Hamlet? I think he was indirectly calling me a nihilist.

I have a certain degree of sympathy for Luther's ideas. If one's Christianity consists primarily in going around and doing good deeds to elevate one's spiritual status, why not just be a Jew (or a Muslim?) Why the need for Jesus? You have your deeds.

Not a good man, but a man who delineated firmly between religious traditions to attempt to reform and preserve his own. — BitconnectCarlos

That's fair and all, but on the other hand, why the need for Jesus if "simul iustus et peccator" is all one anticipates; snow-covered dung?

As explained, I'm not so keen on such theological meanderings, to what may have began here: — Banno

You recited Christian theology and all I did was note it. I had no deeper purpose, as if to spread the love of Christ, as if I have any personal attachment to such theology.

The debates here are minimally substantively theological. They generally ask the question whether theology is stupid. Those who don't think it's stupid get pissed and start defending their religion, leaving them prey to further antagonism.

The OP here didn't answer what faith was as much as whether faith is stupid or dangerous or foolish.

Since faith is the centerpiece of religion, it seems its answer would lie somewhere in a theological discussion that preceded our conversation.

Since faith is the centerpiece of religion... — Hanover

This hasn't been mentioned in the thread, but religious scholars will point out that faith is only central to revealed religion (i.e. revelation-based religion). In non-revealed religion faith is no more central than it is in other traditions or institutions. For example, I would argue that institutions like the military are much more faith-centric than non-revealed religion.

In the West we have a tendency to conflate religion with Christianity (or else Judeo-Christianity), and the notion that religions can be referred to as "faiths" is one symptom of that. This is yet another incentive to get clear on what is actually meant by 'faith'.

...it seems its answer would lie somewhere in a theological discussion that preceded our conversation. — Hanover

...but digressions aside, I agree.

Mostly I think it would be great if we could discuss religious topics without anti-religious evangelization constantly occurring. But that's the way it seems to go on the internet: the atheists require that every religious discussion must be reduced to a discussion (or assertion) about whether God exists.

Mostly I think it would be great if we could discuss religious topics without anti-religious evangelization constantly occurring. — Leontiskos

The rules are very specific in this regard.

Evangelists: Those who must convince everyone that their religion, ideology, political persuasion, or philosophical theory is the only one worth having. — Site Guidelines

So if evangelism is occurring, please, report it so that it can be dealt with.

Maybe what we really need is a blanket policy against monomaniacs.

That would decimate the fora.

the atheists require that every religious discussion must be reduced to a discussion (or assertion) about whether God exists. — Leontiskos

Yes. And, despite all the offers to discuss God and uses of “God” in their sentences, they already seem to know that God cannot exist, whatever “god” refers to anyway. But they keep asking about God, and saying what they think about it, and what they think about those who believe in God.

There is no actual interest in or curiosity about gaining some sense of what an experience with faith and God are to people who actually have faith, and who pray to God.

They don’t seem to respectfully think “that person is rational, thoughtful and able to form clear sentences, yet they believe in God - how is that? Maybe I should see what they say about God.” One minute we believers sound rational and can do the same math and logic as any good atheist/scientist would, but the next minute we jump off the deep end and say “God is”. With no curiosity, most atheists seem to immediately see our reason was a facade; our authentic, irrational, childish selves actually annimate all of our now debased arguments. Any sort of distinct “faith” and actual “god” that the believer experiences can have nothing to do with it. And our ability to be rational is downgraded to amateur-hour at best.

It’s frustrating to me, because I like any clarity, especially when it comes from some other point of view - I think, “it is amazing how the same wisdom can be made clear in so many different voices and mouths - atheists, Christians, children, even modern philosophers once in a while display wisdom.” I get wisdom out of many seemingly irreconcilable places and people. That always amazes me. There are clearly many smart people around here that don’t see God. When they see other things I see, I am amazed at how perfectly they can see them without seeing God.

Atheists don’t seem amazed at how believers see some things as exactly they do, but also still see God. Atheists seem to think if someone doesn’t agree with them, about God, then that person isn’t really reasoning, which is amazing to me in itself - like willful blindness (which is a metaphor and a paradox but apt nonetheless).

No curiosity, so no respect needed, and no real conversation. Frustrating bummer here on TPF.

Atheists don’t seem amazed at how believers see some things as exactly they do, but also still see God. Atheists seem to think if someone doesn’t agree with them, about God, then that person isn’t really reasoning, which is amazing to me in itself - like willful blindness (which is a metaphor and a paradox but apt nonetheless). — Fire Ologist

There’s also a lot of religious bigotry towards atheism. Religious privilege around the world makes it dangerous to be an atheist in some countries, even certain parts of the US, where aggressive forms of fundamentalism seem to be emboldened by the Trump empire. That said, I've never felt that believers are not reasoning, unless they are of the evangelical, fundamentalist kind.

There is no actual interest in or curiosity about gaining some sense of what an experience with faith and God are to people who actually have faith, and who pray to God. — Fire Ologist

A bit of straw manning, perhaps? I have a number of religious friends, and we have no problems talking about our different views of the world. I am very interested in spirituality and how people make meaning. I spent ten years exploring religions and higher consciousness systems

And, despite all the offers to discuss God and uses of “God” in their sentences, they already seem to know that God cannot exist, whatever “god” refers to anyway. — Fire Ologist

I don’t know many atheists (out side of the celebrity atheists) who claim to know that God cannot exist. As an atheist, I haven't argued that there is no God. My view is similar to most contemporary atheists: I have heard no good reason to believe in a God. Most freethinkers I know self-describe as agnostic atheists: someone who does not believe in a god (atheist) but also does not claim to know that a god doesn't exist (agnostic).

With no curiosity, most atheists seem to immediately see our reason was a facade; our authentic, irrational, childish selves actually annimate all of our now debased arguments. Any sort of distinct “faith” and actual “god” that the believer experiences can have nothing to do with it. — Fire Ologist

In my experience, it's often the believers who lack curiosity. I have spent much time among Hindus, Buddhists, Orthodox Jews, Sikhs, Catholics, and Muslims, and I’ve attended most temples, ashrams, synagogues, and churches. I recently attended an Easter service in a high Anglican church. I know a lot of atheists who do this kind of thing. The theists I meet (mostly Catholics, Muslims and Charismatics) tend not to appreciate ecumenism; they stick to a rigid version of God and often belittle or fear other faiths.

Of course, the sophisticated atheists are pretty similar in worldview to the sophisticated atheists. They know that very little is certain, that knowledge is tentative and no one can really claim to have access to the truth. And that most worldviews are sincere attempts at sense making.

I get wisdom out of many seemingly irreconcilable places and people. That always amazes me. There are clearly many smart people around here that don’t see God. When they see other things I see, I am amazed at how perfectly they can see them without seeing God. — Fire Ologist

I agree. I actually don’t think there’s much difference in the lives of atheists or believers when it comes to moral commitment or awareness of life’s richness. I see deep empathy, ethical reflection, and appreciation for meaning and beauty in both camps.

Hmm...

The problem with this sort of "argument from psychoanalysis" is that they are very easy to develop...

Such arguments might be plausible, or even true to varying degrees, but they don't actually address the real issue at hand. — Count Timothy von Icarus

Sorry, I'm not sure what this is referencing.

A good thread for you: The Myopia of Liberalism — Leontiskos

Unity in the plurality of purposes?

What I meant was that religious influence is used for a variety of purpose, many of which are good of course, but many are self-serving or worse. I think it should be used for what it claims to offer, and nothing besides. Why waste time and effort on anything besides salvation if salvation is worthwhile?

Anyway, I’ve read most of the thread you’ve recommended and skimmed the rest of it. I’ve also read Why Liberalism Failed, as I mentioned. I’m still curious why it’s good for me.

Too obtuse? Sorry. Tim commenting on a post of mine that indulged in the sort of psychological discrediting we see here between Leon and Fire. It's a way to not address the actual contents of the arguments presented. "Othering" atheists so that they can safely be ignored, and we don't have to give due consideration to what they say - perhaps.

Got ya.

↪Banno Sorry, I'm not sure what this is referencing. — Tom Storm

Tom, Banno was telling you not to suffer fools.

No curiosity, so no respect needed, and no real conversation. Frustrating bummer here on TPF. — Fire Ologist

Yep, good post. :up:

On a philosophy forum my request is actually extremely meager. It's that evangelistic begging-the-question does not happen again and again and again. For example: that we could have a discussion about faith without constantly begging the question and assuming that it must be irrational.

So if an atheist is to philosophically engage a believer on the topic of religion (or faith), then they are not philosophically permitted to simply presuppose that religion is irrational. They are not permitted to define the religious act in terms of irrationality. That imposition and begging of the question is precisely what is unphilosophical. Instead they must argue for the conclusion that religion is irrational, using premises that are acceptable to their interlocutor. That this has not occurred in this thread demonstrates the problem and the unseriousness of this form of atheism. — Leontiskos

Anyway, I’ve read most of the thread you’ve recommended and skimmed the rest of it. I’ve also read Why Liberalism Failed, as I mentioned. I’m still curious why it’s good for me. — praxis

Okay, great. My point was that even the most tolerant do not tolerate everything. When I say that Christianity values unity in plurality, I am not saying that Christian tolerance is without limit.

What I meant was that religious influence is used for a variety of purpose, many of which are good of course, but many are self-serving or worse. I think it should be used for what it claims to offer, and nothing besides. — praxis

A good thing should never be used for an evil purpose. I agree, but human realities don't work that way.

Okay, great. My point was that even the most tolerant do not tolerate everything. When I say that Christianity values unity in plurality, I am not saying that Christian tolerance is without limit. — Leontiskos

Still missing the point but nevermind if you don’t want to speak more directly or whatever.

Instead they must argue for the conclusion that religion is irrational, using premises that are acceptable to their interlocutor. — Leontiskos

Precisely - that would be a discussion. You begin with whatever is agreed, lay out your logic and conclusions, and you can dispute/discuss/disagree/agree with the logic and conclusions. But If you dispute the premises already agreed upon, you are either begging to start a new/different conversation, or just hiding some other intention in bad faith, pardon the pun.

At this point if the conversation is to continue then I think you need to offer formal argumentation, because you have . So if you want to offer an argument, formalize it and I will accede to answering.

There’s also a lot of religious bigotry towards atheism. That said, I've never felt that believers are not reasoning, unless they are of the evangelical, fundamentalist kind. — Tom Storm

Incurious religious people are no fun to talk to either. Tom, you are much more fun. Clearly curious person. I was talking about “atheists” in general, I do mean most atheists interested in philosophy, but I don’t mean you.

I don’t know many atheists (out side of the celebrity atheists) who claim to know that God cannot exist. As an atheist, I haven't argued that there is no God. My view is similar to most contemporary atheists: I have heard no good reason to believe in a God. — Tom Storm

I believe you, not only because you say it here and you are an honest person, but because, judging by all you say, that quick summary of your present view is what I would say of your stance as well.

Oops - accidentally hit Post button. Will continue reply in another post.

I see. That was an impulsive comment and I regret making it. Your post caught me off guard—in a funny way—and the wine didn’t help. Sorry. :pray:

It happens

- No problem, apology accepted. :up:

Still, I think formal or quasi-formal argument would be helpful, especially insofar as we draw near to more difficult topics. I don't mean to be a pain, but also bumped us off a topic that is genuinely interesting. It is the question of the relation between the good, the true, and motivation. One could say, "They wish to substitute emotion for evidence" (Russell), but there is a much more philosophical way to investigate that issue.

Is the desperate mushroom-eater merely acting emotionally? The answer is not so obvious. Nor is it obvious that in seeking the good (life) he is forfeiting intellectual honesty (truth).

Then you have some authors who claim that the motive for faith is the good, not the true. For example, why do we listen to the weatherman? Is it primarily because we are interested in what is true, or because we are interested in what is good? It actually seems that the answer is "the good" - it is a practical consideration. We wish to know the truth about the weather precisely in order to know how to act well. For the Medievals this will bear on what is called the transcendental convertibility of the good and the true.

"All that I have written seems like straw"
— St. Thomas Aquinas

In this light I don’t understand your and Fire’s current complaints about irrationality, or rather, non-rationality. Many spiritual seekers go to great pains to transcend the rational. Does the good and the true converge in rationality?

I don’t know many atheists (out side of the celebrity atheists) who claim to know that God cannot exist. — Tom Storm

I know plenty of atheists, even just around here - all individual people, with different strengths of conviction, strengths of their reasons and evidence. Love some of them dearly. Like others for just thinking of these questions.

I agree. “God cannot exist” is not the main thing atheists argue. It does paint the same world picture described more plainly as: “God does not exist.” But I agree, most atheist arguments don’t seek to preclude the very possibility of God.

But many do argue there is no meaningful talking about what God is without first verifying some sort of testable evidence that God is. And, to them, since there is no evidence that God is, no one can really talk about “God” at all.

Which makes sense (literally and figuratively) - with no evidence of some unknown thing, there is nothing to say about that unknown thing.

So in the end, maybe “God cannot exist” isn’t the best way to put it, but it seems pointless try to discuss God in any kind of meaningful detail if we cannot merely say what God is and whether this God is. We always end up stuck here at “Does God exist?” Or we start to talk nonsense without being able to verify whether nonsensical or not.

I recently attended an Easter service in a high Anglican church. — Tom Storm

If you heard readings from the Old Testament and the New Testament, there is first reference to anything about God I would want to discuss. That’s where I would go for things to talk about if we wanted to talk about God.

The theists I meet (mostly Catholics, Muslims and Charismatics) tend not to appreciate ecumenism; they stick to a rigid version of God and often belittle or fear other faiths. — Tom Storm

A rigid version. So more than one version. Sikhs, Muslims, Catholics, Jews, Hindus, etc.

You are getting ahead of us and calling certain things rigid. Rigid version of “God”?

What was there about God you might judge as rigid or not from the old and New Testament readings and prayers at Easter? Let’s go there, or some other text - something concrete we can share between us.

Catholic means universal, and, mystically, the God the Catholics worship excludes no one who seeks God (even you seeking God here in this discussion), so I don’t know what you are talking about when you say “rigid version of God.”

Plenty of people don’t understand God at all, and none of us understand all of God, but let’s not seek to conclude whether one faith in God can be found better, or less rigid than another faith in God if we are incapable concluding whether God exists or what God is.

And I’ve been assuming you think ecumenical impulses are good and “rigid” is bad, so maybe I misread that.

I don’t care about sects and different religions much - I associate God with love too much to start with rigid things that might obfuscate God and love, and beauty, and richness of life, etc.

I actually don’t think there’s much difference in the lives of atheists or believers when it comes to moral commitment or awareness of life’s richness. I see deep empathy, ethical reflection, and appreciation for meaning and beauty in both camps. — Tom Storm

Exactly. I agree. There is not much difference in all of our lives. Life’s richness, empathy, reflection, meaning, beauty - I would add love of other people. Atheists and believers alike have these experiences. These are where I would go to find evidence that God is, or to say what God is.

I tell you this because you seem to talk to religious people a lot about their religion. I’m a religious person - going to mass tomorrow as I do every Sunday. All I do differently from the scientist, is say thank you to God for these experiences, as gifts. I have nothing more or less than what any atheist has, and I get nothing more than what these experiences actually are, I just maybe would add my own gratitude for them, and I give this back to God - my only gift back for receiving as you put it “awareness of life’s richness. …deep empathy, …reflection, and appreciation for meaning and beauty in both camps…” my only gift back is to say “thank you” but I still give it.

This why it is hard to talk about God on TPF to me. It’s not philosophy anymore. It’s theology, or the metaphysics and ontology of faith in God.

I just realized my frustration with many atheists over subjects relating God and faith: It’s either bad philosophy or bad theology that we struggle with when trying to bridge the gap between the theist and the atheist. And theology has no real place here on TPF anyway.

Catholic means universal, and, mystically, the God the Catholics worship excludes no one who seeks God (even you seeking God here in this discussion), so I don’t know what you are talking about when you say “rigid version of God.” — Fire Ologist

It's not so hard; surely you know these religious folk too. They're the ones who often call the worshippers of other faiths idolaters. They are rigid, because only through their version of faith can one know God or even have the potential to enter heaven. It's not just, say, Jehovah's Witnesses who think like this; it's members of many religions. An Irish Protestant colleague of mine calls the Catholic Church the whore of Babylon, as the good Ian Paisley often did on television when I was young. The Muslim folks I talk to believe that Jesus was a man who survived crucifixion by having someone else take his place. In their view, Christians are not following the correct revelation. And even within a single religion, the schisms between isms are notorious for their internecine conflicts and bloodshed.

I just realized my frustration with many atheists over subjects relating God and faith: It’s either bad philosophy or bad theology that we struggle with when trying to bridge the gap between the theist and the atheist — Fire Ologist

For me it often just comes down to worldviews. People can draw different inferences from the same evidence and arrive at opposite conclusions about the existence of God. Debate about the matter isn’t always helpful and often ends with disparaging the other person’s view. We see this happen here all the time, as people are often accused of bad faith because dogmatic atheists and theists tend to perceive persecution, ill intent or hostility in any form of dissent.

Exactly. I agree. There is not much difference in all of our lives. Life’s richness, empathy, reflection, meaning, beauty - I would add love of other people. Atheists and believers alike have these experiences. These are where I would go to find evidence that God is, or to say what God is. — Fire Ologist

:up: I think that's a fair observation.

Nice talking to you.

the sort of psychological discrediting we see here between Leon and Fire. It's a way to not address the actual contents of the arguments presented. "Othering" atheists so that they can safely be ignored, and we don't have to give due consideration to what they say - perhaps. — Banno

Amazing. Just stunned.

The reference to psychology, to not addressing content, to “othering” (great word!). Truly stunned.

How could you say that and not see yourself?

That is exactly how I would describe what you try to do to me.

It’s like you were drawing a self-portrait.
For the others, like me and Leon. :lol:

——-

You’ve been over-duly considered, and I’d still consider you again, but I’d love to see some actual, humble, respectful consideration come my way.

Like I just gave Tom.

Or am I still too muddle-headed to tell you've already given me appropriate consideration, Banno?

meh.

I've given you more consideration than your posts deserve.

We see this happen here all the time, as people are often accused of bad faith because dogmatic atheists and theists tend to perceive persecution, ill intent or hostility in any form of dissent. — Tom Storm

Maybe religious people seek out environments where they can argue with atheists to help exorcise their own faithless demons?