Socrates wants to banish the poets from the just city. The philosophers and not the poets should be the educators, the myth makers, the makers of truth, and of proper conduct toward men and gods. — Fooloso4

Thanks. I thought Plato saw poetry as immoral, distracting folk from truth. Doesn't he also agree that poetry has a role some later works?

How are we to understand this today - sounds like a culture war. Was it that poetry functioned a bit like sophistry, using its artfulness to manipulate rather than identify the good?

All of that said, I'm not an atheist. But I no longer worry about any ongoing debate about God's existence; I'm now bored by them. — Noble Dust

My mother's attitude was the best non-atheist one I know. She had no use for (nor animosity toward) any formal doctrine; she simply didn't need them. Her relationship with the version of God she believed in was secure without intervention or interpretation.

I thought Plato saw poetry as immoral, distracting folk from truth. Doesn't he also agree that poetry has a role some later works? — Tom Storm

For Plato the distinction between philosophy, poetry, and sophistry is not as clear-cut as he makes it seem. Without getting too far into it, his writing is a kind of philosophical poetry, making extensive use of images, myths, and likely stories. It intends to persuade and to that end he engages in sophistical and rhetorical argument. Above all it is dialectical. Together with the engaged reader it moves and remains within the realm of thinking.

How are we to understand this today - sounds like a culture war. Was it that poetry functioned a bit like sophistry, using its artfulness to manipulate rather than identify the good? — Tom Storm

It was a culture war. Only today there is no one comparable to Plato or Aristophanes. I don't think it was a matter of manipulating the good, but rather, in the absence of knowledge of the good, making images of its likeness.

When Moses asked for God's name, God just said "I am". Sounds very Eastern. — Fire Ologist

Not in my experience. "I am" and "I am not" both express a duality that many Eastern traditions seek to transcend. I once joined such a tradition for a short while, seeking a transcendent experience or 'revelation'. I've had what I might describe as intellectual revelations with the help of Eastern and Western philosophy and perhaps science, and shallow experiential revelations. I hope to someday have a deep experiential revelation, but it's not imperative because though I think it would be beneficial, at the end of the day it's just a transient experience.

Only today there is no one comparable to Plato or Aristophanes. I don't think it was a matter of manipulating the good, but rather, in the absence of knowledge of the good, making images of its likeness. — Fooloso4

That's interesting. How did they consider poetry was able to do this - by aesthetic distraction and emotionality? Poetry as truth's false gold?

Things are not so different today. Stories and songs still play a major role in shaping what we find desirable, and what we desire is the basis of what we regard as good.

Her relationship with the version of God she believed in was secure without intervention or interpretation. — Vera Mont

This very much reminds of my mother's idiosyncratic non-doctrinnaire, or ceremonial, Catholicism: quiet prayer-focused and weekly charity work usually in lieu of Mass. I wonder if this 'blessed' state is why she's still the healthiest, most optimistic octogenerian I know.

I’m not religious but part of me wants to be either Catholic or Muslim. I’ve been in countries where most people come in one of those flavours of Abraham, and it feels strong and meaningful, like something that would give one a sense of belonging.

I also like Catholicism in science fiction, I like stories about monks or medieval theologians, and I feel comfortable in churches and mosques. I also find the early development of Christianity and Islam really interesting. To be part of that fascinating but chequered history would be quite something. Judaism has an attraction along those lines too, i.e., its history, but it’s more exclusive.

Sadly I’m a total modernist and regard God as having died with the death of pre-modern tradition; I find some of the philosophy of Christianity objectionable; and I cannot muster the requisite beliefs anyway (not because I need evidence, but because God seems an obvious anthropological artifact).

I wonder if this 'blessed' state is why she's still the healthiest, most optimistic octogenerian I know. — 180 Proof

It doesn't hurt. Of course, that independent religious view is part of a more comprehensive self-awareness and self-possession: an integrity of character that cuts through all the guff and bluster to the essence of things, hugely reducing doubt, anxiety and stress.

If i myself had any spiritual leanings, I'd be attracted to some form of animism; probably one of the North American Native varieties. Their gods and spirits are accessible; they have a sense of humour and can be playful. I like that in a supernatural entity, just as I like it in mortals.

If i myself had any spiritual leanings, I'd be attracted to some form of animism... — Vera Mont

:up:

That said, I was exposed to both Protestant and Catholic practice as a child. My city grandmother attended a grand cathedral with huge stained glass windows, marble columns and statues, zillions of candles, incense, overpowering music - and, oh, the pageantry of midnight mass! I loved it.
I also loved my country grandmother's village church of whitewashed adobe; the clean simplicity of the surroundings and the service, the warmth of breaking communion bread. There is something in the rituals of each religion that deeply appeals to the human psyche - not just in childhood, but always.
What I could not accept, once I was old enough to read the Bible, was the precepts.

I'm Jewish because my mother was.

Identified as or practicing?

@an-salad @AmadeusD @praxis @Agree-to-Disagree @Lionino @Vera Mont @Tom Storm @Jamal

What evidence or experience would convince you that (e.g.) "the God of Abraham" at least one personal God/dess (of any religious tradition) exists?

edit: I hope the question is clearer ...

I suppose it would be any verified suspension of the known laws of physics/nature in service of a biblical claim. Obviously I would be predisposed to doubt, which is an issue… but as with Thomas, I imagine this would not be an issue at the time of realisation

What evidence or experience would convince you that (e.g.) "the God of Abraham" exists? — 180 Proof

Couldn’t say. But if this magical creature exists, no doubt it would know. I need god to show up in person and settle the matter.

There are some problems - the god of Abraham doesn't exist in as much as even many Jews and Christians recognise the allegorical nature of scripture. Yahweh as presented is likely a fiction (just as well as he behaves like a celestial Trump). So for the theists, who is it they suppose is really there, buried underneath those horrible stories in the OT?

I suppose he would have to tell me. Of course, I might have to be dead in order to understand him. Then I would regret my apostasy.
My biggest problem with Jehovah is not his existence but his reported behaviour. My father, when he was very drunk and worked himself into a lather regarding his due as paterfamilias, would bellow "I am the lord god!!" That's the model for the god of the OT. Any or all of the gods humans have set up could exist, I suppose, given a distant enough mountain/galaxy/plane to live on, but that would not make them worthy of reverence.

I edited the question in my previous post since "the God of Abraham" is apparently too specific (or triggering) to encourage broad speculation.

Since it’s not the lack of evidence that leads me to believe that God is not, maybe I’d need more than evidence to persuade me that He is. What I mean is, I cannot bring myself to think of God in terms of evidence at all.

262. I can imagine a man who had grown up in quite special circumstances and been taught that the earth came into being 50 years ago, and therefore believed this. We might instruct him: the earth has long… etc.—We should be trying to give him our picture of the world.

This would happen through a kind of persuasion.

612. At the end of reasons comes persuasion. (Think what happens when missionaries convert natives.) — Wittgenstein, On Certainty

In a nutshell, I’ll believe in God when someone with enough charisma brainwashes me into it, but I can't really imagine that happening. And bearded men on clouds don't work on me either.

I’m sure you can work out which two words in my response can be swapped out to meet any potential challenger

The same pretty much applies to all entities that have been worshipped as deities, whether they created the world or just ruled it. Anyone who demands obedience through fear doesn't deserve respect. I'm sort of open to nature spirits - or was, until we destroyed nature: don't think I could stomach the wholesale massacre of dryads and naiads.

:up:

This is a tough one to answer. As I said earlier, I would probably need a god to show up and make its presence known or visible in a way that I can be sure isn't a hallucination or delusion. And all in a situation where this can be verified by others. This would need to be more than miracles/conjuring tricks: it would need to be big, like moving the planets around, changing the entire surface of the earth... that kind of thing. But there would also need to me a personal component, this god would need to speak directly to me and know things no one could know. All sounds kind of childish, I grant you.

With a question like this, I am always mindful of Clarke's third law, 'Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.' How do we tell the difference between an apparent miracle and something else?

What would you need?

With a question like this, I am always mindful of Clarke's third law, 'Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.' How do we tell the difference between an apparent miracle and something else? — Tom Storm

Exactly. If I witnessed a "miracle" or a verified suspension of the known laws of physics/nature then I would probably assume that it was caused by an alien with advanced technology.

Perhaps God IS an alien with advanced technology. If so, then he/she has not followed the Prime Directive (from Star Trek - the guiding principle that prohibits interfering with the natural development of other civilizations).

I think that I possibly refuse to believe that a god exists on principle.

I am always mindful of Voltaire's statement, "if god did not exist, it would be necessary to invent him".

Perhaps God IS an alien with advanced technology. — Agree-to-Disagree

Yes, I've sometimes said this myself, mainly as a provocation.

I am always mindful of Voltaire's statement, "if god did not exist, it would be necessary to invent him". — Agree-to-Disagree

I think inventing a magic man as a way to fill gaps in our knowledge is irresistible.

Perhaps God IS an alien with advanced technology. If so, then he/she has not followed the Prime Directive (from Star Trek - the guiding principle that prohibits interfering with the natural development of other civilizations). — Agree-to-Disagree

Nobody ever follows the Prime Directive. If you have space travel capability and an impulsion to help those in trouble, it's impossible to obey.

What would you need? — Tom Storm

:chin: I can't imagine it would take anything less radical than sudden onset acute schizophrenia or dementia (or maybe undergoing a full lobotomy) for me to believe that – hallucinate – some "personal god" (e.g. mageia) exists. Otherwise, I think I'm too old now (60) – too committed to p-naturalism (plus e.g. Clarke's 3rd Law —> Schroeder's Law^) – to be persuaded (rationally or not) out of my life-long, irreligious disbelief. No doubt, however, stranger things than 180° de-conversion have been known to happen, so ... :mask:


^ https://absentofi.org/2021/05/karl-schroeder-any-sufficiently-advanced-technology-is-indistinguishable-from-nature/

who is it they suppose is really there, buried underneath those horrible stories in the OT? — Tom Storm

Anybody they desire, want or need. That's the beauty of imaginary entities: they are infinitely adaptable and interpretable. When gods did not exist, people found it necessary to invent them (yes: Voltaire was simply stating an observation of what had already happened) - not to explain things, which they could do very well for themselves, accurately or otherwise, but to grant wishes. The gods are images of man magnified to whatever size it takes to grant their wishes.

What evidence or experience would convince you that (e.g.) "the God of Abraham" at least one personal God/dess (of any religious tradition) exists? — 180 Proof

For me, the question is what evidence or experience would convince me of the nature of the universe. Ultimately I don't know if I have the capacity to comprehend that, like an ant can't comprehend the larger world beyond its capacity.

It appears to me that everything is interconnected and in a constant state of change. That indicates to me that emptiness is the nature of the universe. But I can't be certain, maybe somehow souls and such can exist.

For me, the question is what evidence or experience would convince me of the nature of the universe [ ... ] It appears to me that everything is interconnected [ontologically inseparable] and in a constant state of change. That indicates to me that emptiness is the nature of the universe. — praxis

:fire:

That's the beauty of imaginary entities: they are infinitely adaptable and interpretable [ ... ] not to explain things, which they could do very well for themselves, accurately or otherwise, but to grant wishes. The gods are images of man magnified to whatever size it takes to grant their wishes. — Vera Mont

:100:

like an ant can't comprehend the larger world beyond its capacity — praxis

What proof do you have that ants don't philosophize?