It is a reminder and caution to those who elevate science over its purpose to a religion. And outside of fact or reason, by faith alone believe it can and will answer all human questions. — Rank Amateur

Thanks for putting this so clearly. :up: :smile:

So personally, I would advise direct observation of reality, as free from thought as possible. — Jake

Zen is about as close as you'll get with this. There's too much nonconscious stuff going on as we perceive reality for us to set it all aside. We cannot help but interpret what our senses send us. :confused:

My point was that we shouldn't be expecting religion to deliver accurate facts about reality. That's the job of science.

Religion's job is to help us manage our relationship with reality. This is something very different. Religion should be judged by whether it helps people build a positive relationship with this place we find ourselves in. — Jake

This is, or should be, what this thread's about. Religion is a spiritual matter. It has a sort of spiritual logic, although I shouldn't call it that. It's a bit misleading to refer to logic when I really mean to say that spiritual matters have their own internal consistency. Yes, that's a better way of putting it. :smile:

Just as various posters here have been saying to one another "you misunderstand what science is", it is reasonable to say to those who are debating the Objective existence of God - a pointless enterprise if I ever saw one - you misunderstand what religion/spirituality is. It has almost nothing in common with science. It does not deal in facts, and it does not deal in incontrovertible physical evidence or repeatable experiments. It deals in aspirations and beliefs. As Jake says (above) it "helps us manage our relationship with reality". It has great merit for many humans. I has no logical justification. It is a complement to science. It is not compulsory: use it if you wish, but not if you don't. :up: :smile:

The metaphysics that I’ve been proposing doesn’t have or need any assumption — Michael Ossipoff

I'm sorry, but I haven't followed every word you've written here. :blush: You have a metaphysics that doesn't have or need assumptions? What is this miracle of philosophy? If you don't want to repeat yourself (understandable :up: ) perhaps you could point me to the post(s) where your description lies? Thanks.

But that's because you don't know what science is. Of course there are assumptions, and they're usually known to be, and offered as, assumptions. — Michael Ossipoff

In fairness, they're often hidden, disguised as "axioms", when they are just assumptions; guesswork. Worse, we base further reasoning on these axioms, creating a house of cards, ready to fall as soon as the initial guess (axiom) proves unreliable. :meh: Assumptions on which we rely for further reasoning are, by far, the most dangerous sort of assumptions. All we need to do, to really drop ourselves in it, is to forget (even briefly) that our reasoning is based on sand. Then we're doomed. :smile:

I think you may be having trouble separating the concepts of spirituality and religion. — praxis

Me too. I see no significant difference between the two. :chin:

A religion cannot comprise of the simple notion that 'God exists'. — praxis

Agreed, but discussions such as we are having here inevitably converge on claims of God's [non-]existence. It's a shame. :confused:

Conversely, an entire [unscientific] meaning system could be behind the person who believes in the non-existence of God. There are non-theistic religions. — praxis

What point are you making here? I agree with both sentences, but don't understand how they relate to what I wrote:

An atheist who asserts the non-existence of God is occupying a faith position, in exactly the same way that a believer who asserts the existence of God is occupying a faith position. — Pattern-chaser

The person who asserts the [non-]existence of God goes beyond logic by going beyond the available evidence, and reaching a logically unjustified and unjustifiable position. Only the agnostic position can be logically justified. I am no different than anyone else here: despite what I just said about logic and agnosticism, I believe. And my belief has no logical justification. I'm human. But I'm honest ... about this, at least. :meh: :wink:

to be wise like Pattern Chaser — Jake

Bloody Hell! :rofl:

I haven't tried to justify the conclusion that there is no God — S

No?

There is compelling evidence to not believe in God, and that consists in the absence of compelling evidence to believe in God. — S

It looks to me as though that's exactly what you have argued. I'm sorry if I have misunderstood your position. It seems so clear.... :chin:

If the conscious mind is just familiar physical particles then physicists have detected it... — litewave

So you offer the possibility that the conscious mind has been unknowingly detected, more or less by coincidence, and this is your answer to why physicists can't seem to find the conscious mind, just as they can't seem to find souls? :chin:

But such a mind wouldn't survive the death of the physical body. — litewave

No, perhaps not. I do not claim that the soul and the conscious mind have anything more in common with one another than the simple observation I made: just like souls, physicists can't detect conscious minds either. I think there are other things too, that physicists can't detect. In some cases, that will surely be because these things don't exist. But in all cases? It seems unlikely....

At least from the Fundie Agnostic perspective, the discovery of ignorance (on questions the scale of theist and atheist claims) isn't an obstacle to overcome, but a gift to be embraced. — Jake

:smile: I acknowledge that the realisation and recognition of our ignorance is a gift. But ignorance itself? I'm not sure about that. In what way, other than achieving knowledge of our own ignorance, can ignorance be seen as a gift? :chin:

Edited to add: I just realised you said that the discovery of our own ignorance is a gift, which seems to align with what I'm saying (above). Have I misunderstood you?

I find your position lacks rigour. — Pattern-chaser

I'm not confident you actually understand my position. — S

Well, you argue...

There is compelling evidence to not believe in God, and that consists in the absence of compelling evidence to believe in God. — S

...that absence of evidence is evidence of absence, so I'll stick with my conclusion for now. Your position lacks rigour, and more seriously, it lacks correctness.

There is compelling evidence to not believe in God, and that consists in the absence of compelling evidence to be believe in God. — S

If that satisfies, you, go with it. Personally, I find your position lacks rigour.

The next step in being logical would be to look for ways to make constructive use of the ignorance we've discovered. — Jake

Haven't we been doing this for a while? Those proverbs that tell how the wiser someone is, the less they claim to know, reflect this, I think. Those of us who have given the matter any serious amount of thought have, I think, come to this conclusion. :up: In the end, I think the antidote to this ignorance is the obvious one: learning. To counteract and overcome ignorance, we must learn. :smile: :up:

An atheist who finds the concept of God impossible to believe, and who gets on with their life without giving God another thought: that person is not occupying a faith position.

An atheist who asserts the non-existence of God is occupying a faith position, in exactly the same way that a believer who asserts the existence of God is occupying a faith position. Both assertions lack evidence to support them. So the link between atheism and faith is exactly as strong as the link between theism and faith. Because it is the same link, existing for the same reason.

By observing the soul I mean observing the effects of the soul's interaction with physical particles and thus ultimately with physicists (who interact with the physical particles by observing them). — litewave

I realise that. But the arguments you present concerning the soul also seem to apply to the conscious mind. Physicists can't find them either. :chin:

Your theory might be possible. There are other theories that might be possible too. How shall we choose between them? I see no obvious criteria that we could usefully use. Can anyone else? — Pattern-chaser


What other theories? The theory should be consistent with known physics and explain how the soul can interact with the physical body without being detected by physicists. — litewave

I imagine most such theories would be constructed on the basis of currently-unknown particles, forces, or something similar. To create a theory that might be possible is easy. To show that it is likely, or even correct, is more difficult, as (I know) you are well aware. :wink: So how do we choose between them? Or how do we evaluate them individually? :chin:

All you have offered so far is the observation that physicists can't detect souls, with which we all surely agree. :chin:

As for faith, it has an obvious link to religion, and a greater link to religion than atheism. — S


This misunderstanding is why I keep making the comparison. — Jake

Yes, those links are of exactly the same strength as each other. :up:

most people believe in God through either faith or erroneous reasoning. — S

But, given the lack of evidence, which you cite in the same post, it must be the case that "most people do not believe in God through either faith or erroneous reasoning." For there is no compelling evidence, as you observe, to believe or not. To stand apart from a conclusion, and neither believe nor disbelieve, is logical, and consistent with the (lack of) evidence. To believe or disbelieve must be a faith position, given the lack of evidence.

The "erroneous reasoning" you refer to is to draw a conclusion when there is no basis for one. And it applies to all except agnostics, I think. :chin:

how does this soul interact with the physical body while eluding the observation of physicists — litewave

The simple answer is that I don't know. But I offer the observation that what you say about the soul could easily be said of the conscious mind. It also eludes the observation of physicists. I'm sure there are other examples too.

This is a difficult question to consider properly, perhaps because "properly", in this context, is itself vague and ill-defined? :chin:

So I have searched for a different possible mechanism of interaction between the body and the soul and have come up with a combination of weak force and resonance: the soul might interact with matter via a very weak force and that's why it has not been detected even in precise observations in particle accelerators, but it would be able to influence the brain in a significant way via resonance. — litewave

Your theory might be possible. There are other theories that might be possible too. How shall we choose between them? I see no obvious criteria that we could usefully use. Can anyone else? :chin:

The problem is that no one is being consistent, which just means that concept ("god" or "gender") is meaningless. — Harry Hindu

I think it means that the concept - "God", in this case - is not well defined. Not undefined, but only not defined precisely. There are very many such concepts. Quality, beauty, consciousness, and so on. These terms are vague and ill-defined, but they are not meaningless. Our challenge is to learn how to deal with such concepts. ... Or we could take your route, and dismiss or ignore them. Maybe they'll just go away if we do...? :confused:

You seem to just be more resentful of those who have worked harder than you have. — Agustino

Really? You actually think that those who are rich and powerful gained this position by working harder than others do/did?

You couldn't get away with that in the UK, you'd be slaughtered in the media. — Baden

Perhaps there was a time when this was true. These days, when truth can no longer be discovered or proven using facts, but only created by constant repetition ( :fear: ), the rich and powerful can do much as they like. :cry:

If you see criticism of belief as personal attack — S

I see criticism of believers as personal attack, which it is. If you have anything substantive to add to the discussion, go ahead. So far, all I have seen is you being rude about those who believe....

I have done so, but you let yourself be distracted by my choice of terms — S

Then perhaps you could choose terms which do not characterise believers (not their beliefs) in such a negative way? Attacks on believers are distracting. They distract from our consideration of their beliefs. So yes, I let my self get distracted, as you intended, when you started insulting those who believe.

You say "I have done so", but your words, particularly those you use to describe believers, say otherwise.

It was whether the words themselves have inherent meaning... — MindForged

They have inherent meaning, which is assigned by us. And, for our own purposes and convenience, we change those meanings as it suits us. Language belongs to the people, and all that.... :wink: :up:

Yes, we need a degree of consistency, otherwise communication between us would be impossible. But it is also the case that word meanings are not set in stone. They are regularly and continually updated or changed, by us, the owners of language and words. Surely all this is as it should be? :chin:

But whatever, carry on cheerleading and taking cheap shots at me indirectly. — S

I don't think they are cheap shots, and I don't think they're indirect either. :up: Address the beliefs, please, instead of insulting believers. That would be nice. :smile:

If all you can see is someone hellbent on insulting for the sake of insulting, then look harder. — S

If all you can do is to insult those who believe, instead of addressing that which they believe, then all you can hope to achieve is to make entrenched beliefs more entrenched. It's a human thing. :roll: If you are here to persuade, then express your thoughts about the message, not the messengers. If you are here to browbeat others with your superior views, go ahead; you're doing great! :confused:

Separating the creations of man from other natural products (artificial vs natural) stems from the notion that humans are separate from nature. We aren't. — Harry Hindu

Agreed. :up: But we do have a tendency to think, speak and act so as to establish ourselves as separate from 'nature', even though, as you say, we are not. But because we work so hard to convince ourselves of this odd notion, our very efforts require consideration. We need, if we can, to accept that we are all interconnected, and that we are part of everything else, not distinct from it. But that's ought, not is. What is is that we consider ourselves apart from the rest of nature. Why do we do this, I wonder? Is it wrong of us to think this way? If so, in what way? Perhaps there's a good reason for us to act this way, although I can't think of one. Let's not just dismiss this attitude; let's try to understand it. Maybe then we can reach useful and helpful conclusions.... :chin:

there isn't one bit of evidence for the existence of god that can't be explained better without invoking the word, "god". — Harry Hindu

There isn't one bit of evidence - in a strictly scientific sense, which is how you meant it, I think? - for the existence of God. Not one bit. If you think attacking the Objective existence of God is relevant to an investigation of religion, you don't understand religion or God.

And, to be even-handed, if you are a believer, and you assert the Objective existence of God, then the same applies to you too.

God is about different things to different people. God is an impression, an inspiration, a role model, and so on. Religion is a belief system. It is not based in science, or on science, which is fine. God is not an Objective concept. Neither is religion. If it is important to you, or to anyone reading this, I (as a believer) am happy to agree with you that God and religion cannot be Objectively or scientifically justified. There is no such justification, as far as I know. And this does not devalue God or religion in the slightest.

My only issues are, do not say as a matter of fact that God is not. And do not directly or indirectly with the oft used " fairy tale" "spaghetti monster" "Santa Clause" type language say that theism is unreasonable. — Rank Amateur

Yes, simple insults achieve nothing. :up:

The Hitchens- esk smugness and sarcasm of the pseudo intellectual atheist is trying. — Rank Amateur

I can't disagree! :wink:

Life is a creative act, for a human. Is that dreaming? We live our lives immersed in Kanye and Rihanna, Trump and Putin, Big Brother and America's Next Top Model. Are these not fantasy worlds? — Pattern-chaser

isn't this all so childish and mundane an activity that anyone with a competent mind can see through this whole charade? — Posty McPostface

Hey, slow down! :wink: You seem to have jumped straight from my claim, based on empirical observation (but still possibly wrong; it's too easy to think that what people like me do is what everyone does), to your own conclusion, which is a subjective human value judgement, unaccompanied by any form of justification. :chin:

"Charade"? I noted what people seem to do (how they actually live their lives), and (if my observation is accurate) this is what is. Your mention of "competent minds" and "charades" looks a lot like what you think ought to be. OK, drop the insulting vocabulary and tell us why you think this is wrong. Better still, tell us why you disagree with (what looks like, to me) the vast majority of humans, and how they choose to live their lives?

Yes, I have a combative and critical style. Get over it. If your thoughts and justifications for religion can't withstand that kind of exposure, then they can't be of much worth, philosophically. — S

If you think philosophical matters are best addressed combatively, then we must disagree. Discussion is a co-operative consideration of matters concerning (in this case) religion. It's not a fight (combat), or it shouldn't be if we hope to gain the most benefit from our discussions.

This is not the place to speculate about malicious intent. In future, please either keep those kind of thoughts to yourself or at least express them somewhere more appropriate. Thanks. — S

You proclaimed your own combative attitude. It seems a bit much to object when someone else calls you out for it. Your attitude isn't helpful. You simply seek to ridicule a topic that you cannot support, or see any benefit in. Fair enough: don't participate. :roll:

I think the "mindlessly" is unhelpful. — Pattern-chaser


But is it accurate? Yes, sadly, for a large segment of the population, I think it is — S

Then why are you posting here? The topic asks for how we feel about religion, and you clearly feel it is a waste of time. For you. Fair enough. But if all you can do is to insult those who believe, there will be no constructive dialogue here. Or, at least, not with you. Which is a shame. :fear:

"Self-deception" is a description applied by someone else, yes? It's a judgement that you make about me (for example). But what if you are wrong? Should we question the judgement of 'self-deception'? Maybe so. After all, *I* don't think I'm deceiving myself; it's you who thinks that. Or are we considering how someone would purposefully deceive themselves? I assume not.

Life is a creative act, for a human. Is that dreaming? We live our lives immersed in Kanye and Rihanna, Trump and Putin, Big Brother and America's Next Top Model. Are these not fantasy worlds?

Why are we all trying to escape from reality, responsibility, and other realistic goals? Is this some form of coping or what? — Posty McPostface

Because it's what we humans do? Yes, it's what, I think. :up:

[Religion]'s real value is as a philosophy, and it ought to be treated as such — S

Yes, that's a fair observation. :up: Religion seeks to explain certain things; that's philosophy. But it offers no evidence, in the sense that a scientist would mean it, and this puts a lot of philosophers off. Many humans, including philosophers, have problems confronting vague and ill-defined problems and issues, even though our real, everyday, world is full of nothing but. :wink: We need ways of thinking about vague things, IMO. It's not acceptable to just dismiss that which we can't deal with. :chin: [Also IMO :smile: ]

...it ought to be treated as such, and compared to other philosophies as though on a level playing field, not mindlessly worshipped or placed on a pedestal — S

Compared to similar philosophies, perhaps. To compare religion with (say) Objectivism seems unlikely to lead to any useful conclusions. While comparing it to the Eastern 'religions' - which resemble philosophy more to Western eyes than other religions do - might prove fruitful? Then there are moral/ethical matters, which religions regularly speak of. Comparison here might also prove useful.

I think the "mindlessly" is unhelpful. People who don't believe tend to say things like this, genuinely unaware of the number of unjustified beliefs they themselves hold. We all do. If one believes in a particular religion, one respects its teachings. From the outside, we could reasonably describe this is being "placed on a pedestal", but showing respect is what we all do toward things we, er, respect.

If you do not care to treat religion with respect, that's your business. But ad hominem attacks on those who disagree with you is hardly structured thought, never mind philosophy.... :chin:

The essential or primary purpose is to provide a system of meaning that can bind a community in common values and purpose, like a kind of glue that holds a tribe together. — praxis

The "purpose" of religion is to provide a context for consideration of the other, beyond the self, and an inter-subjective understanding of our place in the world. — Relativist

Religion is the appeal to the ineffable for answers to questions not otherwise answered. — tim wood

I think it’s an early attempt at building a metaphysical model of the universe — Devans99

These are good answers. Much more constructive than the usual knee-jerk stuff. :up: And much closer to the mark, IMO. :smile: Hail Eris! :joke:

Despite all of the evidence that there is no a totality of visual experiences within the brain -- you are coming back to your hypothesis... :)

Now, give us a proof that the totality of visual experiences is hidden somewhere in the brain... :) — Damir Ibrisimovic

You assert your belief again and again, but you offer no justification, even though you now demand proof of an opposing view. :chin: Where is "all of the evidence" that you refer to?

atheists cannot prove that god doesnt exists — 0cards0

True. :up: But the bit you're missing, which completes the sense of your statement, is:

Theists cannot prove that God does exist.

God's existence cannot be verified or falsified. It is a waste of anyone's time to even try. Believe if you believe; don't if you don't. :up:

Hail Eris!

I dunno, maybe I've missed something but this move of essentializing (it's a real word, fight me) the meaning of some word doesn't seem to really move the debate along at all unless all parties involved already agree on the same meaning. — MindForged

Meanings are too slippery, too inherently viewpoint-dependent, to be concretely defined. So words are just ways to limit the scope of possible understandings to the point where they can be usefully shared.

To use words properly, you need to be willing to do two things. Accept they do intend to narrow the scope for interpretation to some habitual conceptual essence. And then also show tolerance or charity for the vagueness that must always remain. — apokrisis

I am a newcomer here, but I've already seen several threads or sub-threads bemoaning the lack of clearly-defined terms, ambiguity of meaning, and so on. There seems to be an automatic assumption that this is a Bad Thing. But perhaps we should be asking why we have vaguely-defined terms and ambiguity? Is there perhaps some value in this vagueness? I think there might be.

We all use essentially the same vocabulary, grammar and syntax for informal social interaction, White House propaganda, scientific reports, romantic fiction, poetry, prayer, philosophical discussion, and so on. Our language must support a variety of ways in which words are used. Our vocabularies are in the region of 20000-40000 words. If we had a one-word-per-clearly-defined-meaning language, I suspect we could need vocabularies of 100000 or more, maybe a lot more. And maybe that would be too much for the typical human mind to hold/manage?

There are a number of possible reasons why vagueness and ambiguity might be good things, or at least pragmatically-practical things.

• Informal social interaction makes creative use of ambiguity (word-play of all types).
• Poetry relies for its very existence on creative use of terms, sometimes stretching definitions to use a word in a new way, and thereby communicate a meaning that could not otherwise be practically expressed.
• Many words start with a literal definition, then accumulate metaphorical meanings. So ambiguity supports metaphor, to a degree.
• Maybe humans like, and therefore value, general terms, with necessarily vague definitions? Maybe it makes the things they (we!) want to say, easier to express? Everyday communication often does not need to be precise/exact, perhaps to the extent that too much precision of definition would make such use too difficult?
• As above, perhaps multiple meanings for words limits the amount of different words we need to memorise. There are practical limits to the size of vocabulary most of us can deal with.

I'm sure there are other similar points, but I can't think of any more at the moment. I think these are enough to make my point, though. :chin:

So maybe vagueness and ambiguity have benefits, and a positive purpose? It's worth considering, I think. :chin: