The point is we're an easily led species who generally tend to converge on similar notions, doesn't make them any more right. — Inter Alia

Okay... where was I claiming that easily converging on similar notions makes them right? All I said was countering your notion that theologians don't have a decent understanding of what God is, an understanding that is adequate as far as reason can go, but no further.

you should really speak to the hundreds of theologians who been trying to find out what God is for the last 2000 years — Inter Alia

I grew up as a Young Earth Creationist. I was a literalist and a true believer. Our church proclaimed that they had the correct interpretation of scripture, and all other denominations were wrong- and they could prove it. They taught that if you wanted to stay out of hell, then you better get saved the way they said it had to be done.

But, I was involved with a youth group that was respectful of other denominations. After I graduated from high school, I went to a Christian college in another state and met Christians with all kinds of various beliefs. I started looking for a good church... I think I hoped to find one that was accepting of evolution and science in general, and one that didn't treat women like 2nd class citizens. I never did find that church (I suspect some do exist).

Somewhere along the line I started declaring myself to be an atheist. It just seemed to me that all religions were man-made. I had no way to of judging between different denominations or even religions. I now believe that if the Christian God exists, then he must be a vindictive monster who loves slavery- at least that's the way he looks when I read the Bible. If the Bible got some things wrong about God (or anything else)... then why trust it at all?

I love Socrates as portrayed by Plato. I hear him saying, "Maybe we're wrong... maybe the Gods are better than us." It's almost funny to me that when religions write about their "good" God, he ends up looking like a monster (or at least as human as the people who imagined him). I wouldn't say that I believe, but lately I find myself I kinda hoping that there is a virtuous God, and/or a God so other that He can't really be imagined. I'm just not sure where to look for Him. I do like reading the Christian Existentialists... specifically Gabriel Marcel. On the other hand, there are days when I consider the history of Christianity (and the influence of Christians on the latest election in my country) that I hesitate to associate myself with Christianity in any way.

Then again the story of a God who loved humanity so much that He was willing to suffer greatly in order to redeem them is a good one. Maybe Christianity can be and deserves to be "saved".

'Theism' as it is used in Philosophy of Religion is the view that there is one supreme, perfect being who exists separately from the world, who is the creator and sustainor of the universe, who is conscious to the degree of being all-knowing; who is all-powerful, all and ever present, eternal, unchanging, existing necessarily, dependent of nothing else. In addition, Theism maintains that this being, who is called "God", loves and is concerned about humanity. It is claimed that Theism, as here understood, stands at the core of the three Abrahamic religions: Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. — Mitchell

Apparently by theism you refer to something else than theism, and by philosophy of religion you refer to something else than philosophical thinking of the topics of religion, because that's not what theism means.

I find 4 of Feser's arguments unconvincing because they rely so heavily on Thomistic metaphysics, which I find also unconvincing. His fifth argument, the Argument from PSR, holds most promise, but his dismissal of the Objection from Brute Facts seems to me to beg the question. — Mitchell

Shame that the PSR is falsified in the Free Will Theorems of Kochen and Conway.

Well then enlighten me. Having taught Philosophy of Religion for 25 years, I'd be very interested to learn what I have been doing wrong all those years

Theism means belief in any deity/deities. Monotheism, belief in one deity, often includes properties such as omnipotence, -benevolence, -science, etc. but these qualities are not parts of the definition of deity.

For further reading, I recommend Google and Wikipedia :)

If you've really been teaching the definition of monotheism as theism for 25 years, I feel extremely sorry for your students, although surprised as well if they've never corrected you, because this is all secondary school material.

Perhaps, then, I need to be more specific. What I gave as a definition of Theism IS the way in which it has been used in Philosophy. Since this is a Philosophy Forum, I thought it redundant to call it Philosophical Theism, also know as "Classical Theism"

Since you recommend Wikipedia as a scholarly source, let me refer you to the article there called "Classical Theism" here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_theism"

Since you have questioned my integrety as a professor, please do me the favor of reading that article.

This is honestly probably the first time I hear of referring to classical theism as only theism, as if other beliefs didn't exist as far as philosophy is concerned.

Since Western Philosophy occurs in a predominantly Christian culture, and other forms of theism are not prevelent, it is Classical Theism that has received most of the attention.

So the question was about the existence of a deity and your reasoning is that because you can disprove the existence of the christian God and you're only considering the question in the context of the culture you live in, no deities exist?

Sort of, but not exactly. If the Christian (and Muslim) God does not exist, I don't see any reason for positing a different kind of deity. So the question is what reasons are there for thinking that there is/are "lesser" dieties. I find J.S. Mill's argument for a more limited God unconvincing, as it relies on a First Cause Argument.

Another question that I think needs to be addressed is whether there is any reason for believing some "supernatural" dimension of reality exist. This question could be independent of that of any deiity. E.g., there could be reincarnation without any deities at all.

So, what reasons do you think there are for the existence of a divine being, and what type of divine being do those reasons support?

What you have to remember is that most people who believe in God don't arrive at their conclusion or conclusions based on good arguments. They believe for a variety of causes or reasons based on how they were raised, culture, who they respect, etc. So their foundation for belief is much different from those who come from a philosophical perspective, which generally uses the rules of correct reasoning to come to a conclusion (logic). Moreover, the terms used in philosophy tend to be more precise then what the general public uses, so reasoning as defined by the general public tends to be very subjective.

So when you say "share your reasoning" I assume you're talking about the use of good argumentation based on logic, not an opinion based reasoning. After spending roughly 40 years within the Christian community and teaching Christian apologetics in some churches over the years, it's my belief based on analyzing the arguments that there are no good arguments for the existence of the Judeo-Christian God. Of course that's not to say there isn't any evidence to support Christian beliefs. For example, there is sufficient evidence that Christ was a real historical person, and that he had disciples, but that doesn't mean there is sufficient testimonial evidence to support the claim that he was God incarnate, or that he rose from the dead.

I'm also not limiting my belief to knowledge acquired through the use of logic. I say this to point out that there are other ways of acquiring knowledge, logic is only one tool, but it's a very good tool. It's possible of course that someone could have a direct experience with God, but of course how could you show that your experience is valid? People do claim such experiences, but they tend to be very subjective, and open to a wide variety of interpretations. For example, I've been in churches where people are singing and praising God and as a result of an emotional experience they believe the Holy Spirit is speaking to them. Another example is that many within a religious community will read the Bible, and maybe a passage or verse generates an emotion, and as a result, they'll interpret this as God speaking to them. I say all of this to point out that although sensory experiences are valid ways of acquiring knowledge, internal experiences are very subjective an open to a wide variety of interpretations. You can always interpret some internal experience in terms of your religious belief. It then tends to become self-sealing, and not subject to being falsified.

Finally, many within the church will claim that it's not a matter of evidence or correct reasoning, etc, but it's a matter of faith, i.e., they believe their faith speaks to something higher than reason or evidence. However, there is a huge problem with this kind of thinking, i.e., it's very subjective an open to all kinds of claims. This kind of thinking can lead to almost any kind of religious belief. One can always avoid well reasoned arguments against one's religious beliefs based on the idea that it's a matter of faith. It's true that people acquire their religious beliefs in this way. However, most rational people want to know if it's a fact that God exists, an objective fact.

I have to agree with BlueBanana, there are many issues with what you've said here. I'm far from a professor, but I do have a bachelor's degree in Philosophy and studied philosophy of religion in many classes in college, and none of my professors ever referred to Classical Theism as just Theism. Neither did any of the authors we read. Probably because it's inaccurate to do so. What if I started calling Polytheism just "Theism"?
"Theism is the worship or belief in multiple gods and goddesses"
It's misleading and just plain incorrect.
And now you're essentially saying that, because one type of idea is the most predominant in the area where you are located, it's okay to speak as if it's the only idea. That's just not how things work, especially in philosophy.

So, what reasons do you think there are for the existence of a divine being, and what type of divine being do those reasons support? — Mitchell

One day I was watching my dog play or do something silly/cute. I can't remember the exact thing she was doing because she's being cute like a gazillion times a day. That exact moment is when I turned from believing only in physicalism and determinism to religious pluralism.

It wasn't exactly my dog, though. The reason for this was my subjective experience of that moment and my subjective experience of my dog's awesomness. That was the first time I truly felt consciousness and I was fully awake.

Well, enough of this rambling about my dog as a divine messenger of the one true God, the meaning of my life, the bringer of light, the one who shall banish the squirrels from our yards etc etc. Basically it's the hard problem of consciousness and the emergence of experience from matter. (But just saying, what's dog spelled backwards?)

What leads to my view of what the deity/deities are arouses from these experiences. I know there're deities, and I know the omni-everything God is false because of the problem you pointed out. My beliefs are partially formed by my irrational bias and wishes, but, based on those claims, I believe that the false assumptions in classical theism are omnipotence and/or omniscience. The god (or gods - their number is an irrelevant minor detail that I'm not bothered with) is omnibenevolent, which includes that they want freedom and free will, which means they can't work against it.

Another question that I think needs to be addressed is whether there is any reason for believing some "supernatural" dimension of reality exist. This question could be independent of that of any deiity. E.g., there could be reincarnation without any deities at all. — Mitchell

There could also be reincarnation without any supernatural dimension, or even any supernatural entities at all.

Another question that I think needs to be addressed is whether there is any reason for believing some "supernatural" dimension of reality exist. This question could be independent of that of any deiity. E.g., there could be reincarnation without any deities at all. — Mitchell

I'd be interested in when this "supernatural" dimension first appeared in the philosophy of religion. It seems that Aquinas, following Maimonides, and ultimately Aristotle, regarded the Soul as Form of activity of the body - the soul is non-material, but it is certainly physical, and is subject to the laws of physics.

Perhaps the first occurrence of "supernatural" is the Gnostic heresy?

Do you happen to know when the error of separating God from Reality firs occurred?

1. Regarding ‘Theism’ as short for “Classical Theism”. Let me stipulate that when I used the term ‘Theism’, I thought it would be understood as meaning “Classical Theism”, which is defined as I indicated. But whether you accept that usage or not, it is the way philosophers working in the Philosophy of Religion have used it. To illustrate this, go to Amazon.com and under books, enter “Theism” to see books in print that focus on Classical Theism, but use the shorter term. Some of the books are philosophy; others are theology.
2. My definition of Theism was simply meant to make clear what concept of God I was going to talk about and whose existence I was going to deny. I would like to bring our focus back to the question asked by the O.P.
3. My remarks about what concept of God was the focus of Western Philosophy was not in any way meant to suggest that philosophers should only address the concepts operating in their culture. It was a flippant attempt to explain why other forms of Theism, as well as other concepts of divinity, have not been given much, if any, attention.
4. Just in passing, I’d like to note that J. S, Mill wrote an essay titled “Theism” in which he argued against the Classical Theistic conception of God and argued for the existence of a more limited God who is unable to do anything about the Problem of Evil.

I'd put the first appearnce of an eternal realm separate from the physical world in Plato. Although he called the Forms "divine", they weren't in any sense "gods".

The appearance of (a) God separate from the world seems to me to be, in the West, to occur in Genesis 1. God existed separate from the world and created the world. To say that God is separate from the world does not rule out his interacting with the world. What it does rule out is both Pantheism and totally immanent deities.

Perhaps the first occurrence of "supernatural" is the Gnostic heresy? — tom

Surely it is the accounts of the miracles of Jesus Christ, including walking on water, bringing the dead back to life, feeding the multitudes with a loaf of bread, restoring the lame and the blind, turning water into wine, then being resurrected from the dead and ascending bodily into Heaven.

As far as Platonism is concerned, the early, Greek-speaking theologians, notably Clement of Alexandria and Origen, among others, integrated Christian beliefs with Platonic philosophy. Plato and Socrates were said to be 'Christians before Christ', meaning that although they were technically 'pagan philosophers', they still exemplified the kinds of virtues associated with Jesus Christ.

From a philosophical point of view, many of the problems around understanding the relationship between divinity and the world arise out of the attempt to 'objectify' deity or think of him/it as something that exists somewhere. As the 'aphophatic' tradition of theology points out, God is not only beyond the world but also beyond any attempt to conceive of him/her/it. But God has manifested or appeared in the world - according to Christianity in the person of Jesus, (although the identity of the Jesus with God was actually a major source of conflict in the early Church.)

the soul is non-material, but it is certainly physical, and is subject to the laws of physics. — tom

Bearing in mind, Aristotle's laws of physics were thoroughly refuted by Galileo, and they included teleology, final causes, which likewise are excluded from modern physics.

Surely it is the accounts of the miracles of Jesus Christ, including walking on water, bringing the dead back to life, feeding the multitudes with a loaf of bread, restoring the lame and the blind, turning water into wine, then being resurrected from the dead and ascending bodily into Heaven. — Wayfarer

Annie Dillard reminds us that the practice of attributing miracles to religious teachers also occurred in Judaism.

Of course. There are legends of miracles throughout ancient cultures, but here the question was specifically in regards to a discussion about Christianity, or so I thought.

Fair enough.

However, most rational people want to know if it's a fact that God exists, an objective fact. — Sam26

There needs to be a distinction between objective and transcendental. I think understanding of Kant is important in this respect. In particular the demonstration that what we know of reality is what appears to us, not what reality is in itself. Our apprehension of any objective facts whatever is mediated by our senses and grasped by the intellect according to the categories of understanding. This emphatically does not mean that the world only exists in the mind or in perception, as other forms of idealism assert. What it does mean is that knowledge of phenomena is necessarily mediated and limited by the human sensory apparatus and our own categories of the understanding. So the appeal for an 'objective fact' about God is to overlook that fact, and in effect to demand that God is something that can be known by the same means we know other objects in the world.

Now I perfectly agree that religious enthusiasm is a fertile source of delusion and wish-fulfilment, there's no question about that at all. But I think it's a large leap from there to then claim that all supposed claims of divine illumination or intuitive insight by sages and religiously-inspired individuals is merely or only subjective. There is a vast literature surrounding such accounts, not only from one culture or one period of history, and one thing that is striking in it, is the degree of commonality between those accounts, even if they're separated by enormous periods of time and language. That is the insight of such popular works on comparative religion, such as Alduous Huxley's book The Perennial Philosophy and Huston Smith's The World's Religions. If you reject all that you really end up with some species of scientism or positivism which is an arid wasteland from the spiritual point of view.

I'm curious to hear what people on a philosophy forum have to say about their own person theistic beliefs. — JustSomeGuy

Rather to my own puzzlement I've become a sort of religious atheist in these, my latter years. I can rarely make sense of 'arguments' for 'deities'. But I recognize profound feelings in myself and others, including people I know well, and some of these are 'religious'. Such feelings sometimes are judgements: that something is beautiful, or important, or an excellent clue to right action. Insight can arise out of such a mixture of emotion and reasoning.

I also see religion as a practice. There is a drama of one kind or another: a ritual in a church, chanting in a temple, or people getting together to talk or sing or dance. People emerge from such dramas with a sense of deep meaning.

'Belief' seems to me a bit of a gloss on all this, a sometimes clumsy way of trying to make sense of these feelings and experiences in the light of all that's gone before us. I like to read and watch Greek dramas as a guide to all this. Some of us are like Sophocles and take the rituals and the gods seriously; some of us are more like Euripides, doubting the gods make any sense at all, but having a regard for divinity all the same. I think a Euripides would be as sceptical of the strutting gods of analysis as of the weird mono-capitalise-me-Gods that the Middle East bequeathed to us.

I think the sense of 'objective' Sam refers to is not the sense of 'empirical object' but is in the sense of 'intersubjective'. If the reality of God is not/cannot be an intersubjective fact, then what can it be but a subjective opinion, feeling or item of faith, or else a metaphor for an experience?

'. If the reality of God is not/cannot be an intersubjective fact, then what can it be but a subjective opinion, feeling or item of faith, or else a metaphor for an experience? — Janus

How about, none of these, but that’s a really useful thing to articulate!

That doesn't answer the question; it just deflects it. You don't believe in God yourself, in any case; according to your own testimony.

Actually, I retract what I said about 'objective' being in the sense of 'intersubjective'. If God is actually real independently of human experience, then that does not constitute an intersubjectve fact, but a kind of objective fact, even though God obviously cannot be an object of the senses. That goes for anything that we might want to claim exists absolutely, or independently of human experience, because logically any such purported existence can only be other than existence as an object of the senses.

Thanks for sharing. I'm thinking along similar lines.

If God is actually real independently of human experience, then that does not constitute an inter-subjective fact, but a kind of objective fact, even though God obviously cannot be an object of the senses. — Janus

Hence, 'transcendent'. That doesn't mean 'vague wishy-washy amorphous entity'. Not objective, because firstly, not an object but a subject; and secondly, the precondition of the existence of all individual subjects and objects.

D.B. Hart: “one infinite source of all that is: eternal, omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent, uncreated, uncaused, perfectly transcendent of all things and for that very reason absolutely immanent to all things.”

I also see religion as a practice. There is a drama of one kind or another: a ritual in a church, chanting in a temple, or people getting together to talk or sing or dance. People emerge from such dramas with a sense of deep meaning. — mcdoodle

Hey McD - did you notice the writings of Karen Armstrong on these issues, about 6-7 years ago now? A couple of short reviews that go to the point you're making:

Metaphysical Mistake

Review of her A Case for God, Alain du Botton.

(Both from The Guardian.)

If your own subjectivity has an existence which is not merely merely imaginary then it has in that sense an objective existence.

Obviously the same goes for God. If 'transcendent' means 'beyond human experience' and you answer the question as to what kind of existence God has beyond human experience by saying He has a transcendent existence that amounts to saying no more than thst He has a ' beyond human experience' kind of existence'. Whether He does have such an ecistence we cannot kniw (because it is beyond huan experience) so for us it cannot but be an opinion, feeling or metaphor.