An atheist who asserts the non-existence of God is occupying a faith position, in exactly the same way that a believer who asserts the existence of God is occupying a faith position. — Pattern-chaser

This is a rather meaningless claim. A religion cannot comprise of the simple notion that 'God exists'. An entire meaning system makes up a religion. Conversely, an entire [unscientific] meaning system could be behind the person who believes in the non-existence of God. There are non-theistic religions.

Making reality relatable via a theistic narrative is a step removed from reality.
— praxis

Religion is not science. Religion is not about facts about reality. This common misconception condemns most discussions of religion on philosophy forums to irrelevance. — Jake

I haven't made a scientific or factual claim. I've merely pointed out a contradiction in your reasoning. A theistic narrative is a step removed from reality and your claim is that our fall from grace arose from a "loss of psychic connection with reality."

I think you may be having trouble separating the concepts of spirituality and religion.

Many or most human beings will find it easier to fall in love with reality if it is presented in the form of a familiar human-like character. The evidence for this is that the God character has dominated many cultures around the world for thousands of years. — Jake

Theists aren't falling in love with reality, they're falling in love with God, a concept they've learned from their culture, and again, this concept is a step removed from reality. Removed from reality in the sense of it being a 'thought', which you seem to claim is what leads to a "loss of psychic connection with reality."

I agree with you that making reality relatable via a theistic narrative is a step removed from reality, but I don't agree that that's a contradiction. A bit paradoxical maybe, but not a contradiction.

You're both right to some extent. Jake's right that a theistic narrative can make reality more relatable, through things like anthropomorphism and story telling, and you're right that that actually has the effect of taking a step back from reality. There's a bit of a mismatch going on there. Personally, I'd rather relate to the world as it is, which is fascinating enough without inventions of the imagination or projected human traits. Falling back on that is a bit like leaving the stabilisers on your bike.

No, science isn't faith-based.


It certainly seems to be based on a whole lot of assumptions that haven't been conclusively nailed-down.
— yazata

Quite possibly it seems like that to you. But that's because you don't know what science is. Of course there are assumptions, and they're usually known to be, and offered as, assumptions. Can physicists be mistaken about the future viability of a theory or law? Of course. They aren't psychics.

"[The laws of physics only have]...applicability only with regard to physical things and events in this physical universe. And, even then, physicists aren't even sure if the same physical laws that apply in this part of the universe apply in other, distant, parts of the same universe."


Astrophysics certainly seems to make that assumption.

As pointed out to you above, how something seems to you, and how it actually is, aren't necessarily the same thing.

Astrophysics is usually about the observable universe. It's speculative whether there are different physical laws in greatly distant different parts of this universe. But no, physicists wouldn't say that they're sure that the laws that seem to apply in our part of this physical universe are applicable throughout this entire universe.

It's probably assumed (as a working-assumption) that whatever physical laws apply here apply throughout the observable universe (excluding the region in a black-hole, or within regions smaller than a Planck-length, where that might be questionable), and probably in some universe-subset that extends some distance out beyond the observable universe.

"It's reasonable for particular physicists to believe that currently accepted physical laws won't be overturned."

Why is it reasonable? There would seem to be some uniformity-of-nature assumption sneaking in there.

Again, how science seems to you isn't necessarily how it is. You'd need to find out more about it before making all of these statements about how it seems to you.

Though I doubt that there's an accepted and unquestioned assumption that the laws of physics are the same throughout the entire universe, of course there are working-assumptions. ...not offered as dogmatic known truth.

It isn't even known whether the universe is finite or infinite, or what its shape is. Some physicists believe that it's more likely to be finite, or more likely to be infinite.

And an individual can believe that something is so without making an assertion that it's unquestionably true. If I lend someone money it's because I believe that they'll pay me back, but it doesn't mean that I can guarantee that it's true.

That's why, elsewhere in that post, I used "likely" as an adverb when speaking of such beliefs.

"You haven't read much about science."


I figured that mentioning science in conjunction with faith might gore some sacred-cows.

It revealed some profound ignorance about science.

"A physical law is a current working-assumption."


And an article of faith to the extent that people are willing to commit to its truth. Which we do every time we fly in an airplane or rely on technology.

It's a working-assumption that what we do is probably safe, even though we know that there's a chance that it won't be safe. "Article of faith" implies something else. Science isn't about faith.

Well, "faith" is (probably best) defined as "trust". Certainly scientists, when using a working-assumption, have a limited amount of "trust" that it will hold true, at least while they're using it. But your use of the word "faith" implies a more far-reaching, complete and absolute trust.

Michael Ossipoff

Quite possibly it seems like that to you. But that's because you don't know what science is. — Michael Ossipoff

My word. And I thought I was bad! :lol:

I'm pretty sure he knows what science is. Most of us here would have studied it at school.

I agree with you that making reality relatable via a theistic narrative is a step removed from reality, but I don't agree that that's a contradiction. A bit paradoxical maybe, but not a contradiction. — S

Unless I've misread him, Jake appears to be basically claiming that what he refers to as "thought" leads to a "loss of psychic connection with reality," which I presume leads to existential anxiety, etc., the sort of things that religion is supposed to address. God is a concept, which is "thought," so does it not contradict his theory that a thought can lead to connection with reality?

What would be consistent with his theory? Putting aside all thoughts and perhaps especially a concept like God that is so loaded with meaning.

Your hyperbolic rants against materialism…

.
All I’m saying is that Materialism is based on (or is) an unverifiable, unfalsifiable and unnecessary brute-fact.
.
That isn’t hyperbolic or a rant.
.
In fact, Materialists don’t even try to deny that Materialism has, needs, or is a brute-fact.
.

, or, as it's now called, physicalism

.
It’s regrettably called that by some people. The problem is that “Physicalism” also refers to something else, a philosophy-of-mind, distinct from its meaning as a metaphysics.
.
So I avoid using the word “Physicalism”, because it has two different meanings.
.
Nowadays, when people say “Materialism”, they mean it to include forces, fields, and not just matter. The mean it with the same meaning as the metaphysical meaning of “Physicalism”.
.

…, try so hard to make it appear much more unreasonable than it is.

.
I’ve stated specific unreasonable-ness of Materialism.
.

[metaphysical] Physicalism is the thesis that everything is physical, or as contemporary philosophers sometimes put it, that everything supervenes on the physical. — The Stanford Encyclopaedia of Philosophy

.
…meaning that this physical universe is the basis of all, that it’s the fundamental and ultimate reality.
.
That’s like the ordinary dictionary definition that I’ve been quoting.
.

But it's open to debate. I am not fully convinced of [metaphysical] physicalism, but nor am I convinced that you can justifiably write it off. I don't believe that you're capable of demonstrating a counterexample; that is, that there exists something which is not physical, or does not supervene on the physical.

.
Below is something that I’ve repeated very many times:
.
I’ve been saying:

I can’t prove that this physical world doesn’t have some kind of objective, fundamental, metaphysically-prior “reality” or “existence”, (whatever that would mean) as a superfluous, unverifiable, unfalsifiable brute-fact, alongside of, and duplicating the events and relations of, the uncontroversially-inevitable hypothetical logical system that I’ve spoken of.

.
It isn’t possible to prove a metaphysics, because it isn’t possible to disprove other metaphysicses, …to disprove an unfalsifiable proposition that has been contrived to explain physical observations.
.
All that can be established in these matters is: Which metaphysical proposal needs assumptions and brute-facts, and which one doesn’t? Uncontroversially, Materialism has and needs a brute-fact.
.
The metaphysics that I’ve been proposing doesn’t have or need any assumption or brute-fact.
.
Michael Ossipoff

I am, and always have been in complete agreement with this point. Yet again it is not a matter of fact that unicorns are or are not. And it is not a matter of fact that God is or God is not. — Rank Amateur

We're not getting anywhere with this. They are both matters of fact. It's not that difficult to grasp. Matters of fact don't have to be settled to be matters of fact. We don't have to know what the answer is regarding unicorns or God for these things to be matters of fact. We don't have to make an assertion for or against. That's just not the way that we usually we talk. It must be something like that that's getting in the way and sending you off course. You seem to be giving the term a different meaning and that's causing problems. Matters of fact are just matters of fact. A matter of what is the case. Whether or not God exists or doesn't exist is a matter concerning what is the case.

Come to think about it, perhaps what you really mean to say is that I wouldn't be justified in asserting that it's a fact that God exists, or in asserting that it's a fact that God doesn't exist.

If so, you're really not saying that in the clearest way. You're saying it in a way which can easily be misinterpreted, as I told you before, but you didn't listen and said something like, "It's absolutely not ambiguous! It's perfectly clear!".

Seems a restatement of my point that it is reasonable to believe that unicorns do not exist - — Rank Amateur

It is reasonable to believe that unicorns probably don't exist, and goblins, and fairies, and God. All for the same reason. That's consistency.

This is in conflict with science - in science absence of evidence is only absence of evidence - the rest to this paragraph is using reason to believe a truth that unicorns do not exist - which is fine, but not science. It is reason, not fact. — Rank Amateur

No, it's not at all in conflict with science. You don't know what you're talking about. Science relates to observable evidence, reason, cause and effect, probability, biology, physics, ecology, and that sort of thing, and all of that is taken into account in order to reach the conclusion that absence of unicorn evidence where our knowledge would lead us to predict it to be means that they probably don't exist in these environments.

Agree - and have never said my theism is supported by science. And the same can be said of any claim that God does not exist can not be supported by science. — Rank Amateur

It can if the God in question is conceived as interacting in the observable world in a way which would leave a trail of evidence which we should have discovered by now.

I have never said anywhere that atheism is not a reasonable position, as is theism - both have reasonable arguments, neither argument has been shown to [be] in conflict with fact. — Rank Amateur

You can't justifiably make a blanket statement like that. Might be reasonable, might not be. Might be capable of being shown to conflict with fact, might not be. Need more detail.

It seems we are violent agreement on many things - — Rank Amateur

We strongly disagree over a number of things.

other than your belief that theism in unreasonable. I have not seen, or if you have I don't remember any supported argument you have made yet that theism is an unreasonable position. — Rank Amateur

It's unreasonable, by definition, when it makes a leap of faith, or when it employs fallacious reasoning. What more needs to be said on that point? I think that that's enough.

I wrote:

It [science] certainly seems to be based on a whole lot of assumptions that haven't been conclusively nailed-down.

Michael writes:

Quite possibly it seems like that to you. But that's because you don't know what science is.

I'd rather not get into a pissing contest with you.

I'm just pointing out that the problems of induction, confirmation, natural kinds, substance and properties, parts and wholes, scientific realism, intertheoretical relations, reduction, emergence, parsimony and simplicity, heuristics, inference to the best explanation, and even what explanation is and what it's trying to accomplish are still open philosophical questions in the philosophy of science or metaphysics.

As are the nature of space and time, modality, the ontological nature of unactualized possibilities, counterfactuals, dispositions, regularity and necessitarian theories of natural law and providing a satisfactory account of causality.

And there's the whole cloud of problems surrounding abstract objects, what mathematics is, mathematical epistemology and the relationship of mathematics to physical reality. Similar problems arise with logic, and by extension with reason itself.

In other words, just about anything that scientists think about turns profoundly mysterious whenever somebody starts poking into the foundations.

Obviously scientists can typically do their work without worrying a whole lot about the philosophy of science and most don't. But more fundamental issues do sometimes intrude into the scientific consciousness when problematic issues arise, as with the advent of quantum mechanics.

I have come to the conclusion that you just like to argue. I’m done with engaging you.

All I’m saying is that Materialism is based on (or is) an unverifiable, unfalsifiable and unnecessary brute-fact.
.
That isn’t hyperbolic or a rant.
.
In fact, Materialists don’t even try to deny that Materialism has, needs, or is a brute-fact. — Michael Ossipoff

No, I don't think that that's true. If I was thinking about whether physicalism is the case, I would start by thinking about the kind of things in the world, and whether or not they have physical attributes or supervene on the physical in some way. Take a chair, for example. A chair is composed of atoms, and atoms are physical. They are physical because they are the subject of study in physics, and are used in physical explanations. You'd expect to read about things like atoms in a physics book. I would then do that with a number of things, and I would see if I could think of any exceptions. I wouldn't just take it as a brute fact. So, for that reason, and because I haven't had that many discussions with physicalists about their views, I am doubtful of your assertion that that's what physicalists do, and that they don't even deny it.

Anyway, how did we even end up talking about physicalism? That's off-topic, isn't it?

I have come to the conclusion that you just like to argue. I’m done with engaging you. — Rank Amateur

This again? Jeez. You're like a petulant child throwing his toys out of the pram. You'd prefer disingenuous agreement, just to keep the peace, so to speak? If I disagree with something, I speak my mind. Ain't nothing wrong with that.

I haven't made a scientific or factual claim. — praxis

I didn't say you did.

My point was that we shouldn't be expecting religion to deliver accurate facts about reality. That's the job of science.

Religion's job is to help us manage our relationship with reality. This is something very different. Religion should be judged by whether it helps people build a positive relationship with this place we find ourselves in.

A theistic narrative is a step removed from reality — praxis

So what? So is a novel, or a play. Entirely fictional, but the good ones help us develop deeper insights in to our relationship with our lives.

Theists aren't falling in love with reality, they're falling in love with God, a concept they've learned from their culture, and again, this concept is a step removed from reality. — praxis

Have you noticed that the God character bears a striking resemblance to nature? Huge beyond imagination, gloriously beautiful, utterly ruthless etc.

”All I’m saying is that Materialism is based on (or is) an unverifiable, unfalsifiable and unnecessary brute-fact.
.
That isn’t hyperbolic or a rant.
.
In fact, Materialists don’t even try to deny that Materialism has, needs, or is a brute-fact.” — Michael Ossipoff
.
No, I don't think that that's true. If I was thinking about whether physicalism is the case, I would start by thinking about the kind of things in the world, and whether or not they have physical attributes or supervene on the physical in some way. Take a chair, for example. A chair is composed of atoms, and atoms are physical. They are physical because they are the subject of study in physics, and are used in physical explanations. You'd expect to read about things like atoms in a physics book. I would then do that with a number of things, and I would see if I could think of any exceptions.

.
No one denies that the chair is physical, and that this entire physical universe is physical. Your discovery that your chair is made of atoms doesn’t support Materialism.
.
The hypothetical logical system of inter-referring abstract implications about hypothetical propositions about hypothetical things, with various configurations of mutually-consistent hypothetical truth-values for those hypothetical propositions. …,which is your life-experience story, has one requirement: Consistency. …because there aren’t inconsistent facts, even abstract ones.
.
Your experience, in your experience-story, is of the experience of a physical animal in a physical world. So don’t be so surprised to find out that your chair is physical. It’s made of atoms. You experience that not by your own experiments, but by being told it by your pre-secondary science-teacher. I’m not denying it. Consistency (remember that requirement?) requires that there be a physical mechanism, a physical explanation for you and your surroundings.
.
At least in our physical world, life depends on there being chemistry. Chemistry depends on there being various different kinds of material, elements, that can interact and combine in various ways, in various combinations.
.
Distinct and consistent different elements depend on some consistent and discrete variation in physical systems. One way to get consistent discrete quantities is by standing-waves.
.
Hence wave-mechanics, matter-waves, quantum-mechanics.
.
Consistency in your experience-story requires that, when physicists investigate matter and its composition, they find things that are consistent with the physical animal that is you, being here. Biology, chemistry, distinctly different atoms of different distinct and consistent elements that are capable of combining in many kinds of combinations. …there via wave-mechanics.
.
None of that proves Materialism. It just shows physicists’ findings that, as required by the consistency that is the requirement of your experience-story, are consistent with the physical existence of the animal that is you.
.
The physicists had to find something when they began closely examining matter, and it had to be something consistent with your physical origin in this physical universe. So yes, your chair, like you, is made of atoms.
.

I wouldn't just take it as a brute fact.

.
What wouldn’t you take as a brute fact? The “objective existence” of this physical universe? You wouldn’t take that as a brute-fact? Alright then, why is there this physical universe? Because there just is? That’s called a brute-fact.
.
Trust me, Materialists who have any idea what they’re talking about in philosophy admit that their objectively-existent physical universe is a brute-fact.
.
Then there’s another question; If you claim that this physical universe is “objectively-real” &/or “objectively-existent”, or “actual” in some way that the hypothetical logical system that I described isn’t, then what do you mean by those terms in quotes?
.

So, for that reason, and because I haven't had that many discussions with physicalists about their views, I am doubtful of your assertion that that's what physicalists do, and that they don't even deny it.

.
I’ve had many discussions with Materialists at these philosophy forums. They admit that their Materialism has a big brute-fact. They think a brute-fact is necessary and unavoidable.
.
But the metaphysics that I’ve been proposing doesn’t have, include or need any assumption or brute-fact.
.

Anyway, how did we even end up talking about physicalism? That's off-topic, isn't it?

.
For one thing, someone said that science is faith-based. I answered that, unlike Science-Worship and Materialsm, science isn’t faith-based.
.
For another thing, it isn’t off-topic. While we’re on the subject of beliefs, it’s relevant to discuss what alternative belief most aggressive Atheists believe in.
.
Much, most or all aggressive Atheist argument against Theism depends on an implicit devoted belief in the metaphysics of Materialism.
.
Michael Ossipoff


.

Unless I've misread him, Jake appears to be basically claiming that what he refers to as "thought" leads to a "loss of psychic connection with reality, — praxis

It's just a matter of focus. What am I focusing my attention on in any given moment, the world beyond my nose, or the symbols within my mind? Most of us are "lost in thought" most of the time and not really paying careful attention to reality, and thus not really connecting with it. Don't take my word for it, observe this in your own life.

God is a concept, which is "thought," so does it not contradict his theory that a thought can lead to connection with reality? — praxis

Great question. I do agree the God concept is just another thought, and creates the same distraction from reality as any other thoughts. In other threads I've commented that a great weakness of religion is that it often attempts to use thought, the very thing dividing us from reality, in it's search for reunification with God/reality.

So personally, I would advise direct observation of reality, as free from thought as possible. But this is asking too much for very many people, and so user friendly relatable concepts like God become the stand-in for reality. And then many folks get stuck in worshiping the symbol instead of what the symbol is pointing to.

Bottom line, what works best for a person? If worshiping a concept like God assists somebody in falling in love with life, ok, forget what I said and go for it.

I could do, and maybe I will, but I would like you to tell me in what way you think that your position differs from mine. — S

If demolishing atheism is really what you want to explore, start a new thread making that explicit request. Or not, as you prefer, either way is ok with me.

God is a concept, which is "thought," — praxis

What a strange thing to say. Is this an Atheist defining God for us?

Admittedly praxis has concepts about God. No doubt praxis's God is a concept.

But maybe it would be best for praxis to speak only for himself.

It isn't established that words, logic and concepts cover all of Reality. They describe logic and science, but it's a big leap of faith to believe and claim that they describe and cover all of Reality.

Michael Ossipoff

If demolishing atheism is really what you want to explore, start a new thread making that explicit request. Or not, as you prefer, either way is ok with me. — Jake

But isn't it mostly Atheists who are interested in starting these threads?

Michael Ossipoff

Theists aren't falling in love with reality, they're falling in love with God, a concept they've learned from their culture, and again, this concept is a step removed from reality.
— praxis

Have you noticed that the God character bears a striking resemblance to nature? Huge beyond imagination, gloriously beautiful, utterly ruthless etc. — Jake

Is this supposed to resolve the contradiction?

Is this supposed to resolve the contradiction? — praxis

I'm attempting to express a theory as to how the God idea came in to being.

Bottom line, what works best for a person? If worshiping a concept like God assists somebody in falling in love with life, ok, forget what I said and go for it. — Jake

To reiterate, they're not falling in love with reality, they're falling in love with God, or rather, their religion ('re-ligare', to tie or to bind).

God is a concept, which is "thought,"
— praxis

What a strange thing to say. Is this an Atheist defining God for us?

Admittedly praxis has concepts about God. No doubt praxis's God is a concept.

But maybe it would be best for praxis to speak only for himself.

It isn't established that words, logic and concepts cover all of Reality. They describe logic and science, but it's a big leap of faith to believe and claim that they describe and cover all of Reality. — Michael Ossipoff

Do you have the ability to know things without having a concept of them?

What wouldn’t you take as a brute fact? The “objective existence” of this physical universe? You wouldn’t take that as a brute-fact? Alright then, why is there this physical universe? Because there just is? That’s called a brute-fact. — Michael Ossipoff

No, that's not what I meant, and I don't think that asking why there is this physical universe is a sensible or appropriate question. It's a loaded question.

I meant that I wouldn't consider it to be a brute fact that physicalism is the case, which is to say that everything is physical, or supervenes on the physical, which I thought was clear from the context where I went into detail about how I'd go about thinking about physicalism: a way which contrasts with the kind of thinking behind brute facts, where things can't be broken down or considered as thoroughly, and you just kind of go, "Everything is physical! Just because!".

Then there’s another question; If you claim that this physical universe is “objectively-real” &/or “objectively-existent”, or “actual” in some way that the hypothetical logical system that I described isn’t, then what do you mean by those terms in quotes? — Michael Ossipoff

Yes, I do claim that. It is objectively real, existent, and actual, although I'm not sure whether that's in some way that the "hypothetical logical system" that you've described isn't, because, with due respect, I don't really understand much of what you were banging on about for that wordy first part of your reply - experience story, hypothetical this, hypothetical that, wave mechanics - which I haven't addressed because I don't even know where to begin. The meaning of those terms - "objective", "real", "existent", "actual" - can be found in dictionaries and understood in contrast with their antonyms, so you should be capable of understanding my meaning without me having to explain it.

To reiterate, they're not falling in love with reality, they're falling in love with God — praxis

Ok, whatever, you win. Better now?

It was never bad.

It’s unfortunate that you feel defeated rather than feeling like you’ve gain something from the exchange, if only mild amusement.

God is a concept, which is "thought,"
— praxis — praxis

I then said:

"What a strange thing to say. Is this an Atheist defining God for us?

Admittedly praxis has concepts about God. No doubt praxis's God is a concept.

But maybe it would be best for praxis to speak only for himself.

It isn't established that words, logic and concepts cover all of Reality. They describe logic and science, but it's a big leap of faith to believe and claim that they describe and cover all of Reality." — Michael Ossipoff

Do you have the ability to know things without having a concept of them?

Do you know what mint leaves smell like? Do you have a concept by which you know the smell of mint? Write it down.

But no, I don't claim to have knowledge or understanding of matters not covered within the self-defined and self-circumscribed applicability-limits of description, logic or physical science. ...unlike you, with your conceptual knowledge about such matters.

Michael Ossipoff

Silly straw-man. If you’re done beating on it I’ll point out that I made no claim the concept of God corisponds to nothing real, only that it’s a concept.

It isn't established that words, logic and concepts cover all of Reality. — Michael Ossipoff

Seriously? What does “cover all of reality” even supposed to mean? You seem to have an inflated sense of human capability.

Do you have a concept by which you know the smell of mint? Write it down. — Michael Ossipoff

If I had no concept of mint I wouldn’t be able to recognize it. Write it down? You of course realize what a silly request that is. That doesn’t make it magic, it just means that I’m not capable of expressing the neurological data in written form. I could write you a poem, if that would please you.

What does “cover all of reality” even supposed to mean? — praxis

Without realizing it, you've just made Ossipoff's point, which was...

It isn't established that words, logic and concepts cover all of Reality. — Michael Ossipoff

Praxis is right, we don't even know what "all of reality" refers to in even the most basic manner, such as size, shape etc.

And thus, Ossipoff is right too, it isn't established that the rules of human reason apply to all of reality, because we don't even know what we mean by "all of reality".

If a person is willing to face this fact in a simple straightforward common sense manner, without trying to complicate it so they can look fancy....

The whole God debate comes crashing to the ground of it's own weight.

A religion cannot comprise of the simple notion that 'God exists'. — praxis

Agreed, but discussions such as we are having here inevitably converge on claims of God's [non-]existence. It's a shame. :confused:

Conversely, an entire [unscientific] meaning system could be behind the person who believes in the non-existence of God. There are non-theistic religions. — praxis

What point are you making here? I agree with both sentences, but don't understand how they relate to what I wrote:

An atheist who asserts the non-existence of God is occupying a faith position, in exactly the same way that a believer who asserts the existence of God is occupying a faith position. — Pattern-chaser

The person who asserts the [non-]existence of God goes beyond logic by going beyond the available evidence, and reaching a logically unjustified and unjustifiable position. Only the agnostic position can be logically justified. I am no different than anyone else here: despite what I just said about logic and agnosticism, I believe. And my belief has no logical justification. I'm human. But I'm honest ... about this, at least. :meh: :wink:

I think you may be having trouble separating the concepts of spirituality and religion. — praxis

Me too. I see no significant difference between the two. :chin: