Here is a question I been dying to ask a non-believer...

Why is it okay to believe in the theory of a higher-dimensional being but not God? Aren’t we describing the the same concept? — SteveMinjares

Not sure how they are the same concept. But I have no good reason to accept the existence of either. The time to believe is when there is evidence.

Note also that atheism is simply the lack of belief in God. Some atheists believe in astrology and UFO abduction. It's the secular humanists who are likely to be the skeptics.

Why do you try to prove God in a theoretical / logical way, when already believing in God's existence? — Corvus

Not all believers try to prove God. Some scorn those who do. But there are many believers who want to help convince as many others that their belief is true. Proselytizing has a long tradition in some religions. These guys need arguments, without them being an apologist would not be possible.

I think this is what theists try to do -- God-of-the-gaps -- but the progression of science tends rob their magisteria somewhat. — Kenosha Kid

Ah... but they still have the 'hard problem of consciousness' and quantum mystery gaps to keep them engaged for some time.

Do they not say ignorance is bliss?

What do you count as reality?

:joke: :smile:

Dying is the worst tragedy in human being.  It is the saddest thing. — Corvus

It's just part of life but we seem it take it badly for the most part. I had a similar experience with my mother who had bone cancer. It's a cruel way to go. She stopped believing in God in the year before she died. Modern Westerners are pretty sheltered from the experience of death and give it a status it doesn't really deserve, I think.

He was NOT in the hospice or in death bed when that happened. — Corvus

Not sure how much time you've spent in palliative care. In most cases people are mentally robust and are still quite strong. Their death might be weeks or months away and sometimes they go home for a bit and return. Most of them are well able to make decisions. Some are in denial because the decline hasn't started. Some give up in depression. Some turn to God. Some drop God.

Well yeah, religions develop, grow and change over time and they wax and wane. Many have perished and the gods with them.

Yes, I had never heard of Pascal's wager until I read it on here a while ago. It figures in my own philosophy as what I call "the ontological gamble"; we stake our lives on the validity of our beliefs. — Pantagruel

Pascal's Wager is pretty creaky old thing. You are either convinced of something or you are not convinced. You can't choose what you believe.

The other problem with the wager is which version of God are you going to bet your life on? Even within Christianity there are a vast array of possible Jehovahs - some inclusive and liberal; some harsh and judgemental. Which one should you 'believe' in?

Or do you think a person can just say, 'I will now believe in a de-identified, generic God and that will protect me from damnation?'

I wonder what a God would think if it understood that the only reason you told yourself you believed in it was not from love or conviction, but for a wager.

Russell addressed this 100 years ago as have a million others, along with Russell neophytes.

My point is: you raised Ayer - that when dying some people turn to God. I was simply saying the opposite is also the case.

In death we learn nothing much.

the living who invented the religion knowing that it is the most powerful tool to manipulate human fear, which is death, and preaching to the people, — Corvus

You make it sound like a screenplay being contrived for an umpteenth Spielberg/Hanks movie collaboration.

Ignorance, actions and attitudes maybe, but not beliefs. — Possibility

Hmm - I would say that ignorance, actions and attitudes are derived from the beliefs; they are enmeshed. For instance:

"Gay people are going to hell - they are an abomination."
"Climate change isn't important; God will provide."
"We need to change the laws to protect the Christian worldview."
"Heretics and apostates should be jailed or killed."

The agnostics I know would vocally challenge these relatively common religious views of earnest theists. If we wish to substantively address ignorance, actions and attitudes, we need to challenge belief in literalist readings of holy books or the notion that God's will is known.

They say, lifelong atheist Philosopher, A.J. Ayer had converted to a Christian just before his imminent death. Could religion combat the fear of death? Could it be, in the end, what had been invented for? — Corvus

The idea that religion was invented to manage our fear of death has become a cliché, probably since Bertrand Russell wrote this about it almost 100 years ago.

“Religion is based primarily upon fear.... Fear of the mysterious, fear of defeat, fear of death."
Why I am Not A Christian

I've found it interesting how many people drop their faith when dying. Having worked with people in palliative care over the years, it's also common to find people loosing interest in religious answers and theism when dying. This includes clergymen.

I think it can be the case that we fear the death of other people more than our own - children, parents, friends. In the experience of humans over millennia, death has often been sudden, premature, inexplicable and tragic. Loosing your young children was a very common experience until recent times in the West. This also leaves a cultural and psychological legacy.

Not from what I've seen. At least on internet forums, I've seen plenty of aggressive agnostics trying to fight it out both with theists as well as atheists. — baker

Yep. This is a key point. Agnosticism is not necessarily a neutral position - it can be just as combative and critical of religion and god beliefs, not to mention atheism. And atheists are far from harmonious with each other.

The religious have here an ace that the non-religious don't have. If you oppose what they say, they can accuse you of denying them their constitutional freedom of religion. This is how they can silence you, which was their goal all along. — baker

I think this defiantly happens. Good point.

It would benefit the discussion if you read what I actually wrote, — Janus

I feel like I should be saying this to you given your responses. No matter. Maybe we can exchange views on something else later. All the best.

I'm not merely concerned with having the last word, either. — Janus

Never said you were. It was just an offer since I wanted to move on.

Surly you can countenance my disagreement without imputing bad intent on my part? — Janus

Why be defensive? I have not said (or indeed concluded) anything about your motivations here, I said 'slanging match' - which implies we both do the 'slanging'. It's just a term. I'm not into lengthy back and forth arguments, that's all. They become tedious, as I fear this is becoming.

I said agnostics are stupid only if they don't recognize the distinction between faith and knowledge, just as I have said fundamentalist religious believers are stupid for the same reason. I have also acknowledged that it is not stupid to argue against fundamentalism in all its forms (although, it may be a waste of time since such arguments often fall on deaf eras). — Janus

Thanks for the clarification. Given the predominance of fundamentalism all over the world - their huge influence in American politics (Trump/High Court/changes to laws and views about gays and trans and teaching evolution and threats to Roe versus Wade) I would say atheists have a lot of work to do in this space.

And yes I would count theocracies all over the world. Why would I not? You can't rule out state fundamentalism it seems to be an inevitable result of theism. These guys still believe in killing non-virgin brides and apostates and gay and trans people. And that's just some of it. Saudi Arabia, a key ally, still regularly executes gay people to say nothing of other vile practices.

We have an enthusiastic fundamentalist as Prime Minister here - do you think he doesn't see the world through that narrow lens? Foreign policy and legislation? Could that be why he isn't taking action on climate change? (This is rhetorical, I am not expecting an answer)

I said agnostics are stupid only if they don't recognize the distinction between faith and knowledge, — Janus

Partly yes. But you said they were pretty stupid for arguing against Christianity/Islam - a response to my comment. Agnostics I've known are often very critical of the truth claims and practices of religions.

The principle is simple. It is one thing to say you don't know if any kind of deity exists or not. It's another thing entirely (as Hitchens might say) to be neutral on specific claims made regarding a specific deity's views about morality; who you should sleep with and in what position; what country should win the war; what you should eat; what days you can work on; what counts as knowledge, the status of women; etc. Agnosticism doesn't have to make one a eunuch. There is a lot of harmful religious practice (not all of it fundamentalist) that demands a response even from the agnostic.

Do you think that there is no such thing as bad art?
— Pfhorrest
It's not my place to think such things, as I am not a member of the elite who decides about such things. — baker

I'm so glad you are obedient. I would hate to think you had ideas of your own. :razz:

We wouldnt need to abandon kindness and compassion
any more than we would need to abandon science. But in both cases it would useful
to abandon our prevailing superstitions about the basis of kindness and compassion and the basis of scientific
truth. We care about others to the extent that they are like ourselves. That is , they share our value system. What we call evil is what is profoundly alien to our way of thinking. This is the basis of compassion and kindness. Nietzsche supports altruism but recognizes that our ability to relate to others is limited by our value systems , and those values are always in flux over longer periods of time. To follow the Christian injunction to locenone another amounts to assuming a single value system locked into place for eternity that we are forced to conform to. I don t mean here that love is a value system. Of course we love what we know , what we relate to , identify with. We don’t need a religious injunction to tell us that . It comes naturally . We don’t need to be told to have compassion, to be kind , to love. We need to understand how our shifting values, paradigms, word views change our ability to relate or others. We need to stop trying to force conformity to one worldview , and to stop labeling deviation from that worldview evil. — Joshs

This is pretty interesting and I have to say I struggle to incorporate these ideas because they seem to be keeping two sets of books - which is hard to do unless you are a Stalinist (or insert bugbear of choice). One can hold the altruism without a foundation?

We need to understand how our shifting values, paradigms, word views change our ability to relate or others. We need to stop trying to force conformity to one worldview , and to stop labeling deviation from that worldview evil. — Joshs

Does this also apply to the above worldview? I get these points and don't disagree but it seems murky.

I sometimes wonder can anyone but a theorist partake in such exercises? How can it apply to the quotidian?

The mysterious, the numinous, the spiritual (however you may take that contested word) are all available to the atheist. As I often say, of the people I have met, the most crassly materialist have tended to be the theists, not the atheists. A little thing like belief in God sometimes only brings with it one thing... belief in God.

I don't think it is ironic that atheism is treated like a substitute religion by some freethinkers. Religion's chief strength is community and shared worldviews, and atheism - mainly through secular humanism - has sometimes worked hard to provide alternatives to religious community and preaching. Why not? I also think it makes sense for atheists to become like religious apologists to try to spread the ideas of secular humanism. Why would they not? People have freedoms to allow the expression of a wide range of ideas in culture.

I personally don't do any of this because I live in a secular society. I am more likely to call out atheists for dogmatism.

Nietzsche has gotten a revival from people listening to Jordon Peterson. — Gregory

Very True. Mainly because Nietzsche is the only kind of atheist that Peterson wants to popularize. Perversely Nietzsche's framing of atheism is quite useful to Christian apologists.

If people argue against the incursion of religious ideas into the political realm they are arguing for separation of church from state, which has been the official reality since the Enlightenment in the West at least, and they are not (necessarily) arguing against theism as such. — Janus

Some Atheists operate on the basis that harmful ideas harm human beings. All myths of the Enlightenment aside, the reality is right now laws and society all over the world are being changed by religious folk with disproportionate power.

I have no interest in getting into a ceaseless slanging match on this and wish you well. Maybe just be open to considering that atheism is not necessarily the dysfunctional reaction you seem to think it is. And there's no need to call an agnostic stupid if they don't conform to your definition of the term. Feel free to have the last word. :pray:

hey must be pretty stupid agnostics then since religious faith is based — Janus

No, you are missing something here too. An agnostic is agnostic about the notion of a deity. That does not mean they accept the claims of any given religion about their God. Agnosticism isn't quietism.

What puzzles me is why people are so concerned about the metaphysical or religious beliefs of others. I think it must stem from insecurity. — Janus

But is that because you are projecting or you have a need to denigrate what you don't understand? It just sounds like trash talk.

You're missing something. The issue is that beliefs cause harm to others. When, for instance Christians seek to change legislation - eg, abortion law, euthanasia, creation science in schools, climate science denial - you name it - and when they are supporting political candidates, they are justifying these high impact changes on the basis of an unproven entity. This is not cool. This is the key issue not private beliefs.

Not true; an agnostic is not going to waste time arguing against theists. — Janus

Not in my experience. I have met many agnostics who debate Christians fiercely, not on the basis of God's existence but on the basis of how a believer can possibly know and why the Christian version not Islam, etc. Most agnostics I have known have found Abrahamic faiths absurd. They are more inclined to have a soft spot for deism.

For some, like Kant, lack of knowledge leaves room for faith. The problem here is that some mistake faith for knowledge. — Fooloso4

Indeed. How can faith be anything but the excuse you give for believing when you don't have a good reason? What can you not justify using an appeal to faith? It seems very weak to me.

Probably some deep psychological trauma where they feel they were let down and abandoned. — Pantagruel

Isn't that just an old apologist's canard? I'm sure it is not intended this way by you but it has a patronizing tone to it. Atheism equals disfunction or disruption, rather than a genuine expression of freethought. My own experience of atheism here in Australia is that it's often the product of socialization. A secular non-religious culture breeds a secular, non-religious people. Despite this, I grew up in a religious context and was sent to a religious school. I never believed in God mainly because the idea never resonated with me. I never had any use for it. I still can't quite understand what the idea of god is for except as a debating subject.

Non-reciprocal judgments, conduct and relationships which strive to prevent harm and/or reduce suffering. — 180 Proof

Nice. :up:

Thanks, I appreciate you spelling it out and agree mostly.

I like it. You're a poet.

Tillich; something a bit new. — Banno

It's hard to determine whether this idea of God as ground of being is useful or not. Always struck me that Tillich was embarrassed by Christianity and wanted to rebrand it in a way that appealed more to intellectuals and those who like wanking about oneness. To me it's a way of redefining God to make the idea less easy to lampoon and heads towards a kind of pantheism. No doubt there were earlier ideas of higher consciousness in antiquity that Tillich probably had in mind as a model.

It seems to me that the reason people decide to argue against god isn't to contradict the idea of god so much as it is to contradict a whole set of "affiliated beliefs" that go tend to go along with the belief in the idea of god (but are not necessarily logically entailed). If this is so, then atheism is really just one giant red herring..... — Pantagruel

Can you expand on this? The expression (from the Gospel of Matthew) 'Ye shall know them by their fruits' springs to mind.

I am 40 years old and I am certain at this point that if I stayed 40 years old for 20 years I would get less done than if I were 20 years old for 10 years. It just seems like a waste of resources to live after the body feels half dead already. Lol. Any thoughts? — TiredThinker

Many older people report that they feel 20 at 50. I am in my 50's and I would say I didn't start getting productive till I was 40. I am certainly more active. What does getting less done mean? I think it depends on the person their lifestyle and mental health. Bear in mind too that youth and physicality may not be as valuable as wisdom and experience. Pessimism tends to be a self-fulfilling prophesy - if you think you're done, you probably soon will be.

I am trying to make sense of this whole sentience thing. — TiredThinker

There it is. First lesson is free.

they experienced something more real than real. — TiredThinker

I have days that seem more real than others. And some that feel unreal. Our conscious experience is something that wavers and varies according to the interplay of many factors. And let's not even talk about substances.

So the question would be how do you tell the difference between a day that feels more real and a day that is more real. Does this come from without or within?

I like Eagleton, even if he is a Marxist and a Christian. But Dawkins is attacking the literalists version of God. So that is exactly how they do conceive of God. There is a quote from Dawkins somewhere along the lines of - I am not a philosopher criticizing sophisticated forms of theology, I'm criticizing versions of God that cause the most harm and are most plentiful. I have Christian friends who think Dawkins is great at what he does.

I would agree with you that in the world of metaphysical speculation and higher consciousness posits, this version of God does not appear.

This is not my area but I am fairly sure I have heard people like Sean Carroll argue that the laws of physics would not necessarily apply in other worlds so why should the logical axioms? Or is that a whole separate line of thought?[/quote]

Would the logical axioms be true in all possible worlds?

Just getting back to first principles - why is god or gods presumed to be necessary? Is the argument essentially:

A being that necessarily exists cannot coherently be thought not to exist. And so God, as the unsurpassably perfect being, must have necessary existence—and therefore must exist.

Word play or a thing?

Does this curious and venerable argument only apply to monotheism? Why not gods as necessary beings?

I can't follow that. — Banno

Phew... I thought it was just me.