jorndoe
913 — jorndoe

How very often I have seen the sentiment you illustrated in your post, Jorn.

"To those who believe in God, no explanation is needed."

Reworded to be more accurate, it becomes a bit more problematic, though.

How's this sound:

TO THOSE WHO BLINDLY GUESS THERE IS A GOD, NO EXPLANATION IS NEEDED.

Has a different ring, right?

And just as we were doing so well! And now I have no idea what you mean. What do you mean? — tim wood

You asked me to explain existence, hence yours and my quotes:

Me: We are talking about the existence of something. In this case, in human terms, it would be the human being called Jesus. Using your words, what does knowledge have to do with existence?

You: I asked you what you know, and you have answered with what you believe. That both is and is not an answer. As to knowledge it is nothing, but given the context it also says that you don't know.

Me: As I've said over in the Lounge, existentially, one does not know the true nature of their own existence, and so why should this be any different (?).

Now if you want to speculate metaphysically, you're more than welcome to elucidate there.

Me: What I meant was explaining your own existence metaphysically. In other words, your conscious existence.

Make any sense now...and so, what would be the distinction between the two explanation's of the man called Jesus who had a conscious existence, and your own conscious existence? Or, in the case of the cosmological God, if space and time are a mystery, how should one go about explaining it? Isn't space and time a theory?

If I may suggest, start with something simple.

So most people here arent theistic or deistic, ... in the sense that they believe there to be a God that thinks etc.

But rather that he is a concept without any influences outside of the brain? Just like an idea of some sort?

Sorry Im having trouble understanding these views because theyre quite alien to me. What do you mean being actual means being limited? What do you understand under actual?

Sorry for my bad writing, typing on mobile while on a bus with friends isnt that handy!

I don't think Im anywhere near equipped to have such discourse yet myself!

I don't think Im anywhere near equipped to have such discourse yet myself! — DoppyTheElv

Neither am I!

God, such as most people conceive theirs to be, is usually unlimited, all-powerful, or some such thing. But, for example, let's suppose that God really is made in our image, as the Bible says: who scratches His back? Because He cannot scratch his own.

Once God becomes actual, he is subject to greater/lesser, bigger/smaller, weaker/stronger, and so on and on. And that's one reason that an existing God is an absurdity.

Before thinking about God, it's good to know something about thinking and thought. That's where the Kant comes in. Hmm. 18? Had sex? Don't answer. But if you have, consider how ignorant you were before. If you haven't, I'm pretty sure you're looking forward to it - but if you're honest with yourself you acknowledge you have very little idea of what it will be like. Kant is to thinking and thought as you are to sex. Before, naive, hopeful, ignorant. After, you realize you had no idea.

Kant's is not the last word but a (powerful) preliminary step, and even preliminary for readers who come to him late. You, however, get to him early, and that's a gift.

I don’t know that most people here are necessarily not-theists, just that there are plenty of people who also argue against theists... although, I did do a poll about this a while back, maybe I’ll dig it up and bump it for more current data.

Bannono
Is this what it takes to get you to wax lyrical?
Surely quietism is appropriate here.

Hiya! Thank you for expanding and explaining!

To my pre kantian mind, I find it hard to see the issue that you see. Isn't the 3 omni God argued to be the maximally great being in existence? When I said actual i meant it in a way of saying..well - that hes actually out there. Does actual mean something more nuanced? But if one succeeds in arguing that God must be the maximally great being..how is he subject to weaker/lesser?

Now that my exams are over I can get to business and read. So Kant is my primary aim right now!

I'm genuinely trying to understand what you mean but having a hard time doing so.

If I may suggest, start with something simple. — tim wood

What is so difficult... , I'm not following you there, sorry brother.

What you will repeatedly run up against on these forums is that philosophy is ill equipped to tackle the issue of G/god, because it is a discussion of what humans can say about the world they find themselves in from their position of ignorance. Philosophy of religion will inevitably become a historical record and analysis of religion. Theology might be a good place to look for answers, I don't have any formal training in theology and theologians seem quite rare around here, unless they keep their heads down.

I would be interested in a laymans discussion to see where it goes.

Maybe it is to simple

LOL....as simple as there being something and not nothing :blush:

Just in case you don't find enough PoR here, you may want to check out "Debating Christianity and Religion" here: https://debatingchristianity.com/

What I meant was explaining your own existence metaphysically. In other words, your conscious existence — 3017amen

What does this mean? Cut the fog.

Greetings Punshh. May I infer from your post that you know what 3017amen is talking about? Or were you being ironic? If you know, go for it.

What is he likely to find there? I looked and all I'm seeing is very bad apologetics. Am I missing something?

What does this mean? — tim wood

Hey Tim, is it safe to assume you haven't spend a good amount of time contemplating metaphysics and existentialism(?).

May I infer from your post that you know what 3017amen is talking about? Or were you being ironic? If you know, go for it.

I was being ironic, but also serious. I don't know what 3017amen has in mind here specifically, but I know where he's coming from. You see some people who have a belief in G/god and some Mystics contemplate the conception of the personal self as God indeed some have a revelation of this as a reality in some way, or that some essential part of themselves as universal and transcendent. So some of the most penetrating questions arising out of a discussion of the existence of God are very simple, for example; am I God?; could I exist if there were no God?

Hey Tim, is it safe to assume you haven't spend a good amount of time contemplating metaphysics and existentialism(?). — 3017amen

That I am entirely comfortable asking you what you mean because I do not know what you mean ought to suggest to you that that I have.

My memory isn't what it used to be, but I believe you issued a challenge for a debate or discussion. Uh, here it is.

Actually how about this, I'll challenge any atheist on this site to debate EOG using all domain's of philosophy. Would you like to go toe-to-toe with me? — 3017amen

Now I am waiting for you to put your money where your mouth is. Say something simple to get us off the ground.

And I recall to you this:

While I'm waiting for Daniel to respond, sure I'll banter with you.
Who's "Him"? ( Are you referring to a gender/genderless God?)
— 3017amen
I'm not playing. I asked you a direct question. Answer or retire. — tim wood

The question was, paraphrasing, what do you know about God. And you're answer was, paraphrasing, that you know nothing about God.

I'm eager to see how you handle an argument, presumably in favour, about something you know nothing about.

I was being ironic, but also serious. I don't know what 3017amen has in mind here specifically, but I know where he's coming from. — Punshhh

My bad if I misread or misunderstood. I suspect that even he, @3017amen, does not know where he is coming from. If it's beliefs, that's not on the card. "Debate EOG," is what he said. Assuming the E is for "existence," that's the matter up for discussion.

Check all these nifty numbers ...

If you study enough philosophy, you will see that 90% of all domain's invoke or posit God's existence — 3017amen

over at least 75% of the philosophical domains invoke God's existence [...] It's invoked in ethics, epistemology, logic, metaphysics, and contemporary philosophy — 3017amen

It's invoked in ethics, epistemology, logic, metaphysics, and contemporary philosophy.
True or false? This is really philosophy 101. — 3017amen

God is posited in 75% of philosophical domain's — 3017amen

Cosmology, metaphysics, phenomenology, ethics logic , existentialism and epistemology/conscious existence.
All of those domains at some juncture, posit God as the standard axiomatic criterion. — 3017amen

90% ... 75% ... must be a study rounding up the statistics somewhere ... where'd ya' get'em all from, 3017amen?
Some random spot checking on the IEP and SEP sure doesn't come to 3/4 let alone 9/10. (haven't checked answersingenesis.org :wink:) I don't recall having taken a logic course that posit any gods either.
Maybe that word, "God", is just so watered down that it can be made to match anything for the occasion? Or maybe Banno was right?
Either way, let's see the statistics. Proof, please. Set the record straight. (y)
(FYI, here are other numbers, that are substantiated.)

Or maybe Banno was right? — jorndoe

Of course I was right.

"The findings of this post fit with other findings on reasoning and religion: It has been argued that many philosophers of religion suffer from cognitive biases and group influence, and that the field as a whole is too partisan, too polemical, too narrow in its focus, and too often evaluated using criteria that are theological or religious instead of philosophical. Recent work in cognitive science of religion suggests that analytic thinking is a pathway to atheism (Norenzayan and Gervais 2013), and it has been observed that analytic thinkers show weaker religious belief and tend to lose their religious fervour, even if they were originally raised in a religious environment (Shenhav et al. 2012). Experimental work supports these correlations and provides additional evidence for causal connections between analytic thinking and erosion of religious beliefs (Gervais and Norenzayan 2012)."

And I'm going to be honest here. I have barely a clue what this all means. Perhaps due to the expensive words used and me being a non-native speaker. What is the difference between a theological approach and a philosophical one? (I know this is basic stuff and I'm sorry.) — DoppyTheElv

None of this is basic.

I should provide some background to my perspective on this: I don't write as a Christian apologist, although I'm certainly sympathetic to Christianity. But my personal quest was always along the lines of the search for enlightenment in a somewhat more Asian sense, having been introduced to those kinds of ideas while young. One of the characteristics of this kind of approach is that it's syncretistic, drawing on aspects and elements of different traditions to try and make sense of the spiritual quest. Had I lived in the first half of the last century (and, who knows?), I probably would have been a Theosophist.

That out of the way, some comments on your bolded passage. One of the dimensions that is noticeably missing in Western ecclesiastical religion is the conception of different types of spiritual orientation or personality types, that is found in (for example) Vedanta, a major philosophical school of Hinduism. Vedanta categorises religious aspirants according to the 'six limbs' of yoga, - raja, jñāna (wisdom), bhakti (devotion), and karma (work/livelihood) among them. It recognises that different personality types will understand and practice their faith in different ways. Jñāna is 'discriminative wisdom', taught to those with strong insight and intuitive wisdom - many gurus are Jñānis. Bhakti is devotion to the divine - Hare Krishna is an exemplary devotional sect. There are Catholic devotional sects that are very similar. Many of these archetypes are cross-cultural.

But I don't think there's anything like that classificatory scheme in Western ecclesiastical religion - it's all basically predicated on 'right belief' (which incidentally is the meaning of 'orthodoxy'.) It is fundamental to believe the right thing, in the right way - wrong belief was heresy (a word which literally means 'having an opinion') and until quite recently was serious crime. In my view, this is one of the factors that has lead to the interminable conflict in Western religion (have a look at http://veda.wikidot.com/dharma-and-religion). You either believe, or you don't, and everything hinges on that. In my view, this creates something of a false dichotomy, because it forces people into an all-or-nothing choice. It's one of the underlying social causes of atheism, in my view. (The cultural dynamics are vastly different in for example India.)

Because of that emphasis on right belief, there is a strong tendency to fideism (exclusive emphasis on belief) in Christianity, especially modern Protestantism. (That's the thrust of the Karen Armstrong article). And I think that's the basis of the criticism about some philosophers of religion having 'cognitive biases' - behind what they're doing, there's this suspicion that they're really out to convert.

That said, it's also quite possible that some writers and editors will have the exact opposite bias - that any form of religious belief is not objective and therefore 'not scientific'. But this really amounts to attaching religious significance to scientific method, and is also a faith commitment in its own way.

That's why in philosophy of religion you have to have the ability to detach your analysis from what you believe, and try and understand such ideas on their merits. Actually, this is where the discipline of comparative religion is very useful - it teaches you disciplines like 'bracketing' and 'suspension of judgement' to enable you to explore ideas in a more detached manner. (This is where John Hick excelled.)

Now, all that said - and as I declared, none of this is basic! - it is entirely possible to maintain a devotional view of Christianity, and still be scrupulously philosophical. I think one example would be Frederick Copleston, whose multi-volume History of Philosophy text books are very well regarded. It's also possible not to have a faith commitment, but still be open to the role of religion in culture - Jurgen Habermas initiated a dialog with Catholicism on exactly those issues (see this OP.)

To try and sum up - I think some key points are, read a lot, be open to a diversity of perspectives, be aware of your own cognitive biases, some of which are part of the culture you're in, and try and explore ideas on their own merits.

That's why in philosophy of religion you have to have the ability to detach your analysis from what you believe, and try and understand such ideas on their merits. — Wayfarer

More here than at first meets the eye. The only good and firm ground here is analysis. And analysis is about the only tool in the toolbox. Basic to analysis is basic and simple logic. And ideas on their merits. Amen! On their merits as ideas!

Example: is Christianity internally consistent? Let's suppose that it is. Let's suppose that a correct understanding of the Bible leads us to conclude that there is a consistent thread of sense through the text (whatever that means). Next, is the Bible consistent with the world? Obviously not; too much of the supernatural. But now on to the ideas on their merits.

2000 years of history suggests that there is much that is compelling and worthwhile in the ideas presented in the Bible. Certainly not all of them . But it isn't a scientific theory that stands or falls altogether. More like a psychology of being. You understand what you can as best you can, making your own selections from what is offered, and adjusting as both you and your understanding grow.

But what about beliefs? In my book you get to believe what you like, for as long as you and they do no harm, and for so long as you take care to represent them as beliefs and not knowledge or fact.

The caveat I'll add is that religion is different things for different people. For some a joke and a punchline; for some a source of income and control and power, for some sport, for some war by other means. And the moral is that while civility and sound reasoning in these matters is desirable, it is also sometimes, depending on your interlocutor's purpose, a mistake. And for many people a very expensive mistake.

That I am entirely comfortable asking you what you mean because I do not know what you mean ought to suggest to you that that I have.

Hey Tim, I'm not following you there?
— tim wood

Now I am waiting for you to put your money where your mouth is. Say something simple to get us off the ground. — tim wood

Sure! I know God exists. And you know God doesn't exist. Does that, succinctly, summarize it?

The question was, paraphrasing, what do you know about God. And you're answer was, paraphrasing, that you know nothing about God. — tim wood

That seems a bit strange. How did you arrive at that conclusion?

I'm eager to see how you handle an argument, presumably in favour, about something you know nothing about. — tim wood

What do you mean by favour? Are you referring to the information I shared with Daniel?

I can appreciate some of this stuff, .

Does not the truth of things speak for itself if we are open to it? — Dharma and Religion - वेद Veda

The Bible, the Quran, and Craig downright denies pluralism, however.

The Bible, the Quran, and Craig downright denies pluralism, however. — jorndoe

Agree. But then, consider the audience. I don't know if desert tribesmen were really up for philosophical nuance. That's why interpretation is important.

Also, I sometimes wonder if fundamentalism is not a personality type. I mean, Calvin especially seems to me to be naturally drawn towards authoritarian fundamentalism. (Not for nothing he's been dubbed 'the Ayatollah of Geneva'.)

And ideas on their merits. Amen! — tim wood

There's one factor that ought to be considered, however - which is that from the non-believer's perspective, there can be no real merit beyond the social, cultural and personal domain. There's nothing at stake beyond that. Whereas from the religious perspective there really is something at stake - something of ultimate importance. So there's an asymmetry there.

don't recall having taken a logic course that posit any gods either. — jorndoe

Are you sure about that? What's a synthetic a priori proposition ?

quote="jorndoe;428568"]must be a study rounding up the statistics somewhere ... where'd ya' get'em all from, 3017amen[/quote]

I stand corrected , it's more than 75%.

Maybe that word, "God", is just so watered down that it can be made to match anything for the occasion? — jorndoe

Indeed. The unfortunate, or fortunate paradox, seems to be that philosophy itself, lives in words.

Are you sure about that? What's a synthetic a priori proposition ? — 3017amen

Yep, no gods in any logic courses that I recall.

Maybe that word, "God", is just so watered down that it can be made to match anything for the occasion? Or maybe Banno was right?

I stand corrected , it's more than 75%. — 3017amen

So, still not substantiated.

Of course I was right. — Banno

Seems confirmed. Caught in the act. Bullshitting for the occasion or lying. Either way ... well, have a good weekend y'all.