Religious Discussions - User's Manual

Mariner

The idea here is to condense your experience of religious discussions in very short aphorisms, intended to summarize some recurrent traits of these discussions. Perhaps something can be learned from that.

I'll start.

EDIT: Suggestions from downthread added to the OP:

Arguments for God always beg the question.

The demand for evidence is meaningless if the standard of evidence is not clearly defined beforehand.

Rational/Irrational, in these discussions, is almost always used as an ideological bludgeon, rather than an instrument of analysis.

Wosret:

Evaluation is something we do when we're picking, or deciding. When we're being appealed to, or approached. It isn't appropriate when we're knee deep involved, or on the inside.

It's not a matter of appeal. Do it or else.

mcdoodle:

Atheists tend to neglect the nature of religious feeling.

Believers tend to exaggerate the importance of rational-sounding arguments.

geospiza:

God is an advocate for my point of view.

God prefers me over others.

God believes in my worth and virtuosity, especially when others do not.

Bitter Crank

When God is the topic, specify what you think God is or is not. If your God is unknowable, say no more. If your God has attributes which you can not explain to the rest of us, say no more.

Confess what your source of knowledge is about God. If you have personal evidence, great. If all you have is hearsay evidence, admit it. Religious books are hearsay evidence.

Before you say anything, decide whether your God has to be Perfectly Nice. Maybe your God isn't. God could very well be inconsistent, contradictory, arbitrary, and capricious, peevish, periodically unloving, unkind, indifferent to your problems, etc. If God is not nice, that would explain a lot.

Sapientia

Be prepared (meaning, be acquainted with the list of common fallacies)

Reformed Nihilist

There are no philosophical arguments for the existence of the god that people go to church to worship.

***

Other suggestions were not specific to religious discussions.

Wosret

Evaluation is something we do when we're picking, or deciding. When we're being appealed to, or approached. It isn't appropriate when we're knee deep involved, or on the inside.

It's not a matter of appeal. Do it or else.

T Clark

Battle lines drawn years ago with no chance of movement. Kind of like WW1 trench warfare.

Agustino

↪Mariner

God exists because of X, Y, Z. No he doesn't. God exists because of A, B, C. NOOO!! >:O

Mongrel

Stop talking when the holy dude answers your question about hell by cupping his hands together and saying that religion is about loving another person.

Agustino

Stop talking when the holy dude answers your question about hell by cupping his hands together and saying that religion is about loving another person. — Mongrel

I honestly think you (and other progressives) don't understand what love means. You seem to think that love is some sort of all-encompassing benevolence combined with pink-flying unicorns that give you lots of kisses :s

Thorongil

Arguments for God always beg the question. — Mariner

If by begging the question you mean the petitio principii fallacy, then I disagree. There are plenty of arguments for God that don't commit this fallacy. Even the ontological argument, if phrased in a certain way, can avoid it, despite being the classic example of an argument that allegedly commits said fallacy. If by begging the question you mean that they fail to define God, then I agree. A lot of arguments are vague on what it is they're proving.

Mariner

If by begging the question you mean the petitio principii fallacy, then I disagree. There are plenty of arguments for God that don't commit this fallacy. Even the ontological argument, if phrased in a certain way, can avoid it, despite being the classic example of an argument that allegedly commits said fallacy. If by begging the question you mean that they fail to define God, then I agree. A lot of arguments are vague on what it is they're proving. — Thorongil

They beg the question as much as any argument that intends to prove the existence of X (rather than the possibility of X, the necessity of X, or the impossibility of X) must necessarily import, with its premises, some extraneous info about the existence of X. Arguments are not instruments to prove the existence of anything.

Curiously, only the ontological argument (which intends to prove the necessity of X) would escape this verdict :D.

Agustino

Curiously, only the ontological argument (which intends to prove the necessity of X) would escape this verdict :D. — Mariner

Would you say that the necessity of X logically requires the existence of X, in the sense that the two are one and the same? Can X be necessary and non-existent?

Mariner

It depends on how one is using the word "existent". Mathematical proofs refer to [the necessity of] non-existent relationships, if we are using "existent" to mean "perceptible by the senses" (which is one way to use that word). The most that any argument focusing on necessity can do is to emulate mathematical proofs. In order to establish that the so-called necessary object (or relationship) exists just as object X, Y, Z, or relation A, B, C exists, a further step is required.

Agustino

Mathematical proofs refer to [the necessity of] non-existent relationships, if we are using "existent" to mean "perceptible by the senses" (which is one way to use that word). — Mariner

Why do you think that existent means just what is perceptible by the senses? Number 2 is not perceptible by the senses, but clearly it exists, albeit in a different way than a chair exists.

T Clark

They beg the question as much as any argument that intends to prove the existence of X (rather than the possibility of X, the necessity of X, or the impossibility of X) must necessarily import, with its premises, some extraneous info about the existence of X. Arguments are not instruments to prove the existence of anything. — Mariner

Thinker - Higgs Bosons exist.

Agustino - No they don't.

Thinker - Look, they just detected one at CERN.

Agustino - Oh, I guess you're right.

Thorongil

Arguments are not instruments to prove the existence of anything. — Mariner

I don't understand this at all. How are they not?

Agustino

I don't understand this at all. How are they not? — Thorongil

Clearly if existent means what is perceptible by the senses, then an argument cannot prove the existence of anything. Only perception can.

mcdoodle

The idea here is to condense your experience of religious discussions in very short aphorisms, intended to summarize some recurrent traits of these discussions. — Mariner

Atheists tend to neglect the nature of religious feeling.

Believers tend to exaggerate the importance of rational-sounding arguments.

Thorongil

Clearly if existent means what is perceptible by the senses — Agustino

Okay, but this is clearly false.

Agustino

Okay, but this is clearly false. — Thorongil

It depends on how one is using the word "existent". Mathematical proofs refer to [the necessity of] non-existent relationships, if we are using "existent" to mean "perceptible by the senses" (which is one way to use that word). — Mariner

Thorongil

↪Agustino

Yeah, that statement is clearly false. Lots of things exist (are not nothing) that are not perceptible.

Agustino

Yeah, that statement is clearly false. Lots of things exist (are not nothing) that are not perceptible. — Thorongil

Why do you think that existent means just what is perceptible by the senses? Number 2 is not perceptible by the senses, but clearly it exists, albeit in a different way than a chair exists. — Agustino

Why are you telling me? :P

Thorongil

↪Agustino

Because you responded to me, silly!

Agustino

Because you responded to me, silly! — Thorongil

>:O

T Clark

Believers tend to exaggerate the importance of rational-sounding arguments. — mcdoodle

I think that's unavoidable when you build a religion that makes claims about actual events which did or did not take place in the world.

Be prepared.

geospiza

↪Mariner

God is an advocate for my point of view.

God prefers me over others.

God believes in my worth and virtuosity, especially when others do not.

Mariner

Atheists tend to neglect the nature of religious feeling.

Believers tend to exaggerate the importance of rational-sounding arguments. — mcdoodle

Good ones. I think the second is more prevalent than the first (at least in the case of, er, rational atheists :D).

Streetlight

If it's really a matter of experience may I suggest:

Don't.

unenlightened

There is much equivocation as to what belief consists of. Part of my creed is that I believe in a hearty breakfast, and I don't lose my faith whenever the bacon runs short. The existence to whatever extent of a hearty breakfast is a consequence of folks believing in the benign hearty breakfast rather than a precondition.

Agustino

↪unenlightened

You may be interested in this.

0 thru 9

The usual definition of polytheism is (according to Wikipedia): the worship of or belief in multiple deities, which are usually assembled into a pantheon of gods and goddesses, along with their own religions and rituals. In most religions which accept polytheism, the different gods and goddesses are representations of forces of nature or ancestral principles, and can be viewed either as autonomous or as aspects or emanations of a creator God or transcendental absolute principle (monistic theologies), which manifests immanently in nature (panentheistic and pantheistic theologies).

It seems that what has arisen is a sort of an "accidental polytheism". Or maybe an "antagonistic polytheism". By which I refer to the effect of clashing monotheistic systems. For example, when you have a Christian believer say in complete sincerity that "Al--h is literally the devil" (not to pick on anybody specifically, because this attitude goes both ways), there is a major disconnect in what monotheism means beneath its tribal roots. Perhaps a particular understanding of the Deity worked for a particular relatively small group of people at one time. That belief system gave the group a unity. But trying to have a global religion with a small-group mentality is beyond an ill-fit, it is more like having a roaring campfire in a drought-stricken forest. If a religious belief system cannot adapt to changing circumstances, then a million hard-core fundamentalist "true believers" hunting heretics and witches will not save it.

The solution to this clash of beliefs? Maybe God only knows. Even so, we best hazard an educated guess. Flexibility? Compassion? Non-literal interpretations? Another possible view of the "holy writ"? Something else? Your educated guess is as good as mine.

Mariner

The solution to this clash of beliefs? Maybe God only knows. Even so, we best hazard an educated guess. Flexibility? Compassion? Non-literal interpretations? Another possible view of the "holy writ"? Something else? Your educated guess is as good as mine. — 0 thru 9

Getting back to the experience behind the texts. For those who are hooked on texts, of course.

BC

When God is the topic, specify what you think God is or is not. If your God is unknowable, say no more. If your God has attributes which you can not explain to the rest of us, say no more.

Confess what your source of knowledge is about God. If you have personal evidence, great. If all you have is hearsay evidence, admit it. Religious books are hearsay evidence.

Before you say anything, decide whether your God has to be Perfectly Nice. Maybe your God isn't. God could very well be inconsistent, contradictory, arbitrary, and capricious, peevish, periodically unloving, unkind, indifferent to your problems, etc. If God is not nice, that would explain a lot.

Religious Discussions - User's Manual

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Categories

More Discussions