there is no basis for this claim. The roots on which Christianity is founded are in the Greeks and Judaism. Plato's influence on Augustine and Aristotle's influence on Aquinas is evident. — Fooloso4

I don't see how your statement and mine are in conflict.

Collingwood claims that western science would not be possible without a belief in a God like the Christian's.

What about the mild mannered atheism of those who simply do not believe in gods? — Fooloso4

I was not talking about them.

First of all, one need not be a theist to be "spiritual". — Fooloso4

True.

it cannot be said they understand the universe more clearly — Fooloso4

I believe it can.

throughout history their disagreement has often been deadly. — Fooloso4

The question of whether religious institutions are more warlike than secular ones has been argued here many times before without resolution.

Why are paradoxes/contradictions (so) important?

Their significance to all (real) thinkers is that renders trivial the logical systems in which they arise. — Agent Smith

Perhaps I am not a (real) thinker, but all the excitement about paradoxes goes over my head. I just can't see how they have any practical meaning.

Not sure this is relevant but I generally accept that humans are clever animals who use language to help manage their environment. As a consequence, meanings and worldviews are riddled with inconstancies and subversions, some of them more striking than others. When I encounter a paradox it tends to remind me of the poetic, imprecise nature of language and the manufactured character of human understanding. — Tom Storm

It strikes me that many (most? all?) so-called paradoxes are really just playing with language. There was a discussion a month or so ago on the forum about whether the Liar's sentence/Russell's paradox undermine the validity of mathematics. Apparently Alan Turing actually believed that, because of those paradoxes, bridges designed with mathematics might fall down. I find that hard to grasp. [irony]Turing was somewhat smarter than I am.[/irony] I don't understand how he could believe that.

My main concern is the existence/nonexistence of (true) paradoxes. If they exist then, classical logic is trivial unless it excludes some rule of natural deduction that prevents ex falso quodlibet. The rule that most logicians choose to exclude from natural deduction in order to prevent explosion is disjunction introduction/addition. Should we do that? It seems the right course of action assuming there are (true/real) paradoxes. — Agent Smith

I wasn't familiar with the idea of logical explosion, so I opened my trusty Wikipedia. Here's the example used in that article:

As a demonstration of the principle, consider two contradictory statements—"All lemons are yellow" and "Not all lemons are yellow"—and suppose that both are true. If that is the case, anything can be proven, e.g., the assertion that "unicorns exist", by using the following argument:

[1] We know that "Not all lemons are yellow", as it has been assumed to be true.

[2] We know that "All lemons are yellow", as it has been assumed to be true.

[3] Therefore, the two-part statement "All lemons are yellow or unicorns exist" must also be true, since the first part "All lemons are yellow" of the two-part statement is true (as this has been assumed).

[4] However, since we know that "Not all lemons are yellow" (as this has been assumed), the first part is false, and hence the second part must be true to ensure the two-part statement to be true, i.e., unicorns exist.

To me, that example is based on a case of philosophical bait and switch. The two propositions in question "Not all lemons are yellow" and "All lemons are yellow," are concrete examples from the real world. Please show me a "paradox" like that. I can't think of any. The contradictory examples that tangle philosopher's and mathematician's shorts are all language paradoxes, e.g. "This sentence is false."

On an unrelated, or at least only semi-related subject, does the fact that light has both a wave and particle nature constitute a valid example of a real-life, concrete paradox, which I just denied the existence of?

I would suggest that a large part of it originated from Christian social philosophy and their doctrine of universal salvation, even acknowledging the undeniable horrors that the Church has sometimes visited on the world. — Wayfarer

My knowledge about the history of philosophy is limited, so I can't provide a very good defense of this position, but it always strikes me that people fail to understand the extent to which Christianity provides the foundation for western culture and philosophy.

I understand that a lot of people are atheist or anti-religious and I generally don't try and persuade them otherwise, but in my view, the religious or spiritual dimension of life is real, and its denial amounts to a lack. It also subtly conditions what are and are not considered viable philosophical ideas. — Wayfarer

This is one of my primary arguments against rabid atheism. Whatever you believe about the existence of God or the effects of religion on society, there is an important sense in which religious people understand the universe more clearly than those who reject the spiritual dimension you're talking about.

I'm always surprised by how similar many of my ideas are to yours given that we come to them from such different perspectives.

Is it that the focus given to physicalism is due because it is truly central to philosophical discourse, or is it just an accident that occurred by coincidence due to the interests of the forum's userbase? — Kuro

Also - welcome to the forum. I've looked through some of your other posts. You write well.

Is it that the focus given to physicalism is due because it is truly central to philosophical discourse, or is it just an accident that occurred by coincidence due to the interests of the forum's userbase? — Kuro

Physicalism of various stripes is the default in modern secular culture. Its assumptions are widely embedded even in many people who don’t know what the word means. So it’s a natural subject of debate. — Wayfarer

I think what Wayfarer says makes sense. For many, physicalism/materialism is the philosophy of science, reason, and common sense.

'Who can blame people for angry atheism when the church has done so many evil abusive things and God seems completely absent from much church activity?' — Tom Storm

I blame them when they doll their arguments all up in the couture of reason and philosophy. For me, philosophy is all about self-awareness.

Eyewitness testimony is notoriously unreliable – uncorroborated it's only an opinion. Anyway, the context here is epistemological and neither forensic nor psychological, so try not to shift the goal posts again. — 180 Proof

Now you're just playing games. What a shoddy argument. Nuff said.

A responsible atheist would not make an argument that there is no god - why would they need to? — Tom Storm

And yet many do, loudly and dogmatically, including here on the forum. I got no problem with atheists if they would just shut up and get on with their lives. Problem is, many of them hate religion and feel contempt for those who believe. That's not atheism, it's... I don't know, what is it? It's not reason.

You don't discern, or accept, there is a significant difference between evidence (i.e. fact) and anecdote (i.e. opinion)? The latter is subjective and the former is, at minimum, intersubjective. In what way, TC, is your wife's or my mother's "experience God's presence" intersubjective (i.e. publicly accessible)? — 180 Proof

I'm on the witness stand, you're on the jury. I say "I saw the defendant shoot Joe Smith. No one else was there, so no one else saw it." Is that evidence? Of course. Is it good evidence? That depends. Is my testimony convincing? Do I have any reason to lie? Do I have good eyesight? Am I trustworthy?

So do I, members of my family included; and yet ...
A casual stroll through the lunatic asylum shows that faith does not prove anything.
— Freddy Zarathustra — 180 Proof

You asked for evidence, I gave you evidence. Now, if we wanted, we could discuss the quality of that evidence. That's not what I'm interested in. As far as I'm concerned, just establishing that there is evidence is all I need to do. You indicated that is what you required. You wrote "I can't consider something "good evidence" (or not good) when there isn't any evidence given (by you et al) to consider."

You claim "there is evidence of God" and then call my request for you to present it "anti-religious bigotry". Typical apologetics. Evidence-free claims = woo-of-the-gaps = Humpty Dumpty's "it is what I say it is" blah blah blah. Sophistry (bs) replies with word salad when confronted with How do you know that? or Show me your evidence. That's pathetic gassing, not dialectic. — 180 Proof

I know people who have experienced God's presence in their lives. My wife has. I have heard of many others.

I only "smash" dogmatic, irrational, fideistic apologists — 180 Proof

Thank you for the new word:

Fideism is an epistemological theory which maintains that faith is independent of reason, or that reason and faith are hostile to each other and faith is superior at arriving at particular truths.

Nonetheless, I'm more willing to submit my statements and arguments to rational, evidence-based cross-examination than you 'woo-of-the-gaps bible-thumoers'. — 180 Proof

I don't think that's true. Also, I've never thumped a bible. If you were paying any attention to my arguments at all, you'd know I don't make any claims about God. My only claims are about your and your cohort's arguments.

We don't need no stinking philosophers.
— T Clark
Ah yeah, the reek of sophistry. — 180 Proof

Calling oneself a philosopher doesn't make your ideas better.

Are there any philosophers on this site? — Tom Storm

There are some very smart people with very good ideas who express them very well here on the forum. Yes, I am avoiding your question.

How about a little more philosophizing and a lot less rationalizing 'fetishes & fairytales'? — 180 Proof

How about a little more philosophizing and a lot less fetishizing rationality fairytales?

Did you see that, how I turned that around. Now that's philosophy!

Thanks everyone for your thoughts — Troyster

There's a good chance there is someone in your area who teaches Buddhist meditation or a similar practice. Find them and start practicing. You should be able to start out without a major disruption to your life. Find out if it's for you. Fit it into your life in the best way for you. See where it goes.

I would be flattered to be considered even a "silly" or misguided philosopher. — ToothyMaw

I aspire to be a pretty smart guy with pretty good ideas who expresses them pretty well. From what I've seen, you meet those criteria pretty frequently. We don't need no stinking philosophers.

Why are there so many repeated OP-topics... Why don't you (and others) use the forum's search function before starting a thread on a topic which has been done to death — 180 Proof

Come on, 180, if we didn't repeat threads ad nauseum, we'd have nothing to talk about. I once counted six threads about free will active at the same time. It's the same as it ever was. It would be nice if people waited a couple of weeks between copycat threads, but don't hold your breath.

"God" is an anxiety (i.e. placebo-fetish), not an entity (i.e. "invisible friend"). :gasp: — 180 Proof

I don't consider your opinions about religious believers' beliefs or psychological motivations credible. You're just too biased.

If you are referring to me, however, I am flattered. — ToothyMaw

I was referring to the argument, not you.

Your definition is far more narrow than any definition of omnipotence I've seen. — ToothyMaw

Seems like a pretty good definition to me. Anyway, it doesn't matter what you think or what @180 Proof thinks the right definition is.

But this actually matters sort of - at least to philosophers of religion. — ToothyMaw

That just shows how silly philosophers can be - trying to trick God into a contradiction rather than worshiping him.

Whenever I come across the old omnipotent God/immovable object argument I always want to ask "In a fight between Superman and Santa Claus, who would win." Your response is better.

But I cannot worship him. It is servile. I cannot pledge allegiance to some faith, as I know the vast majority of my friends will not do this, and so I would be selling them out to save my own neck. — RolandTyme

In order for this argument to be meaningful, you have to consider that hell is real and as described by some religious sources. You write about it as if is comparable to being fired or getting divorced. If you believe it exists then you risk eternity in the most torturous pain imaginable just to show God who's boss and stand behind your friends.

Followers of religion never seem to present things in this way. — RolandTyme

I've been annoyed by what I see as the arrogance of this type of believer before. On the other hand, they see hell and damnation as facts. For them to present things otherwise would be denying their God. I don't see "Well, if God's going to be a jerk, screw him" as a very good strategy.

I can't consider something "good evidence" (or not good) when there isn't any evidence given (by you et al) to consider. — 180 Proof

This is just more anti-religious bigotry, so prevalent here on the forum.

"Evidence for God" such as? A dozen years of Catholic education (including Bible Study and altar boy service) as well as over a decade more of earnest comparative religions study, yet thirty-odd years on this "evidence" still eludes me. — 180 Proof

As I noted, the fact that you don't consider something good evidence doesn't mean it isn't evidence. That's one of the things reason is supposed to do, provide a process for working these things out. Your typical smarty-pants response does not constitute reason.

I would even include scripture as evidence. How one regards or rates this evidence is a different matter. — Tom Storm

Yes. I agree.

It's a perennial title, a meditation handbook. — Wayfarer

I'm sure it's come up on the forum before. I just haven't followed up on it.

I think this is a fairly widely held view - the evidence is embodied in the experience. My reservations with this as a crass naturalist, is what counts as experience of god? Without wanting to be glib, I have no doubt that members of Islamic State and the KKK have had experiences of God which help form their beliefs and actions. — Tom Storm

I'm a non-theist who is sympathetic to religion. Your questions are good ones for which I don't have any specific answers. On the other hand, bad people can justify themselves with any kind of belief - religious, philosophical, political, nationalistic, moral...

My thoughts in this regard are mainly in reaction to those who say there is no evidence for God. There is evidence, they just aren't convinced by it. That makes a big difference to me.

But there's another set of meanings altogether, which is communicated in classics such as 'the cloud of unknowing'. That is associated with the 'negative way' of contemplative meditation - self-emptying or putting aside all discursive thought and reasoning. There are elements of that in the Socratic attitude but it is not something that ought to be over-emphasised. You also find that in Taoism - 'he that knows it, knows it not, he that knows it not, knows it'. — Wayfarer

I read the Wikipedia article on "The Cloud of Unknowing." The quotes included seemed really down to earth and practical, just, as you intimated, like the Tao Te Ching. I have been saying, without really thinking it through, that the experience of God is the evidence for God. Maybe it will help me develop a more robust understanding. I downloaded a PDF version and uploaded it to my Kindle.

Why? How does justification work? Pray tell. — Agent Smith

You make the statement, then you provide the justification. I think, in this situation, "seems to me" is a perfectly fine justification - it's like calling something a priori knowledge or self-evident. I would even agree in this case, but making a statement without that acknowledgement is not philosophy. Philosophy, in this context at least, requires reason. Reason requires justification for statements.

I don't have to prove it exists. You made the claim. You have to provide the justification.
— T Clark

Well, I did, didn't I? I know of no actual infinities. Do you? — Agent Smith

That is not justification of any sort. No need to go on with this. I've had my say.

Descartes said that the idea of God requires a soul for it to be understood. You're saying even understanding infinity requires more than matter.
— Gregory

Yep, that's about the gist of my argument. — Agent Smith

You haven't made an argument, you've made a statement.

You are the one who says there is no physical infinity. Prove your statement. — jgill

Well, I haven't found any infinity that's actual. There! — Agent Smith

You don't seem to understand how this whole justification thing works.

Too, you have it easier. You need to furnish as proof only one infinity that's actual. Kindly do so. Thank you very much. — Agent Smith

You don't seem to understand how this whole philosophy thing works.

Name one example of an actual infinity. — Agent Smith

I don't have to prove it exists. You made the claim. You have to provide the justification.

There are no actual infinities; there are no physical infinities. — Agent Smith

Sez you.

I suggest you give a small, supported argument to back up your assertion, because the metaphysics taking place on your thread are in no way contradictory to anything stated here that has been supported with research. Perhaps the opposite. — Garrett Travers

Your entire argument is metaphysical. I think your rigid reductionism blinds you to that. As I've said elsewhere, metaphysical arguments can not be resolved empirically, and that's your whole argument. You keep asking for scientific evidence. There isn't any. There can't be any.

The "metaphysics taking place on [my] thread" does contradict your position.

I don't know if this qualifies as successful reductionism but in chemistry class, thousands of years ago, the fact that ice floats on water was explained to me in terms of Hydrogen bonding. I felt quite satisfied with the answer: the H bonds meant that water molecules, quite literally, kept each other at a distance and this results in an increase in overall volume for the same mass of liquid water, making ice less dense than liquid water; hence, said my teach, ice floats on water.

Can this be done for all phenomena? — Agent Smith

As Anderson acknowledged, higher levels in a hierarchy develop based on the principles of the lower level, i.e. reductionism. That does not mean that you can predict the behavior of phenomena of the higher level based on the rules of the lower level, i.e. constructivism. So, once we know the behavior of ice, we can explain it in terms of chemical bonds. The question is, could we predict it from just the facts of chemistry. I don't know. Anderson doesn't claim that you can never predict higher level behavior based on lower level principles. His position describes the general condition. So, according to Anderson, no, it can't be done for all phenomena.

Consciousness, thus far, has been resistant to such a treatment. Nobody has been able to convincingly explain how electrochemical events in the brain produce thinking/thoughts. We know the two are correlated (brain experiments prove that), but how exactly is still a mystery. — Agent Smith

Anderson says that biology is not psychology, which makes sense to me. That doesn't mean that the behavior of mental processes can't be explained by biological principles.

No, it hsn't so far. Again, you're going to have to contend with the scientific research before you get to make that kind of claim, which you haven't done. — Garrett Travers

I suggest other participants in this discussion take a look and decide for themselves.

The discussion in the Reductionism and the Hierarchy of Scale thread makes it clear why the premise of this thread and reductionism in general is baloney.

Any knowledge we glean from other scales than the one we find ourselves living in are only useful in the scale we find ourselves living in. We only use states at other scales to explain the behavior of objects on the scale we live in — Harry Hindu

I think that's true.

If use is the scale by which we judge metaphysical factors, then it seems to me that the scales would be epistemological in nature, as in existing in our minds only and not the way the world is actually divided. — Harry Hindu

I think that's true too.

Really? I think that history is full of examples of societies collapsing because of the unsustainability of the system and the incapability of the elite to solve the societies problems. Civil wars, upheavals, political turmoil, show that this balance hasn't been the result. — ssu

And the history of life is full of examples of species collapsing because of the competition from invasive organisms, asteroid impacts, vulcanism, global warming, over-hunting... The evolutionary process at any level is constantly changing.

Why should you represent reality into the physics-chemistry-biology-cosmology division in the first place? — EugeneW

As I indicated in my OP, I think that's a metaphysical division. It's useful, so we use it.