Much appreciated.

So now, the question about religious faith is, "Where's the evidence?" IOW, you don't have to "prove" the existence of God, just show me some evidence. — Mitchell

Ah, I see what you're saying now. That is definitely a key distinction to make, and one that, unfortunately, most people don't.

If the Scriptures are to count as evidence, then what about the Qu'ran, the Gita, the Upanishads, the Sutras, etc. It seems to me that citing Scripture as evidence for the existence of the divine puts the cart before the horse — Mitchell

I wouldn't say it necessarily puts the cart before the horse unless the claim is that the scriptures were actually written by the corresponding deity, which I know some people do believe. But I think we can count them as evidence in that they are the author's personal account of some events which they claim actually happened which demonstrate the existence of their deity. So, they are evidence, just not particularly good evidence.

In philosophy, making a claim without even the slightest effort to back it up in any way isn't taken seriously whatsoever. Even if you do it seven times in a row and format it in such a way as to attempt to make it look like poetry.

Just for future reference.

But evidence is. — Mitchell

Yes. This is what I was implying here:

there are various degrees of faith required for various beliefs, and the more faith required, the less rational the belief is — JustSomeGuy

But I guess I didn't make it explicit enough.

Evidence need not be, and indeed with regard to empirical knowledge, cannot be, "proof". — Mitchell

Evidence cannot be proof? Are we talking semantics here? What else would proof be if not a piece or multiple pieces of evidence?

I skimmed through this thread and didn't see anybody mention the fact that Socrates never actually said this--at least as far as I know; I could always be wrong. But I've always been under the impression that this is one of those made-up quotes that was never actually said, either by him or by anyone.

Does anybody have a citation for this quote? Which text it was claimed to have been said in?

This is interesting to me, because I believe many of my own problems stem from the fact that I grew up with a concrete belief system. — anonymous66

This is essentially just taking the same problem a step further back, at least for me. This is because I know that growing up with an ideology is in large part what has led me to avoid finding a new one after leaving behind the original.

I'm curious, though--what problems exactly are you speaking of?

Faith: strong belief in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual conviction rather than proof.

So, faith, by that definition, is irrational — TheMadFool

I disagree. The belief that the sun will rise tomorrow is a very rational one, yet we have no proof that it will. Proof is not a requirement for rationality.

everything is faith-based. So, we can't criticize religious faith and turn a blind eye to the fact that everything is faith based. — TheMadFool

I do agree with this, but there are various degrees of faith required for various beliefs, and the more faith required, the less rational the belief is. This isn't to say less rational beliefs should be automatically discredited, only that it does make sense to scrutinize some more than others.

Also, as a side note, we need to remember that proof and evidence aren't the same thing. In fact, you could argue that obtaining absolute proof isn't even humanly possible.

I see you're a Sōtō Zen Buddhist. I've always thought Zen Buddhism sounded very interesting, but have never taken the time to really learn much about it. Are there any books you would recommend for a beginner?

I now see trying to use reason with you is futile. You apparently have no interest in it.
Carry on without me.

The point is that agnostic atheism/theism complicates matters unnecessarily. — darthbarracuda

So because a fact complicates things, we should ignore it?

We just want to know: do you believe God exists, or not? It's very simple, you're either a theist, an atheist, or in between as an agnostic — darthbarracuda

First of all, who is "we"?
Second, the fact that you apparently think it not only acceptable, but more reasonable to ignore certain details and intricacies of an issue in favour of simplifying it is surprising, being that we're on a philosophy forum and that attitude is very un-philosophical.
And third, I'm not opposed to have a term to describe someone who is neither atheist nor theist, but agnostic already means something else entirely, so instead of stealing the words of others, how about creating a new word to serve this new purpose?


I posted the true meaning of the term in the same comment you just quoted. Did you miss it somehow?

That's not what not being true means. True things are true, even when not proven to be. — BlueBanana

That's another philosophical topic entirely. But to be brief, when we say something is true, what we mean is that it has been proven to be true based on the information we currently have. Things are always subject to change, and we often discover new information that forces us to change our "truths". It is impossible for us to say anything is objectively true because it is impossible for us to possess all of the information in the universe.

So, yes, true things are true whether we know they are true or not, but that isn't the kind of truth we're referring to when we typically discuss truth. We're referring to things that are "true" based on the information we currently have, which is incomplete and always will be.



From SEP:

The terms “agnostic” and “agnosticism” were famously coined in the late nineteenth century by the English biologist, T.H. Huxley. He said that he originally "invented the word “Agnostic” to denote people who, like [himself], confess themselves to be hopelessly ignorant concerning a variety of matters, about which metaphysicians and theologians, both orthodox and heterodox, dogmatise with the utmost confidence." (1884)

I know today it is often used to refer to a middle ground between atheism and theism, but that isn't the true meaning of the term. If you want to argue that a word's meaning should change based on its use, that's fine, I would just disagree. That essentially renders languages meaningless; you can say any word and claim it means anything you want.

For something to be false is the same as it being not true — BlueBanana

No it isn't. Something false is necessarily not true, but something not true is not necessarily false. Something can be neither true nor false. This is true both in the sense that we're talking about (whether something has been proven) as well as in an objective sense.

So, if I claim something is true that is not proven true, and another person claims it is not true, they have no burden of proof because, as I said, the thing is not proven true.

Example: a person claims it is true that God exists, and I claim it is not true. I am not claiming that God doesn't exist, only that it is not proven true that God exists, which is correct.

lack of belief is agnosticism, not atheism — BlueBanana

This is a common misconception. Agnosticism relates to knowledge, not belief. This is why you can be an agnostic theist or an agnostic atheist. Agnosticism is just the position that we do not or cannot possess knowledge of something. You can be agnostic about matters other than theism.

You're right, that's my mistake. The example I gave didn't accurately portray my intended point. I was conflating claiming something isn't true with claiming something is false. An accurate example would be one person claiming that it is true that the Earth is round, and the other person claiming that it is not true.
If someone claims something is true, and you claim it is not, there is no burden of proof on you. That's what I originally meant. This is because, as darthbarracuda just said:

a failure to provide a convincing argument for A does not entail ~A, logically. It just means there hasn't been a good argument for A; in the absence of all evidence for A, we may feel compelled to adopt ~A, but ~A still has not been demonstrated itself. Something about A has to be proven to be contradictory or incorrect for ~A to be proven. — darthbarracuda

So, the claim that something isn't true is not the same as the claim that it is false.

First I must apologize: I accidentally flagged your post, and don't see a way to undo it. That's what I get for browsing on my phone. I'm new to this forum so I'm not sure if anything will come of it, but I hope a mod sees this comment and realized it was an accident.

Not unless you question the view and to do that you have to have the opposite view, and then the burden is on you as well — BlueBanana

I don't think this is accurate. The burden of proof lies on the person making a positive claim. You can counter a positive claim with a negative claim, which still leaves the burden of proof on the first person. An example would be:

"The Earth is round."
"No, it isn't."

There isn't a burden on the second person because they haven't made a positive claim to prove. If the person had said, "No, it's flat." Then that would hold a burden of proof.

I don't think that's possible, assuming you mean an objective truth. We are bound by our own physical and mental limitations, as well as our own perspective. We're essentially video game characters trying to figure out the coding for the game we exist in. We can't possibly do it because we are products of said coding. Only being outside of the game allows for the kind of perspective necessary to see these "truths". So, nothing within the game itself can possibly show us an objective picture of the game coding, we can only find results or manifestations of the code and try to infer from those manifestations what the code is that produces them. This is akin to the universal laws we have come up with, like gravity. We can observe how things work and notice patterns, but we cannot possibly discover why things work that way, what the actual code is--or, for that matter, who wrote the code.

Ah, I see. I guess the use of the term "spiritual" is what threw me. I haven't studied materialism in-depth, but as far as I remember from learning about it in college, isn't it only--or at least mainly--concerned with the mind? When you say "spiritual reality" it calls to mind a sort of unseen spiritual aspect of all that exists, rather than just an immaterial human mind or consciousness. I could be remembering materialism incorrectly, though.

I definitely see what you're saying and agree that the rise of religious orthodoxy probably led to the rise of materialism, but individuals always have a choice and must be held responsible for their choices (unless you don't believe in free will, but that's another discussion entirely)

What exactly do you mean when you say "outright rejection of spiritual reality"?

You might be God, but you are not all of God. Likewise God might be you, but you are not all God is. — Janus

Am I drunk or did you just say the exact same thing two different ways?

Apologies if this has already been brought up, but you're assuming that an afterlife would have time, which isn't necessarily a given. Unless we're speaking of something like reincarnation, where your soul or consciousness just transfers to a new physical body, it doesn't make sense to talk about a non-physical realm having time. Time is nothing more than a relationship between physical objects. No physical objects = no time. So if we're talking about an immaterial soul or mind or consciousness existing in an immaterial dimension, there would be no time. Only existence.

I will second all of this. I've been casually discussing and debating people on various forums for over a decade, and I've encountered many of these "misotheists" as you call them. I've generally referred to them as antitheists. But there really is no reasoning with people of that sort, they're as irrational and dogmatic as any other kind of fundamentalist. After a while you realize it's just not worth your time to engage them, because there is no possibility of having any sort of productive or coherent discussion. The irony is that the vast majority of these people are rebelling against the religious environment they were brought up in, and yet they go to the same extreme as the religious fundamentalists, just in a different direction.

What has happened here has been that you've misunderstood my argument, — Inter Alia

My argument is, and always has been, as above. — Inter Alia

Let me summarize the various arguments you just made:

1. Religion does not have intent
2. Religion caused the inquisition, religious wars and the continuation of child abuse in religious institutions
3. Religion does not cause people to be evil
4. Religions create social structures which allow people who may otherwise have been restricted from committing evil to do so

1 - I never claimed it did. Yet another strawman.

2 and 3 - If you equate the things you list in 2 with evil--which it is heavily implied that you do--then 2 and 3 are contradictory.

The inquisition, religious wars, and child abuse are examples of people being evil
Religion caused the inquisition, religious wars, and child abuse
Religion does not cause people to be evil

These are your claims. Logically, they cannot all be true. So which one is false? If we use the first two claims as premises in a logical argument, the conclusion would be that religion does cause people to be evil.
The only point I have ever been arguing against is the second claim, so why haven't you been defending that claim? You take is as a given, having provided no argument as to why it is true, and instead going off on all of these tangents, arguing for and against things that nobody brought up but you, and which have no bearing on the original argument.

4 - Religion does not create these social structures, men create these social structures. Religion allows for the creation of these social structures. This is a huge and key difference which you don't seem to understand.

I could not have said it better. I'll also add, though, that there is an implication in the argument that the greatest thing Meta can imagine is the greatest thing possible. In other words, reality or existence is bound by the limitations of Meta's imagination, and there has been no argument given (and no sound argument I can think of) as to why this should be accepted as true.

How should we live? — anonymous66

There are many important questions in philosophy, but I think this is by far the most important because it has the greatest effect on our overall experience of life. Metaphysics and ontology and the like are fascinating, but they don't really have the potential to enhance our day-to-day lives. Stoicism is a great example of a school of thought that can legitimately make the experience of living a better one, because it tells us how we should interact with and react to the world we live in, regardless of what that world is actually like. It's about how to conduct ourselves to gain the most pleasant experience possible, and isn't that really what life is all about? Experiencing as much pleasure and as little pain as we can? I know I'm starting to sound like a hedonist, but I think that's pretty much the universal human goal, whether everyone is consciously aware of it or not. It's how we are designed as animals.

Because knives and cars are useful. To make the same claim for religion you would have to point to some purpose that cannot be equally served without religion. Demonstrating that there is no such purpose has been the point of my comments — Inter Alia

I was very hesitant to even engage with you again, and this is exactly why. You are doing the exact same thing you did in our discussion of atheism: changing the argument to suit your needs when what you were previously arguing gets shot down. Look:

You've missed the point of the harms religions have done. It's not to say "do not be religious because they are burning people at the stake" it's to say "do not be religious because they have burned people at the stake and this reveals something unsavoury about being religious, something potentially harmful" — Inter Alia

Modern secular culture may well have plenty of evils, but none of them are demonstrably the result of secularism. The inquisition was demonstrably the result of a fanatical devotion to the Catholic religion. The covering up of child abuse was definitely the consequence of unquestioned faith in the church. "Swap you chemical warfare for the Inquisition any day of the week" is a ridiculous argument, chemical weapons are not caused by secularism, the inquisition was caused by Catholicism. — Inter Alia

Your argument was originally that religion caused "plenty of evils" like burning people at the stake, the inquisition, and child molestation. That is what "demonstrably the result of" means. You also say it yourself in that last sentence, "the inquisition was CAUSED by Catholicism."

When someone makes legitimate arguments against your claims, you either make a counterargument or you admit defeat. You don't change your argument. It is twice you have done this now, and it's making me not want to talk to you at all anymore since it's clearly a waste of time. You don't listen to or use reason, you are intellectually dishonest, you appeal to emotion, and you create strawman arguments to take down instead of addressing the real ones. The very first argument I made in this conversation, in response to your claims, was that religion does not cause atrocities and evil, it is simply a tool people have used to commit them. Now you claim that you are actually arguing that. So you are being dishonest both about what your argument was and what my argument was. It's ridiculous, and since it has happened two out of two times I've engaged with you, I don't think I'll try a third time.

I don't even know where to begin. It honestly amazes me that you're on a philosophy forum. You seem to have no interest in reason or logic, and instead rely on personal feelings and appeals to emotion.

So say, I set up a cult which had a s its central tenets, opposition to slavery, the sanctity of free speech and the fact that the earth was hit by a meteorite 65 million years ago. You happen to believe in all those things too, are you now a member of my cult? No, of course you're not, your independently arrived at opinions of metaphysics, ethics, and earth history just happen to coincide with my. — Inter Alia

Okay....

What would make you a part of my cult would be if you absolved yourself of personal judgement and adopted the tenets of my institution on faith. — Inter Alia

Well the main issue with what you're saying here is that religions and cults are not the same thing. The fact that you think they're equivalent is one example of your reliance on personal feelings and emotion rather than reason. But even replacing this example with religion instead of a cult, your conclusion is still wrong. What makes a person a member of a religion is if they identify themselves as a member of that religion. Nothing more. Religion doesn't require you to absolve yourself of personal judgement. In fact religion requires absolutely nothing of you except belief.

Both require a faith, but one continues to allow independent judgement on other aspects of metaphysics, world history and crucially ethics. — Inter Alia

This is simply untrue. You have an extremely biased, narrow view of religion.

That's how priests get away with abusing children such as recently with Cardinal Law's diocese, or here in England where we have recently heard of the Catholic orphanage which had three time the national average child mortality rate for nearly a hundred years and no-one stopped them. I thought I was in some war-torn state when I read the actual wording of the press release "the nuns declined to comment on how many bodies were in the mass grave". Are you seriously telling me that an institution which buries the children they've beaten to death in mass graves deserves one shred of respect? I don't care how many Catholics do good work for charity, if there's even a minuscule chance that something about their religion allowed or encouraged them to do this it should be banned immediately. — Inter Alia

There's some of that appeal to emotion I mentioned. This has no relevance to the conversation at hand. You're talking about an institution, not religion. Religion isn't responsible for the molestation and death of those children, the institution of the Catholic Church is. How prevalent is this sort of thing in Judaism? Or other branches of Christianity, for that matter? Where is the epidemic of Protestant molestation victims?

I can't believe you're being so heartless about this, this is absolutely proven mass child abuse we're talking about and you're suggesting we wait until we have absolutely conclusive proof that the structure of religion helps abusers get away with it before we act. Why? — Inter Alia

More appealing to emotion, and more conflating religion as a whole with a specific institution.

It's not just religion, the same is true of institutional schools like boarding schools and many other organisations. The rate of offence in religious schools is no different to that in ordinary institutional schools — Inter Alia

You literally just debunked your own argument. Thanks for saving me the trouble, I guess.

1. Where? — Inter Alia

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/136447

I never claimed that religion causes people to want to carry out these atrocities — Inter Alia

*Earlier*

One way or another religion has 'caused' all these things — Inter Alia

Moving on...

The point is the guns help, without guns you cannot shot someone, so why not ban guns? — Inter Alia

Without knives you cannot stab someone, so why not ban knives?
Without cars you cannot hit someone with a car, so why not ban cars?

Another example of your complete lack of reason. Let's throw all logic out the window and just say "this has the potential for bad things, so it needs to be banned", without any sort of risk-benefit assessment, without asking any other questions or looking at any other information.

Oh, and while we're at it...

Without religion you cannot molest children.....oh, wait....

So I guess that argument is both irrational and irrelevant.

so why encourage them? — Inter Alia

Can you show me where I said--or even so much as implied--that religious institutions should be encouraged?

I'll help you out: the answer is no, you can't, because I didn't.

I tend to think he has much in common with Jewish mysticism — Wayfarer

I don't know much about Jewish mysticism but I do know Spinoza was raised Jewish (until he was excommunicated for his extremely controversial ideas), so that would make sense. I personally think the praise he receives is warranted, but I also admit that I'm sure a big part of his popularity was due to how controversial he was and his works being banned by the Church for over a century after his death. No doubt that did (and still does) alter people's perception of him at least a bit.

I guess I have decided that he just not part of my core curriculum, as not everything can be. — Wayfarer

I definitely understand that, we're all different and have different things that interest us and call to us. Back in college I tried to read more Wittgenstein because one of my professors I looked up to was very passionate about him, but I just couldn't get into it.

So how is his philosophy not just natural philosophy, or science, for that matter? — Wayfarer

He really covers a lot, from theology to metaphysics to ontology. And it's all connected. The only real way to learn about it is to read it yourself. Like I said, trying to summarize is very difficult and wouldn't do it justice.

So you've read nothing I've said since that statement? Because everything I've said has very clearly been about how guns do not cause people to be violent or commit crime, they only make the crimes more lethal. The original statement of the saying "Gun's don't kill people..." was in regards to a claim a person was making about religion causing people to commit atrocities, so I compared it to the implication that guns cause people to commit crime and how that has been thoroughly debunked. The point in both arguments has been to avoid blaming the tools people use for the acts that the people commit with those tools. The saying, whether you agree with it or not, is a fact. It may be used by certain groups to make implications that it doesn't actually support in order to further their own agenda, but that doesn't change the truthfulness of the actual sentiment.
No harm done, though. I'd just advise you to try to be less reactionary. You literally let one thing I said blind you from everything else I said because of your emotional response to it. Also, I hope you do read the information I've provided so that you are more informed about the issue, since this seems to be something you like to actively debate about, and I always encourage people to be as educated as possible about things they want to argue for or against. Both the Wikipedia article and the podcast I shared have some great resources and statistics which provide proof that having less guns does lead to less murder and less suicide, so less death overall.

You seem to somehow be misunderstanding every single thing I've said. Violent crime is not equivalent to gun deaths. You've created a strawman argument that I never made--in fact I have said the exact opposite multiple times now. I'm not sure what it is you aren't getting. Go back and read what I've said in my previous comments more carefully. I think you're seeing what you want to see and not what I'm actually saying.

↪Mitchell
How would you distinguish Pantheism, e.g. Spinoza or Hegel, from Panpsychism?

Less sure about Spinoza — Marty

Calling Spinoza a Pantheist in the first place isn't really accurate. Not only is his concept of "God" far more intricate and complex than simple Pantheism, but it isn't even really comparable. "God" for Spinoza was synonymous with Nature--which today we would likely call The Universe--but either way he was referring to all that exists. And his argument wasn't even really that Nature is a deity. It's impossible to summarize in just a few sentences so I won't even try, but I figured I'd give my two cents about it. I recommend Spinoza's Ethics to people every chance I get. It's difficult for many to get through, but I personally found it to be a fascinating read.

I'm not sure if you were specifically trying to cite the Wikipedia article, but it was the top result so that's what I used.

"the level of gun ownership in the 50 largest U.S. cities correlates with the rate of robberies committed with guns, but not with overall robbery rates.[136][137] He also finds that robberies in which the assailant uses a gun are more likely to result in the death of the victim, but less likely to result in injury to the victim.[138] A significant number of homicides are the consequence of an unintended escalation of another crime in which firearms are present, with no initial intent to kill.[133][139] Overall robbery and assault rates in the U.S. are comparable to those in other developed countries, such as Australia and Finland, with much lower levels of gun ownership.[135][139] A strong association exists between the availability of illegal guns and violent crime rates, but not between legal gun availability and violent crime rates.[140]"

I'll also cite a science podcast I just listened to a few days ago that says this exact same thing.

https://gimletmedia.com/episode/guns/

The relevant part begins at 29:15

They cite all of their sources further down on the page:

"National Research Academies Panel which found guns don’t increase or decrease crime
Wellford, Pepper, and Petrie, editors, “Firearms and Violence: A Critical Review”, The National Academies Press, 2005"

There's a hyperlink on the actual site that leads directly to the full publication, if you want to read it.

I had been aware of this information for a while from other sources, as well. It may not be well-known information, but it's been very well-demonstrated. I have no dog in this fight. I don't care an ounce about gun availability or control, I only care about the actual statistics, and they clearly show that there is zero correlation between legal gun availability and crime. As I said in my original comment, the only trend that the statistics show is that more guns = more gun deaths. Of course, this is what you might call a "no-brainer". How can you kill someone with a gun if you don't have a gun? To quote Bill Burr: "If you get a pool in your backyard, you immediately increase your chances of drowning in your backyard."

A few more comments on the topic of guns which further demonstrate the point I was making in regards to religion:
It has been firmly established that there is zero correlation between guns and violent crime. The only crime-related statistic that correlates with guns is how many violent crimes end in death.
While you can use this as an argument for gun control if you wish, it is more evidence of my point that guns aren't making anybody commit violent acts--they only enhance violent acts which would be committed regardless. If you want to try to relate this to religion, attempting to claim that religion makes bad people do more bad than they would without it, I don't see how that could work. Mainly because what you're actually claiming religion "causes" isn't even clearly-defined, at this point, but also because that seems like it would be near impossible to measure.
A final comment in regards to guns: two-thirds of gun deaths in the U.S. are suicide. This is something people often don't know or take into account, and funnily enough is probably a good analogy for religion--it does more harm to the individual who uses it than it does to others.

I have to agree with BlueBanana, there are many issues with what you've said here. I'm far from a professor, but I do have a bachelor's degree in Philosophy and studied philosophy of religion in many classes in college, and none of my professors ever referred to Classical Theism as just Theism. Neither did any of the authors we read. Probably because it's inaccurate to do so. What if I started calling Polytheism just "Theism"?
"Theism is the worship or belief in multiple gods and goddesses"
It's misleading and just plain incorrect.
And now you're essentially saying that, because one type of idea is the most predominant in the area where you are located, it's okay to speak as if it's the only idea. That's just not how things work, especially in philosophy.

Well they're not religious then are they? — Inter Alia

You're getting into "No true Scottsman" territory by claiming that. The definition of "religious" is simply "believing in a religion". You can believe in a set of tenets and not follow all of them--or any of them, really. Many people "believe in" donating to charity, but don't do it themselves.

Most people say they are above average drivers but we know this is not mathematically possible, more heterosexual men say they've committed adultery than women but this is not technically possible. — Inter Alia

Alright, now use that same reasoning on what we're discussing. Does it work? Is there a technical/mathematical contradiction in the case of people claiming to be religious vs. actually being religious? Of course not. Your examples are irrelevant because they are of a completely different kind than the issue at hand.

Are you seriously suggesting that where a direct link is found between an ideology and some aberrant behaviour we should do nothing about it? — Inter Alia

What is this direct link that has been found? Has there been a scientific breakthrough I missed that has proven a causation between religion and aberrant behavior? You're free to believe whatever you want to believe, but don't act as though we have any sort of proven causal relationship between religion and people doing "bad" things.

Oh god, you are! 130/yr per capita equivalent gun murders in the UK (with gun control) vs 11,004 in the US (without gun control). As Eddie Izzard says "I think the gun helps" — Inter Alia

How do you not see the dishonesty in making that argument? You're saying there are more gun murders in a place that had more guns. Well, obviously yes. How can you murder someone with a gun if you don't have a gun? It makes sense that you feel this way, though, based on what you're saying now about religion. You are one of many people who conflate correlation with causation, without putting any actual thought or reasoning into it.

I highly recommend reading Spinoza's concept of God in Ethics.

I am also a "thin ice atheist" -- that is, I don't feel a lot of security in not believing in God. I've taken that position and haven't broken through the ice yet, so... we'll see what happens. — Bitter Crank

I would also recommend Spinoza for you. Believe it or not, I was in the exact same place you seem to be in now about ten years ago. I had been an uncertain/unsatisfied atheist ever since studying philosophy in college. I had never been very religious, and on examination of myself I learned that I was agnostic, and that (for the time being) I could not bring myself to believe in even any sort of God concept I knew of. Then I read Spinoza and it was really a life-changing experience. Everything he said just made so much sense to me, as if I had felt it all along but never knew how to describe it on my own. I won't try to summarize his views because I wouldn't do it justice, but his concept of "God" just made sense to me. No guarantee any of you will feel the same about it, but definitely worth a read either way.

One thing I will say is that Spinoza's works got him excommunicated from both the Catholic Church and the Jewish community, and his books were banned for over a hundred years after his death. If that doesn't make you want to read him, I don't know what will.



You would probably enjoy Spinoza's concept of God, as well. It's funny, you and I have had somewhat similar paths. As I said, in college I became an uncertain atheist, but I never actually called myself one precisely because of the "new atheism" movement. I couldn't stand Dawkins and wanted no association with him (I've grown to appreciate him more now, but still disagree with a lot of what he does and says).
Also, I discovered Alan Watts just a few years ago and immediately fell in love. He also helped me to see the profound spirituality of Christianity just as you say you did, but just as you I haven't returned to the Church and don't plan to. I appreciate it much more than I used to, but the Christianity of today is nothing like what it was originally, and even the beginnings of the church strayed too much from what Jesus' messages actually were (or what I believe them to have been, since none of us can say for certain).

Anyway, I appreciate hearing your stories. I love getting glimpses into people's journeys and experiences, especially when the topic is something so personal.

That gave me a laugh.

Since we're discussing human morality, I think it makes sense to discuss it in terms of human biological instinct, no? — CasKev

You can't have morality without context — CasKev

I agree, but you originally claimed that there was objective morality, and what you're talking about is subjective morality. Objective would mean it exists independent of us or anything else.

You can't agree that human survival is good, in the context of human biological motivation? How about avoidance of unwanted suffering? — CasKev

Those are both subjective, though...we're discussing objective morality.

I came here to say this but you already said it well, so I won't even bother.

I will say, though, as to why anything exists at all, that is something I will never stop reflecting on and being infinitely puzzled by. I'm sure it's impossible to find an answer--it's impossible enough just to think about it coherently, like trying to look at your own eyes or taste your own tongue. Still, that doesn't stop me from thinking about it nearly every day. It's truly the single greatest mystery.

Purpose isn't real. It's a human creation. Nothing has inherent purpose.

Of course if you believe in God you won't agree with this, so I suppose this is a somewhat pointless post.