Religion's epistemological method has failed to provide genuine knowledge as evidenced by the fact that different religions disagree about reality. Even Christian denominations cannot agree on how to be saved! — Art48

This is at least backwards.
The religious epistemological method is the method of revelation, it's top-down, not bottom-up. God, the divine, or some higher truth is revealed to people, people don't figure it out on their own and they aren't supposed to nor can they.

Science works. It possesses genuine knowledge which is why just about all nations accept Western science but usually keep their own religion.

Because science and religion are NOMAs, so there's no conflict.

Applying a superior epistemological method to religious questions might produce some genuine knowledge.

How??

Religion's epistemological method has failed to provide genuine knowledge as evidenced by the fact that different religions disagree about reality. Even Christian denominations cannot agree on how to be saved! — Art48

This is at least backwards.
The religious epistemological method is the method of revelation, it's top-down, not bottom-up. God, the divine, or some higher truth is revealed to people, people don't figure it out on their own and they aren't supposed to nor can they. — baker

The religious epistemological method is regarding writings (some having talking serpents) as a revelation from God. It includes several methods (out of context, the original languages, taken too literally, etc.) to make the bogus revelation say whatever is desired. Thus, for a few centuries, the Bible supported slavery and burning witches, but today does not.

So?

Science tells us that life is a struggle for survival. How does religion not fit this struggle for survival?

Why wee do you think Dennett’s and Dawkin’s doctrinaire atheism comes from?
— Joshs

Why would any of us presume to know where someone else's thinking comes from? M — Vera Mont

I presume to know when it comes to Dennett and Dawkins, and I’m far from the only one who has pointed this out about them, because it is patently obvious from their understanding of the role and nature of science that they view science ‘scientistically’. What does this mean? Any time you hear someone defend atheism on the basis an argument to the effect that there is no empirical evidence in support of God, or that religious believers can’t put their ideas to a scientific test, youre in the vicinity of a scientistic thinking, and a doctrinaire atheism which asserts with authority the ‘truth’ of their position.

Am I back, or am I here, finally? I registered an account when PF went sideways but I'm not sure I ever posted anything.

Either way, I'm happy to be here now (the philosophy-related subreddits I was posting on weren't quite scratching the itch for me) and especially happy to see so many familiar faces, even so many years later. Many thanks to Jamal/Baden/etc for keeping the party going!

Any time you hear someone defend atheism on the basis an argument to the effect that there is no empirical evidence in support of God, or that religious believers can’t put their ideas to a scientific test, youre in the vicinity of a scientistic thinking, and a doctrinaire atheism which asserts with authority the‘truth’ of their position. — Joshs

All the sirens went off at once; red flags waving like mad.

↪180 Proof Do you really believe that theism is false (atheism)? — Agent Smith

No. I know that theism is not true (i.e. theistic deities are imaginary).

Do you also think that having a god would be a bad thing (antitheism)?

I am irreligious because I think, in the wake and wreckage of millennia of servile superstitious veraphobic worship, that faith-based theistic religions are inimicable to human well-being and social justice, therefore are manifestly immoral (i.e. iatragenic) institutions because, to begin with, theistic gods are imaginary.

NB: My use of antitheism is non-standard ...; thus, the only "god" which makes any shred of sense to me – consistent with all human knowledge of nature and lived experience – and does not insult my intelligence or undermine my dignity as a moral agent is the Pandeus.

All the sirens went off at once; red flags waving like mad. — Vera Mont

And what are those sirens and red flags telling you?

Atheists beware. Bad-faith debater on the loose! Take cover!

Atheists beware. Bad-faith debater on the loose! Take cover! — Vera Mont

From atheist Marxist Terry Eagleton:

“Dawkins falsely considers that Christianity offers a rival view of the universe to science. Like the philosopher Daniel C. Dennett in Breaking the Spell, he thinks it is a kind of bogus theory or pseudo-explanation of the world. In this sense, he is rather like someone who thinks that a novel is a botched piece of sociology, and who therefore can’t see the point of it at all. Why bother with Robert Musil when you can read Max Weber? . . .

Dawkins makes an error of genre, or category mistake, about the kind of thing Christian belief is. He imagines that it is either some kind of pseudo-science, or that, if it is not that, then it conveniently dispenses itself from the need for evidence altogether. He also has an old-fashioned scientistic notion of what constitutes evidence.”

Would you like to hear from some more “bad-faith” atheist debaters with similar comments on Dawkins and Dennett? I can give you plenty.

Do you believe in god/s? and if so (or not) can you sketch out your thinking?

Would you like to hear from some more “bad-faith” atheist debaters with similar comments on Dawkins and Dennett? I can give you plenty. — Joshs

No thanks. I have no time for bad fate debaters of any stripe.

No thanks. I have no time for bad fate debaters of any stripe — Vera Mont

I call bullshit. Dont blame others for your inability to grasp their arguments. That’s not bad faith, but it is anti-intellectual as well as insulting to me and I don’t appreciate it.

↪Joshs Do you believe in god/s? and if so (or not) can you sketch out your thinking? — Tom Storm

I grew up in a religious home but decided I was an atheist in my late teens. It was important for me not to embrace atheism simply as a lack of faith or in any way a rejection of the positive values that are associated with belief in God. My atheism had to be justified as incorporating all that was advantageous about religion while improving on its ability to make for a good society.

So if "sacred scriptures" contain claims about human beings, the natural world, moral / social values, history, etc which the majority of non-literalist believers (i.e. adherents to those "sacred scriptures") live by and even organize their communities around generation after generation, determining the prospects for well-being of themselves and their descendants, how do you suggest, Joshs, such "sacred" claims – usually extensions of the purported predicates of some so-called "god" – be evaluated, especially when they contradict publicly accessible facts and practices?

Or do you advocate instead that "religious claims" get an uncritical, automatic pass from carefully reasoned scrutiny (e.g. philosophical, historical and scientific analyses) – in order to avoid the hysterical appearance of "doctrinnaire atheism"?

:up:

So it's simple.

1. God is imaginary, let's stick to the facts.

2. God is harmful. Let's not go down that road.

Pandeism fits in your worldview. You're in good company ol' chap! Albert Einstein, allegedly, was a pandeist and his name is synonymous with intelligence. I wonder why smart folk, if they're at all spiritually inclined, are usually pandeists? What's up with that?

how do you suggest, Joshs, such "sacred" claims – usually extensions of the purported predicates of some so-called "god" – be evaluated, especially when they contradict publicly accessible facts and practices? — 180 Proof

Of course , the same ‘sacred scriptures’ , once they were canonically frozen into their eventual form as the 5 books of Moses and the New Testament, immediately became interpreted and reinterpreted over the course of the past 2 millennia in ways that prepared tor way for , and then paralleled, the progress of scientific thought. In the era of Philo and Augustine, Platonic readings were in vogue. By the time of Aquinas and Maimonides, Aristotelian interpretations predominated, which emphasized for the first time human rationality, setting the stage for the Renaissance. In Kierkegaard’s era , a Kantianized , Hegelianized Judeo-Christianity of subjective existentialist faith emerged alongside dialectical materialist science.

The point is, it is not the same sacred scriptures and the same God that each era comes to know , but instead a transformed, reinterpreted text and deity. So how does this evolution of faith square with the ‘publicly accessible facts and practices’. One has to appreciate that facts only exist with a systematic order of practices . One could call this organizing frame an empirical episteme. Furthermore , the reigning episteme of an era undergoes a historical evolution that not only parallels that of Judeo-Christianity, but encompasses religious belief, the sciences, the arts and political thought within a single encompassing frame. This is why there were no atheists among Enlightenment scientists. The publicly accessible facts and practices of the day were subsumed under the order of a divine rationalism.

Thanks. So in your case why not accept the reality of a god? Is your position beyond reason and more about an inability to believe? I am fascinated by forms of atheism which doesn’t rely on conventional arguments.

Actually, IIRC, Einstein was a pantheist (in what he, like many, wrongly believe was aa Spinozist position) and not a pandeist.

I wonder why smart folk, if they're at all spiritually inclined, are usually pandeists[pantheists]?

Many are pantheists; few, however, are pandeists. I'm neither, though I find the latter consilient with my naturalist outlook. As for why – I think for many "smart folks" pantheism is an expression of nature as the embodiment of reason that 'evolves' in complexity and 'towards' unity (i.e. universality), and thus is the ultimately providential / beneficial (universal) standard for thinking and living (e.g. Logos, Dao). Pandeism, on the other hand, is much more modest (e.g. not 'providential' ...) and more speculative (i.e. cosmogenesis) than pantheism.

Your unwillingness or inability to give straight-forward answers to straight-forward questions is tedious. My apologies for bothering to engage you.

I call bullshit. — Joshs

It will probably come.

Aah! Gracias for the clarification.

Pandeism has residual elements of religion while pantheism doesn't. The latter is basically naturalism, but viewed with a religious lens, just as religion is, dare I say, nonsense at worst or security blanket at best to science.

Reading this discussion has been an interesting and instructive experience. I hope I won't be messing up the discussion if I add some comments.

Philosophical discussion often sets its terms around theism, with atheism as its opposite and religion as its subject. But I think that the focus on God misses the point. A religion (or sect) is a way of life, and it is as much about what one does as what one believes. Nonetheless, since the beliefs add up to a way of thinking about the world and the concept of God is meant to be a foundation of that, the beliefs are important. Beliefs and actions interact of course, so there is no separation, just a complexity. The social conditions in which the religion must exist are, of course, an additional complexity.

Not that science and religion are incompatible. There are, are there not, many people who are scientists and have a religious belief. We tend unthinkingly to adopt the idea that there is some sort of competition between the two. This serves the purposes of extreme atheism but is a really relic of ancient battles which do not need to be fought any longer. There are plenty of conceptions of God that allow for peaceful co-existence, from science as reading the mind of God via God as the sustainer of all natural laws to "God, or Nature".

Is science a way of looking at and living in the world - in short a way of life? It seems to have many of the features.

Could atheism be considered a religion? I don't think it is associated with any particular way of life, so my answer is no.

Having said that a religion is a way of life, it does seem to me that, whatever a religion aims to be, it becomes a field across which the tendencies of human nature play out. Sectarian divisions often reflect a personality type, (fundamentalism, liberalism, and so forth) so what exactly the way of life of Christianity (for example) is, becomes difficult to discern.

One problem that I've been worrying about a great deal lately is this. Each religion sets out to be a complete way of life and sees no need to make room for alternative belief-systems. Since it is set up as a minority in a hostile environment, that seems inevitable. Exclusivity is common to all (or at least many) of them. Add to this the belief that the real foundation of religious belief is not argument or evidence or any of that. It is faith (or perhaps "commitment"). What bother is me is that "othering" non-believers seems to be inherent in that. (Hume's argument against miracles - section 10 in the Enquiry - is a good example, if you read it carefully to the end.) So intolerance seems built in. I realize that in practice many religious people are perfectly, generously, tolerant. But the tendency seems built in and history seems to show that it will surface from time to time.

. So in your case why not accept the reality of a god? Is your position beyond reason and more about an inability to believe? I am fascinated by forms of atheism which doesn’t rely on conventional arguments — Tom Storm

I begin with the philosophical and psychological
model that makes sense of my world, without at first worrying about how this thinking relates to the question of God. Then I examine the different ways in which ‘god’ can be used. For instance, there is God as a personality , a ‘self’ modeled on human selves. The. there is God as energy, or God as pantheistic totality of all existing things.
Concerning God as a self, if in my psychological
model, the self is a social construct, a continually changing phenomenon with no persisting identity , you can see how this fragments the idea of God as a self.
What about God as energy or pantheistic totality? Here what is at stake is the idea of an ethical grounding for the world. Not a personal self but a grounding of goodness. God is synonymous with the Good. But what if my psychological model puts into question the persisting identity of the meaning of the concept of goodness? If the meaning of goodness when it comes to human relations is relative to content and culture, then God as Goodness becomes just one concept that is relative to its use , which is constantly changing.
In sum , my atheism is not a matter of saying there is no god, but of saying there are as many meanings of that concept as there are selves within my body, or values within and between culture. So God can’t be used as a fundamental explanation or first cause. It is more of an effect of a process that philosophy can describe in other terms, such as Heidegger’s Beyng.

“As the most being-like, God is the first cause and the last goal of all beings. God is represented as the most being-like of beings, and so God essentially occurs out of beyng. Nevertheless, God is not primordially linked to beyng; because beyng occurs essentially not as cause and never as ground.”

Thanks, Joshs, this is a rich and interesting approach.

In sum , my atheism is not a matter of saying there is no god, but of saying there are as many meanings of that concept as there are selves within my body, or values within and between culture. So God can’t be used as a fundamental explanation or first cause. It is more of an effect of a process that philosophy can describe in other terms, such as Heidegger’s Beyng. — Joshs

God is something like the cumulative result of presuppositions and approaches to meaning which are not sustainable in their traditional sense.

God is a concept
By which we measure
Our pain — J. Lennon

:chin:

That's worthy of any number of great thinkers.

Pandeism has residual elements of religion while pantheism doesn't. — Agent Smith

This is confused, you've got it backwards, mon ami. :smirk:

This is confused, you've got it backwards, mon ami. :smirk: — 180 Proof

Perhaps, my intuition has been off the mark for most of the time I exercised it.

The same might be said of the alchemists: that many of their beliefs were childish fantasies unrelated to reality. BUT had the alchemists given up, we might never have discovered chemistry. I feel much the same about the atheist, that they’ve given up the quest to find a deeper reality. — Art48

-Thats not true. Alchemy was just a bad way to do Chemistry. Alchemy failure to provide real world results rendering itself useless and irrelevant. Logic and instrumental value of the end product (knowledge) is what lead as to shape the rules of the discipline (chemistry.)
If we use your example on Alchemy to construct an analogy, then Theists are the Alchemists (believed in unfounded claims) and Atheists are the result of logic and real life facts.
After all believing in magical answers was not the reason behind our Epistemic Success. Its science and its neutral (atheistic/rejecting the supernatural until it can be justified through objective evidence) principles that allowed us to peel off the layers of reality. As far as we know Religious Tradition and beliefs were always weighing down our epistemic advances.

Of course, atheists may be right in that there is no deeper reality to be found, at least, not a reality that could in any sensible way be called “God.” But they may be wrong, too. — Art48

-This is NOT the atheistic position. You are describing the Antitheistic position but that is only a subset of a much larger category(atheism). That a category error.
The minimum position for someone to be an Atheist is to have doubt to the claim and demand evidence before accepting it as true.
Logic (Null Hypothesis) dictates that all unverified claims should be rejected until objective evidence can falsify our initial rejection. So Atheism(not being convinced of the truthiness of the claim), by definition is the most rational position to hold.

Sure atheists and atheists may be wrong, but the moment to accept that is only after God existence has been verified. (the same is true for antitheists)
Do you go around telling people you are millionaire because its is possible to win the lottery later that day? That's not reasonable right? So why theist do exactly that with the God claim?

The atheist may respond that religions have had millennia to get their act together, and have failed. So, there is much justification for rejecting the idea of God. (Or rather rejecting ideas of God, since such ideas are so varied and, at times, contradictory.) — Art48

-Correct , the rejection of an unjustified belief is the most rational thing to do

But perhaps religions have failed because they use an epistemological method worthy of a child: someone special (prophet, God, God-man, etc.) said or wrote something, and we must believe it. Just like “Mommy or Daddy said some something, so you should believe it. — Art48

-The reason why religions of the past or believers of the presence have failed to demonstrate objectively the existence of the God is irrelevant. The burden is on the side making the claim after all.

Alchemists used something akin to science’s epistemological method (hypothesize, experiment, no gold? form different hypothesis, try different experiment). Perhaps, if religion employed something similar to science’s epistemological method, real progress could be made. — Art48

-Well their hypothesis (turn lead in to gold) was based on wishful thoughts, not on knowledge. So apart from similarities in methodology neither their standards and principles or level of the quality of their methodologies were comparable to science. After all science's methodologies are not something special, between a scientific lab and any other empirical method of knowledge. the rules of evaluations and systematic accumulation and processing of data is what differs.

But how to apply science’s epistemological method to religion? A difficult question. The current draft of my thoughts is available at — Art48

-That's not Science's or Logic's fault. The problem lies with the nature of the religious claims. Again the burden of proof lies with the side making the claim.

The religious epistemological method is the method of revelation, it's top-down, not bottom-up. God, the divine, or some higher truth is revealed to people, people don't figure it out on their own and they aren't supposed to nor can they. — baker

-Revelation? that not a method, its doesn't have steps that one can follow in an effort to reproduce the result.
Those are the Claims...not the result of a objective methodology and those claims are subjective (this is why we have claims for more than 4.300 religions and more than 10.000 deities with different characteristics, qualities and roles in reality).
Those claims need to be demonstrated objectively, not assumed to be true. This is the whole issue with religious claims.

Because science and religion are NOMAs, so there's no conflict. — baker

_that could be the case if and only if religion staying in its Magisteria and didn't attempt to introduce its entities withing science back yard. Unfortunately most classical religions do that mistake and their claims are fair game for Science.