It's the turning of the theological backs on human notions of goodness and justice which I find indefensible.
— Janus

But it works as solution to the problem, and for a philosopher that is all that matters. — goremand

I don't understand why you would think that something that rejects human rationality is a solution to any problem and especially in the context of philosophical thought.

Okay the way you frame it I tend to think the Universe contains time, which means there was no time prior to the existence of the Universe. In other words, if there is anything there is also time because things are necessarily temporal, and if there are no things then there is no time.

You also seem to agree that there are things independent of minds. In which case you would appear to be one the "anybodies" who support mind-independent reality.

So I outline, in first paragraphs of the OP, grounds to entertain the idea of worlds/universes with different rules. By the relational definitions I've given, those worlds (like any other world) do not exist relative to us by definition, but neither do we exist relative to them. — noAxioms

We have no relation to such worlds, but they have some relation to us (if they exist) insofar as we think about them. The MWI is a possible one in QM. It is criticized for being unfalsifiable, but then so are the other interpretations as far as we can tell. How could we ever demonstrate that consciousness collapses the wave function, for example, or that there really are hidden variables?

That's it, in a nutshell. If our human notions of goodness and justice are so far off the mark, from God's point of view, then why call God "really" good or just at all? It's just words, at that point. I think there are ways to "get God off the hook" but this isn't one of them. It's as shameful as a parent whipping a child into the hospital while saying, "But this is just a sign of how much I love you." Yeah, with love like that, who needs hatred? — J

Yes, I agree. But I note that you also said in a response to another poster:

It would be a monstrous lie, cruel hoax, etc, if there were indeed no salvation, no possibility of an afterlife. But I believe there is, and not for nothing is this the central metaphysical tenet of traditional Christian theology. I think that when the Western tradition speaks of a god of love and justice, those words mean just what they mean to any ordinary human being. In order for God to truly deserve being described with those qualities, however, this life cannot be the end of the story. — J

I don't agree with this for two reasons. An all-powerful all-loving all-knowing God could have created paradise to begin with. There is no need to torture his creatures even if the reward (for some?) is eternal happiness thereafter.

The other reason is that no mention of an afterlife is posited for the animals, who also suffer. Given those two issues I would still say that no three-O God cuts the mustard from the POV of humans notions of goodness and justice.

I know there are different conceptions of God than the one that posits the three O's although I'm not sure there are mainstream theologians who hold them. I also know that any theodicy which insists on maintaining the three O's is fatally flawed from the point of view of a human conception of justice and goodness, and I find any position that claims that we can't really understand divine justice and goodness ridiculous and in fact pernicious.

You'll hear apologists saying it's an issue deep and difficult to understand, but I agree with Nietzsche that is merely obfuscation: muddying the waters to make them appear deep. So, I don't need to read into an area I'm not really interested in, given that I find in myself no need to believe in God, and do not find the idea at all plausible from a rational standpoint in any case.

The plain fact that one believes in a personal God is enough to dismiss their arguments about said God. It doesn't even get of the ground as a concept, so the arguments around what the God should or shouldn't do are basically a way of making fun of those types of people. — AmadeusD

If it doesn't "get off the ground" as a concept, then I don't think it's a matter of making fun of them but of pointing out the flaws in the concept and hoping they will be disabused of the idea. You don't educate people by making fun of them.

In my experince there is always a way for theists to get God 'off the hook.' If you are passionate about your beliefs you will find a work around. Remember the exculpatory interpretations the Communists used to provide for Stalin? Everyone likes their rationalisations - even the atheists. — Tom Storm

I would agree with you that it is a very human default tendency to rationalize in order to manufacture support for what we want to believe. But isn't the aim of philosophy the truth and isn't rationalization, in whatever area of one's life it is practiced, an impediment to seeing the truth?

Stalinists and ideologues are just as much victims and/or purveyors of blind faith as religionists in my view. On the other hand, atheism is simply lack of belief in a god. When atheists point out the inconsistency between our notions of goodness and justice and the usual conception and the biblical presentation (at least) of God, I don't see that as any kind of rationalization but as reasoned critique.

I'm not familiar with Bentley Hart, so I don't know if I would consider his conception of God to be reasonable, but I would say that any reasonable understanding of what a deity might be would not be such as to offer any comfort to us.

I agree with you regarding the supposed perfection of nature. Nature is a work in progress and is both beautiful and awe-inspiring and terrible and in some ways far from perfect.

The argument given by religious apologists that asks why we should expect nature to be without suffering and judge the notion of God as inconsistent with the suffering we see everywhere fails to take account of the fact that God is presented by religious authorities as all-goo, all-knowing and all-powerful, and also judgmental to the point of casting sinners into eternal damnation.

From the perspective of the human understanding of goodness and justice this is appalling, and the only answer religious apologists have is to say something along the lines of "God moves in mysterious ways". This seems to me a total copout. If God were really what they claim he is, he could have created a perfect world for his creatures where they always already enjoy perfect happiness. He is said to be omniscient and omnipotent after all.

So, it is only that conception of God that I have a problem with, and that I think any reasonable person should have a problem with. The thing is that by and large within the Abrahamic religions it is THE conception.

Doesn't sound plausible given that the God of the bible is anything but kind. What reason do you have for thinking the kindness of animals and humans came from God?

Atheists generally get their idea of God from elementary religious education, from interacting with casual believers and from listening to sermons in church directed mainly at casual believers. You can't really blame them for not appreciating these sophisticated, esoteric alternative accounts of God of interest mainly to a small number of theology-inclined people.

Maybe the actual problem is this massive conceptual gulf between the mainstream sky-daddy and the borderline Lovecraftian "higher being" of the theistic intelligentsia? — goremand

In the sophisticated mainstream theological accounts of God I have encountered, he is still considered to be all-good, all-knowing and all-powerful and that conception is simply incompatible with the nature of the world he is believed to have created. So, it is not just the simplistic "sky-daddy" conception of God which is inconsistent with the suffering in the world.

Some theologians may tackle this by removing one or other of the omnis from God's CV in order to achieve some consistency, I don't know if that is so, just surmising. It's the turning of the theological backs on human notions of goodness and justice which I find indefensible.

I do know the Gnostics believed, with far greater consistency than the mainstream theologians, that this world was created by an inferior and deluded deity they called (if I remember right) Yaldobaoth.

↪Janus
Okay, where does kindness come from? — NotAristotle

From fellow feeling, empathy, compassion, love. It can be observed in many other animals, it's not unique to humans. Where do you think it comes from?

No argument just synonyms. People can be spurred to action by another's words. If you want to deny that you are either stupid or dishonest.

If existence is but an ideal (described in alternative (1) just above), then yes, the above suggestion would be true. Also, the universe seems to contain time, not be contained by it, so all of it exists equally, meaning the universe is self-observed, period. There's no before/after about it. Yes, the parts prior to the observation are the ones observed. Its the events after the observation that are not observed, so maybe it's those that don't exist under some mind-dependent position.

All that said, this topic is not about if the apple has mind-independent existence, its about what exists besides the stuff observed. If the answer is 'not much', then it sounds pretty observation dependent to me. — noAxioms

What do you mean "the universe is self-observed"? Do you think observation occurs in the absence of observers? You say the universe contains time, which I take to mean that the universe is temporal, so how do you get to "there's no before/ after about it"?

The question boils down to whether "if nothing is observed then nothing exists" is true. If you believe that then would you believe that the fossil record didn't exist until we observed it?

Why is the question not about if the apple has mind-independent existence? If the question is about what exists besides the stuff observed, how could the answer be "not much", given that we observe only the tiniest fraction of the universe? And even if it were "not much" (speaking of the apple now) why should that lead to the conclusion that the apple is observer-dependent? The reason I switched to the Universe from the apple is that if there is much there to be observed which has not been observed then that would entail mind-independent existence, no?

The idea that penetrative sexual assault ought be considered a lesser crime than rape is also a bit specious, but I don't know if you were actually saying that. — fdrake

There is one justification I can think of for considering it to be so, at least when the victim is a woman, given that rape (defined as penile penetration) women may lead to unwanted pregnancy.

This isn't really true if we are talking about the scientific beliefs the average person has. The average person cannot verify or at least has not verified themselves the vast majority of what is the scientific body of knowledge: — Bob Ross

Yes, but they have every reason to believe that the currently accepted canon of scientific knowledge is based on actual observation, experiment and honest and accurate reporting by scientists. That this is so is evidenced by the great advances in technologies we see all around us.

Likewise, religion is not purely faith-based: it is predominantly faith-based for most of the average people out there.

For both, they require mostly evidence for or against trusting the source of knowledge for the claims. — Bob Ross

The source of knowledge for established science is observation and experiment. What is the source of knowledge for religion?

We can rightly trust that the scientists have done the observing and experimenting, and we can rightly trust that the religious authorities have done the reading and studying of the religious texts. The question is as to what is the source contained in the religious texts if not faith in revelation? Would you call that knowledge? Would you say it is based on evidence or logic?

For me, for example, I do think there is good evidence to support homosexuality as a sexual orientation as being bad and practicing it as, subsequently, immoral. — Bob Ross

Really? And what is the good evidence you refer to?

Secondly, homosexuality, traditionally, being immoral has nothing to do with corruption per se: it has to do with a person practicing in alignment with a sexual orientation that is bad; and it is bad because it goes against the nature qua essence of a human. — Bob Ross

Is that your "evidence"? That being homosexual is a bad orientation because it goes against the "nature qua essence of a human"? Are you an expert on human nature and the essence of being human, Bob? You don't think that might be a tad presumptuous?

I think you mean it doesn't appeal to you, and that's fine. It's the next step of universalizing what doesn't appeal to you personally where you go wrong.

It's been sad to watch your thinking going downhill, Bob.

That depends, when you said:
the only coherent notion of goodness we have to work with is the human one
— Janus

did you mean kindness? — NotAristotle

Sure. We are talking about goodness in relation to treatment of others, we are not talking about being good at sports, or art or science or whatever, no?

Do you mean kindness?

Where does what come from?

No, the reality of a suffering world is incompatible with the usual conception of a tri-omni God.

Presenting etymologies and alternative words is not an argument. Ever heard of fomentation and mob rule?

If you wouldn’t mind demonstrating your ability to incite someone to do something else, it would be appreciated. I will be your willing subject if you wish. — NOS4A2

Some people are incited by other people. It happens often enough. You seem to be confusing incitement with forcing.

It isn't Evil if it comes from God. Plain and simple. — AmadeusD

If you abandon human notions of goodness, evil and justice, then you can say anything and get away with it. The idea of an omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent God being good, given the suffering in the world is incoherent because the only coherent notion of goodness we have to work with is the human one.

It amounts to a form of willful blindness that allows the God that the believer cannot, for other reasons give up, to be exonerated and thought to be not only good but the source of all good in some incomprehensible way. "God moves in mysterious ways".

To me it seems totally irrational and morally repugnant. And you only have to look at the history of the church to see how this irrational and immoral notion of good predominated and has led to unspeakable human suffering. As if life were not already difficult enough. It's truly a pernicious and disgusting mode of thought!

In considering Plato, we might ask: "In virtue of what are all just acts called 'just' or all round things called 'round?'" If there are facts about which acts are just, or which things are round, etc., in what do these facts consist? — Count Timothy von Icarus

Acts are called just when they seem to the one doing the calling to be fair. There is no necessity that everyone will agree with the assessment of justice. As to roundness, it is a perceptible quality and most people will agree, so no mystery there.

Or is it just Leon collapsing under pressure? While true faith is confirmed under pressure, bad faith is exposed. — Banno

I wondered about that too. Your aphorism seems very apt.

I whine, I rot. — J

Don't we all?

You ask whether anyone really supports (I presume you mean believes in) a mind-independent reality. Do you believe anything existed prior to the advent of minds?

If science is predominantly evidence-based then we have faith in it because we assume that the evidence is valid, has been examined rigorously and the scientific reports accurately based on actual observations. For example, if we learn in chemistry that adding sodium to water leads to an exothermic reaction which may even boil the water, we can do the experiment ourselves. Or for a more mundane example, if we believe there is a city called Paris, but have never been there, we assume that all the photos, and reports are true and that there really is a city called Paris. We know we can go there and check because there are flights to Paris. There is always an element of faith or trust if you prefer that word, but the faith or trust seems to be the most reasonable response.

You haven't attempted to address the claim I made that scriptural testimony is not evidence for anything. Scriptures are stories the truth of which we have no way of determining. And if they claim miracles then we have good reason to doubt them. I've explained what evidence I think there is for science. now it's up to you to explain how scripture could constitute evidence or else admit that it's entirely faith-based. If you fail to address that I'm not going to respond again.

You distort what I say to try to make it look incoherent and then when I point out your error you refuse to acknowledge it and keep repeating the same demands for explanation of something I haven't claimed. You did the same in the other thread where I was not claiming that anything was absolutely unfalsifiable but rather that certain theories and claims seem to be such, given that in our present state of knowledge we cannot imagine what could possibly falsify them. What an irony it is that you accuse me of evading.

Basically, why is God held accountable for making me suffer unjustly if I can be made to suffer justly by nature without God anyway? — Fire Ologist

Without God you are not suffering justly or unjustly. To apply the notion of justice to your suffering in the absence of the presumption of an omnipotent, omnibenevolent, omniscient God would be a category error.

Trying to avoid it is my path. — Tom Storm

Yes, there certainly seems to be no point seeking it...there is plenty to go around.

Okay, then it seems I misunderstood what you said.

As I see it it's very simple. I said science is predominately evidence based and religion is purely faith-based. The first claim at least is uncontroversial, so I don't need to argue for that.

Religion is based on scripture and personal anecdote, and I cannot see how scripture and personal anecdote could constitute reliable evidence for the existence of God, or miracles performed by founders etc. So, if you disagree then you need to provide convincing evidence and argument to support the contention that scripture does provide good evidence for such beliefs.

As far as I am concerned if you cannot do that there is nothing further to be said. And note again I'm not saying there is anything wrong with people having faith where there is no evidence, so I'm not even sure what your beef with what I have been saying is..

:100: :up: :up:

I'm afraid I have to agree with you. has mounted no argument to support the contention that religious beliefs are evidence-based or logic-based, and has, I now believe willfully, distorted the arguments of those who are posing the hard questions, apparently because he has no answer for them. All in all, a very poor showing on his part, demonstrating a total lack of good faith.

Evasion after evasion. It seems that when it comes to discussion you have little faith of the good variety. If you cannot offer anything even vaguely cogent then I'll waste no more time.

You made a claim about "the basic difference about faith in science and faith in religion — Leontiskos

Yes, I did that, so why not attempt to address that instead of pretending that I said something purportedly encapsulated in a nonsense sentence?

Here is the claim again in case you find you have the resources to address it:

If you are asking the difference between science and religion, then I would say science is predominantly evidence-based and religion is wholly faith based — Janus

What I say there is clear. If you think it is not correct, then say why. I'm losing patience.

That last sentence does not even make sense. It looks nothing like what I've been saying. Try pushing your reading skills a bit harder. Or if you are deliberately trying to distort what I've been saying then cut out the sophistic bullshit and try doing some decent reasoning.

I took you to be asking the difference between evidence and faith. If you are asking the difference between science and religion, then I would say science is predominantly evidence-based and religion is wholly faith based

The basic difference is that evidence is observation-based or reason-based whereas faith need not be.

Faith and trust can be synonymous, I think. The same word may have different interpretations or associations. I don't think it matters that much what words we use in pointing out that there is a difference between rational faith and blind faith. That said I'm also fine with using your locution, which is perhaps less prone to confusing some people, and obscuring the difference.

No one believes authorities who they do not believe are credible. Once you recognize this you begin to see why acts of faith are not without evidence (i.e. you begin to consider motives of credibility). — Leontiskos

We all know what the words evidence and faith mean. The question is as to whether one has a rational view of what constitutes evidence. I cannot see any reason to believe that mere scripture, for example, constitutes even historical, let alone say ontological evidence for anything.

Take as example the miracles figures such as Gautama and Christ are believed by some to have performed. The fact that it is said in a scripture that they were performed is not evidence that they were in fact performed.

Linguistically an act of faith or belief does not exclude (1) or (2), nor does either condition "water down" the faith-component of some assent. — Leontiskos

I don't see that we are talking about linguistics, but rather about the logics of different kinds of faith. If we have good reason to think that the authority we are trusting is presenting facts which are based on actual observation and evidence, not mere opinion, then our trusting of such an authority is not merely faith-based but is also a matter of rational inference.

If we have no good reason to think the authority we are trusting is presenting facts which are based on actual observation and evidence then our trusting of that authority would not be merely faith-based. As I see it this puts trusting in authority on a continuum between pure faith or blind faith and faith accompanied by ever-stronger rational support.

This is the basic difference between faith in science and faith in religion. By the way I'm not saying faith in religion is wrong; it is fine for some people, for those who are in need of it for whatever reason, and is no problem provided it is not misunderstood as being fact. To misunderstood articles of faith as facts is the essence of fundamentalism. Fundamentalism is dangerous because it is totally irrational.

then this belief is mixed up with trust in an external authority and thusly is faith-based — Bob Ross

See, you're doing it again. If it is mixed up with trust in authority it may be somewhat faith-based., whereas a belief which is entirely following an authority with no evidence to support such following is simply faith-based. Your thinking on this lacks nuance.

1.93...whining rotter...

The questions, at least some, were ambiguous enough to be difficult to answer without equivocation. All in all a ridiculous test that reveals almost nothing of any use or value.

I was disagrreing with who seemed to be saying that any belief about which we cannot be certain (because it is not self-evident or we have not seen for ourselves) is therefore purely a matter of faith. I suggested to him that framing it that way seems to me too black and white.

Much of what we call our knowledge consists in beliefs which are culturally accepted as facts so there is an element of faith of course. The assumption is that if had the time we could check the sources of such facts ourselves, that we have good reason to accept the findings and observations of experts, of scientists and scholars, and thus have good reason to believe in their truth. So there is also reasoning to the most plausible conclusion in play and such knowledge is not merely faith-based.

In matters where there is no possibility of seeing for oneself the beliefs are entirely faith-based. Especially when there seems no reason to belie e that the pronouncements of authorities, for example religious authorities, are themselves faith-based. So the degree of faith at play in our beliefs is on a spectrum from no faith to pure faith.

Is that the claim you hold to be unfalsifiable? — Leontiskos

I said it is often criticized as being falsifiable and that, for the reasons I gave, it does seem to be unfalsifiable.

By "black and white" I was not referring to text. :roll:

such a critique is not a theodicy. A theodicy is supposed to vindicate God in the face of such a critique. — Leontiskos

Yes, that's right and that is why I pointed out that 'The Hotel Manager Theodicy' is a misnomer.