It's in this lecture by Grayling on Wittgenstein and Language Games. Don't remember the time - near the end.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PmckTveYNI8

Wittgenstein didn't understand the point. He boasted he'd never read Aristotle. But I've never read Wittgenstein, so I'd better shut up. — Wayfarer

Wittgenstein, AC Grayling tells us, read almost no philosophy at all. Perhaps like J Krishnamurti he was a kind of seer.

Not what I was saying and missing the point of this discussion. — Srap Tasmaner

ST I was just riffing off a theme for mild comic relief - sorry about that. The joke was referencing progressive Christians who energetically jettison the obvious discordant morsels of scripture in order to favor the construction of a liberal church built from a bowdlerized Bible.

Well, yes, there are doubtless different, creative ways of reading the scriptures that excuse god from being a bit of a bastard. The need to engage in such a process speaks loudly to the poverty of those scriptures. — Banno

The bit in the Bible that mentions loving thy neighbor are true - all that other stuff about genocide, rape, torture, retribution, judgment, misogyny and homophobia and never wearing mixed fabrics - that stuff is allegorical.

What the stories are meant to convey is a certain way of living a spiritual life, so if you focus on the fairy tale, religious folks will always feel like you don't really get it. Every time you say "evidence", for instance, believers yawn. — Srap Tasmaner

How does one determine the difference between the extraneous 'fairy tale' and the significant 'spiritual life'? How do you know what's in and what's out?

I have an additional moral question which may not have been directly flagged. What are we to make of an insuperable entity that insists on being worshiped and thanked in perpetuity? Set the punishment aside for a moment. What's up with the perpetual need for devotion and praise? This creature knocks out a cosmos and then require endless thanks? In human terms this sounds egomaniacal. It's certainly not a gracious or humble use of power.

Hope you don't mind my chipping in here. There are domains of discourse within which meanings are fixed. Those classical domains, such as classical theology or Advaita Vedanta, have deep roots, i.e. their basic terms are defined in terms of fundamental values. The fact that they are so defined doesn't guarantee their veracity, although I think their longevity and adaptability provide support for that. Within those domains, there is what amounts to 'peer review', in that successive generations of adherents of those traditions authenticate the various texts and ideas of the domains. That is also the basis of the idea of lineage. In fact arguably those practices were the origins of peer review in science itself. — Wayfarer

Always welcome, W. Heading towards the intersubjective communities of phenomenology. I should point out that I often ask questions even if I have answers (well, mine anyway) I am interested to hear how others make sense of things - especially when the worldview is not one I necessarily subscribe to. I am always trying to break out of my own perspective. The chances that I have stumbled onto 'truth' being highly unlikely.

I suppose the marvel universe is very effective at providing meaning within its particular domain (let's call that the realm of the imaginary). — emancipate

I think it's more than imaginary. It's metaphor and allegory used to provide comfort and guidance. At least that's what I've seen. And yes, imaginative power can guide or temper behavior in real life.

There doesn't need to be any criteria distinguishing validity or invalidity in this case because they each have their own respective, and different, domains. Choosing the valid/invalid modes would only be needed if science and the marvel universe covered the same domain. Obviously they do not, and no one seriously claims that they do. — emancipate

I agree, but it is tricky. I know of a young man who is guided by Spiderman (as metaphor) when psychology might be more useful. I think it can sometimes be hard to determine which mode to apply to which domain. What are the rules (or practice principles) for determining where science should be and where religion should be for instance?

Ok, but by extension couldn't the Marvel universe also provide much meaning to some people - millions possibly? What criteria is used to distinguish valid from invalid?

If traditional culture, with all its faults, has been merely replaced with an artificial pseudo-culture with its own fabricated mythology and propaganda, and revolving on Harry Potter, Game of Thrones, the Kardashians, gangsta rap, posing on Instagram, and wearing face masks, then it seems difficult to claim that it has been an unmitigated success. — Apollodorus

You left out Marvel and Star Wars, (the replacements for Homer and the Old Testament) the true source of Mythos for most Westerners these days.

Sharing a meal with someone who is homeless is not the sole province of Christians. — Banno

Indeed and I have met a number of devout Christians over the decades who think the homeless should be euthanized. I guess they are not true Christian/Scotsman...

Theology is a valid mode of knowing. — emancipate

What is it we know from theology and what counts as theology? Asking for a friend...

True. But it was 'love', 'truth' and 'justice' - concepts - that were the alleged metaphors, alongside the idea of 'God'. Just as airy, fairy ? — Amity

Yes, but for me the key point is they are attached to tangible things. We 'see' love in action, in relation to behavior between people and animals. We can assess 'truth' in relation to an event.

We can't see god attached to faith as anything but a kind of loop of self-reflexivity - I believe in God because I have faith, I have faith because I believe in god... etc.

Of course, I could be wrong and will burn in hell for eternity because I mocked Hebrews 11 and failed to see the concrete nature of the deity in action through grace. In which case, cue Sinatra singing 'Get Happy'

. The true Christian lives for her/himself and without antithesis. sHe has no enemies. sHe forgives them. sHe even loves them: — Primperan

I always get nervous when people talk of 'true Christians'. Under what authority can such a claim be made? A closer reading of the text? A better translation? A feeling?

Setting this aside, I wonder, if the above is true - does this mean that a 'true Christian' can never be in the armed forces or own a gun?

Unconvincing. God remains a metaphor to me - which, frankly, is a kind word for the idea. :smile:

When we say "God is a metaphor," we are either missing the point of metaphor, or missing the point of faith... — Christiancentury: Is God a Metaphor ?

Yes, a point I miss gladly as I view faith (as per Hebrews 11) as the excuse people give for believing when they don't have a good reason. Perhaps faith is a metaphor for gullibility?

...Saying God is a metaphor is saying to your lover, My love for you is a metaphor. Or telling the court, The truth I'm speaking is a metaphor. Or telling the poor, the downtrodden, and the oppressed that justice is a metaphor. — Christiancentury: Is God a Metaphor ?

No. Unlike god/s, a lover, a court, the poor - all exist and can be demonstrated to exist. Any relationship with them comes with reciprocal and measurable effects and outcomes.

The point of faith is not and has never been the symbols we use to express it. It is the reality towards which we orient ourselves. — Christiancentury: Is God a Metaphor ?

Not sure that sentence has any meaning except as a statement of wish fulfilment... What is this reality we orient ourselves towards? In faith we orientate ourselves towards an undemonstrated personal notion of some kind of supernatural entity (however that looks for the faithful) that is not a reality as such unless 'reality' is being used as a metaphor. Cue Sinatra singing Impossible Dream...

Move on. I answered it.

Banno sees this as a reason to view Christians who revere god as morally failing; I see them as intimidated people who worship out of fear, not out of reverence or admiration for their god. — god must be atheist

I saw Banno's OP as making that point too hence:

Those who do not believe in god, when they die, will be cast into eternal torment. — Banno

I generally hold that these two are foundational and abundantly obvious to most discussions of Christian belief. The first key moral failing of God being his protection racket Mafia boss approach.

I might be wrong but I maintain God is a one word metaphor. Even if you are a believer god is still a metaphor for something beyond human understanding. For an atheist, any use of the word is metaphoric.

I don't get into interpersonal scraps on line, sorry GMBA. When I respond, have something to say in return or, if you don't like it, ignore it.

So please stop your habit of picking on me. — god must be atheist

I just respond to ideas that I agree with, that require clarification, or those which might be seen differently. Often I don't even look who said it. I have no awareness of thinking you were particularly obtuse but I will read back over my responses to check.

What are the implications of this for philosophy? If philosophy is about finding plausible ideas, but what we find plausible is based on our arbitrary intuitions, then isn't philosophy futile? — clemogo

Well, it may still be the case that some people's arbitrary intuitions are correct and so their philosophy might well be sound, despite the pathway taken. Also, people frequently change their minds and not always for arbitrary reasons - people do grow and they learn new things, are exposed to better ideas, etc.

I've often thought that people tend to choose the beliefs that sit best with them emotionally. So it is less about matching external ideas with specific biases and more about feelings. This also explains why so many people's beliefs are inconsistent.

he is a big thug — god must be atheist

I took it as given that this was part of the OP.

Well, yours and mine, if you like. I say a god who inflicts infinite torture for finite offences is not worthy of worship. What say you? — Banno

But Banno... surely it's just the translation!? If we knew God's real intention as expressed in the Greek, it wouldn't be 'infinite torture' it would be more like 'endless torment'.... oh... never mind. :worry:

There is much talk afoot of science being to blame for today's woes. — Bret Bernhoft

That's not something I have heard to be honest and it is unclear what you mean by 'today's woes' - many of which seem cultural and political, not scientific as such.

It's pretty obvious that we need some technological solutions to problems created by technology (pollution for instance). But I suspect it is capitalism and the market economy that is responsible for many ills, not just those brought on by science, but also those brought on by manufacturing, marketing and media.

But really, the question is what do you consider to count as science? Do you include cars, medicine, computers, clothing, airplanes, mobile phones, x-rays...? Most things that human's do and build have a shadow side, whether it be damming a river, or putting through a highway.

Really? Ah, I still love the Beatles. It's cliched, because of all that's been written about them and their general iconic stature, but it's true. Glad you were able to appreciate them at least once. — Xtrix

I don't hate them, they just never moved me. But I'm not fan of pop or rock music in general. I know almost nothing of my own generation's music except what I was exposed to by osmosis (films, advertisements, etc).

and Carl Jung is even there in the group picture. — Jack Cummins

Yep and Aleister Crowley...

As far as music goes while under the infleunce, I once was on ecstasy and high on marijuana, and listened to one of Bach's fugues; nearly lost my mind. — Xtrix

That reminds me, the only real time I have enjoyed weed was listening to The Beatles in an Australian rainforest on a Walkman 30 years ago. Sergeant Pepper's. I'm not even a fan of The Beatles, but at 2am that summer morning, it sounded like genius transfigured and the afterglow haunted me for days.

What about psychedelic drugs? — Xtrix

Never felt the urge. To be honest alcohol (whiskey mainly) was my drug of choice and I kicked it around for some years before quitting for good around 10 years ago.

I don’t think you understand my questions, Tom. I’m asking how David Lewis determines and defines what is good and what is evil, just or unjust, right and wrong.


(While I am aware of the many different interpretations of the Old Testament, I’m not at all interested in debating them.) — laura ann

OK. I don't read very closely. Sorry. Yep, there is no point debating what is abundantly clear. Agree with you.

My own meaning of objective is as something which lies beyond the individual and can be measured. I am not sure that there absolute 'truths', but that is not to say that everything is relative. — Jack Cummins

Fair enough. We need to draw a distinction between science and scientism. Just we there is a difference between religion and fundamentalism. For my money science still provides the single most reliable pathway to knowledge about what we deign to call reality. It constructs tentative models of reality based on the most reliable information we have. It should not make proclamations about absolute truth.

Agent Smith
subjectivity is objectivity undeciphered.
— Agent Smith

I tend to think it’s the other way around. — Joshs

Objectivity is subjectivity undeciphered. Nice. I guess we might put science into the communities of intersubjective agreement category? Or something like this.

“An evil god” according to what principles? I’m always interested to know where people acquire their rules of what is good and evil. — laura ann

Not really. It's pretty easy to see where the idea of an evil god comes from. The Old testament reveals a thuggish, vengeful god who supports slavery, genocide, rape and frequently behaves as a mass-murdering Mafia boss. People have been pointing this out for a long time and, as Isaac Asimov and others have pointed out, one of the surest pathways into atheism is reading the Bible.

Nice - any jazz recommendations? I admit I was really into Coultrane, Mingus, Parker, Gordon, Django and a bit of cool Hammond B3 with Jimmy Smith never goes astray!

Does anyone find that drugs have led them to greater philosophical insights or clarity? Any epiphanies? — Xtrix

No. Listening to music (classical) is the only experience that's ever felt transcendent or epiphanic. I did find heroin and morphine to provide the best experience of overall wellbeing and peace I've every felt, but there was no concomitant insight or clarity.

Demonising religion is as easy as demonising capitalism or communism, and almost as productive. — unenlightened

Well, all three subjects remain dominant narratives worthy of continuing robust exploration and criticism. It's not as if the matters are settled. One person's demonising is another's bone fide exploration...

Having known a good many Catholics, I have discovered that it is actually the case than some of them don't believe in God or the doctrines they espouse. It's a fairly common phenomenon. In fact, many clergy do not believe in god - but it's all they know and the community remains important to them. It's not that they are deliberately doing harm, they just don't believe. There is even an international support group, The Clergy Project set up to help these folk.

Why should the universe (1) make sense (2) to us? — Agent Smith

I don't think the universe should or should not make sense. It's a metaphysical presupposition (especially held in science) that 'reality' can be understood by human beings. Using science we are obviously able to develop tentative models of the world we know based on the best available evidence that can yield impressive results. But understand the universe? Not even sure this is a meaningful idea. What do you mean by understand and what do you mean by universe?

You also don't know if there is a god to match any given interpretation.
— Tom Storm

Then how do you know it's an interpretation? — baker

How do you know it is not an interpretation?

Thanks Joshs - appreciated.

I think philosophies have been bracketing conventional
assumptions for centuries. The idea isnt to pretend that you dont know what you know, but to abstract away from it, to leave it in the background, not attend to it. — Joshs

Yes, I though the word pretend might not pass muster. Fair enough. I'm aware of the history from Greek philosophy. But I wonder what philosophers might say about our capacity to accomplish it. Can it be done to better or worse effect, for instance? I wonder how achievable it is not to attend to something and abstract away from it?

The only way you could know that "all versions of god are interpretations" is if you were god, and could this discern what is merely an interpretation and what is actually the truth. — baker

I see what you are trying to say here. Yes, you are probably correct, but how useful this frame is is moot. You also don't know if there is a god to match any given interpretation. As far as humans are concerned, we can't say any more than to the best of our knowledge all accounts of god are interpretations. Call it a presupposition. We certainly have no way readily identifiable method for determining which interpretation is true (if any) so what does it leave us with?

You don't actually know that. You have simply ruled out the possibility of God being what would usually be called "evil". — baker

I do know that. This is from first person conversations with many Christians I know who interpret the Bible in a liberal way. And there are many books that explore how this interpretation is more accurate - David Bentley Hart being one academic theologian in this space.

Secondly, I have never ruled out god is evil. In fact, I have argued this as a potential and realistic take in several threads, just not here. :smile:

Finally, all versions of god are interpretations. There is no interpretation free deity. Until the Great Mofo shows up, we have no knowledge of god other than 'some old book said a thing and this is what we think it means...'

I often wonder with phenomenology is conducting epoché readily achievable? How feasible is it to pretend you don't know what you are looking at (bracketing and 'blocking off' all assumptions and biases) in order to see something on its own terms?

The offense & the punishment, if geometrized into a rectangle, the sides are not in the golden ratio (proportio divina). It looks ugly, can't be God's work. God has to be bluffin'. — Agent Smith

:clap: Of course we don't actually know what god thinks about anything. At best we have claims by people and old books written by... people. God has been suspiciously absent.

but to think the Bible is some divinely inspired book just seems a bit out there. — Sam26

Agree. Ditto for any holy book and there are many of them.

I don't say there is no god either - I have simply heard no argument or seen any evidence that is convincing to me. The concept of a god seems fairly incoherent in the first place and more of a placeholder idea - a raison d'etre and an explanation in one unknowable package.