On God

tim wood

God - a word about which, if it is to be a meaningful word and not a nonsense word - is all about faith. As such, it is not about philosophy, metaphysics. logic, reason, science, quantum mechanics or really anything else. These other things, to be sure, as tools can be applied to theology for the benefit of theology. But no application of them brings theology out of its own proper sphere of faith without turning it into nonsense.

And it's crystal clear that many participants on TPF do not understand that simple point. Practice faith. Think about what it means to believe in and practice that faith. And practice goes to conduct. There's plenty in that. But all efforts to find God in science, or logic, or semantics, or anywhere else except in faith, cannot succeed.

No doubt many will want to jump in and say "Oh yeah! Prove it!" or some variation thereon. Before you do, think about this: my question will be, "Prove what?" Likely your answer will be something - anything - about God. To which my response will be, "Tell us first what that is - define your term in some substantive way." And you cannot, except in terms of faith.

In short, there can be philosophies of religion and theology. This is just thinking about the thinking about these topics. But that's the limit of what is reasonable. Attempts to prove existence, or presence, or anything else, outside of theology, is nonsense. In faith, you can have whatever your faith calls for. But not outside of that faith. Looking for it outside is simply a mistake.

Actually, such nonsense when and where practiced is a symptom of metaphysical defeatism and despair, which can lead to fundamentalist morality and mysticism. But this is a different topic, on a different subject.

frank

"Tell us first what that is - define your term in some substantive way." And you cannot, except in terms of faith. — tim wood

This is true for some believers, but not all. The concept of divinity has been around for the whole reach of human history. If you take a holistic approach to its meaning, it means things like cause, consciousness, volition, life, Nature, logic, purpose, etc. None of those things are purely matters of faith or exclusive of what we commonly think of as humanity's properties.

tim wood

↪frank

Some people believe mankind is God. A point is the attempt to reach for an explanation of mystery. It's the having and eating cake problem. You cannot have explained mysteries; once explained, no more mystery.

I understand the holistic approach (feel free to educate on this) is the belief in an immanent something - as opposed to a transcendent something. That is (absurd example approach warning), this rock is a manifestation of God. Perhaps; in (your) faith granted. But the rock is, first, a rock. If any part of the rock is something else, what part, what something else?

Sam26

God - a word about which, if it is to be a meaningful word and not a nonsense word - is all about faith. As such, it is not about philosophy, metaphysics. logic, reason, science, quantum mechanics or really anything else. These other things, to be sure, as tools can be applied to theology for the benefit of theology. But no application of them brings theology out of its own proper sphere of faith without turning it into nonsense. — tim wood

The idea that God is just about faith is an idea that I think most people understand, but if it's just a belief based on faith, what makes one faith better than another. It's funny because when I ask this question to religious people they start using reason to defend their faith, but the claim is that reason has nothing to do with faith. So which is it, I ask, faith or reason? If it's purely faith, without reason, then I suppose I could have faith in anything I please. One faith is no better than another.

frank

I understand the holistic approach (feel free to educate on this) is the belief in an immanent something - — tim wood

I was talking about meaning holism. Imagine a sea of beliefs and inferences that repetitively crashes upon the shore of contemporary speech, making available elements from the distant past and from distant lands. Meaning, by this view, arises from this vast sea so that no particular case of use has clear boundaries in terms of meaning.

So I was offering elements of the use of "God" that aren't about faith, but may feature in everyone's experiences. What makes the believer distinct is that he or she is calling that thing divine.

But the rock is, first, a rock. If any part of the rock is something else, what part, what something else? — tim wood

I'm not sure what belief system this is. Sounds interesting, though.

LD Saunders

No system we have is grounded --- science, mathematics, logic, they all rest on faith. In logic and mathematics, we rely on the faith in axioms. In science, we rely on the circular reasoning of using induction to support induction, which means science remains ungrounded. The distinction between theists and others has nothing to do with the issue of faith, as all of us have faith. Philosophers have shown this over and over again. We cannot even trust there is a world outside of ourselves without faith, it simply cannot be proven in any concrete fashion. The distinction is that some theists make claims to knowledge that they do not possess. That's the real dividing line.

tim wood

I was talking about meaning holism. Imagine a sea of beliefs and inferences that repetitively crashes upon the shore of contemporary speech, making available elements from the distant past and from distant lands. Meaning, by this view, arises from this vast sea so that no particular case of use has clear boundaries in terms of meaning. — frank

I'm struck by the substance and beauty of this metaphor. Thank you for it! Let's see how well it stands.

Meaning must mean one of these: it's meaningful a) for us, b) for you, not me, c) me not you, d) neither of us but them, e) not meaningful at all. Implicit is that "meaningful" is in itself meaningful. That is, meaning is criteriological. As such, to say that some particular meaning "has no clear boundaries" is to say that it has no clear history or exact place from or out of which the meaning originates - and I accept this as true, though it may well be arguable.

As to the meaning itself, it is (meaningful) or it isn't (setting aside for the moment any issue of parts).

So I was offering elements of the use of "God" that aren't about faith, but may feature in everyone's experiences. What makes the believer distinct is that he or she is calling that thing divine. — frank

To find divinity in the everyday just is an act of faith. What else could it be? In faith it's acceptable to call something God. But outside of faith, what is it? It's not enough for any criteria of meaning I know of to accept it as meaning, as meaningful, merely because someone says it. If someone says the rock is divine, as knowledge that's private knowledge, again, faith, or, another word, feeling, the personal attribution of a particular cause for a particular feeling.

tim wood

The idea that God is just about faith is an idea that I think most people understand, but if it's just a belief based on faith, what makes one faith better than another. It's funny because when I ask this question religious people start using reason to defend their faith, but the claim is that reason has nothing to do with faith. So which is it, I ask, faith or reason? If it's purely faith, without reason, then I suppose I could have faith in anything I please. One faith is no better than another. — Sam26

As faith qua faith, none is better, imo - you can believe what you want. But is it that simple? In most faiths there's a component of action. I imagine you would agree with me that some actions are better than others. And there is also the internal logic of any system, which is merely the application of reason - logic - to the system itself without reference to anything outside the system - usual tests being for internal consistency and the presence of contradiction.

tim wood

↪LD Saunders

Your argument trades on a slippery conception of faith, and little or no faith in groundedness. Question: do you say that nothing is grounded? That is, of all that is, nothing that is, is grounded?

Janus

If it's purely faith, without reason, then I suppose I could have faith in anything I please. One faith is no better than another. — Sam26

Faith, as distinct from merely arbitrary belief, or idle entertainment of ideas, has affective power. No one will feel devotion or love for, or be profoundly inspired by, the Spaghetti Monster or Russell's Teapot.

It is not so much that one faith is better than another but that there is real faith and then there is mere belief and then something even less significant than that.

Sam26

As faith qua faith, none is better, imo - you can believe what you want. But is it that simple? In most faiths there's a component of action. I imagine you would agree with me that some actions are better than others. And there is also the internal logic of any system, which is merely the application of reason - logic - to the system itself without reference to anything outside the system - usual tests being for internal consistency and the presence of contradiction. — tim wood

For me, it's not a matter of believing what I want, I want to have knowledge. What's true is what interests me, not some opinion that may or may not be true.

I do agree that some actions are better than others, and that's based on reason. However, you're going beyond reason, to say that faith is better, but you don't give a reason, you just make a statement, as if the mere statement conveys the truth.

Sam26

Faith, as distinct from merely arbitrary belief, or idle entertainment of ideas, has affective power. No one will feel devotion or love for, or be profoundly inspired by, the Spaghetti Monster or Russell's Teapot.

It is not so much that one faith is better than another but that there is real faith and then there is mere belief and then something even less significant than that. — Janus

There is no doubt that faith, which are about beliefs by the way, have power, but that doesn't make them true, and that's what I'm concerned with, not wishful thinking.

Faith without reason is no better than mere belief, that's all it is; and by mere belief, I mean opinion. Now if reason plays a part, as some religious people contend, then we can look at one's faith, one's beliefs, in terms of the evidence or the reasons that support them. Tim seems to want it both ways, at least that's how I read what he's saying.

Finally, people can be inspired by false beliefs, it happens all the time. Beliefs are powerful, and this is true even if the belief is false.

tim wood

However, you're going beyond reason, to say that faith is better, — Sam26

Nope. I don't know where you got that.

Sam26

God - a word about which, if it is to be a meaningful word and not a nonsense word - is all about faith. As such, it is not about philosophy, metaphysics. logic, reason, science, quantum mechanics or really anything else. — tim wood

In this quote you say it's all about faith, "...not about philosophy, metaphysics, logic, reason, science, quantum mechanics..." Later you say that if it's brought out of the sphere of faith, then it turns into nonsense. You seem to want to separate the faith from the reason, but faith is about the beliefs, i.e., if it's not about the beliefs, then what is it about? If I have faith that God exists, then I believe God exists. Thus, we want to know what the reasons are for those beliefs. Faith without belief is meaningless.

Rank Amateur

↪tim wood

In general I agree. I think any statement we make about the nature of God has no basis. There is no reason to believe that we in anyway possess the tools required to make any such claim.

Faith in God may well be the philosophic suicide that Camus said it is. But if one finds theism a personally satisfying answer to the big "why", why is that in anyway different from the existentialist defining a unique meaning, or from the absurd hero's acceptance of the absurd?

Camus would, I think, say one is more truthful than the other. Which to my mind is just a prejudicial selection of one option over another - neither one with any more provable truth value than the other.

So to the main point neither fact, nor reason, nor faith is a better or worse basis for one to believe something to be true - with the only caveat that they can not be misapplied. Reason can not be in conflict with fact, and faith can not be in conflict with fact or reason.

What is really at issue, and has been for a very long time is really just one person saying their faith based belief is better than your faith based belief. -

Janus

There is no doubt that faith, which are about beliefs by the way, have power, but that doesn't make them true, and that's what I'm concerned with, not wishful thinking. — Sam26

One person's faith is another person 'wishful thinking".

The purported truth, in any propositional sense, of what one has faith in is irrelevant, not even coherent, I would say. Faith is not properly held in propositional terms at all; if it is, it is mere irrational belief, some form of fundamentalism.

The most powerful and universal form of faith is faith in God, or some kind of divine, universal power or principle. What could it mean to ask whether particular faiths of those forms are "true"? This is not an empirical matter at all, unless the religious belief takes the form of fundamentalism; in which case it would plausibly be false, or at least beyond any possibility of demonstration, and thus, as a would-be empirical proposition, incoherent. The purported refutations of such non-propositional faiths are thus also tantamount to fundamentalism.

frank

I'm struck by the substance and beauty of this metaphor — tim wood

Cool. I was going for a wave/particle duality for holism/atomism. It's clearer to say that meaning holism says that a word's meaning is bound up in the meaning of a whole statement in which it appears. In turn, that statement's meaning is bound up in its context: a scientific statement being inextricably bound to science in general, for instance.

It's not enough for any criteria of meaning I know of to accept it as meaning, as meaningful, merely because someone says it. — tim wood

"There, but for the grace of God, go I." If you heard that in context, you'd probably understand some of the meaning. You'd have a deeper understanding if you studied medieval Christianity. If your grandmother used to say that, it would have other connections.

That's an example of thinking in terms of meaning holism: seeing overlapping contexts.

If someone says the rock is divine, as knowledge that's private knowledge, again, faith, or, another word, feeling, the personal attribution of a particular cause for a particular feeling. — tim wood

Again, I'm not familiar with the rock disciples. It wouldn't bother me if they said that God is the feeling they get when they're around rocks. Would it bother you?

Sam26

The purported truth, in any propositional sense, of what one has faith in is irrelevant, not even coherent, I would say. Faith is not properly held in propositional terms at all; if it is, it is mere irrational belief, some form of fundamentalism. — Janus

I don't follow your thinking. If we're talking about the existence of God, and having faith in a God, what are we talking about if not whether such a being exists, whether it's true or not. If it's not propositional, then what is it? How do you express it? There has to be a belief of some sort, we are not talking in a vacuum of beliefs. I don't know of any religious faith that doesn't hold to some kind of propositional faith or belief. Moreover, if someone asked, what is your faith in, what do you believe, how do you do express it without expressing statements or propositions of some sort. I guess you could chant.

TWI

There is no rock, it's just God imagining itself to be a rock, by the same token there is no universe, it just appears to be.

Janus

↪Sam26

As I see it, faith proper is almost entirely a matter of affect. It consists in feelings: of reverence, of awe, of love, of aspiration, of a sense of the divine, the sublime. Whatever is said as an expression of faith should be taken as metaphor, as allegory.

The existence or non-existence of God cannot be known; first you would need to understand what it could mean to say that God exists.

tim wood

So to the main point neither fact, nor reason, nor faith is a better or worse basis for one to believe something to be true - with the only caveat that they can not be misapplied. — Rank Amateur

Sure they are (better or worse). Think about the simple meanings of the words. As basis, they inform. What does a fact tell us? What does reason tells us? What does faith tell us?

To be brief, faith (itself) tells us nothing. Faith comes from within us. Therefore anything attributed to faith has its origins in us. At the same time not in fact - or we would be being informed by fact. Nor in reason, for reason would be informing us, and reason speaks of facts. To denominate any as "true" requires a definition of true. Except that one definition won't fit. Each will require its own truth.

Are you willing to affirm that matters of fact, reason, and faith are in every way equally good? Or would you prefer to say that matters of faith are of value in faith, reason in reason, and fact in fact. And that for purposes outside of faith - namely the world - reason and facts are preferable.

tim wood

Camus would, I think, say one is more truthful than the other. Which to my mind is just a prejudicial selection of one option over another - neither one with any more provable truth value than the other. — Rank Amateur

I'm not up on Camus's understanding of what truth is, either in his context or in general. But I can ask you if you distinguish between rhetorical brickbats and real brickbats. And if you do, which is the truer. And if you think Camus would, too.

tim wood

↪TWI

A joke, I assume, Else do you suppose that a reduction to appearances solves anything?

Sam26

As I see it, faith proper is almost entirely a matter of affect. It consists in feelings: of reverence, of awe, of love, of aspiration, of a sense of the divine, the sublime. Whatever is said as an expression of faith should be taken as metaphor, as allegory.

The existence or non-existence of God cannot be known; first you would need to understand what it could mean to say that God exists. — Janus

Okay, so faith consists of feelings of reverence, of awe, of love, of aspiration, etc. Faith as I see it, involves trust, if I have faith in someone or something, I'm trusting someone or something.

However, let's use reverence as an example, reverence is respect for someone or something, usually when Christians use the term reverence they are talking or referring to someone, viz., God. If they talk about love, it's love for someone, so it's more than a feeling, although it's that too. Even very liberal churches, at least many of them, have tenets of faith, beliefs that they put their faith in. Your idea seems very subjective, viz., faith is whatever I want it to be, a kind of mysticism or metaphor. My argument is with those who put their faith in specific beliefs.

Your way of thinking about it would need to be tackled in a different way. Moreover, the two main religions don't think of it the way you're thinking of faith, at least generally.

TWI

↪tim wood

Not joking, it's what I believe, that what we call 'God' is the only thing that exists. So if you/I/we exist then you/I/we are God, quite simple really. Everything we investigate appears more complex the more we look, I believe ultimate reality must be simple.

Devans99

Not joking, it's what I believe, that what we call 'God' is the only thing that exists. So if you/I/we exist then you/I/we are God, quite simple really — TWI

It's a model with much pedigree. You can think of it like this:

- In the beginning there was God and some stuff and God made the world from stuff
Or
- In the beginning there was God only and he mad the world from himself

I don't belief in creation ex nihilo so that gives a 50% chance that Pantheism is true.

Janus

Your way of thinking about it would need to be tackled in a different way. Moreover, the two main religions don't think of it the way you're thinking of faith, at least generally. — Sam26

I'm not sure which religions you are referring to as the "two main", but in any case I would say that intelligent adherents of all the major religions do for the most part see it the way I described.

Think about God, for example. To have faith in God is to have faith in what is felt and thought to be a real divine power inherent in things. The fact that some believers have more objectivist views of God only speaks to their fundamentalism.

Some people have faith in an after life. Is such faith rational? Not according to the consensus view, since any purported evidence is purely anecdotal. What people count as evidence is always already determined by their particular set of groundless presuppositions.

tim wood

what we call 'God' is the only thing that exists. — TWI

So why don't I perceive God in some direct way?

I believe ultimate reality must be simple. — TWI

In some sense at least, I agree.

Rank Amateur

↪tim wood

as I stated, I don't think any truth one believes is better or worse if believed by fact, reason, or faith. As long as, as I stated, that what one believes by reason can not be in conflict with fact, and what one believes by faith can not be in conflict with fact or reason. With that caveat fact, reason and faith are neither better or worse than each other.

TWI

↪tim wood

You don't perceive God directly because as God you have decided to experience being a human being, i.e. so called 'you'. To make that experience seem as real as poss the real you (God) has to forget your real identity and believe that you are that person. Therefore the real you must remain hidden until at some point you 'wake up' and realise who you really are. Then, I suppose, you may perceive yourself. God that is.

frank

↪tim wood

What TMI is explaining is also a feature of Christianity. It's the esoteric meaning of the trinity. The father is the One.

Holism, man. Holism.

On God

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Categories

More Discussions