Reply to Jeremiah
Some Christian philosophers including Alvin Plantinga tried to offer a slogan like 'Faith and Rationality'. Plantinga claims that theistic beliefs are basic or rational. (I disagree with him.)
Some atheists like Richard Dawkins used to say that atheists can be spiritual. They think that naturalists like them can be spiritual.
Some atheists like Christopher HItchens may deny any spiritual or supernatural things...
Reply to Jeremiah
I think that religious beliefs are not basic. There is no evidence that religious beliefs are rational. I think that atheists can be spiritual. The whole scenario fabricated by Christian theologians has nothing to do with spirituality.
Reply to Jeremiah
I think that Plantinga is a skillful and technical philosopher. Plantinga is known as one among top 4 possible worlds theoreticians (the others are Lewis, Kripke, Stalnaker, anyway).
If the most important thing in philosophy is clarity, then Plantinga is a good philosopher. He deserves to be spoken as the best philosopher of religion. However, most of his conclusions are somewhat ridiculous. So, I disagree with his opinions.
I did this with another thread, and it is interesting to compare the differences.
Here is one of the better replies. I would be interested to see what people here think of what Sunstone had to say.
[QUOTE="Sunstone, post: 5012843, member: 499"]The mystical experience of oneness, which is sometimes interpreted as an experience of god, and which comes about when subject/object perception abruptly ceases while some sort of experiencing continues, is certainly not confined to any single religious tradition or practice. Doesn't matter whether you're Christian, Hindu, Muslim, Jewish, Buddhist, Daoist, or from some other tradition -- that experience seems to be at its core something that can occur to anyone. However, how one interprets the experience, what they think it was all about -- whether, for instance, one thinks it is an experience of some god or not -- tends to depend on the predominant tradition or practice that one comes from.[/QUOTE]
This was my response to his post:
[QUOTE="Jeremiahcp, post: 5012919, member: 61265"]Are the interpretations necessarily exclusive due to religious views? Or is it possible that one person can interpret it many different ways regardless of their beliefs? Then it is further possible for a person to interpret it many different ways, but only accept one of those interpretations?[/QUOTE]
As Einstein said of himself, at the moment, I am a deeply religious non-believer. That is, I meditate, pray, practice celibacy, and try to emulate Jesus, the Buddha, and other religious figures, but I do not formally belong to any church or religion and cannot bring myself to believe in certain dogmas sensu proprio. I think, given my temperament and intellectual trajectory, I will either remain a religious, non-believing hermit, as I am now, or will formally convert to Roman Catholicism, Eastern Orthodoxy, or Buddhism.
Reply to Thorongil That is not what Einstein said.
He even clarified this.
“It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it.”
Reply to m-theory But he's not really refuting the phrase I used. Read your quote again. Obviously, what he means by "religious" is not what I mean by it. That's why I clarified what I mean by it in the very next sentence in my post.
I am pretty sure that this was not something he had said himself, even if it is something that was said of him.
I am, too. Now don't make me repeat myself again, ffs, man.
anonymous66December 31, 2016 at 19:21#428020 likes
I've been reading Max Jammer's (love that name!) Einstein and Religion: Physics and Theology. It's a great book, if you want to understand Einstein's view of God and Religion. He didn't believe in a personal God and did not follow any religion, but he was not an atheist. He believed in an impersonal God and strict determinism. He referred to his belief system as a cosmic religion.
Sunstone, post: 5012843, member: 499:The mystical experience of oneness, which is sometimes interpreted as an experience of god, and which comes about when subject/object perception abruptly ceases while some sort of experiencing continues, is certainly not confined to any single religious tradition or practice.
The analytic in me would like to suggest that there is no way of knowing whether the variety of experiences encompassed under this single description really can be grouped together. They are generally grouped together by people who believe there is a profound meaning in 'the mystical experience of oneness' as they interpret it.
Personally I've experienced something like that, and I regard it as an illusion. Pluralism can be spiritual too. I enjoy the pluralism of sciences or of multi-deity religions, the multitude of nature and of works of art and humanity. I am distrustful of One God One Truth, and it strikes me that some science-as-the-ultimate believers are as guilty of a univocal view as monotheists: that there's a single theory of everything behind the plurality we seemingly experience.
If the experience shapes the belief (or "interpretation") the experience would be accessible to all; however, if the belief shapes the experience than it would be exclusive to that belief.
But that would raise a few more questions: Does one belief lead to one experience or is there more than one path? Does a belief have to be accepted as true or can it be assumed for the purpose of the experience?
Also, this does not fully address the other half of the question: Are there any rationales that are exclusive to a person because of their religious views or lack of religious views?
I never said nor meant to imply that he did these things. I was talking about myself,
It would be a good idea to change the first sentence of that post, because it reads to me as well as though you are quoting Einstein. The best option would be to leave Einstein out of it altogether. He is probably the second most quoted source after the Bible in religious arguments and, just like the bible, one can always find a quote that supports either side of an argument.
"Rational Theist" seems to be a contradiction in terms.
"Spiritual Atheist" sure if by "Spiritual", deeply felt connection with others is meant, Oscar Wilde in his last work De Profundis , which was written while he was in prison wrote:
When I think of religion at all, I feel as if I would like to found as order for those who cannot believe: the Confraternity of the Faithless, one might call it, when on an altar, on which no taper bured, a priest, in whose heart peace had no dwelling, might celebrate with unblessed bread and chalice empty of wine. Everything to be true must become religion. And agnosticism should have its ritual no less than faith.
The striking statement in this is "Everything to be true must become a religion" The meaning of the word true is not in its logical sense, its sense is existential.
Religion is a system of beliefs, that strongly affect those who believe. It provides believers with an order of practice, a way of living along side others who practice similar beliefs.
That's no argument. We all have beliefs that we may not be able to justify. I am saying in principal god can't be justified on a rational basis, god is kinda a paradigm case man.
Theist are people; theism is the belief in god. It is one thing to say theism is not rational, but to say theist are not rational is to say anyone who believes in god is not a rational person.
Of course, people are people are people are people.
Terrapin StationJanuary 02, 2017 at 10:41#433840 likes
I can't conceive of religious beliefs not having a rational component. That's because I wouldn't even characterize them as beliefs without a rational component. However, note that all that I take "rational" to refer to in this context is the process of taking intuitions, other beliefs, empirical data and so on to have implications (that one then assents to when we're talking about belief). I don't see rationality as referring to any particular beliefs in a normative manner.
Re "spiritual atheists," I see the term "spiritual" as extremely vague and flighty, but sure, depending on how one defines it, there can easily be "spiritual" atheists. I've had a few different people in the past say that they saw me as being "spiritual" even though I'm an atheist, although it was never clear to me what they meant.
Terrapin StationJanuary 02, 2017 at 10:45#433850 likes
You'd have in mind something very different than I do by "rationality" if you don't consider Aquinas' five proofs, for example, to be examples of rational justifications for belief in God.
Aquinas:1. Our senses prove that some things are in motion.
2. Things move when potential motion becomes actual motion.
3. Only an actual motion can convert a potential motion into an actual motion.
4. Nothing can be at once in both actuality and potentiality in the same respect (i.e., if both actual and potential, it is actual in one respect and potential in another).
5. Therefore nothing can move itself.
6. Therefore each thing in motion is moved by something else.
7. The sequence of motion cannot extend ad infinitum.
8. Therefore it is necessary to arrive at a first mover, put in motion by no other; and this everyone understands to be God.
The question isn't whether that proves that God exists--obviously I don't think it does, otherwise I wouldn't be an atheist. The question is whether you wouldn't say that that is a rational basis for Aquinas' belief in God.
And if you wouldn't say that that's a rational basis for Aquinas' belief in God, then I have to wonder what the heck "rational" denotes to you. To me, "rational" denotes exactly the sort of thinking that Aquinas demonstrates in that proof.
Reply to Terrapin Station Sure I like his arguments, and the rational discussion that follows since in many ways I think the concept of god outlines the boundaries of human knowledge. However, if you tell me something, and I doubt you then you ought to be able to prove it, if you can't then does not seem to me that you can maintain it as a rational position, it's a non-rational/magical belief, which is what I think the concept of god entails.
Terrapin StationJanuary 02, 2017 at 14:39#434190 likes
What I'm asking you is whether you wouldn't say that his argument is rational.
For example, aren't these two sentences in conjunction an example of rational thinking:
Aquinas:4. Nothing can be at once in both actuality and potentiality in the same respect (i.e., if both actual and potential, it is actual in one respect and potential in another).
It was just a lighthearted comment. I'll be skipping celibacy, thank you. :-)
I know lighthearted comments are taboo in most threads. We're supposed to be "debating" like it's serious business, but I don't always follow rules. :-)
His concepts are rational, their result don't prove god.
Right, but whether it succeeds in proving God is irrelevant for whether it's rational, no? Whether it's rational hinges on whether it involves implicational/inferential reasoning, and this does.
No, I think it is very relevant. If the concept can't be rationally circumscribed, you can use all the rational arguments at your disposal...to my way of thinking that does not change that the conclusion that this process's attempt to encompass a concept that is beyond reason by reason is not a contradiction.
Terrapin StationJanuary 02, 2017 at 17:41#434860 likes
If the concept can't be rationally circumscribed, you can use all the rational arguments at your disposal.
But then you've got rational arguments, so it's rational.
As I asked a number of times, if you don't agree that "rational" refers to simply implicational/inferential reasoning, what do you take it to refer to? Surely not "conclusions that I agree with/that I believe are correct."
We seem to be talking a bit past each other here. I am suggesting that "Rational Theist" is a contradiction in terms because I don't think that the Theistic belief can be reasoned. You seem to be arguing that Theism is rational because it employs rational arguments. I don't think being a "Rational Theist" is a rational position, it seems to deny itself, in spite of utilizing rational arguments.
Terrapin StationJanuary 02, 2017 at 18:29#435230 likes
I am suggesting that "Rational Theist" is a contradiction in terms because I don't think that the Theistic belief can be reasoned. You seem to be arguing that Theism is rational because it employs rational arguments.
I'm more of an atheist myself, but I don't think theism is necessarily irrational. I will agree that many particular variety of theism are hard to defend.
But then the notion of "reason" is blurry. We can soften it to something like commitment to use persuasion rather than force (maybe too soft) or sharpen/harden it to a sort of absolute faculty that ends up functioning as a sort of replacement for God. Just about everyone thinks that reason is on their side, so we end up with a never-finished "theology" of Reason, which is to say an endless debate about what is truly reasonable and therefore (for philosophers attached to seeing themselves as particularly reasonable agents) authoritative.
Terrapin StationJanuary 02, 2017 at 21:23#435550 likes
Realism requires it. Without it, objects wouldn't be anything without us thinking about them.
Though, this doesn't mean there isn't a way we think about objects. Our thoughts about objects are always that, which is how we can be wrong about them-- the way we think about an object is mistaken because we don't grasp its logical expression.
Hi, I am an agnostic, and I don't think the god has being. What does it mean to talk about that which is not. It may be said, but what is said means logically, rationally, nothing.
Reply to Cavacava
Someone could argue that there is another kind of conscious being with a body not like our own who indeed created the universe we know within a larger universe. Maybe this being has preferences for how humans ought to behave. Maybe it delighted this being to create reduced copies of its own consciousness in a different kind of body than its own using some kind of technology that exceeds our own. Maybe the truth is stranger than fiction. One could argue that it's not rational to act upon bare possibility. I agree. But I still think we aren't completely rational beings. We inherit certain beliefs and have to be motivated to change them. Communities can be understood in terms of shared norms for valid inferences. While I appreciate universal reason as an ideal to strive toward, I can't help but notice how it functions as a sort of God in terms of its authority and association with virtue. In short, rationality is perhaps not itself some crystal-clear thing one can have on one's side. (Or perhaps it's just wise to see that developing the content of "rationality" is non-trivial and ongoing.)
I don't disagree with what you have said, there is a lot more to life than logic/reason (this is easy to say, hard to convince), I suspect if his trace, it may be in the narratives of others who say they have experienced god. Some of these even outline plans, a description of stages the soul must pass through to become one with god. (Marguerite Porete' "The Mirror")
Of course these people were in love X-)
Terrapin StationJanuary 03, 2017 at 09:21#437350 likes
Comments (53)
Some Christian philosophers including Alvin Plantinga tried to offer a slogan like 'Faith and Rationality'. Plantinga claims that theistic beliefs are basic or rational. (I disagree with him.)
Some atheists like Richard Dawkins used to say that atheists can be spiritual. They think that naturalists like them can be spiritual.
Some atheists like Christopher HItchens may deny any spiritual or supernatural things...
I think that religious beliefs are not basic. There is no evidence that religious beliefs are rational. I think that atheists can be spiritual. The whole scenario fabricated by Christian theologians has nothing to do with spirituality.
I think that Plantinga is a skillful and technical philosopher. Plantinga is known as one among top 4 possible worlds theoreticians (the others are Lewis, Kripke, Stalnaker, anyway).
If the most important thing in philosophy is clarity, then Plantinga is a good philosopher. He deserves to be spoken as the best philosopher of religion. However, most of his conclusions are somewhat ridiculous. So, I disagree with his opinions.
https://www.religiousforums.com/threads/rational-theist-spiritual-atheist.194040/
I did this with another thread, and it is interesting to compare the differences.
Here is one of the better replies. I would be interested to see what people here think of what Sunstone had to say.
[QUOTE="Sunstone, post: 5012843, member: 499"]The mystical experience of oneness, which is sometimes interpreted as an experience of god, and which comes about when subject/object perception abruptly ceases while some sort of experiencing continues, is certainly not confined to any single religious tradition or practice. Doesn't matter whether you're Christian, Hindu, Muslim, Jewish, Buddhist, Daoist, or from some other tradition -- that experience seems to be at its core something that can occur to anyone. However, how one interprets the experience, what they think it was all about -- whether, for instance, one thinks it is an experience of some god or not -- tends to depend on the predominant tradition or practice that one comes from.[/QUOTE]
This was my response to his post:
[QUOTE="Jeremiahcp, post: 5012919, member: 61265"]Are the interpretations necessarily exclusive due to religious views? Or is it possible that one person can interpret it many different ways regardless of their beliefs? Then it is further possible for a person to interpret it many different ways, but only accept one of those interpretations?[/QUOTE]
He even clarified this.
I am pretty sure that this was not something he had said himself, even if it is something that was said of him.
I never said nor meant to imply that he did these things. I was talking about myself, which I have now said twice.
Quoting m-theory
I am, too. Now don't make me repeat myself again, ffs, man.
The analytic in me would like to suggest that there is no way of knowing whether the variety of experiences encompassed under this single description really can be grouped together. They are generally grouped together by people who believe there is a profound meaning in 'the mystical experience of oneness' as they interpret it.
Personally I've experienced something like that, and I regard it as an illusion. Pluralism can be spiritual too. I enjoy the pluralism of sciences or of multi-deity religions, the multitude of nature and of works of art and humanity. I am distrustful of One God One Truth, and it strikes me that some science-as-the-ultimate believers are as guilty of a univocal view as monotheists: that there's a single theory of everything behind the plurality we seemingly experience.
If the experience shapes the belief (or "interpretation") the experience would be accessible to all; however, if the belief shapes the experience than it would be exclusive to that belief.
But that would raise a few more questions: Does one belief lead to one experience or is there more than one path? Does a belief have to be accepted as true or can it be assumed for the purpose of the experience?
Also, this does not fully address the other half of the question: Are there any rationales that are exclusive to a person because of their religious views or lack of religious views?
It would be a good idea to change the first sentence of that post, because it reads to me as well as though you are quoting Einstein. The best option would be to leave Einstein out of it altogether. He is probably the second most quoted source after the Bible in religious arguments and, just like the bible, one can always find a quote that supports either side of an argument.
"Rational Theist" seems to be a contradiction in terms.
"Spiritual Atheist" sure if by "Spiritual", deeply felt connection with others is meant, Oscar Wilde in his last work De Profundis , which was written while he was in prison wrote:
The striking statement in this is "Everything to be true must become a religion" The meaning of the word true is not in its logical sense, its sense is existential.
Religion is a system of beliefs, that strongly affect those who believe. It provides believers with an order of practice, a way of living along side others who practice similar beliefs.
""Rational Theist" seems to be a contradiction in terms."
Are you seriously suggesting that a theist cannot be rational?
I don't think the belief in god can be rationally justified. You got one?
I am sure you have many irrational beliefs. Like the idea that theist cannot be rational. Try thinking about what you said.
That's no argument. We all have beliefs that we may not be able to justify. I am saying in principal god can't be justified on a rational basis, god is kinda a paradigm case man.
Theist are people; theism is the belief in god. It is one thing to say theism is not rational, but to say theist are not rational is to say anyone who believes in god is not a rational person.
Well, they do seem to be contradictory terms...reason versus magical thinking to put it in rationalistic terms.
I think you are clearly bias. I don't even believe in gods and I consider your argument absurd.
Everybody is irrational to some degree, we all suffer from cognitive biases.
Nobody is completely rational, and likely it is especially true of those that believe they are.
Well that should not be surprising being that there is a disagreement about what it is rational to believe.
Theist are not much better in my experience, and regard atheist as irrational for their lack of belief.
"Theist are not much better in my experience"
Of course, people are people are people are people.
Re "spiritual atheists," I see the term "spiritual" as extremely vague and flighty, but sure, depending on how one defines it, there can easily be "spiritual" atheists. I've had a few different people in the past say that they saw me as being "spiritual" even though I'm an atheist, although it was never clear to me what they meant.
Ummm . . . skip
You'd have in mind something very different than I do by "rationality" if you don't consider Aquinas' five proofs, for example, to be examples of rational justifications for belief in God.
You've got a definitive, rational proof for god?
Put it up.
Are you not familiar with Aquinas' five proofs?
Here's the first for example:
The question isn't whether that proves that God exists--obviously I don't think it does, otherwise I wouldn't be an atheist. The question is whether you wouldn't say that that is a rational basis for Aquinas' belief in God.
And if you wouldn't say that that's a rational basis for Aquinas' belief in God, then I have to wonder what the heck "rational" denotes to you. To me, "rational" denotes exactly the sort of thinking that Aquinas demonstrates in that proof.
What I'm asking you is whether you wouldn't say that his argument is rational.
For example, aren't these two sentences in conjunction an example of rational thinking:
His concepts are rational, their result don't prove god.
How can god be demonstrated in any reasoned argument?
My contention is the term 'rational theist' seems to me to be a contradiction in terms, since belief in god, can't be circumscribed by reason.
But if you're an atheist it doesn't follow you'd necessarily skip that. There are reasons other than religion for practicing celibacy.
What does this mean? I don't get it. You could have skipped responding to my post if you didn't like it for whatever reason.
It was just a lighthearted comment. I'll be skipping celibacy, thank you. :-)
I know lighthearted comments are taboo in most threads. We're supposed to be "debating" like it's serious business, but I don't always follow rules. :-)
Yes but to things which trouble you, you just have to respond you know ;)
Right, but whether it succeeds in proving God is irrelevant for whether it's rational, no? Whether it's rational hinges on whether it involves implicational/inferential reasoning, and this does.
No, I think it is very relevant. If the concept can't be rationally circumscribed, you can use all the rational arguments at your disposal...to my way of thinking that does not change that the conclusion that this process's attempt to encompass a concept that is beyond reason by reason is not a contradiction.
But then you've got rational arguments, so it's rational.
As I asked a number of times, if you don't agree that "rational" refers to simply implicational/inferential reasoning, what do you take it to refer to? Surely not "conclusions that I agree with/that I believe are correct."
We'd probably talk past each other less if you'd just tell me how you'd define "rational." What makes something rational in your view?
Alright, but it wasn't immediately apparent to me.
A thing that can be discussed, described, that judgements can be made about the thing based on what's known.
I'm more of an atheist myself, but I don't think theism is necessarily irrational. I will agree that many particular variety of theism are hard to defend.
But then the notion of "reason" is blurry. We can soften it to something like commitment to use persuasion rather than force (maybe too soft) or sharpen/harden it to a sort of absolute faculty that ends up functioning as a sort of replacement for God. Just about everyone thinks that reason is on their side, so we end up with a never-finished "theology" of Reason, which is to say an endless debate about what is truly reasonable and therefore (for philosophers attached to seeing themselves as particularly reasonable agents) authoritative.
Wait, so objects are what's rational in your view? Not the way we think about something?
Realism requires it. Without it, objects wouldn't be anything without us thinking about them.
Though, this doesn't mean there isn't a way we think about objects. Our thoughts about objects are always that, which is how we can be wrong about them-- the way we think about an object is mistaken because we don't grasp its logical expression.
Hi, I am an agnostic, and I don't think the god has being. What does it mean to talk about that which is not. It may be said, but what is said means logically, rationally, nothing.
:
Someone could argue that there is another kind of conscious being with a body not like our own who indeed created the universe we know within a larger universe. Maybe this being has preferences for how humans ought to behave. Maybe it delighted this being to create reduced copies of its own consciousness in a different kind of body than its own using some kind of technology that exceeds our own. Maybe the truth is stranger than fiction. One could argue that it's not rational to act upon bare possibility. I agree. But I still think we aren't completely rational beings. We inherit certain beliefs and have to be motivated to change them. Communities can be understood in terms of shared norms for valid inferences. While I appreciate universal reason as an ideal to strive toward, I can't help but notice how it functions as a sort of God in terms of its authority and association with virtue. In short, rationality is perhaps not itself some crystal-clear thing one can have on one's side. (Or perhaps it's just wise to see that developing the content of "rationality" is non-trivial and ongoing.)
I don't disagree with what you have said, there is a lot more to life than logic/reason (this is easy to say, hard to convince), I suspect if his trace, it may be in the narratives of others who say they have experienced god. Some of these even outline plans, a description of stages the soul must pass through to become one with god. (Marguerite Porete' "The Mirror")
Of course these people were in love X-)
??
Realism requires what?