So that means, if someone says "I believe in God", that would by synonymous with saying "I believe existence exists"? — flannel jesus

No. You need some familiarity with the literature to understand the concepts. Bear in mind this is not my area of expertise. The arguments are nuanced. The point of my OP is to get input from folk who are across this literature.

For Maximus the Confessor (a church father writing in the 7th century), being is foundational: it starts with God, and everything that exists participates in God's Being. But God is also beyond being in a way we can’t fully comprehend. Hence my OP around mysticism and the lack of certainty.

In particular, atheists often attack the most crude arguments for theism as opposed to being open to more in depth analysis. — Jack Cummins

Indeed.

Tillich's idea of God as 'ground of being' has more depth than anthromorphism, because it goes beyond the idea of God as a Being as disembodied. His thinking may also be compatible with the thinking of Schopenhauer and Spinoza. — Jack Cummins

Could be. In the writings of some of the early Church Fathers, the notion that we are participating in the Being of God and that all we know ultimately owes its existence to God reminds me of a type of idealism, wherein God is more like cosmic consciousness or a great mind from which we are all expressions.

God is the One who is, and all things that exist owe their existence to Him. For He is the true Being, and all things are in Him, through Him, and for Him."


— Maximus the Confessor, "Ambigua," 7

But they're still atheists in the normal sense. In the sense that pertains to zeus and odin. They're only not atheists when you define god in such a loosey-goosey way that it could mean just about anything. — flannel jesus

The idea of a more sophisticated theology is not "loosey-goosey." It has deep roots, going back to the early Church Fathers who wrote extensively about the nature of God. The literalist accounts of God that have emerged in modernity are more likely the "loosey-goosey" ones. There is a deeper, richer tradition of theism explored in writings that span centuries and continue to this day. We need someone who is deeply read in this material to contribute to this discussion.

I would be real curious to understand the desire there, the desire to take the word "god", which for many means "a being like odin or zeus or ra or krishna or yahweh", and then turn it into "being itself". Where does that come from? Why do people do that? — flannel jesus

Because this is how God has traditionally been understood in classical theism. It's not an evolution; it's a return to earlier thinkers like Gregory of Nyssa and Maximus the Confessor.

The idea of Being needs to be set aside from that of being. Bentley Hart writes:

God so understood is not something posed over against the universe, in addition to it, nor is he the universe itself. He is not a “being,” at least not in the way that a tree, a shoemaker, or a god is a being; he is not one more object in the inventory of things that are, or any sort of discrete object at all. Rather, all things that exist receive their being continuously from him, who is the infinite wellspring of all that is, in whom (to use the language of the Christian scriptures) all things live and move and have their being.

Here is a taste of that these ideas look like when gently elaborated.

https://firstthings.com/god-gods-and-fairies/

I just don't see the point. — flannel jesus

That's fine. Thanks for stopping by.

I have known atheists who have become theists after reading more sophisticated writing on the notion of God. Many atheists are interested in enlargening their view of what is meant by the concept of God.

Does your disbelief in Zombies need to evolve? Does it need to evolve into disbelief in Being Itself? — flannel jesus

Well, since you've brought this up, my disbelief in zombies could change if there were a more compelling narrative and reasoning that convincingly explained how they might exist. If I'd only ever understood zombies as part of comic book fiction, but then encountered a serious scientific case for their possibility, I might come to believe that zombies could, in fact, exist.

Similarly, I might come to accept the idea of ghosts if they were understood as something other than the spirits of deceased people. For example, what if what we perceive as ghosts are actually echoes or residual events from the past, repeating in a way that some people are able to sense due to time anomalies or unusual conditions?

i'm not sure I'm following you. Take a paragraph or two to articulate your point.

Isn't it obvious that ideas develop? If you're going to say you don't believe in God, you'd better be sure what you mean by 'God,' right?

The development happens when someone quotes Tillich, Hart, Gregory of Nyssa, or some Thomist, and the atheist may find themselves recognising that belief in God could be more complex than Richard Dawkins would have us think

Are you an atheist?

and the answer is never "being itself" — flannel jesus

Perhaps not immediately. But I’ve certainly heard these discussions over the past 30 years, and they sometimes do explore this concept. But even if they didn’t, perhaps they should, and that’s another aspect of my point: is it the case that atheism should evolve its thinking about the notion of God beyond the cartoon versions?

but they have nothing to do with what Atheists think. — flannel jesus

I doubt that, I'm an atheist, and this is an area of interest for me. Many atheists I know have wrestled with the ideas of Jung, Tillich or Robert Sokolowski and getting more comprehensive and philosophical notions of what is meant by the idea of God seems important. When someone says they don't believe in God, the reasonable next question is: "What do you mean by God?"

I have a good friend who is a Catholic priest. He agrees with Christopher Hitchens on most matters of religion, but he's not an atheist. He just thinks that the cartoonish depictions of God offered by literalists are refutable and dumb.

Arguments against the latter "god" (absolute) are far less consequential culturally and existentially, it seems to me, than arguments against the former "God" (creator). — 180 Proof

Yes, I think this is probably accurate. I'd be interested how others see this.

I think they are mean you too have foundational beliefs that lack empirical proof, like causality and the existence of other minds. If causality isn't provable, it's equally as logically to assert teleological explanations are valid. — Hanover

In my experience (and I’ve debated many in person), they generally point to specific things like flight, crossing roads, or the efficacy of medicine. The more philosophically inclined ones - presuppositionalist Christians - are more likely to take the path you mentioned. Yes, we all hold presuppositions.

The claim “atheists live by faith too” trades on a confusion about what faith means. Atheists acknowledge basic assumptions but generally would treat these as provisional and open to revision, not sacred truths. Foundational beliefs like causality are not equivalent to teleological or theistic explanations, because they don’t posit an agent or a purpose we must subscribe to without evidence.

If you identify a difference use, you don't get to just declare your use correct and the alternative use incorrect. The OP asks what is faith, and it's clear it's used differently by different groups.

That is, you're as much guilty of the equivocation as they are if there is no agreed upon definition. — Hanover

Not really. I agree the word is used differently. I'm explaining why I make a distinction and advocating for my preference. This is a site devoted to hairsplitting definitions, so I don’t think this was remotely off track.

But let's look at the example again. Comparing faith in God with faith in plane flight, say, seems to conflate two very different things. When an evangelical says (as they often do; and I’ve heard this from Catholics too), “But you atheists live by faith all the time,” they’re committing an equivocation fallacy.

They’re comparing faith in air travel (something we can demonstrate exists, something based on empirical evidence, engineering, and training) with belief in a god, which is an idea we can’t even properly define. That seems like faulty reasoning to me.

When I board a plane, I’m not taking a leap of faith in the same sense that a theist might use the word. I know that airplanes are real physical objects, built through well-understood principles of aerodynamics. I know that pilots are trained extensively, undergo certification, and are subject to routine evaluation. I know that aircraft are maintained by engineers following strict protocols, that the air traffic control system is in place to coordinate safe routes, and that there are black boxes and regulatory investigations when things go wrong. All of this is grounded in observable, repeatable, testable processes.

So when I "trust" a plane to get me to my destination, it's not a blind or metaphysical faith—it's a reasonable confidence based on experience, statistics, and a mountain of evidence. That’s a far cry from faith in a deity, which lacks comparable foundations. Equating the two just muddies the waters.

I think these differences are worth pointing out since they are overlooked by some theists.

Perhaps I could substitute the word faith with confidence yet this would merely be linguistic. — kindred

Indeed, that’s generally what I recommend. If you have a good reason for believing something, you don’t need faith. Reasonable confidence in one’s skill and training based on evidence is not the same as faith. Some theists attempt an equivocation fallacy by equating faith in God with faith in things like air travel.

I recall the issue being a fairly serious concern back in the 1970’s. it had nothing to do with technology although back then TV was sometimes blamed. My dad remembers books being blamed back in the 1930’s.

I can’t see ready agreement on projects, goals or methods, but as a variation on the old peace corps idea it might attract some people if it is voluntary and word of mouth is positive.

I've witnessed this. Almost no ethical instruction at all. Ethical positions are simply delivered to the students as fact. I am at the point where I think that teaching kids to question ethical axioms will get them in trouble. — Jeremy Murray

Which I would have preferred when I was a student at school. I went to a very expensive elite school. It was Christian, and we had a daily chapel service. This school was modeled on Eton and followed old British pedagogical traditions. This was 45 years ago. We were given ethical instruction and read pointless New Testament stories, which had no impact on most students and were at best a source of mirth. The poor and minorities were generally held to be human trash. Everyone was acutely aware that the real goal of the school was to get one into a law or medical degree, to then make money and gain power. Many of my fellow students joined their millionaire—and sometimes billionaire—fathers in family businesses.

For the most part, despite an energetic display of Christianity and a lot of rhetoric about the centrality of morality, this school was merely churning out neoliberal toadies who, on leaving school, often treated people poorly. Which I also observed in the subsequent decades.

I do see a lot of 'moral cruelty' from the woke these days. — Jeremy Murray

There as a lot of moral cruelty in many positions including the Christianity of my early life which held to bigotry, racism and the position that we were better than others because we were part of a winning team (eg, the West and its values). We seem to be going through a period of adjustment and a period of backlash.

:up:

:up:

I went to a Billy Shorten campaign speech at a local town hall before the 2019 Federal Election. My partner then was helping the local Labor candidate to try and unseat the corrupt Liberal incumbent. Penny Wong worked the crowd up into a frenzy. "Ladies and gentleman, I give you next prime minister of Australia: Bill Shorten!" Bill trotted up on stage and turned to face the audience. His grey, anxious, face sucked the air and excitement from the room. There was a mass exhalation from the detumescent crowd. I knew instantly he wasn't going to win.

I might have mentioned I once handed out How to Vote for Greens in a state election. — Wayfarer

My partner helped support one of their campaigns. Disorganized, collectivist shenanigans.

That's the price of having good coffee. — Banno

Could be... I only drink it at home.

So I will be holding my nose and voting Labor (although I think mine is a safe Labor seat.) — Wayfarer

I did this throughout the 1980's as they gleefully thrust neo-liberalism upon us.

I think Albanese a mediocrity — Wayfarer

And boring too.

I have Greens Adam Bant and Ellen Sandall as my Federal and State reps.

March 3rd. — Banno

May 3.

I think it's going to be a very dull campaign. Anything you think we should watch for?

The moral relativist can have a moral framework
— Tom Storm

What is the difference between a framework and an objective measurement? — Fire Ologist

A framework is a structured way of describing an approach, while an objective measurement implies a standard that is independent of personal or cultural perspectives.

Looks like political art out of the old USSR.

:up: I think this could be an interesting thread.

Why does anyone have any opinion about what others do or don’t do to others and their babies?

Once you care about others, only objectivity can to mediate a mutual, communicative, interaction among them. And a moral objectivity is supposed to make the interaction a “good” one.

Like this post. There is something objective here, or you wouldn’t know I was disagreeing with you.

My question is, for all moral relativists, why do you bother?

If there is no moral objectivity whatsoever, how can you say pushing the button to prevent the baby from suffering is “actually doing some good”? If you were beyond good and evil, there is no difference no matter what you do or don’t do - no good or evil results in any case. — Fire Ologist

Is this conflating moral objectivity with the ability to have meaningful moral discourse?

The moral relativist can have a moral framework, let's say that suffering should be avoided or minimised, because their values (whether these are informed by empathy, cultural values, or personal commitments) leads them to value well-being. The fact that we can communicate and disagree doesn't demonstrate moral objectivity. It shows that we share enough cognitive and linguistic structures to engage in discussion. Moral judgments, like preferring to prevent suffering, can be deeply felt and socially reinforced without appealing to objective moral truths. The relativist can still say that pushing the button is "good" within their framework of values, even if those values are not grounded in an absolute, external moral reality. Or something like that.

Other than making them feel as if they have made a difference of historical significance what benefit do they get? Money? Seriously dumb notion that the richest man in the world is doing what he is doing, subjecting himself to such rhetorical abuse, donating time and a portion of his fortune so he can make more money. That really is just one of the dumbest things I've seen in this thread. He has more money than most human beings can even contemplate. He can literally do anything that can be done materially. He can literally buy any experience and any kind of lifestyle that can be bought and yet he chooses to participate in fixing the way this country runs. Now disagree with his communication style or his methods but please stop pontificating on his motives which you can't possibly know. — philosch

This is certainly worth stating. The assumption that cupidity is the sole motivator seems banal. Such a conclusion involves a degree of mind reading or, at the very least, constructing a narrative from selective inferences. There is always the possibility that those whose approach and values we detest are acting sincerely, believing they are doing what is best. Someone like Musk likely thrives on problem-solving and the pursuit of significance. Vainglory is surely a far greater driving force for such a personality than money. One might have deep concerns about a person so consumed by ideology and the desire for status. I suspect the key to understanding all this is in how the change is managed and what its impacts are and how much Musk cares.

Well you gave the answer by referencing to a different interpretation — QuirkyZen

God is an idea with many interpretations. The cartoonish, literalist account of God is the easiest to undermine. People focus on it most because Biblical literalists have the loudest voices (and dominate American culture), while atheists find the cartoon version of theism the easiest to refute.

i won't ask them because you are a atheist too so you pretty much don't believe in this too so their is no meaning in that. — QuirkyZen

You don’t have to believe in Brahman to be well-versed in Advaita Vedanta. But fair enough.

They claim god is all merciful and loving yet there is so much cruelty and hate — QuirkyZen

Well this is only true if you think of god as a magic sky wizard with a plan. The literalist account in Islam and Christianity, for instance. But if you consider god to be not a person at all but the source of all that is and that we can understand God not as a being among beings, but as Being itself—the foundation of existence rather than a contingent entity.

In the view of philosopher and theologian David Bentley Hart, God is the infinite wellspring of goodness, beauty, and truth, not a cosmic manager intervening in history. From this perspective, suffering and evil do not contradict God’s nature but arise from the misuse of freedom within creation, which remains ultimately grounded in divine love. At least that's a more intelligent account of theism which has a long tradition. Literalism seems to be a product of the modern period. Personally I am an atheist.

We can barely have a reasonable discussions about the kind of consciousness we all live with every day. How much more difficult to discuss kinds of consciousness we have only heard about from the writings of a tiny percentage of people, who claim it cannot be described? — Patterner

That's a pithy and reasonable observation and I've often had similar reactions.

No worries. And I hope my response didn't seem crusty. All good. We're just fumbling our way through these things. :up:

What is the way we settle these matters? Well, that's part of these matters. — Banno

Nice.

I can get behind that but this is a subtle idea and flies against traditions, etc.

What is your response against the view that if we make morality together by doing, how do we evaluate this? Is not selecting a foundation, say virtue ethics or Nussbaum's capability framework, essentially a preference and we might instead chose negative values instead like Trumpism, say, which may seem to like virtue when seen from the perspective of others. What is the way we settle these matters. Is it just old fashioned consequences regarding harm and barriers to eudaimonia?

Devine command and evolutionary necessity do not cover all the options. This also makes the mistake of thinking that morals are found, not made - discovered, not intended. — Banno

Yes, I think this may well be the critical matter - "made" by our actions.

:up: Fair enough.

I think about suicide every day and have done so for 37 years. The main reason I haven't killed myself is that it would cause suffering to my family and extended family. I would love to be happy. I would love to be cured of my CPTSD, Bipolar Disorder and Chronic Nerve Pain. — Truth Seeker

Sounds like you have a lot of challenges to manage. Your question has much more impact hearing this. For what it's worth, I wish you well. You've been resilient and strong in the face of significant difficulties. :pray:

Again, Truth Seeker asked a question, and I answered. In all honesty, having an impact upon you hadn't entered my mind. — Patterner

That goes for most answers here when others chime in. The argument from "the remarkableness of life" isn't always effective and no one else had made that point.

I don't understand what it means to imagine that one does not exist or wish that one was not born. — Paine

I don't understand when people don't understand this. :wink:

Being a consciousness of human intelligence (more or less) is the most extraordinary thing in the universe. In 13,500,000,000 years, in the universe of indescribable size, there have been an estimated 108,000,000,000 of us, and possibly nothing similar anywhere else. Being able to think and feel as we do is a rare thing, and a joyous thing. — Patterner

Who cares? A series of zeros has no impact upon me.

I hold a largely positive view about the world - for the prosperous Westerner (which I am) life is good and mine has been mostly without difficulties and yet if I were faced with the improbable thought experiment - the choice of never having been born or living this life, I'm not convinced I would pick life.

Agree.

I’ll give a short reason or two that summarizes the failure of emotivism. Emotivism can’t explain how moral language functions in arguments or conditionals (e.g., “If stealing is wrong, then murder is wrong.”), as emotional content lacks propositional coherence, which undermines it as an account of ethical reasoning.

In other words, as already mentioned, expressions of emotions aren’t truth-bearing. — Sam26

Indeed. As I understand it the emotivist doesn't believe in oughts or ought nots since they are just expressions of your preferences which are emotionally driven. When you say murder is wrong you are saying 'boo murder'.

In other words emotivism is not a normative ethical system that prescribes how one ought to act. It's is a theory about the nature of moral language and moral judgments. It seeks to explain where moral claims come from (namely, our emotions) instead of establish moral rules or duties.

Is it correct? I'm not sure. I'm mulling it over.

Allen murdered Shelley's son. Murder is wrong because of the way the community reacts to it, and that reaction is emotional. — frank

The emotivism wouldn’t say murder is wrong because of the community’s emotional reaction as if that were a causal explanation. Instead, they’d say calling murder "wrong" is an expression of the community’s emotional reaction.

As I understand it, the emotivist maintains that moral judgments aren’t factual statements about the world; they’re expressions of approval or disapproval. So when people say "murder is wrong," they’re not stating an objective fact but expressing their collective condemnation, foudned in emotions like grief, outrage, and fear. The status of murder on this view, is not an inherent property of the act but a reflection of how people feel about the act. And this is contingent upon culture language and experince. WHich is why peopel tend to share emotional reactions (for the most part).

Isn't it entirely possible for that some act be emotional disgusting or repugnant, and yet you ought do it? Ever changed a nappy? Isn't it a commonplace that you often ought do things in defiance of how you feel? What is courage? And see ↪javra's examples. The very same actions can be commendable or culpable. — Banno

Good point. I guess the response here might be that an emotivist might acknowledge that we may sometimes be compelled to act contrary to our immediate emotions, but would deny that there is an objective "ought" beyond how we feel about it.

Yes, changing a nappy might be disgusting, but if you care about the child, that feeling of care outweighs the disgust. The "ought" in that case is just another emotional response. One that wins out over revulsion.

By looking to what we might do, we bypass the opacity of thinking and feeling, refocusing instead on our acts of volition, and how we might change things. Fundamentally, ethics and aesthetics are about what we might do. — Banno

It's what you do, not what you feel or think, that counts, isn't it? — Banno

I'm not a philosopher, so here is my obtuse response:

Can't it be said that it is emotions and attitudes that ultimately drive our doing? What we do is a reflection of what we feel and value, and moral language itself is an expression of approval or disapproval rather than a statement of fact.