How do you get the enhanced answers like this? I always only get the main Yes, No or other replies. — DoppyTheElv

Set the "response details" to "fine".

This link may do it for you.

While there, take a look at

Insufficiently familiar with the issue 1 / 3226 (0.0%)

One person out of over three thousand thought they had insufficient familiarity with the issue. Compare that to the same response in other questions in the survey. They know what they are talking about. Well over four fifths reject theism; Hence, much less than one fifth accept the arguments for God.

That is, those who are best trained to understand and adjudge the arguments overwhelmingly reject them.

I suppose that arguably those who accept the arguments stop being philosophers to become theologians. One might expect theologians not to be affiliated with a philosophy faculty. Indeed, if you look at the results for unaffiliated respondents, the result better suits @3017amen's position, but only by a couple of percent.

So in so far as you were asking in the OP what the position of philosophers generally is to the arguments, they reject them.

This breakdown is specifically for philosophers of religion.

God: theism or atheism?

Accept: theism 108 / 177 (61.0%)
Accept: atheism 22 / 177 (12.4%)
Lean toward: theism 13 / 177 (7.3%)
Lean toward: atheism 11 / 177 (6.2%)
Agnostic/undecided 8 / 177 (4.5%)
Reject both 5 / 177 (2.8%)
Accept another alternative 4 / 177 (2.3%)
Accept both 2 / 177 (1.1%)
Accept an intermediate view 1 / 177 (0.6%)
Skip 1 / 177 (0.6%)
Other 1 / 177 (0.6%)
There is no fact of the matter 1 / 177 (0.6%)

Here I'd just add that the question in the survey is "theism vs atheism", not "do you accept the arguments".

LOL! Hi momo! You had told me the screen name, but I had forgotten in. Good luck!

The Thomist formulations of these arguments are certainly bound up in outdated and problematic mechanics/(meta)-physics (and its not just Thomas' take on Aristotle, one of the Ways, iirc the Fourth, is bound up in some extremely bizarre neo-Platonism as well), which will obviously make the arguments difficult to accept, as formulated, for anyone not already inclined towards those frameworks.

But its worth considering the historical context there- at the time Thomas was writing, the non-logical works of Aristotle had only recently been re-introduced to the Latin-speaking world, and were widely viewed as a threat to orthodoxy- they were widely banned and censured. So Thomas was as (or more) concerned with showing that Aristotle could be used to support theism/Christianity, as he was about proving the existence of God. And he was more aware of the shortcomings of his enterprise than many modern apologists appear to be (e.g. Craig), as in the quotes from the Summa I posted in the other thread, he was well aware of the fact that these arguments presupposed faith more than they were able to persuade or induce one who wasn't already sympathetic to their conclusions. They're more rationalizations or reassurances for the faithful, than genuine proofs or demonstrations that can establish something that is seriously in dispute.

One central question relative to that existence becomes, how can the atheist make any objective statements about the non-existence of a God when he/she cannot even provide adequate explanations about the nature of their own existence? Or another philosophical way of asking that is, what means or method will provide for the ability to make factual statements about the existence or non-existence of those aforementioned things-in-themselves (?). — 3017amen

Why suppose this definition of atheism rather than the Dawkins scale or a four scale one in which we split atheists into two evidential claims of confidence (gnostic and agnostic)? I'd be careful with supposing this is what every person means by atheist and first consult them personally to specify what they happen to mean by said label as well as their own personal opinions on the matter.

Further, a mirage still exists to the perceiver and perhaps other perceivers as well. Should anyone claim that they are not experiencing anything at all: no. Would they come to find what they've previously experienced as palm trees or pools of water if they kept walking in that direction: no they would find only more sand. So it's real but only in one sense and not in another. . . basically we need rather specific clarification of terms. Such as your definition of god. As well as a clarification of whether you are more of a monist with respect to existence or pluralistic as Meinong was with his jungle.

Unfortunately, most atheists fall into a similar extremist camp, much like the far-right fundamentalist's do. Meaning, it has the potential to become an antagonistic or resentful or 'I've got an axe to grind' exercise or mentality (even Einstein spoke to that). Nevertheless, as it relates to Philosophy, the irony is that over 75% of Philosophical domain's invoke God, like it or not, as an axiomatic standard by which things are judged. For example:

1. In Ethics: Christian ethics.
2. In Metaphysics: Descartes metaphysics
3. Epistemology: George Berkeley
4. Contemporary philosophy: Soren Kierkegaard
5. Logic: Kant's synthetic a priori knowledge
6. In the philosophy of Religion: God
7. Political philosophy: separation of church and state/In God we trust. — 3017amen

Thank you (sarcasm) for comparing atheists and other respectable philosophers equivalent to far-right fundamentalists. For political philosophy it a question of sociology and the fact that although you or me may not hold a similar metaphysical position with respect to some general public (minority or majority) it still factors into a proper free system of governance that no one religion should take special precedence or political power directly, that is unless you desire to begin a modern religious crusade through avenues of persecution.

In the philosophy of religion there is the study of religion which has god in it which mean that if you want to study religion which has god in you will study religion and also god. . . why this wouldn't be included you explain to me.

Ethics? The only ethics that should be of concern are our interpersonal relationships, values, particular situations, and our psychology which intermingle on a daily level. Even those who advocate christian ethics must at least admit that their metaphysical opinions to the subject matter take a second seat to pragmatic concerns. God isn't going to ever be called to a witness stand or be a part of a jury as it will always be humans judging humans.

Metaphysics and philosophy? There are people that are theists in philosophy and metaphysics. . . this is such a shock I would have never discovered it without your help. But for real, no atheist should be either denying that such philosophies or perspectives not exist let alone that such discussions have or do take place. At least I don't and I would take on such a label of atheist. . . don't straw man me please.

The Thomist formulations of these arguments are certainly bound up in outdated and problematic mechanics/(meta)-physics (and its not just Thomas' take on Aristotle, one of the Ways, iirc the Fourth, is bound up in some extremely bizarre neo-Platonism as well), which will obviously make the arguments difficult to accept, as formulated, for anyone not already inclined towards those frameworks. — Enai De A Lukal

What books do I buy to learn more about the refutations of these mechanics and the mechanics themselves?

Thanks Banno.

I would imagine you can find a good deal of information on the transition from Aristotelian mechanics to classical mechanics free on the internet without needing to buy books, and virtually anything on the early history of classical mechanics will cover the "refutation" of Aristotelian mechanics (although I'm not sure "refutation" is the best term here- I'd say that Aristotelian physics was more replaced or superseded than strictly "refuted", though being inconsistent with observation was certainly a major part of it so I guess this is mostly semantics). But this is properly more of a physics topic than a philosophy topic so I'm afraid I don't have any specific book recommendations for you (sorry). Play around on Google- try "Aristotelian mechanics" or "Aristotelian mechanics vs. classical mechanics" or something like that.

Welcome aboard! Gee, well, I want to engage in debate and discussion but I'm not sure where to begin with that. I mean it almost seems like a purging of sorts, which is completely fine, however, what is the central point of your argument that are you trying to make?

The only thing that comes across very clearly is you taking exception to stereotyping atheist's. Your socio-political view seem to be a bit rambling. How about taking one of my metaphysical questions and exploring that?

In other words I'm not interested in discussing religion and how it relates to society.

Because they’re non-sequiturs. Do you know what that term means? It means they have nothing to do with the topic of conversation — Pfhorrest

That couldn't be further from the truth. What is it about metaphysics are you struggling with?

Again it seems as though if the questions are inconvenient for your intellect you ignore them and cry foul.

180 Proof
1.4k
↪180 Proof I wonder how many atheists began their doubt with the Brothers teaching them the Five Ways? Perhaps it wasn't such a good idea.
— Banno
For most ex-Catholic atheists, it seems, doubt began in grade school or early high school 'bible study' without or, for some, years before reading The Quinque viæ. Good parochial schooling (at least in America) has been a fairly effective inoculation against the catechistic disease. E.g. Ciceronianus the White & @Frank Apisa can attest to that. Close study of Biblical history, as well as its scriptural contents, or Church history "wasn't such a good idea". Not only Aquinas, but Luther et al too, share a lot of the blame or praise. — 180 Proof

Yeah, for me...except for the fact that mine lead to agnosticism rather than atheism. And it happened a bit later for me. I was about 21.

At age 20, I actually served Mass in St. Peter's Basilica in the Vatican. By age 21 - 22 I was agnostic...and have been ever since.

When believing in a doctrine comes to require not only an effort, but one that demands acceptance of unsubstantiated assumptions and the repeated performance of uninspiring ceremonies, it's hard to remain a believer. I'm just saying.

Ciceronianus the White
1.1k
↪180 Proof

When believing in a doctrine comes to require not only an effort, but one that demands acceptance of unsubstantiated assumptions and the repeated performance of uninspiring ceremonies, it's hard to remain a believer. I'm just saying. — Ciceronianus the White

In my opinion, the ceremonies of the Catholic Church and, let's say, the British Royalty...are far from uninspiring. I think they inspire the hell out of people...which is the reason they are used with such effectiveness.

A procession of the Royal Guards or a procession of Cardinals and Bishops causes all sorts of emotions in me...some, admittedly very negative, but some enormously inspiring. A Mass or Requiem written by one of the masters is as moving to me as any other classical piece. The beauty of some cathedrals can move me almost to tears...as can much of religious art.

Those things I hold apart from my feelings about religion itself.

:up:

That couldn't be further from the truth. — 3017amen

Apparently I’m not the only one who thinks otherwise:

If you have anything intelligent to say that's not a non sequitur vis-à-vis anything I've said, then now's the time to say it, 3017. Otherwise, move along; I've done you the courtesy of posting clear answers to a list of arbitrary questions, so make your tendentious point — 180 Proof

I’m not going to bother answering your long list of arbitration questions because it’s an obvious waste of time, and 180 Proof here was more charitable than you deserve in doing so himself.

The reason why I ask is because I cannot differentiate bad philosophy from good philosophy. — DoppyTheElv

Perhaps you'd appreciate a more straightforward account of the God Concept. Robert Wright, science writer & philosopher, has written a book --- The Evolution of God --- examining how human ideas about spirits & gods have evolved over millennia. It's not presented as a philosophical argument, but as a historical and psychological account of evolving human moral imagination.

He says that he is writing from a Materialist perspective. But he does not identify as an Atheist. Instead, while he believes that "God" is a "figment of human imagination", he also says, " I don't think that precludes the possibility that as ideas about God have evolved people have moved closer to something that may be the truth about ultimate purpose and ultimate meaning... " That is very close to my own understanding, since I too see signs of Teleology in Evolution --- along with Steven Pinker, The Better Angels of Our Nature, and Michael Shermer, The Moral Arc. The ancient First Cause argument is compatible with my own notion of how our world came to be, but I add some modern scientific information to my Enformationism worldview. :smile:

Robert Wright : . . . has a strictly materialist conception of natural selection; however, he does not deny the possibility of some larger purpose unfolding, that natural selection could itself be the product of design, in the context of teleology.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Wright_(journalist)

My point is the arguments for God's existence do not have the power to convince anyone God exists - only Theists accept them. Why bother? — Relativist

The difference between philosophical arguments and mathematical arguments is mathematical truth is demonstrable. Once proven it can't be unproved. Philosophical arguments are not as focused. There is a lot of wiggle room so people can reject these arguments.

The question could be reversed: Arguments for God's [non] existence do not have the power to convince anyone God [does not] exist - only [A]theists accept them. Why bother?

While people strive for objective truth in philosophy, philosophical arguments can be subjectively interpreted.

I made my bones, so to speak, in a Church where the mass was said in Latin. I was a wine-pouring, patin-holding participant in the great Latin rite, and chanted away in that language with the best of them. I refer to the pallid, monotonous, grotesquely banal ceremony and liturgy which replaced it.

Teilhard de Chardin’s writings are forgotten in name only.

Do't read him; he's naughty. The Pope says so.

Perhaps we might all agree on the excellence of the philosophical contemplations of the apostates of the one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church?

Ciceronianus the White
1.1k
↪Frank Apisa

I made my bones, so to speak, in a Church where the mass was said in Latin. I was a wine-pouring, patin-holding participant in the great Latin rite, and chanted away in that language with the best of them. I refer to the pallid, monotonous, grotesquely banal ceremony and liturgy which replaced it. — Ciceronianus the White

The new stuff is dull. I agree. Wholeheartedly. The Latin Mass got lots of heat back in the day, but when changed, it was missed almost immediately.

But a procession of Cardinals and Bishops can be inspiring. That was all I was saying.

Banno
8.6k
↪Ciceronianus the White ↪180 Proof ↪Frank Apisa

Perhaps we might all agree on the excellence of the philosophical contemplations of the apostates of the one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church? — Banno

Yes we can.

Although...it is funny that I am as agnostic as they come, but when certain people who call themselves "Christians" start to pick on the Catholics...my dander gets up (whatever that means.)

Ditto :smirk:

Holy Mother Church gave me a great deal. A love of reading, learning, tradition; a fascination with the Roman Empire, of which it is a kind of ghost; an interest in the ancient pagan religions and philosophers it borrowed from so freely. So, I'm not ungrateful, but haven't been a son for many years.

Ah, you missed the sore arse and lifelong psychological damage. Good.

The question could be reversed: Arguments for God's [non] existence do not have the power to convince anyone God [does not] exist - only [A]theists accept them. Why bother? — EnPassant

I don't thing there are any good arguments for God's non-existence. I also don't think beliefs are formed that way. Atheists like me got there by questioning our basis for believing in God, and finding it lacking.

While people strive for objective truth in philosophy, philosophical arguments can be subjectively interpreted. — EnPassant

Sure, but that makes the arguments pretty pointless. I guess they make theists feel better about themselves - but that's pretty superficial.

↪180 Proof ↪Frank Apisa ↪Banno
Holy Mother Church gave me a great deal. A love of reading, learning, tradition; a fascination with the Roman Empire, of which it is a kind of ghost; an interest in the ancient pagan religions and philosophers it borrowed from so freely. So, I'm not ungrateful, but haven't been a son for many years. — Ciceronianus the White

Sweet bleeding Jesus! I'm not the only one. :sweat:

↪Ciceronianus the White Ah, you missed the sore arse and lifelong psychological damage. Good. — Banno

:rofl: :pray:

I don't thing there are any good arguments for God's non-existence. I also don't think beliefs are formed that way. Atheists like me got there by questioning our basis for believing in God, and finding it lacking. — Relativist

I don't think a/theists believe or disbelieve on the basis of intellectual machinations - they are post hoc and apologetic, on both sides. The decision for a/theism is more subtle that that.

This thread has made me feel terrific. I'm not alone in my realization that the Church peddled nonsense to me and I accepted it for years...but although I have broken away completely, there still is that regard for some of the "rigmarole" of the institution despite my resentment of it.

Its religious teachings are nonsense...and little more than superstition, despite the fact that many of the teachings attributed to Jesus are as valid as the teachings of any reasonable and moral individual. Although I am a dedicated agnostic, I am still sure that if there are gods (or a single GOD) those entities or that entity will almost certainly be nothing like the caricature venerated and worshiped in Catholicism or Christianity in general.

But like a Jew who realizes the absurdity of "the God of Abraham" yet who still feels cultural and traditional alliance with fellow Jews who are religious ...there is that underlying sense of identity and camaraderie in me with/for certain Catholic sensibilities.

My sister and I were speaking of this earlier this year around Easter (she is an atheist) and we noted that neither of us would feel comfortable with eating meat on Good Friday.

Of all the bizarre things! But neither of us would...and I know honestly it has nothing to do with fear of a god punishing us for disobeying a rule of a church. It is a cultural reaction.

Indeed, social identity runs deep.

Thanks for sharing your stories.

...neither of us would feel comfortable with eating meat on Good Friday. — Frank Apisa

Indeed, ritual runs deep. So on Good Friday I make a point of eating a roast leg and watching Life of Brian.