I mean have you read the OT? God commanded the Israelites to go into villages and slay every man, women, child, and animal, what does that say about this concept of God? All it tells me is that the concept is flawed, and the concept probably has no instance in reality. If there is a God, he probably is nothing like any religious idea of God. — Sam26

No doubt about it. The Old Testament supports slavery, genocide and rape and depicts a monstrous and evil creature who insists on being worshipped. This is not a creature that deserves anything but scorn.

I find generic attacks inaccurate caricatures, treating religion as this monolithic belief system, as if they are all the same. Some religions largely reject the literalism you find so repugnant, denying the literal eternal damnation you attack.

That is, if your atheism is the result of the evil you find in the God you describe in the OP, you might be better served to find a more suitable religion for you. It's not as if religion must rely upon the sort of God you describe. — Hanover

Yes, this is often said. I guess for me (not that you asked) Christianity and Islam (our most popular brands of God) seem to head into literalist and vengeful space so regularly and from so many directions (impacting upon governments and the legislature world wide) that the problem seems comprehensive and endemic, regardless of the liberals who no doubt exist in many faith traditions. And it's not just atheists who characterize religion in this way. My friend who is a Catholic Priest (a follower of Father Richard Rohr) believes that Christianity is largely a story of bigotry and judgmental zealotry. I may have a vested interest in this idea, he doesn't.

Whose beliefs are based on what? Feel-good love-dovey gut feelings. — baker

On interpretations like anyone else.

Of course nearly everyone here will then join the pile on. It is an exercise in religion-bashing, and the seeking of self-satisfaction that 'us atheists are far more humane than those beastly Christians and Muslims could ever be'. So I don't think I'll play along. — Wayfarer

I hope that's not where I'm coming from. I should add that I have several friends - and have known many more - who started as Christians but in thinking through issues such as these, left the church to be deists or atheists. It's also the case that many progressive Christians I've read and met would agree with @Banno and express grave concern over the hideous barbarism and nasty judgement of so much religious writing and practice. Where they differ is they just see it as metaphor that is wrongly interpreted.

My interest here is as to the extent to which Christians (and Muslims) ought be allowed at the table when ethical issues are discussed. Given their avowed admiration for evil, ought we trust their ethical judgement? — Banno

I think that is an excellent point and a very practical approach to the matter. Why would we let apologists for hatred and violence help build an agreement around ethics?

I contend that such interpersonal verifiability among epistemic peers within a specialized field of knowledge applies also to religion/spirituality. While Janus thinks that I am deluded to think this way. Perhaps he thinks this way also about doctors, engineers, musicians, atheletes, anyone who has expertise in a specialized field of knowledge ... — baker

Why not? But it does sound like the idea that all forms of knowledge are ultimately grounded on lived experience and intersubjective agreement that phenomenology talks about.

I was just making a quip - not an argument. :smile:

And yet this god is himself a perpetrator of evil. — Banno

I used to ask fundamentalists; 'How do you know that the god of the Bible is not actually Satan? Wouldn't that be the kind of trick Satan would pull? Look at the evidence - genocides and hatreds by the score - is all that not from Satan's style manual?' When they invariably say, 'But it says in the Bible that God is good.' The answer is obvious - 'Wouldn't Satan contrive it like this?' It doesn't work all the time but the fulminating faithful are often rattled enough for this to be satisfying.

Just read over these two suttas:

https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an05/an05.075.than.html
https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an05/an05.076.than.html — baker

It's a big 'yuk!' from me.

They take themselves to be the model of righteousness. — Banno

I like 'advocates of evil'. Yep. As you know, if you go with a divine command theory of morality then anything goes... God wants you to sacrifice your fist born and marry your 13 year-old cousin - it must be good because god asks it of you.

The interesting variation here is that the argument asks us not to consider the morality of such an evil god, but of those who consider him worthy of praise or worship. — Banno

I have often felt this way when listening to the baleful preaching of Pentecostals or other fundies. 'God loves you; but you will burn in hell for atheism.' Anyone advocating such a Mafia-boss, protection racket style of deity is complicit in perpetuating a cycle of cruelty and abuse.

A "God" without definite, sine qua non, predicates renders this statement Not Even Wrong. Nonetheless, I disagree with what I think you're saying, which is that negative proofs are not possible ...
[ ... ] predicates of X entail search parameters for locating X (i.e. whether or not X exists where & when).
— 180 Proof
So which predicated g/G are we even talking about? — 180 Proof

The word god is so bloody vague. Do you think that in neophyte philosophical discussions such as these it should be clearly spelt out what kind of theism or deism is being referred to? We have no properties to explore here or any kind of connection from this notion of god to any existing branch of theism. It seems rather empty.

Overcoming sensual desire (which includes the desire for sex) is very important in Dharmic religions. It's a matter of manly pride, it's proof that one has overcome lowly desires. — baker

Manly pride? Interesting. I note that celibacy is often used throughout religious and mystical traditions as evidence of serious spiritual devotion. I also note that the great Catholic mystic and putative hermit, Thomas Merton had a girlfriend - is this evidence of hypocrisy, or a man leaving the church and seeking union with the female principle?

Well, it is often used to describe talented or beautiful people. We had a football player called 'God'. I heard a woman describe a particular movie star as a god. From an atheist perspective, the word 'god'; is seen as and used as a metaphor for nature. I pointed at a mountain range and said, 'God made this.'

In Metaphor and Religious Language, theologian Janet Martin Soskice proposes the idea that God is a metaphor of “causal relation.” A metaphor that stands in for an as yet unidentified process that effects change in the world.

Agree totally.

God

There is still a part of world in which introspection is considered a good thing, a praiseworthy thing, perhaps even a thing one ought to do or one must do to lead a rich and fulfilling life. (We get threads about it here.) Still, it’s not science, which makes it — from a point-of-view I’ll cheerfully admit is made of straw — something like a ‘hobby’, all well and good but not something ‘serious’. — Srap Tasmaner

Interesting. This is not my area so forgive my clumsy wording. Is it not the case that through an introspective approach phenomenology enhances our appreciation of just how much of what we call knowledge is a kind of intersubjective agreement and truth building exercise between individuals and communities? It strikes me that so much of what what have names for is actually poorly understood, it's as if the act of naming passes for an explanation.

I would think that phenomenology would be of assistance in broadening our understanding of how experience and perceptions become opinions and how groups come to conclusions about values and truth.

MBTI is a huge money spinner for CCP, the company which owns it. Research studies have never establish MBTI is anything more than an ice breaking exercise or fun office game. Even CCP is cautious about its efficacy, with its President Jeffery Hayes saying - "It is not, and was never intended to be predictive, and should never be used for hiring, screening or to dictate life decisions.' In other words, fun to do then best off ignored.

It is not axiomatic to secular Buddhism, and I think the judgement that secular Buddhism is not "really" Buddhism is an example of the 'no true Scotsman" fallacy. — Janus

Although it seems to me that there must be a time when something which calls itself X may not actually be X. It just depends on how we decide where the line between authenticity and dissimilarity lies. How do you know when something which calls itself Buddhist or Christian is no longer one of these? Or is it the case that the name applied is all which matters?

Both potentially.

Goodness, talk about a radical rethink of his position. Well expressed. I guess it is not hard to see how phenomenology might be difficult to 'read' if even Thompson has had to radically reconsider his understanding of it (with help).

Suffice to say they put too much emphasis on believing and not enough on insight. (See Karen Armstrong's Metaphysical Mistake.) — Wayfarer

That's a little gem. I remember discovering Armstrong back when her History of God came out.

She makes a consistent case from the role of compassion in attaining enlightenment - not sure this has come up all that often so far. In her autobiography The Spiral Staircase she writes:

Compassion has been advocated by all the great faiths because it has been found to be the safest and surest means of attaining enlightenment. It dethrones the ego from the center of our lives and puts others there, breaking down the carapace of selfishness that holds us back from an experience of the sacred. And it gives us ecstasy, broadening our perspectives and giving us a larger, enhanced vision. As a very early Buddhist poem puts it: 'May our loving thoughts fill the whole world; above, below, across — without limit; a boundless goodwill toward the whole world, unrestricted, free of hatred and enmity.' We are liberated from personal likes and dislikes that limit our vision, and are able to go beyond ourselves." — Karen Armstrong

I say unfortunately because he influenced a whole generation of Husserl and Heidegger scholars. — Joshs

In your view did Searle fail to understand phenomenology or did he have a particularly tendentious reading of the source material?

Entertainments. Mathematics will interest the mathematician. Art is an artist thing ... Those are just diplomatic ways of rejecting the only problem that haunts us all our lives: that we have to die. — Primperan

If you think like that no wonder death is on your mind. You sound like Woody Allen. I am not haunted by death and I have worked alongside palliative care and in suicide intervention for many years. I've found many dead people and watched many die. It interests me how few people ever give death a thought. Most people I've known (pessimistic philosophers exempted) don't seem to realise that they will die unless they become very sick or extremely unhappy.

Did Buddha himself relate this to his followers? Do enlightened people have visions of beautiful women trying to seduce them? Are beautiful women (or women in general) a problem? — Apollodorus

As an old man Gandhi used to lie in bed with naked young women who were decades younger than him. This, apparently was a celibacy test and an attempt to prove he was beyond temptation. Wanker...

True philosophy only has to do with a single problem: death. — Primperan

This is certainly what popular culture often thinks philosophy is. One of the great platitudes you hear is all religion and all philosophy is simply humanity's inability to face death. I think this is exaggerated, I have met way too many people interested in philosophy who have no notion yet that they are going to die - mainly on account of them being in their 20's, and mostly oblivious to death, as young people so often are in the West.

Death may be the 'Big Problem' in the end but much philosophy is simply trying to work out how to spend and understand your time. What is maths? What is art? What is beauty?

If you yourself don't taste a mango, you'll never have the first-hand knowledge that the epistemic community of mango tasters have. — baker

Hey, leave qualia out of this... :razz:

Of course, most Platonists today are Christians, especially Greek Orthodox. A Platonist may be officially a Christian, privately a Christian Platonist, and inwardly a Platonist. Some may follow the example of Pletho and openly subscribe to Classical Greek religion. There are many Hellenic groups, in Greece, in any case. Others may follow other traditions, or no tradition at all.

This is entirely consistent with traditional Platonism which prescribes three different, though related, paths to liberation or levels of practice: (1) religious or ritual (theourgia) with emphasis on action, (2) contemplative (theoria) with emphasis on knowledge, and (3) esoteric or initiatory (ta mysteria) with emphasis on will-power.

Moreover, Platonists do not normally call their system "Platonism". The correct designation is "Philosophy in the tradition of Plato" or simply, "Philosophy". "Platonism" has always been taught as "Philosophy" and "Platonist schools" also included other philosophers like Aristotle. When someone studied Philosophy, they studied Plato (and others). In general, Platonism was Philosophy and Philosophy was Platonism.

The same applies even now. There are many philosophy circles or groups all over the world that study the teachings of Plato. But they would typically call it "Classical Philosophy" or just "Philosophy".

In any case, from a Platonic perspective Philosophy transcends religion. If it is religion you are after, then that's what you have to look for .... — Apollodorus

Nicely succinct clarification.

If the practice of veganism is an effective strategy to promote change in the world. — TheQuestion

Ok. I imagine changing the human diet en masse would make a substantial difference to the world's resources and industrial economies. But so would broadly practiced minimalism or religious asceticism. What we don't know is what the unintended consequences of such choices would be.

I'm not aware that people hate vegans.

:ok: Some of the communities I have been working with this year only have a 30% (approx) vaccination rate compared to 93% of the general population. They have a range of vulnerabilities including compromised immune systems, diabetes, premature aging. They are sitting ducks.

I've always thought that a large part of philosophy is a speculative and imaginative activity in order to challenge assumptions. This even includes banal thought experiments. I wonder if it's too limiting or ungenerous to dub this 'let's pretend'?

I have a feeling that I'm getting mixed up between knowledge (JTB) and logic/truth. I'm still in a fog. — Agent Smith

I'm not the best person to talk to as logic doesn't engage me. The logical absolutes are tautologies.

No one denies that we can say that God either exists or does not exist. There's your Aristotle. But in the real world it is not always possible to know what is the case.

Justified true belief is not logic. It simply means that a belief held is resting on good evidence. And of course justified true belief is not always correct.

My own view is that is no such thing as absolute truth and that truth is not found outside us but made by humans. No doubt many will disagree.

Ok. Unknown?

What are you trying to get to in all this? I don't do math or logic, sorry. But I am curious what you have in mind.

However, sometimes it makes more sense to assume truth rather than falsity (Pascal's Wager). Like one poster remarked, it depends on the risk involved. — Agent Smith

Pascal's Wager is nuts. What if you 'decide to believe' in the wrong God? It leads you no where. Also there's the problem, as I see it, that beliefs can't just be faked like this. You either believe something or you don't.

:up: Agree TC. It's been really engaging and I have learned new things.

:up:

Thanks for your response. I'm interested in the descriptions of contemplative prayer as per Rohr's accounts - where there are no words, no request is made, no ideas are formed - it is about emptying the mind - a focus on union with higher consciousness. He describes the process in similar terms to some of the Taoist material I have read.

I'm wondering if you explored the similarities between contemplative prayer and meditation and if you have any observations on this.

You seem to have missed the point. If it can be established that Christianity originally was not about suffering or punishment in the way you describe, that would be a noteworthy contribution. I see you fishing around for early Buddhist accounts to get close to the original meaning, so how is this different?