It's not an arbitrary assumption though, it's an identification. What is identified is that which is beyond human comprehension. — Metaphysician Undercover

Identification? Identification is the function of reference, and it is possible to refer to almost anything, such as fictious, alogical, or impossible things. But from reference it does not follow that the things we refer to would exist.

What remains arbitrary is the assumption of a faculty with which it would be possible to comprehend the incomprehensible. That's what's arbitrary and used ad-hoc by the religious and the mystics.




Sure, many of the great philosophers lived in societies in which they could be murdered if they would admit being agnostic or atheist. Most of their work, however, is philosophical, and does not rely on blind reference to divine authority.

Sure, many of the great philosophers lived in societies in which they could be murdered if they would admit being agnostic or atheist. — jkop

If you are implying that many of the great philosophers were closet agnostics or atheists, I'd say that this is an ad-hoc, non-philosophical arbitrary assumption, made exclusively for the purpose of comprehending things beyond comprehension.

Quips aside (and that goes for SophistiCat as well), the debate about atheism is inconclusive because people don't agree on what the word "God" (or, "gods") refer to. If you accept the meaning given to the word by the "great philosophers" who wrote about it, then close to 0% of philosophers (great or small) would disagree about the existence and relevance of it. The problem is that people don't accept that meaning, often because of its historical baggage, which is a non-sequitur anyway. It is more a problem of semantics than a problem of ontology.

If you are implying that many of the great philosophers were closet agnostics or atheists — Mariner

The clergy used to be brutal beyond comprehension.

What remains arbitrary is the assumption of a faculty with which it would be possible to comprehend the incomprehensible. That's what's arbitrary and used ad-hoc by the religious and the mystics. — jkop

As I explained, it is not arbitrary. We apprehend that there are limits to the human intellect. Because of these limits, there are things which the human intellect cannot comprehend. We assume that a higher intellect can comprehend these things, and this is not at all arbitrary. So it is based in the recognition that the incomprehensible is incomprehensible due to the deficiencies of the human being, not because of the properties of the thing itself. The thing itself is intelligible, but only to an intellect higher than the human intellect.

The clergy used to be brutal beyond comprehension. — jkop

The problem is that people don't accept that meaning, often because of its historical baggage... — Mariner

We apprehend that there are limits to the human intellect. Because of these limits, there are things which the human intellect cannot comprehend. We assume that a higher intellect can comprehend these things, and this is not at all arbitrary. — Metaphysician Undercover

Call it 'faculty' or 'higher intellect' or what you like. A possibility to comprehend the incomprehensible doesn't follow from there being limits to human knowledge, nor from things that we don't comprehend yet; obviously it is an arbitrary assumption.

A possibility to some day comprehend things that we don't comprehend yet, however, arises from research, and little prevents humans from doing research.

34% religious on a philosophy forum! :-O — jkop

Yes, it's about time we get our rights, and get properly recognised!

The clergy used to be brutal beyond comprehension. — jkop


The problem is that people don't accept that meaning, often because of its historical baggage, which is a non-sequitur anyway. — Mariner — Mariner

Huh? What would different meanings of the word 'god' have to do with the fact that most of the great philosophers' works are based on argument, not blind reference to the authority of the divine or incomprehensible. That's why they're called philosophers, not preachers.

most of the great philosophers' works are based on argument, not blind reference to the authority of the divine or incomprehensible. — jkop

That does not an atheist make.

Call it 'faculty' or 'higher intellect' or what you like. A possibility to comprehend the incomprehensible doesn't follow from there being limits to human knowledge, nor from things that we don't comprehend yet; obviously it is an arbitrary assumption. — jkop

What follows from there being limits to the human intellect, is twofold: 1) that there are things which are incomprehensible to us, and 2) the possibility of a higher intellect. You put 1) and 2) together and you have the possibility of an intellect which can comprehend what is incomprehensible to us. Where is the arbitrary assumption? It appears to me like the only arbitrary assumption here is your arbitrary assumption that this is an arbitrary assumption.

Do you have an aggressive counterpart for our Funnies? — John

No. There's another dangerous spider here called Brown Recluse, but they're shy.

So if you came across a funnel-web spider, would you kill it?

So if you came across a funnel-web spider, would you kill it? — Mongrel

No, I'd try to catch it and take it the local hospital. From there it would presumably be taken to a lab where its venom would be 'milked' for antivenin.

You're a good citizen.

Probably not as good as you might think, and certainly not as good as I'd like to be...
:-O

Nobody is perfect. :)

True :)

↪John You're a good citizen. — Mongrel

↪Mongrel

Probably not as good as you might think, and certainly not as good as I'd like to be...
:-O — John

Nobody is perfect. :) — Mongrel

↪Mongrel

True :) — John

Awwww, so sweet (L)

Thanks darling

May your camel never suffer from loneliness.

- Mongolian blessing

Unlike many atheists here, I was raised secular. — SophistiCat

That was the case for me, too. I was raised so that there was no mention of religion at all, and I didn't have any religious friends--at least not where I knew anything of their religious views. This resulted in a situation where I knew almost nothing about religious beliefs until I was in my mid-teens.

When I finally learned something about religious beliefs, my reaction was to be flabbergasted--"You believe what?!?" I seriously thought that people were playing a big practical joke on me--a belief exacerbated by the fact that there are a lot of practical jokers, who'll go to pretty elaborate lengths at times, in my family and among friends.

The beliefs seemed completely absurd to me, and they still do.

God: atheism 72.8%; theism 14.6%; other 12.6% — SophistiCat

I'm a bit surprised "theism' was as high as 14.6%.

"You believe what?!?" I seriously thought that people were playing a big practical joke on me--a belief exacerbated by the fact that there are a lot of practical jokers, who'll go to pretty elaborate lengths at times, in my family and among friends. — Terrapin Station

So, an emotional reaction based on experience? Or no?

Being flabbergasted is partly emotional, sure. And any reaction involving interpretations will be at least partly based on experience. Both of those should be obvious.

Word. Not necessarily obvious, but word.

I'm a bit surprised "theism' was as high as 14.6%. — Terrapin Station

Actually, I would put the percentage of theists lower since most "theists" in philosophy don't really take their religion seriously.

Most theistic discussions in the phil-of-religion begin and end with debates about the existence of God, which is not the real substance of religion. The real substance of religion is the lived experience of companionship with God. God is supposed to be a being with whom you can have a personal relationship. He is supposed to be a living reality; not just the conclusion of a sterile argument from natural theology.

Very, very few philosophers (I would say far less than 14.6%) actually focus on God as a living reality. One of them is Paul Moser. I highly recommend his work - which helped me greatly in my struggles to move past arguments and enter into a personal relationship with God.

The beliefs seemed completely absurd to me, and they still do. — Terrapin Station

Religious beliefs should seem absurd to those who haven't had any religious experiences - see 1 Cor. 2:14 (the whole chapter hits on the same theme).

Protestant. I'm non-denominational as of now, but recently I have sought to change that. I'm interested in conversion to the Catholic Church. I have a few grievances with the Catholic Church, particularly in regards to the origins of the church. I plan on reading more of their history and theology, then I will see if I am still interested in conversion.

Your poll is faulty, you can't choose to skip the 2nd question. It should be dismissed altogether.

Your eyes are faulty. I made an edit clarifying. I'm not an expert poll maker.

I saw that but it doesn't make your poll valid. Other religion is still a religion, thus we can't have trustworthy results.