I wonder what anyone would have against the God of the philosophers. I like the idea of a God creating the world such that living a virtuous life would lead to flourishing as a human, and everything else is pure speculation. — anonymous66

Yes I obviously agree with God creating the world such that virtuous living leads to flourishing. The God of the philosophers is a phrase used by Pascal to represent what philosophers usually mean by God - something abstract, instead of Real that you can encounter right now. The Christian God for example is a personal God - you can have a relationship with God, indeed it's that relationship that makes all the difference. Whereas the God of the philosophers isn't a person - it's a "force" or something similar. The problem with that is that such a god means absolutely nothing to you in the end but an abstract concept - a story.

Which philosophers turn God into an impersonal force? Do you include the scholastics and neo-scholastics in that assessment?

Do you include the scholastics and neo-scholastics in that assessment? — Aaron R

No, at least not all of them. St. Thomas Aquinas, or Augustine for example certainly don't turn God into an impersonal force. But Averroes does turn God into an impersonal force (first cause).

Which philosophers turn God into an impersonal force? — Aaron R

The Stoics, for example. Or Plotinus.

What do you mean by the thumbs up lol? Thumbs up for what?

Lol....sorry. It just means "I agree".

Haha okay!

I haven't read much about this, so I can only speculate. Perhaps K was expecting to be able to reach a total commitment, and then realized he could not do it, and that his wavering was hurting R.

I think this is an interesting question. Is the Christian God the only really personal God, due to His human incarnation? On the other hand, the Islamic mystic Rumi sometimes refers to God as "the Friend", and seems to be in love with Shams-i-Tabrīzī as an incarnation of the living God. So, is the notion of, and the feeling for, a personal God implicit only in the Abrahamic religions (as distinct form Hinduism, Buddhism, Daoism, etc) and explicit only in Christianity?

Ah, but you forgot my favourite 'type' of atheism - serene atheism, in which the problem of God simply... isn't one; in which the only proper orientation to God is sheer indifference, where God's 'existence' or 'non-existence' are not even problems, beneath consideration, a triviality: "A tranquil atheism is a philosophy for which God is not a problem. The non-existence or even the death of God are not problems but rather the conditions one must have already acquired in order to make the true problems surge forth" (Deleuze, Dialogues). Put otherwise: the very idea of a God is a grammatical mistake - it doesn't qualify as a coherent object of serious reflection - either positive or negative. — StreetlightX

'Smart-arse' or 'one-upman' Atheism?

I think it was "I'm fine with nihilsm. It's not a problem. Really. What is nihilism again?"

>:O

Schopenhauer did not adhere to any religion, but he was a religious man nonetheless. He affirmed the existence of the transcendent through his philosophy. — Agustino

So he doesn't fall into any of the categories you listed?

No, I wouldn't consider Schopenhauer an atheist.

I think this is an interesting question. Is the Christian God the only really personal God, due to His human incarnation? On the other hand, the Islamic mystic Rumi sometimes refers to God as "the Friend", and seems to be in love with Shams-i-Tabrīzī as an incarnation of the living God. So, is the notion of, and the feeling for, a personal God implicit only in the Abrahamic religions (as distinct form Hinduism, Buddhism, Daoism, etc) and explicit only in Christianity? — John

I think a personal God requires revelation, and the Abrahamic religions are the only religions where there is any sort of historical revelation. Such revelation implies communication, and communication necessitates two or more persons. The difference between the Abrahamic faiths and the other religions is that the Abrahamic faiths are historical - they represent a continuous story and march through history, in opposition to Buddhism, for example, which is static and unchanging in terms of history.

I wonder what anyone would have against the God of the philosophers. I like the idea of a God creating the world such that living a virtuous life would lead to flourishing as a human, and everything else is pure speculation. — anonymous66

When it comes to questions such as whether or not God created the world in this way or that, then the obvious question which ought to precede it is whether or not God created the world. As an atheist, I don't believe that God created the world, and as a reasonable person, I recognise that whether or not I like the idea is irrelevant to whether or not it's true.

As someone who does not believe that God exists, but who nevertheless has an interest in ethics, I would simply isolate ethical questions, such as whether living a virtuous life would lead to flourishing, from any unnecessary implications about God having created the world.

What happens after we die? I don't know, no one does... there are several different stories. Which one appeals to you? — anonymous66

Why do you ask? Why would that matter? I think that that's completely the wrong question to ask, philosophically. Maybe the story that appeals to me is the story in which we all become flying pink unicorns and prance about amongst the stars. A better question would be along the lines of which theory is the most plausible.

Many atheists suppose that rejecting the expression X is enough to convince someone that the-truth-pointed-at-by-X is nonexistent, but this is a clear error. — Mariner

The obvious thing to do would be to get the person to tell us of this supposed truth which is "pointed at" by X, and demonstrate how the one does indeed "point to" the other. If they can't, then that's that. It would be unreasonable to expect anyone to believe in anything that you claim to believe in if you can't even explain what it is that you claim to believe in. And if this supposed link is evidentially weak and leaves open numerous other possibilities and plausible explanations which do not involve any God (or "X", if you prefer), then that is not by any stretch a good enough reason to believe what you believe (or claim to believe) rather than something else which contradicts what you believe (or claim to believe).

That and the clichés are getting as overused as their unsubstantiated, oft-repeated, charges of logical fallacies with whosoever they discuss 'God' with. — Ali Abubakr al-'Afari

You shouldn't be too hard on them, given what they're up against. It's not untypical for a believer to reason fallaciously in an attempt to support their beliefs. It's not uncommon to encounter fallacies such as begging the question, wishful thinking or special pleading from the other side.

Do you mean that Dawkins could change his views or that Dawkins' comment about deism is irrelevant to his overall stance? — Chany

The former. Dawkins' ideas about the matter are evolving in his ripe old age, but age by itself is rarely enough (unless one has many lifetimes available).

The obvious thing to do would be to get the person to tell us of this supposed truth which is "pointed at" by X, and demonstrate how the one does indeed "point to" the other. If they can't, then that's that. — Sapientia

And if they can, that's also that.

And if they can, that's also that. — Mariner

Well, let's lose the "if". Can they or can't they? Can you? Because it wasn't clear to me from your original comment what you were suggesting. Like Agustino, I thought you might have been talking about some kind of private mystical experience which you can't put into words or properly explain. Your original comment was very vague.

Your original comment was very vague. — Sapientia

On the contrary. It was very specific, talking about the limitations of language. Don't you think it is curious that you then ask me to give a... linguistic account of "some kind of private mystical experience"?

This was not the subject of my post. The subject of my post was that language has limits, and that both sides (atheists and theists) should recognize that and take it into account when trying to understand the other side.

Yes I obviously agree with God creating the world such that virtuous living leads to flourishing. The God of the philosophers is a phrase used by Pascal to represent what philosophers usually mean by God -something abstract, instead of Real that you can encounter right now. The Christian God for example is a personal God - you can have a relationship with God, indeed it's that relationship that makes all the difference. Whereas the God of the philosophers isn't a person - it's a "force" or something similar. The problem with that is that such a god means absolutely nothing to you in the end but an abstract concept - a story. — Agustino

I don't know about other philosophers. but I know a little about Aristotle's beliefs, and Socrates', and Plato's and Seneca's and Marcus Aurelius', and Epictetus'. And it seems to me that their beliefs about God led them to live pretty good lives. The God these men describe sounds pretty real to me.

The problem I have with revealed religions can be explained best by dialogue...
Random Follower of a Revealed Religion: Let me tell you about my great religion and the great God behind it.
Me: Is that the religion whose followers committed these atrocities?
RFRR: No follower of my religion has ever done anything wrong!
Me: I'm not interested in a religion that promotes denial...

RFRR: Let me tell you about my great religion and the great God behind it.
Me: Is that the religion whose followers committed these atrocities?
RFRR: Well, admittedly some of our followers got some things mixed up. They thought God was telling them to do X, but really He wanted to them to do Y.
Me: How do I know you're any better now at determining what your God is like, and what He wants you to do?

Even Jesus seems to be saying that God wasn't actually the way He was as presented in the Old Testament. So, it looks like Christians have this great text... they just can't be sure what it's really saying about their God.

Deism looks pretty attractive. Stoicism looks pretty attractive. Revealed religions? Not so much.

So, it looks like Christians have this great text... they just can't be sure what it's really saying. — anonymous66

Regarding Christianity (this is not so applicable to other religions), the text is quite secondary. The main thing is the experience of Christ's life in the believer. Institutionalized Christianity is a series of methods to foster that experience.

So, your dialogue with a Christian could be like this:

Christian: I have some good news for you.
You: ?
Christian: Are you suffering?
You: Not really.
Christian: Oh well. Call me later.

or...

You: Yes, I'm suffering.
Christian: Well, Christ can help you with that.
You: Christ? Isn't he long dead?
Christian: let's talk about that...

Christ came for the sick, not the healthy.

It is good to quote Kierkegaard about that, though. The man who thinks he does not live in despair is in the most despairing condition.

It is good to quote Kierkegaard about that, though. The man who thinks he does not live in despair is in the most despairing condition

That looks to me very much like "heads I win, tails you lose."

That looks to me very much like "heads I win, tails you lose." — anonymous66

Yep. Life's tough. :D

But, perhaps there is some room for agreement. It seems to me that most hellenistic philosophies were therapeutic in nature. Man has issues... I'll grant you (and Kierkegaard) that. So, the next question is, what is the solution to what ails man? You obviously believe that Christianity (and specifically Your form of Christianity- one that doesn't rely on the text of the Bible, but rather a personal relationship w/ God) IS The answer. Not everyone agrees with you.

I recommend that, if any person is in despair, or has any problem for which he would like a solution... then he should look for a solution to his despair, or whatever problem it is.

You obviously believe that Christianity IS The answer. Not everyone agrees with you. — anonymous66

Sure. I wouldn't say it is "THE ONLY" answer, though. I would merely say that it is the most complete and satisfying answer, for me; and that it is the most philosophically sound answer (and this is not simply "for me").

However, "philosophical soundness" is a very unimportant criterion compared to effectiveness. What matters is whether the remedies employed help the sufferer.

And it seems to me that their beliefs about God led them to live pretty good lives. — anonymous66

No, it's not their beliefs about God that caused them to behave as they did. It was their beliefs about man and his place in the world that determined their behaviour - in other words their ethical beliefs. So yes, they lived good lives - "good" here being a relative term - because they were virtuous. Could they have lived better lives? Perhaps more joy? Greater hope? Or is virtue the "peak" of what's possible?

Even Jesus seems to be saying that God wasn't actually the way He was as presented in the Old Testament. — anonymous66

That's not true, Jesus never intimated that his God is any different from the God of the Old Testament. Many people have this notion of Old Testament = violent God, New Testament = loving God. But that's very misguided. First, the NT mentions hell more frequently than the Old (which barely mentions it). The Revelation of the NT is quite likely a lot more brutal than anything described in the OT. The Holy Ghost killed Ananias and his wife Sapphira for withholding money from the Church and St. Peter on the spot, etc.

Deism looks pretty attractive. Stoicism looks pretty attractive. Revealed religions? Not so much. — anonymous66

They are attractive, but they are very individualistic. They're not communal the way religions are communal. Religions involve a religious community of believers who share the faith together and agree to live by certain common principles and ideals.

Deism looks pretty attractive. Stoicism looks pretty attractive. Revealed religions? Not so much. — anonymous66

They are attractive, but they are very individualistic. They're not communal the way religions are communal.

Really? I encountered Deists in the UU church I attended. And, ever heard of Stoicon? I went last year, I'll probably go again this year. There is a thriving community of Stoics online. I suspect the same is true of Deism.

Religions involve a religious community of believers who share the faith together and agree to live by certain common principles and ideals.

Oh.. Sounds a little like Stoicism.