I don't think he was advocating a kind of quietism. — Paine

I agree and that wasn't at all what I had in mind.

But this misses the point, which is that for those who actually believe in God, it has real consequences. Whereas to believe that it's simply a 'puzzle-solver is a meaningless hypothetical.
— Wayfarer

That's a pointless point that deserves to be missed. — Janus

For 'internet atheism', faith in God can only ever be a mistaken belief or delusion or superstition, it's only ever an item in an argument. So the consequence of loosing said faith can only be the loss of a fallacious belief, which would obviously be beneficial, so far as the atheist is concerned. But for the believer what is at stake is much more than a belief, but the fate of their immortal soul, which is something of absolutely momentous importance. That's what I meant by 'asymmetry', although I'm not going to go into bat for belief in God.

the fate of their immortal soul — Wayfarer

i.e. superstition (or māyā)

I see concern about the "fate of the immortal soul" as a sad state of delusion. I don't deny that for those who cannot see their way clear of such delusions that faith in salvation of some kind may indeed be their only way forward.

That's why I don't condemn religious faith tout court. Belief in absurd things may indeed have benefits for individuals, although I think those beliefs are only salving wounds which have been inflicted by such beliefs in the first place.

Pardon my misunderstanding. How do you see the "illusion of free will" in relation to the deliberation involved in acting toward achieving ends in Spinoza's view?

I'm not sure I understand the question. We all live with the illusion of free will. Society demands moral responsibility, and this leads to the assigning of praise and blame, and of course in the process of socialization this assignation becomes introjected by individuals, such that they are prone to praise and blame themselves in various ways.

I don't believe this is the best way of living, but it is not so easy to become free of. Everyone is different and has different capabilities, and circumstantial luck has a lot to do with our lives as well. People do what they are capable of, and change or don't change in different ways accordingly.

I see concern about the "fate of the immortal soul" as a sad state of delusion. I don't deny that for those who cannot see their way clear of such delusions that faith in salvation of some kind may indeed be their only way forward. — Janus

:100:

Unfortunately some also have a narcissistic need to believe themselves superior, and religions frequently feed such a need.

Unfortunately some also have a narcissistic need to believe themselves superior, and religions frequently feed such a need. — wonderer1

Yes, the insidious notion of the "elect", held fast by those who believe themselves favored in God's eyes. It is mind-boggling how long such childish delusions can survive.

Yes, the insidious notion of the "elect", those who believe themselves favored in God's eyes. It is mind-boggling how long such childish delusions can survive. — Janus

Ugh! You reminded me of when I did some reading reading at https://www.puritanboard.com. Part of the atmosphere was browbeating people for showing normal human empathy. It was sad to see.

But for the believer what is at stake is much more than a belief, but the fate of their immortal soul, which is something of absolutely momentous importance. That's what I meant by 'asymmetry', although I'm not going to go into bat for belief in God.

Theist here: It should be about more than just "getting to heaven." The bible contains unbelievably sophisticated dialogues and discourses between "God" and "man" which helps man frame and understand his world/his self. The "divine revelation" contained in the bible helps me understand myself, which extends to the world and its various phenomena. It's also just an astoundingly wise and radical work of literature to have been written in antiquity (or for any time, for that matter.)

IMHO remove those guideposts and we're in a very different type of world... human reason is very, very late to the scene, evolutionarily speaking, and as well as biased and if you rely on it for everything as the philosopher tends to do you just end up with an enormous faith in yourself and your own convictions as I've seen time and time again. Reason has its place but to say that one's entire worldview can be constructed from reason is just folly.

Theist here: It should be about more than just "getting to heaven." The bible contains unbelievably sophisticated dialogues and discourses between "God" and "man" which helps man frame and understand his world/his self. — BitconnectCarlos

I agree much of the Bible is great literature and great literature may do as you suggest. It may help people to understand the human condition and live better lives. It is all about how best to live this life, and worrying about an imagined life to come after this one is not the best way.

IMHO remove those guideposts and we're in a very different type of world... human reason is very, very late to the scene, evolutionarily speaking, and as well as biased and if you rely on it for everything as the philosopher tends to do you just end up with an enormous faith in yourself and your own convictions as I've seen time and time again. Reason has its place but to say that one's entire worldview can be constructed from reason is just folly. — BitconnectCarlos

I disagree with this. The 'higher' animals also reason in their own ways in my opinion. You should have (provisional) faith in yourself and your convictions, while remaining open to other ideas and constantly testing them and your own ideas against your own experience.

Reason alone tells us nothing, it must be applied to experience. For the free spirit accepting dogma is the way down, the way back, not the way up or the way forward.

:up:

I agree much of the Bible is great literature and great literature may do as you suggest. It may help people to understand the human condition and live better lives. It is all about how best to live this life, and worrying about an imagined life to come after this one is not the best way. — Janus

Sure. I just go one step further: While reading it, I found some of the dialogues on certain topics e.g. disability, to be absolutely amazing to the point where I would consider it effectively "divine revelation" due to the brilliant handling of it. I was taught knowledge comes through two channels: a priori and a posteriori, but the bible reaches conclusions that don't really fall into either category yet I find myself irrevocably drawn towards. Can I definitively prove that God spoke to Moses in such a way? Of course not: I don't even know what it would mean to prove such a thing! For instance, if a booming voice from the sky spoke down to Moses does that mean it's God? Beats me. In any case, focus on the afterlife comes much later along the biblical timeline.

I disagree with this. The 'higher' animals also reason in their own ways in my opinion. You should have (provisional) faith in yourself and your convictions, while remaining open to other ideas and constantly testing them and your own ideas against your own experience. — Janus

Agree.

Reason alone tells us nothing, it must be applied to experience. For the free spirit accepting dogma is the way down, the way back, not the way up or the way forward. — Janus

Yes I spent most of my life gaining knowledge/adopting my beliefs through reason and experience.

It should be about more than just "getting to heaven." The bible contains unbelievably sophisticated dialogues and discourses between "God" and "man" which helps man frame and understand his world/his self. The "divine revelation" contained in the bible helps me understand myself, which extends to the world and its various phenomena. It's also just an astoundingly wise and radical work of literature to have been written in antiquity (or for any time, for that matter.) — BitconnectCarlos

I hear you. I'm personally not oriented so much around the Bible although I recognise that it's clearly a major part of my inherited culture and certainly a major part of my own spiritual orientation. I had a conversion experience earlier in life towards a more Eastern way of understanding. They're not necessarily conflicting, but they are different. But the major point for me in terms of philosophy, is the role (and the rejection) of revealed truth and spiritual insight.

Secular philosophy generally starts from the assumption that the 'wisdom traditions', whilst they might have value as literature, are just human inventions, that their cannot be a revealed truth in their sense because there is no truth to reveal (or at least, none that has been subjected to peer-reviewed journal articles and empirical observation). As far as the cultural distinction, Christian faith tends more towards fideism (justification by faith) and the Eastern traditions more towards forms of gnosticism (saving insight). But so far as secular culture is concerned, while they're worthy of respect as elements of human culture, they're not truth-bearing in the way that scientific observation can be.

Reason has its place but to say that one's entire worldview can be constructed from reason is just folly. — BitconnectCarlos

Something that strikes me as a sub-text behind this, is the feeling, or the conviction, that life arises by chance, that it is the outcome of the 'accidental collocation of atoms', as Bertrand Russell put it in his seminal modern essay A Free Man's Worship. Overall, there's a rejection of the idea of reason in any sense but what is intelligible in human terms, and what is useable from a pragmatic point of view. There is no reason in the sense captured by the Greek term 'logos' (which perhaps unfortunately was appropriated and re-purposed by Christian theology.) We live in a purposeless universe, with whatever purpose we perceive those we read into it.

I don't advocate belief in God or theism but I believe an awareness of what is missing is important.

What secular reason is missing is self-awareness. It is “unenlightened about itself” in the sense that it has within itself no mechanism for questioning the products and conclusions of its formal, procedural entailments and experiments. “Postmetaphysical thinking,” philosopher Jürgen Habermas contends, “cannot cope on its own with the defeatism concerning reason which we encounter today both in the postmodern radicalization of the ‘dialectic of the Enlightenment’ and in the naturalism founded on a naïve faith in science.” — Does Reason Know What It is Missing?

That is more a question than an answer, which is appropriate.

As far as the cultural distinction, Christian faith tends more towards fideism (justification by faith) and the Eastern traditions more towards forms of gnosticism (saving insight). But so far as secular culture is concerned, while they're worthy of respect as elements of human culture, they're not truth-bearing in the way that scientific observation can be. — Wayfarer

Interesting you mention this issue of justification, i.e. one being 'made righteous' in the eyes of God or otherwise as in the case of secular moral philosophy. I never saw this topic dealt with when I studied philosophy. In any case, the idea of justification by faith alone was revitalized by Luther in the 16th century (imho his thinking on this topic is an accurate representation of Christ's own teachings) in opposition to Catholic doctrine that righteousness is imputed through both faith and works (deeds). If we broaden our scope to monotheism in general there is Judaism that is more works-based as is Islam, I think.

Moral ethicists, last time I checked, tended to be either utilitarians, kantians, or perhaps virtue ethicists. the utilitarians or the kantians may be able to describe what makes an action good, but what about what makes a person good? maybe I missed something. In any case, I realized that these philosophies have a ~200-300 year history while monotheistic commentary exploring such questions goes back millennia.

While I found that modern secular analytic philosophy can help one think and write well, it didn't particularly help me address the 'big questions' or understand myself at all.

Quite agree. I always been interested in the idea of a cosmic philosophy, a philosophy which makes sense of the whole of existence. Generally, those philosophies tend to have religious connotations. Modern academic philosophy is not into that. When I went to University, I found a lot more of interest in anthropology and comparative religion.

In any case, the idea of justification by faith alone was revitalized by Luther in the 16th century (imho his thinking on this topic is an accurate representation of Christ's own teachings) — BitconnectCarlos

But can we really say that the history of theistic morality is much good? Take Luther, who on the one hand extolled the moral teachings of Christ yet found it entirely Christian to preach a virulent form of antisemitism. His treatise 'On the Jews and Their Lies' (1643) reads like an instruction manual for Kristallnacht. If Luther can get here as a foundational figure and leading exponent of Christianity, what does this say about the nature of good through theism? The problem with religious based morality is its notion of the good and its ongoing support of immoral ideas like misogyny, homophobia, slavery, genocide. Some modern humans, with modern ethics now cheerfully cherry pick the 'nicer' parts of religious morality, perhaps pretending that the appalling material isn't there and that god does not condone slavery, etc.

"I do not know how to teach philosophy without becoming a disturber of established religion." ~Spinoza

The problem with religious based morality is its notion of the good and its ongoing support of immoral ideas like misogyny, homophobia, slavery, genocide. — Tom Storm

:100:

The religious (dogmatic) mindset's categorical imperative, so to speak, is: 'sacred ends, without exception, justify every profane means' (i.e. theodicy excuses evil "for the greater/ultimate good" (e.g. Abraham "willingly sacrificing" Isaac; "redemption" of Jesus' cruxifiction; "72 virgins" for martyrdom; "political" Zionism / Jihadism; etc)). No doubt, faith is believing in the unbelievable in order to defend (and thereby commit) the indefensible. :brow:

Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities. — Voltaire

Agree totally. The Spinoza quote is a lovely one. And no doubt we'll be seen as unfairly hating of religion, crass, modern-era physicalists.

But the problem for theists remains that there are many immoral acts theism has sanctioned (and continues to do so). I remember discussing apartheid with some South Africans back in the 1980s who took it on faith that apartheid was morally right.

Some theists are smug about morality in as much as they imagine their god is foundational to goodness itself and thus as believers they have a superior pathway to morality from all others - not just dreaded secular humanists, but other religions.

But the problem remains, what version of the good does theism exactly identify? How does a theist decide this? Clearly theists, even within the one religion, are inconsistent and diverge on key issues like war, abortion, gay rights, trans rights, the role of women, wealth accumulation, euthanasia, medical treatment, taxation, etc, etc. In other words, theists are no closer to the good than the unbeliever. We can still only arrive at moral choices through investigation and conversation and no one has access to goodness in its pure form.

But the problem remains, what version of the good does theism exactly identify? — Tom Storm

It's no "problem" for theists: "the good = God" and f*ck the Euthyphro! After all, the habit of believing long precedes – even trumps – thinking. The prevalence the gambler's fallacy and placebo effect are clearly related. :pray: :eyes:

How does a theist decide this?

S/He doeen't "decide", s/he conforms (even obeys) instead. The tried and true path of least mental effort, no? :sparkle:

S/He doeen't "decide", s/he conforms (even obeys) instead. The tried and true path of least mental effort, no? :sparkle: — 180 Proof

I think that's right. But if you are a Christian, say, which bits of the Bible do you obey? There's a cornucopia of contradictory moral advice in those books that still requires discernment, even a form of reconciliation. Which is why we face churches that fly the rainbow flag of diversity, or maintain that 'fags will burn in hell'. Either way can be justified as god's will and therefore The Good. And numerous other variations in between.

And if you're one of those sophisticated theists who hold that scripture is allegorical (and that all the terrifying judgments in scripture can be ignored) then how do you identify the good? You are in the same space as a secularists - having to decide what is right.

But if you are a Christian, say, which bits of the Bible do you obey? — Tom Storm

IME, for most members of amy congregation are engaged in groupthink and conform to sectarian traditions reinforced repeated ad nauseam sermons of their priests, preachers, imams, rabbis and, of course, apologists. I think the Gospels, Tanakh, Qur'an, Bhagavad Gita, etc have very little to do with how theists practice or which political policies they support (e.g. US religious right, Indian Hindu nationalists, Israeli militant zionists, Saudi wahhabists, etc). 'Sacred scriptures' are far more revered than read by most congregations which are then uncritically susceptible to the permissible interpretations of their clergy (& theologians). I suspect most secularists are not as tribal (or morally lazy) as most sectarians.

Some modern humans, with modern ethics now cheerfully cherry pick the 'nicer' parts of religious morality, — Tom Storm

And vice versa. Agree with you about Luther, though, I've never been able to stomach Luther or Calvin. Far prefer Rinzai and Dogen.