I'm saying that what you were saying is false due to our stream of consciousness.

As to the commandment "love others as self" I think that is perfectly natural for a socially functional animal, and does not necessarily require any special extra beliefs in anything transcendent, although it may require that for some, but I think it all depends on the way one thinks. — Janus

But if such ideas are

simply a contingent fact of brain evolution. — Terrapin Station

Then there's no reason to believe them, they are not grounded in anything other than contingent facts. Some people just happen to believe such things - and good on 'em! But the problem is, it doesn't amount to a philosophy.

From the above-mentioned review of D B Hart:

the New Atheists ingeniously deny the existence of a bearded fellow with superpowers who lives in the sky and finds people’s keys for them. Daniel Dennett wants to know “if God created and designed all these wonderful things, who created God? Supergod? And who created Supergod? Superdupergod?”—thereby revealing his lack of acquaintance not only with Augustine and Thomas but with Aristotle.

It was Aristotle who wrote that “one and the same is the knowledge of contraries.” Denys Turner...puts the matter like this: “Unless…what believers and atheists respectively affirm and deny is the same for both, they cannot be said genuinely to disagree.”

There are, then, a great many people who say “God” and mistakenly believe that they have the notion, at least, in common. Hart is interested in clarifying the notion, and one of his deeper points is that the major theistic religions do indeed have something in common when they say “God.” ....Hart’s “own” definition: “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.”

As Hart makes plain... that definition is not Hart’s, but one shared by most major religious and philosophical traditions. It is as much Aristotle’s definition as it is Moses Maimonides’s and Thomas Aquinas’s and Mulla Sadra’s and, indeed, Spinoza’s. It describes equally Brahman and Yahweh.

I can't tell if that's a yes or no.

So for example, I just thought, "I can't tell if he's answering yes or no." I didn't think anything about a goal.

Then there's no reason to believe them, — Wayfarer

To believe them? It's not clear to me what you're referring to. To believe what?

That would be false because your goal is to seek the truth.

Therefore you have an inherent higher consciousness.

And that in part, is another reason why Atheism is untenable. No?

That would be false because your goal is to seek the truth. — 3017amen

No. I don't have a goal to seek the truth unless I'm consciously thinking "I have a goal to seek the truth."

You don't have goals that you're not aware of and focused on as goals.

And I think it's called the subconscious LoL

I don't buy that there are any subconscious mental phenomena.

Sure, volitional existence. As a goal you chose Atheism LoL

Then there's no reason to believe them,
— Wayfarer

To believe them? It's not clear to me what you're referring to. To believe what? — Terrapin Station

The specific belief in question was 'treat others as self', as an example of Christian principles. Janus then said:

I think that is perfectly natural for a socially functional animal, — Janus

So I replied by referring to your post:

People do think in terms of normatives and purposes and so on. It's simply a contingent fact of brain evolution. There's no purpose, there's no "should" to brains evolving as they did. — Terrapin Station

So I'm using that to show that naturalism can be questioned as a basis for ethics, because it provides no reason or grounding for such principles as 'love thy neighbour'. Basically it says they're a by-product of an essentially meaningless process. And I'm using your quote to illustrate that.

Sure, volitional existence. — 3017amen

Say what?

As a goal you chose Atheism LoL — 3017amen

Atheism isn't a goal for me. It's simply a term for a belief I have.

The specific belief in question was 'treat others as self', — Wayfarer

I wouldn't say that's a belief. It's an exhortation. Beliefs have to do with thinking that something is the case.

But it's grounded in a belief system, is it not? And that is what the whole thread (and many such threads) are about, right?

I don't buy that there is any subconscious mental phenomena.


When you're driving a car daydreaming and run a red light and crash into someone is that your conscious or subconscious?

Regarding atheism as a belief, it sounds like another religion, doesn't it?

The subject has compelling evidence for the existence of an experience that s/he conceptualizes as 'seeing god". Alternatively s/he could conceptualize it as "realizing Buddha Nature", "seeing the unity of Atman and Brahmin", " becoming who I am" "Satchitananda" (being, consciousness, bliss), "attaining enlightenment", "rejoining the Ocean of Being", 'wandering in the dreamtime". "playing in the Akashic fields" " strawberry fields forever" "lucy in the sky with diamonds" " McArthur's Park is melting in the dark" " it's all too beautiful" and so on ad infinitum. — Janus

There are a lot of good things to call it. The category you catalog is the peak experience made famous by Abraham Maslow. "Seeing god" is one way to say it and in the moment of "seeing god" and saying "I see god" god exists to the one who sees him.

Although, understanding spirituality in terms of experience and/or realisation is already a step ahead of (un)belief in Sky Father.

Some say God is truth
Some say God is false — 3017amen

Would you that spangle of Existence spend
About The Secret—quick about it, Friend!
A Hair perhaps divides the False from True—
And upon what, prithee, may life depend?

A Hair perhaps divides the False and True;
Yes; and a single Alif were the clue—
Could you but find it—to the Treasure-house,
And peradventure to The Master too;

Whose secret Presence through Creation’s veins
Running Quicksilver-like eludes your pains;
Taking all shapes from Máh to Máhi and
They change and perish all—but He remains;

A moment guessed—then back behind the Fold
Immerst of Darkness round the Drama roll’d
Which, for the Pastime of Eternity,
He doth Himself contrive, enact, behold.

—From FitzGerald's Rubaiyat of Omar Khayyam

Full truth: you have a health sense of humor.

Hey 180 don't be shy come join the party!

LOL — 3017amen

He is too busy to attend your boring theist party. Atheists party hard.

Hey 180 don't be shy come join the party!

LOL — 3017amen

Buzzin'.

1. God does not exist.

True or false or something else? — 3017amen

Flypaper.

Couldn't one have a goal of Nilhilism? — 3017amen

"Nihilism is as dead as god." ~Thomas Ligotti

As a goal you chose Atheism LoL — 3017amen

Avoids flypaper, and keeps buzzin' ... :death:

Ergo, belief in God is not a belief about something that exists or doesn't exist. It's a belief about the meaning of what exists. A theistic philosophy posits that the nature of the Universe is such that it means or implies the reality of a source of order which cannot itself be understood on the level of phenomena. — Wayfarer

I agree. Storybooks are NOT about whether or not the characters exist. Hence: atheism.

If I claim a unicorn is standing in front of Harris Teeter at 3 pm every Wednesday, it is NOT about whether or not the unicorn exists, but instead whether or not this claim is true.

What I'm trying to explain is that the 'God' that atheism says doesn't exist, really doesn't exist, but that this doesn't validate atheism. Mainly it’s a straw god argument with which Internet forums abound. — Wayfarer

It validates atheism IN THE CONTEXT of that God. Hence, the point.

Atheism DOES NOT care about Gods that say nothing to care about. To say that atheists claim NO GOD EXISTS is a poor interpretation of what atheism claims. Atheism (positive atheism anyway) claims that only the gods claiming to be important - do not exist, and does so by demonstration.

That by default includes not just theism, but deism, Hindu's and all other bizarre supernatural gods and the unicorns.

It does not include which ever 'possible' IF ANY AT ALL, yet to mean anything..

:strong: :rofl: https://i.ytimg.com/vi/KEnsRTfIKzc/hqdefault.jpg

He is too busy to attend your boring theist party. Atheists party hard. — Swan

But tonight they're going to act out the Dead Sea Scrolls!

Speaking of half-truths, actually you halfway joined the party already LOL!! — 3017amen

We'll have to send you to a halfway house until you can go all the way.

Storybooks — Swan

Tip your temptation glass at the big Theist party, but be careful not to spill a drop:

As to the commandment "love others as self" I think that is perfectly natural for a socially functional animal, and does not necessarily require any special extra beliefs in anything transcendent, although it may require that for some, but I think it all depends on the way one thinks. — Janus


But if such ideas are

simply a contingent fact of brain evolution. — Terrapin Station


Then there's no reason to believe them, they are not grounded in anything other than contingent facts. Some people just happen to believe such things - and good on 'em! But the problem is, it doesn't amount to a philosophy. — Wayfarer

It's not a matter of believing anything but of recognizing what is the most effective way to live harmoniously and happily with community. So, if humans generally tend to exemplify this characteristic of caring about others in their community, this is not merely a "contingent fact of brain evolution" but a trait which has been selected for insofar as communities of loving people are more likely to survive than divided communities of hateful or indifferent people.

Recognition that the Golden Rule exemplifies the best way for living well in community does not diminish the philosophical value of such a way, any more than following the Dao would not amount to a philosophy. Per Aristotle it's called phronesis; practical wisdom.

So this:

So I'm using that to show that naturalism can be questioned as a basis for ethics, because it provides no reason or grounding for such principles as 'love thy neighbour'. Basically it says they're a by-product of an essentially meaningless process. And I'm using your quote to illustrate that. — Wayfarer

is quite wrongheaded; there is nothing meaningless about living well in community. Naturalism is not an axiomatic "basis for ethics" but what is natural to humans is likely to be what works best. Today because of consumerism, entertainment and the self-centredness they foster, community, and concern for others, at least in the populous urban environs, has, unfortunately, largely declined. All this is more on account of capitalistically oriented thinking, and the sense of individual ownership and entitlement that comes with it than anything else.

and in the moment of "seeing god" and saying "I see god" god exists to the one who sees him. — ZzzoneiroCosm

If you say that is the extent of god's existence, I can find no disagreement. :grin:

Today because of consumerism, entertainment and the self-centredness they foster, community, and concern for others, at least in the populous urban environs, has, unfortunately, largely declined. All this is more on account of capitalistically oriented thinking, and the sense of individual ownership and entitlement that comes with it than anything else. — Janus

Which is attributable to social psychology and philosophy. Suicide is a leading cause of non-natural death in contemporary culture, and I’m sure it’s tied to the underlying nihilism of modern cultural psychology.

And what I mean by ‘naturalism’ is ‘current scientific naturalism’ which is generally physicalist in outlook. It’s nothing like the ‘natural law’ ethics of Aristotelianism or for that matter Taoism, or any of the pre—modern social codes which you appeal to above. There’s no basis for ethics in Darwinism, other than the kind of utilitarian ethos that is suggested by the notion that the only ‘purpose’, so-called, of existence is passing on the genome.

Capitalistic thinking, as it has evolved historically, is attributable to a whole range of conditions, not least of which has been the discovery and exploitation of fossil fuels. Social psychology and philosophy come into it too, but I think they are more expressions of the mindset that comes with prosperous economic conditions than the other way around.

Modern culture is no where near as nihilistic as you imagine it. It's just that the prevailing values have become overly focused on the individual, but that is much more a symptom than it is the cause of the decline of community. That comes inevitably with large densely concentrated urban populations, or so it seems to me.

I think philosophical physicalism plays almost no part in most people's lives; they are just not that interested in metaphysics. The point is that the idea of natural law, in the sense of a natural social/ethical orientation for human beings, is sufficient to ground ethics. It seems to me you are forever attacking strawmen when it comes to this question; time to let it go and refocus.

I thought it went without saying that God is not a physical entity but spirit. — Wayfarer

Depends on who you're talking to, I guess. I agree insofar as God is incoherent as a physical entity anyways. But I tend to bring up the possibility just in case.

My argument here is basically that what we nowadays understand as 'what exists' comprises the 'domain of phenomena' - those things, forces, entities, that are knowable by scientific means, the realm of naturalism, and so on. So, most often, when the question is asked whether God exists, it presumes that God is part of that domain of phenomena. Hence the 'flying spaghetti monster', the 'celestial teapot' and all the other memes that you encounter in internet atheism. — Wayfarer

I have a bit of a different view on the matter. I think that a problem of the theism/atheism debates among laypeople is that whatever is meant by "existence" is not properly defined at all. This means that people tend to mix physical and metaphysical perspectives, in addition to mixing epistemic, ontic and normative perspectives. More often than not, you end up with a big mess with everyone talking past each other.

I don't think there is a general trend among people towards dismissing the metaphysical. I think that, now as in the past, people who aren't familiar with the philosophy of epistemology tend not to make a clear distinction between the two.

All the 'new atheists' (in particular) don't understand what it is they think doesn't exist. — Wayfarer

Do you think that, if they understood, they wouldn't be atheists? I think I understand, at least the basics, but I am not convinced.

The vital perspective that has gone missing is that of degrees of reality. This is related to a worldview grounded in the idea of the chain of being - that reality emanates from or is originated by a transcendent intelligence, and cascades down through various levels of being, of which matter is the lowest level, i.e. most remote from the origin or source. — Wayfarer

That perspective too requires justification though. How do we judge whether this perspective is, for lack of a better word, true?

And as our culture sees matter as being the only reality, then obviously understanding or coming to terms with that outlook is quite a difficult matter. — Wayfarer

I don't think that's an accurate assessment of our culture. Materialism is not quite the same as physicalism.

It will point out that whilst all phenomena are compound and transient, there is something that the intellect can grasp that is not, and that is the reality of number and geometric form. So represents knowledge of a different kind to sensory knowledge - it's direct intellectual apprehension, dianoia. — Wayfarer

Right. I agree that such a-priori apprehension exists. But that alone is not sufficient to establish a platonic world of intelligibles.

I think that a problem of the theism/atheism debates among laypeople is that whatever is meant by "existence" is not properly defined at all. This means that people tend to mix physical and metaphysical perspectives, in addition to mixing epistemic, ontic and normative perspectives. More often than not, you end up with a big mess with everyone talking past each other. — Echarmion

Agree!

All the 'new atheists' (in particular) don't understand what it is they think doesn't exist.
— Wayfarer

Do you think that, if they understood, they wouldn't be atheists? I think I understand, at least the basics, but I am not convinced. — Echarmion

Well, they might still be atheists but not on the basis of such facile arguments.

Dawkins' book The God Delusion begins with a chapter on Einstein as an exemplar of 'the very religious non-believer'. It's perfectly true that Einstein would not have a bar of institutional religion and thought it childish nonsense. But he said many things that contradict atheism, such as his well known (and bona-fide) statement 'Try and penetrate with our limited means the secrets of nature and you will find that, behind all the discernible laws and connections, there remains something subtle, intangible and inexplicable. Veneration for this force beyond anything that we can comprehend is my religion. To that extent I am, in fact, religious.'

Likewise, I don't think anyone ought to believe that science 'proves' or 'shows' anything about 'God' whatever. At best it suggests certain perspectives. The way I put it is like this: that to believe that it proves that God doesn't exist, is the fallacy of scientific materialism; and to believe that it proves that He does, is the fallacy of religious fundamentalism. So, many of the arguments that naturalism 'proves' or 'shows' that the origin of life/mind/universe is understood by science are just as otiose as the fundamentalism that they're typically trotted out to oppose. Actually materialism and fundamentalism have a rather symbiotic relationship.

I agree that such a-priori apprehension exists. But that alone is not sufficient to establish a platonic world of intelligibles. — Echarmion

Of course, it's a very big, contested and subtle topic, and I'm never going to be able to do it justice in a few lines on a philosophy forum. Suffice to say that I accept the fundamentally Platonic notion that 'ideas are real' - and not just in the sense that they exist in some (physical) brain.

The vital perspective that has gone missing is that of degrees of reality....
— Wayfarer

That perspective too requires justification though. How do we judge whether this perspective is, for lack of a better word, true? — Echarmion

In its absence, there is no epistemic framework for the understanding of 'degrees of reality'. We tend to think that 'existence' is univocal - that something either exists or that it doesn't. But I think any kind of metaphysics has to allow for the fact that things can be more or less real. Of course, it's a big subject but I'm pointing to the fact that without taking it into consideration, then our assessment of the issues is likely to be rather one-dimensional.