If we want to say that there is a God who does things, on the other hand, believing we have rational justification for such a claim then a cogent explanation would be required. But such an explanation is impossible since we have no idea how an immaterial entity could do things. — Janus
I don't see how we really have any alternative. — Tom Storm
Which is why I often think that we approach so many of our values and beliefs aesthetically. We recognise a kind of aesthetic, poetic truth and, perhaps, mistake it for something more. — Tom Storm
If feels a little like a stalemate. I wonder if there will ever be a breakthrough, some new science, some new philosophy? — Tom Storm
The logical conclusion of these two sentences is, "Therefore, we cannot say that there is a God who does things." — Leontiskos
No, the logical conclusion is that we cannot, with rational justification, say that there is a God who does things. — Janus
How do you think this affords naturalism an equal footing?
Is a system which posits an infinite being on "equal footing" with a system that denies an infinite being, so far as the inexplicable goes?
What is the proportion of naturalist incompatibilists to non-naturalist incompatibilists? Why?
Generally we would say that someone who believes in a universal mind is a theist.
I spoke of transcendent moral norms, not moral realism.
Again, what is the proportion of naturalists who believe in transcendent moral norms (or also moral realism) to non-naturalists who believe in such a thing? Why?
"Well, 90% of incompatibilists are non-naturalists, but incompatibilism is still way more parsimonious on naturalism," which is a prima facie irrational claim.
Beyond that you still haven't told us (and specifically @NotAristotle) what parsimony has to do with anything, much less truth.
miracles like that defy our understanding of nature and not nature itself — Bob Ross
Then you've botched the definition of a miracle, and you are equivocating.
The very fact that so many people are and have been non-naturalists is itself strong evidence against the OP.
If naturalism was such an obviously better explanation then everyone would be naturalist.
They do, and that's the point. For example, theists (tend to) believe in miracles; naturalists don't. The explanandum differs
Each camp is attempting to account for a different set of existing things, because each camp believes different things exist.
Right, same difference. And by the same sort of reasoning, the child cannot say that their parent fixed their bike. — Leontiskos
Or to provides a way to avoid facing, what it is to be human. — wonderer1
The child might have seen the parents fix the bike. — Janus
Or has been told by the parents that they fixed the bike, this time and every other time that it needed repair. — Janus
There is no problem with understanding how a material entity (a parent) can do things to another material entity (a bike) so the analogy is not a good one. — Janus
The key here is that the parent "transcends" the child, so to speak. The parent can do things that the child cannot do or even understand, and the child knows this. — Leontiskos
What you are doing is trying to minimize a counterargument by rewriting it as a strawman. For example, you might think of a 17 year old "child" rather than a 4 year-old child. This methodology is bad philosophy. You ought to consider the robust counterargument rather than the emaciated counterargument. — Leontiskos
I'd say that's a pretty reasonable doubt. — wonderer1
...since God cannot be thought but as a wholly unknowable entity. — Janus
And Gideon said to him, “Pray, sir, if the Lord is with us, why then has all this befallen us? And where are all his wonderful deeds which our fathers recounted to us, saying, ‘Did not the Lord bring us up from Egypt?’ But now the Lord has cast us off, and given us into the hand of Mid′ian.” And the Lord turned to him and said, “Go in this might of yours and deliver Israel from the hand of Mid′ian; do not I send you?” And he said to him, “Pray, Lord, how can I deliver Israel? Behold, my clan is the weakest in Manas′seh, and I am the least in my family.” And the Lord said to him, “But I will be with you, and you shall smite the Mid′ianites as one man.” And he said to him, “If now I have found favor with thee, then show me a sign that it is thou who speakest with me. Do not depart from here, I pray thee, until I come to thee, and bring out my present, and set it before thee.” And he said, “I will stay till you return.”
[...]
Then Gideon said to God, “If thou wilt deliver Israel by my hand, as thou hast said, behold, I am laying a fleece of wool on the threshing floor; if there is dew on the fleece alone, and it is dry on all the ground, then I shall know that thou wilt deliver Israel by my hand, as thou hast said.” And it was so. When he rose early next morning and squeezed the fleece, he wrung enough dew from the fleece to fill a bowl with water. Then Gideon said to God, “Let not thy anger burn against me, let me speak but this once; pray, let me make trial only this once with the fleece; pray, let it be dry only on the fleece, and on all the ground let there be dew.” And God did so that night; for it was dry on the fleece only, and on all the ground there was dew. — Judges 6:13-18, 36-40, RSV
What you are doing is trying to minimize a counterargument by rewriting it as a strawman. For example, you might think of a 17 year old "child" rather than a 4 year-old child. This methodology is bad philosophy. You ought to consider the robust counterargument rather than the emaciated counterargument.
— Leontiskos
Even to a very young pre-rational child the parents are entities the child can see doing things, so the analogy fails, since God cannot be thought but as a wholly unknowable entity. — Janus
If God can only be thought of as a wholly unknowable entity, then how is it that billions and billions of people across the world think they know things about God? The things you are claiming are rather remarkable, and clearly false. — Leontiskos
Surely not an argumentum ad populum? Yes, I would agree that there are countless numbers of people who have had any number of experiences they are wrong about or misinformed about or exaggerate about or lie about. This is not news. — Tom Storm
What is my purpose? Where do I ultimately come from? Why do bad things sometimes happen? What is justice, or love for that matter? Can naturalism explain these questions in a satisfying way? — NotAristotle
The basic principle that we are aware of anything, not as it is in itself unobserved, but always and necessarily as it appears to beings with our particular cognitive equipment, was brilliantly stated by Aquinas when he said that ‘Things known are in the knower according to the mode of the knower’ (S.T., II/II, Q. 1, art. 2). And in the case of religious awareness, the mode of the knower differs significantly from religion to religion. And so my hypothesis is that the ultimate reality of which the religions speak, and which we refer to as God, is being differently conceived, and therefore differently experienced, and therefore differently responded to, in historical forms of life within the different religious traditions.
What does this mean for the different, and often conflicting, belief-systems of the religions? It means that they are descriptions of different manifestations of the Ultimate; and as such they do not conflict with one another. They each arise from some immensely powerful moment or period of religious experience, notably the Buddha’s experience of enlightenment under the Bo tree at Bodh Gaya, Jesus’ sense of the presence of the heavenly Father, Muhammad’s experience of hearing the words that became the Qur’an, and also the experiences of Vedic sages, of Hebrew prophets, of Taoist sages. But these experiences are always formed in the terms available to that individual or community at that time and are then further elaborated within the resulting new religious movements. — John Hick
Janus claimed that, "God can only be thought of as a wholly unknowable entity." Think about what that claim entails for a few seconds, Tom. — Leontiskos
Yes, but in doing so you could admit to a high degree of arbitrariness about it. I.E. be highly subjectivist about this choice or view it in the same sense that a Pyrrhonian skeptic would with regard to every belief they have. To fully, or as best as one could, suspend judgement on the veracity of any such beliefs and even regard the thought that it may be 'correct' or 'true' as mere delusion. Perhaps, as those same ancient skeptics would contend, you haven't thought hard enough about a possible contrary position of equal footing.I guess my point is, doesn't pragmatism always assume some goal or make some kind of commitments? — NotAristotle
If God can only be thought of as a wholly unknowable entity, then how is it that billions and billions of people across the world think they know things about God? The things you are claiming are rather remarkable, and clearly false.
Now are you going to tell me that Gideon has no rational justification for his belief that he is dealing with God?
there is no X that would yield any form of rational justification for the claim that one is dealing with God
How could such a test, in principle, ever verify that the more powerful being is omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, etc. let alone the creator of the entire world? It can’t. It just demonstrates, at its very best, that there was at least one being, in that day and age, capable of doing things humans could not.
Naturalism is a metaphysical theory - just as is theism. A metaphysical theory provides the explanation. The theory must explain all the objective facts of world (what we see by "looking around") - both can do that, but theism depends on more ad hoc assumptions.When you demand evidence for belief in God, I think a perfectly rational theistic response is 'look around you, you're standing in it'...And let's not forget that while science discovers and exploits the order of nature, it doesn't explain it. — Wayfarer
The proper demand is: show me evidence (facts) that can't be explained by naturalism.That's what I mean about the shortcoming of empirical demands - 'show me where this "god" is. You can't produce any evidence'. It's a misplaced demand. But, that said, I'm not going to go all-in to try and win the argument, it's take it or leave it, and most will leave it.
The Gideon example is also interesting because in general it's not considered to be a good sign of his character that he "puts the Lord to the test." — Count Timothy von Icarus
Declaring it a sign of poor character, to engage in critical thinking when it comes to one's religion,
If God can only be thought of as a wholly unknowable entity, then how is it that billions and billions of people across the world think they know things about God? The things you are claiming are rather remarkable, and clearly false. — Leontiskos
The introductory section of Parmenides’ philosophical poem begins, “The mares that carry me as far as my spirit [θυμὸς] aspires escorted me …” (B 1.1– 2). He then describes his chariot-ride to “the gates of night and day,” (B 1.11) the opening of these gates by Justice, his passage though them, and his reception by a Goddess, perhaps Justice herself. The introduction concludes with her telling him, “It is needful that you learn all things [πάντα], whether the untrembling heart of well-rounded truth or the opinions of mortals in which is no true belief” (B 1.28–30). From the outset, then, we are engaged with the urgent drive of the inmost center of the self, the θυμὸς, toward its parmenides 13 uttermost desire, the apprehension of being as a whole, “all things.”2 Since the rest of the poem is presented as the speech of the Goddess, this grasp of the whole is received as a gift, a revelation from the divine. — Eric D Perl, Thinking Being
The proper demand is: show me evidence (facts) that can't be explained by naturalism. — Relativist
A useful essay by John Hick. He was an English philosopher of religion, notable for his commitment to religious pluralism. Rather a dense academic work, but then, it is a philosophy forum! — Wayfarer
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.