It all depends on the level of enlightenment of a person. I can respect a person of any faith or anti-faith or whatever you want to call it.

If you're like me, you went through different stages, and by the way, I don't equate these stages as being set in stone and somehow indicative of any ranking of belief systems in either chronological or reverse chronological order. It's just how it was for me.

I was raised in theism, spent some time with atheism but rejected it at an early age, but was always allured by Hinduism and Buddhism and they seemed to offer not only theism but enlightenment and philosophy, but never invested any genuine curiosity into them, being whizzed along by other distractions at the time. I have always and still do have reverence for paganism.

I think I went through a void for a while then, not really caring or giving much thought, got into Buddhism, found it very enlightening for health and philosophy but it didn't truly resolve my belief issues. Well Zen Buddhism I will always be open to, but Pure land, not so much.

Being someone who has always loved Science, I sought to understand what great Scientists believed, but they are not Gods (pun not intended) and have the same predicament ultimately. I was happy to see so many great Physicists were not Atheists, or were Agnostic.

My problem with Atheism when I was young was I felt it cut me off somewhat. Like I was accepting a brutal material world, with nothing beyond it, just cold hard laws of the jungle, a feelingless void that just is. It never sat right with me.

My problem with Atheism when I matured was still similar to that for sure, but also, the universe in my opinion doesn't really appear to offer any cold hard truth of determinism that ultimately many Atheists crave (in my view).

It's not that we have proof of indeterminism either. We don't. Ultimately, that's a big part of the justification for Atheism or Theism, which I don't think we can ever really prove on either side. I think our belief systems are ultimately dear to us as humans, and we defend them against even alleged proof of their non existence, or proof of their existence.

I have no true justification to equate determinism with Atheism and theism with indeterminism, but there are parallels.

Theists are open to the possibility that something divine or supernatural can interfere with an experience and effect the outcome - that's very like an indeterministic outlook of the universe.

Atheists are not accepting of a divine or supernatural influence on experience that can effect an outcome - that's very like a deterministic outlook of the universe.

Theism just resonates more with me and feels more like how it really is, at least for me. It's at the edge of perception, or what an Atheist would call delusion, it's subjective and fuzzy so it's not like I can really support my view.

It just feels as it should (for me). It feels as though my will for something to happen, or my wish for something awful to not happen has a tendency to manifest. Not in any profound eureka way necessarily but it seems to satisfy a need but not a want, and brings solace in a time of pain. It fulfils me.

I don't know how else to describe it. It's a bit ineffable.

Well, as far as I know, what is said must stand on its own, who said it is irrelevant. Ref: Epicurean dilemma. — TheMadFool

I'm sorry I am not able to make this clear enough. My fault. What I'm trying to say is that God is an occult notion and Socrates (even if he never lived) is merely a dramatized method of philosophy.

There is no preexisting requirement that you believe Socrates existed. All you need to do is read the material and it speaks for itself. You cannot say the same thing about God in the Abrahamic tradition. Belief is the first step towards taking a moral position - without this you won't accept any of the 613 commandments, let alone the famous 10. As the believer will often argue, an atheist can follow the ten commandments but is still a sinner unless he believes in and loves God.

Theism just resonates more with me and feels more like how it really is, at least for me. It's at the edge of perception, or what an Atheist would call delusion, it's subjective and fuzzy so it's not like I can really support my view. — Paul S

I think that is a decent insight. Your belief is not supported by a strong epistemology and amounts, if you don't mind me saying to: "I believe because it's more subjectively comforting to me."

One problem with this approach is that this is the same justification people often use for racism or any number of bigotries. 'It just feels to me that X race of people are inferior to the rest of us - this just resonates more with me.' It can be a trap to hold a belief merely because it is comforting or because you were socialized to think it.

I'm sorry I am not able to make this clear enough. My fault. What I'm trying to say is that God is an occult notion and Socrates (even if he never lived) is merely a dramatized method of philosophy.

There is no preexisting requirement that you believe Socrates existed. All you need to do is read the material and it speaks for itself. You cannot say the same thing about God in the Abrahamic tradition. Belief is the first step towards taking a moral position - without this you won't accept any of the 613 commandments, let alone the famous 10. As the believer will often argue, an atheist can follow the ten commandments but is still a sinner unless he believes in and loves God. — Tom Storm

What's the logic that underpins the position that believing in god is good? I don't see a clear-cut answer to this question.

I've explained it several times. Let's move on. :smile:

I'm trying to reconstruct the Buddha's logic. Sorry, nothing explicit to go on except his conspicuous coyness on the matter of God and other metaphysical issues. — TheMadFool

*hrmph*

https://www.dhammatalks.org/suttas/MN/MN49.html is not coy. I can think of several others that are not coy.

To call the Buddha flamboyant in these matters is not an understatement.

Hey Tom. What do you think about my argument that God exists as a linguistic concept. Therefore God exists as a construct in our mind. Therefore God is real?

I personally think it helps if we see things as a spectrum instead of just black and white. That is also my problem with the yin-yang model. Too black and white.

Life on Earth exists because of the light of our star, the Sun. That light falls into a spectrum, from ultraviolet to infrared. That spectrum in turn falls into the electromagnetic spectrum, from gamma rays to radio waves.

If we put ourselves in a god spectrum, we're probably somewhere in between evil and divine.

What do you think?

One problem with this approach is that this is the same justification people often use for racism or any number of bigotries. 'It just feels to me that X race of people are inferior to the rest of us - this just resonates more with me.' It can be a trap to hold a belief merely because it is comforting or because you were socialized to think it. — Tom Storm

You're cherry picking. That's not at all in the spirit of what I was getting at. What I was getting at, in your parlance, was that either position can be construed as a comfort pill, because there is no more or less evidence for the fallacy of theism than there is for atheism.

You are also loading in hypotheticals that conflate the argument. I could just as easily flip the coin and say that atheism disrupts a persons modal logic as their basic ability to trust or believe in anything is reduced to permanent skepticism.

As humans, we are modal. We believe things to be true in every moment of life despite the problem that we cannot be sure. If you use the words 'maybe', 'it's possible', it's unlikely', you are showing a bias without definitive proof. If you are honest with yourself, you comfort yourself with these things all the time, irrespective of your beliefs.

Either can be and is a trap from that standpoint.

What I was really getting at:

Theists are open to the possibility that something divine or supernatural can interfere with an experience and effect the outcome - that's very like an indeterministic outlook of the universe.

Atheists are not accepting of a divine or supernatural influence on experience that can effect an outcome - that's very like a deterministic outlook of the universe.

We have no idea which is the case. From a tautological high ground, agnosticism trumps both.

Well, as far as I know, what is said must stand on its own, who said it is irrelevant. — TheMadFool

It is relevant who said what and being able to source it properly, already so that we can avoid fighting strawmen and people's drunk musings.

If we put ourselves in a god spectrum, we're probably somewhere in between evil and divine.

What do you think? — TaySan

I we put ourselves between the spectral lines of indeterminism - that there is some kind of interventionism, and determinism - that there isn't, then agnosticism would be in the middle, and actually the more logically sound given that we don't have, and likely will never have a solid case to support either position.

At the fundamental level, I associate evil with destruction, and good with construction. Humans can destroy and construct. I think our default is to construct our families, society and civilisations. Destruction seems to emanate from a defensive posture, as we respond to anything that would compromise what we are trying to construct, generally speaking.

well Buddha argued that the middle is the best position right? I try not to define myself as anything, which is almost impossible but I make an effort!

I do have a different opinion on destruction though. Destruction is necessary. We need to destroy our waste or it will accumulate and poison our planet. I honestly believe that pollution is our biggest challenge for the 21st century.

Construction however seems to be a positive thing in most cases.

My own spiritual journey seems to be getting more rational every day. Why does mysticism have to be so irrational? I don't want to let go of logic and reason!

Why does mysticism have to be so irrational? — TaySan

The case for mysticism I think would be that we cannot trust ourselves to reason about the things we don't have true insight into, and to open ourselves to channel it from some external source.

Then why is it not possible to channel it with logic and reason? I think I'm a pretty open person. And how does one even know when we have achieved true insight?

Even if you call this universe a simulation, it's a pretty impressive one. I don't expect to achieve true insight into this, just maybe get a little closer.

What do you think about my argument that God exists as a linguistic concept. Therefore God exists as a construct in our mind. Therefore God is real? — TaySan

This kind of idea comes up all the time, doesn't it? Lots of things exist as linguistic concept already but that doesn't make them 'real', it makes them a concept.

Okay. Then give me an example of a linguistic concept that isn't real, if you can.

Yeah same here. Although I don't think it's a simulation. It doesn't solve any scientific questions. It only creates problems. Because who created the simulation then? Anyway, I think Earth is pretty impressive and I don't know so much about anything further than that. :)

You're cherry picking. That's not at all in the spirit of what I was getting at. — Paul S

Inaccurate use of the term cherry picking. I was simply restating the point you made and providing an assessment of it.

The fact that you also have other ideas is not lost on me. In relation to one of these:

Theists are open to the possibility that something divine or supernatural can interfere with an experience and effect the outcome - that's very like an indeterministic outlook of the universe.

Atheists are not accepting of a divine or supernatural influence on experience that can effect an outcome - that's very like a deterministic outlook of the universe. — Paul S

That's limited. Some atheists only hold that there are no grounds for accepting the proposition that a God exists. They do not say they know everything or that everything is knowable. Some theists are very closed to new ideas. Unless it is as per theri version fo scripture is is untrue.

Okay. Then give me an example of a linguistic concept that isn't real, if you can. — TaySan

A fairy.

Okay. So fairies aren't real, you say. But if someone were to experience a fairy, doesn't it make it real to them? Imagine your child has had a very vivid dream about a fairy. Wouldn't it be cruel to say the experience isn't real?

Okay. So fairies aren't real, you say. But if someone were to experience a fairy, doesn't it make it real to them? Imagine your child has had a very vivid dream about a fairy. Wouldn't it be cruel to say the experience isn't real? — TaySan

Really? We were talking about epistemology and now you are talking about parenting. Where is the connection? Would you tell a child that their dream about a monster taking them away in the night was true?

Just because someone has an experience of something doesn't mean it is real. And a world that encourages everyone to 'experience' their delusion as 'real' is not helpful.

Inaccurate use of the term cherry picking. I was simply restating the point you made and providing an assessment of it. — Tom Storm

Now, you're cherry picking what I said you were cherry picking, you didn't really address the issue I raised.

Bringing up bigotry as somehow intrinsic to any of this is confabulation. Who is really comforting themselves here? No offence.

ringing up bigotry as somehow intrinsic to any of this is confabulation. Who is really comforting themselves here? No offence. — Paul S

You really don't understand my point. I like your use of the word confabulation.

Paul, you made a rather dubious observation that you believe because it resonates. I simply stated that things resonating are not a good pathway to truth. And yes this is the same approach that is used by some racists to justify their position.

If you think this is saying that I am associating racism with your point then I can't help that. How about this: people believe that Mohammad was the profit of Allah because it resonates with them. They are certain that Jesus was merely a man, falsely described as God by some. They hold this position because it resonates better with them. It just feels right.

I agree that delusions are bad. Yet even the American Psychiatrist Association , the current authority on sanity has concluded that religious experiences cannot be classified as delusions.

The connection lies in the fact that there is an inherent link to someone experiencing things as real and things being real. And the difference between a monster and a fairy is that one is malevolent and one is benevolent. Why I bring up parenting is because psychology emerged from a dissatisfaction with philosophy in its practical applications.

In my opinion discussions are not about being right. It is about a satisfactory experience for both interlocutors. I hope we can keep it that way

In my opinion discussions are not about being right. It is about a satisfactory experience for both interlocutors. I hope we can keep it that way — TaySan

Of course. I am regularly wrong about most things.

so am I. Yet not so eager to admit it :). Let's continue our discussion then. And if not tonight, perhaps another time. Calling it quits for tonight

They hold this position because it resonates better with them. It just feels right. — Tom Storm

Resonance describes the phenomenon of increased amplitude that occurs when the frequency of a periodically applied force (or a Fourier component of it) is equal or close to a natural frequency of the system on which it acts.

It's not necessarily the same as equating it. It's not even so much that theism resonates with me. It's that atheism doesn't, and I see agnosticism as a port I would much sooner visit before atheism, which does not resonate with my experience or perception of how things are, regardless of any comfort factors. There is nothing necessarily comforting in resonance. It remains the case that there is no stronger a case for atheism than there is for theism.

It remains the case that there is no stronger a case for atheism than there is for theism.

That isn't the point we are addressing. The point is; what basis do you have for accepting a proposition? If a person said atheism resonates with me better than theism, that's why I believe it, that would be inadequate. — Paul S

Let's assume there is nobody else in this cosmic courtroom other than you and I. Please, address my postulate that determinism is is on some level more synonymous with atheism, and that indeterminism is on some level more synonymous with theism. That's the question I was really trying to ask, and get an opinion on. Then take it from there.