Alternatives to 'new atheism'
The so called 'new atheist movement' has drawn a lot of criticism from both theists and atheists alike. Whether or not the hostility towards 'new atheism' is fair or not, is no concern of mine. When I was younger I was a big fan of the 'new atheists" such as Dawkins, Harris, Hitchens, Dennett. Over time, however, although remaining an atheist, I got disillusioned with the 'new atheists" style. Now that I no longer pay attention to new atheists, I think I've lost something. More specifically, I've lost some of my ability to defend myself from attacks on my atheistic beliefs.
My question is, are there any viable alternatives to 'new atheism'? More specifically, where are the 'old-fashioned atheists' nowadays who can provide me with the intellectual tools to reinforce my atheistic beliefs?
My question is, are there any viable alternatives to 'new atheism'? More specifically, where are the 'old-fashioned atheists' nowadays who can provide me with the intellectual tools to reinforce my atheistic beliefs?
Comments (302)
What is it about being an atheist that you think needs reinforcing?
Are you talking about how you can debate or defend your atheism?
My ability to defend against arguments for theism. Any argument for theism, or creationism for that matter, is an indirect attack on atheism.
Quoting DingoJones Not necessarily doing the debate. I sometimes passively come across anti-atheistic information, such as on websites, and I don't always have an answer.
Well atheism doesnt need to be proven, its simply the position of not having believe in a god. You dont really need to defend that. When a theist tries to tell you what you believe because you are an atheist, let them know that. Anything any atheist believes over and above that is not atheism but something else. An example is if you hate religion and think its evil, then you are an anti-theist. So don’t let a theist strawman you out of the gate.
Next, you should read up on the burden of proof. Theists will make all kinds of moves to shift the burden of proof to you, but you aren’t making a claim they are. Your position as an atheist is that you have never been convinced of any theistic arguments. Its up to them to convince you.
Once you do that, then you will have to deal with the specifics of what they believe in why.
Is there a specific argument you are encountering?
Quoting DingoJones
All sorts. I don't remember them on the top of my head. I recall a bad experience: I let it slip to a religious person that I don't believe in god, and he, and his friend who joined in, started rapid firing arguments for why there must be a god. I didn't have much time to think about, let alone understand, what they were saying. It was awful. From then on, I avoided telling people about my beliefs. I don't want to be like that. I want to be proud of my beliefs.
Humans wrote the Bible.
[i]But they were divinely inspired by God.[/I]
Humans say they were inspired by God.
[i]Religious prophets can be trusted.[/I]
…
(More another time.)
I recommend The Atheist Experience with Matt Dillihunty. Youtube some clips and see if that helps articulate yourself. I dont think you need to be proud to be an atheist, but you shouldnt be ashamed or shy about them.
God speaks through them.
So you say, as a human. 'Just saying' isn't enough.
The Bible is the Word of God. It's all there, straight out.
Then how come the Geneses, both of them, are so wrong as to be the polar opposite of what we've found through evolutionary science? And also wrong that the Earth is fixed in space and that the animal line was created separately?
Humans were made in modern form, as is, by God only a few thousand years ago. God let the Earth go loose later. Animals are for our domination.
We have seen the geological strata and have inspected the layers.
Don't you note that they aren't straight up, but titled, with some even upside down?
Oh, so all the little microbes are really at the top, as the more recent?
Hubba, hubbada, hubba.
We have several other ways of measuring.
[i]Carbon 14 dating doesn't work.[/I]
I see that you are a young earth follower of creation science. Can you show God directly, such that we would have no doubt and so then we'd all have to become believers?
God and his realm are invisible, but it's all true.
Does not even your own religious definition of 'faith' honestly indicate that it is of hopes and wishes for the unknown unshown being a God?
Well, I suppose.
So, all you have is a 'maybe'!
Yes.
So, then, you can't honestly preach and teach it as truth and fact, such as even now in trying to convert me, not to mention getting it into public schools.
[i]Good-bye.[/I]
Get lost!
Why not just ignore the debate? Then there's no attack, no need to defend. Or, really, it's the perfect defense.
You could just say it's not a conversatoin your interested in. Then ask them about their jobs or families or hobbies.
Proclaiming 'no God' as true for sure fails just as much as proclaiming 'God' as true for sure because neither can be shown to be fact; so, the full-blown "old-fashioned atheist" is just as doomed as the religious preacher saying things as if they were true.
Dawkins admits that 'God' has a one in a quadrillion chance of being; so, I guess he is 'new-fashioned', as honest. He weighs the probabilities.
There's Secular Humanism. I was in the Secular Humanists way back when I went to college for the first time around. It was pretty alright.
Logical possibility alone does not warrant belief in and/or that 'X' exists and/or is true. Queerly enough, many folk hereabouts and elsewhere have a penchant for calling a logically possible statement a 'logical truth' as a result of also being the conclusion of a valid argument/syllogism. That is a misnomer.
Logical truth is a measure of coherence. Coherence is insufficient/inadequate for truth. A belief can be both coherent and false. Thus, it only follows that that which is often called a 'logical truth' can be false. Truth cannot be false.
God IS logical possibility alone.
There are much better stories, also logically possible but without all the other well-rehearsed cognitive issues.
What is one's default setting regarding how you treat other people, specifically those who are remarkably different in appearance and/or worldview?
Goodwill towards all. Always be helpful.
Spirit, on my view, is best put in terms of personality and/or character.
I reject disembodied cognition.
Both good spirited and mean spirited people still roam the earth.
The collective “we” or each individual? If you mean each individual, then I don’t see how you can separate the individual from the whole. None of us live in a vacuum. The problem isn’t atheism or theism. The problem is fundamentalism.
I meant "we", as in... humans.
Not sure what counts - on your view - as being a case thereof...
Does having strong conviction in certain core tenets/beliefs qualify?
Strong conviction in anything that encroaches on the freedom of others should be avoided and is fundamentalism.
You sure about that?
:brow:
When you try to run others’ lives by telling them what to believe or think, then yes.
You make a good point. However, the OP was about atheism, no?
Damn dude, you specifically mentioned “encroaching on the freedoms of others”....someones “freedom” to kill you is encroaching on your freedom to live isn’t it? Don’t be so ready to concede a point to some dummy because he cannot understand a simple phrase.
Anyway, I think I disagree with you about fundamentalism being the problem rather than theism. According to you encroaching on freedoms is the definitive trait to make the conviction of belief “fundamentalism”, am I reading you right? And that absent that fundamentalism theism is not a problem?
Fundamentalism usually implies that there are right and wrong beliefs to have and further that others should be coerced into holding the same beliefs as the fundamentalist. That’s what I think.
Ok, and if theism isnt doing that then you dont think its a problem? Also, for clarity could you elaborate on how you are using the term “coerced”?
Theism in and of itself is innocuous. Evangelism on metaphysical issues is what I have in mind as coercion. Also, in the Theistic middle eastern countries there is threat of violence. This clearly is much worse.
I see. Perhaps we dont disagree after all. What about the religious indoctrination of children? Would you see that as fundamentalism?
I think giving a child exposure to many different religions is not a problem. Indoctrination in a particular religion is a problem. It promotes intolerance.
The belief in God is trancendental, it is not even in the field of empiricism or logical systems. God is beyond space and time and asking for a prove of God is asking the wrong question. Beliefs are more like feelings than reason.In sufism, we say that when a belief reaches it's perfection, it turns into love.
What is the child being told about all these religions? That they are mythology, or that they are true?
The problems with atheist is that they never have met a real mystic. By mystic l mean someone who has devoted his whole life searching for God and gone through the ascetism and all hardships of life. I think there is a whole different kind of experience waiting for us if we manage to completely disconnect from the world and have no other desire but to know God. I have met countless people like that and they have always said the same thing ; reason can never lead you to know God .
Right, we are good not talking. None of what you just said has any substance and you dont even know it.
As long as the child is told that concerning these matters it is completely up to them to believe or disbelieve whatever they want, and that they should give the same consideration to others, then it is not a problem.
I don't think you will ever understand what l said unless you see for yourself.
That’s fine. But you can’t preach to someone who has no interest, right?
Yes, absolutely. I hope that l don't sound like l am preaching.
No, you don’t sound like you’re preaching. At least not to me. But atheists often see any defense as a form of preaching. They tend not to see that distinction.
I was on their side once and l can understand their sentiments but most people in the world and by most l mean 98 percent people who believe in God do so for having a meaning in life and not for logical reasons.When l went through existential crisis , after contemplating how l will disappear from the world one day, l couldn't help but turn back to God for going through that time and forgetting it. Most atheist would rather embrace the bitter reality but it fails to work for many people.
Of course that’s a reason many theists have given. There are also theists who experience things that atheists don’t seem to or atheists would dismiss these experiences as mistaking God for something going on in the brain as a kind of delusion, hallucination, or something. Just be aware that defending your beliefs sounds like preaching to atheists even when it’s not.
Shouldnt they be encouraged to not to believe in things that aren’t true? That seems like something we teach children in other areas to me, like when they learn biology we don’t present creationism as one of a bunch of explanations they can choose to believe or not believe right? (The obvious religion parallel aside, i didnt mean to make that a confusing analogy its just the first thing that came to mind. The structure is the same.)
I mean, would you say the same thing about teaching a kid that they get to choose for themselves whether Harry Potter magic is real or not? Religion is just older, more ingrained and we are used to it, but its no less baseless than Harry Potter magic. Not one, tiny bit.
You could tell a kid that there is a dimension that Harry Potter magic exists but not our dimension. Then you could make it plain that it is completely up to the kid whether to believe this or not. It would have no bearing on the practical matters of life. Kind of like the multiverse.
Ya see I disagree. Why would we want to teach a child its ok to believe in these alternate dimensions? Its no different than telling them creationism is up to them to decide if its true or not. Its a problem to teach children things that aren’t true and that the figments of imagination and flights of fancy are ok to believe or not believe as is their preference.
There was a recent philosopher who vouched for the validity of religious experience. His reasoning was along simple lines. We cannot even comprehend the mind of a genius and it is quite difficult to figure out what goes in their brain but nevertheless, their ideas have the power to transform the society. Similarly in the past, people believe that there were prophets who had religious experience on a whole different level, and their ideas or revelations transformed the society and such powerful ideas cannot come from delusions since delusions always lack a concrete matter or a firm direction.
The philosopher also managed to explain the difference in religious experience. It was due to two main reasons.
Firstly, most religious experience cannot be expressed precisely or lose their meaning once expressed. Therefore descriptions of religious experience fails to convey the essence of it. Secondly, the religious experience can be the same but the interpretation can be different due to personality,belief etc of the person going through the experience but there is a general theme behind all of the experience.
A lot of scientists believe in the multiverse. A lot of scientists also believe in intelligent design. A lot of scientists believe in intelligent design through evolution. These are models for understanding the unknown. There are experiences that people can have whose causes are unknown. What they choose to believe about first causes isn’t something an atheist should care about, nor can the atheist explain first causes without invoking faith of their own.
Yes, and those things that are unknown should be taught as something that are unknown. It is problematic to say the least to teach children, or anyone, that in the absence of an answer it is ok to make one up, or pick one someone else made up.
You agree so much with dummies.
:zip:
The character though... mean spirited. Freedom must be moderated. It is when two people's freedom collide that encroachment becomes necessary. The real point is that talking in terms of unfettered, uninterrupted freedom is both fundamental - by the standards set heretofore - and impossible(untenable).
Indeed. Atheism was the topic. I was setting out my own agnostic version.
When it comes to the mystery of existence itself whatever people believe will be a matter of faith, since there can be no empirical evidence. I am inclined to remain non-committal, and am content with having no belief either way, but not everyone is comfortable with that. So, I would say that if someone finds comfort in believing in God or whatever, it is fine and harmless provided they refrain from attempting to inflict those beliefs on others.
The other point is that I think arguments about theism vs atheism are pointless, just because there can be no evidence. This means there can be no evidence-based rational argument for either atheism or theism that will convince anyone who is free from bias.
I would if I grew up in a completely secular household, not isolated in a religious community, and not have been indoctrinated with their beliefs. I'm surrounded by religion. I can't ignore it.
That seems like the most logical thing to do. I mean, defenders of a faith are usually well practiced, and will go to any lengths to argue their beliefs, even in a dishonest way. They're like trained soldiers.
I suspect they're around, but keeping out of the limelight. I'm a believer, btw, not an atheist. But I think the real atheists find the concept of God so unlikely that they simply take no notice of it at all, and just get on with their lives. These are the atheists I respect the most. They don't get into the faces of believers, attacking their beliefs, they just get on with their own lives, and their own beliefs.
As I understand it, the 'new atheists' you list are conceited and unpleasant people who assert, loudly and longly, that their atheist views are the only views possible for a rational and intellectually-aware human. Everyone else is wrong. This is dogmatism, and just as nonsensical and unpleasant as any believer who also holds that their truth is the One and Only Truth. I think you are right to have drifted away from this position. :up:
That would only be the case if nothing can shown to be a fact. But I wouldn't say that.
This is said so often in discussions of atheism, but it's not as clear as it looks. Only those who are indifferent to God, and get on with their lives without a second thought of God, are properly covered by your sentiment. Any atheist who proclaims or asserts their views are indulging in belief, not a lack of it. They believe that God does not exist. This is an active belief, which (I suppose) justifies as much defending as any other belief. For myself, I don't care to defend my beliefs, although I'll happily tell you what they are, and discuss them with you, if you ask.
Perhaps you wouldn't.
Almost nothing can be shown to be a fact. You might not choose to say that either, but I would. :razz:
What would one of your exceptions be?
Um . . . I'm skeptical of that unless there's a good reason to believe it.
It seems silly to me to say that "almost nothing can be shown to be a fact" unless you think that some things can be shown to be a fact.
[ I'm a designer by profession. Flexibility of thought is a way of life for us, and rigidity of thought the worst fate we could encounter. Other perspectives are available. ]
Well, as noted, each side has to give a little, in that invisibles can neither be shown nor not shown, and thus there remains a 'maybe' either way, no matter how unlikely one has it.
There is the outside chance of self contradiction, as well as logical and natural impossibility, but it will probably get down to probability winning the day, for that's about all we have to work with on invisible realms.
The religious advocate returns…
You again!
Yes, we're supposed to try to convert non-believers into followers.
OK, I'm a philosopher, and thus well able to counter your claims. Come on in.
[i]God grants us free will.[/I]
Absolutely free; we can do whatever we want?
Yes.
Truly free; our will doesn't have to match God's will?
Yes, free, God is all love.
Unconditional; no strings attached?
Would you like to be saved?
From what?
From not being with God.
What's so bad about that? I'm free.
[i]It would be Hell. Would you like to be saved?[/I]
No, for your supposed God through you as his follower just reneged on the 'free'. That's bad character.
[i]Jesus rectified that mistake. Would you like to be saved?[/I]
Oh, so there was a mistake that had to be fixed. So much for the Perfect Being. God remains as a problem, as supposedly Jesus' father. Plus, we are still thrown out Eden from the taint God designed into us, that of our human nature being able to sway from good to bad and all in-between, just as we see it does, as fact, to no one's surprise.
[i]Would you like to be saved?[/I]
What do I have to do to avoid burning in Hell?
All you have to do is merely accept God with all your heart. OK?
No, for to accept is to approve, and thus I wouldn't have integrity. God broke his own commandment in the Great flood, and more that I could list. I don't make deals with controllers and coercers. Your God is easily out thought, plus He is not all love, but ugly, even.
[i]You're going to the smoking section.[/I]
Good joke. Do you recall that all of this supposing is but a 'maybe' and so is not necessarily true?
Blah, blah, blah. We were put on Earth to worship God.
God needs this? There's the door.
The OP is about atheism, but more specifically it is about a better 'kind' than militant and/or "new atheism". The author asked about better reasoning/reasons for being atheist. I took that to be the main thrust.
I offered a simple foundational tenet/belief regarding warrant(that which constitutes sufficient/adequate reason to believe something or other. The point was that being the result of a valid conclusion does not constitute warrant and/or sufficient/adequate ground to believe. All belief in and/or notions of God boils down to(is based upon) logical possibility alone. As best I can tell there is no distinction to be drawn between God and belief in God. New Age mysticism confirms this on a daily basis.
Then there is Epicurus accompanied by common sense(for the omni-gods out there like the God of Abraham).
Of course I hope you got the point about the claims against fundamentalism. If all certainty counts, then it is itself untenable, because by virtue of being certain that fundamentalism is the problem, well... surely you get the point.
Certainty is but one element of many that make up fundamentalism(the kind I think you're referring to). Unshakable certainty despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary. The glorification of continued belief despite evidence to the contrary. The notion of faith no matter what. The book by Russell I mentioned earlier spells these sorts of problems with Christianity out better than I could ever hope to.
A pivotal read.
It's not so much the certainty that is the issue so much as what one is certain of.
I more or less agree with the atheist critique that the burden of proof is on whoever is making "outrageous" claims.
To return to the topic at hand, I kind of feel like the New Athiests got sort of a bad rep because of Dawkins. Dawkins is certainly a part of the movement. but not the whole movement itself. His approach to the critique of Islam is totally out of hand, but there is a critique to be made. Religious fundamentalism really is kind of terrible. I don't know that the Left has really adequately dealt with the situation either. I remember being turned off by the International Socialist Organization's support of the Muslim Brotherhood during the Egyptian Revolution. I was of the opinion that they had sort of co-opted the protests. Most of the Left adopts oddly apologetic positions concerning Islam. I think that to seriously consider what does the most good for people in the region means to be willing to be critical of the faith, as it is oppressive. It's all just a matter of how you handle things. A person in the West should seek to alleviate the plights incurred in the region by the West. The focus, therefore, shouldn't necessarily be upon the faith at all. What is oppressive about Islam will ultimately need to be taken into consideration, however.
That was kind of a ramble into this nebulous territory that I honestly haven't quite figured out how to navigate. In so far that Dawkins is the movement, perhaps it should be abandoned, but I do kind of think that it might be worthwhile to salvage it. Perhaps they're just wrong, and you just shouldn't be anti-religious, but I kind of think that there really is a critique to made of religion in general. Religions are kind of like state-sponsored cults. I do kind of think that, while they don't necessarily need to be railed against, people should abandon them.
Why do you think Dawkins is “totally out of hand” on Islam? Ive never read or heard anything from him that would indicate that.
He just kind of went of the rails on the defensive and really did come off as sort of closet racist in my opinion. I don't really care to treat Dawkins too harshly as I just think that he's kind of just reacting. His way of handling that situation, to me, was fairly disappointing.
Sorry, missed what situation you are talking about.
He called Islam a "cancer". It's been a while since this happened and so, I'm trying to dig up the articles. He's said that it's "the greatest force of evil in the world today". He has said ""Of course you can have an opinion about Islam without having read Qur'an. You don't have to read Mein Kampf to have an opinion about Nazism." When he called it the "greatest force of evil in the world today" he was trying to be somewhat concerted. Here is the full quote:
"It’s tempting to say all religions are bad, and I do say all religions are bad, but it’s a worse temptation to say all religions are equally bad because they’re not. If you look at the actual impact that different religions have on the world it’s quite apparent that at present the most evil religion in the world has to be Islam. It’s terribly important to modify that because of course that doesn’t mean all Muslims are evil, very far from it. Individual Muslims suffer more from Islam than anyone else. They suffer from the homophobia, the misogyny, the joylessness which is preached by extreme Islam, Isis and the Iranian regime. So it is a major evil in the world, we do have to combat it, but we don’t do what Trump did and say all Muslims should be shut out of the country. That’s draconian, that’s illiberal, inhumane and wicked. I am against Islam not least because of the unpleasant effects it has on the lives of Muslims."
I don't think that he's racist against Arabs, but I do think that he is somewhat Islamophobic. It's not deep seated or anything, but just in a sense that is somewhat disconcerting.
The Left made really big deal out of it a while ago.
He's rather a grouch, but his books are great. Evidently, he doesn't realize that people have to do what they do. Yes, there can be learning, but there's still a 'maybe' to the 'God' idea, which he allows as a slim chance. Since rewards are said to await in Heaven, it's understandable that people would want it. He is one extreme and severe 'invisibility disorder' is the other.
OK, PurplePond, so far, we've given the believers their 'maybe', but will call them out as being dishonest for preaching the 'maybe' as if it were truth, which is a fair and decent step, and one that can be applied to any discipline touting 'perhaps' as fact.
Next, the Biblical version of 'God' was demolished, which takes a lot away, but there can still be people saying different to you than of the holy-holy religious aspect, those who have a plain old regular person God responsible for everything. For them, we'll have to access the probability of a fully intact Person being able to be First and Fundamental, but there will be no real win either way.
I don't argue with believers; first, as a former believer I know where they are coming from. It isn't all bad; it isn't all good either. Two, if they think they are missionaries to the heathen or apostate damned, they will derive more fulfillment and a sense of justification from haranguing and arguing with you than one may wish to give them.
IF, and only IF you enjoy arguing with believers, and derive a commensurate satisfaction from attempting to undermine their sense sanctified entitlement, then you can productively argue with them. Otherwise, tell them to take a flying fuck at Ezekiel's wheel (Ezekiel 1:16).
Im having strong deja vu we have discussed this before.
Anyway, I don’t disagree with any of that quote. You have to do a pretty uncharitable reading of it to come up with “islamaphobic” (whatever thats supposed to mean), and a charge of racism is obviously absurd. Islam is not a race.
Its baffling to me how you missed important caveats in that quote, like “that doesnt mean mean all Muslims are evil, very far from it” or the very last line.
I didnt read any of his books, Im not even a particular fan of his but it provokes my sensibilities when people, anyone even someone like Trump, are demonised. If someone is evil or otherwise shitty, then an honest and fair treatment will bare that out.
We have not discussed this before to my knowledge, but you may have discussed this with someone else. In that quote he's not all that bad, but I do think that he has sort of alarmist opinions about Islam which are motivated by Western cultural fears of the faith. It's not severe or anything. I just think that he's a little bit Islamophobic.
Is someone who dislikes swimming in shark infested waters a “sharkaphobe”?
There is a real problem with Islam, as he describes. Why is he some kind of bigot because he identifies a major problem concerning Islam? Especially when he is careful to caveat like he did?
Also,if this isn't a good example of why he is “out of control” on islam, what is? Thats what I asked you for.
What is it that makes him an alarmist about Islam?
His 'The God Delusion' book would apply here. Although the Biblical, fundamentalist 'God' is an easy mark, he also includes evolution science and more. With such great writing, he needn't use anger in public to bolster his case, for it drives people away to be insulted, but, as we've found from the 'free will' threads, people have to do what they do, and, lacking learning to chill out, keep on doing it.
He's just alarmist, man. He's not all that bad, but he's just kind of alarmist. That he's alarmist is indicitave of that he's somewhat Islamophobic.
I understand that, I just want to know what exactly makes him an alarmist. That quote? Seems perfectly sensible to me, not alarmist at all. Islam IS by far the most evil religion in the world today, because of its extremists. They are without question the most extreme and dangerous.
If you've found you can't defend your atheistic beliefs anymore, then why have them?
There are extremists of all faiths, spiritualities, and ideologies. That terrorism is a common means of resistance in the region is resultant of the situation that the West has created there. There are, to them, no other means of revolt. That's not to justify such actions. I actually think that terrorism is reprehensible and tragic.
Consider how many people have died in the "War on Terror" and how many people died because of Islamic terrorist attacks. Is, say, the American presence there, to them, not a form of terror? Is that not motivated, in part, by Christian ideology?
Say you can regard some, but not all of the deaths caused by the "War on Terror" to have been engendered by Christianity. I would bet that Christianity still has a higher body count than Islam.
The West is far more intimidating to anyone living in the region than anyone living in the region is to the West. I do think that Dawkins is being somewhat alarmist. I don't think that he's all that bad. I was actually trying to partially defend him in the first place, but I do think that people should acknowlege that his statements on Islam are a little bit out of place. It's not quite what the Left made it out to be, but it is indicative of a certain Western lack of cultural awareness or something. It's only so big of a deal to me. I kind of get why Dawkins is the way that he is.
I just think that he kind of took the line of the Right in regards to Islam, that that line is motivated by reactinoary Christian fears of the faith, and that he should have, as an atheist developed a better approach.
I don't think that Dawkins is really a terrible person or anything. I just thought that the way that he handled that was disappointing.
It's not much advertised, but drones this very day and everyday are assassinating terrorists, thus preventing many big and bad plans.
Its not anti-west terrorism that is the big problem, its what muslims do to other Muslims. The prevalence of sharia is a tragic blight on the world.
Perhaps they have to lean more toward agnostic, but still unlikely toward God, but there is more to consider…
Another believer comes along, one without all the Biblical bluster of damnation from a bad Role Model type of God who had the worst character ever in literary fiction …
Hello, and good riddance to the God of religion.
Yes, what a horror made in the image of bad human nature.
Yeah, humans can be terrible, and life, it’s only in modern times that we humans have a bit of relief. Even as recent as a century ago, life was much tougher, not that it’s always a picnic.
This is God’s world, as you would have it.
Indeed, for how could I say otherwise, for the ‘fall from grace’ was but a myth based on disputes between farmers and shepherds long ago, as if there was such a great difference.
Hey, you are a good believer to talk with; no Hellfire and and that mush.
Yeah, I have a good boloney detector. It seems that our human race of life evolved from the basis of the nature of the universe, and so, in looking at ourselves we might get a big clue as to the very nature of the universe, that is, that our life could be from a Larger Life, called ‘God’.
I see that you allow that there was evolution. Also, it’s good to propose a resemblance. I’ve used that in noting our holistic versus detail alternating viewpoints.
Yes, presumably God and Existence are one and the same, eternal, as the All and/or the basis of the All, but since life arose eventually, what life is here now had to be inherent in existence all along, as a God life-full-ness principle.
Good thinking about what is here now had to be there in the beginning, or forever. It’s just that we surfers of light are but 5% of the types of matter out there. Dark energy and dark matter dominate. We appear to be an after effect.
God utilized these to create a workable area; He can only do what He can do, and so an instant creation wasn’t possible. He threw some stuff together, and then Cosmic and biological evolution had to be relied on. I’m not nutty enough to insist that God places souls in humans, plus, I don’t need any of that jazz. God is merely the highest being, and that’s that.
Well, I do have to admit that the universe has been found to be ‘unnatural’ by physicists, in that it seems fine-tuned for life to appear. Whenever and wherever we look back, we see ‘fortunate’ events; however, why did seven extinctions wiping out most all progress have to happen?
God, not being all powerful, had to resort to using this sledgehammer effect, which was the best He could do, to try to open the field for mammals to evolve, by wiping out 95% of all life, as in the last, Permian, extinction.
So, initially, God put some stuff together, namely parts of Himself, I suppose, that might lead to some kind of life that He could later steer, albeit in a clumsy way. He’s kind of a Deity, not a Theory, then.
Yes, he is kind of a great scientist who could predict somewhat, but couldn’t foresee everything down to the last detail; that’s impossible. He was creative and wanted to achieve something.
So far, I see that nature’s way and God’s way can’t be told apart, although I’m aware of the need to explain the fine-tuning some other way if there’s no God. I’m not yet convinced that an extra step of God is required, as a Person how He could be just sitting around, as First and Fundamental.
Yeah, First and Fundamental is a problem. As for fine-tuning, and playing the Devil’s advocate here, that’s something I can even help you look into, later, because I want to shore it up to be more sure of my God premise. What do you think, for now?
I still have to grant a ‘maybe’ God.
And I still have to grant a ‘maybe’ no God.
I'm late to the party, but what is "new atheism" and how is it different from "old atheism"?
I can't imagine there's much more to say than, "I gave up believing in that which is impossible, illogical, and for which there is no evidence when I was a child."
I think the differences is twofold. First, the way “new atheism” is received by the public which has to do with the second difference which is in the unapologetic way in which the “new atheists” criticise religion.
Those are the distinctions as far as I can tell.
Before the Bible or any other religious text was written, or more specifically before its respective religion came about, did that religion have a God as far as humans knew? You could argue that no one knows the answer to this, but more than likely the answer is no, since the God of any religion only necessarily came to fruition or came to be recognized in conjunction with the onset of that religion. In other words, before Christianity came about, there may as well have been no Christian God. I will not argue that there could have been a Christian God even before Christianity came about, but unless humans were aware of His presence before the onset of Christianity (which is impossible to determine, but again very unlikely) then no one among us can argue that He existed before then. The conclusion that we would have to draw, therefore, is that this God is only a result of the development of the Christian religion, or in other words only exists in conjunction with the Christian religion.
How sad. Even as a child, when your imagination and creative-learning ability was at its peak? What a shame. :fear:
Fantasizing is different than believing.
It's alarming that you'd say that. I hope you're never in such a real world scenario with any vulnerable person, because you could do real harm.
But that's a good point.
You don't believe it. What you do is not be a realism fetishist, because that's not pertinent to fiction. You enjoy the fantasy for what it is rather.
None of this changes the fact that not believing things that are impossible, illogical, etc. doesn't amount to not having an imagination, and none of it amounts to you even commenting on me pointing this out.
Terrapin already pointed this out, but I'll reiterate: creativity and imagination have nothing to do with actually believing. I still very much enjoy Tolkien, but was unaware that I therefore believe in Ents and the Dark Lord!
Well, that's a tough one, even fatal, but our life, to be so, appears to require a Higher Life to make it.
This Golden Template fails instantly after its first and only usage, requiring God's Life to have to come from a HIGHER LIFE, and so forth.
[i]Damn, it doesn't work![/I]
And for the fine-tuning, I'll give you that it seems so, but how does your not all smart Scientist God foresee enough to make the tunes, or at least some?
Well, as said, He didn't really know All, but probably threw stuff together time and time again until one universe went along much further than the others.
You have just defined the multiverse.
Yeah.
And your God seems to be constrained to operate identical to the way nature would if there were no God, such as that extinctions could be natural, and more.
Back to the drawing board.
Quoting Terrapin Station
Quoting Artemis
First, this point is worth pursuing because it doesn't only apply to the appreciation of fiction. Whenever we think with the aims of discovery and exploration, there is an imaginative phase where we deliberately suspend disbelief. Edward de Bono's hats describe this well. [ And yes, there is a more formally critical hat that succeeds the imaginative one, so there's no need to point this out. ]
When we accept a new fact (or something close to that), once we have considered it and found it acceptable, we believe it until new evidence comes along. In the case of fiction, we believe it for a shorter time, equally well defined: until we are finished with looking at it, or enjoying it. But we do believe it.
Quoting Terrapin Station
Agreed. But when we're looking for new understanding, we need to be cautious of dismissing something that could have value without proper consideration. Throwing the baby out with the bath-water, that kind of thing. Too often new ideas are dismissed simply because they contradict current orthodoxy. In this case, we risk missing out on new discoveries, which (by definition) contradict current orthodoxy. :chin: [ And yes. of course, this can be hard work. How do we know which ideas to pursue, and which to disregard? We don't. We have to guess. And it can be difficult and tedious work. That's life. ]
Maybe you literally believe fictions when you're engaging with them, but I sure do not. It seems to me that literally believing them would be unusual (but no problem with being unusual there).
Because the aim here is to enjoy the story, our belief is passive. We even express it as "suspending disbelief" to emphasise this. So our belief in the story-line is not active, or at the forefront of our experience, because it's the story which is important. Disbelief and belief fade into the background, as they should. Until the story's over, that is. :wink:
As it was necessary in various cultures to depict the One in terms a child could understand, then ‘heavenly father’ easily assumes the persona of Jupiter. This is why atheists will sometimes say that they simply believe in ‘one less god’. The difficult point, however, is that God is not ‘a God’. I sometimes think that monotheism had to assume the language and tropes of the mythical religions it displaced, because those are the only terms that were meaningful in the culture of the day but that the profound truth of monotheism was something very different from the religions it displaced. But now we can only see it through that perspective, which is why it seems archaic.
Was it, really? I think in this sense that all religions are the same. I believe in God, and I'm as happy to call Him Jupiter or Jesus as any other name. All of them - yes, every one - represents one or more aspects of the one too-big-for-us-to-understand God. I think of Her as Gaia, but Cthulhu will do just as well, if that's your thing. God is God ... maybe in the sense that "Brexit is Brexit"? :wink:
What would you say is the difference between a passive belief and an active belief.
Or maybe I'm just asking for a better explanation of how passive belief is belief. If you passively believe that Alice entered Wonderland, what does that involve exactly?
In this context, rather than as a bold and universal (objective? :gasp: ) statement, I would say that passive belief remains in the background, largely ignored (because its relevance is small), while active belief stays in the foreground, a significant player in whatever it is that we're thinking about.
Quoting Terrapin Station
It doesn't involve anything "exactly". This is not a precise and measured discussion of trivial scientific facts, this is a vague discussion about thinking habits and stories. You're just being awkward now. :razz:
Curiously, I wrote a very early essay called 'God is not God'. It was about the idea that the reality of what is meant by 'God' (especially in the inner traditions) is vastly different from everything that is said about God - all of the aggregate of opinions, myths and ideas - in other words, just about everything people argue about. I have never not believed in God, but I have also never wanted to be just a believer. To me, the reality was always something that had to be discovered and understood through inner experience. Now I feel as though we're always approaching it, but never arriving there (although maybe it's a case of the journey being the destination). But to me it's still a matter of a real inner conviction, a sense of a wellspring, or of an inner source, like an elixir (the 'wellspring of joy'.) Whereas mostly what people argue about is a projection, a concept, nearly always focused on their negative experiences of religion (which I perfectly understand, the external phenomenon is often petty and distorted.)
What does that refer to, though? You're saying a belief you're not aware of?
If you don't know how to 'suspend disbelief' and enjoy a good story, this is not the place to find out about it. Too often you retreat from the topic under discussion into time-wasting and unnecessary quibbling. At your request, I have described and explained passive and active belief, even though I think my intended meaning was already fairly clear. I gave you the benefit of the doubt. But now you're just baiting me, I think. These matters do not require or justify formal and logical consideration. :razz:
As I noted, I love engaging with fiction, I love imagination, fantasy, etc.--and a lot of what I've done for work involves that, too. I just don't believe fantastic/imaginative things. In my view, "suspension of disbelief" amounts to not being a realism fetishist--you know, those folks who think that fiction is making an "error" if a film shows you Vancouver and says that it's New York for example. But you're stressing that you actually believe fictions, and maybe you do when you engage with fictions. So I'm curious about that and I'm trying to find out just what it amounts to for you.
No, not "stressing". That's what "passive belief" is intended to communicate. Something that happens in the background. Something that makes no significant contribution to the experience, which is the story, in this case.
Stressing in that you're still saying that it's belief.
Of course it's belief. It's acceptance of the story, and the world wherein it takes place, for the duration of that story. This is NOT worth disputing to this degree. It's a side-point of a side-point. Let's leave it here.
Again, I'm just curious about what you have in mind.
It seems like maybe we're using "belief" differently.
But I wouldn't say I ever do that with fictions.
Then you may be getting less from your reading (watching too?) than others do? :chin:
Well, or something different. I just enjoy fantasizing/imagining things. Other people are somehow thinking they're true and not fantasy/imagination, which is different.
You can just do that via imagination, without thinking that it's real.
Quoting Pattern-chaser
As many philosophers have already pointed out (Kendall Walton for example) you don't actually believe fiction you're engaging with. If you did, then watching The Green Slime would send you screaming from the room, seeking help and safety.
Walton also points out, that (for example) when you're playing monster with a little kid, you can tell the moment they forget they're just imagining, because they go from smiling and laughing and shrieking in pretend terror to crying and being actually upset.
That's how we wind up with stuff like Scientology.
I wouldn't doubt that maybe some people actually believe fictions in some way. It just seemed unusual to me, so that's why I was trying to figure out just what it amounted to, but pattern-chaser took me to be wanting to argue with him rather than trying to understand his experiences, his point of view.
That's something else I hate about the "arguing culture" of boards like this. It can make it almost impossible to have an exchange with someone where they don't figure that you're trying to debate with them.
Not all the ideas resulting from a creative excursion are good ideas. :wink:
In what way?
Sure, some people who read Tolkien might believe theoretically in magic or elves or stuff like that, but do they believe LoR is a historical account of a real world?
Not when you believe fiction to be a true account of history.
It would best be described by someone for whom this is the case. Pattern-chaser seemed to be saying it's the case for him.
Just cause he says it, doesn't make it so.
I think he's confusing imagination, suspension of disbelief and actual belief.
Finally, the dialog comes to an end:
So, my friend, how is 'God' standing now?
He is teetering on the edge of non-existence, given that complexity can't be Fundamental/First; I cling to the notion somewhat less, I guess.
What would the Fundamental basis really be like, given not anything could have gone into it?
Random, such as QM suggests.
Indeed, Anton Zeilinger has confirmed that randomness is the bedrock of reality to several sigma. Now what?
The Fundamental cannot be anything in particular. God cannot be random; God has faded.
It was a nice wish—for whatever good would have come out of it.
Yeah.
Straw man. No, of course they don't.
Quoting Artemis
Straw man.
Quoting Artemis
:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: You could be right, but I don't think so. Instead of creating nonsense to counter, why not read what was said?
Quoting Pattern-chaser[Additions in bold.]
Flexibility of thought isn't easy to learn, if you're not used to it. And its utility is limited: it only applies when you're seeking something new. This might be discovery, where we're just looking to understand something new, or whatever. But more often it's when we have a problem to solve, one that hasn't been solved before; a new problem.
What de Bono has published in recent years isn't new, but he was the first to gather this stuff together, stuff that creative thinkers have worked out over many years, structure it and write it down for others to benefit from. He deserves the praise.
Flexible thinking - which could be called creative thinking, and which de Bono calls "lateral thinking" -
is what we do when we're looking to create something new. I spent my professional life doing this, as a firmware designer. So techniques that others rarely used, I employed all the time. I have a lifetime's training in flexible thinking, for which I am immensely grateful.
So, returning to the story example, I do believe the story, its world and its other premises, while I read it. In traditional language, I "suspend disbelief". When I'm not reading it, there is no thought in my mind that (for example) Tolkien's elves are part of the space-time universe! No-one has asserted, or even suggested, such nonsense! To suggest otherwise is a trivial straw man, as I commented above.
If one is not a designer, or a member of another creative profession, flexible thinking might seem foreign; odd. To someone like an analytical philosopher, who has worked very hard to develop a formal and rigid understanding of things, flexible thinking can be so alarming that some might be tempted to dismiss such 'twaddle' with straw men, and the ridicule that concludes the straw man sequence.
But I think it's the case that sometimes flexible thinking is the order of the day, while at other times, some structure or rigour is more appropriate. For (mental) voyages of exploration and discovery, flexible thinking will get you there. To determine if the results of flexible thinking are usable in practice - to evaluate a Green hat idea - we need a formal critique, for which we don the Black hat.
If you can imagine a style of thinking, you can probably also imagine a situation where it might be the most appropriate tool for the job. Rigid and rigorous thinking has its place, but so does flexibility. There is no One Tool for all jobs, so I don't understand the resistance I'm seeing here to what is, in the end, just a way of thinking. There is no need to act as if this new way of thinking is offered to replace existing ways! It is not. Such an offer would contribute nothing. If you give me a screwdriver, I won't immediately throw my hammer away. I'll keep both, and use both, as the job requires.
There is an old-fashioned atheist that once rebelled, and was cast out and unto the Earth. Perhaps he may advise you?
Though I wonder what would ensue if you took out the theism from atheism?
Anarchy? Apathy? What do you think?
So, while you read it, do you believe "theoretically in magic or elves or stuff like that"?
So the sticking point was just his word "theoretically"?
Ummm . . . hmm--I don't think I understand what you're asking. :confused:
So how do you explain not running from the Green Slime when watching a horror movie? If you, even temporarily, believe the Slime to be real, then you'd run for the hills, or smash your tv with a baseball bat, or some other safety maneuvers rather than sit their and munch your popcorn.
So you don't actually fully believe the story you're reading. You just mildly believe it? Or semi-believe it? Or almost believe? Or only kinda believe?
Getting back to your original contention: thus I was perfectly correct in stating that I even as a child never actually believed illogical things without losing the ability to imagine them, because those are two entirely different forms of belief (if you want to stick with the word belief, which I still think is wrong, but we can call it "semi-belief" for the sake of the argument).
Even better: pretend belief. I'm only pretending to believe for the duration of the book.
Why do people cry during films if there isn't some element to where you actually believe that the film is happening? If temporarily believing that the film is actually happening is delusional, shouldn't you say to someone who is crying at the climax of The Titanic, "You must know that Jack is not a real person, he's played by the actor Leonardo DiCaprio who is not currently descending to a watery abyss and who, I am sure, is alive and well and probably working on another feature film." I missed a decent portion of this debate, but don't know that you can really say that you don't epheremally believe in the media that you engage with whilst doing so. Zizek has this thing about Scanners about how you are who you pretend to be. There is no difference between the Self that you are and the roles that you enact. I don't quite know how I feel about that, but I feel like you really do believe that the film is happening while you watch it if you engage with the media in the manner in which you are intended to. Some film, of course, is intended to considered abstractly.
So do you run from the room when the Slime appears on the screen?
I'm pretty sure that people would actually scream, gasp, and duck during some of the old films at things like when a train would appear to move towards the camera or when the guy fires the shot at the camera. We have just simply become used to film as a medium.
If you're into the film, you do feel actual fear when the Slime appears. There is no difference between that you playact the expression of fear and that you do feel it, or, rather, the difference blurs. You really do suspend disbelief whilst engaging in media.
You think you feel the same kind and magnitude of fear watching a film-slime as you would a real-slime?
You could. If the slime film was really good and you caught it at the right time in the right theater the simulation of the experience could be equivalent to actually having the experience itself.
How would that be a pleasurable movie experience for you?
And "could be" implies that this is a pretty atypical scenario. So, it doesn't really apply to the majority of people most of the time when engaging fiction. So what are the majority of movie goers experiencing most of the time when they watch The Slime?
Because it's like the slime was really there. Like, when I play Baulder's Gate: Dark Alliance and I have to fight the slime in the dungeon, I do really feel like I am there fighting the slime with magic. Your disbelief can only ever become so suspended as it is only so possible to create the semblance of really being there with any simulation, but it does get suspended. You do partially believe.
The Slime isn't the greatest example because it comes from a camp film. I would analyze the experience of seeing something like Inception where you are supposed to immersed in the media. You can only ever become so convinced that you are engaged with the media as if it is really happening, but I would contend that the people who got into Inception really temporarily believed that they were in a deam state.
Because you can empathize with the idea of something, with things you imagine to be the case.
So, when playing Baldur's Gate, do you cry out in pain when the slime hurts your characters?
Or when your beserker goes beserk, do you run around on a rampage?
I wince and am piqued by a righteous anger. Like I said, you can only ever suspend your disbelief to a certain extent, but it does get suspended.
So then, getting back to the OP, might it be that believers so much want their belief that it becomes to them as real?
Do you mean something like that Christians don't really believe in God, but, rather, that they believe in the desire for there to be a God? That's a fairly interesting interpretation. I could agree, but don't know that I do at the moment.
No, they believe because they so much want it that they suspend other thinking, unknowingly, as a kind of being in denial. Every time they look to their thoughts, 'God is' appears because their brain wires so often fired together that they became wired together.
Interesting. So you would see ideology as a rewiring of the brain, then?
Yes, one can totally become what sees a lot. Be careful not to play too many video games, and especially don't get hooked on watching Wrestling Shows!
They had a WWF event on at work a while ago. It was a totally surreal experience. I understand the theatrics, but wrestling is just so incredibly bizzare. I can't believe that that was ever as much of a cult phenomenon as it actually was.
So, then, like I said, it's not full or actual belief. It's some kind of semi, quasi, pretend belief.
Well, okay then.
It might be, yes, that's surely one possibility. I'm not sure how common it is, though. :chin:
Quoting PoeticUniverse
Oh, then no, if that's what you meant.
If you come upon someone meditating, or even asleep, and you jar them from that state, they are distracted, and lose it. The state they were in was genuine, not in any sense delusional, but not maintainable under all conditions.
Does that help?
For all practical purposes, we do believe. If the detailed psychology seems to differ, what does it matter? The thing we're discussing is an informal thing people do for pleasure. Interrogating those who claim belief seems to indicate a misunderstanding of the whole thing. :chin:
That still doesn't explain why while in that state you wouldn't feel and react the exact same way you would irl if faced with the same creatures/situation/damage/whatever, if your belief is real/true/full/actual belief in the exact same way in both fictional and nonfictional encounters.
That barrier would be the awareness of the fictionality and thus of the unreality of the story, and thus the reader/watcher would not believe the story to be real even while engaging in the story, since you cannot believe p and ~p at the same time.
I'm not sure what you mean?
If I meet a real tiger in a real cage I don't have to entertain conflicting beliefs about what is real and what not.
Why aren't you afraid of the tiger behind the cage, like you would likely be of the tiger in the jungle?
Consequently, why can't you fully believe in Jaws for the duration of the movie, but feel perfectly safe due to the screen between you two?
Where is the conflict?
The problem here, I think, is your over-riding need for precision, exactitude and certainty. We are discussing belief here. Not as the simple term that can be compared and contrasted with "truth", or preceded with "justified", but the human experience of belief. Your approach seems naive, when we are faced with something here that we understand only partly, if at all. We just do it, because we're humans, and so we can. But exact and clear understanding? Maybe one day.... :chin:
No? The arena here is the human mind; normal rules don't apply. :wink: Did you think doublethink was fictional? :chin:
Your posts seem condescending. But I guess that's to be expected from someone who thinks they've got some mystical insight :chin:
If being precise about language and trying to get the ideas here right is naive, then so be it. Not sure what else we're doing here if not that though :lol:
Quoting Pattern-chaser
Doublethink is not the ability to entertain to contradictory beliefs at the exact same time in the same experience. That's impossible.
Because if I'm aware of the screen, I'm aware of the fiction and thus that Jaws is not real.
:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:
Why do you think God gave us cognitive dissonance? :smile:
Are you denying this as a possibility? As I in practice, do not find the shark behind the aquarium glass to be that different from the shark behind the TV screen; regardless if it is Jaws, or actual footage.
Thus, I do not find the tiger behind its cage to be any more authentic than Jaws behind the screen, in terms of belief. But obviously the two may be distinguished, at the very least through smell; yet if you dismiss everything but sight and sound, they are on footing equal enough to interpret the fictional as fully authentic.
After all, optical illusions are what filmmakers specialise in.
Yes, and we should also remember that the audience are willing to immerse themselves in the fiction. They aren't cynical skeptics, they want to experience the story. We all co-operate to do so, story-tellers and story-hearers alike. And so we believe, for the duration of the story. :up:
Your ad hominem approach - even if it is pretty mild, as these things go - achieves nothing*. I do not claim any special knowledge, other than that which we all have. I'm the one who's been pointing out how much we don't know, in case you hadn't noticed. :chin:
Look:
Quoting Pattern-chaser
Edited to add: * - If I have been overly abrupt, I'm sorry. My (autistic) judgement in these matters is close to random. :blush:
God doesn't exist.
Quoting Pattern-chaser
Ah, dish it out but can't take it. I'm not surprised.
Yes, because the screen embodies the fiction.
'Dishing it out' adds what, exactly, to the discussion?
I don't know if you saw this?Quoting Pattern-chaser
I don't think we do either, but mostly because realism and mysticism don't mix. Talking to a mystic is like talking to a stone wall. Mysticism claims to be open-minded, etc, but then ironically dismisses all realist propositions as hopelessly naive.
Your sight operates on the same basis as a livestream, the only difference between the two is the additional stimuli.
You feel confident in your ability to distinguish real from fictional, but what if your reality is just a simulation you're obliviously immersed in? Being obliviously immersed in it, would make the simulation imperceptible.
Whether you're within a simulation you're unaware of is irrelevant; what is relevant is that the audience of a film may fall in to such an obliviously immersed state for the duration of the film, parallel to which, the audience's corpus is instinctively restricted; that's the belief. After all, as aforementioned, the authentic belief of film hinges on sight and sound, not touch - so there's not much ground for the body to be superficially active; though it may incur a spike in blood pressure, which means that it reacts to the fictional on par with the real deal in some aspects.
I find it a possibility to be thoroughly examined, rather than thoroughly denigrated.
If you were entirely unaware of the simulation, you would run away from the Slime.
Quoting Shamshir
You can be entirely unaware of the simulation, but be unable to run away. Sleep paralysis is an obvious example; lest it be authentic?
Sooo, you're saying all movie goers try to run away from the Slime but are paralyzed?
Sounds like a lawsuit to me :lol:
Maybe. Maybe they want to run away, but just give up in the end. Maybe they don't want to run away, maybe they want to be eaten by the Slime. Maybe it's sloth and maybe it's suicide.
I wouldn't know, probably.
Ah, good, and on topic.
(No "slime", apart from that we evolved from it.)
Since you're getting silly, I'll just assume you're beginning to see reason :wink:
How has slime been off topic?
I was happy to leave off there, but this response deserves a reply. My core concerns are:
Quoting Pattern-chaser
Yes. I've clearly stated both my atheism and my resistance to believing anything illogical, impossible, or fantastical, even for the sake of momentary immersion in a narrative (though I dont believe, as you do, that this entails some "lesser" form of pleasure taking or partaking in fiction).
Quoting Pattern-chaser
1. You said God endowed us with certain abilities.
2.Quoting Pattern-chaser
Of course, once you believe in an impossible and irrational idea like God, then you pave the way for all manner of silly and contradictory things and ideas.
I wonder if the denizens of the ocean's bottom think likewise of humans?
You think plankton think humans are supernatural deities? :rofl:
Proportionally you're too big to fit in to that tiny mind, much as God is too big to fit in to yours. I guess?
And yet somehow he fits in yours? Or, if he doesn't, how the heck do you know what you're even talking about with the concept of God if your mind is too small to think about him?
That's what I call an epistemological plothole :lol:
I'm guessing.
Who? Where? You talking to someone else?
Quoting Shamshir
Well, have fun with that. Your personal guessing and musing about the metaphysics of the universe are only interesting insofar as they contain something more than your imagination.
Maybe.
Quoting Artemis
Thank you, I will have fun with that.
Ah yes, here's what I said:
Quoting Pattern-chaser
That was a joke. You can see the :smile: emoji, telling you so. Sorry I wasn't clear enough. :meh:
Quoting Artemis
I am happy to admit that my beliefs are not based on evidence, for there is no evidence concerning the (non-)existence of God. So mine is a faith position. But this raises a point that bothers me; I'll restate the core of this: there is no evidence concerning the (non-)existence of God. And you describe yourself thus:
Quoting Artemis
Being as you describe, you would actively avoid logical fallacies such as the Argument from Ignorance fallacy. And yet you describe God and belief thus:
Quoting Artemis
Although you don't say so in so many words, I interpret this as an assertion of the non-existence of God. [You can let me know if I've got this wrong.] And here is where cognitive dissonance hits me, and it's not a joke this time. Because your assertion of God's non-existence is based on an Argument from Ignorance, and yet you have described your "resistance to believing anything illogical". Perhaps you can resolve this apparent contradiction? Because, as it stands, it looks a lot like your belief (in God's non-existence) is a faith position, like mine. After all, there is no evidence at all, yes? :chin: :chin: :chin:
You misunderstand how an appeal to ignorance works as well as how I was presenting atheism.
1. The AtI works only when you're appealing to ignorance in cases where there is equal lack of evidence for both sides. E.g. "I don't know that there isn't a teapot circling the sun, therefore, there is one". This ignores of course the improbability and impossibility of a teapot circling the sun. (For instance, any teapot would immediately desintegrate near the sun, so it's impossible.)
This ties into my 2. point: I specifically said that God is illogical/impossible. The attributes he is supposed to possess are contradictory, such as omnipotence.
3. Though there is no evidence in favor of God, there is plenty against him. Most previous theories of how and where he exists have been disproven (not in the clouds or the heavens or in the trees or the seas) and for all things he is supposed to have done and created there are more plausible explanations that do have a lot of evidence in their favor.
If you have a theory of existence like the Big Bang that does have evidence, and another theory that has none and is absurd on the face of it like God, then the only rational conclusion is to follow the former and forget about the latter.
Note that yes, these all add up to an inductive argument, and induction does not involve 100% certainty, which ironically is what believers always insist non-believers present (ironically, because their own belief rests on 0% certainty). But it does add up to a 99% certainty, or something thereabouts, which is good enough to state "God doesn't exist" and move on with our lives to think about more important things.
There is: none. :up:
Quoting Artemis
You did, but an assertion is just that. Where's the justification; the evidence?
Quoting Artemis
What is this evidence against the existence of God? You mention that some things God is said to have done were achieved by other means. So what? Maybe they were, or maybe She put those 'other means' in place. This kind of 'evidence' is little better than hearsay or rumour, and is not acceptable to a scientist or a philosopher. There is no evidence ... unless I am mistaken, and you can enlighten me? :chin:
Quoting Artemis
If both explanations are possible, and fully account for all available evidence, logic dictates that we may not arbitrarily select one over the other to be the One True Explanation. You, a man devoted to logic and reason, are obviously aware of this. We can guess, of course, as we humans do so often. But let's be honest with ourselves, and call a guess a guess. Or we could apply Occam's Razor, with the admission that it's a rule of thumb only; it has no authority; it's a way of guessing.
P.S. your use of "absurd" is a giveaway: it's an emotional term, with no logical contribution to what you're saying. You're actually trying to belittle an argument by calling it names. :smile:
The AtL is like being in the bedroom and claiming that there is or is not an apple on the kitchen table without being able to see the kitchen table or check about the apple.
What I'm saying is that we've gone into the kitchen and found the kitchen table has a banana on it, but no apple. We don't have "proof" of the absence of the apple other than there is no apple to be seen or felt or in any way discovered. It would be nonsensical therefore to continue insisting on the existence of the apple, but we can accept the banana.
I hope that makes the difference clear to you. If not, I fear there's no hope for you.
Yes, and I'm wondering:
Quoting Artemis
If your example is literal, we would already know quite a bit about the apple we were looking for. If the apple was invisible to the naked eye, for example, we would expect that, and maybe use our fingers to search, instead of our eyes. And so forth.
In the case of God, we don't know what She looks like, or where to look for her. Perhaps She only hangs around in sheds. Then we might see you emerge from the kitchen, proclaiming the absence of God, and we might wonder if you'd looked in the shed. :chin:
Your 'proofs' include no evidence of a standard that would satisfy a scientist or a philosopher. Thus I conclude, pending the arrival of new evidence, that you cannot justify your beliefs, and simply assert them again and again, perhaps hoping I will tire? :wink:
Quoting Artemis
:smile: Perhaps you're right. I hope there is hope for you, though...? :chin:
So basically, you're saying you believe in something you know nothing about, can't know anything about, and is unknowable generally. Gotcha.
Quoting Pattern-chaser
Most philosophers and scientists use these same ideas, so I'm not sure what you mean. They said gods were in the trees. We looked and there were none. They said they were on the mountains. We looked, there were none. They said gods were in the heavens, and again we looked and found nothing. The goalposts have been moved and moved by believers until the only things they can fall back on are some concepts of an "unknown unknowable," belief in which rests solely on faith.
It's very much obvious that we've done thousands of years of work looking over and under and inside every possible "kitchen table" and have turned up nothing. At this point, the burden of proof rests on you and your ilk. Just like it would rest on any person purporting the existence of Nessie, Santa, elves, ents, and nymphs.
Your argument for God is the same as it would be for the existence of the Jabberwocky.
Darn; I was hoping to meet one!
Wee can nearly presume that absence of evidence is evidence of absence, but for a Deity who foresaw and designed it all from scratch by throwing the right stuff in the right amounts together, as nature might have arrived at, too, although He seemingly not able to just do it all instantly. He, as a the greatest scientist, would be the ultimate; just look at His world—well, there are some problems, but overall a job well done. I wonder how He happened to be just sitting around, as First and Fundamental, yet fully intact as a system of mind and emotion and personhood.
:smile: Not quite, but close. :wink: If you ask three believers to describe God, you'll get four contradictory answers, to mash up the old joke. Few believers are rash enough to list the specific attributes of God, because (as you say) we don't know. Nevertheless, we all believe in God because we find value and benefit in doing so.
Quoting Artemis
The last bit is spot on: ours is a faith position. The point in dispute is whether yours is too. But to the specifics of what you say: the evidence is that "we" looked for God, but found nothing. You don't mention how "we" decided where to look, nor what we thought we might use as a God-detector. I would've thought these would be quite important elements of "our" search? :chin:
Ah, you say, but I told you: the believers told us God is in the trees/mountains/heavens, so that's where we looked. I wonder if you misunderstood, because God is in the trees, mountains and heavens. But She is not a human person, who might easily be spotted in such places. I'm not going to hoist myself by my own petard, and tell you that God is invisible to the human eye, because I don't know if this is true or not. But I will say that I wouldn't necessarily expect God to be visible to me either.
You speak of God - in the context of searching for Her - as though She is a physical thing that you can simply look for and find. I agree with you that such searches in the past have come up with nothing, and I wouldn't expect this to change in the future. The physical-spacetime-universe-existence of God is questionable, at best, non-existent at worst. The importance and value of God is immaterial.
The only point we have to dispute about is whether your views are a faith position. You have failed to offer evidence (of a suitable standard) against God's existence. I have already freely asserted that I know of no evidence for God's existence. I believe there is no evidence at all, for, against or 'other', and you have failed to find any, so I think we should conclude (at least for now) that there is none.
So your position is that you actively assert the non-existence of God without any evidence at all on which to base your conclusion. Either you are offering an Argument from Ignorance, or your position is a faith position, like mine (if opposite in direction). Which is it?
Quote from here.
This example perfectly describes your position, but in reverse. It's valid both ways round, as expected. If there is no evidence - and there is not - no form of logical analysis or consideration can be performed. Therefore, logically, no conclusion may correctly be drawn. That's what AfI tells us here, and it's right.
We are both people of faith, my friend. I respect your faith. Let's move on. :up: :smile:
[rant] "Burden of proof" is what people say when they want someone else to do the work. There is no burden of proof. There is only us, the topic we're discussing, and the ideas we have to contribute to that discussion. [/rant]
But you are wrong, I think. Things that might possibly exist, but for which there is no evidence at all, must logically remain in a sort of superposition of all possible conclusions. Why? Because we cannot logically advance to a conclusion without some foundation to rest it on, and that foundation is evidence.
We must refrain from concluding anything, and leave the matter undecided; up in the air, as it were. We can't even estimate probabilities, because our estimates also require evidence as grist for their mills. So we cannot even suggest that (for example) God's existence is vanishingly unlikely, because we have no basis on which to estimate any numerical value of probability.
You are a logical person; you've said so. So stick to your guns and your beliefs, and stop drawing conclusions where you have no evidence. It is illogical, Captain! :smile:
One might say the scales tip slightly in favor of God, due to the minuscule amount of awareness there is of God - necessary for the disccusion.
To discuss whether there is or isn't God - well, you would need God; and the same would apply for any object in place of God, correct?
Yet there is the situation of people being and having been unaware of certain flora and fauna, that does exist and did exist prior to its discovery and being situated in to human awareness.
If something that one is completely unaware of does exist - then how do you go about denying the existence of something you are aware of, if even mildly?
Taken from here.
If it does not exist, where from and how does one acquire this awareness?
If we level God with plenty of theories - it might just be that the average man isn't sufficiently advanced, technologically or otherwise, to observe God; as was the case with Black Holes until recently.
If God were the mountains and the trees and the skies, then the geologists and botanists and metereologists would have found some proof of that by now. They haven't, so the kitchen table remains devoid of an apple.
Burden of proof rests on you just as much as it would rest on the believer of the Jabberwocky. No, I don't want to do any more work than has been already done for millennia by others seeking truth, because at this point it's as much a waste of our precious time on this earth as searching for the Jabberwocky would be.
Finding the table empty of evidence for the apple and insisting we must remain agnostic and call our knowledge of ~apple "faith" is just silliness.
But we've come to running in circles, and I'm afraid you're fulfilling Singer's quote: "It is a distinctive characteristic of an ideology that it resists refutation. If the foundations of an ideological position are knocked out from under it, new foundations will be found, or else the ideological position will just hang there, defying the logical equivalent of the laws of gravity."
So, in essence, there's nothing left to be said to you that would make any difference. And with that I take my leave of the conversation. G'day!
No, it's logic.
I have stated clearly that mine is a faith position; I offer no foundation for it, because there is none that I am aware of. You're the one in denial here....
I know you wish that was true.
Each are "maybe's" and neither can be honestly be taught as true.
If one doesn't want to sit on a fence, philosophical probabilities can be employed to estimate, based on self-contradiction, the only course available.
:up: Absolutely they can! But let's be honest as well, and state clearly that we're guessing, without basis in logic or fact. I find it helps with mental hygiene to be clear and honest with myself, never mind anyone else!
I think we can safely state that we have found no evidence at all concerning the existence of God, and we know of no way in which such evidence might be obtained. We could teach that, for what it's worth, couldn't we? :up:
Yes, as there is no "for sure". Both churches and anti-churches can be called on their dishonesty of claiming truth. Pastor Lou, at the Vineyard Church in Hopewell Junction,NY, was once an atheist, then was eventually reborn as a theist. He made the same truth-claiming mistake twice!
:ok:
We could, but the believers might suggest that God and His realm are invisible, along with that God operates just as nature does, such that they can't be told apart, along with Genesis being just metaphorical, etc.
They could. And as long as they "suggested" this, not asserted it as fact, they would be correct, for this is one possibility among ... God knows ( :smile: ) how many!
So, to preserve integrity, both atheists and theists would have to become agnostic, meaning simply "I can't know for sure."
Please come to our agnostic church; we show the way, maybe!
or
There is no God, maybe.
Impacts are lessened.
By Jove, he's got it! :smile:
Quoting ArtemisWhich would be an example of what some Abrahamists focus on: the onmi traits, interpreting them as mathematically perfect qualities, rather than expressive comparative qualities. That is compared to us God is unbelievably X, rather than infinitely X setting up paradoxes. Now those theists who can't let go of a rather odd turn by certain theologians certainly bear half of the responsibility for the importance all the omni discussions between atheists and theists. But the whole thing should embarrass both sides.
Only insofar as the atheist would be embarrassed having to justify not believing in the Jabberwocky.
The Jabberwocky, and Santa, and most of those mythical/made up beings supposedly possess supernatural abilities.
And if that's not your point, please explain how atheists would be embarrassed? Because it doesn't make sense so far.
You still haven't explained why in your view atheists should be embarrassed.
Are you getting older or in some kind of trouble? Both seem to have an effect on belief in God.
There seems to be a pattern in belief in the supernatural.
As young children you believe unquestioningly - taught by parents and preachers.
As you become adults you doubt. The world isn't a good place to find evidence for the divine. In fact I'd say it's full of counter evidence.
Then such adults run into trouble or age. As death closes in or danger knocks on the door we suddenly find our faith restored and start praying.
I hope you're not one of these people. I'm quite sure this is a genuine inquiry intended to find the real truth.
I too am on such a path and to be frank I haven't discovered anything worthwhile except the pattern I described above.
What is the truth then?
Hard to say given philosophers now seem to be quarrelling about the very meaning of truth. The question itself loses its force.
It's not that philosophy makes us doubt the map. In fact philosophy and science and all that we call knowledge make us question our very selves.
Everything is in dubious. Even the person who is doubting.
In such a landscape of complete skepticism it seems that to find truth, whatever that means, is nigh impossible.
That said how can a soldier doubt the bullet that kills him?
Perhaps Buddha was right in telling the victim of a poisoned arrow that he (victim) allow the Buddha to treat his wound rather than provide detailed information about the trajectory of the arrow, its construction and the background details of the man who shot him.
Perhaps you are like me or anyone else on a path to discovery but from what I've learned truth is not a person and doesn't care if it makes you happy or not. We should probably consider an old adage: truth is bitter.
Ironically enough I was contemplating doing a new thread called the dangers of extremism: atheism versus fundamentalism.
Meaning unfortunately if you are a positive atheist then one could argue that you've become or are considered an extremist, much like the fundamentalist. On the surface I know that sounds a bit disparaging however when you put yourself in a position of declaring a God doesn't exist, then it would be considered just another form of a religious belief system/Religion.
So when you asked the question whether there are any logical strategic arguments to support your cause, that's what you're left with.
Anti-slavery abolitionists were also considered extremists. It's not always a bad thing.
For sure there are exceptions. I'm not denying that. I probably should have clarified appropriately.
However in this instance, 911 comes to mind . We know that was a result of religious extremism or fundamentalism... .
The common element (to both sides) is human sentience. Einstein was quoted that essentially if it was not for that component of human existence there would be no religion.
Personally, I would advocate for Spirituality instead.
These are too easy targets, since each dishonestly claims truth for sure, 100%. To reclaim integrity, both would have to reduce to being agnostic.
Perhaps just do a thread on the probability for 'God' or against, since that's all people have to work with who don't want to sit on a fence.
Quoting 3017amen
Yes, this is what I mean, in depth and having some meat.
Right on my brother !
Yeah there are so many threads going around in my head I don't know where to begin. I feel strongly about doing the tree of life new paradigm thread, so I'm torn right now. I want to make a case and not just ask a question since I feel really strongly about the need for us to embrace more of a so-called sophisticated thinking/process. People have been damaged emotionally from Fundy interpretation.
Anyway my short response to your comment is that in my studies and travels and experience there are more clues tipping the scales towards a suggestion of a designer universe than not.
Thank you again!
One tree of life for all creatures? That seems to be well known.
Quoting 3017amen
That could be a thread that doesn't just ask a question but promotes a position.
Quoting 3017amen
joke: Fundy - Fundamentals - Fun with da mentals.
You present an argument against religious extremism, but I'm not sure that logic applies to atheism.
Sure in logical terms it's called positive atheism.
For example when an atheist makes a statement to declare that God doesn't exist they put themselves into an analogous ontological argument conundrum (and dubious position of defending same).
I'm sure you're familiar with purely a priori reasoning... . Deductive logic won't get you there. It's inductive logic and reasoning that is not only essential to science but also to many aspects of living life aka the human condition.
You're kind of all over the place here.
It's one thing to call atheism extremism, another to imply there is a connection between atheist extremism and theist fundamentalist violence, and then a totally other subject to talk about the supposed logical conundrums of atheist epistemology.
Yes, as truth-claimers either way will always be asked to show/prove their declarations in such a sure and final way that the sensible listeners have to drop all resistance and can't help to convert to the sure thing shown. I do realize that some, whose brains cannot learn or change, may still try to deny and cling to their unshowable position. Some still go for a flat Earth, even.
So, then, both black and white fiats of God or no God are extreme positions. It is no matter if either position leads to more or less violence. Any absolute position on any not showable subject will run into trouble, much of this self caused by the dishonest sureity proclaimed, for what opposes it will be seen to be not right, or evil, even, or at least as seeming to undermine the credibility of the sure thing by the very existence of some thinking otherwise. These kinds of 'goods' are flawed, as they produce fake 'evils'.
Yep, you got it Poetic Universe!!
You know someone said that all things are relative in life.... and your sentiments speak to that.
in a similar way it kind of reminds me of the law of attraction...know what I mean Vern LOL!?
Does that appear a little unsettling to you? Feel free to specifically ask me a question if you care to...
Unsettling? Only in the sense of it being minorly annoying to try to have a conversation about x and then your interlocutor switching to y.
LOL, well let me help a little bit. The ontological argument for the existence of God posits God's existence through a priori reasoning alone.
Atheists posit God does not exist.
Does that help?
I understand that perfectly well. It has nothing to do with the violent nature of extremism you were purporting.
Are you sure about that?
In my travels I've seen atheists get pretty angry. And in my travels I've seen fundies get pretty angry.
However I would share your concern if it relates to religious wars throughout history.
Daydreams pierce the noise of consciousness,
To reveal that which is best for us; yes,
Mere aspiration halves realization;
What we have now was once a dream, no less.
Throughout the day, we’re living out the dream,
Drifting on air, aloft in the day-beam,
Causing, when condensing in night’s dark stream,
Many more such wondrous dreams, it would seem.
We construct the world that our dreams require,
One moulded closer to the heart’s desire.
In this world body of the soul inspired,
We’ll live life entire before we expire.
Close your eyes and realize the light within;
Allow visualization to begin;
This attracts into your life: dreams, wishes,
And desires—all that you would believe in!
Dreams become imagination’s command;
The impossible we now understand.
To know that dreams can come true makes them so.
A real fantasyland is being planned.
Success blossoms out of the thoughtful dream,
Grown from seeds of what life to us should seem,
Then bears forth fruit, healthy and delicious,
In the garden watered by the wishing stream.
I'm totally inspired Poetic Universe!
I love it!
In a similar vein, what would science be without a sense of wonder(?).
In fact that begs the question does a sense of wonderment confer survival in the jungle?
Or is it just Jungle Love LOL.
(Sorry, I could not refrain.)
To future columns, we stretch our present row,
By a lifeline of tenuously spun vow.
Oh, how soon the weighted web begins to fail;
The only real time under our feet is now.
Breathe in all that’s good, breathe out all that’s bad;
Peace flows into you—it’s warm, wet, and glad.
Feel it spread throughout the body, then say,
‘This is the best life that I’ve ever had!’
Daydreams are filled with thoughts on promenade:
Wishes, fantasies o’er the mind cascade.
Listen well to these plans already made,
For by sundown the phantom shapes may fade.
World does not pass by; you pass through it.
Clear your being so the treasure may arrive;
This spirit sparkles of a different light,
The gemstones are of a different mine.
I've seen spiritualists and agnostics get pretty angry too. What's your point?
Not you as well? :gasp:
Is this "evidence" of a standard that scientists or philosophers would consider acceptable? Or is it more of the 'there's no evidence for, so it must be false' type of (logically fallacious) reasoning? :chin:
Sorry for not getting back to you sooner. In the context of our discussion about Fundy v. Atheism, think about what the OP was asking, and why he was asking for strategic guidance.
When it comes to debating Christian Apologetics, that anger and frustrated usually comes from the simple concept known as the 'sin of pride'.
That's another reason to choose inductive reasoning as a better approach.
Or another tool would be pondering natural selection, and the mysteries associated with the nature of things namely our consciousness. Or other Existential phenomena.
I'm guessing you are atheist so I assumed you've looked at all that...
Yep good points! It's like saying I know the mind of God ( and his/it's nature).
In a secular sense, we sure feel embarrassed when we make certain assumptions about each other...in that sense there's little difference here.
I don't see any non-omnipotent alternatives to the mythology of a divine creator of all things.
Perhaps you should explain more what you think a theism/spiritualism would look like sans omni-powers.
Also, it remains that pointing out that omnipotence is silly (as atheists do) is not embarrassing. Or, if it is, then you should be embarrassed right now, because all your argument comes down to is siding with the atheists as far as that argument goes (omni-potence as an illogical and useless concept).
Just curious, are you absolutely sure that things seemingly illogical are useless?
Coben was asserting something along those lines actually.
As for me, I think they serve some purposes. Finding out what is illogical helps you figure out what is false, and can help you find out what is logical and move you toward truth.
And things that are only seemingly illogical are obviously useful, because that would of course imply that they are actually logical in some way.
Not aware of any of the polytheisms and what their gods are like: look into the Greeks or see what Odin has to deal with. Or even the God of the old testament - getting pissed off or competing with lucifer - or even Jesus feeling forsaken on the cross, or the complexities of the HIndu deities, on indigenous versions of God or gods, that can have all sorts of versions of deities and creators? Never heard of the demiurge? I've met plenty of theists from all sorts of religions who do not believe in mathematical and infinity type perfections that must lead to paradoxes, and that includes even Christians. I'm not going to walk you through the variety of versions of God or gods out there. Especially since you couldn't even bother to read the original post but decided to get triggered by part of a single sentence in it.Quoting ArtemisThe debate is, as I said, in the way it is framed and tends to be considered by both sides (and by omni I meant the range of omnis, not just omnipotence, especially given that they often are using in conjunction in the debates.)Quoting ArtemisI didn't argue that. I didn't come down on the side of atheists, I judge those who who think they are disproving God or theism in general when they play with the theists around the omni words. And yes, I think those theists who play that game are being silly too. Which I said in the orginal post. But you seemed to only manage to see the word atheists and couldn't bother to read the post. What is it with theists and atheists like you just playing these smug little games?
What, are you a child?
Quoting ArtemisNo, don't speak for me. It should be obvious that if it takes five or six posts, and only when I repeat myself that you actually notice a portion of what I wrote, you're not the right person to represent me to third parties.
I don't respect the way you post or fail to read or decide to represent me and then in that post smugly imply you have a better way of thinking about something when making up my position. May you find and debate or snark with theists as silly as you are. You're not interested in discussion, just points and jabs.
I won't read you or respond to you again.
Sure Taoism is alive and well viz. Yin-Yang.
Did you know that you yourself are illogical? Think about the fact that you can drive a car and negotiate turns, navigate through traffic while computing 2 + 2=4 (among other things) in your mind and not crash.
Are you not simultaneously doing two things at one time defying the formal rules of logic?
Well that escalated quickly. :roll:
I see what you mean, but I don't think that defies the rules of logic the way you think it does. I think you're referring to the law of non-contradiction, but that doesn't really apply to multi-tasking.
So, while it is true that an apple cannot be both all green and all red at the same time, apples are perfectly capable (logically and in reality) of being part green and part red.
Back to your driving whilst calculating example, I can do both at the same time, because different parts of my brain are at work at the same time. My spatial awareness, motor memory, etc. are involved with driving, while another part of my brain is doing math. Not all of my brain is focused on the road, and not all of my brain is focused on the math.
But note that if a child were to suddenly jump in front of my car, I would focus solely on driving and engage in some attempt to avoid the child and abandon the math, because I would need all of my attention for the task at hand. Likewise, I can only do mental math up to a point in the car. I could not calculate lengthy algorithms regarding quantum theory while driving--at least, if I did, I might be so distracted from driving that I don't even notice the child....bad news all around!
And I'm using my cell phone, listening to the radio, conversing with passengers, eating a candy bar, smoking a cigarette, rolling a joint, steering with my knee, and writing this post on a tablet.
Oops! You just took out a family of four.
LOL... Thanks to Artemis for that lucid example.
Ok, so was it true you were driving or true you were not driving, while computing math in your mind?
All I saw was you driving. Is that some sort of subjective truth or something only you experience?
I don't know, for I was also picking something up from the floor and drinking a beer.
It would have been objectively true that I was driving (though all objective statements are made with fallibalism in mind).
The math would have been my subjective experience, though it would have been objectively true that subject A (me) was having the subjective experience X (math).
Are religious experiences a subjective truth then?
You mean like a vision of Jesus? I can believe that such subjective experiences are true whilst maintaining that the experience itself may not have been:
Subject B may well believe to have had a religious experience (objective truth), and s/he may have had a subjective experience of some kind (also objectively true), but whether that experience was an objectively true, independently real "Jesus" is not clear or proven.
Ok we're getting closer I think but I want to understand:
A voice like God spoke to me last night. Is that true or false? Is it both a subjective and objective truth?
What I'm saying is false. Is that true?
If you believe you're telling the truth, then it's true that you had an experience which you believe was God speaking to you. It might be objectively false that he did speak to you, though, and your subjective experience has other objectively true explanations.
If you are lying, then it is true that you are lying, but then it is false that you had this experience.
So it sounds like you don't really know then right?
While it is true that I couldn't judge the objective truth or falsity of the existence of a deity on your subjective testimony alone, your subjective testimony is not all that I have available to me to test the hypothesis of God.
You can't decide if it's A or B, you're in the middle as it were. Are you breaking that rule?
If not, sounds like subjective experiences are real to people nonetheless.
As for not being able to deal with the arguments theists throw at you, why not take seriously that this is because they're good arguments?
:up: :smile: They embarrass me, anyway.
Okay are you seeing that gradations of Truth from consciousness is illogical in the sense of defying the law of contradiction, yet normal? Could we argue the same when humans say I don't know or they are undecided about a proposition?
After all building a computer doesn't have a middle ground, and if it does it will lock up.
Gradations of objective and subjective truths I submit, breaks the rule yet happens all the time in our cognition.
Or back to your consciousness; gradations of subconscious and conscious cognition?
In any event I apologize you said you have other tools available to you to test the hypothesis of the existence of God can you please share those?
I suppose all roads will lead back to deductive reasoning not helping the atheist support their belief. It's inductive reasoning that is more compelling....and make the debate more meaningful for both sides.
I'm not sure gradations is the right word here, but maybe explain what you mean more before I comment on that.
It's been awhile since I studied all the various forms of formal/modal logic, but from memory, when it comes to human condition kinds of things (AKA consciousness and perception) you have to drop the law of excluded middle.
For instance when something is perceived it is both object-ive and subject-ive, like it normally is perceived. It is computed in our consciousness as a mix of both. Meaning, during our normal cognitive thinking process it's not a simple 50-50 split; it might be a gradation of the two where it's .333 subjective and .667 objective, or the opposite, et.al. Like playing and listening to music. (Or experiencing the phenomena of Love.)
On a human scale, it's related to blending the dichotomy instead of defaulting to either A or B. Maslow and Kierkegaard talk extensively about how living life is A and B; not A or B. Of course there are always exceptions. But unfortunately we are taught that living life should be either/or.
Anyway my layman's take on it. And if that makes sense, it follows that we are an illogical mix of things.
And that goes back to why deductive logic (the ontological argument) doesn't work for both sides. Question is how do we proceed?
Interesting take, but this just goes back to what I said previously about the red/green apple. Logic tells us that the apple cannot be both all green and all red at the same time. But logic also allows that some of the apple can be green and some of the apple can be red.
That's just basic Aristotelian logic/square of oppositions stuff though.
Unless subjective and objective truth are each somehow all encompassing while at the same time being mutually exclusionary (which I think I've shown they are not) there is nothing illogical about them existing simultaneously.
I'll take the challenge and debate this with you further for sure. But real quickly, what if the apple that was painted red/green as you say, is spinning. How would we know it's truth? Would it be a different color while it's spinning?
It would be true that it appears to be a different color, but it wouldn't really be. It would be an optical illusion.
Interesting so you agree that life , (the nature of existing things) is illogical ? Or maybe define what you mean by illusion.
Just so I'm clear, I would be happy to start another thread if your position is that this life is completely logical with no mysteries.
We can start another thread if you like.
There's nothing illogical about illusions. Not sure why you would think that either.
...please see https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/6574/life-and-existence-logical-or-illogical-or-both-or-something-else