I wonder how good a philosopher is Woody Allen. Is he really exploring the genuine themes of Existentialist philosophy or is it just pseudo philosophy? — Ross Campbell

Allen tells stories, he drops in cultural comment and ideas from a range of sources, often coalescing around his rather untheorized brand of atheism. He was often accused of being a pseudo-intellectual, which I think misses the point. Like a lot of people of his time and place he was influenced by existentialist ideas but he is no theorist. And thank God. I'm sure a film critic could retro fit a range of philosophical and cultural thinking to Allen's work without Allen even knowing those things were present.

What do you think has driven monotheistic conquerors to kill, rape, and pillage, if not the conviction that they have God on their side? — baker

Well yes, this is a familiar and dare I say Hitchensesque argument and one I have certainly adopted form time to time. But human beings justify bad actions using a variety of means. Politics is another good one.

I have to say the more I think about this idea of a god the less coherent and comprehensible I find it. If you reduce the idea to an anthropomorphized cartoon - a fundamentalist style of deity - it become more coherent, if less believable to me.

Do you have a view about what the most plausible form of deity could be? What do you think of the Paul Tillich style 'ground of being' conception?

If you think that was elegant you should see me do interpretative dance. I do all the major philosophers. — Fooloso4

I want to see your Heidegger dance first, just to test your interpretive powers...

But I had to take it out of me. Sorry.. Hahah — dimosthenis9

That's ok. As long as we both behave, that's fine.

Pseudo-questions (i.e. context-free), fallacious arguments, obfuscating rhetoric and rationalizing (apologetics for) pseudo-science seem to me hallmarks of "bad philosophy". — 180 Proof

Agree although the pseudo-questions is a new one for me. Makes sense. Can you say some more?

Maybe you in particular don't know God's mind, but who's to say nobody else does either? — baker

I know plenty of people who say they know God's mind. Pity they disagree with each other.

Do you know God's mind or are you more like me on this matter?

Of course you can. But some people can't.Or that isn't enough for them. And they need God as to feel that way. So what's the problem if they do? I can't see any. — dimosthenis9

Hey... I thought we were going to wait until engaging again? :smile:

I don't really care if people believe in God. In fact, one of my closest friends is a Catholic Priest.

Supplementary response: Can there be a wrong mountaintop if there is only one view?
Or were you referring to the left mountaintop? — Rxspence

So my point was how do you know you are right? You seem dogmatic, like a Christian apologist. The 'only one view' response is curious. Capital T truths are fraught.

Thanks, that's an elegant summary.

:up:

. I don't see how doubt and uncertainty can serve as a basis for meaningful and active life. — Apollodorus

You may be right there. I must say I wrestle with this one but it doesn't keep me up at night. I inhabit the quotidian.

Whatever you like to call it, the key affect being the reduction of existential anxiety, something commonly believed to be exclusive to the religious realm. — praxis

That just sounds to me like a secular idea. I would have thought religions often increase existential anxiety - especially worrying about God's judgment, the afterlife, etc. In such a context, atheism may be understood as transcendent. Thoughts?

I'd be interested in what your ideas of the 'unexamined life' might be. I'm wondering where the fault line lies between unexamined and examined? Is it a failure to ask questions? Is it a complacent acceptance of whatever life you are born in? Is a person who is born into a religion and never questions it (but pursues it with study and understanding) examining their life or simply building on unexamined assumptions?

Philosophim appears to be claiming that there's no viable alternative to religion for non-religious people because they're not as dependent on social groups. Is that true? First let's look at what religion offers, as defined by Philosophim:

Community
Belonging
Greater purpose
Emotional support
Social safety net
Feel part of something greater than themselves

I'll add to the list:

Identity
Transcendence

None of the above is only found in religion. — praxis

Exactly right. Which is why I responded with my list of secular community alternatives, some of which also address identity. Transcendence? I am not sure if that's anything but a poetic abstract, but I know what people mean. People also talk of experiencing the numinous. You can get that visiting nature or listening to an orchestra play (there are endless possibilities).

think that Philosophers is all that we are.
Existence can not be proven and I have been to the Mountaintop — Rxspence

Even if this is true, it still leaves us with a key question. How can you determine good from bad philosophy? Supplementary question: Did you arrive at the right mountaintop?

What do you think?

No, Nabokov was no influence. Sorry if that troubles you, but there it is... — Gary M Washburn

Interesting that you assume I care about Nabakov. I was more interested in the justification of your somewhat lofty pronouncement/s. So are you saying you often operate by discretion? Is this a reliable pathway to truth?

And since Truth cannot manifest on the physical plane of existence, what does that say about both science and philosophy, since both ignore and deny three-quarters of the Whole of Existence? — 1 Brother James

You've just made a truth claim independent of woo. If what you contend here is true, then you can't say what you just said and it be true. Or not?

Don't recall ever finding anything pertinent in Nabokov. — Gary M Washburn

Does this not make an assumption that you have a talent for identifying pertinence? If we don't see something is it because it is not there, or because we are unable to apprehend it? I ask myself this daily.

The world around us will never be the same from one moment to the next. — Joshs

I've never found this to be particularly true to my experience. But I don't live in Afghanistan...

So my referring to aggressive experiential change is another way of conveying the idea of richly intimate change, for instance in flow experiences. If the balance of novelty and familiarity is too skewed in the direction of novelty, then in fact one cannot change , because one cannot even fully absorb what one is encountering. A fog of chaotic , confused incidentals doesn’t amount to much substantive experience at all. — Joshs

Sorry Josh your wording is a bit unclear to me here. It sounds like you are essentially saying, go with the flow but with some qualifier?

A second language is never the same, and multilingual people are notoriously inarticulate. — Gary M Washburn

Vladimir Nabokov notwithstanding. It's an interesting claim. Where did you crib it from?

The aim is not to stop change but to move through change more aggressively, consistently , to embrace the new fluidly. — Joshs

For what reason?

Huh? Let's move on dimo. Maybe some time another subject will bring out more useful aspects of each other. Take care.

Well, there’s the old communist-socialist left and the new postmodern left , and the latter often likes to pick on the former, which I suspect is where Salthe’s allegiances lie. — Joshs

Yes. I recall Richard Rorty calling them the old reformist left versus the cultural left.

Man what are you talking about?? The guy says there isn't an alternative as to replace religions.Answering my initial question.
Not that there is no community in general except church's! — dimosthenis9

I responded directly to the issues the person raised. I can't help it if you didn't follow.

Presently, there is no organized social alternative to this. — Philosophim

Nonsense. There are(for those who want community) freethinker, skeptic, humanist, rationalist, atheist social groups, societies and community events, dinners, picnics, music, talks and video TV. Not to mention support groups for former priests and pastors/vicars/rabbis who have become atheists (a fairly common thing) and people who have left unforgiving fundamentalists groups eg Recovery From Religion. Three are also trans and gay friendly atheist communities. And then just about any social group and community is a secular one.

What they are, is more independent. They don't necessarily need a crowd of people around them. — Philosophim

Atheism's not about the numbers, it's the reasons and the lack of them.

Yeah, your way of thinking is skewed. A discussion isn't going to help. — Banno

Yes. Eccentric reasoning, it seems.

That's based in your opinion that I got pissed of course. Which has never happened. — dimosthenis9

Is English not your first language? Taking the piss means taking the Mickey or poking fun with something.

Thank you for the sarcasm .You surely are a genuine interlocutor. — dimosthenis9

Not sarcasm. Advice.

You'll note, if you were reading carefully, that I said 'seem' in my comments. This is another nuance perhaps you don't recognise.

You accused me of not being genuine interlocutor and I m the one who takes the piss also? — dimosthenis9

No - I'm saying that you may not be genuine because you appear to be taking the piss.

That's not gonna happen. — dimosthenis9

You'll be a lot happier given that you are so concerned about the implications of plummeting world morality if belief in God ends. You can help avoid this disaster by restoring belief in God through, for instance, getting on a philosophy forum and posing dilemmas about the decline in the belief in God and how this is an alarming phenomenon. Or something similar.

Well, the question is about you unless you're nothing! Nevertheless, anekantavada - different strokes for different folks. — TheMadFool

Well my point is that I (and no person in history, probably) have never seen an example of nothing before and I doubt that nothing ever existed - since it would need to exist to 'be' nothing, hence not nothing but something- hey, this sounds like one of your capers... For me the argument is this... something. The end. :joke:

Interlocutors should agree with you as to be genuine? — dimosthenis9

This is an example of what I mean. Of course not - you agreeing with me is not important. It's your approach. It seems like you are taking the piss. If you are serious then my apologies. I suggest you embrace a religion as soon as you can since you are already mounting a standard apologist's argument and style. :joke:

I don't think you are a genuine interlocutor so I will leave this to the sensible arguments of 180 Proof.

Take care

Why have atheists rejected a creator? My best guess is that they've got an alternate answer for the fundamental question of metaphysics: why is there something rather than nothing? — TheMadFool

I am an atheist but I don't tend to trade in answers. And I don't buy the question: why is there something rather than nothing? It's not a question I have ever asked or have ever thought would be worth asking.

What you mention is Human history not religion history. — dimosthenis9

Religion is human behaviour (this is your whole point) so religious history is human history. I can only imagine that you are having a joke with this ongoing argument. No one can miss the point this many times unless it's deliberate.

Christians are people. It's not Christianity's fault that people make shit out of it. It's the same way in what we talked before with Talibans. You can't blame Islam. — dimosthenis9

Christians are people. — dimosthenis9

Yes - that is my exact point.People practice religion and interpret it - how do you know which version is correct? Deciding on this means you are interpreting God's will.

Your question is what is morality without God? My response is that a god derived morality is people choosing a range of options they think god wants, with no consistency and often many harmful results. There is no single god based morality. It is a total mess of sects, decisions, branches, interpretations, various pastors/vicars/archbishops/popes and then there's the differing religions themselves.

Again, you seem not to be engaging with the key issue. The problem is religion as practiced. It is, for instance, official Catholic doctrine that no birth control must be practiced ever - no condoms or the pill. Immense harm comes from this. You say people 'make shit out of it' - that could be seen as a disrespectful way to describe people's sincere pious beliefs. Abortion; the status of women; homophobia; much religious doctrine holds dreadful positions on these issues. Just read The Bible, you'll see.

So why don't you blame the people who make these wrong interpretations and you blame religions? — dimosthenis9

Again you miss the key point religion is interpretation. How do you know which one is wrong? That itself requires interpretation.

Are these what Christianity teaches for example and you blame religions for that?Don't think so. All what you mention happen cause people fail to act good EVEN when they believe in God. I m scared of what is going to happen if you tell humans that God isn't "there" anymore. — dimosthenis9

Yes, this is what many Christians teach and believe. All over the world. And then there's Islam... You are not following my point. Religions have interpretations of God's will. Many of these interpretations result in terrible harm and behavior.

For me God helps as not more people to act evil — dimosthenis9

Lots of people think this. But what is the evidence?

Many people try to act good cause of God's fear or reward. — dimosthenis9

I doubt this is true. And I suspect it goes the other way - a lot of morally repugnant behavior happens because of god beliefs - female circumcision; homophobia; misogyny; capital punishment; prohibitions on birth control (leading to AIDS and overpopulation and cruelty to unwanted children).

I don't think you can say that the plus side is dominant.

I also think any moral system based on fear is not a moral system. That's mafia morality.

What can replace god? Silence. — Banno

I think this is excellent advice.

Hence, Virtue Ethics. — Banno

Yes, I have learned to understand morality as performative.

What would be the fundamental base of that moral system? From where morals would come from? And h — dimosthenis9

And how we could convince people follow it without any God "punishment"? — dimosthenis9

The point already made is that not many care what a 'god wants' (which is why prisons are full of theists). And no one knows what God wants - it's subjective interpretation. I fail to see how God helps in any way on this matter. Some Christians think God condones killing (capital punishment, self defense, war, homosexuality) some are conscientious objectors and refuse killing in ANY circumstance. The decision is made via personal choice. God itself remains silent.

And atheists have?? — dimosthenis9

Of course not. That's not my point. My point is that theists and atheists share a moral starting point. Personal preference.

Taliban are evil cause of religion? They are evil cause they choose to be. Religion is their cover and their "excuse" as to act like that. — dimosthenis9

Err... no. They are an example of fundamentalism. They certainly believe they are doing good and bringing God's will to earth.

And unite atheists? — dimosthenis9

As above. Atheists and theists share the same basis for morality.

But it is not what I claimed. — dimosthenis9

I was answering your question below.

2.If you gonna make people stop believing in religions then WHAT could replace God? How can you convince people to be "good" ??? — dimosthenis9

Replacing god/s isn't an issue since theism doesn't lead to moral behavior. Your wider question about convincing people to be good I didn't answer since you made assumptions along the way which needed clarification.

You can't convince people to be good (whatever that is). You can't even convince people to wear masks.

Sure. But again, it's not supposed to be goodness by humanist standards, but by God's standards. — baker

I agree but since we don't (can't?) know God's mind, how could anyone assume to know if God's standards based on the information available?

By the way, what is a humanist standard of good? Isn't this largely Christianity without Jesus?

If you gonna make people stop believing in religions then WHAT could replace God? How can you convince people to be "good" ??? — dimosthenis9

What makes you think religions or god beliefs make people behave morally? I have worked with prisoners for 30 plus years. Many of them have believed in God. This does not prevent them from being violent, from stealing, lying, murdering, dealing drugs, abandoning their children... Name the crime; a religious person is likely to have done it. Prisons are full of men and women who believe in God.

If people are going to do good the source of this transcends any belief in God. Just consult the Taliban.

The other problem with a belief in God is that theists have no moral foundation. What they think is good or bad depends on their personal preferences. Or how they interpret a given holy book. Or what their subjective interpretation on God's will might be.

Just consider issues like gay rights, the role of women, drug policy, capital punishment, euthanasia - these moral issues do not unite theists. They are all over the place when it comes to deciding upon such moral questions because in the end they have to decide what they think God wants. No one knows the answer to this so we have religions that totally disagree with each the about morality. People still have to decide for themselves regardless of theism.

I think that was the original intent of philosophy — Wayfarer

I understand. I'm certainly not up to that original intent. I have an interest, but it is not a passion.

Interesting - I've read Evan as a counterpart to Michel Bitbol. If I had time I might read more in this area. Phenomenology too, only I fear a slide into solipsism. My temperament is suspicious(?) of this material, fascinating as it is, but I generally try to understand that which I intuitively avoid. Navigating the role of 'lived experience' - for want of a better term - seems awfully nebulous and risk prone.