Atheism, Theism, and the Nature of Religion: Philosophy Forums

Philosophy Forums » Philosophy of Religion » Atheism, Theism, and the Nature of Religion » Atheism, Theism, and the Nature of Religion

Atheism, Theism, and the Nature of Religion
Beating a Dead Trojan Horse.

Page: 1 2 3

Atheism, Theism, and the Nature of Religion

Incision
Professor

Usergroup: Administrators
Joined: Jan 04, 2008
Location: Utah

Total Topics: 23
Total Posts: 905

Posted 07/05/09 - 12:34 AM:	#21
kNoctis, you seem to me to be saying this. If a word is used once for one thing and then another, then it's a metaphor, and all words for Ultimate Realities were once used for other things, so they're metaphors. "God" is a word for an Ultimate Reality, so it's a metaphor and doesn't necessarily refer to a being. Is that right? I think both premises are questionable. The literal meaning of a word is just its normal meaning; "heart" may have started out a word for a bodily organ, and at that time any references to hearts as experiences of emotions may have been metaphorical, but now it means emotions literally. So even if there's some metaphor historically behind our use of "God," that doesn't mean that "God" has no fixed meaning or refers to something other than a being. Also, what's an Ultimate Reality? I'd like to flatter myself that I'm on good terms with reality, but I'm not familiar with ultimate realities, let alone Ultimate Realities.

Death Monkey
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Sep 18, 2003
Location: Eindhoven, The Netherlands

Total Topics: 7
Total Posts: 2598

Posted 07/05/09 - 03:29 AM:	#22
kNoctis, Unless I am misunderstanding your above two propositions, you do not believe that what you choose to call "god" actually literally qualifies as being a personal god. If this is correct, then you are an atheist. I don't know if I choose to call it God anymore than I chose to be brought up in the Christian religion. That's my culture and that's how I identify it. It's no coincidence that 95% of people who are religious belong to the religion that they were raised in. You appear to have missed my point. Why you call it "god" has nothing to do with my point. My point is that of you do not believe that this thing you call "god" literally qualifies as being a personal god, then you are an atheist. Anyway, please understand that I am not trying to address your views on religion here. I am just pointing out that you seem to be misunderstanding what the whole theism vs atheism thing is all about. It has nothing to do with the belief/disbelief in obscure metaphysical or philosophical notions of the "divine" that people choose, for whatever reason, to refer to as "god". It has to do with the belief/disbelief in a sentient being that created and/or holds dominion over the universe. I think you under-appreciate the right for someone to classify his or her own religious views as they see fit. I have no idea how you could come to that conclusion, given that I have said nothing whatsoever about people's right to classify their religious views as they see fit. One of the consequences of my view is that the classification of someone's religious beliefs is set by how the believer classifies him/herself, not by someone on the outside looking in. You speak as though these are mutually exclusive. As though one person classifying your beliefs a certain way nullifies how you classify them, or vice versa. Classify yourself however you like, but it is unreasonable for you to expect other people to classify you according to your criteria when they most likely don't have any idea what those criteria even are. I'm a theist, for I believe in God. If I define "God" to mean "the totality of everything that exists" (as some people do), that does not make me a theist. Nor would naming my cat "God" make me a theist. This isn't a matter of classification. It is a matter of what the word means. You can't define "theist" to mean "somebody who believes in God", and then not define what God means. Nor can you just apply the term "theist" to any definition of the word "god" that anybody makes up. Not if you want your usage of the term to be meaningful to anybody other than yourself, anyway. The fact that my classification conflicts with how other people would classify me does not concern me, since a theist/atheist classification is on a first order theory of religion, and my view explains how disagreements on a first order scale stem from a misapplication of religious language. Again, the issue here is not with classification, but with language use. You can call yourself a theist if you want to, but if you mean something different by that term than what the people you are talking to mean, then you will not be successfully communicating with them. The view I am proposing makes whatever theist/atheist classification I may fall under irrelevant. It's as if I am arguing for the meta-ethical position of moral anti-realism, and you're making a big deal that moral anti-realism entails that I'm not utilitarian. I understand that you're not trying to directly critique my view, but I still fail to see how whether I'm an atheist or theist according on a first order view makes any difference whatsoever. Well, that's actually kind of my point. You are the one who brought up the whole theism/atheism debate, and indicated that your arguments somehow have something to do with it. My point was that your arguments and explanation of your position do not seem to have anything to do with theism/atheism at all. Now you appear to be agreeing with me. DM
Pseudoscience makes Baby Jesus cry.

180 Proof
kynic

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Apr 27, 2003
Location: NOTHINGlifeNOTHING

Total Topics: 84
Total Posts: 5117

Posted 07/05/09 - 04:22 AM:	#23
kNoctis wrote: If the views I am proposing fit into atheism at a first order level, fine. Atheism -- rejection (i.e. negative evaluation) of theism because it is incoherent and/or false -- is a second-order theory vis-a-vis theism. We use second order theories to explain first order theories all of the time. Well, we certainly use them to evaluate theoretical positions. For instance, whether or not said "first-order theories" are self-consistent ... etcetera. ... In fact, the view I am proposing is a second order theory because it is a theory regarding the commonality of all religions. Besides the obvious fact that "religions" are social practices and not "first-order theories", the question of (some) "god's existence" is a metaphysical, or philosophical, matter and not a religious issue. Subsuming "theism" under the rubric of "religion" is both unwarranted & categorically mistaken. A controversy may have ramifications for, or affinities with, "religion" but that does not entail that it is religious. Your concerns are confused, kNoctis; you're comparing apples to oranges (e.g. propositions to dispositions). ( ... )In this case, because my belief is specifically a religious theory, the best explanation still assumes the existence of that to which all religions hold in common - the divine. (1) Neither theism nor atheism entail religious commitments or observances -- there are many irreligious theists & many religious atheists -- so any (ad hoc) "second-order ... religious theory" is simply a non sequitur with respect to the relevance or import of theist/atheist debates & their attendant arguments. It's simply too easy, intellectually facile to the point of disingenuity, to dismiss such arguments without examining them first on their own terms. Also, as already pointed out but can stand repeating: "religions" are not "first-order theories", and therefore "second-order" considerations do not obtain. Btw, your "Ultimate reality" dodge doesn't work either because what's at issue in theist/atheist debates is NOT "whether or not there is (an) unmanifest sphere of being" BUT RATHER "whether or not there is (an) uniquely manifest agent, or extention, of (an) unmanifest sphere of being". (2) I'm not aware of any conception, or notion, of "the divine" that is NOT inexplicable (i.e. mysterious); there can't be a "best explanation", or explanation of any kind, that contains that which is purported to be inexplicable, even moreso if it is necessarily so. Your "religious theory" may "explain" religions (e.g. institutions, practices, rites, scriptures, etc) through some sort of comparative or structuralist or symbolist framework but it cannot reduce them all to a common object of concern (e.g. "the divine") when that object of concern cannot itself be identified as such because it is inexplicable. The knowledge-by-acquaintance gambit is a canard too as evident by the fact that acquaintance with television doesn't explain its mechanism or acquaintance with myself doesn't explain to me my unconscious cognitive processes; nominal relationship to "the divine" discloses nothing intelligible, or explanatory, about "the divine" or the so-called "relationship" or even the degree to which either is not merely a product of wishful thinking. In sum, you'd like to sell "the essence of religion is ... 'the divine'" but I'm not buying a "second-order" mystery-essence when using "religion" as a family resemblance concept adequately covers all ordinary & (most of the) specialized uses of the word. Orthodox clerics are free to reject the premises and conclusions of my second order theory, but without providing arguments on a second order scale ... Well, since second-order discourse is parasitic on first-order discourses the burden is on you, kNoctis, to demonstrate the relevance of your "religious theory" to the practice of 'orthodox', or any other flavors of, religion. As your "religious theory" fails to engage religions on their "first-order" terms -- in fact, you state as much in the post no. 13, second paragraph -- it can be dismissed as idle speculation without substance or relevance. ... it is as you are so fond of saying: beliefs without evidence can be rejected without evidence. Yes, and this is so because beliefs (that consist of assertions or claims) bear a burden of proof, that is to say, raise the question of what makes them true. If there are no grounds (i.e. evidence proffered) for considering a belief, then one need not oppose or counter it with arguments (consisting of evidence-to-the-contrary); only where there are grounds can belief disbelief or doubt be warranted, otherwise there is no intellectual, let alone philosophical, interest (e.g. dismissal). As for me, I've made my higher-order objections to this so-called "religious theory" (i.e. addressed it on its own terms and found it incoherent & misapplied) which you may dismiss out of hand but only by leaving my criticisms unanswered and, by implication, your concession to them not in question. Edited by 180 Proof on 07/07/09 - 04:07 AM. Reason: Beating dead horses, what else?
The question isn't "Which explanations do I believe?" but rather "Which explanations do I least disbelieve?" Absence of evidence THAT MUST BE THERE (i.e. implied by any claim, concept, or (its) predicates, that affects changes in/to the world) entails evidence of absence. [What cannot be done?[What cannot be hoped?[What cannot be known?]]]

kNoctis
slide away boat

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jan 06, 2005

Total Topics: 67
Total Posts: 619

Posted 07/07/09 - 02:48 AM:	#24
Thanks for the debate. Death Monkey, you appear to have missed the reason why I introduced the critical realism/naive realism distinction. Just like God, I don't believe that what I learn about desks from second hand sources, and even how I perceive them, is how they actually exist. I believe that what I see is conditioned by many factors, and there is a true 'form' (lets call it F) of which I am incapable of knowing about. I haven't given any kind of definition regarding this 'Ultimate Reality' that all religions have in common, even while others create definitions for themselves and then start arguing against them. I haven't given any definition, because I've made it plainly clear that a definition is impossible. Any attempt to do so is conditioned by many factors. The factors are mostly cultural and linguistic factors in this case, rather than the mostly physical factors that limit my ability to see (F). I see (F) as being a shape conducive towards putting stuff on it, and with ample space to stand or sit while working at it. A species that has different sensory capabilities (or a society that had nothing that fulfilled the function of a desk) would conceive of (F) differently. I absolutely believe that desks exist, and that the word 'desk' represents (F) as I see it. Equally, I see the Ultimate Reality as being the JCI God. A society that has a unique language, culture, and history would conceive of the Ultimate Reality differently. I absolutely believe that God exists, and that the word 'God' represents the Ultimate Reality as I see it. Calling me an atheist is as silly as calling me someone who does not believe in the existence of desks. 180 Proof, You made some good points in your last post. Some of them had already crossed my mind, and I wondered if anyone was going to bring them up. But, I don't think the theory I'm proposing is ad hoc. First, it follows a long history of critical realism, Second, it's helpful for explaining other aspects of religion - such as how each religion has people who are sincerely genuine in their beliefs, and how each religion produces saints that are of equally good 'moral' character.

Death Monkey
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Sep 18, 2003
Location: Eindhoven, The Netherlands

Total Topics: 7
Total Posts: 2598

Posted 07/07/09 - 03:33 AM:	#25
kNoctis, Equally, I see the Ultimate Reality as being the JCI God. A society that has a unique language, culture, and history would conceive of the Ultimate Reality differently. I absolutely believe that God exists, and that the word 'God' represents the Ultimate Reality as I see it. You keep talking about what you don't claim to know about God, but that is what misses the point. When you say "God exists", you are asserting the existence of something. There is some necessary and sufficient conditions for your claim to be true (which unless you specify them, only you know), and you are asserting that those conditions (whatever they are) obtain. Whether you qualify as a theist or an atheist depends only on whether those set of conditions include the literal existence of a sentient being that created and/or holds dominion over the universe. That is what "theism" means. Now, it is not completely clear to me whether you are asserting that such a being literally exists or not. You seem to be rather unwilling to nail down exactly what you are claiming when you say that God exists. On one end of the spectrum, you could be using the term "God" in a purely metaphorical way, without making any claims about the literal state of affairs of reality at all. On the other end of the spectrum, you could be claiming all sorts of things about the literal state of affairs of reality. As far as I can tell, you are somewhere in-between, but it is not clear to me exactly where you are in-between. FYI, it doesn't really matter to me either way where exactly you are in this range. That's pretty much my whole point. Again, what I am saying is that all of this discussion about whether religions should make literal claims about reality of not, has no bearing on the theism vs atheism debate, because any religion that does not make such claims is not theistic in the first place. Calling me an atheist is as silly as calling me someone who does not believe in the existence of desks. Is it? Let's say that I define a "Deskian" to be somebody who believes that desks literally are the way they seem (so they a naive realists). Now clearly you are not a deskian, even though you believe that desks exist. Likewise you can believe that God exists without being a theist. Again, the simplest example of this would somebody who uses the term "God" to refer to the totallity of all that exists. Or somebody like Einstein who used the term "God" to refer to the order and structure of the universe. These are not theists. Again, the question comes down to what, exactly, you consider to be the necessary and sufficient conditions for it to be a true statement that what you call "God" does, in fact, exist. You can specify those conditions for a chair. You should be able to specify them for God too, otherwise when you say "God exists", you aren't actually saying anything at all. If you regard God in a purely metaphorical way, then there are no conditions. In that case existence cannot even be meaningfully ascribed to it. If you mean it in more than just a metaphorical way, then you are claiming something about reality. What is it that you are claiming? If that claim does not include the existence of a sentient being that created and/or has dominion over the universe, then you are not a theist. Note that if, like many people, you are just taking "atheist" to mean "somebody who thinks that nothing that anybody would ever call a god exists", then you are being silly. By that definition, nobody would qualify as an atheist. DM
Pseudoscience makes Baby Jesus cry.

kNoctis
slide away boat

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jan 06, 2005

Total Topics: 67
Total Posts: 619

Posted 08/08/09 - 06:20 PM:	#26
I hate to reopen old threads, but this topic is currently the only one I'm interested in on this entire forum. 180 Proof wrote: Atheism -- rejection (i.e. negative evaluation) of theism because it is incoherent and/or false -- is a second-order theory vis-a-vis theism. According to my definition, atheism is a first-order theory, because it only applies to theistic religions within the context of theistic religions. 180 Proof wrote: Well, we certainly use them to evaluate theoretical positions. For instance, whether or not said "first-order theories" are self-consistent ... etcetera. And we also use them to explain why people believe in them, explain why they were convincing to many in the first place, and explain how the "theoretical positions" provided answers that were sufficiently effective within the context of the position itself, i.e. within the position without being evaluated within another context. 180 Proof wrote: Besides the obvious fact that "religions" are social practices and not "first-order theories"... I'm not sure where or why I would claim a religion itself to be a first order theory. I think I may have said that an explanation which uses the terms of, and/or is based within the context of a specific religion is first order, but where a religion itself stands isn't even relevant. Read my definition of first and second order theories again, and then get back to me if you want. 180 Proof wrote: ...the question of (some) "god's existence" is a metaphysical, or philosophical, matter and not a religious issue. Normally I would grant that premise, but the very fact that the philosophy of religion forum on this website is littered with discussions regarding the existence of "god" which don't make any allusions to additional phenomenon commonly associated with what we normally think of as religion sets the precedent that, in fact, questions of "god's existence" are religious questions. (And of course, I brought up this discussion squarely within the context of my disappointment of this exact forum.) 180 Proof wrote: Subsuming "theism" under the rubric of "religion" is both unwarranted & categorically mistaken. A controversy may have ramifications for, or affinities with, "religion" but that does not entail that it is religious. Your concerns are confused, kNoctis; you're comparing apples to oranges (e.g. propositions to dispositions). (1) Neither theism nor atheism entail religious commitments or observances -- there are many irreligious theists & many religious atheists -- so any (ad hoc) "second-order ... religious theory" is simply a non sequitur with respect to the relevance or import of theist/atheist debates & their attendant arguments. It's simply too easy, intellectually facile to the point of disingenuity, to dismiss such arguments without examining them first on their own terms. I did examine them on their own terms. If you read my OP more thoroughly, you would have noticed that 90% of it was directed at refuting the coherence of specific religions on their own terms. I wouldn't have suggested a second-order theory without first having reasons for rejecting the first order explanations for why individual religions have the conceptions of their Ultimate Realities that they have. 180 Proof wrote: Also, as already pointed out but can stand repeating: "religions" are not "first-order theories", and therefore "second-order" considerations do not obtain. Religions are not first order theories, but the conception of whatever object of worship or focus is presented in an individual religion is a first order conception/theory/whatever. My post was intended to refute these first order conceptions on the grounds that they are incoherent, and then evaluate/explain them in a light that made sense of the vast discrepancies that each religion gives of this object of worship/focus, and of the fact that attempts to describe these objects of worship/focus are ubiquitous throughout all of human history and culture. 180 Proof wrote: Btw, your "Ultimate reality" dodge doesn't work either because what's at issue in theist/atheist debates is NOT "whether or not there is (an) unmanifest sphere of being" BUT RATHER "whether or not there is (an) uniquely manifest agent, or extention, of (an) unmanifest sphere of being". It's clear to me now that you completely misunderstood my point. By introducing the notion of an 'ultimate reality', I wasn't attempting to "dodge" anything. I was attempting to provide an explanation for why this phenomenon is so prevalent throughout humanity, despite the fact that is it so diverse and in light of my rejection of first order theories/explanation/conceptions for the way particular religions describe whatever their particular ultimate reality is. It's really a pain to read your posts. Many times I wish you'd do a better job providing definitions of the peculiar way in which you use terms, and of providing explanations for the peculiar way you punctuate your posts with trivial uses of boldface, italics, apostrophes, and the other vehicles which mimic programming languages more than they mimic the standard use of the English language. In fact the first time I read this entire post of yours, I was a bit intimidated and I thought you completely destroyed my argument. After taking some time off and coming back, I realized that it was your cryptic style that intimidated me, not the content of your argument. As far as the rest of your post goes, I believe I can dismiss it as being irrelevant on account of the fact that it misunderstands the distinction I've made between first and second order theories - both in this post and in preceding ones.

mcmullenkm
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Aug 14, 2009

Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 4

Posted 08/14/09 - 10:07 AM: Subject: a new view of world religions	#27
For a completely different view of religions, read the book Russian History Viewed through Distorted Mirrors by Russian physicist and researcher Nicolai Levashov. This book describes the conflict between the forces of Light and Darkness and contains a mind-blowing explanation of what these forces are, where they came from, what they are fighting over and how it concerns Russia and the rest of the world. This is the history of our planet, not a work of fiction; read, absorb some new knowledge… Feel the shockwaves and understand! ... www.levashov.info/English/books-eng.html#08 <http://www.levashov.info/English/books-eng.html#08> Levashov is a unique person who evolved and developed to an almost incomprehensible level. Using only the power of thought he heals people of the most severe diseases, stops hurricanes, extinguishes forest fires, purifies water reservoirs and soil, increases the crop capacity by many times and does a lot more. Visit his web site and read for yourself. Download the book… www.levashov.info/English/about-eng.html <http://www.levashov.info/English/about-eng.html> He will change your conceptions of "ultimate reality."

Page: 1 2 3

Sorry, you don't have permission to post. Log in, or register if you haven't yet.