That's very interesting, thanks. I need to work on my conceptual vocabulary.

Each side not only sees the world through a different schematic lens, but is unable to subsume the other side’s perspective as a variation of their own. — Joshs

Is this similar to Lakoff's frames?

This leads to accusations of bad intent , immorality , stupidity and irrationality that each side constantly charges the other side with. Because you fail to grasp the pragmatic rationality of MAGA adherents relative to their way of looking at the world, you blame them for your failure of understanding and reify this hostility as ‘correctly scientific rationality’ which you will then attempt to shove down their throats with the blessing of your fellow scientists. — Joshs

I think this is an important insight. People slide into 'they're sociopaths, morons' alarmingly quickly. If a worldview doesn't make sense to us, anger and denigration are easy responses. I've done it myself many times in the past.

Any quick ideas for how we break this worldview impasse?

:up:

I'd also realized that we only ever 'know reality' – orient ourselves – approximately, or superficially, via myths, metaphors, maps & models. — 180 Proof

Nice. That's my provisional position at the moment. I think being here helped me to modify my thinking, and soften my earlier dogmatism. How often do you change or modify your views on philosophical questions?

It's only when confronted with the religious that I even consider it. And I only care about it if religious beliefs are the driving factor behind some injustice, e.g. mistreating others because of something that their religion (falsely, I believe) claims to be wrong. If someone is homophobic or pro-life because of their religion, and if their religion is wrong (which as an atheist I believe it is), then what they believe matters, and it's important that the victims of their misbeliefs (homosexuals, pregnant women wanting an abortion, etc.) are protected from them. — Michael

That's the crux of it. Also, many religious people oppose environmental protections because they 1) think God's in charge of creation and has it covered or 2) the rapture is coming, so why worry?

What do you mean by a given matter?

A puzzle is something that is hard to understand. Maybe you are overconfident in your perceived understanding of reality? — Andrew4Handel

Not at all. By a given matter I meant matters of philosophy that people consider to be a puzzle, eg, the nature of consciousness, and questions in epistemology, etc. Should I have not used the term 'given matter'? I joined this site to develop a better understanding of what some of the key questions and debates in philosophy are. I never assumed reality is knowable.

I'm mostly interested to understand why a given matter is thought to be a puzzle.

Atheism is an element of communist ideology. There is no sense in which communism is a subcategory of atheism or an iteration of it. And to call it an "atheistic belief system" is misleading because it suggests that this element is the primary ideological force behind it when its not as it's a socioeconomic theory. I'm not going to deny communist ideologies have inflicted harm on religious believers in pursuance of encouraging atheism as part of their projects. But your approach to this is illogical and your reasoning is faulty. — Baden

Nicely put. And the harm communist parties inflict on religions (and most alternative value systems) is largely a product of the totalitarian approach that would allow no competition to the dominant ideology, much as the Catholic church expunged pagan faiths and alternate doctrines in history.

Yes, that is something to chew over...

So, is that all there is? Intolerance on both sides, which flares up whenever someone claims there is or is not a God? — Ciceronianus

I think the problem is what those claims/beliefs may lead to. If someone's worldview is predicated on a magic man who intervenes in life, then they will make life choices which reflect that thinking. Claims about god generally include concomitant claims. In some instances - that children should be beaten and that women are property and gays should be in jail or executed. Claims about where atheism leads often involve a denigration of the moral positions held by an old book. Subsidiary claims may include that atheists endorse GLBTIQ and women's rights and environmental concerns and science education which are against the truth and God's will. The god/atheism debate seems to be about the frames and worldviews that stem from belief.

I get most of my laughs from the unintentionally funny - not stand up comedy or allegedly funny movies - but life. Philosophy is too much like a colonoscopy of the mind for me to laugh at, but the overarching notion that humans can arrive at ultimate truth does make me laugh - especially at some of the ways people think they may achieve this. But it is also sad, which is why I agree with Montaigne that we laugh and cry at the same thing.

Life is extremely complex and I don't believe most of it could be subject to moral type calculations. — Andrew4Handel

I hear you and that's understandable.

I just pointed out the commandments and their lack of clarity as part of the general thrust of the conversation. It amuses me that when they ask Christians to name the commandments they often struggle to recall more than 2 or 3.

Are people saying there are things we should feel compelled to do? Are people saying there are objectively good and bad phenomena? I don't know what people are saying anymore. — Andrew4Handel

Yes, those are two of many choices. It's a veritable cornucopia of moral systems out there in the marketplace. I'm happy to sit with acts being assessed in terms of the impacts they have on conscious creatures and the environment. We can build oughts and ought nots from there, subject to debate and discussion. Morality, (even the 'god given' stuff) has never been much more than a conversation about how we treat others (and animals). Pragmatically we have no choice but to build 'codes of conduct' with each other. Well, the other choice is, of course, living in a failed state, where chaos and violence determine all the moves.

You shall have no other gods before Me.
You shall make no idols.
You shall not take the name of the Lord your God in vain.
Keep the Sabbath day holy.
Honor your father and your mother.
You shall not kill.
You shall not commit adultery.
You shall not steal.
You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.
You shall not covet.

You'll note of the famous ten only four cover off on morality. And here's the problem. These commandments are pretty ambiguous, you need commentary or legislation to make them intelligible.

Ask Bill Clinton what adultery consists of. Is it oral sex or penetration? Is an open marriage adultery?
What is murder? Is killing in war ok? Self defence? How do we tell? Is abortion allowable?
Is taking land from First Nations people stealing? Is the way capitalism is structured and wage slavery a form of stealing?

Coveting? Isn't the entire model of capitalism and the Western way of life based upon wanting to enhance our status based on seeing the status others can achieve if they work hard?

The ten commandments are inadequate - where are the commandments on slavery, or environmental destruction, or war, or child labour, or the treatment of animals?

But then what do you call someone who claims to know or believe in God but rejects religion? — HarryHarry

A theist.

It's not unusual for a theist to reject religion. When they belong to a particular religion they are called a Christian or a Muslim, etc. We just use the term 'theist' as a cover all so we don't have to specify the religion.

The first 15 minutes of the film were dedicated to the feeding of a cat. — praxis

If there were more artful cat feeding and less showy gun fights, cinema might redeem itself.

I read most of Chandler back in the 1990's. My favorite line from The Big Sleep is 'She tried to sit in my lap while I was standing up'

There's a pretty good 1944 Dick Powell adaptation of Murder My Sweet few will remember. But this is books..

I just read a vintage piece of sociology by J Boorstin called The Image: A Guide to Pseudo-Events in America It's from 1962 but on the money regarding how publicity and the pseudo have taken over how we set agendas and tell stories and can be applied to that great library of pseudo, social media. Anyone read this? Interesting to read this kind of early analysis outside of academic social theory or philosophy.

Given a chance they will be checking that you offer a cock to Asclepius and will have a nice crop of hemlock just in case. — Banno

I'm always mindful about where I put my cock.

The Gods, which I'd say Epicurus seemed to believe existed, are Gods precisely because they are already perfectly happy and self-contained. — Moliere

Nice. If the O.T. is anything to go by Yahweh is a kind of empyrean Trump figure who needs adoration and worship despite an endless series of fuck ups.

Those who think god's favour is dependent on our actions will have quite different attitudes towards what we ought do, to those who suppose god uninvolved.

Again, the issue is ethics rather than metaphysics. — Banno

I agree with this but can I check the ethics point? What if gaining god's favor ends up involving rituals or leaving presents for god as a sign of respect? Does that count as ethics? Or does it only become an issue, if the ritual impacts upon other's lives in some way?

"merely" the Creator of the universe, i.e. one that having done so, does not intervene, is not influenced by worship or prayer--is the First Mover and nothing more; — Ciceronianus

I'm assuming you mean here a god that can't be pleased by any human actions or gestures? I guess the debate would have no where to go.

What utter twaddle. — Banno

:up:

Also, it's progressives (more likely to be atheist) not conservatives (more likely to be religious) that tend to take up arms for sustainability and against consumer capitalism — Baden

That's for sure. When my partner worked for the Greens movement a few years ago the folk involved were almost entirely atheist and anti-consumerist.

In the 'aesthetic' critique of atheism I often hear in these debates, there seems to be a notion that atheism robs the world of mystery and a type of beauty (Weber's disenchantment/ the outcome of enlightenment rationalism) and is therefore crass, acquisitive and unsophisticated.

The idea that theists must convert others, save souls, trust blindly in certain items of literature, reject reason over doctrine, or hold firm to the faith to escape any sort of punishment is something held by a particular religion, but not theism per se. — Hanover

I think you're partly right but it's more than a 'particular religion', right? Islam and Christianity and various proselyting Hindu/Eastern spirituality schools and 'cults', and the fact that there are dozens and dozens of Christian based schisms alone, which are like separate religions and disagree on doctrine and how we can be 'saved'. There must be thousands of 'one truth" type operations active in the world today. It's not like it is just those weirdo Baptists on the corner of Bedlam and Squalor...

Amen. By the way - do you see any potential ways forward in dissolving these problematic categories?

I can get behind that.

Thanks

At least where I’m from, if you subtract the nod to ritual, you’d never be able to tell an atheist from a theist. It’s all about the “inner life”, apparently. But what potency therein? Seems like this inner life is mostly either folks congratulating themselves on their piety or on their lack thereof, and entrenching their effective uniformity. — Baden

You paint a rosy picture. I'll mull over that.

I am more concerned about the bit where theists influence what we can read or do with our bodies or how the Supreme Court should look, or whether women should drive and how many gays should be executed, or if climate change is real, or whether contraception should be permitted. It doesn't always look like harmless nonsense from where i sit. If it were just funny costumes and charades, I wouldn't give a shit.

And yeah, people may also make stupid and base choices for a whole range of culture and political reasons, but throw in god's will and the problem reaches a new level.

One of the oversights of common-sense atheists is that they reject the existence of the transcendental on the basis of a lack of evidence, and yet they tend not to consider the semantic possibility that the very meaning of transcendental concepts refers to the world. — sime

Many of the atheists I have met don't conform to this trope. Some believe in astrology, reincarnation, crystal healing, all manner of New Age stuff. It's just gods they don't believe in.

Atheism both drives, and is driven by, consumer capitalism, e.g. retailers preaching to us that we must live this 'one' life to the fullest. — sime

I think that's a clitche. I spent much of my younger life with Buddhists, theosophists, and assorted members of the New Age movement, many followers of various Hindu gurus and mystics. Hard to find a more materialistic group than these folk, who saw prosperity as a sign of karmic reward. Then there's all those Christians around the world who follow the 'prosperity gospel' which is also ferociously materialistic and a common manifestation of the faith these days.

It would be an error to mistake people's professed beliefs as a direct analogue for the way they actually live. I'd say a lot of atheists are into environmentalism and minimalism. They are often surprisingly spiritual.

You're ugly and you smell bad. — T Clark

:up:

Are there several clear divisions or schools when it comes to how Plato is read these days (and I'm not talking about neoplatonism). I imagine some academics would read him as actual Platonists (idealists) and others would not - that kind of thing...

see that as a pretext like the whole religious war thing. As if atheists aren't just as capable of genocide, massacre, and total war as religious believers. — T Clark

You've done this philosophy thing longer than me but isn't that just an equivocation fallacy right there? It does nothing to address the point about the horrendous continued human rights abuses, bigotries and other crimes all around the world brought to us by specific religious responses.

And if you're saying religion and atheism are equally dreadful then you still seem to be saying religion has nothing better to offer than no religion.

And besides, I am yet to hear of a single case of an atheist war, one where everyone killed, blew up buildings and subjugated their enemies in the name of 'no god'. Political wars certainly. Even several that had atheism in the mix. I am as suspicious and doubtful of political parties as I am of religions.

But come at me again with a witty and scathing riposte and we can leave it there as this kind of argument is old and neither of us will change our minds on the issues. :wink:

They are not passive. They are self-righteous and bitter. Many clearly are reacting to bad experiences with religion in their youth. — T Clark

Yes, that and the current state of a significant part of the religious world around the planet, from the Trump phenomena, to Modi's Hindu nationalism and all nasty shit done in the Middle East on behalf of Islam.

I think maybe atheism can be dividend into two groups anti-religionists and antitheists. I think I have sympathies for both groups.

“When any human group decides that they can define God, the outcome is always predictable. The “true faith,” once defined, must then be defended against all critics, and it must also then be forced upon all people—“for their own good, lest their souls be in jeopardy.” - Bishop John Shelby Spong

Indeed.

someone who believes in traditional forms of a religion,or believes that what is written in a holy book, — Janus

Sounds like it is a category open to a range of possibilities. I think fundamentalism is aspirational - rarely achieved. Because few of them seem to follow many of the Bible or Koran's requirements. Believing something is true is not the same thing as knowing what it is or living as if it is is true, right? Sartre might even call this bad faith, but then he's a philandering Commie heathen.

Yes, it's a battle of hearts and minds out there. I have met a number of Christians who said they came to the religion via CS Lewis' famous book, Mere Christianity. But I also met former Baptists and Catholics who credit Russell's famous work as a key reason they turned. No doubt arguments play a role.

My idea of fundamentalists is that they believe the bible is literally the word of God and thus is infallible. — Janus

Are there not grades if fundamentalism? But you may be right. My grandmother was a fundamentalist - Dutch reformed. She had not read the Bible (like many fundamentalists as I was later to discover). They hold this position of inerrancy without even knowing the text. Probably no different to believing in god with no evidence. :joke: I asked her about man landing on the moon. "Didn't happen,' she said. 'I know god is up there, not astronauts. The Bible says so.' Not all fundies are that fundamental.

atheism -- at least as a term -- is significant to me because it explains a difference between how I was raised, and how I am. It's the transition itself which brings meaning to the term. — Moliere

Thank you, that's a really evocative way to put it.

I've never understood Christian apologists like C.S. Lewis and Chesterton, or Cardinal Newman, because I think their arguments, such as they are, don't work. Nor is there any need (or so I think) to for them to debate with atheists. They need only believe. — Ciceronianus

Of course there is a track record of conversion into religions by apologists - hence proselytizing culture - and I've also seen this in reverse having met a number of atheists who left fundamentalisms because of arguments they encountered against their version of god. People do change teams and it's usually a process.

I don't think fundamentalists are really concerned with any rational arguments for the existence of God; I think they generally take scripture as being the literal word of God, and believe that God speaks to them through the Book. — Janus

Right now the presuppostionalists (via Kant's TAG) are huge in evangelical Christianity, as are the Lane Craig neophyte apologists who are all about Aquinas 5 ways arguments. Curiously many are better on reason than they are on the Bible which most appear not to have read. The internet is bursting with Christians and Muslims proving god via reason.

I think that such claims ignore the fact that experience doesn't directly tell us anything propositional at all about the nature of reality, about God, immortality or freedom. — Janus

Much debate to me seems to be emotion dressed up in rationalist clothing.

I raise my hat to Australian secularists. (What's the difference between a secularist and an atheist?) — god must be atheist

I know a few Christians who are secularists on the premise below:

Secularists simply secule the state from the church. — god must be atheist

A secular society can support the state to nourish ecumenical expressions of faith in a manner a theocracy could struggle to do.

Well, there's certainly no evidence that Theists have everlasting life, and they rarely behave as though they actually believe it. — praxis

That's for sure. Nor do they seem to be morally superior to non believers or the practices of other religions.

or them, 'life everlasting' is real, and so the lack of it is a real loss, an inestimable tragedy. Whereas for atheism, it's only a matter of a false belief, which can't have any significance beyond the sociological or affective, because it doesn't stand for anything real in the first place. And I can't see any way to square that circle. — Wayfarer

I guess this can be true for a certain segment of believers, especially at the shallow end of the pool where most of the noise is. But the Christians I know do not necessarily think there is a heaven or even that God can be understood in any way. They totally get atheism as a reasonable view, just don't share it - sensus divinitatis and all that.

Atheism and theism do mirror one another in their guises as fundamentalisms; as counterarguments about "what is the case". They also mirror one another in their guises as ideology; purporting to know what it is right or best to believe for everyone in general. — Janus

I think they can come to mirror each other more because to a great extent atheism's chief fight is with fundamentalism, which, for all the claims of faith, is founded on argumentation - proofs of god, etc, which has shoehorned a lot of freethinking into contesting these arguments. And fair enough.

Australia is largely secular and most atheists I meet here have no interest in the arguments about god in either direction and have no internet in atheism as a thought system. They just take it for granted that god ideas are irrelevant. Good on them, but I prefer to try to justify my beliefs, even if this is hopelessly romantic.

Theism breeds all sorts of convictions, demands, wishes, conclusions, dreams, hopes, institutions,strictures and emotions (not to mention wars and other forms of violence). Theists are invested in theism, they rely on it. God created the universe, and me, and you, and so that means a plan, a destiny, a purpose, etc. which is to be defended, or revered. Thus the favorite claim of 19th century folk suddenly encountering reasons for disbelief--"Without God, anything is permitted!" Characters in Dostoyevsky novels, without God, rush around killing old ladies and themselves. — Ciceronianus

An insightful OP.

There are brands of atheist who are skeptical of any kind of transcendent claim as @Janus has stated. Idealism, higher consciousness, certain interpretations of QM are all in scope.

I don't believe in ontological idealism or in higher consciousness either (I don't say they are untrue, I just have no good reason to accept them at this point) but these beliefs are separate to my disbelief in god/s. God of course is just a word and understood by some (Rupert Spira springs to mind) as more primitive language for oneness or higher awareness.

I'm not aware of any book or article addressing atheist views on Spinoza's God, for example. — Ciceronianus

Indeed. The shrill claims of fundamentalism primarily has turned many atheists into verbal pugilists.

I think it is generally easy to agree on goals - everyone says they want world piece and happiness. But the devil as they say is in the details. Take the recent and massive disagreements about how to manage COVID. While I don't want to get into the debate itself it seems clear that there's an intractable culture war about almost every environmental, social and health policy position going.

Do you have suggestions for how these differences can be reconciled or overcome?

Well, it's a good thing for this place that you do. :up:

Foolish questions coming: I'm interested in this notion of The Whole. Is it fair to say that goodness can be understood as an expression/instantiation of unified wholeness (is this a synonym for perfection?) and can we say by extension that what is bad is that which is partial or lacking coherence and the bad is in effect a form of asymmetry?

The idea that The Whole is indeterminate and not reducible to one is interesting.

There are could be many reasons to be upset, from loosing an argument to feeling unfairly attacked.

On a philosophy site I expect disagreement and reasoned argument against my views because 1) it's the nature of the subject and 2) I know little about philosophy.

I think it may be upsetting for some to think that the world is full of people with terrible ideas who vote and raise children. A view expressed here by one member is likely to be representative of vast numbers who share such 'dreadful' beliefs out in the world. Hot button issues - higher consciousness, political theory, religious belief, the nature of reality - are emotional and often people invest a significant amount of their identity in both the questions and the answers. This is particularly the case where people think they have identified truth or certainty.

Your contributions are wonderful. Thanks.

I think from a technical perspective, humanity is fully capable of engineering a productive, healthy, balanced global society. It just needs to be established as a primary goal. — Pantagruel

I'd like to think this is true, but isn't the substantive problem that with different worldviews and values, people tend to have extremely different ways of understanding what productive and healthy looks like and how it should be achieved.

Please let me know immediately if you see any data or conclusions I present that appear tainted by theology. — Mark S

I am afraid we are not rid of God because we still have faith in grammar. - Nietzsche

Sorry, couldn't resist it.