But then any regular everyday event can be explained in a million different ways if complexity is not a limiting factor and all metaphysical unverifiable possibilities are up for consideration. Is that reasonable? — ChatteringMonkey
Yes, i'm not saying we should allways use reason or that reason is more important then the rest of our abilities, but the question was, "is it reasonable"... so I answered with that in mind.
And sure religion has been effective in achieving certain aims, the more salient question maybe is what aims, and are these also my or your aims? — ChatteringMonkey
Ok I will amend the argument:
P1 - God is, is not a fact
P2 - God is not - is not a fact
P3 - Theism - a claim that God is - is supported by reason
P4 - Chrisoffer is not making any claim about anything
Conclusion - neither God is or whatever Chrisoffer believes is a superior position
Tell me which proposition is false and why , or how the conclusion does not follow. — Rank Amateur
A claim demands facts, — Christoffer
traditional Atheist conclusion - There is no God — Rank Amateur
Yes, there's a huge difference between faith in god and faith in the truth.
Faith in the truth only means faith in what is a coming conclusion, whatever it might be
faith in god is faith in a claim that has no direct correlation with any facts or logic, only the claim itself.
Contrasting "faith in god" with "faith in the truth" already seems to embody an implicit claim that "god" isn't "truth" (or that a proposition asserting God's existence isn't T) or something. — yazata
Except that oftentimes we can't be sure that our evidence and our arguments will produce a particular conclusion, at least not without introducing a bunch of poorly justified auxiliary assumptions. It only gets more circular when we start questioning the foundations of logic and logical inference. So oftentimes, even when the subject has nothing to do with religion, there's still to be a bit of a 'leap of faith', however small we think it is. — yazata
That's a strong assertion, if you want to insist that atheists make no claims. — yazata
I think you have missed my point. Science is objective, it explains how the World is, not how it should be. Ethics is subjective. We can agree or disagree in ethics, and we can make our case by trying to reason it. This I understand totally. But when you make the argument that your reasoning is from a scientific basis, for me that is different. Too many times people have fallen into this trap: that they argue their subjective, normative views are somehow deductible from science and hence superior to others. How many times Darwinism or genetics has been abused to push some idea or agenda that has nothing to do with them?Other than that I think you missed the point I was giving; that atheism and the scientific process has more in common with each other — Christoffer
Are our ethics indeed invented by the necessity of survival? Really?Moral and ethics was not given to us through religion, religion gathered the basic morals and ethics that was invented by the necessity of survival by the group that evolved from apes. — Christoffer
Of course. And science basically does the similar thing on a broader level: it explains how everything has ended up as it as and as we can now observe from our surroundings. Similarly, it doesn't give validity to our normative ideas on what to do as reality is anything but simple.History does not give religion validity in morals and ethics, it only speaks on how we ended up with the moral system and ethics of today. — Christoffer
I believe the cosmological argument is a reasonable argument. — Rank Amateur
The cosmological argument only points to a first cause of the line of consequences in a deterministic universe, it does not point to a god — Christoffer
I think you have missed my point. Science is objective, it explains how the World is, not how it should be. Ethics is subjective. We can agree or disagree in ethics, and we can make our case by trying to reason it. This I understand totally. But when you make the argument that your reasoning on a scientific basis, for me that is different. Too many times people fall into this trap: that they argue their subjective, normative views are somehow deductible from science and hence superior to others. — ssu
Are our ethics indeed invented by the necessity of survival? Really?
Perhaps we had those basic morals and ethics for the survival of our family and clan, but typically not for anyone else. Typically animals and packs of animals have their owb territories and defend them out of necessity of survival. Our own species has been the most successfull in basically turning everythin in the World (except the deep oceans) to our own territory. And most likely our species wasn't at all benevolent and peaceful with all the other hominid relatives of ours that are now extinct. The idea of getting rid of your competitors is totally logical for survival. Science indeed can show this kind of behaviour even in other animals. Yet I see it far from being a basis for ethics. — ssu
Of course. And science basically does the similar thing on a broader level: it explains how everything has ended up as it as and as we can now observe from our surroundings. Similarly, it doesn't give validity to our normative ideas on what to do. — ssu
This is a personal and general apology for our misconduct especially expressed in the Atheism vs Theism threads. I/We should know better, and do better.
It may be fun to play debate at a philosophy forum but, if our objectives are not clearly defined, we may undermine the fundamental of it. It may end up being a witch hunt for mistakes and loopholes that can be used against a person instead of trying to understand what is being expressed. Without such understanding, how can we claim our arguments to be reasonable? Philosophy has to be more than just arguments reflecting people's biased opinions. It has to be more than a self-assertion that it is logical for any personal perspective to reflect absolute truth to any significant degree and to the communal human experience. It has to be more than a play at logic when we don't fully appreciate what it means to think or possess facts. We should not misrepresent our limitations as impossibilities; or use ignorance to validate any possibility. We should not stack up imaginary probabilities and statistics to beef up our hypotheses. When we don't know, it's because we are ignorant. The best we can do is learn. And above all, we should know our limits, beyond which, we can offer no significant contribution.
My point is that we don't know the first principles of existence. We don't know how it all started. No declaration or study can give a definite answer. All there is, is speculation. Therefore, it is wrong to deny others what you ask of them in return -> a speculative endeavour. In this way, myself and others have been wrong. If science, religion, metaphysics, or other, is your way of speculating and seeking insight into the mystery of where it all began or what it all is or what it all means, then have at it. It is your right. And, with respect to that, we should conduct ourselves with greater understanding, if not empathy or sympathy. For, we are all alike in that respect.
Therefore,
1.) Does any deity/deities exist? - I don't know. I haven't any proof. However, I have my choice of whether to believe or disbelieve in their existence.
2.) Is it reasonable/unreasonable to believe or disbelieve in deity/deities? - No. The common reference to deistic belief is based on choice, not logic. And if logic were to be the basis, there is still the problem of ignorance or lack of facts. However, there is no sanction against the use of reason to justify, to a relative capacity, the basis of such belief/disbelief.
3.) Is it acceptable to question belief? - Yes. But, it is uncivil to attack a person for it, especially when you do not understand its provenance.
4.) Should we accept all beliefs? - Yes, but only if those beliefs do not contribute to harm of self or others. Every human has a right to their own beliefs.
I would greatly appreciate any contribution, so please add a comment, correction or improvement with respect to civility in the discussions. My hope is that, further on, we will take better care to respect each other and the philosophical undertaking which defines our collective commitment on this forum.
Aquinas would not approve of your interpretation.
The cosmological argument, that I am referencing, has a conclusion that there is a non- contingent or necessary being - whose existence in not contingent on anything, and whose existence is necessary for everything - me and Aquinas, millions of others, call this being God. — Rank Amateur
My point is that we don't know the first principles of existence. We don't know how it all started. No declaration or study can give a definite answer. All there is, is speculation. Therefore, it is wrong to deny others what you ask of them in return -> a speculative endeavour. In this way, myself and others have been wrong. If science, religion, metaphysics, or other, is your way of speculating and seeking insight into the mystery of where it all began or what it all is or what it all means, then have at it. It is your right. And, with respect to that, we should conduct ourselves with greater understanding, if not empathy or sympathy. For, we are all alike in that respect.
Therefore,
1.) Does any deity/deities exist? - I don't know. I haven't any proof. However, I have my choice of whether to believe or disbelieve in their existence.
2.) Is it reasonable/unreasonable to believe or disbelieve in deity/deities? - No. The common reference to deistic belief is based on choice, not logic. And if logic were to be the basis, there is still the problem of ignorance or lack of facts. However, there is no sanction against the use of reason to justify, to a relative capacity, the basis of such belief/disbelief.
3.) Is it acceptable to question belief? - Yes. But, it is uncivil to attack a person for it, especially when you do not understand its provenance.
4.) Should we accept all beliefs? - Yes, but only if those beliefs do not contribute to harm of self or others. Every human has a right to their own beliefs.
I would greatly appreciate any contribution, so please add a comment, correction or improvement with respect to civility in the discussions. My hope is that, further on, we will take better care to respect each other and the philosophical undertaking which defines our collective commitment on this forum. — ChatteringMonkey
I know a flat earther who is an atheist. — DingoJones
Religions basically do give answers on how to live, what is good and what is bad. And religions rely on deities as the reason for this. Is this logic so difficult to understand?I don't see any logic here? You are mixing subjective ethics into the argument about the existence for god? — Christoffer
No. They try to find and do find objective truths. Not normative statements. (In philosophy, normative statements make claims about how things should or ought to be, how to value them, which things are good or bad, and which actions are right or wrong.)You mean that neuroscience, psychology, socialogy and sciences that investigate current states does not find truths based in evidence of the present? — Christoffer
Whatever significance you assign to any speculation about the unknown is based on choice not fact. — BrianW
To claim a scientific hypothesis has greater probability than a religious one is based on the choice you have made (perhaps sub/unconsciously due to a pre-set inclination or tendency) and not on reason based on logic. — BrianW
Logic dictates you cannot state the probability of an unfathomable occurrence (existence) against an unknown cause. — BrianW
If you have any belief against the metaphysics of religion, then it's just as metaphysical as religious belief. — BrianW
Reason cannot determine logic, it only applies it. Until reason provides a means to uncover the proof of the origin and intrinsic mode of operation of the whole of existence, then we cannot claim to have an absolute reference point for any perspective.
However, a relative reference point is what we use to determine whether or not those who claim belief in deity/deities or belong to any religion are being reasonable/unreasonable. And, often enough, their reasonable/unreasonable-ness is an individual factor born of perspective and the interpretation of the information we/they possess. Just as there are a lot of 'crazy' religious people, there are very 'decent' ones, too. — BrianW
Accept as in allow to be. — BrianW
Give your own beliefs the 'space' and 'nutrition' to grow and develop appropriately. And give that same opportunity to others. (By and by we are realising how much deliberate influence we have on our beliefs and convictions. Life is about progress, give it a chance. Mistakes teach us to do better, success motivates us to do more.) — BrianW
A "first mover" is not god by any definition we have, it's only proof that there has too be something at the beginning of cause and effect... nothing more... nothing less.... any claim otherwise is not supported by logic or reason. This is why the cosmological argument hasn't been able to prove the existence of god. If it had, the argument would have been over. But theists doesn't care about this, they just demand this argument to have a valid conclusion, which is delusional — Christoffer
This has not been able to be done in a few hundred years, and not from lack of effort. So you have quite a task ahead of you. — Rank Amateur
Religions basically do give answers how to live, what is good and what is bad. And religions rely on deities for this. Is this logic so difficult to understand? — ssu
They try to find and do find objective truths. Not normative statements. (In philosophy, normative statements make claims about how things should or ought to be, how to value them, which things are good or bad, and which actions are right or wrong.) — ssu
Yes, it is reasonable. The limiting factor would be practical experience. While every circumstance is open to any number of possible considerations, there is a convergence to our shared perception and utility. There are certain specific contexts which prevent situations from being amorphous. — BrianW
I agree. Personally, I'm not a fan of religion. I wish people used reason to justify their beliefs or, at the least, to determine their conduct within those beliefs. But, I must also concede that things won't necessarily happen the way I want them to, especially if they involve other people. I may not care for religion but I must regard those who do with the due consideration. — BrianW
In order to do so, you will need to prove with fact or reason that the premise are wrong or the conclusion does not follow. — Rank Amateur
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.