But dispensing with the idea of god (the ultimate consciousness) because of the failings of a few fallible humans is throwing out one big baby with some very dirty bathwater. — Pantagruel

But do we know what "God" is?

But do we know what "God" is — Corvus

Democritus did not know what an atom was, he just identified a general concept he was able to intuit using a word. The word god is fundamentally a personification, meaning it is like us, qua thinking thing. I think this is a pretty traditional philosophical gloss, Absolute Mind, etc. Whatever else that gets tacked onto that is just personal preference (or prejudice).

Democritus did not know what an atom was, he just identified a general concept he was able to intuit using a word. — Pantagruel

Does it mean that Democritus made up a word for atom for something he didn't know what he identified with or intuit about? In that case isn't the word atom vacuous?

In the case of God, who personified with what object? There must had been an object or existence for the personification. Would it be a fair inference?

Does it mean that Democritus made up a word for atom for something he didn't know what he identified with or intuit about? In that case isn't the word atom vacuous?

In the case of God, who personified with what object? There must had been an object or existence for personified. Would it be a fair inference? — Corvus

For me, "god" is an heuristic that I see no reason to forgo. The natural world provides ample, ample evidence of a huge spectrum of consciousnesses correlative with a spectrum of teleologies. For me to believe that human consciousness is the most complex that exists goes beyond mere hubris, it's just bad reasoning. Democritus' usage of the word atom is borne out by its role in civilization. There are more complex forms of consciousness than ours. Historically, we choose to call these gods. Then we try to yoke them to human purposes; which is where the problems begin.

Anyway, I was interested, in particular, in Eagleton saying that 'it would be perfectly coherent for religious types to claim that God does not in fact exist.' — Wayfarer

Finally, one of the better books on the topic, notwithstanding its frequent polemical passages, is David Bentley Hart's The Experience of God. He 'gets' this understanding of the meaning of 'beyond existence' in ways that most do not. — Wayfarer

Do you think that views like those of Eagleton and Hart are typical of theists?

For example, do you think the typical US Evangelical Trump fan, or Iranian Ayatollah fan, is likely to be an Eagleton and Hart fan as well?

to what extent does the existence of 'God', or lack of existence have upon philosophical thinking. Inevitably, my question may involve what does the idea of 'God' signify in itself? The whole area of theism and atheism may hinge on the notion of what the idea of God may signify. Ideas for and against God, which involve philosophy and theology, are a starting point for thinking about the nature of 'reality' and as a basis for moral thinking. — Jack Cummins

I can definitely see a difference in how people of each approach philosophical concepts. I would also say that while many say that religious people can still keep that faith while working as, for instance a theoretical physicist, I observe a difference in reasoning.

A belief system or lack thereof is basically linked to the definition of a strong bias. We know that bias is essential to human cognition, and that the deliberate action of reducing bias is essential to science and logical reasoning in philosophy. That leads to the conclusion that such a strong belief is in fact causing the problem of strong bias in reasoning, affecting the outcome of a philosophical argument or scientific conclusion/interpretation.

But there are values that needs to be taken into account. Just like art plays an important function in opening up minds to new ways of thinking, so can a strong belief system focus reasoning. It's comparable to people who've taken psychedelics and experienced a profound connection with "all things in the universe". The emotional journey of that has sometimes changed how people think about different subjects without necessarily changing their belief system. Plenty of atheists have taken such substances and have a profound expansion of their perspectives, even though those experiences are "artificial" in nature.

The important part is that the problem lies in the conclusions made. Many theists and believers use their convictions as part of their premises in arguments and such bias breaks any logic or scientific merit of their conclusions. Atheists are more keen to naturally thinking in an unbiased fashion, it's a natural pathway of their reasoning. So they're better at producing unbiased arguments than believers and theists. However, if a theist and believer understand the inability to universalize their concepts due to their fundamental bias, they can view concepts in a certain perspective that an atheist may not easily access.

I'm convinced that any philosophical and scientific thinking requires a gradual movement from free thought to rigid logic. A large problem is that people view critical thinking either too abstract or too rigid in logic, but it should be treated as going from an abstract play with ideas, concepts and visions down to a sound grounded logic that can be universalized. It's not either end, it's the journey and progress from one side to the conclusion in the other.

Theists and believers have a harder problem reaching that end and atheists and the scientifically minded have a problem beginning in the abstract play. Both sides need to understand this more deeply about each other.

I'm a big advocate for keeping ideas close to the facts of reality that we have around us and I'm under absolutely no belief or theistic notion whatsoever. But I find my play with the supernatural; the ideas and abstractions in art, which I hold is an underrated component of our process towards expanded perspectives.

I wonder to what extent if God does not exist, if as Dosteovosky asks, whether everything is permitted? So, I am left wondering about the limits and freedoms arising from both theism and atheism. How do you see both perspectives in thinking? — Jack Cummins

Theists are too bound by arbitrary rules and principles, lost in scriptures and made up concepts for what constitutes what is permitted. One can argue that the lack of belief means everything is permitted, but I hold that we can find scientific answers to what is permitted or not through our biology. Yes, everything is theoretically permitted, but only for psychopaths and those are generally not considered the normality of a human being, even evidenced by their reduced statistical existence compared to non-psychopaths. No, we have a biology that push us towards compassion, push us towards empathy. It's more the natural state than any other, regardless of what pessimists say. Our psychology makes us prone to outside influence on our behavior, but our natural state without heavy manipulation leans into empathy and compassion towards other people.

So, we don't need religion or belief to guide us, we just need to rid ourselves of the manipulators and psychopaths that play with our minds. We need to focus on the natural drives towards compassion and empathy and work aligned with that and not against it. We think that a lack of belief in a system that put principles and rules on us to follow is the only way to limit us from doing violence upon another, but it's not the lack of belief that leads to violence, it is the lack in acceptance of our empathically natural and biological interactions between people that leads to nihilism.

...it is the lack in acceptance of our empathically natural and biological interactions between people that leads to nihilism. — Christoffer

:100: :up:

We need to focus on the natural drives towards compassion and empathy and work aligned with that and not against it. — Christoffer

Isn't this in fact also a belief, purporting guidance?

We need to focus on the natural drives towards compassion and empathy and work aligned with that and not against it.
— Christoffer

Isn't this in fact also a belief, purporting guidance? — Pantagruel

Not to speak for Christoffer, but suppose we do use your word "guidance" and understand it as guidance from one social primate to another? What would be the significance of it being a belief?

I'm saying he has supplied a normative belief system himself, which is exactly comparable to the type of normative beliefs systems he says we can do without. He has generically employed the term "belief system" and associated that with "strong bias". Beliefs may be prone to bias, but the fact that bias exists in no way invalidates belief in general. I take no issue with the comments directed to a very specific subset of religious practices, but the idea that we can dispense with "belief systems" isn't reasonable.

I'm saying he has supplied a normative belief system himself, which is exactly comparable to the type of normative beliefs systems he says we can do without. He has generically employed the term "belief system" and associated that with "strong bias". Beliefs may be prone to bias, but the fact that bias exists in no way invalidates belief in general. I take no issue with the comments directed to a very specific subset of religious practices, but the idea that we can dispense with "belief systems" isn't reasonable. — Pantagruel

Ah ok. I'm not familiar with past discussions you two have had regarding belief systems. It sounds like an interesting topic for discussion.

Ah ok. I'm not familiar with past discussions you two have had regarding belief systems. It sounds like an interesting topic for discussion. — wonderer1

It isn't a past discussion though. His comment that I quoted constitutes as much. And the fact that there is such a need argues emphatically for the value of belief systems.

For example, do you think the typical US Evangelical Trump fan, or Iranian Ayatollah fan, is likely to be an Eagleton and Hart fan as well? — wonderer1

No, of course not. It's all become massively distorted, a quagmire of confusion and ignorance. But then the mystics, those with the most penetrating insight, are often condemned or put to death by religious authorities.

Isn't this in fact also a belief, purporting guidance? — Pantagruel

What we deem facts of the world are what we can live by as honest as possible as truth. Our biological nature have parameters that we can measure, we have statistical data and knowledge about our human psychology that acts as our guidance. That isn't belief, that is adhering to how we function as an entity, as an animal within this ecosystem of nature. Belief does not feature evidence, with evidence comes hypothesis and therefore what I described is hypothesis, not belief. Compared to all else, an hypothesis has more ground than belief.

which is exactly comparable to the type of normative beliefs systems he says we can do without. — Pantagruel

With what I just said in mind, is it really so? Or is it that all attempts at proposing a framework gets demoted to equal "belief"-systems in order to level the playing field in favor of unsupported claims. How is adhering to our biology and human psychology equal to belief in a deity or God? One has a lot of evidence and logical rigor and one is a wish beyond any existing support.

I don't see how you can conclude it as equal? I'm not saying I have the philosophical or ethical answers beyond my conclusion in this, but I'm saying that we are more likely to find a common, universalizable truth about our human condition if we look at what we are and not at what we wish ourselves to be based on wishful thinking and how we want our existence to be.

So, am I arguing for another belief system? Or am I arguing for exploring deep in ourselves the ethical truth of our being based on what studies in psychology tells us about our species? Because what I'm seeing is not the nihilism of Dostojevskij, what I'm seeing is an optimism that seems to have gotten lost in the stigma of no faith. I do not think we need faith, I think we need to be honest towards who we are as a species, without interpretations by those who want power over the conversation.

So, is what I'm talking about belief? Or is it closer to truth than how belief operates?

adhering to how we function as an entity — Christoffer

I didn't realize we had a choice in that? Oh wait, we do? Of course. That is the essence of belief.

Of course, if you are saying that we haven't any choice in it, then it can't be a problem or a solution, can it?

I am asking to what extent does the existence of 'God', or lack of existence have upon philosophical thinking. — Jack Cummins

:fire:

Deus, sive natura (i.e. reality is impersonal à la "Brahman" or "Dao")

ergo

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/875902

ergo

Non fui, fui, non sum, non curo (i.e. personality is ephemeral à la "anicca, anatta" or "wu wei")

:death: :flower:

I didn't realize we had a choice in that? Oh wait, we do? Of course. That is the essence of belief.

Of course, if you are saying that we haven't any choice in it, then it can't be a problem or a solution, can it? — Pantagruel

Why can't a factual thing be a seed for a solution? What are actually you implying here? A factual property of our existence is a hint at our functionality in face of nature. Anything else is an invention; something requiring an addition of an invented concept rather than being what it is. Adhering to what "is" negates belief as what "is" exists outside of any beliefs.

Adhering to what "is" negates belief — Christoffer

I'm not so keen on your characterization of bias either. Perspective is essentially a form of bias. There can be healthy biases as well as unhealthy biases. In particular, if the belief in question is a factor in its own realization (which, lets face it, many, perhaps the most important beliefs, certainly are), then having a powerful bias can contribute to the success of the belief. Fake it until you make it. Belief systems are the fabric of our human reality.

But dispensing with the idea of god (the ultimate consciousness) because of the failings of a few fallible humans is throwing out one big baby with some very dirty bathwater. — Pantagruel

I’d agree with that. But don’t forget, for a great deal of the cultural history of the West, belief was dictated by the ecclesiastical authorities. The meaning of orthodoxy is ‘right belief’, and for long periods of time, the penalties for not adhering to orthodoxy were severe. And the Religious Wars in Europe were very much fought over what constitutes right belief. I think this is what caused the throwing out of the baby with the bathwater, but in some sense, it was the Churches who had sullied it with the violence through which they prosecuted ‘wrong belief’. (I think it was Paul Tillich who said that this aspect of theism was the single greatest cause of atheism.)

But then the question becomes, if right belief is *not* described by orthodoxy, what might it comprise? A lot of people, including many here, will nominate science. But the problem with that, is that science excludes the qualitative as a matter of principle. It is concerned solely with what is measurable. It is a means of control as much as anything.

So, this is the question which has elicited the thirst for alternative religion outside the strictures of religious orthodoxy. And it brings to mind one of the books I have most liked from the past, The Heretical Imperative, by sociologist Peter Berger. Berger argues that contemporary society, characterized by pluralism and secularization, compels individuals to make personal choices about their beliefs. This contrasts with traditional societies, where religious belief was generally an unchallenged given (another means of control!)

Berger explores the idea that in a modern, pluralistic society, individuals face the “heretical imperative,” a term he uses to describe the necessity to choose one’s faith actively, rather than passively inheriting it. (Note that ‘heresy’ originally meant ‘having a view’. You weren’t supposed to ‘have a view’ - you were to receive the religion as given, no questions asked.) This situation leads to a range of responses, including reaffirmation of traditional beliefs, embracing of secular worldviews, or the adoption of a methodological doubt approach, where individuals continuously question and reassess their beliefs.

Berger also delves into the implications of this imperative for religious institutions, highlighting the challenges they face in maintaining relevance and authority in a world where belief is a choice. He proposes that these institutions need to adapt by becoming more open and accommodating to the diverse spiritual needs of individuals. In the book, he presents the metaphorical choice “between Jerusalem and Benares” to illustrate the fundamental decision modern individuals face in responding to the Heretical Imperative. This choice represents two distinct religious paradigms.

“Jerusalem” symbolizes the Abrahamic faiths—Judaism, Christianity, and Islam—which are monotheistic and have a historical, prophetic tradition. These faiths emphasize a personal God, ethical demands, and a linear view of history leading to an ultimate purpose or end. They tend towards dogmatism and exclusivism, that there can only be one true religion.

“Benares” (nowadays Varanasi), on the other hand, represents the Eastern religions, such as Hinduism and Buddhism. These traditions are more mystical, focusing on inner spiritual experiences, encompassing principles of re-birth and karma with a cyclical as distinct from liner view of time and existence. This metaphor underscores the diversity and complexity of religious choices in a pluralistic society.

Viewing the ‘theism/atheism’ divide against that background reveals that it is considerably more nuanced than the apparent black-and-white, yes-or-no issue that single-minded adherents of both sides of the debate would care to contemplate. After all, some of the Eastern religious paths are hardly theist in a Semitic sense, but they’re certainly not atheistic in the secular sense, either.

Yes, I agree that a decent grounding in eastern culture is definitely key to breaking the shackles of certain western prejudices. My last observation would be that there tends to be a reactionary condemnation of the idea of god in the west because of the history of abuses by the churches. However every human institution is subject to corruption by man. We don't dispense with the ideas of justice and good governance just because criminals pay off judges and politicians. We recognize that the corrupt judges and politicians are not good exemplars of the ideals they purport to serve.

To people like Nietzsche and Jung, "God" can be understood, psychologically, as one's supreme guiding principle. — Vaskane

An interesting point.

Also an important reason as to why atheism and theism share the same starting point: they come out of the same psychological drives. — Vaskane

Who were the first people started atheism and theism? When you say they share the same starting point, does it mean in time, or on the ideas of ground?

For me, "god" is an heuristic that I see no reason to forgo. The natural world provides ample, ample evidence of a huge spectrum of consciousnesses correlative with a spectrum of teleologies. — Pantagruel

If the natural world is ample evidence of God, then how do you explain the mindless, irrational and unpredictable natural disasters such as earthquakes, hurricanes and floods which cause destructions and damages to innocent people?

If the natural world is ample evidence of God, then how do you explain the mindless, irrational and unpredictable natural disasters such as earthquakes, hurricanes and floods which cause destructions and damages to innocent people? — Corvus

Who says it is a god's role to intercede or interfere with the unfolding of events? That's a presupposition. A hurricane is just a weather feature that is endemic to the ecological health of our planet. I certainly don't assume that human preoccupations are necessarily universal values.

Who says it is a god's role to intercede or interfere with the unfolding of events? That's a presupposition. A hurricane is just a weather feature that is endemic to the ecological health of our planet. I certainly don't assume that human preoccupations are necessarily universal values. — Pantagruel

The question was forwarded to you because you claimed that the natural world is ample evidence for your God.

What I actually said that is that the natural world provides evidence of a vast spectrum of consciousnesses, of which there is no reason to suppose the human mind to be the apex. Therefore the concept of "god" seems a reasonable heuristic to me (i.e. the most highly evolved form of consciousness in existence).

I see. Thank you for your clarification. It sounded like the natural world is your God. I recall some folks saying that. Could it be Spinoza?

Anyhow, still there seem to be some problems for deducing a vast spectrum of consciousness from the natural world. Because some folks like Heidegger would say the natural world is a myth, and humans are alienated from the world. We really don't know the world. If the world is related to consciousness then it should provide good knowledge of the universe. Does it?

Do you have argument for the natural world provides us a vast spectrum of consciousness? In what sense and evidence?

Do you have argument for the natural world provides us a vast spectrum of consciousness? In what sense and evidence? — Corvus

Well, you can start with human consciousness, which clearly evolves both phylogenetically and ontogenetically. Which therefore also links unproblematically (for me) with consciousness in other species. If you research the nature of consciousness in the natural world, you can read examples of how primitive colony organisms exhibit purposive behaviours (in The Global Brain, by Howard Bloom, for example). Indeed, you can even pursue the concept to the limits of the animate-inanimate boundary and discover how natural systems can be seen as instantiating teleonomic properties (Incomplete Nature, by Deacon). The spectrum of organic consciousness alone is sufficient warrant however.

Could it be Spinoza? — Corvus

No. Simply put, Spinoza argues that nature (i.e. infinite & eternal (i.e. completely immanent) substance) excludes the existence of a 'transcendent, supernatural person' (e.g. the God of Abraham, the OOO-deity of theology, etc). Thus for most Spinozists, nature itself counts as strong evidence against all forms of theism (& deism (except maybe pandeism)).

For theism as a starting-point, you could check presuppositionalism. It is not philosophy exactly, and its defendants are far from being good philosophers, but it relates to what you are asking about.

In any case, are either atheism or theism the epistemological starting points of any philosophical view? Surely many philosophies have god as an important element, Spinoza, Neo-Platonism, etc. But does it start with God? I don't recall so.

Perspective is essentially a form of bias. — Pantagruel

Yes, but the difference within this topic has to do with the kind of bias that is bound to a belief without grounding in reality. We are biased in certain perspectives like how we can only see a fraction of all light waves, but that is a bias that we know about and can work around when explaining the nature of light. A bias out of belief rejects accepting it as a bias for the purpose of mitigating it in search of truth, and instead make that "belief" equal to an "axiomatic truth"

Acknowledging a bias in order to mitigate it in reasoning is not the same as religious belief bias. One is an acceptance of certain limitations while the other is a demand for that specific perspective to be the truth.

Belief systems are the fabric of our human reality. — Pantagruel

Yes, we are pattern recognizers. We only think in relations between objects and concepts. These relations are infused with emotional factors and produce an experience of reality that is utterly skewed towards our hallucinatory rendition of it.

And this is why we have methods to mitigate such biases in order to arrive at concepts that decode reality better than mere human interpretation.

The difference is when these biases are accepted as an axiomatic truth that is part of any unbiased research. And this is why I say that theists and religious thinkers reason with limitations as they do not accept that their religious belief is part of the biases to mitigate.

But as I also wrote, I am convinced that reasoning must have a component of free thought. That it's not about purely biased or unbiased thinking, but that it is a gradient of stepping stones from ignorance to knowledge. We need to start at the biased, abstract, play with concepts and ideas, we need to start in that chaos of free thought to be able to find pathways towards unbiased knowledge. It needs to be a gradual movement, slowly going from that chaos to stripping away bias after bias until we are able to universalize a concept or conclusion. In science, this is done with the methods of math, experiments, verifications, repeatability etc. -methods that strips away our biases until we arrive at answers that live and exist outside our human minds.

In religious belief biases however; it is equivalent to reaching the last gate before truth and be blocked by a guard who won't let you in. The guard will not accept any reasoning or explanations as to why he should open the gate because he has orders to never let you in. Regardless of how ridiculous his reasons are for not letting you in, he won't have it any other way. He is not interested in anything beyond his own emotional reasoning. You will never be able to enter the gate until the guard is gone, but he never leaves. So instead, you end your journey for truth at that point instead of getting rid of the guard. You produce an unfinished concept, a half-truth; in which you agree up to a certain point and then you just let the guard keep repeating his reasoning as the last step, because you can't bother to get rid of him. And it doesn't matter if something appears that fundamentally proves the guard wrong, he will just move the gate away from that evidence and say it's still not enough to open the gate; just like how theists and religious thinkers move their goal posts every time science have disproven something that was earlier an accepted truth within that belief.

The problem for theists and religious thinkers is that they cannot move past the last step towards a universalized concept. They are blocked by the guard, their religious belief bias. They won't accept it as something to be mitigated, as is done with spotting biases during scientific research or logical reasoning, but instead they hold onto it so strongly that all they can ever achieve is to produce half-truths and flawed reasoning. And they don't care about their limitations because they are content to just settle down outside the gate with that guard.