Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

The key idea about which I have changed my mind is the existence of God, and associated religious ideas, such as the divinity of Christ. This occurred over a period of time and was more or less complete by 1990. Since then I have developed a materialist approach to understanding reality (to the extent that I do).

Another major change was the embrace of gayness, going beyond reluctant self-acceptance. This process was completed in the early 1970s.

I moved from a fairy conservative view of life to a much more liberal - on to a more radical stance.

Now that I'm in my 70s, the importance of these changes has receded. I belong to a Lutheran congregation, but this is for purposes of social contact, not faith. I'm the oddly atheist member. I'm still gay, of course, but being gay isn't especially important anymore--being 74 and out of the loop.

Karl Marx is more important now than in the past, though my commie support group is largely (and literally) dead.

All this was over by the time I found the first Philosophy Forum (now defunct), so I can't claim that The last or current TPF changed my thinking a great deal. One of the things that bothers me about some posters is that they do not see to grant sufficient importance to the body and to the emotions. Some posters seem a bit like the caricatured huge brain supported by a very diminutive body.

How about you? What changing thinking have you experienced?

what key ideas have you been exposed to that have completely changed your viewpoint on a belief you previously held? — Risk

Atheism and the scientific skeptical attitude completely eradicated all of my former beliefs about God or the supernatural. I first picked up atheism from YouTube and the popular (at that time) new atheist movement. I later found out that their arguments weren't philosophically sound, but still clung onto atheism (perhaps out of habit).

(This is all just my personal experience, and it should in no way affect your worldview.)

Personally moved from militant atheism to a technical agnosticism after thinking about simulation theory. It's not impossible that we're our own god one dimension removed, or that it's a sophisticated AI, or something else. Unlikely but not out of the question.

in talking to an eclectic mix of other people interested in philosophy on the forum, what key ideas have you been exposed to that have completely changed your viewpoint on a belief you previously held? — Risk

For me, philosophy provided a variety of framework structures with which to rebuild a worldview. Broadening my perspective from a catholic girls school upbringing and postmodern education in the Arts, to embrace nihilism, panpsychism, quantum mechanics and information theory, was going to require a drastic rewrite. Philosophy seemed a good way to throw it all into the mix and start from scratch.

How about you? What changing thinking have you experienced? — Bitter Crank

Unfortunately since I left university I've been in somewhat of an echo chamber without many others around me interested in philosophy and more specifically, what is the meaning and purpose to life.

I think the main idea that blew me away, although it ends up consuming itself, is actually structuralism.
Identifying the potential boundary of limitations and opening up the scope of what could have been missed, was something that blew even Kant's limitations of knowledge out the window for me. Simply because Kant focused on the boundary only in what was impossible to know, whereas structuralism was much more targeted at what we as society "missed". The level of responsibility it implied was something I definitely carried through the most into my life.

I moved from Catholicism to agnosticism at a fairly early age...mid to late 20's. That was a major move. Still an Agnostic...and I'm gonna be 84 in a few weeks.

I was a fairly conservative minded individual until about that time also...actually thought Joe McCarthy had the right idea about how to handle things. I've gone full reverse on American conservatism now...I have almost no respect for it at all.

God or the supernatural. — Wheatley

Perhaps the next step is to separate these two completely. For the child, God just is the supernatural. For the adult he cannot be. Yet not natural either. In fact he cannot be, in any ordinary sense. The sense that leaves is best explored in Kant's thinking, who finds God in reason.

without many others around me interested in philosophy and more specifically, what is the meaning and purpose to life. — Risk

And perhaps this is on the way to learning exactly what those meanings are. If we can hear Paul without the religious substance and overtones, "...put away childish things." He did not say that was easy, nor that ease would be a sign it was done

The sense that leaves is best explored in Kant's thinking, who finds God in reason. — tim wood

And perhaps one day I’ll muster up the courage to read Kant.

Like the Roman Centurion, with Kant it's enough to just have faith (in Kant). Very roughly indeed, Kant recognizes - works out - that in terms of God there can be no knowledge (as knowledge). But there's sure as heck the idea of him, and that's enough and more than enough (and it's all there actually is). But work out some of the implications and you begin to see how misguided and misguiding most churches are. At the heart of the thing is the Creed's "We believe...". And exactly and expressly and explicitly not "It's a fact that...". The which is no accident whatsoever.

Like the Roman Centurion, with Kant it's enough to just have faith (in Kant). — tim wood

The skeptical part of my brain says “doubt this”, which is my natural inclination. I’ll ask you if there’s any benefit to suspending doubt?

Kant recognizes - works out - that in terms of God there can be no knowledge (as knowledge). But there's sure as heck the idea of him, and that's enough and more than enough (and it's all there actually is). — tim wood

I can’t even get to that point unfortunately. If I ask many people what god is, they will never give me a straightforward answer. What does Kant understand about conception of God? That’s something I would really want to know.

But work out some of the implications and you begin to see how misguided and misguiding most churches are. At the heart of the thing is the Creed's "We believe...". And exactly and expressly and explicitly not "It's a fact that...". The which is no accident whatsoever. — tim wood

If I’m reading this correctly, I’m getting the impression that many churches act as if the existence of God is certain and can be demonstrated. I remember kids telling me that I’m really dumb because I don’t believe there is a God.

Not really new compared to the other posts, but yeah, ditching religion was the biggest change in my understanding of the world. Back when I first encountered atheism in elementary I tried whatever I could in order to hold on to my pre-existing religious beliefs, playing something of an apologist for a time. Eventually though, I found that the whole idea of the Catholic religion was indefensible, full of holes and contradictions that made it impossible for me to defend to the point where I eventually gave up and became a deist. Though I later switched to atheism, and finally agnosticism, that initial jump came with a liberating feeling that I still remember vividly, of not being weighed down by a set of doctrines that you were simply told to accept which is what began my journey of thinking for myself.

I’ll ask you if there’s any benefit to suspending doubt? — Wheatley

Doubt is a tool. As a way of life, the misuse of a tool. But herein a clue. What is immune to doubt? (And just here, it strikes me, a distinction is to be made between destructive doubt, and questioning, which can be constructive and indeed sharpening.)

And along this way there's a Cartesian branch to be avoided, and a Kantian branch. The Cartesian branch is ultimately apologetics - perhaps necessary for his own survival when he was writing - that surrenders all its gains. The Kantian branch austere, insisting on what can be known, being thereby knowable.

conception of God — Wheatley

In my opinion you nail it here. God is everywhere claimed "to exist" and at the same time claimed to be unknowable - and unknowable for prosaic reason: to know is to know the limitations of, and God supposedly has none. For Kant it's just the conception of and implicitly the imperative to refine the conception, the imperative coming from - where do you suppose? - combined desire and reason.

But the conception is the sole creation of man, refined over the whole experience of man (the prehistoric peoples who buried their dead with tool and gifts for the afterlife). As conception unlimited - but manmade.

that many churches act as if the existence of God is certain and can be demonstrated. — Wheatley

And there's a trick to this. Their demonstrations are for the purpose of making it easier for believers to believe. They don't establish, they facilitate. And it's a great flaw and failure on both sides to mistake this purpose, which most do. Believers imbue the demonstrations with a conclusiveness that they exactly are not conclusive of. And so-called skeptics dismiss them entirely, having failed to understand what they in fact are. Anselm's proof, a poster-child example, is ridiculed as a proof for the existence of God. But it is not that, nor was intended to be. It enables a believer to believe "more better' in that which he already believes - which a reasonably careful reading of the proof makes clear.

Most of this is about Christianity. But the folks who created Christianity - mostly the Patristic fathers -

"Patristics or patrology is the study of the early Christian writers who are designated Church Fathers. The names derive from the combined forms of Latin pater and Greek patḗr (father). The period is generally considered to run from the end of New Testament times or end of the Apostolic Age (c.  AD 100) to either AD 451 (the date of the Council of Chalcedon)[1] or to the Second Council of Nicaea in 787." Wiki.

were a smart bunch. And just as right-wingers in the US misuse, misconstrue, subvert, abuse, and fail to understand or grasp the Constitution of the US. So for almost 2,000 years similarly ignorant people have attempted their own take on religion and faith, in the US mainly the Christian version. Oh dear, I'm ranting! But you get the drift, yes?

Edit: add: which is also why so-called atheism, uncritically embraced, is an error.

Doubt is a tool. As a way of life, the misuse of a tool. But herein a clue. What is immune to doubt? (And just here, it strikes me, a distinction is to be made between destructive doubt, and questioning, which can be constructive and indeed sharpening.) — tim wood

I am not sure if I am misusing doubt, and therein lies a deep problem for me. I use doubt to defend my doubting. If someone tells me that my doubting hurts me and is unhelpful, there's always the option to doubt even that. How does one get out of such a hole? I guess you can say, "you're playing a silly game. Snap out of it!"

And along this way there's a Cartesian branch to be avoided, and a Kantian branch. The Cartesian branch is ultimately apologetics - perhaps necessary for his own survival when he was writing - that surrenders all its gains. The Kantian branch austere, insisting on what can be known, being thereby knowable. — tim wood

I tend to avoid all philosophical systems, anyhow. You might say it's a bad habit of mine.

For Kant it's just the conception of and implicitly the imperative to refine the conception, the imperative coming from - where do you suppose? - combined desire and reason. — tim wood

Not sure what to make of this. I'm sure Kant was considered a genius at the time, and it's imperative (pun intended), to take him quite seriously.

But the conception is the sole creation of man, refined over the whole experience of man (the prehistoric peoples who buried their dead with tool and gifts for the afterlife). As conception unlimited - but manmade. — tim wood

Based on what you just said I think 'Diety' is an appropriate term for 'god'.

And there's a trick to this. Their demonstrations are for the purpose of making it easier for believers to believe. They don't establish, they facilitate. And it's a great flaw and failure on both sides to mistake this purpose, which most do. Believers imbue the demonstrations with a conclusiveness that they exactly are not conclusive of. And so-called skeptics dismiss them entirely, having failed to understand what they in fact are. Anselm's proof, a poster-child example, is ridiculed as a proof for the existence of God. But it is not that, nor was intended to be. It enables a believer to believe "more better' in that which he already believes - which a reasonably careful reading of the proof makes clear. — tim wood

Now I understand! I guess there is one less ignorant person on the planet now.

Patristics or patrology is the study of the early Christian writers who are designated Church Fathers. The names derive from the combined forms of Latin pater and Greek patḗr (father). The period is generally considered to run from the end of New Testament times or end of the Apostolic Age (c.  AD 100) to either AD 451 (the date of the Council of Chalcedon)[1] or to the Second Council of Nicaea in 787." Wiki.

were a smart bunch. And just as right-wingers in the US misuse, misconstrue, subvert, abuse, and fail to understand or grasp the Constitution of the US. So for almost 2,000 years similarly ignorant people have attempted their own take on religion and faith, in the US mainly the Christian version. Oh dear, I'm ranting! But you get the drift, yes? — tim wood

And thats one of the problems I have with some religions. How do Christian's (just using them as an example) deal with those who do not act according to the ways of Christianity, yet call themselves Christians? (I am thinking of the Westboro Babtist Church). Who is to take responsibility for their detestable actions?

[reply= excellent question! Mines a weird one but Canadian philosopher Charles Taylor. I took a rebellious, punk approach to everything as a kid but his Sources of the Self made me appreciate things that I previously disliked (Christianity, theology) as being the philosophical and historical sources of the stuff that I valued like individuality and autonomy. I’m still an agnostic but it made me see the value of things that I didn’t and still don’t necessarily accept. Just for clarification: I believe individuality and autonomy can develop out of any tradition or culture but in the case of the West it has a strong background in Aquinas and others. Taylor showed me how to value a tradition which is something that really resonates in my everyday life, without being a conservative.

Who is to take responsibility for their detestable actions? — Wheatley

And in a free country! No small question at all. And history shows us hamstrung against those without those - or any - scruples.

Hmm. Runs deep. There's proactive justice and reactive justice. I think I'm scared most of the proactive. The murderer's entitlement to one murder is at the same time, seemingly, a guarantee to me of my own security from false imprisonment or worse.

There's proactive justice and reactive justice. — tim wood

I was thinking more along the lines with restricting the ability of those who wish to call themselves 'baptist', or better yet, 'Christian'. Of course anyone can call themselves anything, but it is up to the religion on who they accept.

If I’m reading this correctly, I’m getting the impression that many churches act as if the existence of God is certain and can be demonstrated. I remember kids telling me that I’m really dumb because I don’t believe there is a God. — Wheatley

Do you have a "belief" on the issue, Wheatley?

Do you "believe" there is no God...or no gods?

Do you "believe" there is no God...or no gods? — Frank Apisa

No such things as deities.

Wheatley
1.1k
Do you "believe" there is no God...or no gods?
— Frank Apisa
No such things as deities. — Wheatley

Are you saying you KNOW there are no such things as deities...or are you saying you "believe" there are no such things as deities?

I know.

Don't confuse belief with facts. They both have their respective value and significance. No doubt, for example, you believe your mother loved you.

Wheatley
1.1k
↪Frank Apisa I know. — Wheatley

You KNOW there are no deities?

C'mon. This is a philosophy forum.

tim wood
4.6k
↪Frank Apisa Don't confuse belief with facts. They both have their respective value and significance. No doubt, for example, you believe your mother loved you. — tim wood

I am not confusing them, Tim. I am asking Wheatley about the difference.

What do you think of his response that he KNOWS there are no deities?

You KNOW there are no deities? — Frank Apisa

Prove that I don’t know.

I am not confusing them, Tim. I am asking Wheatley about the difference.

What do you think of his response that he KNOWS there are no deities? — Frank Apisa

Don’t get Wood involved, I’m only trying something out.

Wheatley
1.1k
You KNOW there are no deities?
— Frank Apisa

Prove that I don’t know. — Wheatley

I have not said you do not know. You have said that you do.

Prove that you do.

I have not said you do not know. You have said that you do.

Prove that you do. — Frank Apisa

There’s no obligation to prove anything.

Wheatley
1.1k
I am not confusing them, Tim. I am asking Wheatley about the difference.

What do you think of his response that he KNOWS there are no deities?
— Frank Apisa

Don’t get Wood involved, I’m only trying something out. — Wheatley

YOU do not get to tell me what I should or should not do in my responses, Wheatley.

Try out whatever you want.

Wheatley
1.1k
I have not said you do not know. You have said that you do.

Prove that you do.
— Frank Apisa
There’s no obligation to prove anything. — Wheatley

You made an assertion in a philosophical forum thread. YOU do have an obligation to prove it.