one from me. It's flexible. I believe that what I've said covers all bases, and if you disagree, then present what you consider to be an exception. But please don't just present again what you've already presented, because I have addressed that already.
Yeah, when’s the show gonna start? I got my popcorn and watermelon bong all ready to go.
Waiting on Jake. Don't hold your breath.
For any opinion one holds, be it ever so little grounded in reflection, one can say the same about people who don't share it. So the statement doesn't seem to say anything at all.
It doesn't say anything remarkable, but then, the line of enquiry which you've pursued thus far isn't remarkable. We need more details about these different views to get anywhere interesting. Maybe pick a view different to my own, tell me a bit about it, and I'll tell you what I think about it?
If it's just telling, then thank you. It's always rewarding to know more about others' thoughts and feelings. If on the other hand it's a judgement, and especially a judgement that people who believe in a deity are irrational or in some other way poor thinkers, whom are you judging, for what beliefs, and what are the grounds for your judgement?
I expect so, but do you expect it to ever convince anybody to change their view, other than the occasional rare exception?
You sound, from the rest of your post, like a deeply religious person. Are you that way because you were convinced by dry philosophical arguments such as this, or because of personal experience and feelings, or that you were brought up to believe what you do?
Both, I suppose. But, lacking detail, accordingly, my judgement will be suitably limited. I'm hesitant to go overboard without knowing more about what we're talking about, but I can definitely imagine some very unreasonable and mistaken positions which differ from my own.
Quoting andrewk
This is what I mean: more detail. It would make sense to first examine why they believe what they do, wouldn't it? I have my own reasons for believing what I believe and not believing what I don't, and I think that I have good reasons, but it's at least possible that I'm wrong, that I might realise that I'm wrong, and that a different position might be better. (180 Proof, for example, has in the past given me pause for thought). But I've also seen some very poor reasoning from theists and others in my time, and if we were to single those out, for example, then sure, I'll be much less hesitant to judge them as irrational and such.
If you say so. I just resent what I saw was the hinted suggestion that one cannot have any kind of autonomous space apart and extricated from the space of religious argument. As if this counted as some kind of intellectual 'handicap' or 'incuriosity'. As if people don't have a right (loosely taken) to ask religious argument to STFU and leave them alone, including (and sometimes especially) arguments from 'atheists' all too willing to play the God-game.
Imagine you're looking at a version of yourself who believes in Quetzalcoatl. This could have been you if things were different. Wouldn't you want to set this version of yourself straight? Talk some sense into him?
- S, you are talking about dogs, but I don't know what you mean by the word. What is a dog?
- I'm flexible. There is no set meaning for 'dog' that I am going by. It makes zero sense to seek one from me.
If this is how you approach queries about the meanings of words that you use, there is not much to be said. To request from me an explanation of the word that you are using is quite wrongheaded, of course. (So much so that it would be a sure recipe for confusion in any debate about anything if it were universalized).
But I won't insist.
If there was any such suggestion it was unintentional. (And I was trying to insert caveats all along the way to prevent or minimize that interpretation -- but I can easily have failed to do it thoroughly ;)).
Okay, you're not getting it. There's only so much I can do to help you with that.
Switching to dogs shouldn't make any real difference, but let's give that a go. For the analogy to be apt, it's not extraordinary for the word 'dog' to be used in a variety of ways. Some people use the word to refer to an angry flying green canine from outer space, other people use the word to refer to an invisible canine which can't be detected by humans, and yet others use the word to refer to a vague sense of justice. I can address these ways by saying that the first two kind of ways result in disbelief, and the last way misses the point, since it doesn't say anything that goes against a-dogism, and this is about a-dogism.
For some weird reason, you seem to have gotten it into your head that I must set a single meaning for the word "dog" and tell you what it is with regards to what I've said. That is not required, and if you think otherwise, then you're not on the same level of understanding as me, and you're going to have to work on reaching that level, preferably without me having to assist you every step of the way, because you have difficulty getting over even the smallest of hurdles. Sorry, but I just don't think that I have the patience for that.
Really? You'd be content to just allow this version of yourself to live out his life holding onto such whacky beliefs? What if he really wanted to ascertain the truth? You wouldn't want to help him get there?
If it was me, I would want to help this other version of me to see things as they really are.
Only if one is curious about that, which seems to bring things back to Mariner's point about curiosity.
Is that the purpose of the thread - that you are curious about other people's religious beliefs and why they hold them, and you want to learn more about that?
Hi Andrewk. Several people here hold the view that philosophical arguments about the existence of God are pointless because they don't convince very many people. I am not sure if you hold that view but I took this comment to indicate it.
Anyway, I think that view is quite superficial. First, I honestly doubt that good arguments very often convince anyone of anything important. If an issue is important, most people feel too strongly about it to be persuaded by logic - of course there are valuable exceptions, as you said. So in this respect arguments about God are, as I see it, no different to arguments about morals or politics or the soul, or even such things as whether animals have thoughts and feelings like humans.
Second, I think philosophical argument is valuable even if it cannot convince. It can be useful when coming to really understand a view and contrast if with alternatives. To really appreciate a view, it helps to see what reasons someone might have for believing it, even if you don't end up converting.
I should also point out that reasoned argument is one of our few ways of convincing others that doesn't involve guns and death.
PA
I do think that good argument can convince people of important things, but the people that are convinced are those that are open to being convinced, open to learning (in short, open-minded), not those that come to the discussion in order to teach others the right way to think about things (which is of course their own way).
I'm not saying I'm immune to the temptation to do that by the way. I have at times entered arguments with an entrenched position, and pushed it for longer than made any sense. I always feel rather foolish afterwards for having done so. I like to think that I rarely do this any more, but maybe that's just wishful thinking.
I agree that philosophical discussion or argument can be very useful if it brings one to an understanding of the positions of others and why they hold them. I have learned a great deal on this forum and its predecessor by reading the arguments of others, and sometimes engaging with them. But some topics seem less conducive than others to an open-minded approach, and debates about religious beliefs seem the least conducive of all. I honestly can't remember ever seeing anybody on either side say 'Oh, I see what you mean' or 'Good point, I shall have to think about that' in such a discussion.
Maybe the benefit of such debates, if they have one, is for the spectators rather than the participants. For a year or so, I listened to a lot of podcast debates about religion and God, and learned a lot about the positions of both sides, and heard some arguments I hadn't heard before, in doing so. Then it started getting repetitive and there was no more to learn, so I stopped, and I don't think I've listened to one since.
Yes, of course curiosity. That's behind almost everything I do here. Also looking to challenge and be challenged. The purpose is feedback, discussion, questions, explanation, exchange of views, debate.
I may or may not have a soccer ball in my closet...
I will offer you no evidence either way, and so for now you cannot falsify the claims that there is or is not a soccer ball in my closet...
(With me so far?)
So tell me. Do you believe that there is a soccer ball in my closet or do you believe that there is no soccer ball in my closet? Now that I've asked you the question, surely you must have a belief either way.
Given that you have no way of knowing, do you think it is equally likely that there is a soccer ball as it is likely that there isn't?
What you most likely have is a lack of belief either way; not even fence-sitting. You simply choose to place no faith in either direction, or any position in-between, including the middle one. The only rational position is no position.
Your unfalsifiable God is exactly like the unfalsifiable soccer-ball in my closet. Atheists are to belief in god as you are to the possible soccer ball in my closet.
Ok.
Funny post, by the way.
Such arguments could be useful if they reveal to us that nobody can prove anything on either side. If we used such debates to discover that we are ignorant, and then we continued from there to look for ways to put this abundant resource to good use, that would be constructive. But of course, this rarely happens.
1) You've quoted the wrong instructions, illustrating that you were paying no attention when they were provided, even though you responded to the posts where they were provided.
2) We have accomplished something meaningful and productive. We've discovered that you aren't actually interested in challenging atheism in the very same way you reasonably challenge theism. More specifically, you aren't actually interested in my assistance in such a process, or you would have done the tiny little job I gave you so that we could discover whether you are actually interested in such an analysis.
What you want to do is what you're currently doing. You want to have an entertaining ego contest flapdoodle. Ok, this is a Internuts forum, so go for it. If you'd like me to call you name I suppose I could do that much so as to advance your REAL agenda.
Don't need proof, good reason will do. And there are cases where I can give good reason against various positions, including theism, agnosticism, and both strong and weak atheism. A one-size-fits-all approach is not the best approach, as it won't suit all conceivable cases, although weak atheism tends to work okay as a sort of default stance, pending further details.
You weren't clear enough and were uncooperative. So you're to blame for this situation, at least in part.
Quoting Jake
No, we've accomplished no such thing. Just because your demands haven't been met, it doesn't follow that I'm not interested in challenging atheism. I'm interested in challenging atheism, and that's clear from this discussion. But you, however, are coming across as uncooperative and evasive.
Quoting Jake
You can of course believe what you want. My REAL agenda is actually to take over the world, but nice try.
However, in the God/No-God debate:
- There is obviously a debate (= the God/No-God debate), which implies there's been evidence thrown around - not a mere coin toss or a ball in a cupboard
- This debate especially, is about God/No-God, the fundamental axiom of the universe (for Atheists, it can be phrased as order vs. chaos, or the formula for a fundamental particle that has driven things since t=00, the formula representing Order, even if quantum mechanics gets involved, there's still a kernel of Order with this fundamental equation).
As it's something so fundamental to our universe, and we are so far downstream of that, it will absolutely not be mute chance, there will have been evidence one way or the other, in abundance.
I say: for there to be >0 pieces of evidence, it is impossible for a human (we have an overarching aesthetic, we are higher beings after all) to be sat on the fence, not even caving into feelings one way or another.
Football in/not in cupboard scenario = 0 evidence available = agnosticism possible.
Would you mind posting the correct instructions? If you’ve previously posted them then you could just cut & paste.
Earlier in the topic you seemed to suggest that there was some universality to the concept of God. I could be mistaken about that. In any case, I’m curious about your concept and if you would express something about it.
In regard to universality, I was thinking that ‘ultimate authority’ may be core. I think it’s the power of authority, combined with a devaluation of reason, that may turn an atheist’s curiosity, or indifference, into concern.
Speaking honestly, it was for me too, for a few years when I discovered philosophical theology and the joys of exploring the metaphysics of God, his substance, being, and essential nature. But this never ending intellectual endeavor changed and warmed my heart very little.
"The knowledge of God is very far from the love of Him." (Pascal)
At the risk of comparison, after years of 'interesting' ratiocination I had an exactly Augustinian moment: “Nor did I now desire to be more certain of You, but more steadfast in You.” (St. Augustine)
I had explored descriptions of God and his general being well enough. I knew of him, but I did not know him. One cannot remain coldly logical about such matters forever. As in a romantic relationship, there's time for detached reflection on the object of your desire (philosophy) and then there's the relationship itself (mystical union).
If you were surrounded by Christian friends and family as I am, you would know that much of the time the conversation is started by them--most likely out of concern for my eternal well-being. It helps to know what you're talking about in those cases.
I think you're mistaken about those conversations being a recipe for disaster. I've had many debates with serious religious people in my life and none of them have ended badly. Those conversations don't often lead to people changing their mind, but if those conversations aren't had then even less people will change their minds than do already. I am personally grateful to all of the people in my life who planted little seeds of doubt in me when I was a believer. It can happen.
So start challenging atheism then. Who's stopping you?
The instructions had a specific purpose which would be defeated by spoon feeding them in to this thread. Here's the theory....
Imagine the theist who says he wants to see if theism can be demolished. The first question we should investigate is, does the theist really want to do this? One way to find out would be to place some tiny little obstacle in the theist's path. Do they climb over the obstacle, or does the obstacle end their investigation?
Why should we do this test?
Well, for one thing, theism may be important to the theist. It may form an important part of his identity. Maybe they couldn't handle not having The Answer to reassure them that they have some idea what life and reality is all about. Maybe they can't handle simply not knowing. Maybe we shouldn't rush right in to taking theism away from them just because they casually wondered if that is possible. Before we proceed to demolish theism, maybe we should see how serious they are.
More to the point, if the theist doesn't sincerely wish to investigate the vulnerabilities of theism, such an investigation is quite likely to be a waste of time. You know how this works. We make a case against theism, and they push back, using the conversation as a mechanism for reinforcing the theist beliefs they already have. If we make an effective case against theism, the unserious theist is likely to get hysterical and the thread devolves in to a food fight. And if you and I have already had such a pointless conversation 10,000 times, that predictable process gets pretty boring pretty quick, right?
The best test to see if the theist really wants to explore the vulnerability of theism is to simply observe whether they are already engaged in such an inquiry on their own. Are they already on the job? Or are they sitting back waiting for someone else to do the work so that they can repeat their memorized slogans.
S has shown us what he really wants to do, and that is what he's doing in this thread. He wants to sell atheism, sell his imaginary cleverness, and get in to ego food fights. And there's not a thing wrong with any of that. Everyone should proceed with that agenda and enjoy the process.
I'm just not interested, that's all. I'm might be interested in joining a serious investigation that challenges atheism with the same enthusiasm and determination that S reasonably challenges theism. For the moment I see no evidence that such a conversation is going to emerge here, so this is my last comment on the matter.
.
Sure, if you have faith that the Earth is flat, then science can show that you’re wrong.
.
I was referring to religious faith in general.
.
If your religion says that the Earth is flat, then your religion is wrong about that. But neither science nor logic has anything to say about the justification for religious faith in general…unless that faith is about a specifically logical or physical matter.
.
.
Faith needn’t be (and religious faith usually isn’t) about anything that logic or physical evidence applies to at all.
.
That’s hardly surprising, because logic and science are mis-applied, and become pseudo-logic and pseudo-science when a pseudoscientist attempts to apply them outside their self-circumscribed, self-defined limits of applicability.
.
Evidence doesn’t mean proof.
.
Faith (“trust” is the definition of “faith” that I prefer) is belief without, or aside from, evidence.
.
Merriam-Webster defines “evidence” as “outward sign”. …a good concise (and maybe better) way of expressing my own definition as “a reason (not necessarily proof) to believe something, based on its effect or result on something else…as opposed to principle or feeling about the belief’s subject itself”.
.
I’ve stated some reasons to believe, reasons that qualify as “evidence”, as opposed to faith, by the definitions in the paragraph before this one,
.
But there are also discussions (some of them from the Scholastics) to justify faith. …in other words, reasons to believe, without or aside from evidence. There are modern (usually more complicated) versions of those Scholastic arguments. And there are one or more simpler, more modest discussions (…a term that I prefer to “arguments”), more convincing due to that simplicity and modest-ness.
.
Speaking for myself, the reasons qualifying as evidence were the ones that convinced me, but I don’t discount some of the discussions that justify faith—especially the simpler and more modest.
.
.
Difficult for you to distinguish. I guess we should sympathize with your difficulty in evaluating other people’s beliefs. But, for yourself, you needn’t believe anything that you don’t know of reason to believe. Just remember that, and you won’t have a genuine problem about it.
.
Merriam-Webster gives two definitions of “delusion”. One of those definitions is a generalized definition that just says “incorrect belief”.
To judge whether a belief is “delusion” in that broad, extended, generalized definition, just ask yourself this question: “Is it a belief that I know to be false?”
How complicated is that?
But that generalized definition is an extension, a broadening, from a clinical definition, also mentioned in Merriam-Webster:
.
.
As you see, that clinical definition, the one that is more legitimately implied by the word “delusion”, is a more demanding definition.
.
It isn’t enough that the belief by incorrect. It must also be “firmly sustained despite what almost everybody else believes and despite what constitutes incontrovertible and obvious proof or evidence to the contrary.
.
(…but one could wonder what it would mean for evidence to be incontrovertible without being proof.)
.
To judge whether a belief qualifies as delusion by that definition, then, you’d just need to ask yourself if the belief is false (incorrect), but, additionally, you’d need to ask yourself if there’s incontrovertible and obvious proof or evidence to the contrary.
.
I’m glad that I could help you out by posting these two definitions.
.
As for which definition of “delusion” to use, when making that determination, I’d suggest that the clinical definition would be better for you to use, because of your wording of your dilemma.
.
Glad I could help. You’re welcome.
.
(Oh, and if you decide to use the word “delusion”, don’t forget to share the obvious and incontrovertible proof or evidence to the contrary, or at least your proof of falsity, even if it isn’t obvious and incontrovertible.)
.
.
No, that amounts to a built-in value-judgment about the justifiableness of faith.
.
Better to just say “Trust. Or belief without, or aside from, evidence.”
.
Michael Ossipoff
You confuse debating the existence of God with considering whether God exists, and coming to a conclusion. I suppose others who cherish the task of repeating arguments made for centuries are similarly confused. There's no "fire" left in the debate. It's become a kind of elaborate ritual. Each side of the debate engages in a kind of special pleading, in any case.
Some views of God, and for that matter of religion, can be said to be less unreasonable than others, but I think that's as far as reason can take us, and debate is fruitless in the absence of reason. I find it impossible to accept a personal God, or a transcendent one, but like the Stoics I find it possible to accept an immanent God. it's not one that resembles the God most worship and too often try to make other people accept. But it's a God worthy of poetry and music of a sort that appeals me and by which I can catch a hint of it, and I think it's is in that fashion that we are best able to discern what's divine in the universe. It's fruitless to argue about or try to explain why we like poetry or music of a particular kind as well, I believe.
The Argument from Aesthetic Experience
There is the music of Johann Sebastian Bach.
Therefore there must be a God.
You either see this one or you don't.
Quoting Jake
What is there to challenging atheism other than promoting theism?
Theism is the name of this game, exemplified by Vishnu Yahweh Allah Vedas Bible Quran etc, yes?
("promoting" may not be the right word here, Englitch is my 2[sup]nd[/sup] language)
Please.
Quoting Jake
I just politely requested that you supply us the correct 'instructions' for what I was lead to believe is a method for seriously challenging atheism.
And you received what you requested.
Start a serious investigation that challenges atheism with the same enthusiasm and determination that members reasonably challenge theism.
There's already a challenge for atheism in terms of my kind of atheism vs. other positions. But if you think that I created this discussion to debate myself, then you've misunderstood why I created this discussion. See the opening post.
And you are stopping me, or at least getting in the way and slowing things down, with your lack of cooperation. No real challenge has come from you.
Is any of that supposed to be a challenge to my position? If so, how?
Ah, at least you've finally come out with it: you now say that you're not interested, which is a very different tune to your fighting talk about you ripping my position to shreds or demolishing it.
I don't believe you when you say what you can do to my position, because when it comes down to it, you make excuses. You suggested I create a discussion, so I created a discussion. You have yet to demolish my position, and it seems you're not even willing to try. So you're all talk and no action.
I will open a new thread to answer this. It would be off-topic gere.
Well, that's no worse than other arguments we see offered in favor of the existence of God.
I was wondering if you’ve thoroughly challenged your own lofty position. In claiming “our” ignorance, you’re saying that both theists and atheists are ignorant and don’t know the truth of the matter. You can claim your own ignorance. No one would object to that. Agnosticism, I think it’s called.
I don’t see it. Maybe you haven’t posted it yet.
You seemed to suggest that clarification of symbols or concepts would be productive to a discussion such as this one. Anyway, looking forward to the new topic.
Yep, it would. But S was not interested in it.
I haven't posted it yet (it requires some thought as to the best approach; I think I'll go with historical). Being a bit overworked here, too, since I have just arrived from a field trip. But I think I'll do it tomorrow at the latest.
I object to that and request that what you've done be reversed. This discussion isn't about debating the definition of atheism, it's about my actual position, whether it's right or wrong, and so on. I don't want replies to his opening post here.
I can't undo it, nor would I if I could. The two threads were examining different definitions of atheism. You can continue talking just as before.
Wait, where are you getting that from? I objected to what you were saying, I explained why, but we didn't seem to be getting anywhere, and it had started to go around in circles. That's not quite the same thing as me just saying "I ain't interested!".
You can rectify it by moving it, which a moderator is capable of doing, and either you or another moderator should do so, because it's not appropriate here, despite a vague similarity in the topic. It would be better suited in a separate discussion. This ain't about definitions, full stop. It is very clearly about my position.
I suppose I could let it go, and if it doesn't attract replies which are off-topic, then it's not that big a deal, but it was still a bad decision and I would have preferred it had you not have interfered.
If it ends up with things veering far too off topic, the off topic replies can be split into a thread of their own. Forgot we had a split function too!
@andrewk did the most work!
You objected to what I was asking (not "saying") and said you lacked patience for it. If you have grown more patient in the meantime, all you have to do is to explain what you mean by god.
I am a patient guy :). Take your time.
No one has proven any position. You feel that theists are ignorant because they haven't proven anything, and I agree. All I'm doing is applying the very same process you use in regards to theists to atheists as well. I'm the real atheist here, in the sense that I'm being loyal to the principles atheism is built upon.
Quoting praxis
In my case I call myself a "Fundamentalist Agnostic", a silly ironic label which points to a position outside of the theist vs. atheist paradigm.
See what I mean about going around in circles? It doesn't have to, but the ball's in your court.
Well, I won't explain what you mean by the words you are using. So no circle here. Only a full stop.
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/4209/what-are-gods
Wouldn't it be, say, Brahma, Ganesha, Yahweh, Quetzalcoatl, Allah, Jesus, Ridhu Bai, ...?
Those are some names used by adherents anyway.
I suppose the "god of the philosophers" might be listed as well, in a sense, though it's more of an intellectual exercise (abstract), not elaborate, no particular scriptures or temples or rituals or worship, and heaven, hell, karma, reincarnations, etc, are more extra additions.
For me - I think the only definition of God that is supported by reason is that of a non-contingent or necessary being. The God of the Bible, Koran, Tohra, etc. is IMO purely a matter of faith. ( now I need to define that !!)
Actually, instead of definitions, maybe just ensure we know what each other are talking about.
I've become wary of always insisting on definitions; it can become a whole unending thing all by itself.
By the way, per earlier (or was it a parallel thread?), I don't think a supposed necessity is the way to go.
Unless you want to get specific, and set out something necessary for our universe specifically perhaps.
Guess i need to define what I mean by non-contingent - necessary being - by that I mean.
A being whose existence is not contingent on anything, and whose existence is necessary for everything.
Failure to prove something doesn’t necessarily indicate ignorance. You can’t prove to me, for instance, that you’ve visited the Eiffel Tower, at least not with language or reason.
Quoting Jake
Outside and gratifyingly above, sounds like.
That's circling back to an issue that I've already addressed, which you're stuck on, and which is preventing any progress. But I don't want to circle back to an issue that I've already addressed, especially when your replies just repeat the same misunderstanding, seemingly oblivious to what I've actually said. So it's a dead end.
I probably should have learnt my lesson by now, since I've had problems with you in past discussions.
Well, does "being" (implicitly) include abstracts (in particular), relations, processes, things that are conserved, ...?
Or, conversely, does "being" implicitly exclude anything?
I'm asking because we can reason about necessities, which is what modal logic is about.
any inclusions or exclusions on my "being" above would be anthropomorphic, and an exercise in hubris to think I in anyway would have the tools to put limits on " a being" who was caused by nothing - and caused everything.
We, within the limits of our ability to communicate to each other about an issue like this are forced to pick some word. This very act is anthropomorphic, inadequate and incomplete - but is the only tool we have, so we press on.
You were probably using a different name then (I searched all of my comments for an interaction with you and didn't find it; perhaps the search was incomplete).
Now, if you were using a different name, this would be such a fitting illustration of the problem of not clarifying the meaning of the symbols being used in a discussion that I could not help but point it out. Even though we have reached a dead end. (Or you don't have patience. Or whatever will be the next excuse for not answering a direct question; of course, with a clear explanation of why I am to blame for it).
Well, I am a forum poster after all.
It would be better if people would just give a percentage: 0%->100% Theist. Then we'd know exactly where everyone stands.
There's an asymmetry underlying this question though. From the atheist point of view, all that is at stake is a fallacious belief; because it has no real content, losing it is losing nothing - other than an impediment. Indeed that is all that can be at stake. But from the believer's point of view, what is at stake is literally everything. Not understanding it correctly, or performing it correctly, or whatever is required by the particular faith tradition the believer belongs to, is literally a matter of life and death - even more than that. It's crucial, it's the most important thing about life. So the assertion that it's not important could only be from atheism, from those who have no sense that there's anything at stake.
Of course there's no way to reconcile these attitudes, as they're incommensurable. That is why one model of religious life is actually just getting on with it, and not bothering with interminable debates about it, except for the sake of others who are still on the fence about it.
Interesting. I'm increasingly of the view that 'religion' encodes some fundamental understanding, among other things. But this fundamental understanding or insight has been encoded in cultural forms that are no longer intelligible due to the enormous rate of social and cultural change ushered in by modernity. Indeed the whole idea of Gods, sacrificial religion, 'sheep', the 'lamb of God' and other sacred imagery of the Western cultural tradition, are remote from the reality of post-industrial society and culture.
And yet, there is something of vast importance preserved in the cultural traditions of religion. The problem, or one of them, in the Western sense, is that the mainstream notion of religion is obviously dogmatic and conformist - believe and be saved. The experiential dimension of spirituality has been lost - well, not entirely - it is actually embedded in many faith traditions, but again, the myths and metaphors in which it is encoded are often impossible to appreciate 'from the outside' as it were.
Hence the upsurge of interest in Eastern religious cultures, which are experiential and self-directed and concerned with changing the practitioner's understanding and perspective. So it kind of intersects with self-help/self-improvement which was evident in movements like New Thought and many modern derivatives of those kinds of forms of spirituality that are found in today's 'spiritual supermarket'.
of course where or whether 'God' fits into all this is a difficult question, perhaps that is why one of the underground movements that has always existed is Hermeticism, from Hermes - quicksilver, the messenger of the Gods.
But meanwhile, most atheism comprises the negation of historical and orthodox religious ideas - it is defined by what it is not, what it excludes, what it is obliged to deny, Sartre's 'God-shaped hole'.
Yes, and it should be said that most discussion of religion on philosophy (and atheist) forums is typically hopelessly lost in the illusion that religion is about little other than ideological assertions.
It may be “literally everything” for some but not the vast majority. That it can be so important, combined with its tendency to devalue reason and promote faith, is exactly why atheists should take it seriously.
So? People are insufferable fanatics. As if this is not all the more reason to marginalize and ostracize these monomaniacs - your description being an apt portrait of a Daesh fighter.
Quoting Wayfarer
Quoting Mariner
I must be out of my mind for carrying this on, but you never know.
Given that I've explained to you what I meant in the above quote, namely that out of the various ways that I can think of to define "god", there are none of which I believe that any god exists, with the exception of those wordplay cases which I've told you that I'm discounting, your excuse that you don't know what I mean by "god" is not a valid reason for not knowing whether or not you agree. It's not a valid reason because there are several meanings which I've provided, and other meanings which you yourself can provide, and I've set out three categories regarding definitions of god which cover numerous meanings, and expressed my stance with regard to these categories. There is no "my meaning" unless by that you're referring to every meaning I've covered, or unless you want to pick one of these meanings in particular. So you can address these meanings if you wanted to, but it seems that you don't want to do so, because I've given you plenty of opportunities. What it seems that you'd rather do is block out what I'm saying and stubbornly revert back to your "I don't know what you mean by 'god'" invalid excuse of a response.
Another way to explain it is that my stance is conditional. As in, "If this is the way that you define "god", then this is what I think".
So, if, say, "a vague sense of justice yada yada yada nothing which contradicts atheism" is how you define "god", then what I think is that that shouldn't count. It shouldn't count because an atheist can believe in that without contradiction, so it's not actually theism, it's sophism.
Anyway.
By your initial (in quotation marks) sentence in this last post, coupled with your commentary, your position seems to be , "If my interlocutor takes 'god' to mean something that I don't believe in, then I don't believe in it and I can say I'm an atheist. If my interlocutor takes 'god' to means something that I believe in (because it does not contradict atheism), then I can say that his usage of 'god' is irregular, accuse him of sophistry, and say that I'm still an atheist."
A funny position, to be sure. (And the idea that the way other people use words in their discourse is somehow amenable to refereeing of this sort is quite weird).
But let's see if we find a breach in the wall.
What is the kind of evidence that would convince you that you should no longer be an atheist?
(Perhaps by this indirect route we can, at long last, ascertain what you, rather than your imaginary interlocutor, mean by 'god').
Fine, "meaning of a word" then. Tomaydo-tomarto.
Quoting Mariner
In a nutshell, yeah. I'd add [i]rightly[/I] say/accuse, because I'm both right and arrogant enough to say so. :grin: :up:
Quoting Mariner
Interesting opinion.
Quoting Mariner
Good luck. :grin:
Quoting Mariner
I went over that with Wayfarer, so I refer you to my comments to him earlier on in this discussion.
Quoting Mariner
But what I mean by that word will depend on what an interlocutor, whether real or imagined, wants to go with. So what meaning do you want talk about? We've mentioned some already.
I could pick a meaning if you want me to, but it wouldn't really be "my" meaning. It'd just be "a" meaning that I've picked for sake of discussion.
It would be a start.
Okay, but what would be the purpose of going down that road? I've already covered this to some extent. I don't get why you don't just get stuck in to what I've already said. This way, I'll end up repeating myself to some extent.
Let's go with a being who created the world, is the source of what's right and wrong, and intervenes in the world.
If this being intervenes in the world, wouldn't that leave an evidential trail that we could detect, and that we should have detected by now? If so, why haven't we detected it? Or are you going to say that we have, but that I'm just not aware?
If we haven't detected it, then why should I believe that it exists? In the opening post, I gave an example involving a filthy dog. I wouldn't believe that filthy dog had ran through my house and jumped onto my bed if it had left no trace, and if there lacked no other reason for me to believe that, like evidence that there'd been a really good cover up or something. There'd be the question of why we haven't detected it when we can detect other beings?
Is god undetectable? Then why should I believe in god? And if I were to believe, then why shouldn't I also believe in a vast number of other proposed undetectable beings or objects, even if they sound silly, like Russell's teapot, fairies, and the flying spaghetti monster?
Is this "a being" another object in the world? Or perhaps an object in a meta-world (inside which he/she/it created "the world")?
If you say "yes" to any of these questions, then I agree with you that I don't believe in him/her/it, and we can live happily ever after.
So you don’t believe in theistic or cosmological dualism. In relation to what S wrote this could mean that you believe that God is the world (everything). If that’s the case then atheism is validated with occam's razor. God is an unnecessary label for everything and the concept is meaningless.
How am I supposed to know? I don't believe in this stuff to begin with. It's all hypothetical. Either.
Quoting Mariner
Ok, fine. But that exercise seemed pointless, as I'm an atheist, and that's just one version of theism, and not even one which you hold. It'd be more productive to discuss my broader position than my position in relation to one specific position which I pulled out of a hat.
In trying to make sense of that, I would translate it to something like the following:
[I]I don't think that God can be called "a thing" among other things. God is existence. But that does not equate to saying that God is everything. If I look at a pencil, I don't think that the pencil is existence. But, to the extent that the pencil exists (i.e. shares in existence), it has something from existence.[/I]
If that's not what you mean, then what do you mean? And in any case, why do we need another word for Being? (Or existence, if that's what you mean). Why call that "God"? And what about atheists who believe in Being or existence? Don't you think that it's a problem to call "God" something which an atheist can believe in? Isn't there supposed to be a meaningful difference between theism and atheism?
In the old forum there was a long thread in which (mainly) I and Banno discussed the meaning of "fact", and how it is not (as I argued) synonym with "truth". That distinction is analogous to the distinction between being and existence. Existence is a subset of being, and facts are a kind of truth, but existence does not exhaust being, and facts do not exhaust truth.
This is a very old distinction, of course, and (e.g.) the Platonic dialogues deal with it in great detail. But if one wants a short and illuminating book about it, it is hard to do better than Aquinas' "Ente et Essentia".
To give an old Platonic (well, Pythagorean) example, numbers do not exist (as ordinary objects do), but that does not stop us from using them.
I don't decide upon the meaning of words by looking at how others react to them.
Everything is not a subset of being. You've suggested non-dualism in reference to God but haven't followed through on what that may imply. What about mind-body dualism, for instance? Is our separation from God only an illusion?
What about it? (I think it is nonsense).
Quoting praxis
It depends, as usual, on what you mean by separation. Ontologically, sure, it is an illusion, since our being is derived from God and constantly sustained by Him. Morally, we are absolutely separated from Him. Cognitively, we are absolutely separated from Him. Etc.
Earlier you wrote that you didn't think God could be called "a being" among other beings, and yet here you say that God has 'a morality', 'a cognition', 'a Etc.' that is separate. Incidentally, 'He' also appears to have 'a gender'. A distinct morality, cognition, etc., appears to constitute a being, and a being which exists among other beings.
It "appears" because it is symbolic language. (Same goes for God's gender). We are trying to talk about something of which we don't have any experience. It is necessary to use symbolic language for that.
Are you familiar with the distinction between cataphatic and apophatic theology? When we talk about God, we must use one of these two techniques.
No. I suppose that I'll need to study these in order to continue.
Just trying to understand your concept of God, which I find fascinating.
Cataphatic theology talks about God by pointing out similarities between God and creatures (rather than dissimilarities). "God is Father". "God is Lord". "God is Judge". "God is Redeemer". Etc.
Last time I checked the wiki for "apophatic theology" was quite good. Take a look at it.
I’m familiar with the concepts but not the terms, and they are important concepts to me, so thanks for that. In fact, I used these concepts just yesterday in your “What are Gods” topic when I wrote:
True nature is Cataphatic and not-manifest, not-born, not-made, etc. is apophatic, yes?
What you - not just you - are loosing sight of here is the understanding that there are things, the very knowledge of which are transformative. Meaning that, ‘worldly beings’ [that includes just about everyone] actually don’t know what is real at all, due to inherent un-wisdom. So the point of spiritual discipline is to ‘see things as they truly are’. And this is even preserved in scientific method, with the caveat that modern science is generally limited to what is quantifiable. Whereas, in the traditions of sapiential philosophy, you will encounter an approach which encompasses the domain of quality.
In any case, in any of the traditional schools of wisdom, there is an understanding that the mind has to clear itself of obstructions and hindrances so as to see the true ‘object of knowledge’. You will find that in Greek, Indian, Chinese and Semitic philosophies. But we have lost sight of that, for complex historical reasons, the main one being the reduction of everything to language and symbolic abstractions. The original discipline was always aimed at ‘meta-noia’ which mean ‘transformation of perception’. And if you understand that, it puts the whole question in a different perspective.
What you - again not just you - are caught up in, is the Enlightenment reaction against ecclesiastical religion. That is obviously a broad historical movement which has had vast consequences that are still all unfolding.
Regarding your question about the meaningful differences - I observed some time back, some debates between two philosophers you might call ‘classical theists’ - namely, Ed Feser [Catholic] and D B Hart [Orthodox] and some of the ID proponents. And both of them were accused of being atheist, or being near to atheist, in some basic way. But it’s precisely because they both understand the real meaning of the transcendent nature of Deity. Whereas, they argue, the ID advocates tend to loose sight of that or to depict ‘being’ as ‘a being’ - a super-engineer, in effect, which is pretty much the kind of God that Dawkins vituperates against.
I don’t know if you really responded to S in that, as far as I can tell so far, there’s no meaningful difference between a “transcendent Deity” and, say, the Eastern concept of emptiness. An atheist can believe in emptiness.
It can be argued that both faith and reason can lead to the same place if followed far enough. Perhaps what creates the supposedly huge gap between theism and atheism is that most of us only follow our chosen path a short way down the trail, and then we stop, and build a fort.
Wow Wayfarer, great post! :up:
Quoting Wayfarer
Yes, and the real obstruction isn't incorrect thoughts in particular, but the medium of thought itself. The obstruction, a profound bias for division, is built in to the medium so the very act of trying to think one's way past the limitations confines one within those limitations.
As example, let's propose for the moment that nature is a single unified reality, in much the same way the human body is a single unified system. If such a unity exists, that unity is going to be impossible to experience through the lens of a medium whose primary purpose is to break a single unified reality up in to conceptual parts. Thought is simply the wrong tool for that particular job.
Quoting Wayfarer
Yes, thought is such a powerful tool and has brought so many benefits that we moderns are understandably leaping to the unfounded assumption that it is therefore the best tool for every job. And so, as we moderns make thought in to a new kind of "god" we become both ever more powerful, and ever more insane. It's this relationship which will drive our future.
Quoting Wayfarer
Yes, agreed. And there are many good reasons to reject ecclesiastical religion, mass child rape by clerics coming immediately to mind.
The rational act for the atheist is to go ahead and reject ecclesiastical religion, get it over with already, and then keep moving. Don't stop at the rejection and build a little fort, thus replicating some of the worst aspects of religion. Keep on moving past the rejection towards useful questions like.....
How do we construct the most positive possible relationship with this mysterious place we find ourselves in?
How do we so arrange our experience so that a handful of dirt fills us with delight? How do we so arrange our experience so that a sunrise makes us fall to our knees weeping tears of joy at the awesome beauty of star emerging over the horizon? How do we so arrange our minds so that the miracle of life is experienced as an ongoing wondrous joyful mystery?
These are extremely practical emotional challenges which few philosophers are brave enough to confront, and so we hide from the challenge in fancy intellectual abstractions.
1) Reject religion, and get it #$%^ over with, and then...
2) Keep moving.
Please, this is not fair. Just like teachers, sports coaches and (school) bus drivers, the clerical profession is infiltrated by paedophiles when they can, to gain access to children. None of those professions bear the blame for this; the paedophiles are the guilty ones. [ All of these institutions have covered up paedophile activity in the past, presumably out of guilt/shame. But all have learned now that we expect them to safeguard children, as we all do. ]
:up: [Me too.] :smile:
Um, not to hijack the thread, but can you list any other organizations who have experienced the mass child rape phenomena to the same degree as the Catholic Church? The Catholic Church became party to the crime when they deployed an ongoing systematic system for hiding the crimes, thus putting more children at risk. The laity became party to the crime when they knowingly kept sending money to those who covered up the crimes.
Ok then, it's agreed, we accept Wayfarer as our personal savior. :smile:
:up:
Messiah? :lol:
Well actually, bashing clerics would probably be in the spirit of the intended purpose of this thread. :smile:
Merely Messiah? You apostate blasphemer!!!
Fort Agnostic, featuring high walls, a lovely moat, and a tall tower upon which to look down on the ignorant masses.
I asked [I]you[/I] whether you thought that it was a problem. Is that a "no", then? So, you're okay with a position which doesn't really make sense, as it glosses over an important distinction?
Like, I'm a nationalist, but by that I only mean that I like poodles. And when I say poodles, I mean cats. And I don't care how other people react to that, because I decide the meaning of my terms based on whatever I feel like.
Okie dokie. Bit odd though.
I thought you'd say that.
Quoting Mariner
That still doesn't give me an actual meaning. Existence is not the same as [???], existence is a subset of [???], but it doesn't exhaust [???]. That doesn't clear much up.
I don't believe that it should require a book. Why can't you just tell me what it means?
https://www.google.com.br/search?client=opera&q=difference+between+being+and+existence&sourceid=opera&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8
This is the first significant link in that search:
http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Being_and_Existence
It looks credible and balanced. Take it from there.
Meanwhile, a few days ago...
Quoting S
An atheist can believe in numbers so 'being' in itself isn't a problem. Although, you claimed that God could not be called "a being" among other beings. How do we know that what you're calling God is not a being among other beings of the same kind? One is not the loneliest number because there are other numbers.
Quoting Mariner
It’s necessary to use language to talk about things regardless if we’ve experienced them ourselves. We can have knowledge of things beyond our experience with language but unless there’s some other realm that we may somehow have access to, everything, including numbers, which you say do not exist as ordinary objects do, is derived from worldly experience.
You say mute randomness, but I say actually coherent. At least soccer balls are something you can quantify, but that's a discussion for another time. Suffice it to say that when you look at all the various gods proposed by the various religions, mute randomness becomes a more apt descriptor of an individual proposed god.
Quoting BaldMenFighting
The existence of debate doesn't necessitate that reasonable evidence has been presented. The agnostic position is that no reasonable evidence has been, or can be presented in the god debate.
There's not even a coin toss regarding the soccer ball. If you flip a coin you will be correct 50% of the time, but that holds for every true or false proposition imaginable (including proposed other gods). This is what makes believing in a particular god seem like a completely random guess.
Quoting BaldMenFighting
No. You, the theist, believe that God controls everything (or designed it - whatever), I lack those beliefs. I don't have faith in chaos as it were, I just see no reason to assume a hidden guiding hand, like you assume. You do believe in the guiding hand though, and that it has been working since t = 0 (t = 0 is something I'm agnostic about), so of course you view this debate as a this full blown axiomatic urgent issue of ultimate importance. Human sacrifice was viewed by Aztec rulers as an issue of ultimate importance and significance because they believed that the universe could only be sustained through continuing the sacrifice of the gods (a story not dissimilar from Christianity interestingly). They would tell you that the debate about human sacrifice/no human sacrifice is about a fundamental axiom of the universe. When you abstain belief they will demand proof that human sacrifice is not required to sustain the universe, and when you refuse they will call you irrational or fence-sitter.
Quoting BaldMenFighting
Not all evidence is reasonable or valid. If I told you that because bananas fit inside the human hand nearly perfectly, that it must have been designed by a sentient being to be that way, how would you respond?
If Vlad the Impaler is actually a vampire named Dracula, and we are so far downstream from him, the debate will absolutely not be mute chance, there will have been evidence one way or the other, in abundance.
Why is there no abundance of evidence for or against [s]Dracula[/s] God?
Quoting BaldMenFighting
Did you know that making assumptions by caving to feelings can lead to a state of wrongness? I want my beliefs to conform to reality, and so I only adopt them when the evidence is sufficient either way.
Whatever happened to objectivity?
Aw shucks, and bollocks.
Quoting Jake
It is, of course, abhorrent, but not what I had in mind as the main cause of the perceived conflict between faith (church) and reason (science).
I think the fundamental issue in Western culture has been the role of dogmatic authority in religion. The way it has been formulated, you were told either ‘believe and be saved’ - or you were outcaste and damned. At least that is how it has occurred for very many people. I think this was hugely exacerbated by Protestantism (and especially Calvinism), which made everything hinge on faith and unquestioning submission, as well as by the many bloody religious conflicts in European history. So since The Enlightenment there has been a strong (but often tacit) element of 'Anything But God' underwriting philosophy; the 'conflict thesis' (conflict between science and religion) comes out of that. But the causes of this attitude are often suppressed or forgotten, resulting in a kind of pathological distrust of anything that sounds religious - in a 'Don't Mention the War' kind of way. The upshot is, that the mention of anything that sounds religious pushes a lot of buttons.
Quoting Jake
My personal search was always oriented around the idea of enlightenment, as discussed in the various popular spiritual books that I read in my teens and twenties - which were all the usual sources, Alan Watts, D.T. Suzuki, Paramahansa Yogananda, Ramana Maharshi, to name a few. What, I thought, are they talking about? How to understand it? That seemed to me very important. I was dismayed by the fact that so few people seemed to think it important. Anyway, long story short, I enrolled in Comparative Religion at University. I formed the view that the experiential side of spirituality,
the search for enlightenment, which is still preserved in those sources, was lost or suppressed early in the Christian Era. I think it was due to the suppression of gnosticism early in the Christian period; I think that's where the main dynamics were set in motion. (See this page for some useful sources on gnosticism; also this essay.)
But to answer your question - the original impulse behind philosophy as such, was just this kind of quest for individual enlightenment, but through reasoned analysis rather than devotional religion. But the link between 'theoria' and 'praxis' in philosophy has been much better preserved in Buddhism and Hinduism; whereas due to the generally anti-religious disposition of modern philosophy, it is not generally found there at all.
Quoting Mariner
:up:
I'm not really arguing with this, but feel the need to remind readers that the role of ideology in religion seems greatly exaggerated on philosophy forums. As example, if we were to attend the typical Christian church and mingle with the crowd the conversations we'd be hearing would likely not be dominated by ideological issues. It's true that SOME religious people are highly ideological, but most are pretty casual about such things, just like most atheists.
Quoting Wayfarer
We can all agree that there have been many abuses within religion that are fairly rejected, sometimes with enthusiasm. But it's not exactly enlightened for us to forget that within any group of people as large as religion, various abuses will inevitably exist. As example, atheist Marxists spread a whirl wind of mass murder across large segments of the world in the 20th century.
Quoting Wayfarer
Not arguing with this either, but again, let's keep in mind that philosophers are typically ignoring the experiential side of Christianity to focus almost exclusively on ideology. As example, while there are somewhat of a tsunami of religion threads flooding the forum, pretty much none of them address the experience of love to any serious degree, or any degree at all. It's not reasonable for us to claim an experiential side to Christianity doesn't exist just because we are determined to ignore it.
Quoting Wayfarer
Ok, sounds good. And so let's keep going with that if you wish. I would argue (perhaps you would as well?) that a reasoned analysis followed far enough will lead to the experience of devotion, or if readers prefer, an enhanced emotional experience of reality.
I think it's perfectly sensible for a person who is allergic to religion to walk away from it. It's less sensible to cling stubbornly to religion so as to have something one can perpetually reject.
In any case, I would argue that both reason and faith, philosophy and religion, can lead to the same kind of important experiences if one walks far enough down one's chosen path. Thus, the rational approach would be to drop the endless debate about these methodologies, pick the one that works the best for us personally, and explore the method we've chosen to the greatest degree we're capable of.
That's not really what I'm saying. What impressed me when I was given the Eastern books that I mentioned - Watts, Suzuki, etc, very popular in the 1960s and 70s - was that there was something in them that simply *wasn't* found in religion, as such. In fact at the time, I didn't think that the kind of enlightenment they wrote about was anything to do with 'religion'. At that stage in life, I thought 'religion' was for squares (although in the years since, I have softened my view).
But I still believe there is a fundamental distinction between the 'believe-and-be-saved' attitude (which is especially characteristic in Protestantism) and the 'experiential realisation' approach which you find in both Eastern and also 'new age' movements. In fact one of the books I perused in my university days, was called 'Against the Modern Gnostics', which was a long polemic by a Protestant academic against the influence of Eastern and 'self-awareness' teachings in modern culture. As far as he was concerned, the dreaded Gnostic movement, which had been defeated back in 100 A.D., was making a comeback. And as far as I was concerned, that was a good thing, and a necessary thing.
“Sapere aude! (Dare to know.) ‘Have the courage to use your own understanding,’ is therefore the motto of the enlightenment.”
So yeah, the fall of ultimate authority is key.
Hmm well, if someone was about to jump off a tall building, then I'd try to stop them.
Not through experience. There are reasonings that take us from the experience of a God (or, to be more precise, the experience of Being -- or, to be even more precise, the experience of Be! -- which is the best translation of the central term in the Parmenidean poem, which is probably the best and earliest philosophical expression of that experience) to the conclusion that there is only one God (or, Being, etc. Use "X" if the word "God" hampers the argument). But these are reasonings, not experiences. And, being reasonings, they hinge upon certain axioms of faith (non-contradiction, validity of deduction, etc.) which are already "once removed" from the immediacy of experience and which are therefore already risking error.
But regardless of the possibility of error when specifying only one Being, that's the answer to your question.
Quoting praxis
That is either a tautology or a confusion. The tautology results if we focus on the word "talk", which clearly requires language. But if we look at the core of your statement (replacing "talk" with, say, "communicate" -- animals can communicate without language, at least without "formal language as we usually refer to by that name"), then it is not quite correct and depends on a confusion. Communication is from A to B: A communicates something to B. If there is an intermediary (say, A gives a note to C and asks him to take the note to B), the intermediary is not really communicating anything. He is an instrument. And he/it can be an object (e.g. phones) without any awareness of what is being communicated.
There is a similar process at hand when someone simply repeats words that he read in a book without a reenactment of the experience underlying those words. Anyone can look at John 4:8 and say "God is Love". But no one can communicate that God is Love if he did not experience the relationship of identity between God and Love that is the core of the passage of John's letter. This is not restricted to religion, obviously. "We the people hold these truths to be self-evident", "Property is theft", "the greatest generation", etc., are all examples of symbols that can (and very frequently do) easily become vacuous if the underlying experience is not present in the speaker.
In this more precise sense, it is impossible to communicate something which you have not experienced.
And, to circle back to your statement, our experience is always inarticulate before it is articulate. The struggle of finding the right words to express what you are experience is familiar to anyone (probably on a daily basis). The articulation of our experiences always go through the use of similes, metaphors, analogies, etc., proceeding from the known in an attempt to indicate the (to the listener -- or to ourselves in an internal dialogue) unknown.
God and other supernatural experiences are a special case, by definition, since the word "supernatural" means precisely something beyond the objects of empirical cognition. And so any language describing the supernatural (or even the unnatural -- e.g. ghosts) will, necessarily, be tentative and require an enormous amount of charity and active participation on the part of the listener, or the communication will simply fail.
Quoting praxis
No, not really. Language is not magical. The word "God" does not convey the experience of God, just as the word "dog" does not convey the experience of dogness. (Remember there are many languages). The role of language is not the transmission of knowledge; knowledge is always subjective and must be recreated by the listener. Language is more like a map or a recipe. It describes a path which, in the speaker, led to an experience of type X. The listener, if willing, can attempt to follow that path, reenacting the steps, and -- perhaps -- recreating the experience. But he can also refuse. Or misunderstand. Or lack the willpower. Or lack the training to follow the path. Etc. The important thing to observe is that language, by itself, does not convey knowledge -- words are not bottled meaning.
Quoting praxis
I would agree completely if you took out the word "worldly", which seems to be superfluous at best, or erroneous at worst. What is its role in this sentence? What is "worldly" about, for instance, the efforts that 4-6 year old kids to to grasp the nature of the natural numbers?
"Die to be reborn", a key Christian teaching, seems very similar to the Eastern books you are referencing. I would agree that when "die to be reborn" is just a chanted memorized ideological concept it's not so similar. But not every Christian relates to it in that way. Some people actually focus on experiencing "die to be reborn" in service to others etc. What is "enlightenment" if not "dying to be reborn"?
Quoting Wayfarer
I agree, but there's more to Christianity in general and Protestantism in particular than "believe and be saved", at least in some cases. Some people believe specifically because they have personally experienced the power of love.
Love is an act of surrender.
Meditation is an act of surrender.
Whatever ones calls it, however one gets there, an act of surrender, a dying to be reborn. East and West, largely the same thing underneath the surface cultural differences.
:pray:
Please forgive the delay in correspondence.
1) Yes, emphatically so! So very many have been convinced or had their minds changed. The history of the world points to thousands of examples. Perhaps not many professional academic philosophers of religion, but college students, working men and women, and others who listen to hortatory or lay versions of the argument from design, compatibility, contingency, etc. do change their minds. Two dear friends of mine became practicing Muslims this year. Another two have ceased becoming ardent atheists and are now sincere agnostics.
But that is not to say people don't change their minds in the other direction. I have seen a few believers doubt or leave their faith when hearing arguments from evolution or evil.
2) I didn't mention it until now, as it seemed cheap, but I myself became religious as I studied the arguments! Of course it was not long after that I began actually practicing prayer and religious morality. And only after I experienced glimpses and glimmers of God's friendship through solitary reflection was I convinced. As Mortimer Adler so beautifully mentions, arguments are only a bridge, your soul must walk across.
The Parmenidean poem that you mentioned talked about two realities, which to me sounded similar if not identical to the ‘two truth’ in Eastern philosophy. Maybe @Wayfarer can offer his opinion on that.
I’m curious if it makes sense to you to distinguish something supernatural or beyond objects of empirical cognition as being in one or the other of these realities. It doesn’t appear reasonable to believe that “something” exists in the Parmenidean One.
From a Chinese Buddhist scripture:
From the Parmenides:
They're both 'axial age' sources, hence the parallels.
What do you mean?
I am not even sure what I would believe in.
Though I would never suggest just "believing" in God, as I believe that this requires a certain level of perceptual prowess. What is ultimately being apprehended is the truth, or underlying principle which connects vast swathes of information.
It is further in this unifying direction which implies that there is one god, just as there is one meaning, one language, one food. The greeks identified many of the egyptian gods with their own, as just being different names for the same gods. Emanationism just goes further, suggesting that all of these gods ultimately derive from, or are forms, manifestations of a greater single god. So that rather than subtracting, or contesting other gods to get the one god, they are unified under a greater, deeper principle which encapsulates them all. This is ultimately the drive to understand, to conceptualize, to abstract. Those that ultimately deny that there are these unifying principles just lack sense and/or experience. So that it is far from an empty intellectual exercise, the principles are literally perceived.
Problem I find though, or think, particularly in modern times, with the insensitivity of stimulation overload, and decadence, the numbing, and dumbing... is that people look to the top of the mountain from the bottom, and say that they can't see it, or it makes no sense. Gotta look to what is just ahead, or similar in height to get a measure...
Though, recall that the top of the mountain is disappointing, all that's up there is a mop and pail.
I’m wary as well, particularly after pondering the notion and coming to the conclusion that 1 requires 2 (duality) in order to Be. Contrary to what Three Dog Night might believe, one is not the loneliest number because there is always other numbers.
Humans did. Humans without the means or equipment to access Objective Reality directly. For humans there is no objectivity, in practical terms. There never has been. So whatever happened to objectivity? It remains what it has always been: an intellectual speculation pursued for entertainment purposes by humans. So nothing has happened to objectivity. It's still there, somewhere, somehow, but we know no more than that. :wink:
There is no certainty for us.
Hail Eris! :wink:
Personally, I have never seen a problem or a conflict between the two. To me, they are complementary. I know that others, who look at things differently, do have issues, but I don't.
Seek out a way of looking at things - a perspective - that embraces both. It makes things much easier. :smile:
Are you certain? You'll certainly behave as if you're certain of many things, when the pressure is on, your body will be certain. Everything is dubious while in my recliner though.
No, it won't. But it will be able to act nonetheless. :up: :smile:
How certain are you of that? Just guessing?
Isn't this eschewing of certainty just a form of virtue signaling? Assuring each other that we aren't those dogmatic ideological types, we're the open minded ones.
No, just a fact of real-world, human, life. It's just honesty to/with ourselves. Nothing more than that. :up:
No, it is of this "not one of them" sort of signals, and lack of self knowledge.
I gave clear rebuke, of its self-defeating nature, and also reasons why it isn't true. Don't want to have true believer syndrome, so that all I know for certain is that I'd best not know anything.
All I know is that, for me*, there is no certainty (worthy of the name) in the real world. So I don't pretend, to myself or to others, that I know anything. But there are many things (assumptions, necessarily) that seem to work. Since I have nothing better, I'll go with that. It's not ideal, but it works. :up:
* - and (as far as I know) for all other humans too.
:scream: :rofl:
Quoting All sight
I saw no reasons, only assertions and questions. I cannot prove what I'm saying. That sort of goes with the whole uncertainty thing. But I offer human life-experience in the real world to justify what I say. What are these "reasons" you refer to? :chin:
The thing is, that this is what is good to believe, or supposed to be true. It's ethical in nature, or based in comparative value judgments. It's imposed.
Ironic dogmatism. Or anti-dogmatism dogmatism. It's a virtue.
Point ultimately reducible to a mode of being, or perceiving. One exclusionary, divisive, hate, doubt, fear based. Identity by what something is not. Not like them, not doing that. It's indicative of constitution. The reverse is inclusion, binding, love, faith, passion based. It's to put one's stake in the ground, to commit. To die on that hill.
I'm not one of us, I'm one of them.
Of course I agree with you, and that is the way I see things also. But in a great deal of modern philosophy, there is an assumed conflict between faith and reason, which you see expressed frequently in statements that the religious 'believe in things for which there is no evidence'. So even though you and I might not see it that way, many do.
Agreed of course.
Doesn't it depend on how the job is defined? If we define the mission as developing facts about reality, there is a conflict between faith and reason. If on the other hand we define the mission as enhancing our relationship with reality then there is no conflict. Which brings us to...
Quoting Pattern-chaser
Yes, because both are needed. We don't necessarily need religion, but we do need methods of enhancing our relationship with ourselves, each other and reality, because if we don't succeed at that then we'll inevitably destroy ourselves using the vast powers being developed by reason/science.
We don't necessarily need religion, but as people of reason we should examine the evidence in a detached objective manner and realize that religion has been the operating system of many or most societies for a long time and we shouldn't just be casually tossing it over board until we can replace it with something better.
Science culture is not the something better, in terms of enhancing our relationship with reality. Science culture is great at developing data, but data alone is going to get us all killed. We need some kind of effective governing mechanism that is wise enough to know when we should reach for some knowledge, and when we should not. We don't have that now, a problem that if unaddressed will likely make the whole debate between religion and science a moot point before too much longer.
The argument hinges on the meaning of the word 'evidence'.
What is evidence? In the simplest terms evidence is a body of facts and objects that are to be interpreted: what do they mean?
The difference between evidence in this basic sense and 'evidence for' is that 'evidence for' exists in the mind. What the evidence supports is determined subjectively according to our mental machinations.
Every dust mote, every star, planet or galaxy is evidence. Every living thing from a house fly to an oak tree is evidence: it is there.
Evidence for what?
Atheists continually use the expression 'evidence for' in terms of provable things. But not all truth is provable in these terms. Therefore 'evidence for' needs to be extended into the subjective realm. That is, when atheists say 'there is no evidence for' they are usually saying 'subjective evidence is not objective evidence'.
But it should always be kept in mind that there is no 'evidence for' anything; evidence is mute. We must interpret it if it is to become 'evidence for' because what the evidence supports is determined in the mind, not out there, objectively. Without mind there is no 'evidence for'.
While calling one of them "Being" and the other "Opinion". Or, "Truth" and "Lie". In any way, one of them is (quoted from http://philoctetes.free.fr/parmenidesunicode.htm) "a wholly untrustworthy path". They are not comparable, and they really should not be called, indistinctly, "realities" without putting into doubt Parmenides' entire argument.
Quoting praxis
No, I don't think it makes sense to conceptualize the Parmenidean distinction as one between "natural" and "supernatural". I brought up Parmenides to help illustrate what Being is, in the classical philosophical tradition. (If you want my opinion about this subject -- which is not quite on-thread -- I think Aristotle basically nailed it with the act-potency distinction)
.Quoting Blue Lux
Nothing esoteric. What exists is a (quite small) subset of being. Consider: Napoleon does not exist. Star Trek does not exist. Tomorrow does not exist. Numbers do not exist. Yet, all of them "are" in very important senses, and they have actual, measurable effects in what exists.
Same goes for facts/truth, although not in a direct relationship. Napoleon is (was) a fact -- or perhaps the best way to phrase it would be "Napoleon's existence, complete with birth and death, is a fact". The events depicted in Star Trek are not facts (yet?). Numbers will never be facts. But we can state truths about all of these entities, and these truths can generate new facts.
To put it as succinctly as I can, the problem I'm having is that being is based in duality and Parmenides's One is supposed to represent the non-dual. We can't say anything about this 'one'. We can't say it's being or non-being. Anything we could say about it is "opinion," or relative.
I didn't point to non-dual being. I pointed to non-duality. Being is relative to not being and a duality.
If one thing exists then nothing can be said about that thing. You can't even say 'one' or 'thing', right? Attributing any qualities to it is pure fiction.
You speak of non-duality, I put "being" in quotation marks to indicate that I was not talking about being (or, dual being).
Your following comments are apophatic in nature (and I agree with them taken in that context).
There are types of beings?
What makes something exist?
Are there types of existences?
Is the not a whole, universal here?
We have a non-sensorial property that allows us to distinguish between dream and non-dream, between hallucination and non-hallucination. (Even if there are borderline cases, perhaps drug-induced, the principle is sound and the property serves us in the vast, vast majority of cases).
The same property is at work in distinguishing between existence and non-existence of beings.
If I had to give a name to this property, I would call it "awareness". And the thing that it is aware of is "presence".
Sure, just as there are dreams and non-dreams, etc.
Here we go into the terrain of cosmological arguments. What makes something exist is always some pre-existing thing. (This is analogous, but not identical, to Aristotle's argument about act, potency, and the prime mover; but this argument is nothing but a roundabout way to provide an unnecessary justification to the property of awareness).
Why would these two sentences not be complementary rather than opposed? The universe (taken as the Parmenidean Being) can be one and whole, and still there can be types of existences within it.
It seemed as though you were suggesting that God is it rather than within it, but then any separation or duality is necessarily within.
Husserl would disagree with you.
The intentional content of a hallucination or dream is absolutely indistinguishable in its being from the intentional content of any experience, which would be the content of the 'object' of an intentionality--which is what Husserl explains with terms like noema, noesis and hyle (originally Aristotelian).
Consciousness is always consciousness of something, and this something it is conscious of always has a mode of being which is absolutely indistinguishable, in the proximal sense, relating to consciousness and the phenomenological paradigm of human experience.
That was my reaction also - that it doesn't really get to what I was talking about. His reply contains a lot of words, but what are they really saying, and why? Are they basically just saying "Be more sceptical", but then my response would of course be "Why?".
That's quite a long reply, which isn't necessarily a good thing. How much of it is on point? How much of it specifically addresses what you quoted of me? How much of it really needed to be said? How much of it requires clarification?
It's too long for me to address in my usual manner of meticulously breaking it down quote-by-quote.
The gist of much of it seems to be that you view me as though I am trapped inside Plato's cave. You think that I don't have sight of this "knowledge" which you say is "transformative", and that I don't know what's real "at all". I'm not of a "spiritual" mindset, and don't "see things as they truly are".
Well, my reaction to that is that that is just your perspective, and I would rather tackle [i]the details[/I] behind these broad and unspecific statements of yours. What knowledge? Is it really knowledge? Transformative in what way? Is that good or bad? What don't you think I know is real? And, importantly, can you actually back any of this up?
As for the last paragraph, which is more on point, though still vague, you say that you've seen a video in which there are a couple of guys who "understand the real meaning of the transcendent nature of Deity". If you're able to "recognise" that, then does that mean that you also think that you understand the real meaning of the transcendent nature of Deity? If so, I have one simple request. Please answer the following questions. What is this meaning? What is the transcendent nature of Deity? How have you come upon this knowledge? Why is this meaning "the real" meaning?
You suggest that the ID advocates get it wrong by depicting "being" as "a being". But that's not what I have done. I associate "being" with existence, only it seems that "being" is a word that certain people use who treat it as something special, but seem to have difficulty explaining it or an unwillingness to do so. I associate "a being" with an entity, but again, it seems that certain people don't accept that with regards to God, because they treat God as special. But, of course, just because you might want to set some notion apart as special, that doesn't mean that it's right or true or reasonable or justified or that it makes any sense to do so. That's something that can be investigated, but it can't be if we don't go into the necessary details and get stuck at the tip of the iceberg.
Yes, that can be argued, but that doesn't seem to address my point. By a meaningful difference, I simply meant that the two positions should be mutually exclusive. That is, I shouldn't be able to be both an atheist and a theist in the same sense. That's a precursor to a meaningful discussion, in my assessment. Do you agree?
:grin:
Apologies, but I've forgotten what your point is in this particular case.
Quoting S
In the real world, or in the dictionary? As example...
In the dictionary, things exist or not, yes or no. The dictionary is created by humans, and humans are made of thought, a highly dualistic electro-chemical information medium which operates by a process of conceptual division. The dictionary attempts to impose this human generated dualistic conceptual system upon reality.
In the real world, the largest part of reality by far, space, can not be firmly said to either exist or not exist. Our dualistic minds demand that we file space in to one category or another, but reality is not required to comply with our limitations. Space is not required to either exist or not exist, one or the other, just because that's how we like to look at things.
Quoting S
It's the same with theism/atheism, faith/reason. You declare yourself to be an atheist, and your atheism is built upon faith. You are against faith, and for faith, both at the same time. You are against reason, and for reason, both at the same time. It's not all neat and tidy, black and white, like you want it to be.
But of course, you've totally missed the larger point I was attempting to make. Faith and reason can lead to the same place if followed far enough.
Finally someone gets it right! :smile:
you forgot to add " and fart in their general direction "
Perhaps he would, but not on the strength of what followed in your post, which basically reinforced my point. (Incidentally, Husserl is part of what informed my views about this).
If "the intentional content of a hallucination or dream is absolutely indistinguishable in its being from the intentional content of any experience", but we distinguish ordinary experience from hallucinations and dreams without any difficulty, there must be something not derived from the intentional content which allows us to do it. This is what I called "presence". But the name is just a label and does little more than to give us a handy tool to refer to it. What matters is that we can distinguish them, and this requires some distinction between the objects of consciousness (which, as Husserl said, is not derived from their intentional content), as well as some property in the subject of experience that is attuned to this distinction.
Well, I can generally differentiate dream and awake when I wake up (? time).
I don't hallucinate often (I think) :) in some cases I can probably reason it out; in general, not so sure.
Anyway, I'd just call them more phenomenological (mind, self, occurrences).
Could perhaps be contrasted by extra-selves (empirical, perception involves phenomenologicals).
And maybe abstracts (numbers, Platonia, inert, lifeless, ideals).
Where dreams and hallucinations are imaginary/fictional, I guess non-dream and non-hallucination are intended to be real (in this context)?
The "being" versus "existence" thing just seems to add confusion.
If this is true, then this is not:
Quoting jorndoe
What is it that makes an electro-chemical information medium dualistic? Is, for example, a mechanical recycling device that separates bottles from cans dualistic? If not, is that because the machine doesn’t have ‘thoughts’? What if the machine were computerized, utilizing an information medium. Would it then be dualistic?
Because yes, people have asked me what is an Atheist! Why speak in riddles like Gandalf? :cry:
I'm referring to human thought, which is an electro-chemical information medium, that operates by a process of division. Don't believe me, see it for yourself, observe your own mind.
Consider the experience "I am thinking XYZ". You experience the thinker as being separate, divided from, the content of thought. Within your own mind you experience 1) the observer and 2) the observed. That's the dualistic operation of thought dividing you from yourself.
I don't know anything about mechanical recycling devices, sorry.
That's a pretty accurate paraphrase but as I said, this is not peculiar to you. As the original analogy suggests, it is the common lot of mankind (myself included, although I am at least prepared to acknowledge it.)
Quoting S
The 'couple of guys' are academics with many books to their credit on these topics. I cite them because they're educated in classical theology - Catholic and Orthodox, respectively, which, I think, is superior to much of the 'pop theology' of current evangelical Christianity.
The point I'm labouring to make, is that the claim that there is no evidence for 'belief in God' rests on a misunderstanding of what kind of belief it is. In science, you have an equation or hypothesis on the left hand side, which makes a prediction about something specific, on the right hand side. You test your hypothesis against the results or observations. Science works by excluding everything which is not germane to that particular theory, even if the theory is very broad in application. Many of the atheist criticisms of religious belief implicitly assume that they serve the same kind of purpose - but they don't. Religion doesn't attempt to do that; it is about, let's see, establishing a relationship with the foundational principle of the universe (to express it in the philosophical lexicon.) So it is irremediably first-person in some important sense, as distinct from the third-person, arms-length procedures of science.
As has been pointed out, a lot of this confusion rests on the way that science developed out of 'natural philosophy' in the 17-18th Century. It was commonplace for Newton, Galileo, and the like, to assume that the natural laws were 'God's handiwork'. However the problem with that attitude is that it is a two-edged sword - as more became known about the physical universe, the apparent need of a 'God of the gaps' correspondingly diminished (until He became 'a ghost in his own machine', as one writer put it). But it's positing God as a link in the chain of scientific reasoning that is the problem from the outset.
Quoting S
It's because in philosophy of religion, what is referred to as deity or first principle or God is differentiated from the 'domain of phenomena' as a matter of ontology. Now, as ontology (and metaphysics) has generally fallen out of favour, the distinction itself has become generally unintelligible; there is no conceptual space in modern discourse which accommodates such distinctions.
I do appreciate that you are taking the argument seriously, and trying to fathom why 'being' could be different from 'beings', and that it is a difficult idea. Perhaps this blog post by Bill Vallicella will help cast some light. And also this review of a book by 'one of those guys' that sets out explain why atheist criticisms of God frequently miss the mark.
The point is that you’re apparently confusing thought or information processing with dualism or something that ‘operates by a process of division’. We’re not continuously self-conscious, nor is self-consciousness necessary for information processing.
Dualism is only an issue because of our self concept, or rather, our attachment to the concept.
Consider the noun. It's purpose is to conceptually divide one part of reality from another.
Duality?
Quoting Jake
This was occurring long before the concept of duality came into [s]existence[/s], sorry, being.
And the widely-bruited 'death of God?' It is an 'event' of rather more significance than the discovery that there is no celestial teapot (or Santa Claus, or . . . ) after all.[/quote]
Imagine the above as a timeless, uniform, unchanging, undivided, ungenerated, indestructible whole and the only thing that exists: The Parmenidean One. Attributing any qualities to it can only be considered fiction. It cannot be considered God because God exists in relation to something else (most relevantly us). If God exists in relation to us then there must be a larger whole that we share.
The impetus to fill this conceptual space with God is understandable, it being the ultimate, and therefore the last refuge for ultimate authority. Can we deny "truth itself"? Yeah, we can.
God didn't die in the Enlightenment, he's alive and well. Ultimate authority died.
An eidetic reduction in place to determine the whether or not veridical nature of a noema seems to be inconsequential. This is the case for a few reasons, namely that questioning the veridicality of a noema is to establish a disconnect between reality and the immediacy of consciousness, and secondly it is to presuppose what reality is and consequently how a veridical noema is anything more than a superfluous demonstration. If there is a noema, manifest in hyle, there is a veridicality: this is obvious, no? And so what makes the experience of something not real? What makes, perhaps, a phenomenal object different than a perceptual, tangible object, that is, in terms of its existence? And, I guess the bigger question is, is a thought existent? Does an abstract or phenomenal object exist? Is there a being of such an object?
Quoting Blue Lux
Nothing. The issue is not one of "real x not-real" either. Experiences are real, period. (Else they are not experiences at all). The referent of an experience may be real or not -- we can think about our mother or about Frodo Baggins. The experience of thinking will be real, but the referent of the thinking will be fictional in one case, factual in the other.
Quoting Blue Lux
Well, our thoughts are (all of them) existent. But the thought of, say, Sherlock Holmes is fictional (since he is fictional). We can recreate Holmes' thoughts in our own mind by reading a book, but it will be our recreation of a (fictional) thought, it will not be "Holmes' thoughts". We can discuss what is the kind of existence that thoughts have. It need not be a binary, black-and-white property. Thoughts have existence in a different mode than rocks; they exist more as processes than as static entities. But processes exist in a bona fide manner, although dynamically rather than statically. (Of course, a rock is merely a slow process, slow enough for us to treat it statically; but this is not the core of our discussion)
An abstract object, pretty much by the definition of "abstract" (which means, "extracted from"), does not exist. It was abstracted from something which did exist, but it did not exist before some mind abstracted it (or it would not have been necessary to abstract it in the first place). The universal property that was extracted from a series of observations does not exist, even though each instance exists. So, dogs exist, but dogness does not. We cannot distinguish between imaginary and non-imaginary (or, hallucinatory, or, dream) dogness. But we can distinguish between imaginary and non-imaginary dogs.
However, there is something which is common to dogs which we use to identify them; in other words, there is dogness, even though it does not exist. This, in a nutshell, is the distinction between being and existence. There is a being of dogness, but there is no existence of dogness. And the criteria for defining whether X has "being but not existence" or "being and existence" -- there cannot be something which has existence but not being, since existence is a subset of being -- is the imagination/hallucination test. What this test identifies is the possibility of presence, which is, as indicated earlier, the "perception of existence" that we humans deal with in our everyday lives. (This becomes more and more circular as we dive into thinking about it rather than experiencing it first-hand, and no wonder. Thought is not the dominant property here, and to think otherwise is a path that leads us nowhere).
The problem I have with this is the idea that the existence of anything , abstract or not, the perhaps 'presence' of the noema in hyle, does not exist in the strict sense but has a borrowed existence. I don't agree, because I think there are instincts of fesr and anxiety within us that relate to imaginary objects, and beings of which do not in a sense 'exist' but have the notation of existence. I think, on the contrary, that existence itself is a demarcation regarding what we can have control over by means of the intellect; all other being is in the mode of unapprehendable, de facto, a priori, etc.
I know dreams and hallucinations and such, like this discussion.
We already have verbiage like imaginary/fictional versus real, and the likes of that mentioned in the post above.
I'd have to say it works better than "being" versus "existence", but maybe that's just me.