I've seen it. Not sure how sound he is on philosophy but I know he draws from Susan Haack and David Hume. But as an autodidact, he can be a bit cocksure. — Tom Storm

I focus more on the credence level, I assign to the arguments Matt makes, rather than his influences or his self-assuredness. I am not saying these issues are not important, they certainly are, especially when you consider someone like Trump's influences and his professions of self-assuredness.
Matt describes knowledge as a subset of belief and knowledge is a belief that you assign a high credence level to. A belief, which, for you, would be 'world changing,' if it turned out not to be true.
Belief is then a proposition that you simply accept as true, regardless of supporting evidence.
My belief that there is no god has a personal credence level of 99.99%
That credence level results in me feeling Ignostic sometimes when a theist is explaining why they 'believe' or 'know' a god exists.

I can't know there is no god. I can only decide there are no reasons good enough to believe in one. I am, like many contemporary freethinkers, an agnostic atheist. Agnostic in relation to knowledge of god; atheist in terms of belief in god. — Tom Storm

I agree with your first sentence, I can't 'know' either, but I perceive (possibly incorrectly,) a difference in credence level when someone employs 'agnostic' instead of 'ignostic.' Agnostics will (normally reluctantly) assign a credence level to a particular theistic claim, if pestered enough, but I find it is usually higher than the 0.01%, someone wearing an atheist hat would.
So, I think agnostic atheist offers a little more hope to a theist of being able to 'convert you,' than using ignostic atheist. :lol: Perhaps agnosticism vs ignosticism is not that important, in the overall debate between theists and atheists.

Pascal's wager is very clear on what one has to do vis-à-vis theism-atheism in a Christian context. — Agent Smith

That was my point. You have to buy into the basic legitimacy of Christianity in order for Pascal to be relevant. If Pascal's point was to get me to be a Christian, his argument will only work if I were already a Christian, so there's no value in his argument to those who don't already believe.

That was my point. You have to buy into the basic legitimacy of Christianity in order for Pascal to be relevant. If Pascal's point was to get me to be a Christian, his argument will only work if I were already a Christian, so there's no value in his argument to those who don't already believe. — Hanover

So you wouldn't believe in someone who told you to believe him/her if you don't wanna end up in a bad place? :chin:

Okay. So, none of the stories are true? What is this "broader truth"? For that matter, what is it broader than? Who are these allegorical stories really about? — Vera Mont

Critical biblical scholarship, which is taught in most universities, and is likely something any formally trained minister is well versed in (although not preached from the pulpit) denies the divine authorship of scripture and questions the basic historicity of the accounts. It does not follow that because the accounts are not factually true or that they were not written by God that there is no role for those documents in the religious context or that the only rational solution is atheism. While there are some religions that declare war on the biblical scholars, that is not the only solution, meaning some fully accept the conclusions of that scholarship and accept the fact that OT was written by a multitude of authors over centuries and that the NT is hopelessly inconsistent in its claims about Jesus.

But to the specific question, if you want to know the broader truths of a certain passage, then you would need to identify the one you're asking about and the tradition that you wanted interpreted under and from there you can engage in the Bible study class you're asking about.

So you wouldn't believe in someone who told you to believe him/her if you don't wanna end up in a bad place? — Agent Smith

The hypothetical requires that (1) I believe in an inferno like hell, that (2) there is a belief system that can protect me from that, and that (3) there is no negative consequence to accepting that belief system. I don't believe in #1 and #2. If we are going to assume I believe in #1 and #2 to make this work, the we are already assuming I'm a Christian. If that's the case, then we've already accomplished our goal of trying to convince me to believe.

I am ruling that out. A corporeal god creates all sorts of theological problems. I think when we start getting into literal interpretations of scripture and anthropomorphic descriptions of God, the atheist ridicule properly applies.
— Hanover

I find this very interesting. Do you think this comes from a Jewish perspective? — Tom Storm

It does. See: https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/332555/jewish/Maimonides-13-Principles-of-Faith.htm , particularly #3.

In understanding this, it also requires that any reference in the Hebrew Bible to human like characteristics of God (like if he speaks, breaths, etc.) must be understood in a metaphorical sense, even within the Orthodox judaism. That is, even at its strictist level, no Orthodox Jew is going to commit to an absolute literalism.

Pascal's wager is an analysis of a carrot-stick deal. If you don't believe, hell and if you do, heaven. If you don't believe in hell/heaven and the rest of the Christian doctrine, you should is Pascal's point mon ami.

Pascal's wager is an analysis of a carrot-stick deal. If you don't believe, hell and if you do, heaven. If you don't believe in hell/heaven and the rest of the Christian doctrine, you should is Pascal's point mon ami. — Agent Smith

I understand that, but my point is that I have no reason to believe that belief and acceptance of Jesus as my lord and savior will not be the cause of my burning in hell. Why are my odds increased and not decreased by my accepting Jesus? If I see absolutely nothing holy or special about believing in Jesus, then why should I expect any special reward for that belief any more than I should expect eternal rewards for liking chocolate and expect eternal damnation for liking ice cream?

If we start with the notion that Jesus is special, then you have no reason to offer me any sort of wager. I already believe. Of what value is this whole wager to someone who stands unconvinced that acceptance of Jesus will anymore help me than hurt me?

Pascal's wager is a protrepsis cum paranaesis tool. It works for proselytizing as well as to prevent apostasy. If you don't believe (in Christianity), you go to hell.

Critical biblical scholarship, which is taught in most universities, and is likely something any formally trained minister is well versed in (although not preached from the pulpit) — Hanover

I see. They If they don't ask, don't tell them. So, what most Christians believe is not what their pastors believe. But is it then still the same God they both worship?

if you want to know the broader truths of a certain passage, then you would need to identify the one you're asking about and the tradition that you wanted interpreted under and from there you can engage in the Bible study class you're asking about. — Hanover

IOW: Pick your cherry and ask an expert what varietal it is in his bailiwick.
[metaphor]This is what happens when you put all your vested eggs into one basket. Technology comes up with wooden flats, paper trays, styrofoam cartons, and by each change some of your eggs have passed their sell-by date, so you need to manufacture chocolate ones to replace them. Five minutes later, styrofoam goes out style and you look bad again.[/metaphor]

Sooo... By saying that what the authors wrote was what they meant (give or take a few errors in translation), I'm the one who is twisting and distorting their images of God. Because what they really meant - all of them, centuries apart - was to be so abstruse that only a few highly specialized scholars could decode it. I wonder what might be the underlying broader, deeper truth beyond Numbers or how Leviticus can be untwisted into something that doesn't resemble instructions for prescribed atonement.
Rather than jump through all these intellectual hoops, wouldn't it be easier to let go of the book as their basis for belief? It would, if an alternative, more reliable authority were available.

I see. They If they don't ask, don't tell them. So, what most Christians believe is not what their pastors believe. But is it then still the same God they both worship? — Vera Mont

I recently read "Jesus Interrupted" by Bart Ehrman and he made the point many times that biblical criticism is taught at most seminaries and pastors are well aware of it, but it's not taught to the congregation, and he didn't have a good explanation for it. Ehrman was previously a fundamentalist who eventually went to Princeton, so he has a unique perspective.

The fundamentalist position is an impossible one to maintain, but it has very strong contemporary (but not historical) influence, especially in the US South.

Rather than jump through all these intellectual hoops, wouldn't it be easier to let go of the book as their basis for belief? It would, if an alternative, more reliable authority were available. — Vera Mont

No, because you have thousands of years of analysis that has in fact led many to a more meaningful life. I understand that history could have been different and that we might all be holding Beowulf as a sacred text, and had that been the case and had our best and brightest spent those years deriving truths from it, then it would be the text tucked into the book holders in all the pews across the nation.

But this only matters if one holds the view that the Bible has special inherent significance that was not just the result of people having made it that way. That's a hard argument to make, which means you have to accept that the significance of the Bible comes from the significance people have placed upon it and that is what gives it value. The fact that its meaning has been modified over the years and differently by different traditions is a fact, but that fact doesn't make the book useless or insignificant. To hold otherwise would require that you either accept the fundamentalist's tenant that the Bible's value derives from its divine creation or that you throw the Bible out as an imposter. I think neither holds, but the answer lies in accepting the obvious fact that the Bible has been used for a particular purpose by people and it has been given significance by people and that is what makes it relevant.

@Tom Storm

His is certainly a Jewish perspective but Maimonides is a relative latecomer. He denies things that were fundamental parts of the ancestral religion, especially the parts about God's parts. The god(s) of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob was a corporal god, the kind of god apologists are so quick to deny. Maimonides' god is an attempt to create a philosophically acceptable god.

For an early history of this flesh and blood Levanite god:

God: An Anatomy
Stavrakopoulou, Francesca

His is certainly a Jewish perspective but Maimonides is a relative latecomer. He denies things that were fundamental parts of the ancestral religion, especially the parts about God's parts. The god(s) of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob was a corporal god, the kind of god apologists are so quick to deny. Maimonides' god is an attempt to create a philosophically acceptable god. — Fooloso4

I concede that Judaism has changed dramatically over the years, and there are arguments to be made that early Judaism wasn't even monotheistic. Today's orthodoxy might well have been yesterday's heresy. In truth, the Judaism I subscribe to is very modern, and it resembles the ancient views in very few ways.

:up:

:up:

Some theists will point to personal experiences as evidence, but these experiences can be subjective and interpreted in different ways. — Thund3r

As Kant pointed out, personal experiences are the only evidence of ding an sich Reality that we humans have, from which to construct our worldviews and belief systems. Everything else is hearsay. Our supposedly objective Science is merely a conventional model of Reality agreed-to by others with similar motivations. Theistic beliefs may be motivated, in part, by the visceral need for emotional social bonding (group identification), and in part, by the ideals of purity, perfection & salvation . On the other hand, Atheistic beliefs may be motivated, in part, by the visceral rejection of sheep-like social bonding, and in part, by the intellectual need for ideal perfection found only in logic & mathematics. But both seem to need the comfortable feeling of Certainty & Predictability. So, they make a leap of faith, as a knee-jerk response to the pain of uncertainty.

On the other hand, Agnostics seem to be able to function under uncertainty -- to tolerate the pain. They are able to suspend both belief and unbelief, pending a stastical assessment of Bayesian probability. Is that a superior adaptation to the incomplete information & knowledge of the human condition? In a quote often attributed to Immanuel Kant: “Someone's intelligence can be measured by the quantity of uncertainties that he can bear”. I don't know if that assertion is true. But I can live with the uncertainty. :joke:

The virtues of uncertainty :
A second type might be called the atheistically-inclined agnostics. Bertrand Russell was one. . . . Russell adopted his position for strictly philosophical reasons. He recognized that any purported proof for God's non-existence could never be completely convincing. So his atheistic inclinations had to do with intuitive feeling as well as pure logic. Together, they led him to live life as if the cosmos were godless.
In contradistinction to Russell's agnosticism is a third kind – religiously-inclined agnosticism – and it is this type, I think, that is the most interesting. Individuals who find themselves in this camp agree that the question of God is likely never to be settled. However, they nonetheless suspect that there's something at the heart of the religious way of life that can be of extraordinary value.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/belief/2009/apr/13/religion-philosophy-atheitsm-agnosticism

Agnostic belief embraces uncertainty :
In truth, agnosticism is less about belief in a god and more about knowledge, or lack thereof. Some agnostics will say they think there is a God, and others will say they do not, with the caveat, of course, that there is no evidence to support either of these thoughts. Theists and atheists hold a strong belief (or disbelief) in the existence of a higher power. The key difference is in how secure the person is in those beliefs – an agnostic will recognize a realistic possibility that their beliefs are incorrect, whereas a theist or atheist generally will not.
https://www.themiamihurricane.com/2017/12/01/agnostic-belief-embraces-uncertainty/

Kantian Agnosticism :
Kant also proposed that because of our lack of information and tangible evidence, it is impossible to know whether or not God, or an afterlife, really exists. He put forward the sentiment that people are justified in believing in God, despite not being able to know of it’s existence.
https://www.orionphilosophy.com/stoic-blog/immanuel-kant-greatest-quotes

As Kant pointed out, personal experiences are the only evidence of ding an sich Reality that we humans have, from which to construct our worldviews and belief systems. Everything else is hearsay. — Gnomon

I know the argument, but such hearsay actually runs the world and our belief systems. How would governments, a military, corporations, social groups function without their articles of faith - documentations, texts, constitutions, preambles, amendments, treaties, books... ? Personal experience is never just a value free experience - in most cases people are primed by culture and the weight of conventions to see and experience in very particular ways.

Can you identify this reality that we all share that hasn't already been mediated, parsed and shaped by society and family expectations and cultural values?

The key difference is in how secure the person is in those beliefs – an agnostic will recognize a realistic possibility that their beliefs are incorrect, whereas a theist or atheist generally will not. — Gnomon

Most atheists I've encountered these days say they are agnostic atheists - for reasons I described earlier. I think this makes sense. One claim goes to knowledge, the other goes to belief. It is entirely possible not to know if god exists but also to not hold a belief in any god/s.

I recently read "Jesus Interrupted" by Bart Ehrman and he made the point many times that biblical criticism is taught at most seminaries and pastors are well aware of it, but it's not taught to the congregation, and he didn't have a good explanation for it. — Hanover

I can offer one - the same one you did, below. The faithful are too dependent on their faith, whether it's simple and ignorant or learned and sophisticated: the minister has to address minds of every caliber and belief at every level in his mixed audience. In fact, those with simple, unquestioning faith are the most vulnerable and in need of protection from complexity. (Unfortunately, they are also the most exploitable and exploited by religious charlatans. )

No [can't give up reliance on the book], because you have thousands of years of analysis that has in fact led many to a more meaningful life. — Hanover

I wonder how that number would fare in the balance against lives ruined. It doesn't matter: individuals and communities, parishes and entire nations, have too much invested. All they can risk is gradual adaptation to modernity, minor adjustment to religious claims and demands.

The fundamentalist position is an impossible one to maintain, but it has very strong contemporary (but not historical) influence, especially in the US South. — Hanover

That's because it's uncompromising. They're not appealing to reason, but to something far more atavistic - the very roots of religiosity. People love crusades and circuses.

the answer lies in accepting the obvious fact that the Bible has been used for a particular purpose by people and it has been given significance by people and that is what makes it relevant. — Hanover

Yes, I do realize this. Many of us take a third option: Read the text, make up your mind what the contents mean (both in the context of how, when and why it was written, and the purpose it serves now) then determine its place in your life, in your understanding of belief and history.
But we can't very well have presidents sworn into office, holding a copy of the Constitution....

Most atheists I've encountered these days say they are agnostic atheists - for reasons I described earlier. I think this makes sense. One claim goes to knowledge, the other goes to belief. It is entirely possible not to know if god exists but also to not hold a belief in any god/s. — Tom Storm

Yes. I sometimes identify myself as an agnostic Deist. I have no direct experience of the putative deity of my theory, merely circumstantial evidence, sufficient for conviction of creation. But from what I've learned from Philosophy & Science -- especially Quantum & Information theories -- leads me to infer that some metaphysical (Potential) First Cause is necessary to explain the physical (Actual) existence of the world of our experience. Logic, not Faith.

A Big Bang (something from nothing) is no explanation, just a dramatic gap-filler. Several prominent scientists have reached the same conclusion, but avoid using the taboo term "god" as a conventional label for that preternatural causal force. The essential role of causal & meaningful Information in the world led me to the thesis of Enformationism. And the thesis pointed to the logical necessity of a Programmer to write the Program that is unfolding as the process of Evolution, "creating this immense and wonderful universe" *1.

Since my youthful experience of an austere religion was "mostly harmless", I never developed antipathy toward the almost universal cultural belief in an unseen power organizing the world. I have merely adopted the philosophical notion of an abstract impersonal Principle (energy + law) instead of the traditional prescientific humanoid entity to rule the world. Personally, I don't take the god-concept literally, but figuratively. An open-ended worldview is very modern (supercilious), but it leaves Ontological questions unanswered. To seek such universal general knowledge is what philosophers, and Deists *2, do, yet what pragmatic specific scientists avoid -- deeming Philosophy feckless. :smile:


*1. “Another source of conviction in the existence of God, connected with the reason and not with the feelings, impresses me as having much more weight. This follows from the extreme difficulty or rather impossibility of conceiving this immense and wonderful universe, including man with his capacity of looking far backwards and far into futurity, as the result of blind chance or necessity. When thus reflecting I feel compelled to look to a First Cause having an intelligent mind in some degree analogous to that of man; and I deserve to be called a Theist.”
—Charles Darwin, the founder of evolutionary biology, as cited in his autobiography.
Note -- A philosophical "First Cause", perhaps even the faceless-timeless-spaceless Creator of the Genesis myth, but not the tyrannical Lord of Judaism & Christianity. Toward the latter, I am indeed an Atheist. Darwin has been pictured as an Atheist by atheists. But, in his 'confessions" sounds more like an Agnostic or perhaps a Deist.

*2. " No atheist, Darwin deliberately avoided bashing religion. ... properly speaking, he was more deist than theist during this period."
https://www.faraday.cam.ac.uk/news/darwins-religious-beliefs/

I sometimes identify myself as an agnostic Deist. I have no direct experience of the putative deity of my theory, merely circumstantial evidence, sufficient for conviction of creation. — Gnomon

Confirmation of my criticism that your "Enformer / Programmer" = "intelligent designer" = "creator" = woo-of-the-gaps. :sparkle: :eyes:

But as an autodidact, he can be a bit cocksure. — Tom Storm

Cocksure ballsups? :grin:

This is a great objection!

It seems like you’re objecting to premise 1:

1. If there is no empirical evidence for something, then belief in that something is based on faith and personal beliefs, not fact.
2. There is currently no empirical evidence for the existence of a deity.
3. Therefore, the existence of a deity is based on faith and personal beliefs, not fact. (1,2 MP)

I agree with you that empirical evidence for the supernatural is a contradictory notion because the very act of sensing something makes it a natural phenomenon. However, it is important to consider the role of faith and personal belief when it comes to claims about the existence of a deity.

While it is true that belief in a deity can be based on faith and personal belief, we must recognize that such beliefs cannot be objectively verified or falsified. In other words, they are not based on empirical evidence but instead are based on subjective experience and interpretations. This raises the question: can subjective experiences be relied upon to make objective claims about the existence of a deity?

Furthermore, I think it’s important to differentiate between what can be considered objective fact and what can be considered subjective belief. While beliefs about the existence of a deity can be based on subjective experience and interpretation, we must recognize that subjective experiences cannot be relied upon as a means of verifying objective claims. This is because subjective experiences are, by definition, unique to each individual and cannot be independently verified or falsified.

For example, two people may have a subjective experience that they interpret as evidence of the existence of a deity, but these experiences may differ in significant ways. One person may interpret their experience as evidence of an all-good deity, while the other may interpret their experience as evidence of an all-bad deity. The fact that there is no empirical evidence for the existence of a deity does not necessarily mean that a deity does not exist. However, it does mean that belief in a deity cannot be considered a factual claim in the same way that, for example, the law of gravity can be considered a factual claim. That is, of course, unless a deity were to appear before us and become natural – rather than supernatural.

That being said, I don’t believe there being no empirical evidence for the existence of a deity necessarily concludes that a deity does not exist.

As Kant pointed out, personal experiences are the only evidence of ding an sich Reality that we humans have, from which to construct our worldviews and belief systems. Everything else is hearsay. — Gnomon

I'm totally happy with accepting this :)

This seems to agree with my first premise. I don't think empirical evidence is needed or available in all cases. However, there seems to be an important distinction between personal experiences.

We have various personal experiences in our lives. We daydream, we work, we play. Whatever we do, there are some experiences that stand out. For example, let's say I had a dream that I took out the trash. In a vacuum, that seems totally normal, and I have little reason to doubt that I didn't take out the trash. That entirely checks out with all of my other personal experiences. I take out the trash all the time. However, it becomes a moot belief upon waking up and realizing that everything that just happened wasn't real. I, too, could walk into the kitchen and see that the kitchen trash is still full. This reality, although potentially also fake, seems more real to me. It would be preposterous for me to hold still the belief that I took out the trash.

My claim, then, is that even when operating without empirical evidence, it still seems like we can apply probability to our experiences. The difficult torch to pick up becomes the claim that someone has a spiritual experience that presented itself in an unquestionable manner. Beyond the illusion of water on a hot summer day, one would have more confidence in their spiritual experience's legitimacy than in its falsity.

1. If there is no empirical evidence for something, then belief in that something is based on faith and personal beliefs, not fact. — Thund3r

There is no problem with evidence. The entire universe is evidence. The question is; evidence for what? That is, it is our interpretation of the evidence that matters, not the existence of evidence.

3. Therefore, the existence of a deity is based on faith and personal beliefs, not fact. (1,2 MP) — Thund3r

It is often based on personal experience too.

quantum fluctuations can produce matter and energy out of nothingness and could have led to the creation of the universe. Of course, one could ask how those initial “quantum laws” were created and end up in a similar causal regression as a theist trying to explain who created their deity. The difference between them, though, seems to be that theist is making positive claims that they know what’s at the end of that regression – and that seems problematic. It seems like the atheist is in a better situation here. — Thund3r

What matters is the fact that there is existence. Existence is not a property of things. Things are properties of existence. Existence is not a property of God. Existence is God. Existence is that which is. All contingent/created things are properties of existence and are made out of existence.

My claim, then, is that even when operating without empirical evidence, it still seems like we can apply probability to our experiences. — Thund3r

Yes. That's the purpose of Bayesian Probability. In some scientific and philosophical investigations, the empirical evidence is frustratingly incomplete & inconclusive. So Bayes developed a statistical technique, to update the original plausibility of a conjecture as more information becomes available. Unfortunately, the essential uncertainty remains, so in the final analysis, we tend to fall in the direction in which we are leaning. :smile:

Bayesian probability is an interpretation of the concept of probability, in which, instead of frequency or propensity of some phenomenon, probability is interpreted as reasonable expectation representing a state of knowledge or as quantification of a personal belief.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bayesian_probability

What matters is the fact that there is existence. Existence is not a property of things. Things are properties of existence. Existence is not a property of God. Existence is God. Existence is that which is. All contingent/created things are properties of existence and are made out of existence. — EnPassant

Deus, sive Natura :up:

God and nature are not identical. Temporal Nature is a property of God. God/existence becomes.

God and nature are not identical — EnPassant

So theists and deists, acosmists and pandeists belueve.

What matters is the fact that there is existence. Existence is not a property of things. Things are properties of existence. — EnPassant

Is existence something that has properties? It is clear that things that exist have properties, but existence is not something that exists.

What matters is the fact that there is existence — EnPassant

Again, here, the distinction of 'what exists' and 'what is' has to be discerned. 'Existence' pertains strictly to particular existents. The meaning of the term means 'is apart from' or 'is outside of'. The fact of being is more general , and so 'what is', is not necessarily synonymous with 'what exists'. In philosophical theology, this is the rationale behind for erxample Paul Tililch's insistence that God does not exist - that while God is, God is not 'an existent' which reduces God to a being, one being among others. See for elaboration God Does Not Exist, Bishop Pierre Whalon.