I appreciate that your hypothesis is modest, and doesn't thoroughly undermine a general naturalistic world-view. You seem to specifically address physicalism's explanatory gap.

Strictly speaking the physical world could have evolved higher order mammals without this unit, which are not conscious(we don’t know the precise role played by consciousness in the life of higher order mammals and if it is a necessary condition). They could all be entirely unconscious and the world would be identical to the world we live in. — Punshhh

You allude to the question of Zombies - beings who behave as we do (by outward appearances) but do not have the mental experiences we have. I want to explore this further by starting a new thread on the topic. By analyzing how we differ from Zombies, it focuses attention on the most problematic feature of physicalism.

No, it's not faith by my definition. It's a properly basic belief*. It's basic, because it's innate- not derived, and not taught. It's properly basic if the world that produced us would tend to produce this belief, which is the case if we are the product of evolutionary forces. It is rational to maintain belief that has not been epistemologically defeated. The bare possibility that the belief is false does not defeat the belief. — Relativist

Sorry, if my word-choice seemed to put you in an irrational category. Since you used the term "belief", I simply substituted another term, "faith"*1, with the same basic meaning, to give you pause to see a different perspective. Trust in your own senses is intuitive and pragmatic. But philosophy is about the mental models of reality that we artificially construct from incoming sensory data. Our personal worldviews (belief systems) are resistant to "defeat" by epistemological arguments.

I wasn't accusing you of promoting a religious Faith. I too, believe that my physical senses give me reliable information about the material world. But, as an amateur philosopher, I am also interested in the immaterial aspects of reality*2 : Ideas, Feelings, Reason, Self Concept, Mathematical Truths, etc. I also "believe" that humans are the "product of evolutionary forces". But we may differ on the exact nature of those forces. For example, based on cutting-edge science, I equate physical Energy with mental Information. If that notion intrigues or appalls you, I can provide scientific reasons for accepting that equation as a philosophically useful concept (in a separate thread, of course). :smile:


*1. While often used interchangeably, belief and faith have distinct meanings. Belief is an acceptance that something is true, often based on evidence or reasoning. Faith, on the other hand, is a deeper, often more active trust and reliance, often in the face of uncertainty or lack of proof. Essentially, belief can be a mental acceptance, while faith involves action and commitment based on that belief.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=belief+vs+faith

*2. Immaterial aspects of reality refer to things that exist but are not made of physical matter. Examples include thoughts, emotions, concepts like justice or beauty, and even mathematical truths. These aspects are not constrained by physical laws and can be intangible and non-physical.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=immaterial+aspects+of+reality+examples

Watchword? Not sure what you mean by that. — Relativist

Compared to the Determinism of Newtonian physics, the Stochastic (random ; probabilistic ; indeterminate) nature of sub-atomic physics has made Heisenberg's Uncertainty principle a note of caution about making factual assertions of Reality and our interpretations of the world. :nerd:

Quantum philosophical uncertainty refers to the philosophical interpretations and implications of the quantum mechanical uncertainty principle, which states that certain pairs of physical properties, like position and momentum, cannot be known with perfect accuracy simultaneously. This principle, formulated by Werner Heisenberg, has sparked debate about the nature of reality, determinism, and free will.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=quantum+philosophical+uncertainty

Sorry, if my word-choice seemed to put you in an irrational category. Since you used the term "belief", I simply substituted another term, "faith"*1, with the same basic meaning — Gnomon

Fair enough. I'm inclined to avoid using the term when discussing epistemology, because it means different things to different people. I prefer to use the general term, "belief", along with additional description. But I'm not in charge of the dictionary.

Yes, I quite like talk of zombies.

In contrast, more nuanced conceptions of God, such as Paul Tillich’s idea of God as the "Ground of Being" or David Bentley Hart’s articulation of God as Being itself - represent attempts to have this conversation in metaphysical terms rather than anthropomorphic ones. — Tom Storm

Personally, I haven't read any of Tillich or Hart*1, but I have constructed a non-anthro-morphic god-model that may have some features in common with their religion-biased explanation of Being. However, my Ontology*2 is based on 21st century scientific concepts, not on ancient theological reasoning. And it is the G*D of philosophers, not Theologians. Yet, if you can convince people to worship a featureless abstraction (pure Potential), maybe you can start your own religion. :joke:


*1. David Bentley Hart’s articulation of God as Being itself :
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=David+Bentley+Hart%E2%80%99s+articulation+of+God+as+Being+itself+

# the ultimate reality upon which everything contingent depends.
Note --- Since god postulations inherently go beyond knowable temporal Reality, I prefer to "articulate" Ontology in terms of timeless Ideality : the metaphysical soil & substance of Philosophy.

# God as the Source of Existence: Hart argues that finite, contingent things (like the objects in our world) do not possess the cause of their existence within themselves.
Note --- The Big Bang theory implies that the universe had a beginning, hence is not eternal, and must be contingent on some prior State of Being : What Plato called First Cause. Lacking empirical evidence, all we can say about that world-creating impulse is to outline its logically necessary properties and powers.

# Beyond a "Creator God": Hart distances himself from a simplistic view of God as merely a "demiurge" or a maker who tinkers with the universe from the outside. Instead, he emphasizes that God is present in all things as the very act of their existence, the uncaused ground by which finite actuality and potentiality are created and sustained. This Creative Potential necessarily transformed some of its latent energy into the stuff of reality.
Note --- In my Information-based thesis*2, there is a "workman" who "tinkers" with the world from the inside : physicists call that invisible causal entity : Energy. But my label for that Agent of Change is EnFormAction : the power to transform Matter. (Or more properly, abstract Mass, which we perceive as Matter in many forms). Einstein's E=MC^2 equates causal Energy with inertial Mass and the cosmic speed limit of Light. You could even say that Matter-Mass is condensed god-stuff (creative power).

# Being as Actuality Itself: God is not just something actual, but actuality itself.
Note --- Pure Actuality is static & immutable. But I prefer to view our material Reality & conditional Actuality as actualized Potential. Hence, a creator G*D is infinite Potential for change, and the created World is Actualized possibility. Another way to put it is : G*D is both Immanent & Transcendent.
"In philosophical and theological contexts, the concept of God as pure actuality (actus purus) refers to the idea that God is entirely actual and lacks any potentiality or capacity for change."
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=God+is+entirely+actual+and+lacks+any+potentiality+or+capacity+for+change


*2. In information science, an ontology is a structured way to represent knowledge about a specific domain, defining concepts, relationships, and properties to organize and share information effectively. It's like a map of a subject area, showing how different elements connect and relate to each other, making it easier to understand, manage, and use data.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=ontology+%28information+science%29

I have constructed a non-anthro-morphic god-model ...  a featureless abstraction (pure Potential), — Gnomon

I.e. a distinction without a difference. Why bother? No testable predictions are derived from this "model" so it's not scienrific. No questions go unbegged either by your "god" so it's not coherently philosophical.

Rather an ontological hybrid of Epicurus' void and Spinoza's substance, I think, is consistent with modern physics speculation e.g. Penrose's conformal cyclical cosmology (that accounts for "before the big bang" and eliminates "eternal inflation") or Hartle-Hawking's No Boundary hypothesis (that eliminates "the big bang singularity") – though the jury is still out, the "origin" of the universe is explanable, if only in principle, by the non-transcendent, self-organizing of nature itself without any ad hoc, transcendent "pure Potential"-of-the-gaps (i.e. "Meta-Physical" appeal to scientific ignorance). From Laozi to Spinoza to modern fundamental physics, the more parsimonious speculation is nature alone – sans Aristotlean/Whiteheadian 'teleology' – suffices.

:point: Bad philosophhy –> bad science –> woo :sparkle:

I’m not saying I understand Hart or Tillich, their work is quite recondite, and in my life, it has little practical use. But it is very interesting and aligns with well-established ways of understanding ideas of God. All I’m hoping to do is 'open up' the subject.

↪Gnomon
I’m not saying I understand Hart or Tillich, their work is quite recondite, and in my life, it has little practical use. But it is very interesting and aligns with well-established ways of understanding ideas of God. All I’m hoping to do is 'open up' the subject. — Tom Storm

Does the notion of God as ground of Being have any "practical use" in your world? Does it "open up" a new path for philosophical dialog? What do you find interesting about their theological "work"? Their approach seems to be based on the Ontological Argument*1, that goes back to Anselm's definition of God as self-evident to rational thinkers : if God is Being itself, then disbelief would be denial of Existence..

On the other hand, Sartre defined "being itself" as the material world devoid of consciousness, excluding humans. Which would define the "ground of being" as physical reality apart from any human interest such as Life, Consciousness or Choice. So, Existentialism*2 seems to shut-down the subject of ideal God vs material Reality, not open it up.

Have you found any of the arguments presented in this thread to be "interesting" or "practical"? :smile:



*1. Common arguments for the existence of God include the cosmological argument, the teleological argument, the ontological argument, the moral argument, and the argument from religious experience. These arguments explore different facets of existence, from the origins of the universe to human morality and personal encounters with the divine, to suggest God's existence.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=common+arguments+for+god

*2. In existential philosophy, particularly in the work of Jean-Paul Sartre, "being itself" (or "being-in-itself," en-soi) refers to the mode of existence of inanimate objects and the fundamental, non-conscious reality of all things. It is characterized by a fullness of being, a self-contained and unreflective existence, lacking consciousness, self-awareness, and the capacity for choice or transcendence.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=being+itself

In contrast, more nuanced conceptions of God, such as Paul Tillich’s idea of God as the "Ground of Being" or David Bentley Hart’s articulation of God as Being itself - represent attempts to have this conversation in metaphysical terms rather than anthropomorphic ones. — Tom Storm

In his disdainful reply above, 180proof dismissed metaphysical god concepts as a "distinction without a difference". When I referred to Aristotle's non-anthro-morphic metaphysical concept of First Cause as "Infinite Potential", 180 sneered : "so it's not scienrific. . . . . it's not coherently philosophical". Yet you seem to be open to Metaphysical reasoning.

As usual, 180 argues against idealism & deism with “kick the rock” reasoning : his “no testable predictions” is equivalent to “I refute it thus”*1. Like Sam Johnson, he missed the point of Berkeley's Idealism : not denial of material reality, but acknowledgment of the filter of individual interpretation (conception) of personal perception. Perhaps he thinks the distinction between Perception (pain) and Conception (rock hurts toe) is immaterial, hence meaningless, and unscientific, and "not coherently philosophical".

Do you think there is a valid philosophical distinction between Percepts and Concepts, between Physics and Metaphysics? :smile:

*1. Physical Percepts vs Metaphysical Concepts :
Samuel Johnson famously refuted Bishop Berkeley's philosophical idealism by kicking a stone, declaring "I refute it thus!". This act, meant to demonstrate the existence of material reality, is often seen as a simplistic response to Berkeley's complex philosophical arguments according to Wikipedia. Berkeley's philosophy, known as immaterialism, argued that objects only exist as perceptions in the mind, not as independent material entities. Johnson's action, however, highlighted the perceived solidity of the rock and the pain of kicking it, suggesting that these were undeniable material experiences. 
Critics point out that Berkeley never denied the reality of sensory experiences like pain or the solidity of objects. Berkeley's point was that these perceptions are all that we can know, and there's no need to posit a separate material substance.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=johnson+kick+the+rock
Note --- Obviously, humans do indeed imagine & assume that material objects can cause pain. That makes sense, from a materialistic worldview. Ironically, the cause of pain for Johnson was his own intention & action.

Clearly, either you didn't read / comprehend my last post (esp. the video clip) or it's just your fatuous disingenuousness wantonly on display again, sir :eyes:

Try again: read slowly (without moving your lips) ...
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/998557

Either Laozi's Dao or Democritus-Epicurus' Void seem to me more cogent concepts of 'fundamental power to be(come)' than the Scholastics' (generic) "ground of being" insofar as they make explicit the dynamics (dialectics) of seeking balance / moderation in daily life. Also, the Hindi concept of Brahman and school of Advaita Vedanta ("Tat Tvam Asi") as a nondualistic way of life seems far less abstract and remote (i.e. non-immanent) than "ground of being".

Also, the Hindi concept of Brahman and school of Advaita Vedanta ("Tat Tvam Asi") as a nondualistic way of life seems far less abstract and remote (i.e. non-immanent) than "ground of being". — 180 Proof

That seems sound, based on the smattering I know about it. The 'Ground of Being' strikes me as an amorphous and unhelpful model, but perhaps it makes more sense to students of Tillich.

Does the notion of God as ground of Being have any "practical use" in your world? Does it "open up" a new path for philosophical dialog? What do you find interesting about their theological "work"? Their approach seems to be based on the Ontological Argument*1, that goes back to Anselm's definition of God as self-evident to rational thinkers : if God is Being itself, then disbelief would be denial of Existence.. — Gnomon

Yes, disbelief is a denial of existence, perhaps put more crudely than someone like David Bentley Hart might phrase it. He would see it as the performative contradiction of atheism. But this only holds if you accept his reasoning and model to begin with. A presuppositionalist would argue that God is the necessary precondition for us to even have a conversation, so in debating God's existence, you're actually proving it. Not convincing to me, but a delightful argument nonetheless.

I'm interested in models of God from the perspective of a curious person, not because I'm looking for answers. In fact, I’d say the same about other philosophical topics like ‘truth’ or ‘morality’. I’m interested in what others think and why and see what I may have missed.

Do you think there is a valid philosophical distinction between Percepts and Concepts, between Physics and Metaphysics? — Gnomon

Yes, they are distinct but related areas that influence and inform each other.

Have you found any of the arguments presented in this thread to be "interesting" or "practical"? — Gnomon

I have found many observations interesting (not sure what you mean by arguments) like this one which summarises the foundational nature of my OP:

Neither Hart nor Tillich are working with new ideas. What they are expressing has been Christian orthodoxy for pretty much all of (well-recorded) Church history. It's the official theology of the Catholic and Orthodox churches, encompassing a pretty large majority of all current and historical Christians (and many Protestants hold to this tradition to).

It is, for instance, what you will find if you open the works of pretty much any theologically minded Church Father or Scholastic: St. Augustine, St. Bonaventure, St. Maximos, St. Thomas Aquinas, either of the Gregorys, St. Bernard of Clairvaux, St. Gregory Palamas, etc. — Count Timothy von Icarus

Members have said many interesting things as I've read along and even some of the disagreements have been intriguing. One response that stood out to me was this:

Philosophical accounts of theism are not necessarily more sophisticated, so I'd start by pushing back at that built in bias.

Theism that concentrates on logical consistency, empirical support, and scientific compatibility speak to a philosophical bent, and the suggestion inherent in that bent is that theism is an avenue for knowledge in the same sense as is philosophy. That is, to suggest that theism that aims to be philosophical is superior to theism that doesn't, is to implicitely reject theism in its own right. — Hanover

That's worth thinking about. I'm often drawn to the idea that a faith shouldn't need to rely on extravagant curlicues of reasoning and scholarship, nor on blind obedience to dogma. For the 'average' person, the real question seems to be: what is God for? How do they enter the idea, not as a conclusion from abstract proofs, or a fear-based response, but as something lived, felt, or needed? Is there a third way? The apophatic approach does spring to mind, but even here a certain level of sophistication and capacity for abstracts seems to be required.

For the 'average' person, the real question seems to be: what is God for?

This is interesting, my next question is what are we for?
For people like me the second question leads one to ask the first.
Some people just seem to want to know the answer to these questions, so in a sense God is an answer. Perhaps this urge, or need to find out what’s going on, why we are here, what we are doing(in the grander scheme of things) is part of being human. Either this urge is because there is a spiritual dimension and we preparing to return to it. Or there isn’t and it is just some evolutionary trait that happened and we’re inadvertently indulging in some kind of wishful thinking, or coping mechanism.
Is this all just a happenstance coming together of random circumstances. Or is there something else going on?
I suspect people have been asking this for a very long time.

A presuppositionalist would argue that God is the necessary precondition for us to even have a conversation, so in debating God's existence, you're actually proving it. Not convincing to me, but a delightful argument nonetheless. — Tom Storm

Sounds like a long word for Faith prior to Evidence. If you accept that blind faith is a good thing, then you will be hooked into whatever belief system you are currently engaged in. I suppose it's a clever argument for appealing to non-philosophers. But I don't see why you call it "delightful". :smile:

Do you think there is a valid philosophical distinction between Percepts and Concepts, between Physics and Metaphysics? — Gnomon
Yes, they are distinct but related areas that influence and inform each other. — Tom Storm

I was hoping for a more informative response. What is the pertinent difference between those pairs, in view of the "rambling OP", about "cartoon gods" and "mawkish literalism"? :cool:

I have found many observations interesting (not sure what you mean by arguments) like this one which summarises the foundational nature of my OP: — Tom Storm

It seems that the "foundational nature" of your OP shows a preference for medieval Catholic Scholastic rationalistic arguments*1 over modern empirical Atheist vs Theist debates or observations. For example, "Apophatic" arguments for God, may sound erudite, but they only seem reasonable if you accept their premise that God is wholly other (unknowable, ineffable, supernatural) to the real natural world, and its imperfect (fallen) humans. But more critical philosophers may see it as a ruse*2 to trick the gullible into fooling themselves into accepting the Catholic definition of God (e.g. Unity & Trinity). :nerd:

*1. Philosophical Argument vs Faith-based Observations :
In philosophy, an argument is a structured set of statements (premises) intended to support a conclusion. It's not simply a disagreement or a quarrel, but a reasoned attempt to justify a belief or claim. Arguments in philosophy are typically categorized as deductive or inductive, and understanding their structure and validity is crucial for philosophical inquiry
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=philosophical+arguments

*2. Ruse : Use negative abstract reasoning to disqualify positive empirical reasoning.

Sounds like a long word for Faith prior to Evidence. If you accept that blind faith is a good thing, then you will be hooked into whatever belief system you are currently engaged in. I suppose it's a clever argument for appealing to non-philosophers. But I don't see why you call it "delightful". — Gnomon

Well, it’s delightful when you consider that atheists often claim reason helps us reject theism, and here is a theistic argument flipping this around and suggesting that the atheist’s use of reason is itself evidence for God. Many also go on to invoke the evolutionary argument against naturalism as the next step hoping to demonstrate that reason is only reliable if guaranteed by a deity. I think this is a fun argument and some philosophers take it seriously, e.g., Edward Feser, Alvin Plantinga and Richard Swinburne.

I was hoping for a more informative response. What is the pertinent difference between those pairs, in view of the "rambling OP", about "cartoon gods" and "mawkish literalism"? — Gnomon

I'm not a philosopher or metaphysician, so I don't have much to say on those subjects. What exactly are you asking? Are you asking how measurable, empirical physics differs from speculative metaphysics? Or how abstractions compare to experience?

The difference between a cartoon god and a philosophical God is evident in the conduct such beliefs often inspire. You're more likely to be jailed for homosexuality, or not to take action on climate change, etc, in the literalist world. So the matter has some significance.

Well it is delightful when you consider that atheists have maintained that reason assists us to disbelieve theism, while the presupp says the atheist's reason and its effectiveness is a key proof of God. Many also reach for the evolutionary against naturalism as the next step. I — Tom Storm

I get the irony of both sides of the God Argument claiming human Reason as their agent to prove or disprove the existence of our modern invisible intangible "shy" God, who no longer works major miracles to prove His power to rationalizing skeptics. Since both sides have the same armament, that's why Atheism vs Theism disputation has been a Mexican Standoff for centuries. But in a practical popularity sense, it's still no contest.

However, the average religious believer probably does not know or care about abstruse Scholastic reasoning. Their Faith is in the heart, not the head. And atheistic reasoning against the God postulate probably sounds like nit-picky criticism of what's obvious to them : that the world is under cosmic control, whether you call it Fate or Faith. Their modern miracle is a 2000 year old book of revealed Truth. In the New Testament epistle of James 2:18, "“You and I have faith; I have works. Show me your faith without works, and I shall show you my faith by my works.” The typical believer behaves as-if God is real, and feels no compunction to prove that feeling by erudite reasoning.

Yet, those of us who post on philosophy forums, are aware that Faith without Reason is commonplace among simple-minded credulous people. Hence, the thousands of practical "faiths" throughout the world : from 4000 year old Hinduism to 20 year old Church of the Highlands*1. So, we autodidact wisdom-seekers search for a truish belief system, whose factish contents work-together to structurally support a flimsy over-arching film of Faith. Unfortunately, for some of us, the insubstantial immaterial rational evidence does not add-up to a real God --- only to an imaginary deity in a godless world.

However, for others more technically inclined, empirical Science has concluded that Reality itself, on the foundational quantum level, is only as substantial as the statistical mathematics used to describe it. For example, Quantum Mechanics is explicitly non-mechanical, and the material objects being processed are themselves essentially subjective*2 : believe it or not. Hence, score one for the God team. And the beat goes on . . . . . :joke:


*1. "By 2018, Church of the Highlands was listed as the tenth largest megachurch in the United States, according to CBS News"
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=highlands+church+history

*2.In the realm of quantum mechanics, the notion of objectivity is challenged. Some interpretations suggest that facts in the quantum world can be subjective, meaning that different observers might experience different realities. This arises from the fundamental principles of quantum mechanics, where objects can exist in multiple states simultaneously (superposition) until observed. Upon observation, the superposition collapses, and the object assumes a definite state
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=quantum+objects+subjective

Since both sides have the same armament, that's why Atheism vs Theism disputation has been a Mexican Standoff for centuries. — Gnomon

Well, no, I think it’s rather more than that. In the end, any debate about God isn’t simply theism versus atheism. It’s about what we hold to be true. Arguments for or against God are really arguments about what counts as a valid claim to truth. And here’s the thing: how can we ground our knowledge at all? How can we make any truth claim if our words are arbitrary and if evolution has shaped us for survival, not for discovering truth? That’s what many think is behind this debate: whether we can reliably say anything unless there is some objective grounding for our language and reasoning. Where do the laws of logic fit into this? Are they inviolable features of reality, or just contingent products of the human cognitive apparatus something more like what Kant might have suggested?

However, the average religious believer probably does not know or care about abstruse Scholastic reasoning. Their Faith is in the heart, not the head — Gnomon

Firstly, should we even care what the average believer thinks? And secondly, is that view accurate? I don’t think faith is something found in the heart in some deep, private sense. I see it as a contingent product of culture and language. Most people arrive at faith through socialisation and the intersubjective agreements held by the community they grow up in. Faith is in the culture.

Yet, those of us who post on philosophy forums, are aware that Faith without Reason is commonplace among simple-minded credulous people — Gnomon

That sounds very Richard Dawkins to me. There's a huge thread on faith here that suggests many other ways this can be understood.

In the realm of quantum mechanics, the notion of objectivity is challenged. — Gnomon

I have no expertise in QM but the idea of objectivity is not something I think holds up particularly well at the best of times. My own intuition holds that humans do not get to truth or reality (these are god substitutes for the current era).

Arguments for or against God are really arguments about what counts as a valid claim to truth. — Tom Storm

I think God-arguments in philosophy are "really" about what is the real.

And here’s the thing: how can we ground our knowledge at all?

Afaik, foundherentism works ...

... should we even care what the average believer thinks?

I never do.

I see it as a contingent product of culture and language. Most people arrive at faith through socialisation and the intersubjective agreements held by the community they grow up in. Faith is in the culture.

:up: :up:

Yes, I like Susan Haack.

Well, no, I think it’s rather more than that. In the end, any debate about God isn’t simply theism versus atheism. It’s about what we hold to be true. Arguments for or against God are really arguments about what counts as a valid claim to truth. And here’s the thing: how can we ground our knowledge at all? — Tom Storm

The OP topic sounds like a reference to intellectual debates between two opposite standpoints : Theism (God is) vs Atheism (no god). Did you intend to make this thread more complex (sophisticated?), by including various shades of opinions on "shin-barking" reality vs Ultimate Reality?. Do you want to change the focus from God to Truth?

Non-philosophers seem to "ground" their knowledge in trusted authorities on the topic : Priests, Theologians, Preachers, etc. But philosophically-inclined thinkers seem to be more trusting of their own personal powers of reason. So, they "ground" their knowledge in formal rational exploration : Epistemology (theories to support beliefs). And that seems to be where the OP is pointing. But such threads typically wander away from the original topic. :smile:

The OP topic sounds like a reference to intellectual debates between two opposite standpoints : Theism (God is) vs Atheism (no god). Did you intend to make this thread more complex (sophisticated?), by including various shades of opinions on "shin-barking" reality vs Ultimate Reality?. Do you want to change the focus from God to Truth? — Gnomon

I think the thread has shown a diverse range of responses to the OP, so I’m pleased. But these things tend to take on a life of their own, as you've suggested. I don't place too much weight on any particular sentence or paragraph, it’s all just a big casserole of ideas built around a hero ingredient. I'm not looking for this to go anywhere in particular. It's a conversation.

But philosophically-inclined thinkers seem to be more trusting of their own personal powers of reason. So, they "ground" their knowledge in formal rational exploration — Gnomon

I'm not sure about that. Philosophically inclined thinkers seem to rely upon the work of others: heavy hitters in the subject (Plato, Aristotle, Nietzsche, Husserl, etc) . And they are focused on pre-existing models as understood through scholarship - formal and modal logic, phenomenology, pragmatism, post-structuralism, etc. It's a fairly small cohort.

I haven’t found that this thread is pointing in any particular direction, but it has highlighted a key theme: a conversation about what counts as a coherent or useful idea of God. Which is why the following (although ostensibly about Kant's position) is a good summary.

Quoting @Wayfarer

"So when Kant says that God is “beyond all possible experience,” that’s true within the bounds of his system. But that’s also the crux of the critique: what if those bounds are too narrow? What if there are legitimate forms of insight that don’t conform to his propositional model? Mystical traditions, contemplative practices, and certain strands of idealist or existentialist philosophy have all tried to develop alternatives to that constraint. Which is not to reject Kant but to broaden the context in which his questions are considered.

In that sense, the question isn’t just “what can we know?” but “what counts as knowing?” And that’s still very much a live question.

Mystical traditions, contemplative practices, and certain strands of idealist or existentialist philosophy have all tried to develop alternatives to that constraint. Which is not to reject Kant but to broaden the context in which his questions are considered.

In that sense, the question isn’t just “what can we know?” but “what counts as knowing?” And that’s still very much a live question.

Very much so, do you know about 95% of my philosophy and what I spend my time thinking about, I can’t write on this forum. Because it’s a different language from what is discussed here. At best it gets pigeon holed as some kind of panpsychism, or mysticism. And yet I can’t go to a spiritual, or mystical based forum to discuss it there because they are places full of people with very little critical rigour in their philosophies, or ideologies. Most of it is out and out woo. I expect you know what I am referring to as you spent time involved in the New Age movement.

I have three, or four friends and family members who I can debate with on these issues and I’m happy to carry on in isolation apart from that. But there doesn’t seem to be a community where this is discussed with any kind of intellectual rigour.

I know that there are spiritual based organisations and communities within the schools of thought, such as Buddhism, Yoga, Theosophy etc. But I don’t want to become involved in any of these movements at this point. I’ve been there and done that.

And yet I can’t go to a spiritual, or mystical based forum to discuss it there because they are places full of people with very little critical rigour in their philosophies, or ideologies. Most of it is out and out woo. I expect you know what I am referring to as you spent time involved in the New Age movement. — Punshhh

Yes, that’s an interesting point. If you take this material seriously, it’s not easy to find people who are disciplined or rigorous about it. It’s been a long time since I was involved in any real way. The closest I can get to what you’re saying is that my fullest experience of the world is entirely intuitive and I can't always access words to explain why I choose certain paths.

I know that there are spiritual based organisations and communities within the schools of thought, such as Buddhism, Yoga, Theosophy etc. But I don’t want to become involved in any of these movements at this point. I’ve been there and done that. — Punshhh

I hear you. Do you mind if I ask, what does it feel like to hold the beliefs you have? Is there reassurance, or a profound sense of meaning? Or is it ineffable?

Do you mind if I ask, what does it feel like to hold the beliefs you have? Is there reassurance, or a profound sense of meaning? Or is it ineffable?

I don’t really hold beliefs any more, (apart from beliefs relating to living a life in the world), because they are intellectually derived, rather, I see them as an obstacle. Faith is different, because it isn’t entirely intellectually derived. For me faith plays a role similar to humility, piety(a piety largely absent religious meaning) and a sense of communion (not religious).

Yes, there’s reassurance, a sense of meaning and knowing and an ineffable part, which is what is contemplated beyond what we know in this world. An ability to maintain these things in the face of incoming conditioning and problematic situations with friends and family etc and defuse them.
I suppose the main benefit, is a sense of peace, contentment, happiness etc. While nurturing a sense of wonder and a childlike humility.
(I spent many years engaged in self development, rooting out conditioning, trauma and indoctrination. Alongside meditation, contemplation and rebuilding my personality etc. along with developing a personal spiritual philosophy and mystical practice.)

I haven’t found that this thread is pointing in any particular direction, but it has highlighted a key theme: a conversation about what counts as a coherent or useful idea of God. . — Tom Storm

Since you opened the door to alternative concepts of God, I'll mention a chapter in the book --- by James B. Glattfelder (physicist turned quantitative analyst) --- I'm currently reading, subtitled : What a modern-day synthesis of science and philosophy teaches us about the emergence of information, consciousness and meaning. The chapter title is : Don't Be Silly, and the general topic is Consciousness. But a sub-theme is Panpsychism, which seems to the a modern substitute for traditional God-models among some non-religious scientists and philosophers. The author quotes a newspaper headline : "Why can't the world's greatest minds solve the mystery of consciousness?"

I won't go into the specific "sophisticated" arguments, but I'll list a few of the great minds. Arguing on the "pro" side of Panpsychism are David Chalmers, Philip Goff, Galen Strawson, Bernardo Kastrup, and David Bently Hart. On the "con" side, arguing against Panpsychism, are Daniel Dennett, Patricia Churchland, and Peter Vickers. Regarding the debate between Vickers and Kastrup, the author says "both thinkers seem to find it hard to grasp what exactly the other is really saying". So, the key barrier to communication seems to be "systemic and structural cognitive biases" in the form of Realistic vs Idealistic worldviews & belief systems.

In a previous book --- after noting that he has been accused of being motivated by religious beliefs --- Glattfelder says : "I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it". And one aspect of that "world structure" seems to be what some thinkers call Panpsychism : "Panpsychism is a philosophical theory that proposes consciousness is a fundamental and ubiquitous feature of reality". Hence, no need to posit a traditional transcendent God to explain the emergence of metaphysical human consciousness in a physical world, that appears to be 99.99% non-conscious matter. :smile:

... a conversation about what counts as a coherent or useful idea of God. — Tom Storm

I think "a conversation about God" presupposes some idea of the real which usually is neglected and remains vague (or confused).

... what some thinkers call Panpsychism:

"Panpsychism is a philosophical theory that proposes consciousness is a fundamental and ubiquitous feature of reality". — Gnomon

You might find my contrarian view useful – from a 2022 thread Question regarding panpsychism ...
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/891939

I won't go into the specific "sophisticated" arguments, but I'll list a few of the great minds. Arguing on the "pro" side of Panpsychism are David Chalmers, Philip Goff, Galen Strawson, Bernardo Kastrup, and David Bently Hart. On the "con" side, arguing against Panpsychism, are Daniel Dennett, Patricia Churchland, and Peter Vickers. Regarding the debate between Vickers and Kastrup, the author says "both thinkers seem to find it hard to grasp what exactly the other is really saying". So, the key barrier to communication seems to be "systemic and structural cognitive biases" in the form of Realistic vs Idealistic worldviews & belief systems. — Gnomon

I’m familiar with the work of most of those writers. Kastrup is the most engaging in person and on his blog though his books are a bit dense and convoluted for my taste. Dennett, the Churchlands (when Pat's husband was still alive), and Vickers are all bêtes noires of the higher-consciousness crowd, often reviled as materialist muppets who miss the obvious. Hart's account of Dennett is particularly brutal. I can't claim expertise in the area, but I find it interesting that Graham Oppy, a philosophically sophisticated atheist whom Hart respects, considers himself an identity theorist when it comes to the mind. Oppy claims to have resolved some of the mistakes made in earlier versions of that account. But this is for elsewhere.

Hence, no need to posit a traditional transcendent God to explain the emergence of metaphysical human consciousness in a physical world, that appears to be 99.99% non-conscious matter. :smile: — Gnomon

Sure, but I’m not asking for explanations of the world or reality. I’m asking how people defend and describe more philosophical accounts of God.

Glattfelder is a form of idealist who combines information with consciousness as the fabric of reality. It’s all very interesting, but it belongs in the idealism thread. As it happens, I’m not even sure I would count Kastrup’s Mind-at-Large as a God surrogate, although one might sneak it in as borderline. The issue is that Kastrup (like most idealists) needs some kind of intervening cosmic force to unify his various strands and ideas borrowed from Jung and Schopenhauer. He comes up with this cosmic mind idea as an alternative to Schop's “will.” For Kastrup, the Great Mind is instinctive and not metacognitive, so many of the attributes of God are missing. But I guess it qualifies as 'the ground of being' given we are all dissociated alters springing from this primal stream of consciousness which is all there is.

I think "a conversation about God" presupposes some idea of the real which usually is neglected and remains vague (or confused). — 180 Proof

I can certainly see how this works. What percentage of Americans do you think are sincere God believers? It's pretty low here in Australia and most Aussies are embarrassed about religious conversations.

I suppose the main benefit, is a sense of peace, contentment, happiness etc. While nurturing a sense of wonder and a childlike humility. — Punshhh

That sounds like a useful position to be in. Thanks.

What percentage of Americans do you think are sincere God believers? — Tom Storm

I'd be surprised if it isn't more than 50% ....