quote:There is no possible nuance of theology that can get around the central fact of theist belief:
"We believe that there exists a god."
Actually, it's not that simple. "Existence" is an ontological catagory that can be surprisingly tricky. Arguments over what "being" is have been going on for hundreds of years; they have become nuanced and delicate. Just because these distinctions and concerns don't filter into a popular audience doesn't mean that a serious, penetrating, non-casual discussion of God can ignore them. See: the Scholastic tradition, negative theology, God Without Being.
quote:If you were to ask him about the geopolitics of Atlantis, however, I think you might find him dismissing your question without having studied it very much; and so would you, if you are honest.
There is a vast difference between saying "God talk is meaningless" and "God talk does not exist." Your argument here confuses "Atlantis talk is meaningless" with "Atlantis talk does not exist."
Orlox, there's materialism, and then there's materialism, you know what I mean? Richard Dawkins' scientific/popular materialism is light years apart from a more philosophical materialism, which is not reducible to chattering endlessly about matter and energy. I'm talking here about the tradition that runs Lucretious -> Hobbes -> Spinoza -> Marx -> Althusseur -> Deleuze, etc.
Posts: 1515 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:so the fact that i was raised jewish, went to an orthodox jewish school for 8 years, and understand the jewish community gives me the right fully criticize religion from my new atheist mentality, but Dawkins can't because he was never a member of any particular religion?
Critique to the extent that you understand. The problem is that Dawkins shows very little understanding.
Posts: 1515 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:He, from what I can tell, is arguing proof where no proof is relevant or applicable. He is arguing science on a topic that is outside of the realm of science.
I understand why many religious folk believe this, but i see no inherent reason for the topic of god to be outside the realm of science. the only thing that makes it outside the realm of science are the claims that are made in holy books and what many of it's members believe based on the claims of those holy books.
That is not true, in my experience. Scripture is one record of our relationship with the Divine.
quote:
Science is just a way of asking questions about the world working under the philosophy that all events are ultimately explainable.
Are they?
quote:
That the universe functions under certain constraints and rules and that all events that happen within said universe are subject to those laws.
And why would it do that?
quote:
I see no reason why religion and god should get a free pass to be outside the realm of critical analysis.
And I see no reason why it shouldn't. That something is beyond our capability to understand doesn't mean it can't be.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Strider: He, from what I can tell, is arguing proof where no proof is relevant or applicable. He is arguing science on a topic that is outside of the realm of science.
I understand why many religious folk believe this, but i see no inherent reason for the topic of god to be outside the realm of science. the only thing that makes it outside the realm of science are the claims that are made in holy books and what many of it's members believe based on the claims of those holy books.
That is not true, in my experience. Scripture is one record of our relationship with the Divine.
Well, you'll obviously disagree with me, but i believe that any other beliefs or records not scripture related stem from a pre-existing belief about the existence of a deity or supernatural events occurring. Meaning, a religious person and an atheist can be present for the same event or have the same feeling, and depending on what their beliefs are they will experience that event differently, ask different questions about it, and attempt to explain it in different ways. An atheist looking for a natural explanation, and a person of faith looking for an explanation that meshes with their religious views. I realize i'm oversimplifying here, and that not every religious person will see every weird event as a miracle or act of god. but i'm trying to make a general point about how a persons beliefs will affect how choose to interpret events and feelings in their life. And yes, this is the same for atheists, but i feel this is the safer route, to always look for a rational explanation. If enough things couldn't be answered through this method, than maybe i would leave atheism behind.
quote:
quote:
Science is just a way of asking questions about the world working under the philosophy that all events are ultimately explainable.
Are they?
i've never seen any indication that they aren't. even if we currently don't have the means to explain all things(and may never with certain things), the fact that most previously unexplainable things have succumbed to rational/scientific explanation is enough to make me believe that ultimately everything is explainable.
quote:
quote:
That the universe functions under certain constraints and rules and that all events that happen within said universe are subject to those laws.
And why would it do that?
Well there are a number of competing theories and answers to that question. One might be that a universe which didn't function according to set laws would be unlikely to behave in a manner conducive to galaxies, stars, and planets forming, let alone for life to develop. And so we shouldn't be surprised that the universe we happen to exist in functions that way.
Posts: 8741 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ok. Any time somebody answers a criticism with "It depends on what you mean by exist", my bullshit detectors go off. I'm not interested in such a discussion. If you want to go off and have Deeply Meaningful Debates On What We Mean By 'Exists', go right ahead; just be aware that you've defined yourself right out of any sort of claim to being interesting. I just don't care, neither does Dawkins, and neither does Dawkins' audience. Nor, I would suggest, do the vast majority of theists. Those of us who haven't overdosed on philosophy classes have a pretty good idea what we mean by 'exists'. If you want to join our debates, you'll have to agree to not quibbling about these really trivial issues. Otherwise, fine, go over and play in your own little sandbox, but you can't play with us.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Why is a "natural explanation" contrary to "act of God". They don't have to be mutual exclusive. In my view, they generally aren't.
I'm not surprised that the universe behaves according to set laws. Or that life as we know it might not exist if it didn't. I'm just asking why it does.
quote:There is a vast difference between saying "God talk is meaningless" and "God talk does not exist." Your argument here confuses "Atlantis talk is meaningless" with "Atlantis talk does not exist."
You totally misread my post. Try again. A hint: My point is that "If X does not exist, then X talk is meaningless". There is no mention of "X talk does not exist" in my post, that's your own misreading.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Foust: Orlox, there's materialism, and then there's materialism, you know what I mean? Richard Dawkins' scientific/popular materialism is light years apart from a more philosophical materialism, which is not reducible to chattering endlessly about matter and energy. I'm talking here about the tradition that runs Lucretious -> Hobbes -> Spinoza -> Marx -> Althusseur -> Deleuze, etc. [/QB]
Using the phrase 'not reducible to' in a response to my essay suggests a certain reading.
Posts: 675 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Why is a "natural explaination" contrary to "act of God". They don't have to be mutual exclusive. In my view, they generally aren't.
Well at what point do god and religion become insignificant if nothing needs god to explain it? And what's more, given that, when does it become hurtful when multiple religions all contradict each other as well as contradict themselves and contain many laws and customs that i think many people today would find very immoral?
Posts: 8741 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Why is a "natural explaination" contrary to "act of God".
If you just want to call everything in nature an act of God, I've got no beef with that. If, however, you believe there are individual acts of God that interact with the natural world in ways which contradict known natural mechanisms, expect to have those claims questioned and evidence demanded.
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:If, however, you believe there are individual acts of God that interact with the natural world in ways which contradict known natural mechanisms, expect to have those claims questioned and evidence demanded.
Feel free to disagree with me, but you don't have any right to demand evidence for what I believe in.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
If you want to call everything in nature an act of God, I *do* have a beef with it. That's the same as saying that everything is God, which is certainly a description I've heard before. But if everything is God, that means God is either subject to the laws of the universe, or God is the law of the universe itself, in which case I think we shouldn't call that entity "God" because it's misleading.
Posts: 3516 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Feel free to disagree with me, but you don't have any right to demand evidence for what I believe in.
I didn't mean that to be an aggressive statement. What I mean when I say that evidence will be demanded is that acceptance of your claim may be contingent on your producing evidence to support it.
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Feel free to disagree with me, but you don't have any right to demand evidence for what I believe in.
I didn't mean that to be an aggressive statement. What I mean when I say that evidence will be demanded is that acceptance of your claim may be contingent on your producing evidence to support it.
posted
KoM, why should we use your rules in our sandbox? And "interesting to you" may not be the end all of "interesting".
Strider, God and religion, for me, are less about explaining how things happen than examining the significance of those things and what it means about how I should live.
It becomes hurtful when we demand that others to reach the same answers.
Matt, I would expect the same thing if I expected others to accept those claims.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Leonide: If you want to call everything in nature an act of God, I *do* have a beef with it. That's the same as saying that everything is God, which is certainly a description I've heard before. But if everything is God, that means God is either subject to the laws of the universe, or God is the law of the universe itself, in which case I think we shouldn't call that entity "God" because it's misleading.
That's the basis of a number of peoples' religious world view and I don't think they are trying to be misleading. It's how they understand the universe.
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
actually, i don't think this thread has been so bad as all the others. there's a "yet" inherent in that statement, though.
and porter, i did know that about LDS theology.
edit: also, i don't think religious people *themselves* are being misleading, i just think the term itself, in that context, is. That word has certain connotations, and stretching it to include "the natural order of things" is not a commonly accepted one.
Posts: 3516 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Leonide: If you want to call everything in nature an act of God, I *do* have a beef with it. That's the same as saying that everything is God, which is certainly a description I've heard before. But if everything is God, that means God is either subject to the laws of the universe, or God is the law of the universe itself, in which case I think we shouldn't call that entity "God" because it's misleading.
Leonide, I think it is leading to a better understanding of God. God is the Lover, the Beloved, and Love Itself. It is seeing God as an old tribal dude in the sky that is misleading.
edit to add: Strider, move in anytime. I am only an adequate cook, but I give excellent backrubs.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Leo -- in that case, are you saying that LDS shouldn't use the word God to describe what we believe about God?
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:My problem with this is that, to me, "believes there is no God" and "does not believe there is a God" have different meanings.
You know, I shared this opinion for years, until I realized that I was looking at it the wrong way. That's actually when I started calling myself an atheist.
The default state is one of no belief. Someone who believes there is no God doesn't believe in God less than someone who does not believe there is a God; they both simply don't believe. There's no practical difference between the two, assuming all else is held equal.
The only place the distinction comes into play is when we reverse the assumption of belief; if, for example, we feel that John has a legitimate reason to think that God exists, but that he willfully refuses to acknowledge this. The distinction is one of will: atheists, according to this definition, choose not to believe despite evidence to the contrary, while agnostics don't believe but would be willing to reconsider.
A few years ago, I realized that this definition fit none of the real atheists I knew and only a handful of the fake ones; it effectively makes every atheist in the world into an agnostic.
Why should we be reluctant to say that, as things now stand, we do not believe in a God? This doesn't preclude us from being "open-minded" on the issue; after all, it's a rare atheist indeed who, presented with actual evidence of God, would not change his mind.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Kate: but the word came about as basically meaning an old tribal dude in the sky. to change the definition in modern times is, i think, ill-advised. the description you just gave is for Everything. so when you say everything, i'll understand that you mean everything. When you say God, well, i just don't know what to assume.
Porter: no, i'm sorry, in re-reading my initial post i realized i was not clear. I think calling "Everything" "God" is misleading. I think calling the natural order of the universe "God" is misleading. I don't think if you have a conception of an entity that is subject to the natural order of things (although, again, ignorance of the entirety of LDS doctrine makes this following statement possibly inaccurate)but somehow also better-than, or above it, or able to bend those laws in a way that humans can't or can't yet, then that's fine, you can call that God.
Posts: 3516 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:God is the Lover, the Beloved, and Love Itself.
But Love Itself is not sentient.
------
Kate: the default state is unbelief because that's the default state for any assertion. Otherwise we'd walk into walls, believing them to be the same color as the doors. And simultaneously believing them to be tigers in wall form.
There is a minimum level of evidence necessary for any assertion of reality. The claim of "God" makes it past the first threshold, in that it isn't obviously and immediately false. It may even make it past the second threshold -- that of actual positive evidence -- for some people who believe that their experiences constitute evidence of a God. People who have not had those experiences, or people who have found other explanations for them, have no reason to move beyond the baseline of "does not believe."
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Love is also one of those tricky words I would ask someone to define before trying to understand what they were saying.
Posts: 3516 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
I know. When, for example, I tell Christy "I love you," the sentence does not admit the possibility that my love for her might suddenly decide to go get some ice cream.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think my parents really missed the mark with me -- i believed in Santa Claus with such conviction and passion that I actively, willfully ignored evidence of his non-existence until age 10, when I demanded to be given affirmative confirmation. Which of course, I wasn't. If God had been described to me in similar terms from childhood on up, I don't know that you'd be talking to an atheist right now Posts: 3516 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Leonide: Love is also one of those tricky words I would ask someone to define before trying to understand what they were saying.
Tricky, isn't it, trying to pin down the infinite with words.
Tom, I would say belief is the default otherwise we wouldn't walk anywhere because we wouldn't believe in the walls or the door or tigers.
twinky, it predates memory so I really couldn't tell you. I can say that when I first recall hearing about God my response was more, "Oh, that's what you're/it's called" than "Oh, that's a new idea." I don't think that probably answers your question. I had experience God before I had words to frame that experience.
Tom, you may be talking about the feeling of love which isn;t exactly what I mean by concept of Love. Again, tricky using words.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: KoM, why should we use your rules in our sandbox?
I didn't say you should. I said, if you're going to quibble about what it means 'to exist', then you can't play in my sandbox. Take it or leave it. I also asserted that most theists and most people don't want to play in a sandbox where the semantics of 'existence' is in doubt. If you have evidence to the contrary, give it.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
KoM, I think we all "play" in different sandboxes depending on the questions we are asking and the discussions we want to have. The "science" sandbox is not the only sandbox on the playground and it's rules shouldn't necessarily apply to other sandboxes.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: Tom, I would say belief is the default otherwise we wouldn't walk anywhere because we wouldn't believe in the walls or the door or tigers.
I disagree. If "evidence" is to mean anything, it has to mean the evidence of our own senses. We don't spontaneously believe in walls; we perceive the wall, then conclude that, based on our perception, the wall is there.
----
quote:Tom, you may be talking about the feeling of love which isn't exactly what I mean by concept of Love.
I'm not sure what distinction you're making. What is the "concept" of Love when divorced from the "feeling" of lowercase love? And why is the concept more likely to be sentient than the feeling? Are we talking about memes as if they possessed volition?
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Tom, you may be talking about the feeling of love which isn't exactly what I mean by concept of Love. Again, tricky using words. [/QB]
If you have to wave your hands and say "I can't explain it, you just have to feeeeel it", then isn't it time to consider that you may be basically talking nonsense? The unclearly spoken is the unclearly thought; words are the only means we have of communicating concepts, even to ourselves, and a concept that cannot be properly communicated is, quite literally, nonsense.
quote:Tom, I would say belief is the default otherwise we wouldn't walk anywhere because we wouldn't believe in the walls or the door or tigers.
And how many three-day-old babies have you seen walking around? There is a vast process of exploration and testing that goes on before we are ready to believe in the most basic of concepts. Young children, for example, have no concept that a large object will not fit into a small container. They have to figure this out by experiment. By the time they are ready to walk, they believe in the walls because they've checked them out and found them sound. Not because of some mystical default state of belief. After all, in that case, what separates your god from the leprechauns at the end of the garden?
(I know, I know, you've heard it before. But you've never given a satisfactory answer. If you insist on taking the same old garden path, you're going to see the same dang leprechauns, every time.)
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: The default state is one of no belief.
Why?
Did you believe in god when you were born, or did someone have to tell you about god first?
How can you be sure that the default state is not to have a need for there to be some sort of order behind everything, and that need often latches onto the concept of God? Heck perhaps that need could even be described as a desire to have an all powerful authority figure govern things.
Also it's nonsense to say the default state is atheism as SOMEBODY at sometime had to out of the blue for whatever reason say, "There must be a God." Who told him?
Or else at some point God appeared to a man who then declared his existence.
I just don't see how just about EVERY single culture in recorded history has had a religious structure that describes a God type figure and yet the default state is atheism. I can't think of any other concept that is so common in humanity yet is not part of human nature.
And why does a default even matter? Is there something inherently correct or better about the blank slate that is the human mind upon being born?
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
You're confusing a default state with a natural state, BlackBlade. Man needs to eat; man's default state is not "eating."
Man may well need to believe in things. But the default state of any assertion is not "true."
(Note: this sort of default only matters when talking about -- for example -- whether one can fairly call an "atheist" someone who has decided not to believe in God, as opposed to someone who simply does not believe in God.)
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: You're confusing a default state with a natural state, BlackBlade. Man needs to eat; man's default state is not "eating."
Man may well need to believe in things. But the default state of any assertion is not "true."
Mmmm perhaps. I need to think about that one.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Also it's nonsense to say the default state is atheism as SOMEBODY at sometime had to out of the blue for whatever reason say, "There must be a God." Who told him?
You are forgetting that the original religions didn't have your rather ethereal and rarified conceptions of gods. They dealt in very tangible lion gods, water gods, and tree gods. I trust you'll agree that it doesn't take very much effort to accept the existence of lions, and it is hardly a very large conceptual leap to the idea that if you feed Ug to the lions, they won't eat you. What you're seeing is a vast abstraction strucutre built on top of the idea of lions plus the intentions of lions.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
KoM and Tom, there are limits to words. We expand those boundaries, but infinite concepts still lie beyond those boundaries. Because something doesn't fit into the box we have for it, doesn't mean it can't exist or that it is nonsense.
I know this is frustrating for you. I'm sorry.
If it helps at all, know that I have no wish at all to change your mind.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: KoM, I think we all "play" in different sandboxes depending on the questions we are asking and the discussions we want to have. The "science" sandbox is not the only sandbox on the playground and its rules shouldn't necessarily apply to other sandboxes.
Once again: If you have some evidence that a large number of people want to play in a sandbox where the meaning of 'to exist' is in doubt, give it. Otherwise, accept that most people do in fact play in the one where we know what we mean when we assert that there is, or is not, a god. This has nothing to do with science versus religion, this is sophomoric word games versus the rest of the world.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Sez you, back.
You don't think words have limits?
Of course they do. But that doesn't mean that your mere assertion of infinities beyond those boundaries is true. And besides, since you acknowledge that you cannot properly understand those 'infinities', how can you have the gall to assert that they consist of "Love, the Beloved, and whatever-it-was"? Since you know nothing of the kind, you're just making meaningless noises that sound good to you. You might as well say that your god consists of "The La-La, the Tinky-Winky, and the Pooh", that would be just as meaningful and accurate. Or, indeed, "The Torture, the Pain-Inflicter, and the Pain". If words have no meaning in a domain, then any words you like can be substituted. So when you then start reasoning from the particular words you've chosen, assigning the meanings that those words commonly have, you are not even building on sand, you're building on air.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Also it's nonsense to say the default state is atheism as SOMEBODY at sometime had to out of the blue for whatever reason say, "There must be a God." Who told him?
You are forgetting that the original religions didn't have your rather ethereal and rarified conceptions of gods. They dealt in very tangible lion gods, water gods, and tree gods. I trust you'll agree that it doesn't take very much effort to accept the existence of lions, and it is hardly a very large conceptual leap to the idea that if you feed Ug to the lions, they won't eat you. What you're seeing is a vast abstraction strucutre built on top of the idea of lions plus the intentions of lions.
There is nothing ethereal or planar about the God I worship and in the texts I read, he is more or less the same throughout history.
I can see your point as a valid possibility of where the concept of God may have come from. But to me it is also possible that God appears to men and in the course relaying the information of who God is and what He has said the original message can become completely transformed.
I think of it as like a global game of telephone.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:There is nothing ethereal or planar about the God I worship
Good! Point to it!
quote: and in the texts I read, he is more or less the same throughout history.
Well, yes, they would say that, wouldn't they. In the world of actual archeological evidence that the rest of us inhabit, this is nonsense.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Sez you, back.
You don't think words have limits?
The question isn't whether or not words have limits, the question is whether the word "exists" isn't sufficient for our discussion here. I'm going to agree with KOM that the generally accepted definition of the word is enough to look at the specific factual claims made by most religions I know of.
Posts: 2437 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
