The philosophical conception of god in the age of reason and science.

@jeeprs,

jeeprs;167163 wrote:

If atheism is the burning away of beliefs that have been beaten into us by conformist traditions then I am also atheist. And I often think along the lines of Jesus being an athesit. Shocking as it seems, I think this is true. But then there are those experiences that can't be accounted for in the framework of (shall we say) metaphysical naturalism (the polite term for materialism). As Gavin says above, the existence or non-existence of G*D is still an open question. Officially I am still agnostic.

Officially, I too am an "agnostic," but I do live without any expectation whatsoever of the supernatural. So for practical purposes, I'm an atheist. Except that I do find it quite respectable to use the word "God" for the totality of one's experience. It seems to me that any human abstraction will always be smaller than human experience taken as a whole. As much as I love science, math, my woman, music, philosophy, etc., etc., the sum is greater than any of these things. No human idea is big enough to enclose human experience.

Of course if another human told me of strange experiences I would listen to them with respect, even if I didn't truly believe them or simply interpreted their experience in another light than they did. Jung writes well on schizophrenia and probably none of us deny the existence of this disease. At the same time I'm not eager to reduce all claims of strange experience to madness. For that would indeed be closed minded of me. "Schizophrenia" is after all one more human abstraction. Admittedly it fits certain cases as well as any other abstraction, especially when we are dealing with those who harm themselves or others. If a happy man tells me of strange experiences, I'm going to be less eager to interpret his experience as confusion. But still, I reject the very notion of the "supernatural." I feel that the concept "natural" is wide enough to include whatever transpires. It's just that the debate is never finished as to what "Nature" is.

---------- Post added 05-21-2010 at 10:15 PM ----------

gavin25;167155 wrote:

I, for one, hold atheists who claim to know there is no god in the same esteem as I hold believers. Probability wise, were anyone to claim 100% truth for either side of the argument, that person would have to be infinitely incorrect.

I see your point. I definitely cannot prove either proposition. I suppose all I can do is admit that I live as if there were not a God, unless one means something metaphorical --like the evolving human species not considered apart from the environment it evolves within.

One other thing: science is one of man's highest exploits. I do sometimes think we humans forget to see what science cannot explain. And this is nothing mystical but simply because its method is quantitative. I'm talking about qualia. The redness of a rose as experienced by us or more importantly the "subjective" experience of love. It doesn't matter what neuroscience can do to connect these with parts of the brain. The subjective experience itself is irreducible. For me there is nothing the least bit mystical about qualia. It's just something the modern worldview tends to neglect. We are so used to seeing the world through our potent scientific abstractions that we forget what the net can't catch. Lightwaves are a useful abstraction. The red of a woman's lips is an irreducible experience.

1 Reply

@Reconstructo,

Reconstructo;167168 wrote:

At the same time I'm not eager to reduce all claims of strange experience to madness

Well that's a relief. There are states that fall short of normality. There are also states that surpass it. Our culture has channeled talk of the latter into socially-sanctioned format which they call religion. But religion is just a way of firewalling this awareness off so as to maintain our sense of bourgeois normalcy.

1 Reply

@jeeprs,

jeeprs;167170 wrote:

But religion is just a way of firewalling this awareness off so as to maintain our sense of bourgeois normalcy.

Well said. And of course if one remembers how much crude religion is out there....I have seen terrible cons on T.V. before. Jesus-blessed miracle necklaces. There really is quite a bit of outright cynical manipulation out there. And this more than anything obscures the value of religious myth --which in my mind is put to an exactly opposite use than it should be.

If we run with Jesus-as-atheist, for instance, we see that he is often these days sold indeed as a Captain Crunch, or as an excuse to drop bombs. This is ironic, for he was (the story runs) nailed up for attacking religious hypocrisy. In the story, the religious leaders preffered the release of a murderer rather than of this man who told folks that god was nothing but love, that the spirit of the law was more important than its letter, that what comes out of man's mouth defiles him, not the crawfish or pork that goes in. Blake went on an on about this. That accusation was the opposite of true religion. Of course as you know Blake said that God only existed within man --in the form of love and imagination. I think this is a respectable view.

By the way, the "firewall" is a great metaphor. I see that side as well. I just ended up focusing on the straight out hypocrisy and aggression in con-man "religion."

0 Replies

@gavin25,

gavin25;167155 wrote:

I, for one, hold atheists who claim to know there is no god in the same esteem as I hold believers. Probability wise, were anyone to claim 100% truth for either side of the argument, that person would have to be infinitely incorrect.

First of all, humans are fallible, so anyone that claims that they cannot be mistaken is wrong. That said, we can still know things, though we are fallible. Do not confuse knowing with absolute certainty. If I say I know God does not exist, I am not stating that I cannot be mistaken. That would be a rather grave misconception.

Now, the fallacy from ignorance states that it is an error to claim that something is true simply because it has not been proven false. Conversely, it states that it is an error to claim that something is false simply because it has not been proven true. But, and this is a large but, there is a such thing as auto-epistemic reasoning:

Quote:

Similarly, when extensive investigation has been undertaken, it is often reasonable to infer that something is false based upon a lack of positive evidence for it. For instance, if a drug has been subjected to lengthy testing for harmful effects and none has been discovered, it is then reasonable to conclude that it is safe. Another example is:

If there really were a large and unusual type of animal in Loch Ness, then we would have undeniable evidence of it by now.
We don't have undeniable evidence of a large, unfamiliar animal in Loch Ness.
Therefore, there is no such animal.

As with reasoning using the closed world assumption, auto-epistemic reasoning does not commit the fallacy of Argument from Ignorance.

Logical Fallacy: Appeal to Ignorance

We can use this sort of reasoning to conclude that Captain Crunch doesn't exist, for instance. Do you know that Captain Crunch doesn't exist, or do you think you cannot claim that you know he doesn't exist? If you feel you can't claim you know he doesn't exist, that seems strange to me. And please detail why. Also let me know if you think this way about any imaginary creature someone conjures.

0 Replies

@Zetherin,

Zetherin;167095 wrote:

And as I noted before, don't you see how silly that is? It's a cop out. I can redefine anything, stating that it now means X: Captain Crunch is humanity. We know humanity exists, so Captain Crunch exists by definition, right? No. I would have no argument in this case. I just attempted to redefine a word in order to suit my desire for that thing to exist. It's pathetic, really.

Nothing "exists by definition" insofar as I understand what the phrase means. Of course, one can argue that since X is really identical with Y, that since Y exists, X exists. For example, that since Samuel Clemens is identical with Mark Twain, and since Mark Twain exists, Samuel Clemens exists. But why would anyone call that "defining Samuel Clemens into existence"? Spinoza argued that since God was identical with Nature (Deus sive Natura) and Nature existed, therefore God existed. But that argument crucially depends on the premise that God is identical with Nature. And clearly, that premise has to be established for that argument to go through.

0 Replies

@prothero,

kennethamy wrote:

Of course, one can argue that since X is really identical with Y, that since Y exists, X exists.

That is what I was referring to. They desire for Y to exist, so they state it is identical with something X we know exists. It seems absolutely pathetic to me.

1 Reply

@prothero,

I know why I am opposed to atheism. It is because I see it as an attack on the philosophical and spiritual heritage of Western culture. The lumpen-atheism which says 'well where's this God then? You can't show me anything can you?' I find intensely annoying. This is not to say that I like christian evangalism much either. But at least underlying it I see a religious philosophy that is built on care for the poor and the other Christian values. And secondly because I don't even think it is philosophically respectable to write off all the religious and spiritual values in the world, because you can picture anything that answers to the description God. It is a complete failure of the imagination and a form of defense against having to admit that there might be something in all of this that you really don't know. And that seems really pathetic to me.

3 Replies

@jeeprs,

jeeprs;167217 wrote:

I know why I am opposed to atheism. It is because I see it as an attack on the philosophical and spiritual heritage of Western culture.

You jump at me when I lump theists together, but you're content lumping atheists together? Remember that there are weak and strong atheists, as well as people that just don't care either way. And, no, that one is atheist doesn't mean they're attacking heritage.

Quote:

The lumpen-atheism which says 'well where's this God then? You can't show me anything can you?' I find intensely annoying. This is not to say that I like christian evangalism much either. But at least underlying it I see a religious philosophy that is built on care for the poor and the other Christian values.

There are many kind-hearted folk that are atheist. One need not believe in anything supernatural to be compassionate, once again. And I'm really not attacking you like you think I am. I'm simply against complacent irrationality.

Quote:

And secondly because I don't even think it is philosophically respectable to write off all the religious and spiritual values in the world, because you can picture anything that answers to the description God. It is a complete failure of the imagination and a form of defense against having to admit that there might be something in all of this that you really don't know. And that seems really pathetic to me.

I've written off Captain Crunch existing, and I don't think it's unreasonable of me to do so. Have you?

0 Replies

@prothero,

Well I will admit to reacting out of my dislike of Dawkins .....I suppose I hold him up as the model atheist and most of my remarks are directed at him.

But I do think this Cap'n Crunch thing is completely puerile, really. Whether God exists or not, the belief in God has been formative in Western civilization, the formation of science, the Universities, the idea of the person, and so on, and so on. So to say that the belief in God is the same as believing in the flying spaghetti monster, or Captain Crunch, is simply childish, I am afraid. Apart from anything else, it doesn't even rate as a philosophy.

0 Replies

@Zetherin,

Zetherin;167203 wrote:

That is what I was referring to. They desire for Y to exist, so they state it is identical with something X we know exists. It seems absolutely pathetic to me.

Motives for an argument are one thing. The argument is a different thing. And, of course, your opinion of the motive for the argument is still a third thing. I might mention that it is a logical truth that X and Y cannot be identical unless both X and Y exist.

0 Replies

@jeeprs,

jeeprs;167217 wrote:

I know why I am opposed to atheism. It is because I see it as an attack on the philosophical and spiritual heritage of Western culture. The lumpen-atheism which says 'well where's this God then? You can't show me anything can you?' I find intensely annoying. This is not to say that I like christian evangalism much either. But at least underlying it I see a religious philosophy that is built on care for the poor and the other Christian values.

I think it was Dennet who said that it is a lot easier for people to believe that they ought to believe in spiritual things than it is to simply believe in them. I also think that's a more interesting debate, although it is hard to start their if people are claiming they believe it because it is true.

Quote:

And secondly because I don't even think it is philosophically respectable to write off all the religious and spiritual values in the world, because you can picture anything that answers to the description God. It is a complete failure of the imagination and a form of defense against having to admit that there might be something in all of this that you really don't know. And that seems really pathetic to me.

It's the opposite I'm afraid. The atheist position is that there are things we don't really know, and the theist position is that there are things we don't really know and that there is a rational intelligence behind them. Not making unwarranted leaps is not a failure of imagination. For some people it is hard to imagine a world worth living in without religion--that is a true failure of imagination.

0 Replies

@prothero,

Frankly, I do not think science deals very well with mind and experience.
Perhaps the aspect of the world we can be most sure of is mind and experience.
Science can only deal well with the objective properties of reality.
To then claim that "objective properties" are reality or that all "subjective experiences" are reducible to some kind of "objective property" must be committing some kind of logical fallacy.
I kind of liked the "objectivity is the illusion that observations can be made without observers" quote.

My contention was that there were rational conceptions (philosophical speculations) about god. Two of the ground rules of philosophy being coherence and rationality

I did not content they could be proven, that it was irrational not to believe them, or that the entity they described necessarily or certainly "exists".
I did not assert that "god" acts through supernatural means , through miracles, or communicates through "revealed religion".

I did not attack atheism, the lack of belief in a god or gods, for traditional atheism makes no assertions about god or the truth of god at all.
I briefly outlined a non supernatural notion of god as the principle for order and creativity in the universe; which entails the notion that mind and experience may be more extensive in the universe than science can detect or than we in the modern age commonly assume.

The immediate response was that "there is no possible conception of god that is rational". This seems like a rather large and unfounded assertion. It is certainly more than atheism. I do not even know how one can make such an assertion without discussing:
- the question "what do you mean by god?" or "what is god?"
- what is the extent of mind and experience in the world?
-what is the alternative basis for the self organizing nature of reality and its tendency towards order, complexity, life, mind and experience?
-why are the secrets of the universe accessible to reason and expressible as mathematical equations?

The only possible basis for the assertion that "there is no possible rational conception of god" is that one already has a comprehensive worldview that rules out the possibility of mind and experience being inherent in nature. That world view must also include the assumption that anyone who does not share that worldview that excludes mind and experience from being inherent in nature is being "irrational".

In effect it is an assertion that those who do not agree with my machine like and materialist view of the world have abandoned reason in their quest for truth. That sounds as dogmatic as any religious assertion I have ever heard. The fact of the matter is that it is very hard to scientifically or rationally draw the line between mind and no mind, between experience and no experience and between life and no life. It is entirely rational to assert that mind and experience may be more extensive in reality than is commonly assumed and there are conceptions of the divine that do not abandon reason or scientific fact.

This is not to say that the common orthodox traditional notion of god as a supernatural being, who intervenes in the world through miracles and revealed prophecy is rational .

0 Replies

@jeeprs,

jeeprs;167217 wrote:

I know why I am opposed to atheism.

I would have thought that someone would be opposed to atheism because he believed that atheism was false.

1 Reply

@kennethamy,

kennethamy;167348 wrote:

I would have thought that someone would be opposed to atheism because he believed that atheism was false.

but how can atheism be false, if it is merely "I do not believe in ........"? Now if atheism was some kind of statement about reality that would be different?

1 Reply

@prothero,

jeeprs wrote:

But I do think this Cap'n Crunch thing is completely puerile, really. Whether God exists or not, the belief in God has been formative in Western civilization, the formation of science, the Universities, the idea of the person, and so on, and so on. So to say that the belief in God is the same as believing in the flying spaghetti monster, or Captain Crunch, is simply childish, I am afraid.

So, because this notion of god has admittedly had influence on Western civilization (are you sure just Western - it would seem to me that it has had influence worldwide?), it's childish to compare it to Captain Crunch? But dozens upon dozens of imaginary characters have had influence on humanity. What about Greek mythology: the characters involved in the stories have inspired countless books, movies, and other media. Not to mention, there are countless parables dealing with the stories and their deeper meanings. What about the original Looney Tunes, like Porky Pig, in the 1930s, which inspired many later American cartoon artists? What about unicorns? They're in the Bible. They've certainly had influence on paintings, cartoons, movies, etc. etc. Should we consider any of these imaginary characters or creatures as real, simply because they've had influence on whatever? Absolutely not.

That an imaginary character has had influence on human culture, does not mean that that imaginary character exists. I don't see how this God notion is any different than the thousands of other mythological stories told my the Greeks, Mayans, Romans, Egyptians, or even by modern cartoon storytellers. I don't see how it's any different from the multitude of characters in children's books, nor do I see how it's any different from anything I may conjure.

---------- Post added 05-22-2010 at 03:15 PM ----------

prothero wrote:

In effect it is an assertion that those who do not agree with my machine like and materialist view of the world have abandoned reason in their quest for truth. That sounds as dogmatic as any religious assertion I have ever heard.

I never understood this part, but the both of you keep muttering it. I don't believe that Porky Pig exists, so I have abandoned my quest for truth? I am being dogmatic because I claim I know that Porky Pig doesn't exist?

Quote:

The only possible basis for the assertion that "there is no possible rational conception of god" is that one already has a comprehensive worldview that rules out the possibility of mind and experience being inherent in nature.

What? The possibility of mind and experience being inherent in nature? I haven't ruled out that possibility (if I even understand you correctly) - it is the way things are. Yes, our mind has evolved, and yes, humans can experience. So what? That's no proof there is a God. Just as it's no proof there are unicorns.

I just want to ask both of you: Why do you choose to believe only one imaginary figure, and not the whole bunch of them? You believe in God, but you don't believe in Mickey Mouse? Why? Take the whole package! Angels, zombies, unicorns, every cartoon character known to man, Little Red Riding Hood, Neo etc. At least be consistent here, ya know?

This terrifies me, by the way:

File:Religious Belief in North America.png - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

3 Replies

@prothero,

Wouldn't any God-concept we could come up with still be just a human abstraction? For me, the better God-concepts are something like conceptual art, and nothing more.

For me, the not only unexplained but seemingly unexplainable experience/existence of qualia is not something to shrug off. Of course we can vaguely integrate qualia into our abstract causal network, and safely assume that qualia, i.e. irreducible human experience, is dependent on a functioning brain. But what does this really do for us? I think it merely distracts us from the issue. To connect experience (phenomena, consciousness) to the brain is not make this experience any less....what is the word here?

I feel that humans are often more bored than they should be. To merely be alive, if one scrapes the abstractions away for a moment, both scientific and theological, is not a miracle exactly but something quite strange, potentially amazing. And this is what I think Blake was trying to stress. I also feel that the TLP has something to say on this. Conceptions of Nature's laws or of God's intentions, etc., are much smaller than human experience in the raw. Of course I am often absorbed in abstractions to the point that I forget this. Most of us are, perhaps.

---------- Post added 05-22-2010 at 03:23 PM ----------

Zetherin;167375 wrote:

What? The possibility of mind and experience being inherent in nature? I haven't ruled out that possibility (if I even understand you correctly) - it is the way things are. Yes, our mind has evolved, and yes, humans can experience. So what? That's no proof there is a God. Just as it's no proof there are unicorns.

I agree with you here. Of course I stress that there must be "mind" and "experience" inherent in nature, else our entire conversation would be "supernatural."

I also agree that there's simply no proof of a God. And a close examination of the available God concepts show them to be just that, concepts. Of course some humans may have had different life experiences than I. But from my point of view, there is only this life, which is mysterious enough, and arguably, as philosophers have argued, as made of "mind" as it is of "matter". And this is where philosophy troubles itself in a way that science does not -- this quite strange problem of "mind" and "matter" --both of which are abstractions from raw experience.

Quote:

Radical empiricism is a pragmatist doctrine put forth by William James. It asserts that experience includes both particulars and relations between those particulars, and that therefore both deserve a place in our explanations. In concrete terms: any philosophical worldview is flawed if it stops at the physical level and fails to explain how meaning, values and intentionality can arise from that.[1]

0 Replies

@prothero,

prothero;167352 wrote:

but how can atheism be false, if it is merely "I do not believe in ........"? Now if atheism was some kind of statement about reality that would be different?

I mean by "atheism", the belief that God does not exist. (Which implies "weak atheism" the absence of the the belief that God does exist).

1 Reply

@Zetherin,

[QUOTE=Zetherin;167375] I never understood this part, but the both of you keep muttering it. I don't believe that Porky Pig exists, so I have abandoned my quest for truth? I am being dogmatic because I claim I know that Porky Pig doesn't exist? [/QUOTE] But no one is promoting Captain Crunch, the flying spaghetti monster or Porky pig, are they? What you claim to "know" is that any and all conceptions of "god" even those of the most accomplished scientists and philosophers must be rationally equivalent to belief in Captain Crunch. It is quite an assertion actually. Frankly I think it is an irrational assertion and exhibits an inability to even rationally consider the question of "god".
We are not saying atheism is irrational, we are not even saying theism is true, we are just saying rational people can consider the possibility of some conceptions of the divine even in the age of reason and science.
Frankly it is your position that is dogmatic, inflexible and frankly mildly offensive.

[QUOTE=Zetherin;167375] What? The possibility of mind and experience being inherent in nature? I haven't ruled out that possibility (if I even understand you correctly) - it is the way things are. Yes, our mind has evolved, and yes, humans can experience. So what? That's no proof there is a God. Just as it's no proof there are unicorns. [/QUOTE] No one said it was proof. All that was said is that mind and experience may be more extensive or more unified in reality than a mechanical or materialist view of nature would allow. It has nothing to do with unicorns or imaginary creatures. Mind and experience are part of our reality except for those who reduce them to illusions with monistic materialism.

[QUOTE=Zetherin;167375] I just want to ask both of you: Why do you choose to believe only one imaginary figure, and not the whole bunch of them? You believe in God, but you don't believe in Mickey Mouse? Why? Take the whole package! Angels, zombies, unicorns, every cartoon character known to man, Little Red Riding Hood, Neo etc. At least be consistent here, ya know? [/QUOTE] We of course do not believe in all conceptions of the divine either. It is precisely because we try to allow for the facts of science and the rules of reason that we only entertain particular conceptions of the meaning of god or what is god?
We are not the enemies of reason or science. We are not saying concepts of god should not accommodate science or reason quite the opposite actually.

Ultimately the stripped down notion of the divine is one in which mind and experience (purpose and rationality) are inherent in nature. Not tiny little sparkles in a universe which is otherwise dead, inert, non perceptive and non experiential. I simply do not see how one gets away asserting that such a notion "is irrational" and equivalent to belief in "Captain Crunch".

My apologies to Jeeprs for the use of "we", you can take we to mean the community of those who believe in the existence of rational philosophical conceptions of the divine or "god".

---------- Post added 05-22-2010 at 02:59 PM ----------

[QUOTE=Reconstructo;167402] Wouldn't any God-concept we could come up with still be just a human abstraction? For me, the better God-concepts are something like conceptual art, and nothing more. [/QUOTE] Well yes all human conceptions are abstractions from reality or raw experience. The typical philosophical conception of god implies that reality itself is experiential. Religion is more akin to art than to science actually.

[QUOTE=Reconstructo;167402] I agree with you here. Of course I stress that there must be "mind" and "experience" inherent in nature, else our entire conversation would be "supernatural." [/QUOTE] Well, yes in some ways the strictly materialist view requires more miracles than the immanent theistic view. For in strict materialism, life must emerge from no life, mind from no mind, experience from that which lacks experience and perception from the non perceptual. The pan experiential or neutral monist view of reality actually requires a less miraculous transformation than materialism.

[QUOTE=Reconstructo;167402] I also agree that there's simply no proof of a God. And a close examination of the available God concepts show them to be just that, concepts. Of course some humans may have had different life experiences than I. But from my point of view, there is only this life, which is mysterious enough, and arguably, as philosophers have argued, as made of "mind" as it is of "matter". And this is where philosophy troubles itself in a way that science does not -- this quite strange problem of "mind" and "matter" --both of which are abstractions from raw experience. [/QUOTE] No one is offering or claiming proof or truth in this discussion. What is being suggested is that the universe itself is experiential and perceptive, that both dualism and materialism are incorrect assumptions or speculations, that god is found within nature. not without nature.

1 Reply

@Zetherin,

Zetherin;167375 wrote:

Why do you choose to believe only one imaginary figure, and not the whole bunch of them? You believe in God, but you don't believe in Mickey Mouse? Why?

What can I say? I am kind of flabbergasted by this question. (Although it does remind me of an old political joke: "Mickey Mouse wears a Dan Quayle watch".) You seem an educated person, at least you write better than many of the contributors on this forum, but it seems to me there is a huge gap in your education in this area. Then again, I also think it is a defensive strategy against:

Zetherin;167375 wrote:

This terrifies me, by the way:

File:Religious Belief in North America.png - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The fact that most people in North America have a religious belief terrifies you? This could be because (1) you believe that it indicates most people are seriously deluded, therefore the world is mad, or possibly (2) you have a sneaking suspicion that there might be something in it, and you really don't want to think about what it might be.

I think it is probably the latter, but I assure you, there is nothing to be frightened of. 'Religion/Spirituality' (as distinct from Churchianity) is very much a natural part of life. You really need to come to terms with why this terrifies you. This is a question of psychodynamics, not religion.

Jebediah;167328 wrote:

It's the opposite I'm afraid. The atheist position is that there are things we don't really know, and the theist position is that there are things we don't really know and that there is a rational intelligence behind them. Not making unwarranted leaps is not a failure of imagination. For some people it is hard to imagine a world worth living in without religion--that is a true failure of imagination.

I very much respect this viewpoint. You should recognize, however, that there is a huge difference between what you call 'the theist position' and the position of the evangelical religious believer. Schopenhauer and Spinoza both recognized some kind of idea of 'cosmic intelligence'; the former was defiantly atheist, the latter was excommunicated from Jewry for atheism. I think the protagonists for theism in this thread would in all likelihood be understood as atheists or at least as pantheists by an evangelical reader.

So if you go too far in denying any kind of cosmic intelligence, to the point of even denying a cosmic order, you will overshoot and end up with nihilism. Sufi scholar Henry Bayman asks

Quote:

Why do both Hume and Nietzsche, in their overzeal to deny God, end up debauching science as well? Because their denial of God is dependent on the denial of any order whatsoever in the universe. Because they knew that science took its origin, and is still based on, a world in which order prevails. If the world is chaos, there can be no order, and hence no laws either of nature or of science. (In our day, however, even the word "chaos" is being redefined, as mathematicians and scientists discern hidden order in chaos.) For the existence of any kind of laws presupposes a Lawgiver, and indeed the originators of modern science-Newton, Descartes, Leibniz, etc.-quite openly expressed their faith in a Divine Lawmaker. In order to deny the latter, Hume, Nietzsche, and those who follow their path must deny the existence of any kind of order at all. But without such order, the whole enterprise of science falls down, for it is then senseless to seek for laws, order or pattern in a disordered world. Nietzsche borders on Orwellian Newspeak in his implied conclusion: "truth is a lie," and falls into the same rut that he so despises in those who confuse mortality and immortality. Yet paradoxically, Nietzsche was also genius enough to recognize that his nihilistic teaching (and Zarathustra's) is a "rebound from 'God is truth' to the fanatical faith 'All is false'."

But is all this true? "By their fruits you shall judge them." Science works-it is the most successful enterprise in the history of humanity. Even chance, even probability, has its laws and is not chaos. In that case, it makes sense to view the world as ordered, a place where laws-laws of science, laws of nature-hold. So it makes sense, in turn, to talk about a Lawgiver-which Newton, Copernicus, et al. had told us right from the very beginning, and which we would never have lost sight of had we not extended our debunking of the Christian conception of God to God Himself. The alternative is to assume that we ourselves project order onto the universe, which is a form of solipsism. In that case, though, the basis for an objective universe and materialism collapses. Even granting the point of solipsism, however, if man finds meaning within himself, where does he dredge up this meaning from? For according to Sufism, God is both Within and Without, so that we approach God even when we go within. God is both transcendent and immanent. Contrary to what Nietzsche thought, He is not just incarnate in Jesus, and not just beyond the universe.

Source

Now in all of this, again, I am not defending evangelical religion, but what I am arguing against is a kind of evangelical atheism, which the former has produced. I don't think you realize the religious roots of modern atheism.

0 Replies

@Jebediah,

Jebediah;167167 wrote:

If someone claims that he is going to win the lottery, and plays it every day, and someone claims that he won't, and doesn't play it, you would hold them in the same esteem?

I thought this was an interesting comment although not directly applicable to the odds or rationality of theism versus atheism.

The person who plays may actually win (if you dont play you cant win; a rational notion), although the odds are long, so his postion is that of somewhat unrealistic optimism.

The person that does not play can not possibly win but he wont waste his money either. His odds of financially coming out ahead are much better (a rational calculation).

I do not play the lottery myself but there is not one in my state. There is lots of gambling, but I hate losing more than I like winning. Turns out though I kind of like the guy that plays and hopes although I would not hire him as my financial advisor. Go figure:lol:

0 Replies

The philosophical conception of god in the age of reason and science.

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know