I've seen it. Not sure how sound he is on philosophy but I know he draws from Susan Haack and David Hume. But as an autodidact, he can be a bit cocksure. — Tom Storm
I can't know there is no god. I can only decide there are no reasons good enough to believe in one. I am, like many contemporary freethinkers, an agnostic atheist. Agnostic in relation to knowledge of god; atheist in terms of belief in god. — Tom Storm
Pascal's wager is very clear on what one has to do vis-à-vis theism-atheism in a Christian context. — Agent Smith
That was my point. You have to buy into the basic legitimacy of Christianity in order for Pascal to be relevant. If Pascal's point was to get me to be a Christian, his argument will only work if I were already a Christian, so there's no value in his argument to those who don't already believe. — Hanover
Okay. So, none of the stories are true? What is this "broader truth"? For that matter, what is it broader than? Who are these allegorical stories really about? — Vera Mont
So you wouldn't believe in someone who told you to believe him/her if you don't wanna end up in a bad place? — Agent Smith
I am ruling that out. A corporeal god creates all sorts of theological problems. I think when we start getting into literal interpretations of scripture and anthropomorphic descriptions of God, the atheist ridicule properly applies.
— Hanover
I find this very interesting. Do you think this comes from a Jewish perspective? — Tom Storm
Pascal's wager is an analysis of a carrot-stick deal. If you don't believe, hell and if you do, heaven. If you don't believe in hell/heaven and the rest of the Christian doctrine, you should is Pascal's point mon ami. — Agent Smith
Critical biblical scholarship, which is taught in most universities, and is likely something any formally trained minister is well versed in (although not preached from the pulpit) — Hanover
IOW: Pick your cherry and ask an expert what varietal it is in his bailiwick.if you want to know the broader truths of a certain passage, then you would need to identify the one you're asking about and the tradition that you wanted interpreted under and from there you can engage in the Bible study class you're asking about. — Hanover
I see. They If they don't ask, don't tell them. So, what most Christians believe is not what their pastors believe. But is it then still the same God they both worship? — Vera Mont
Rather than jump through all these intellectual hoops, wouldn't it be easier to let go of the book as their basis for belief? It would, if an alternative, more reliable authority were available. — Vera Mont
His is certainly a Jewish perspective but Maimonides is a relative latecomer. He denies things that were fundamental parts of the ancestral religion, especially the parts about God's parts. The god(s) of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob was a corporal god, the kind of god apologists are so quick to deny. Maimonides' god is an attempt to create a philosophically acceptable god. — Fooloso4
As Kant pointed out, personal experiences are the only evidence of ding an sich Reality that we humans have, from which to construct our worldviews and belief systems. Everything else is hearsay. Our supposedly objective Science is merely a conventional model of Reality agreed-to by others with similar motivations. Theistic beliefs may be motivated, in part, by the visceral need for emotional social bonding (group identification), and in part, by the ideals of purity, perfection & salvation . On the other hand, Atheistic beliefs may be motivated, in part, by the visceral rejection of sheep-like social bonding, and in part, by the intellectual need for ideal perfection found only in logic & mathematics. But both seem to need the comfortable feeling of Certainty & Predictability. So, they make a leap of faith, as a knee-jerk response to the pain of uncertainty.Some theists will point to personal experiences as evidence, but these experiences can be subjective and interpreted in different ways. — Thund3r
As Kant pointed out, personal experiences are the only evidence of ding an sich Reality that we humans have, from which to construct our worldviews and belief systems. Everything else is hearsay. — Gnomon
The key difference is in how secure the person is in those beliefs – an agnostic will recognize a realistic possibility that their beliefs are incorrect, whereas a theist or atheist generally will not. — Gnomon
I recently read "Jesus Interrupted" by Bart Ehrman and he made the point many times that biblical criticism is taught at most seminaries and pastors are well aware of it, but it's not taught to the congregation, and he didn't have a good explanation for it. — Hanover
No [can't give up reliance on the book], because you have thousands of years of analysis that has in fact led many to a more meaningful life. — Hanover
The fundamentalist position is an impossible one to maintain, but it has very strong contemporary (but not historical) influence, especially in the US South. — Hanover
the answer lies in accepting the obvious fact that the Bible has been used for a particular purpose by people and it has been given significance by people and that is what makes it relevant. — Hanover
Yes. I sometimes identify myself as an agnostic Deist. I have no direct experience of the putative deity of my theory, merely circumstantial evidence, sufficient for conviction of creation. But from what I've learned from Philosophy & Science -- especially Quantum & Information theories -- leads me to infer that some metaphysical (Potential) First Cause is necessary to explain the physical (Actual) existence of the world of our experience. Logic, not Faith.Most atheists I've encountered these days say they are agnostic atheists - for reasons I described earlier. I think this makes sense. One claim goes to knowledge, the other goes to belief. It is entirely possible not to know if god exists but also to not hold a belief in any god/s. — Tom Storm
Confirmation of my criticism that your "Enformer / Programmer" = "intelligent designer" = "creator" = woo-of-the-gaps. :sparkle: :eyes:I sometimes identify myself as an agnostic Deist. I have no direct experience of the putative deity of my theory, merely circumstantial evidence, sufficient for conviction of creation. — Gnomon
As Kant pointed out, personal experiences are the only evidence of ding an sich Reality that we humans have, from which to construct our worldviews and belief systems. Everything else is hearsay. — Gnomon
1. If there is no empirical evidence for something, then belief in that something is based on faith and personal beliefs, not fact. — Thund3r
3. Therefore, the existence of a deity is based on faith and personal beliefs, not fact. (1,2 MP) — Thund3r
quantum fluctuations can produce matter and energy out of nothingness and could have led to the creation of the universe. Of course, one could ask how those initial “quantum laws” were created and end up in a similar causal regression as a theist trying to explain who created their deity. The difference between them, though, seems to be that theist is making positive claims that they know what’s at the end of that regression – and that seems problematic. It seems like the atheist is in a better situation here. — Thund3r
Yes. That's the purpose of Bayesian Probability. In some scientific and philosophical investigations, the empirical evidence is frustratingly incomplete & inconclusive. So Bayes developed a statistical technique, to update the original plausibility of a conjecture as more information becomes available. Unfortunately, the essential uncertainty remains, so in the final analysis, we tend to fall in the direction in which we are leaning. :smile:My claim, then, is that even when operating without empirical evidence, it still seems like we can apply probability to our experiences. — Thund3r
Deus, sive Natura :up:What matters is the fact that there is existence. Existence is not a property of things. Things are properties of existence. Existence is not a property of God. Existence is God. Existence is that which is. All contingent/created things are properties of existence and are made out of existence. — EnPassant
What matters is the fact that there is existence — EnPassant
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.