Right, so your sole motivation in this thread has basically been to bait those interested in such matters with reference to your new atheist hobby horse. I think I'll stop playing along now, I've wasted far too much time talking to you.

Right, so your sole motivation in this thread has basically been to bait those interested in such matters with reference to your new atheist hobby horse. I think I'll stop playing along now, I've wasted far too much time talking to you. — Wayfarer

Wow, that is a colossal non-sequitur, and once again needlessly impugns my motives by insinuating that I've been posting in bad faith. Whom have I "baited"? I daresay that you baited me, with your usual Dawkins-obsessed ranting over the New Atheists (you do realize that you are likely responsible for the vast majority of Dawkins references on the forum?).

As I explained, my original motivation for joining Internet forums was a response to 'new atheism'; and every philosophical discussion I've had with you have been along the lines of 'atheism vs spiritual belief'.

Where you came into this thread was with this statement:

perhaps most religious believers are not adherents of the sort of hot air suffused word salad that Eagleton spews here.

The quotation you were commenting on was my response to John talking about 'literal belief in a Sky Father figure', and I think it made the point very well.

Then you referenced Plantinga to establish what your view of 'normative Christian belief' amounts to. But the reason you did that, is to demonstrate that Christian faith as you portray it, is baseless - in other words, to set up the argument so as to be amenable to atheist polemics. So you insist that religious ideas must interpreted in a certain way, purely because that enables you to line up your new-atheist BB gun and take shots at it - which is what I said were 'clay pidgeons'. Then you complain about my pointing that out, and I had the good grace to apologise for it (unwisely, it now seems.)

During this thread, I have composed several very long posts, which explain why I have the view towards the matters that I do, and trying to point out how it varies from the caricature of religion that you have arrived at. In doing so, I have made a lot of points which either have sailed over your head, or you have chosen to ignore (mostly the former, I'm sure). So before you fire off another shot, go back and review what I've actually said, because the only parts you ever notice are what fits into your procrustean bed. (Or not. I really don't care.)

As I explained, my original motivation for joining Internet forums was a response to 'new atheism'; and every philosophical discussion I've had with you have been along the lines of 'atheism vs spiritual belief'. — Wayfarer

Yes, I recall you saying that. That right there is worrisome, as your entire motivation for joining is tainted by a negative goal, defining yourself by what you're ideologically opposed to. Not a great start, I should say, but really neither here nor there with regard to the substance of your posts.

The quotation you were commenting on was my response to John talking about 'literal belief in a Sky Father figure', and I think it made the point very well.

Then you referenced Plantinga to establish what your view of 'normative Christian belief' amounts to. But the reason you did that, is to demonstrate that Christian faith as you portray it, is baseless - in other words, to set up the argument so as to be amenable to atheist polemics. So you insist that religious ideas must interpreted in a certain way, purely because that enables you to line up your new-atheist BB gun and take shots at it - which is what I said were 'clay pidgeons'. Then you complain about my pointing that out, and I had the good grace to apologise for it.

During this thread, I have composed several very long posts, which explain why I have the view towards the matters that I do, and trying to point out how it varies from the caricature of religion that you have arrived at. In doing so, I have made a lot of points which either have sailed over your head, or you have chosen to ignore (mostly the former, I'm sure). So before you fire off another shot, go back and review what I've actually said, because the only parts you ever notice are what fits into your procrustean bed. (Or not. I really don't care.)

Well, I admit that the phrase "ground of all being" sails over my head, yes. You remain unable or unwilling to explain it (beyond producing quotes which contain it), so I wonder whether you understand it yourself.

As for your other claims, I will simply flip the script on you: you ignore the fact that most Christians believe in a personal God in order to insulate Christianity (and religious belief generally) from Dawkins et al's attack.

the fact that most Christians believe in a personal God — Arkady

What is a person, according to Dawkins et al? Do they believe in a personal person? I find myself struggling to defend the notion of personhood at all at times.

What's the "mark"? — Arkady

In music the optimum note, in painting the optimum tone and colour, in poetry the optimum word. We've already been over this.

A painting or drawing of the Statue of Liberty which adequately resembles the Statue of Liberty is an "accurate" representation of that object. Saying that J.S. Mill was a utilitarian is an "accurate" description of his position on ethics. Saying that Abraham Lincoln was assassinated in Ford's Theater is an "accurate" statement about history. — Arkady

All but the first are the kinds of "prosaic, mundane or everyday" examples I already referred to, and which are simply matters of conventional usage, and thus uninteresting. Also, the latter two examples are more aptly thought of as being either correct or incorrect statements rather than as more or less accurate, as there is no obvious possibility of degree of accuracy in them; and degree seems to be intrinsic to the notion of accuracy, just as it is with perfection.

As to your first example; just what does "adequately resemble" consist in? I sense a looming circularity of reasoning...

What is a person, according to Dawkins et al? Do they believe in a personal person? I find myself struggling to defend the notion of personhood at all at times. — unenlightened

Why ask Dawkins? You can ask some Christian philosophers, starting with Alvin Plantinga who I quoted earlier in this thread (he is not the "right" sort of philosopher, however).

God is apparently a being with intentions, desires, mental states (love, anger, likes, and dislikes), who was even literally embodied as a human being for a time (spoiler alert: didn't work out so hot for the fleshy part of him), and is capable of hearing (and occasionally answering - when he's not otherwise occupied with planning for the Rapture and such) intercessory prayers. Sounds like a person to me. You are probably also aware, though, that Jesus (who is God, but not God, if you get me) was "fully divine" and "fully human" (much in the way that contradictions of any sort can be true - don't believe me? - you must be scientistic).

Much hinges on this: whether this conception of personhood renders it permissible to abort God, for instance. I myself think that God wasn't really a person until 8,359 BC, and thus was able to be aborted up to that date. This matter was decided when Kentucky's statute forbidding aborting God was sent to a U.S. Court of Appeals. Make sense now?

Well, I admit that the phrase "ground of all being" sails over my head, yes. You remain unable or unwilling to explain it (beyond producing quotes which contain it), so I wonder whether you understand it yourself. — Arkady

I have bent over backwards, written essays, to explain it. I have a degree in comparative religion, and have worked as a teacher in Buddhist Studies. I think the problem is at your end. You see, 'belief' is not simply a matter of reciting the dogma - it is being open to the idea that there might actually be something to be understood. That is absent in your case. So if I produced a reference or a document, all you would do is shoot at it. Clay pigeons.

Have you read that Eagleton review of Dawkins that Arkady thinks is 'hot air'? If not, I recommend it, it's a riot. Paragraph six addresses your question.

You can ask some Christian philosophers, starting with Alvin Plantinga who I quoted earlier in this thread (he is not the "right" sort of philosopher, however). — Arkady

Plantinga is a highly-respected Christian philosopher, but he is a 'confessional' Christian, i.e. his philosophy assumes that you have accepted the tenets of the faith. I am trying to get a perspective from outside that requirement. But it's significant that Alvin Plantinga and Thomas Nagel reviewed each others books, even though they obviously part company on the confessional aspects. But they also find common ground, even though Nagel professes atheism. But in the case of Arkady, this would be unlikely, because the entire polemic is dedicated to reducing Christianity to a contemptible superstition and then excorciating those who profess it on those grounds, as per the remainder of the post I've quoted from. Like Jerry Coyne, one of his exemplars, the whole outlook is predicated on the 'science v faith' dichotomy, that 'all of science is incompatible with all of religion', so if you have any religious beliefs whatever, it follows that you reject climate science, vaccination, and evolutionary biology.

I have bent over backwards, written essay, to explain it. — Wayfarer

You have written an essay to explain it for my benefit? I must have missed that. Could you point it out to me?

I have a degree in comparative religion, and have worked as a teacher in Buddhist Studies. I think the problem is at your end. You see, 'belief' is not simply a matter of reciting the dogma - it is being open to the idea that there might actually be something to be understood.

I am open to it. I even proposed some candidate explanations which got no traction or substantive feedback. If you're not even going to meet me halfway, then you're the one who's not trying.

Plantinga is a highly-respected Christian philosopher, but he is a 'confessional' Christian, i.e. his philosophy assumes that you have accepted the tenets of the faith. — Wayfarer

In other words you keep moving the goalposts. Creationists aren't "real Christians," Plantinga isn't the right sort of Christian, etc. Sounds like No True Scotsman to me.

In music the optimum note, in painting the optimum tone and colour, in poetry the optimum word. We've already been over this. — John

You do realize that there's a difference between "optimality" and "accuracy", correct?

All but the first are the kinds of "prosaic, mundane or everyday" examples I already referred to, and which are simply matters of conventional usage, and thus uninteresting. Also, the latter two examples are more aptly thought of as being either correct or incorrect statements rather than as more or less accurate, as there is no obvious possibility of degree of accuracy in them; and degree seems to be intrinsic to the notion of accuracy, just as it is with perfection.

You asked for concrete examples, and I gave them. I'm sorry they weren't sufficiently exciting or avant-garde for you, but conventional usage tends to be mundane.

As to your first example; just what does "adequately resemble" consist in? I sense a looming circularity of reasoning...

Come now, let us not play games. A portrait adequately resembles its subject when it is recognizable as such. You know what a portrait which resembles its subject looks like.

Christians were the first to use "person" in the modern sense, taking from the concept of a "persona" from theater, in order to explain the unity of the trinity.

Pretty much for the same reason, Freud never uses the word "subject", thinking it too philosophically-laden, and implying a unified single thing, which he didn't think people are.

Also just pretty much Plato's notion of the tripart soul, the plant the animal and the god.

What, in your opinion, delineates artistic human activities from non-artistic ones? As I asked above, if a plumber devises a creative solution to stem a leaky pipe, has he thereby created art? — Arkady

I think the answers to those questions should be obvious to you. What delineates an artistic human activity from a non-artistic activity is creativity. And of course, the creative plumber who devises a new solution to an old problem, is artistic. I gave you the dictionary definition, and whether you like referring to such definitions or not, the dictionary generally indicates accepted usage.

You , for some unknown reason, want to separate out certain types of creative acts from other types of creative acts, to say that those are acts of art, and these are not acts of art. Since it is you who is wanting this division within creative acts, you should be the one putting forward the principles by which you would maintain such a division. And it will not suffice to outline an arbitrary division, nor will it suffice to make a division based in some inter-subjective conventions. I want to see real objective principles whereby we can judge particular creative acts, and differentiate between artistic and non-artistic creative acts.

The point being, that if there are no such objective principles dividing these creative acts, then we can categorize them together and analyze them together. Then when we observe acts in which creativity is at the forefront of the act, we can derive a good understand of the nature of creativity, and apply this toward understanding the creative aspect of other acts, acts in which the creative elements might not be as well exposed.

If pointing out obvious differences between radically different spheres of human activity is "petty," then I'm guilty as charged. — Arkady

The point is, that "art" refers to human activity which is creative in nature, and this type of activity extends throughout all the different spheres of human activity. Creativity, and therefore art, is a common aspect of many different human actions. You might call these "radically different spheres of human activity" if you like, but we know that they all have something in common, creativity. And as much as composing music is radically different from painting a canvas, which is radically different from producing an hypothesis, I see nothing other than arbitrary assumptions, to indicate that any of these are not forms art. If they truly are similar, in the sense of being creative acts, artistic acts, then we can classify them as such, analyze, and attempt to understand these acts as artistic acts.

I think the answers to those questions should be obvious to you. What delineates an artistic human activity from a non-artistic activity is creativity. And of course, the creative plumber who devises a new solution to an old problem, is artistic. I gave you the dictionary definition, and whether you like referring to such definitions or not, the dictionary generally indicates accepted usage. — Metaphysician Undercover

Do you believe that it is generally accepted that plumbers qua plumbers are artists when they exercise creativity?

And of course, the creative plumber who devises a new solution to an old problem, is artistic. — Metaphysician Undercover

The best of them are also flush with success! X-)

Yes, I've worked with plumbers in the past, they take pride in their work, and I believe they often consider their work to be art. I think it is common throughout the trades, to refer to one's work as art, it signifies that you take pride in what you do. Finish carpenters especially think of themselves as artists. I worked in foundations for some time, and we'd sometimes refer to our various constructs as "a work of art". In this context, we'd be emphasizing the aesthetic value of the work.

Is this the specialized form of creativity which would constitute your understanding of "art"? Things created for aesthetic, rather than pragmatic purposes would constitute art?

Yes, I've worked with plumbers in the past, they take pride in their work, and I believe they often consider their work to be art. I think it is common throughout the trades, to refer to one's work as art, it signifies that you take pride in what you do. Finish carpenters especially think of themselves as artists. I worked in foundations for some time, and we'd sometimes refer to our various constructs as "a work of art". In this context, we'd be emphasizing the aesthetic value of the work.

Is this the specialized form of creativity which would constitute your understanding of "art"? Things created for aesthetic, rather than pragmatic purposes would constitute art? — Metaphysician Undercover

You appealed to the "general acceptance" of the dictionary definition, which I had contested. I didn't ask whether plumbers are proud of their work: I asked whether it is likewise generally accepted that the work of plumbers constitutes "art".

Yes as far as I know, it's well accepted that these trades people are artists. If someone said to you, "I am an artist", by what principle would you argue "no you are not an artist"?

Yes as far as I know, it's well accepted that these trades people are artists. — Metaphysician Undercover

Nonsense.

Actually the nonsense is in your passage which I first responded to:

As for the arts, Coyne does allow that the arts can be "ways of knowing" in certain ways, in that the arts can, for instance, tell us what certain historical figures looked like via their portraits. But for the most part, why should the arts be regarded as a truth-seeking or knowledge-generating endeavor? This is clearly a case of humanitiesism: the encroachment of the humanities on the domain of the natural and social sciences. — Arkady

To think that art is not a knowledge generating endeavor is simply ridiculous beyond words. Instead of facing the reality of this mistake, and moving toward apprehending the true nature of art, and the role which it plays in human existence, you attempt to define "art" off into a corner somewhere where it becomes an irrelevant sideshow.

You do realize that there's a difference between "optimality" and "accuracy", correct? — Arkady

What, do you mean to say that the optimal portrait (for purposes of identification, at least), would not be the one that represents the features of the subject most accurately; or in other words the most accurate portrait? If all you mean to say is that it is possible, in different contexts to make different distinctions between optimality and accuracy, well then, yes of course. In fact that is just what I have been arguing: that it is in fact also possible to make distinctions between different kinds of accuracy, as well as different kinds of art, and, for that matter, different kinds of knowledge, all of which is apparently contrary to your own much more simplistic view.

Come now, let us not play games. A portrait adequately resembles its subject when it is recognizable as such. You know what a portrait which resembles its subject looks like. — Arkady

Recognizable by whom? That seems like a very loose subjective definition of accuracy. I'm not playing games, as much as you might like to think I am merely on account of my questioning your very questionable definitions.

You asked for concrete examples, and I gave them. I'm sorry they weren't sufficiently exciting or avant-garde for you, but conventional usage tends to be mundane. — Arkady

It seems to me you are the one playing games, resorting to sarcasm instead of answering the questions that present difficulties for your narrow, "black and white" view of things. I'm not going to decide your arguments are intelligent just on the strength of your trying to make them sound intelligent, you will actually have to deal with the difficulties that are proposed by your interlocutors to be entailed by your standpoint, if you want to achieve any such accolade.

As I said all human activities are both art and craft. — John

Then art describes anything and everything humans do, there can be no distinction between art and non-art, which makes the term useless. — Arkady

I have said there is a general distinction between the elements art and craft in any human activity, where the first signifies the creation of novelty and beauty and the second signifies technical prowess. I have already acknowledged that certain activities, writing poems, plays and novels, composing music and painting pictures for a few of the main examples, are generally considered to be pure arts or "art(s} for art's sake".

Does that mean that everything that is produced by people who purport to be practicing a "pure art" should qualify as art? This is where the distinction between art and non-art really comes into play; within the disciplines that are generally counted as the pure arts. Does the writer of a potboiler or a penny dreadful qualify as an artist? The distinction between art and non-art in this proper sense is not relevant when comparing disciplines but only when comparing the kinds of work produced within disciplines. It is not as though art is non-craft and craft is non-art; to claim that would be too facile, and would constitute a failure to do justice to what is an extremely complex and subtle question..

I can't see how the whole question of what is or isn't art has anything to do with this thread, however, one criterion might be that an artistic work serves no other purpose than to satisfy an aesthetic, whereas a piece of trade-craft, such as plumbing or whatever, has a utilitarian purpose.

I suppose 'artisanship' is a midpoint between the two - that probably originated with metal crafts, wood carving, and the like, of artefacts which served some utilitarian or ceremonial purpose but which also required artistry to create.

What is a person, according to Dawkins et al? Do they believe in a personal person? I find myself struggling to defend the notion of personhood at all at times.
— unenlightened
Why ask Dawkins? — Arkady

Well If one is going to attack the notion of a personal god, it is reasonable to ask what a person is. Now if it turns out that a person is nothing but an expression of genes, a mechanism, then the the idea of a personal god is ridiculous; a mechanical god is simply of no interest. One needs some idea of a person being an end in itself, or a locus of freedom, or a seat of consciousness, or some other rather unscientific term, or so it seems to me, so I am asking science what is a person. I don't think there is an answer, and if there is no answer, then science has nothing to say about a personal god, because it does not know whereof it speaks.

Well If one is going to attack the notion of a personal god, it is reasonable to ask what a person is. Now if it turns out that a person is nothing but an expression of genes, a mechanism, then the the idea of a personal god is ridiculous; a mechanical god is simply of no interest. One needs some idea of a person being an end in itself, or a locus of freedom, or a seat of consciousness, or some other rather unscientific term, or so it seems to me, so I am asking science what is a person. I don't think there is an answer, and if there is no answer, then science has nothing to say about a personal god, because it does not know whereof it speaks. — unenlightened

I've already answered: a personal God is a being with mental states, desires, intentions, and one is capable of hearing intercessory prayers and interacting with this world, including sending his son to die for the sins of mankind. How does any of this not qualify for personhood? And why must we ask science? The notion of personhood falls as much under the ambit of philosophy as science. Is science now hermetically sealed off from philosophical concepts? Because that's no science which I recognize.

In any event, you may want to ask the philosophers and theologians who believe God to be a person. If theologians can assert personhood for God, then atheists can attack it.

As for the notion of persons being "nothing but an expression of genes," I don't know where you are getting that from (or if you are just spitballing as to how you believe a scientist might define personhood).

To think that art is not a knowledge generating endeavor is simply ridiculous beyond words. Instead of facing the reality of this mistake, and moving toward apprehending the true nature of art, and the role which it plays in human existence, you attempt to define "art" off into a corner somewhere where it becomes an irrelevant sideshow. — Metaphysician Undercover

Argument by assertion. You claimed that plumbers were artists, and that this view was generally accepted (which is entailed by the dictionary definition of "art" which you claim is the generally accepted one). To me, that says we are not even living in the same world, and thus there can be no hope of rational discourse here.

What, do you mean to say that the optimal portrait (for purposes of identification, at least), would not be the one that represents the features of the subject most accurately; or in other words the most accurate portrait? If all you mean to say is that it is possible, in different contexts to make different distinctions between optimality and accuracy, well then, yes of course. In fact that is just what I have been arguing: that it is in fact also possible to make distinctions between different kinds of accuracy, as well as different kinds of art, and, for that matter, different kinds of knowledge, all of which is apparently contrary to your own much more simplistic view. — John

I'm not sure how my view is simplistic. My worldview distinguishes between "art" and "non-art." Yours claims that virtually everything is art, and is thus more parsimonious and thus simpler.

Recognizable by whom? That seems like a very loose subjective definition of accuracy.

Recognizable by those who know what the object of reference looks like.

I'm not playing games, as much as you might like to think I am merely on account of my questioning your very questionable definitions.

If you claim not to know what it means for a portrait or painting to resemble its subject, then yes, you are playing games.

It seems to me you are the one playing games, resorting to sarcasm instead of answering the questions that present difficulties for your narrow, "black and white" view of things. I'm not going to decide your arguments are intelligent just on the strength of your trying to make them sound intelligent, you will actually have to deal with the difficulties that are proposed by your interlocutors to be entailed by your standpoint, if you want to achieve any such accolade.

Again, you ask for concrete examples, and then complained that they were mundane. I never said that my definitions were not mundane.

I have no "black and white" view between art and non-art, as I offered no definition to that end, as any single definition which seeks to encompass something as ancient, variegated, and multifarious as "art" is doomed to inadequacy. I have merely denied that creativity is a sufficient condition for an activity qualifying as "art" (I believe that it is a necessary condition).

I can't see how the whole question of what is or isn't art has anything to do with this thread, however, one criterion might be that an artistic work serves no other purpose than to satisfy an aesthetic, whereas a piece of trade-craft, such as plumbing or whatever, has a utilitarian purpose. — Wayfarer

I am inclined to agree. However, the non-utilitarian criterion would rule out, for instance, architecture as art (at least as it pertains to the overall design of a building; presumably certain architectural elements could still be considered art, provided they were non-utilitarian in nature).

As for the notion of persons being "nothing but an expression of genes," I don't know where you are getting that from (or if you are just spitballing as to how you believe a scientist might define a person). — Arkady

“We are survival machines – robot vehicles blindly programmed to preserve the selfish molecules known as genes. This is a truth which still fills me with astonishment.”
― Richard Dawkins, The Selfish Gene

If there is no such thing a a person, then there is no such thing a a personal god.