There is no more point arguing against anti-religious prejudice than there is against religious prejudice

I disagree. While there is no way to come to a resolution, such arguing often enables me to clarify for myself my position, arguments for and against, and objections. But there does come a point in which no more benefit is to be gained from a particular exchange.

He writes on, defends, and calls us back to, the "Perennial Philosophy, in The Heart of Philosophy

Ah, but does such debate "strengthen and maintain" spirit?

Are you familiar with Jacob Needleman?

Yes. According to Heidegger, in What Is Metaphysics?, the fundamental problem is "Why is there something rather than nothing?" He ruins the question by proceeding to reflect on "the Nothing".

What do you think? Marcel or Heidegger (or someone else)?

I am God

No, you're not. Not by any means.

Whoa!!

Elohim in Genesis 1 seems very different, less anthropomorphic, than the YHWH of Genesis 2 and Exodus 3

Beiser is good.

.

what is the value of philosophy?

Hmm. I think of Philosophy as having both intrinsic and extrinsic value. Extrinsic value because, if done right, it leads to clarity of though, removal of biases, and a gradual approach to truth. For me, doing philosophy also has intrinsic value--because it is so much fun!!

Good point

Because when we value something we are viewing it in a certain way, as having certain features. This might help determine whether there is anything that objectively fits that way of thinking. And that would be "a value".

Perhaps what we need to do is to tie intrinsic value to needs not wants.

To me value is just what we value, not what we desire

Which brings us to a central question: "What is it to value something?"

To me value is just what we value, not what we desire

I couldn't agree with you more, and in fact, I have argued so in print.

.

I think that there is a wider and a narrower sense of 'desire'. The wider sense tells us nothing about WHAT motivates us, but only THAT we are so motivated. This sense, for which we also use the term "want", is the one which we use when it is claimed that everything we do intentionally, we must have wanted to do in some way, other wise we wouldn't have done it. See Ways of Desire.

I'd put the first appearnce of an eternal realm separate from the physical world in Plato. Although he called the Forms "divine", they weren't in any sense "gods".

The appearance of (a) God separate from the world seems to me to be, in the West, to occur in Genesis 1. God existed separate from the world and created the world. To say that God is separate from the world does not rule out his interacting with the world. What it does rule out is both Pantheism and totally immanent deities.

1. Regarding ‘Theism’ as short for “Classical Theism”. Let me stipulate that when I used the term ‘Theism’, I thought it would be understood as meaning “Classical Theism”, which is defined as I indicated. But whether you accept that usage or not, it is the way philosophers working in the Philosophy of Religion have used it. To illustrate this, go to Amazon.com and under books, enter “Theism” to see books in print that focus on Classical Theism, but use the shorter term. Some of the books are philosophy; others are theology.
2. My definition of Theism was simply meant to make clear what concept of God I was going to talk about and whose existence I was going to deny. I would like to bring our focus back to the question asked by the O.P.
3. My remarks about what concept of God was the focus of Western Philosophy was not in any way meant to suggest that philosophers should only address the concepts operating in their culture. It was a flippant attempt to explain why other forms of Theism, as well as other concepts of divinity, have not been given much, if any, attention.
4. Just in passing, I’d like to note that J. S, Mill wrote an essay titled “Theism” in which he argued against the Classical Theistic conception of God and argued for the existence of a more limited God who is unable to do anything about the Problem of Evil.

Sort of, but not exactly. If the Christian (and Muslim) God does not exist, I don't see any reason for positing a different kind of deity. So the question is what reasons are there for thinking that there is/are "lesser" dieties. I find J.S. Mill's argument for a more limited God unconvincing, as it relies on a First Cause Argument.

Another question that I think needs to be addressed is whether there is any reason for believing some "supernatural" dimension of reality exist. This question could be independent of that of any deiity. E.g., there could be reincarnation without any deities at all.

So, what reasons do you think there are for the existence of a divine being, and what type of divine being do those reasons support?

Since Western Philosophy occurs in a predominantly Christian culture, and other forms of theism are not prevelent, it is Classical Theism that has received most of the attention.

Perhaps, then, I need to be more specific. What I gave as a definition of Theism IS the way in which it has been used in Philosophy. Since this is a Philosophy Forum, I thought it redundant to call it Philosophical Theism, also know as "Classical Theism"

Since you recommend Wikipedia as a scholarly source, let me refer you to the article there called "Classical Theism" here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_theism"

Since you have questioned my integrety as a professor, please do me the favor of reading that article.

Well then enlighten me. Having taught Philosophy of Religion for 25 years, I'd be very interested to learn what I have been doing wrong all those years

How would you distinguish Pantheism, e.g. Spinoza or Hegel, from Panpsychism?

BTW: Theism holds that God is separate from the world because God created the world.

I find 4 of Feser's arguments unconvincing because they rely so heavily on Thomistic metaphysics, which I find also unconvincing. His fifth argument, the Argument from PSR, holds most promise, but his dismissal of the Objection from Brute Facts seems to me to beg the question. I have posted on the first thread on Feser and started the thread on the 3rd Argument.

Exactly. The only problem with this stategy is that both the Cosmological and the Teleological Arguments fail. (Despite the contortions of Edward Feser in his Five Proofs of the Existence of God.)

The Evidential Argument in effect asks "Which is more reasonable: (1) the amount and distribution of evil and suffering is all necessary (for God's plans) OR (2) There is no God.?"

Yes.

There are two "Arguments from Evil": a logical one and an evidential one. The Logical Argument from Evil in one form is invalid; in its valid form, it begs the question. The Evidential Argument from Evil is, I think, a serious problem for Theism.

The distribution of suffering and evil. And I find the "Free Will Defense" particularly unconvincing. In fact, I think it creates more problems for Theism than it is supposed to solve.

'Theism' as it is used in Philosophy of Religion is the view that there is one supreme, perfect being who exists separately from the world, who is the creator and sustainor of the universe, who is conscious to the degree of being all-knowing; who is all-powerful, all and ever present, eternal, unchanging, existing necessarily, dependent of nothing else. In addition, Theism maintains that this being, who is called "God", loves and is concerned about humanity. It is claimed that Theism, as here understood, stands at the core of the three Abrahamic religions: Judaism, Christianity, and Islam.

So, the question that arises is "Are there any good reasons for thinking that such a being is real?" Depending on what you mean by "good reason", most Theists answer that question with a "Yes there are". The question then morphs into "Just what are these reasons and do they consititute "good" reasons?"

I maintain that there are no good reasons for thnking Theism is true and some plausible reasons for thinking it is false. If I am right, then most forms of Judaism, Chistianity, and Islam are wrong.

Panpsychism is one philosophical route to a kind of theism.

Panpsychism is not a kind of Theism at all, and I'm not sure what route one would take to go from Panpsychism to Theism.

Just a FYI, so that if outside of this Forum you see the phrase "Socratic Paradox", you'll recognize what is at issue.

One of the questions that motivated Plato in his Republic is the question "How can one be mentally healthy in (mentally) sick society?" (Or so it seems to me.)

Note that in the academic scholarship on both Socrates and Plato, Socrates' claim to know that he knows nothing is NOT referred to as "the Socratic Paradox". The Socratic Paradox is "No one does evil knowingly (willingly)*."

*The Greeks of Plato's time did not have a concept of Will separate from that of knowing. That only arrives on the scene with the Stoics.

Plato had a theory of what might be called "psychic harmony", where all the elements of the psyche worked in harmony and did not interfere with each other. And this he called "Justice", but we could call "mental health". For both Plato and Aristotle, irrational behavior was a sign that something was wrong in the individual, the self. Although neither had a explicit concept of mental health, it seems clear that what they were talking about is what we call mental health. It has the odd consequence in their philosophies that a person who acts immorally does so because of a mental health problem.

Although someone named "Wisdom" quoting Ken Wilber makes me wonder.

The answer to the question "What Is Value?" needs to focus on Intrinsic Value. Utility is only extrinsic value. Something is useful only if it leads to something (intrinsically) value*. The question raises the concern that the only thing(s) that are intrinsically valuable are certain human experiences, and thus "Value" has no "objectivity". On this view, the value of a work of art, e.g., is not how much we are willing to pay for it, but whether experiencing it gives us aesthetic pleasure. Like the sound of the falling tree, we can ask whether the sunset would still be beautiful is no one was there to appreciate it. Objectivists might say "yes", while Subjectivists "No".

*Note that in the Nichomachean Ethics, Aristotle tells us that if there is not something valuable, desireable, in itself, then our life is in vain.

So feel free to correct me on my Platonism

Your Platonism might require you to change your identity, from "Mystic Monist" to "Mystic Dualist".

you do not understand what he is saying, and never even take a book of transcendental epistemology to read

Does Husserl count? I have taken several graduate seminars just on Husserl and have used Cartesian Meditations in my own courses.

But if he is arguing for a transcendental position, rather than for solipsism, then maybe I misunderstood him. But based on his response, I think not.

I thought it was an edifying thought that what is ethical can be thought to be conducive to a sound and healthy mind?

Ah, reminds me of Plato. So the immoral person is mentally ill?

Religious language must get its meaning from extending that of ordinary speech. In ordinary language, 'faith' means "trust", as "to have faith in the American judicial system". The primary locution is "faith in". Somehow, religionists have focused instead on the locution "faith that", meaning believing that something is true, usually without evidence, or at least sufficient evidence. The original religious notion of faith was "faith in God", meaning to trust God. In this sense of faith, the existence of God is not in question; it is a given.