What do you include in the scope of someone's metaphysics? For example, I am a theist, and my belief that God is real significantly affects my behaviour, moral outlook, relationships, and overall worldview.

Your metaphysics is probably a retroactive expression of your behavior/outlook.

You mean as a rationalization? Probably so, in many cases. Arguably one's behavior/outlook is one's metaphyics; or more broadly, one's beliefs in general are manifested in one's habits.

“Descriptive metaphysics is content to describe the actual structure of our thought about the world, revisionary metaphysics is concerned to produce a better structure.” — Peter Strawson

I'm a descriptive metaphysician, it should show in my attempts to describe what is actual rather than possibly better.

The way we exist in the world is formed in our infancy, and develops rapidly. Childhood experiences do not give us a metaphysics, but they shape the stance that we will have. So I agree with The Great Whatever that

Your metaphysics is probably a retroactive expression of your behavior/outlook. — The Great Whatever

I am a theist, and my belief that God is real significantly affects my behavior, moral outlook, relationships, and overall worldview. — aletheist

Aletheist was probably directed toward theism at an early age. Theism became part and parcel of his metaphysics from the beginning of his life.

Aletheist was probably directed toward theism at an early age. Theism became part and parcel of his metaphysics from the beginning of his life. — Bitter Crank

True in my case, although there are plenty of examples of atheists becoming theists later in life, and vice-versa.

For as much time as I spend reading and studying metaphysics, I have a comparatively low amount of metaphysical commitments. Those that I do have don't really affect my behavior that much, except for maybe my general belief that other people exist and that non-human animals can suffer.

Does your metaphysics show up in your behavior in some way? — Mongrel

Well first of all, it is important to separate metaphysics from attitudes. For example, a pessimist doesn't emerge out of metaphysics, but rather it is a disposition. Someone could have a very bleak metaphysics and still be an optimist for that matter. But very often I see people confusing the two.

Now, I guess I'm some kind of Spinozist of some sorts in terms of metaphysics. I wouldn't say it affects my behaviour in any particular way.

In your moral outlook? — Mongrel

No, not really. Morality requires its own immediate certainty - if you stake morality on your metaphysics, if your metaphysics ever crumbles, what will you be left with? But on the other hand if you are some sort of skeptical moralist - you'll hold to your morality even if your metaphysics falls apart. I hold to ethics as first philosophy for these reasons.

In the way you interact with people? — Mongrel

Again it's difficult to say - I don't have a single way to interact with people, and it's largely different from person to person.

I am a theist — aletheist

Interesting. I'm a theist as well, but I've always found it hard to stake belief in God on metaphysical commitments. I mean, what do you do if one of your central metaphysical commitments from which the reality of God was determined falls apart? I've always had that "fear", so I've morphed into a skeptical theist, much like Johann Georg Hamann if you've heard of him. Basically a theistic Hume when it comes to matters of religious belief. In this manner, belief is secure since it rests on no prior metaphysical commitments - belief is properly basic as Plantinga would say.

Are you a Christian theist? How do you view the theism-metaphysics connection? And if belief in God is related to your metaphysics, do you ever fear that you may find something which will shake that belief? And if so, how do you tackle that?

Arguably one's behavior/outlook is one's metaphyics — aletheist

Based on what are you making the connection between behaviour and metaphysics - or even belief? Have you ever believed X and yet done something different? As Paul says in the Bible - "I do not do the good I want to do. Instead I keep on doing the evil I don't want to do"

Interesting. I'm a theist as well, but I've always found it hard to stake belief in God on metaphysical commitments. — Agustino

That is why I asked for clarification of what falls within the scope of one's metaphysics for the purposes of the OP. Arguably, belief in God is a metaphysical commitment; and for many, including myself, it is a central metaphysical commitment, such that contrary metaphysical views are effectively ruled out. I engage in philosophy for self-enrichment, but theism is part of my core identity.

Are you a Christian theist? How do you view the theism-metaphysics connection? And if belief in God is related to your metaphysics, do you ever fear that you may find something which will shake that belief? — Agustino

Yes. Not sure what you mean by "connection" here. Not really, since I believe that even my own belief in God is itself a supernatural gift from Him, so I am content to leave it in His infinitely capable hands.

Based on what are you making the connection between behaviour and metaphysics - or even belief? — Agustino

I am really just affirming a central tenet of pragmaticism - a belief just is a habit of feeling, action, or thought; nothing more, nothing less. In other words, what we actually believe is manifested in what we do, not in what we claim to believe. "Actions speak louder than words," as the saying goes.

As Paul says in the Bible - "I do not do the good I want to do. Instead I keep on doing the evil I don't want to do" — Agustino

Any honest Christian can relate to that. We all too often do things that we know are wrong, and thus contrary to our professed beliefs. We typically rationalize doing those things before, during, and after the commission of the acts. As Paul says at the end of the passage, "Wretched man that I am! Who will deliver me from this body of death? Thanks be to God through Jesus Christ our Lord!"

Arguably, belief in God is a metaphysical commitment — aletheist

It is possible to consider it so, but for me, it's more an ethical commitment. Keeping the commandments of God (duty), love and community. It would be a metaphysical commitment too, except that my take is that we don't know - except by analogy to earthly things - what the metaphysical statements of Scriptures mean. For example - I believe in an afterlife as preached through the Bible, but I cannot specify what it would be like except vaguely and metaphorically - I cannot form any clear and crisp picture of it in my mind.

I engage in philosophy for self-enrichment, but theism is part of my core identity. — aletheist

So do you mean to say that you holding to theism is ultimately independent of your philosophical commitments? That would be similar to me if so.

Not sure what you mean by "connection" here — aletheist

It's the same as I asked above - do you think there is a necessary link between philosophical/metaphysical commitments and theism, or can one be a theist pretty much regardless of their other philosophical commitments if, say, they believe in the message of the Bible and the centrality of Jesus Christ, along with doing the Will of the Father as much as possible in their day to day lives?

Not really, since I believe that even my own belief in God is itself a supernatural gift from Him, so I am content to leave it in His infinitely capable hands — aletheist

Personally I can sympathise with this view. I think belief in God is the result of an experience (call it grace if you want) which is supra-rational, and cannot be conveyed to another by mere words - it's something that must be experienced personally. But obviously this entails that it's very difficult, if not impossible, to bring someone to God by yourself - through your own work - it will ultimately have to be God who brings them.

I am really just affirming a central tenet of pragmaticism - a belief just is a habit of feeling, action, or thought; nothing more, nothing less. In other words, what we actually believe is manifested in what we do, not in what we claim to believe. "Actions speak louder than words," as the saying goes. — aletheist

Okay, I see, yes I can agree with that.

Any honest Christian can relate to that. We all too often do things that we know are wrong, and thus contrary to our professed beliefs. We typically rationalize doing those things before, during, and after the commission of the acts. As Paul says at the end of the passage, "Wretched man that I am! Who will deliver me from this body of death? Thanks be to God through Jesus Christ our Lord!" — aletheist

Yes, which means that our beliefs in those particular cases are merely professed - since as you have stated before, they haven't yet become proper beliefs - habits/actions.

Anyway - for me, most people around me are not believers, so I've encountered a lot of refusal/mockery of the Biblical teaching - especially of its moral teachings. In a way this has made me realise that not a lot is in our power - especially when not aided by a like-minded community. So I personally don't believe in the effectiveness of "arguments" for God, since for me, they haven't worked much in convincing people, whether they are the arguments of Aquinas, or pretty much any other theologian. Indeed, in those few cases where I've seen people get closer to Christianity it was personal experiences that brought them there.

Does your metaphysics show up in your behavior in some way? In your moral outlook? In the way you interact with people? In the way you view life in general? — Mongrel

Well, sure, otherwise, what's it for? However 'metaphysics' is generally understood as an intellectual pursuit, rather than an affective or dispositional trait (as is reflected in the discussion thus far).

My 'metaphysics', in practical terms, has been developed through Buddhist meditation, and Buddhism is generally said to eschew metaphysics, as it doesn't see the world in terms of substance and attribute, which is the basis of Western metaphysics. The Buddhist equivalent is the abhidharma, which comprises the codified elements of 'dependent origination'. It sounds very complicated when you try and spell it out, but the abhidharma arises from direct awareness of, and reflection on, the nature of experience. But the consequence of that kind of understanding, is the development of a sense of compassion (called in Mahāyāna Buddhism 'bodhicitta') and also empathy. The other factor that develops is greater equanimity as you begin to see through the way emotions and feelings trap you.

However, that said, I am also interested in metaphysics, as a subject, which is a different matter. There is an external course at Oxford, Reality, Being and Existence, which I really want to enroll in (pending resolution of current employment issues). The formal study of metaphysics and the history of ideas sorrounding it, is something that interests me in its own right.

It is possible to consider it so, but for me, it's more an ethical commitment. — Agustino

People can be - and are - ethical without believing in God. People can be - and are - unethical despite believing in God.

It's the same as I asked above - do you think there is a necessary link between philosophical/metaphysical commitments and theism, or can one be a theist pretty much regardless of their other philosophical commitments ... — Agustino

I suspect that the vast majority of theists worldwide do not have, or at least do not recognize, many (if any) other philosophical commitments. Most people are just not wired to approach issues in the way that we typically have in mind when we call it "philosophical thinking." That is not necessarily a bad thing, though; Jesus wanted his followers to have the faith of a child, and Paul warned against being taken captive by "philosophy and empty deceit."

But obviously this entails that it's very difficult, if not impossible, to bring someone to God by yourself - through your own work - it will ultimately have to be God who brings them. — Agustino

I believe that it is, in fact, impossible. Apologetics is not about convincing people to believe in God, it is about preparing Christians to be ready to give an answer - if and when someone asks for the reason why they believe what they do. Only the Word and the Spirit can do the real work of changing hearts and minds.

So I personally don't believe in the effectiveness of "arguments" for God ... — Agustino

Like most reasonings, they are more effective after someone already believes the conclusion, by serving as a way to reinforce that belief and/or explain it to someone else.

People can be - and are - ethical without believing in God — aletheist

I would claim that this is impossible. Firstly, I think belief comes in degrees - and secondly people can believe something without even being intellectually aware that they believe it, because again, belief is about actions. They may have the wrong notion of God and so forth, and claim they don't believe, and yet, they act for the most part like someone who believes in God. I would say that to a certain degree - in-so-far as they act rightly - they too believe in God, however unaware they are of it.

People can be - and are - unethical despite believing in God. — aletheist

Since beliefs are habits/actions, then they don't actually believe in God. The Pope actually made some interesting remarks recently saying it's better to be an atheist than a hypocritical Catholic - intimating to the same idea, that one doesn't actually believe if they can repeat such and such phrases with their mouth. Believing entails acting in such and such a way.

Most people are just not wired to approach issues in the way that we typically have in mind when we call it "philosophical thinking." — aletheist

Sure - but people like us are :P

Paul warned against being taken captive by "philosophy and empty deceit." — aletheist

Yes - I read this as grounding belief in God in actions, and not in philosophy (words and professed beliefs).

Only the Word and the Spirit can do the real work of changing hearts and minds. — aletheist

I agree with this.

Apologetics is not about convincing people to believe in God, it is about preparing Christians to be ready to give an answer - if and when someone asks for the reason why they believe what they do — aletheist

But here is the crux of the matter. If someone asks them why they believe in God, and they say so and so argument because they have been taught about it AFTER they already believed in God, then they have provided a fake reason. They don't really believe in God because of that argument (regardless of how good or brilliant the argument is) - it wasn't the argument that brought them to God. When someone asks you "Why do you believe in God?" - they are asking you what brought you to believe in God, what grounds that belief. So when they give the argument, they actually obscure - even in their own minds - what actually brought them to God - which was the primordial experience which grounds that belief.

Like most reasonings, they are more effective after someone already believes the conclusion, by serving as a way to reinforce that belief and/or explain it to someone else. — aletheist

For me, I found that what reinforces the belief is remembrance of whatever combination of experiences and happenings brought you to belief in God. Reasons given after the fact seem vain and empty to my ears - like a form of self-deception, because I know that I haven't come to the belief in God through them, regardless of how good they are. In these matters I lean less on the rationalists - and more on certain personal experiences - I think the mystics of the Christian tradition are closer to the heart of religious belief than the theologians on this issue.

Childhood experiences do not give us a metaphysics, but they shape the stance that we will have. — Bitter Crank

Children might be shaped to believe that Santa Claus exists, but later they learn to think. Thought is not shaped by childhood experiences.

I see believing in God and being ethical as two different things. Ultimately it is not about anything that I do, it is only about what God has done for me in Christ and through the Holy Spirit. " For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast."

Also, belief in God is not "one size fits all." We have to be sensitive to context when deciding what approach to take when someone asks for the reason for the hope that we have. Ultimately it all comes down to relationships - we have to know the other person, and of course the whole point is that we want them to come to know God.

My metaphysical commitment is that actually, everything is spheres, and I'm the most spherical. Wish you were sphere!

Ultimately it is not about anything that I do, it is only about what God has done for me in Christ and through the Holy Spirit. — aletheist

That is the Protestant view, isn't it?

It is perhaps more emphasized in this particular formulation by certain kinds of Protestants, but I honestly think that most Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox would affirm the same basic idea - God saves us, we cannot save ourselves.

But, in Orthodoxy and Catholicism, what you do is nevertheless important. That is central to the 'grace versus works' debate, which is ancient in Christianity. I thought it was with Calvin's 'total depravity' doctrine that human nature is so thoroughly corrupted it can't do anything other towards its own salvation.

I think all Christians obviously recognize the fundamental signficance of grace, but the Orthodox viewpoint is that salvation requires the believer's co-operation - that is the origin of the term 'synergy' (a lovely word, now co-opted by business and scientific uses.)

What you do is important in Protestantism, as well - it just does not contribute to salvation; rather, it is the natural outcome of salvation. In the very next verse after what I quoted from Paul earlier, he added, "For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them."

It is a common misconception among Protestants that Roman Catholicism teaches salvation by works. This is not true, as I came to realize when I was seriously considering it as an option for myself. The two traditions simply have a different understanding of how God goes about saving people. Protestants view saving grace as a disposition of God by which he freely gives us what we do not deserve. Roman Catholics view saving grace as a substance that God distributes to people in various ways, including good works and the Sacraments. I am not as familiar with Eastern Orthodox theology, but I gather that it stresses becoming one with God ("theosis") over the course of one's life.

By the way, Calvin got much of his "total depravity" doctrine from Augustine. Solomon was right - "There is nothing new under the sun."

My metaphysics is one of waves and continuity. Definitely affects my outlook on life and the meaning that I perceive in it. Everything I do, I see as continuous waves, and continuity from past to possible future implies many things to me.

I was thinking more about idealism, materialism (either of which can be eliminative or reductive), neutral monism, etc.

I think theism is generally going to involve at least some idealism.

Your metaphysics is probably a retroactive expression of your behavior/outlook. — The Great Whatever

As a child I was convinced that there's something behind everything (like the world I see is just a veil). I don't remember when I decided that thething is ideas. Did you have an experience like that?

The way we exist in the world is formed in our infancy, and develops rapidly. — Bitter Crank

With some room for innate personality, I see that.

As a child I was convinced that there's something behind everything (like the world I see is just a veil). I don't remember when I decided that thething is ideas. Did you have an experience like that? — Mongrel

No, definitely not.

Children might be shaped to believe that Santa Claus exists, but later they learn to think. Thought is not shaped by childhood experiences. — jkop

"The way we think" and some thoughts (like Santa Claus) do seem to be shaped by childhood experiences, but it isn't rigidly determinist. Just because a child of 5 thinks Santa Claus is real doesn't mean that at 15 he will still think Santa is real. Rigid, unbending thinkers learn to be that way somewhere along the line, as do flexible, adaptive thinkers.

Yes, I think so.

Though when you say:

I was thinking more about idealism, materialism (either of which can be eliminative or reductive), neutral monism, etc. — Mongrel

I'm less inclined to believe so. Or, at least, I believe such beliefs can have practical effects, but it wouldn't be easy to ascertain. @The Great Whatever pinpoints why -- such beliefs are not so easily separated from their practical effects, and we may choose metaphysical beliefs after the fact because of the type of person we are, rather than come to believe such and such metaphysical position and then come to find its practical consequences.



But what I would call a pop-metaphysics, or a folk metaphysics (to borrow a term from phil-o-mind), would be much broader than these particular theses on the ultimate nature of reality. It would include beliefs about the soul, beliefs about how minds work, beliefs about the existence or non-existence of various institutions, beliefs about the self... it doesn't seem to be a closed set. From self-described spiritualists performing Tarot readings to self-described rationalists consulting therapists, to use one pole that seems to be part of pop-metaphysics, one can find many variations on beliefs about the nature of reality and the reasons for the beliefs about said reality.

I am not as familiar with Eastern Orthodox theology, but I gather that it stresses becoming one with God ("theosis") over the course of one's life. — aletheist

Well I am an Eastern Orthodox. The thing is you are right that salvation must ultimately be bestowed by God through grace - however this manifests itself in an actual way, and is therefore known by the believer. The believer can look back in their personal history and identify the reason - ie the event - that made them convert and begin on the path of ascension to God (theosis). Thus God's intervention in the life of the believer appears from the inside as it were - the believer perceives it. It's metaphorically similar to having a veil lifted from your eyes.

So there is something that the believer can do to precipitate this. The idea in Orthodoxy is that God is always seeking for the believer - always knocking at his door as it were - but unless the believer opens, God will not force the door. Most of the time, the problem is that the believer does not hear God knocking. So the prerequisite is that the believer become aware of God, and thereby permit the Holy Spirit to do its work. That's why taking part in liturgy, prayer, following the commandments etc. are emphasised - these are essential to bring the believer to an awareness of God.

I see believing in God and being ethical as two different things. Ultimately it is not about anything that I do, it is only about what God has done for me in Christ and through the Holy Spirit. " For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast."

One cannot be ethical without believing in God though - that would be to vacate belief in God of its corresponding ethical praxis don't you think so? The Pope has recently said that it is better to be an atheist than a hypocritical Catholic, and I think he was right. It's impossible to be a Christian and be unethical - if that's the case, then you're not really a Christian. And inversely - it is not possible to be be ethical and not be a believer in God - you may be unaware that you are a believer, but this lack of awareness doesn't mean that deep in your heart there is no element of belief. Again belief is about degrees, it's not a on-off switch. In addition, remember the unforgivable sin, blasphemy against the Holy Spirit - it is something that occurs deep in the heart, it's not merely a superficial rejection or mockery of God that is under discussion in that case. So someone may very well be outwardly mocking and rejecting God, but inwardly there may be a degree of belief left in them, and hence they would not have committed the unforgivable sin.

So indeed, salvation is a gift of grace - salvation would be impossible if man was searching for God, but God wasn't searching for man. What makes salvation possible is precisely that God is searching for man - and so if man becomes aware of this, they can accept God's gift and be saved. It's not their own works which save them, but their works certainly prepare the way for salvation.

Does your metaphysics show up in your behavior in some way? In your moral outlook? In the way you interact with people? In the way you view life in general? — Mongrel

I think this is an interesting and important topic, Mongrel, and I think the answers would very much depends on what you mean by 'metaphysics'.

From the SEP, the introductory paragraph in its entry 'Metaphysics':

It is not easy to say what metaphysics is. Ancient and Medieval philosophers might have said that metaphysics was, like chemistry or astrology, to be defined by its subject matter: metaphysics was the “science” that studied “being as such” or “the first causes of things” or “things that do not change”. It is no longer possible to define metaphysics that way, for two reasons. First, a philosopher who denied the existence of those things that had once been seen as constituting the subject-matter of metaphysics—first causes or unchanging things—would now be considered to be making thereby a metaphysical assertion. Second, there are many philosophical problems that are now considered to be metaphysical problems (or at least partly metaphysical problems) that are in no way related to first causes or unchanging things—the problem of free will, for example, or the problem of the mental and the physical.

In the popular imagination, metaphysics is perhaps most often viewed as dealing with the questions of religion: God, immortal soul, afterlife, free will and personal moral responsibility, and so on, rather than with questions of substance, being, the nature of the infinite and the finite, the subject and the object, the mental and the physical,and so on.

I would say that a person's thoughts on the former kinds of questions will certainly affect behavior, moral outlook, interaction with others and so on; whereas a persons thoughts on the latter kinds of questions will not necessarily affect any of the things you mention except perhaps "the way you view life in general".

But it also depends on how strong a person's convictions are on the former kinds of questions. Belief ranges form merely paying lip service to the most profound life-altering conviction.

Interesting. I think the concept of divinity is and always has been what we would either call mind or life (mostly, anyway.) Is it really two kinds of question?