Theism is to be judged as a form of life, not as a proposition with a true value. — Hanover

Yet when theism is preached, it is always preached as a proposition with a truth value.


As a Jew, you don't relate to that, because Jews normally don't preach. But Christians and Muslims do preach. They make claims that they expect (demand!) that the people they are preaching to will accept as true.

:up: :up:

The best argument the atheist can mount against theism is claiming it’s irrational, which is true. — ucarr

Not at all. There are better arguments. For example, as summarized in the question,

"How is it, that God, in his infinite goodness and wisdom, granted some people the privilege to believe in God by making them be born and raised into a theistic religion, but withdrew this privilege from others?"

The best argument I can think of against theism is that God clearly cares about some people, but doesn't care about others. And I'm not talking about allowing babies to die from hunger and such. I'm talking about the extreme privilege of being born and raised into a religion; the privilege of having internalized fundamental religious beliefs before one is old enough to understand what they are about. The privilege of never having to choose one's religion.

It's an absolute disgrace, to say the least, that Rene Descartes has come to be known as "the father of modern philosophy"!

He and his followers are responsible for the quasi-rationalistic approach to questions of faith and God. This man who made a point of inventing arguments through which atheists and Protestants were supposed to be convinced that the RCC is the only true church and religion. And somehow, the history of philosophy ate it all up, this Trojan horse.

Yet when theism is preached, it is always preached as a proposition with a truth value.


As a Jew, you don't relate to that, because Jews normally don't preach. But Christians and Muslims do preach. They make claims that they expect (demand!) that the people they are preaching to will accept as true. — baker

You can't acknowledge an exception and say "always." The best you can say is "mostly , " but then you'll have to start counting. Maybe we can say "sometimes." But a rabbi certainly believes he speaks absolute truth, so I don't see your distinction. I'll agree Jews and Christians prostelisze differently, but so do Baptists and modern Catholics. Jews do reach out to unaffiliated Jews, but only some (compare Chabad to Litvak).

Regardless, it misses my point. I described how religion is to be objectively judged for its value. That is, even if it fails a correspondence theory of truth, if it advances a positive lifestyle, then it can have positive value.

You might say it fails in that regard as well, which also would miss my point, and it would be agreeing with me. It'd be agreeing that the way religion is judged is by use, not upon its metaphysical correspondence.

He and his followers are responsible for the quasi-rationalistic approach to questions of faith and God. This man who made a point of inventing arguments through which atheists and Protestants were supposed to be convinced that the RCC is the only true church and religion. And somehow, the history of philosophy ate it all up, this Trojan horse. — baker

Maimonides attempted to offer a philosophicaly rational basis for specific religious revealed beliefs centuries earlier. Descartes' required a rational God who guaranteed rationality without reference to revelation. Making an argument that Descartes' writings were particularized to specific Catholic dogma presents him a priest of some sort. His comments were generalized, not the sort of thing you could claim of Maimonides, which were directed at presenting a rational basis for revelation.

Describing Descartes as a shill for the Catholic Church isn't historically correct either. He was at best guarded so as to not offend the Church, particularly being a contemporary of Galileo. Descartes' books were later banned and burned by the Church.

There is a modern annoyance among analytics with Descartes related to his metaphysical framings, but that's not a church/reason dispute.

You can't acknowledge an exception and say "always." The best you can say is "mostly , " but then you'll have to start counting. Maybe we can say "sometimes." But a rabbi certainly believes he speaks absolute truth, so I don't see your distinction. I'll agree Jews and Christians prostelisze differently, but so do Baptists and modern Catholics. Jews do reach out to unaffiliated Jews, but only some (compare Chabad to Litvak). — Hanover

What I said is also in response to another thing you said:

The atheistic belief that belief is the primary reason for religion and not behavior leads you guys down interesting little paths. — Hanover

As if atheists invented the "rationalistic" approach to religion. No, it's from how theists preach!

But a rabbi certainly believes he speaks absolute truth, so I don't see your distinction.

The distinction refers to how Christianity and Islam are religions that aim to make adult converts, while Judaism does not.

When a Christian preaches to a non-Christian, it is with the aim to convert the other person; and the Christian makes claims that the other person is expected to accept as true.
(Also, with the implicit, "Believe as I say, do as I say, not as I do.)

Regardless, it misses my point. I described how religion is to be objectively judged for its value. That is, even if it fails a correspondence theory of truth, if it advances a positive lifestyle, then it can have positive value.

"Objectively judged"? What is that?
A "positive lifestyle"? What is that? It really depends on whom you ask. The various religions do not agree on what exactly a "positive lifestyle" is. Nor on what makes for "objective judgment".

You might say it fails in that regard as well, which also would miss my point, and it would be agreeing with me. It'd be agreeing that the way religion is judged is by use,

not upon its metaphysical correspondence.

What is "use"?

One thing I've consistently observed in religions, theistic and atheistic ones, and especially in the ones that aim to make adult converts, is that they operate by the motto, "Talk the talk and walk the walk", whereby the talk and the walk are usually two very different things. What is more, practicing such doubleness appears to be extremely evolutionarily advantageous. Notice that I'm not calling it duplicity; because it doesn't seem to be mere duplicity, but a conscious, deliberate saying one thing and doing another, while there is apparently some higher aim to doing so, a type of metaphysical street smarts.

Describing Descartes as a shill for the Catholic Church isn't historically correct either.

He was at best guarded so as to not offend the Church — Hanover

That's awfully generous, and it's the general consensus among Western philosophers, yes.

But read his prefaces and introductions to his works. He wasn't a "shill", he was a Catholic, defending the Catholic faith. Stop looking at him as a philosopher first and as a Catholic as a distant second. It's very common to read Descartes as if he was a "seeker, just like we are". Instead, look at him as a Catholic first. In a patronizing manner, he sought to devise arguments that were supposed to convince non-Catholics.
Yes, he presents his case in a general manner -- taking for granted, just like Pascal, that there is only one true, right religion.


And just because his books were banned doesn't mean anything. The RCC also opposed general literacy and reading the Bible for a long time because it thought that the ordinary people could not properly understand it without proper guidance.

:up: :up:

You believe your behavior, being personal, operates freely [in] spite of deterministic events that control your life? — ucarr

..."free will" (free action) is not un-conditional much as chaotic systems as such (e.g. weather, radioactive decay, disease vectors) are not in-deterministic. — 180 Proof

I understand you to be telling me that: a) our ecology, with its involuntary processes structured by invariant regularities and constants leads to: b) the compatibilist believing his choices are constrained to outcomes not strictly predictable or inevitable.

I also hold that my experience of the world does not have need for most metanarratives; I am a fan of uncertainty. I am also a fan of minimalism and think that people overcook things and want certainty and dominion where knowledge is absent and where they have no expertise. — Tom Storm

I understand you to be implying that Tom Storm's quote, with respect to: a) self-referential higher orders entertains a belief that when presented with competing hypotheses about the same prediction, one should select the solution with the fewest assumptions; b) constraints with outcomes not strictly predictable or inevitable are to be preferred to hard determinism; c) higher orders of things should be shunned in favor of minimalism whenever logically possible; d) given an apparent lack of sufficient knowledge and expertise, overthinking should be constrained.

Inside of a Venn Diagram, by definition, lie the common properties linking two otherwise distinct things. An example would be two math inequalities that share a zone wherein their points intersect.

The best argument I can think of against theism is that God clearly cares about some people, but doesn't care about others. — baker

I take this to be your way of saying that God has unjustifiable biases in favor of certain preferred populations. I offer no defense of this apologist rationalizing.

My recourse to irrationality for the defense of theism arises from some of my thinking about ZFC and its comprehension restriction.

And just because his books were banned doesn't mean anything. The RCC also opposed general literacy and reading the Bible for a long time because it thought that the ordinary people could not properly understand it without proper guidance. — baker

His books were not generally banned due to concerns about limited literacy. They were officially and specifically banned for all readers because they were considered heretical. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Index_Librorum_Prohibitorum

Also, the Catholic Church never banned the Bible for anyone. They banned certain translations they thought inaccurate.

Descartes wasn't banned because Catholics just didn't like books generally. They chose him and others to ban, but still let people read other works.

Objectively judged"? What is that?
A "positive lifestyle"? What is that? It really depends on whom you ask. The various religions do not agree on what exactly a "positive lifestyle" is. Nor on what makes for "objective judgment". — baker

It's the basis for all social decisions we make. Why do we pass some laws and not others? Why do we build some buildings and not others?

Your asking how we decide (as in what is our specific calculus) to live a preferred life misses the point. My point is that we decide whether to be religious for the same reasons we decide to do anything that achieves our goals. Choosing to live in a way that accepts a reduced significance for human value is a choice, even if it's justified upon valid scientific grounds. Doing what is most consistent with scientific grounds is a choice and is not a requirement. That goes to my original statement. The value of religion is not rooted in the scientifically arrived at truth values of its claims.

One thing I've consistently observed in religions, theistic and atheistic ones, and especially in the ones that aim to make adult converts, is that they operate by the motto, "Talk the talk and walk the walk", whereby the talk and the walk are usually two very different things. — baker

I don't follow the relevance. There are some horrible religions, horrible governments, and horrible people. Let's even assume every religion bar none is horrible, leading to misery and sadness. That still has zero impact on my position, which is that the value of religion is based upon its outward manifestations. As in, does it lead to a happier more productive person and society. If it does not, it should be rejected. If you can show that the religious life is empty and sad, then let's rid ourselves of it. If you can't, then don't.

What this means is simply that if Joe Blow finds great meaning and value in his religion and he has a community and friends he has built around it, all to their mutual satisfaction and happiness, it would not be a valid basis to dismantle it due to the fact it's claims are false. That is, whether there is a god up high as Joe Blow preaches is wholly irrelevant to whether the religion is of value.

My comments are responsive to the general atheistic claim that projects the idea upon the religious that the primary purpose of sacred text and religious life is at all the same as science, which is as a tool to study the mundane. Religion does delve obviously into origin stories, but those must be judged (again) on how well they provide for a meaningful life by their sanctification of humanity, not by their propositional truth value.

So, you're not asserting God or something definite, but something indefinite, as a metaphysical justification? — Astorre

I think the placehodler 'God' does many different conceptual jobs for people depending on their orientation and values. It’s such a slippery notion it’s virtually unintelligible. Which is why I tend to prefer the apophatic approach. Negative theology. Say nothing. :wink:

My current position is that people don’t have access to a capital T Truth or to reality in itself (a God surrogate). I think some of our beliefs work subject to certain conditions and some don't. I suppose I'm a simple minded pragmatist, the justification for a belief lies in its practical consequences, in how well it helps us navigate experience, solve problems, and maintain community coherence. Neither atheism nor god is necessary for this.

But beyond this, almost no one here has any real expertise in theoretical physics or philosophy to answer the big questions. Hubris seems to be the lubricant of choice.

There are any number of middle-aged, male monomaniacs in philosophy circles with no real expertise, but an unshakable belief that they’re uncovering reality and answering questions no one else can. Misunderstood geniuses. This must be a common type of human being, which is how George Eliot so magnificently satirised that style of person in her character Mr Casaubon in Middlemarch.

Inside of a Venn Diagram, by definition, lie the common properties linking two otherwise distinct things. An example would be two math inequalities that share a zone wherein their points intersect. — ucarr

Please enlighten me; what is the common properties linking the Purpose of the Universal System with the rest of this system. The properties that is then inside this Venn diagram that you propose?

:up: :up:

So if pressed, you would declare agnosticism?

These days (to the chagrin of some traditionalists) the category is usually described as agnostic atheist. I don’t believe in God (that’s the belief part). Do I know there’s no God? Of course not (knowledge). But I confess I also don’t know whether or not Marduk defeated the chaos dragon Tiamat, as described in the Enuma Elish.

Well any brand of agnosticism (take your pick) is the only rational conclusion. I’m toward the deistic agnosticism end of the spectrum.

But I confess I also don’t know whether or not Marduk defeated the chaos dragon Tiamat, as described in the Enuma Elish.

You are familiar with these arguments presumably? This is a strawman.

But I confess I also don’t know whether or not Marduk defeated the chaos dragon Tiamat, as described in the Enuma Elish.
You are familiar with these arguments presumably? This is a strawman. — Punshhh

I studied comparative religion for a time, but my point is salient: the world is full of claims about which we have inadequate or no knowledge. All we can do is believe or not to believe: whether it's the existence of Bigfoot or Muhammad splitting the moon in two. :wink:

I’m toward the deistic agnosticism end of the spectrum. — Punshhh

That's interesting. Why deism?

the world is full of claims about which we have inadequate or no knowledge

This is the Flying Spaghetti Monster (fsb) argument, it goes;
Because there are no actual fsb’s out there I would need to see evidence of their existence before I take them seriously.
If there is a God, you need to provide evidence, or you could be claiming any of an infinite number of fanciful claims, like the fsb.

Where it falls down is it confines belief to the contents of human imagination. But God is implicitly defined as something outside the confines of human imagination. So it doesn’t fit into the category we are being confined to. The argument fails to address the issue in question, by insisting that God must fit into the category of human imagination and that that confined imagined entity must be demonstrated to exist to be taken seriously.

That's interesting. Why deism?

Well I find the omni’ attributes of an infinite God unpalatable. I prefer creator Gods with a more Brahman like backdrop. You know, Theosophy.

There are any number of middle-aged, male monomaniacs in philosophy circles with no real expertise, but an unshakable belief that they’re uncovering reality and answering questions no one else can. Misunderstood geniuses. This must be a common type of human being, which is how George Eliot so magnificently satirised that style of person in her character Mr Casaubon in Middlemarch. — Tom Storm

I sympathize with your reflection on this matter. I often wonder, "By engaging in philosophy, am I finding meaning or simply engaging in intellectual masturbation?"

It seems a fine line.

In my opinion, an idea is worth expressing if it offers some heuristic benefit. If it doesn't, then there's no point in expressing it. At the same time, I often see myself and others "catching a sparrow in a field" – logical iterations for the sake of iterations, without any "going beyond." Entire books are written on this topic. People even defend their doctorates.

On the other hand, without this "noise," without this "environment," truly worthwhile ideas would have no place to thrive.

Returning to the "metaphysical" (transcendental, Divine) justification, I still agree with you: it doesn't necessarily have to be called "Faith." Atheism does the same thing, it just calls it something else.

As I read you, the rest of the system is a subset of the universal system. If so, then given that the universal system has members a, b, and c, let’s say the subset has member c. Member c is what the two sets have in common. Member c is the Venn diagram where the two sets intersect. A real world example is the city of Dublin within the nation of Ireland. Within Dublin you’re also within in Ireland.

This is the Flying Spaghetti Monster (fsb) argument, it goes;
Because there are no actual fsb’s out there I would need to see evidence of their existence before I take them seriously.
If there is a God, you need to provide evidence, or you could be claiming any of an infinite number of fanciful claims, like the fsb.

Where it falls down is it confines belief to the contents of human imagination. But God is implicitly defined as something outside the confines of human imagination. So it doesn’t fit into the category we are being confined to. The argument fails to address the issue in question, by insisting that God must fit into the category of human imagination and that that confined imagined entity must be demonstrated to exist to be taken seriously. — Punshhh

That's a neat summary of how David Bentley Hart might put it. I disagree with this, I’m not making the argument you think I am.

I would say it applies to non-supernatural claims as well, so we can set aside that dangerous spaghetti monster comparison.

I don’t know whether God exists, just as I don’t know who was responsible for JFK’s assassination. So while I believe Oswald actually did shoot JFK, I don't know he did.

:up: :up: