*sigh*. The more philosophy i do outside of this forum the less appealing smart-sounding, but un(der)regulated discussion becomes. — AmadeusD

For the purpose of learning philosophy, time spent actually reading the classics is more productive than arguing with idiots in the hopes of the occasional informative post.

For the purpose of learning philosophy, time spent actually reading the classics is more productive than arguing with idiots in the hopes of the occasional informative post. — Lionino

Well, I think that the opportunity to discuss them with other people who have also read them helps a lot. That's my biggest problem. Perhaps I should try to start some reading groups.

There are a few reading groups here — Wittgenstein, Aristotle, Kant, Descartes. But you don't see them unless you look for them because they get quickly taken over by dumb nonsense such as this and this.

Anyhow, any meaningful discussion to be had is covered 90% in the IEP/SEP page of the respective philosopher — whatever can be added by amateurs is going to be a connection between different sources or just factually wrong.

There are a few reading groups here — Wittgenstein, Aristotle, Kant, Descartes. But you don't see them unless you look for them because they get quickly taken over by dumb nonsense such as this and this. — Lionino

I've been aware of some of them. I suppose I'll just have to experiment and see what happens.

Anyhow, any meaningful discussion to be had is covered 90% in the IEP/SEP page of the respective philosopher — Lionino

That suggests one could start a useful discussion from the relevant pages of the encyclopedias - and then read the book. Standing on the shoulders of the giants.

Personally I think atheism is logical but practicing atheism isn’t. Not because it offers the benefits of having believed in a particular religion if they end up being right but because so much of religion is based off of personal experience, so it’s good to try some out just in case you end up converted. (As long as you keep a skeptical but fair view, you shouldn’t need to worry about being tricked.)

As for the argument that it’s just a waste of time because there are so many religions and you will likely never find the right one, you can group them. If there really is a God, probably a lot of different religions would be based (unknowingly) oh the same entity. And if so many religions have truth, does it really matter that much which one you believe in as long as you get the basics right?

Specific religions are only necessary (in my opinion) if you are seeking out truth, but if you just want to be “saved”, categories should do just fine.

That seems paradoxical. — Ludwig V

I think claiming belief and not knowledge is paradoxical. The claim to 'faith' is, to me, an indication of dishonesty or delusion.

belief implies one is not certain — Ludwig V

+

I'm happy to assert that that is not the case — Ludwig V

If these two hold some water (I think your wording is a little confused, but I'm with you generally) then belief implies one is certain. If that is hte case, then belief implies knowledge, even if it isn't claimed. Its a foundational aspect of certainty, even if it's misguided or unjustified (which would be the case here - hence, delusion - I use that word with faarrrrrr less disparagement than is usually imported, btw**).

But I would say that a belief must be capable of being true and most people think that religious doctrines are true or false. — Ludwig V

Hmm. This is an odd one for me, because in practice i'd have to nod along to this and roughly agree. But, on consideration, I don't think belief is apt for something capable of being "true" in the sense of 'veridical'. Belief is redundant in any scenario that this is the case. Belief is simply jumping the gun and, again, I think a form of either dishonesty or delusion as a result. "my truth" is where people get away with holding "veridical" beliefs that are, in fact, not veridical at all (perhaps your objection to the objective/subjective split gets some air here).

**to me, delusion implies that someone has simply formed a conclusion without adequately assessing the relevant states of affairs. That could be for any number of reasons, but suffice an example where someone has read a meme on Instagram about how something in psychology works and forms a belief about it. Totally unjustified and so the belief is a delusional, rather than the person is deluded. They might just be lazy. That may need further parsing, i'm aware. The addition of actively refusing to review one's beliefs is another matter.

Here is a statement from a highly-regarded Catholic philosopher, Joseph Pieper, with whom I have only passing familiarity: — Wayfarer

About the preceding paragraph: I think I roughly agree, but I think the demands on one's character for religious purposes are systematically learned through manipulation of hte mind. With philosophy, i think it's a "If you're this kind of person, you'll be apt for such and such". The former seems to be capable of intercession regardless of one's "base" character for lack of a better term.

On the quote itself, several points to me make it entirely ridiculous and incoherent. I'll quote the points at which this became apparent to me:

moral virtues become deeply embedded in our character

links the knowing of truth to the condition of purity.

the virtues of faith, hope, and love

Alll three of these lines render the rest of the passage nonsensical, and clearly manipulation into religiously informed worldview instead of a logical.

I think claiming belief and not knowledge is paradoxical. The claim to 'faith' is, to me, an indication of dishonesty or delusion. — AmadeusD

Well, I'm inclined to agree with you at least this far, that "I believe that p and that p is false" is a contradiction. "I believe that p and that p might be false" is not a flat-out contradiction, and could be described as paradoxical. "I believe that p and that p cannot be known, even though p is capable of truth and falsity." is extremely odd, but, for someone who believes on faith, comprehensible.
The resolution is a bit complication. When I say "I know that p", I am endorsing p as true. When I say "AmadeusD believes that p", I am reporting that AmadeusD endorses p as true. I am not asserting that p is true or false. When I say "AmadeusD knows that p" I am reporting that AmadeusD endorses p and endorsing p myself. When I say "AmadeusD thinks that p" I am reporting that AmadeusD endorses p; but I am endorsing p as false.
It's a bit of a side-issue, but it's the only way I can make sense of the "phenomena".

to me, delusion implies that someone has simply formed a conclusion without adequately assessing the relevant states of affairs. — AmadeusD

That seems a reasonable idea. Maybe a bit harsh - people can be misled even if they do their level best to check things out properly.

I think this proves we can prove a negative.— 180 Proof


It only proves this if you can definitively say that and where the missing item ought to be. Which is absurd. The only way you could say that would be if the missing item actually existed, then disappeared. You are conflating a "disappearing existent" with an unknown. Anything which is to whatever extent unknown can not be definitively identified sufficient to this putative "proof of non-existence." This is exactly what Dennett failed to appreciate.

That is by definition, proving a negative. What's absurd is your explanation. You are in fact, conflating positive/negative with existence/nonexistent.

Positive: There's a dog in my room.
Negative: There isn't a dog in my room.

What's also absurd is you think that "proving a negative" means that one must prove all negatives.

That is by definition, proving a negative. What's absurd is your explanation. You are in fact, conflating positive/negative with existence/nonexistent.

Positive: There's a dog in my room.
Negative: There isn't a dog in my room.

What's also absurd is you think that "proving a negative" means that one must prove all negatives. — night912

I don't think that proving a negative means one must prove all negatives. However I do think that the only negative that can be proven is a determinate negation, i.e. one which is explicitly contradicted by empirical or logical reality.

:up:

The relevant empirical facts are:

1. There is a spectrum of consciousness, with beings more and less conscious than each other
2. There is no good reason to assume that human beings represent the highest form of consciousness (ontogeny and phylogeny both substantiate this)
3. Therefore it is probable to a near-certainty that there are higher forms of consciousness in the universe than human (given the expanses of time and space involved).

So if your definition of God is that God is the highest form of consciousness, then God by definition does exist. And even if you choose to stipulate that God must exhibit far-beyond human abilities, it is still likely (based on the empirical history evident from the evolution of consciousness on this planet) that God does exist (qua that definition). And at least possible that God exists. So atheism is illogical.

It isn't about whether some random person's characterization of God is illogical (an enormous white man wearing a crown directing human affairs from a cloud-realm somewhere). It is whether, for any given individual, that individual himself can logically envision the state of godhood consistent with what is known about reality.

So if your definition of God is that God is the highest form of consciousness... — Pantagruel

Whatever that means, it's not that. Usually, atheism is a reasonable rejection of 'any god described by theism' (with predicates entailing empirical facts about the universe which are lacking ...) just like other imaginary entities.

Whatever that means, it's not that. — 180 Proof

You say. I say, the logical concept of god is what is logically possible to each and any given individual person, based on that individual's experiences. Are you saying that, if I don't ascribe to some specific religious credo, I can't have a concept of God? Because that is definitely not true. It is manifestly evident that there is a huge spectrum of characterizations of Godhood, ranging from the anthropomorphic pantheon of the ancient Greeks to the apex enlightened-consciousness of the Buddha.

If you are going to logically deny the existence of God, then it must be at the logical-conceptual level. If you are contradicting nothing more than some specific narrative-version, then you aren't denying the possible existence of "god", you are just critiquing a cultural construct.

I think claiming belief and not knowledge is paradoxical. The claim to 'faith' is, to me, an indication of dishonesty or delusion. — AmadeusD

Belief operates like knowledge but is not knowledge, so I agree, it maybe paradoxical to claim a belief.

But dishonesty and delusion??

The problem with that are all of epistemological problems of knowledge in the first place. If logic tells us we cannot have faith or believe in anything absent nonsensical paradox, then, because of the same logic, and the frictions with things in themselves and absolute truth, we can’t know anything either.

There is some degree of faith, or more simply, of choice and willingness, underlying any admission one would make about the things one knows, let alone believes.

It’s dishonest for any logical scientist to say “this is the absolute truth, and all statements to the contrary must be delusion.”

We are stuck with having to make a choice, even about what we claim to know.

I say, the logical concept of god is what is logically possible to each and any given individual person, based on that individual's experiences. — Pantagruel

I've no quarrel with that. Of course folks are entitled to their own idiosyncratic, placebo-fetish (i.e. cosmic lollipop) of choice. My quarrel is, however, with theistic deities of religion: they are demonstrable fictions, and therefore, it's not "illogical" to reject them as facts (i.e. real, intentional agents).

... the possible existence of "god" ... at the logical-conceptual level ...

And this depends on which "concept of god" is at issue, doesn't it? In sum, clarify your "god-concept" (my preferred conception is ).

idiosyncratic, placebo-fetish (i.e. cosmic lollipop) of choice. — 180 Proof

Such as the value of logic. The lollipop of logic. Or the applicability of logic to explain what an explanation should be, or has to be (logically of course).

We are stuck with having to make a choice, even about what we claim to know. — Fire Ologist

I don't disagree, but I don't think its relevant. This could be the case,and it would still logically be incoherent to claim belief without knowledge. The justification isn't that relevant here IMO.

If you are going to logically deny the existence of God, — Pantagruel

You're not talking about atheism, so that's cool.

the applicability of logic to explain — Fire Ologist

AFAIK, "logic" doesn't "explain" anything; its "applicability" consists in providing formal consistency to arguments (re: valid inferences, sound conclusions).

:up:

So if your definition of God is that God is the highest form of consciousness, then God by definition does exist. — Pantagruel

Anything can exist as soon as we arbitrarily and unilaterally change the definition of "anything". But what we get is not informative, it is a tautology.

:up:

Anything can exist as soon as we arbitrarily and unilaterally change the definition of "anything". But what we get is not informative, it is a tautology. — Lionino

We get what we are essaying to conceptualize. If you assume the conceptualization entails the non-existence of the thing then perhaps it is the conceptualization that is flawed. I fail to see how one position begs its question more than the other.

If you assume the conceptualization entails the non-existence of the thing then perhaps it is the conceptualization that is flawed — Pantagruel

If the conceptualisation of something is flawed because it entails contradiction, what people have in mind is demonstrably false and what can exist is something other than what people have in mind. Assigning this or that label to this or that conceptualisation doesn't change the facts about the world (up yours, Early Wittgenstein).

If the conceptualisation of something is flawed because it entails contradiction, what people have in mind is demonstrably false and what can exist is something other than what people have in mind. Assigning this or that label to this or that conceptualisation doesn't change the facts about the world — Lionino

That's right. And my definition is empirical. Given that consciousness obviously exists, and there are gradations of consciousness, there is come greatest extant consciousness. I have as much right as the next person to flesh out the concept of God in whatever ways make the most sense to me. You think that each and every individual has a concept of god that reduces to whatever they read about in some piece of orthodox literature? Even if so, every person would have a slightly different defining set of references, based their unique intake of information.

No, that fact that my conceptualization is empirically sound isn't a weakness to me. However, if you persist in wishing to maintain that the actual concept of God is logically unsound, only for the purposes of therefore denying the concept, well, that is very much a dogmatic assertion. You choose to support an invalid version of a concept that you want to deny.

I have as much right as the next person to flesh out the concept of God in whatever ways make the most sense to me. — Pantagruel

Do you then grant that I have all the rights to flesh out the concept of God as the banana that I will eat in 15 minutes before leaving for the gym?

Do you then grant that I have all the rights to flesh out the concept of God as the banana that I will eat in 15 minutes before leaving for the gym? — Lionino

If that seems reasonable to you. It doesn't strike me as something someone striving to frame a credible concept would do though. Rather, someone striving to frame a flimsy concept for easy criticism. If that's an argument for atheism, then I'd say it qualifies as illogical.

If that seems reasonable to you. — Pantagruel

Just checking for consistency.



Is the above a God for you? In the universe of Ridley Scott's Alien (which wasn't even supposed to be an Alien movie but alas), going off your definition, the answer should be yes. Yet, nobody in the academy, when discussing philosophy or theology, has the above in mind when talking about God. Redefining words to mean something completely different from what they do is not interesting. There are non-flawed definitions of "God" that don't entail talking about the above.

:up:

Yet, nobody in the academy, when discussing philosophy or theology, has the above in mind when talking about God — Lionino

What academy are you referring to? The main defining feature of a "god" is having abilities which transcend human understanding. That's really not a very high bar....

If you are going to set yourself up as presenting an authoritative definition of "god," I would think that advertising yourself as an atheist isn't the most credible first step.

Let's face it. Atheists, by their own declaration, are really only qualified to speak about what god is not.

What academy are you referring to? — Pantagruel

The one that academics are part of.

The main defining feature of a "god" is having abilities which transcend human understanding — Pantagruel

Cambridge dictionary seems to disagree:

a spirit or being believed to control some part of the universe or life and often worshipped for doing so, or something that represents this spirit or being:

In any case, that is not a defining feature because it is nonsense. Our modern ability to solve differential equations in our head transcends the human understanding of Bronze Age Europeans, and yet we are not gods.

If you are going to set yourself up as presenting an authoritative definition of "god," I would think that advertising yourself as an atheist isn't the most credible first step.

Let's face it. Atheists, by their own declaration, are really only qualified to speak about what god is not. — Pantagruel

The epistemic stand of a person has zero bearing on whether they are qualified to define something or not. In fact, nobody is qualified to define anything, there is no such thing as a private language, the definitions are given to us by the society around us. Whether someone is qualified to redefine a word depends on whether they are an authority in the field that that jargon belongs to.

The one that academics are part of. — Lionino

Sorry, that's just plain ridiculous.

Cambridge dictionary seems to disagree:

a spirit or being believed to control some part of the universe or life and often worshipped for doing so, or something that represents this spirit or being: — Lionino

This doesn't in any way shape or form contradict the generalized description I provided.

In any case, that is not a defining feature because it is nonsense. Our modern ability to solve differential equations in our head transcends the human understanding of Bronze Age Europeans, and yet we are not gods. — Lionino

Exactly. Every other concept that mankind has ever entertained has evolved into more sophisticated forms as our species has evolved. So why should the concept of god not likewise be amenable to...refinement?

The epistemic stand of a person has zero bearing or whether they are qualified to define something or not. — Lionino

Of course it does. If you claim not to believe in atoms, you are certainly the last person that someone should talk to who is interested in developing a theory of atoms.