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

kNoctis
slide away boat

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jan 06, 2005

Total Topics: 67
Total Posts: 619

Posted 07/03/09 - 12:48 AM: Subject: Atheism, Theism, and the Nature of Religion	#1
The philosophy of religion forum sees the same arguments over and over. That's a complaint on two levels. 1) On an entertainment level, the thousands of variations of a few arguments leave the forums looking tired and boring. Of course, not all of the discussions follow this trend, and some of the ones that do can still produce interesting corollaries. However, for the most part, I'm interested in a different take. So, 2) The debate between theism and atheism results from confusion regarding the nature of religion and religious truth. The theist/atheist debate is a conflict between two contradictory propositions - a: God literally and factually exists, and b: (a) is false. Both sides hold to what they believe is a literal fact regarding the truths of religion. However, religion doesn't, or at least shouldn't, convey literal truths. The claims of religion, and specifically the claims of a religion regarding it's "divine reality" - God, Allah, Tao, Nirvana, etc... are not claims that can be interpreted literally. The language we use to describe these 'divine', or 'Ultimate Realities' consists of terms that are used to describe things and events that happen in regular experience. They were adopted as necessary for describing the world that we experience with our senses. But these 'Ultimate Realities' are not held to be part of our regular experience, and they are held to be outside of sense perception as well. So, our terms cannot be used to apply directly to the Ultimate Reality of the various religions. Similarly, languages themselves develop in-tandem with their society. They influence one another, flowing an intricate culture-web that is incapable of being untangled. A language also develops in-tandem with how the religion of that language sees its Ultimate Reality. Thus the notion of the Ultimate Reality in any particular religion is inextricably tied to the culture and history of the society it belongs to. Therefore, our language regarding the Ultimate Realities of each religion can only be analogical and metaphorical. There are no literal truths to dispute. A term that we may use to describe a particular divinity must be analogous at best, and the more we stretch a word by making it an analogy, the more meaning the word loses. Similarly, the verbal conception that a particular religion has of its divinity is filtered through a lifetime of cultural conditioning. Thus, propositions regarding a religion's Ultimate Reality are not meant to convey literal truth. Instead, propositions about a religion's Ultimate Reality reflect how a particular culture sees the Ultimate Reality of its religion. Metaphorical and analogical language promotes poetry, myth, proverb, and fable. Instead of attempting to explain or describe the world we live in, religion seeks to entertain and inspire one to moral improvement.

aufbau87
Student

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jun 08, 2008
Location: Southern California

Total Topics: 1
Total Posts: 62

Posted 07/03/09 - 01:03 AM:	#2
This is just as tired as the view that God either, literally speaking, exists or does not. Moreover, merely because something is outside of sense perception does not mean it cannot literally exist. Even if we directly see tables and soda cans, we don't directly see atoms; yet both exist in the same sense, the "literal" sense, if you will. I agree that one's propositions about the Ultimate Reality reflect their cultural context; but it doesn't mean there is no literal dispute between those who dissent. I came to a low degree of belief in God for cultural/psychological reasons. But I can still meaningfully ask whether or not the degree of belief is justified by the evidence.

kNoctis
slide away boat

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jan 06, 2005

Total Topics: 67
Total Posts: 619

Posted 07/03/09 - 01:32 AM:	#3
aufbau87 wrote: This is just as tired as the view that God either, literally speaking, exists or does not. Tired to who? Tired in regard to the rest of the discussions on this forum? For a discussion that is just as tired as the rest, it's odd that it hasn't seen anything close to the same level of attention. aufbau87 wrote: Moreover, merely because something is outside of sense perception does not mean it cannot literally exist. I agree. That's why I never claimed it doesn't literally exist. I said that religious propositions can't be taken literally. Note: propositions are verbal. aufbau87 wrote: Even if we directly see tables and soda cans, we don't directly see atoms; yet both exist in the same sense, the "literal" sense, if you will. I'm not sure what relevance tables and soda cans have to a discussion about our language regarding Ultimate Realities. aufbau87 wrote: I agree that one's propositions about the Ultimate Reality reflect their cultural context; but it doesn't mean there is no literal dispute between those who dissent. The dispute is certainly literal, I just don't think the dispute is one between literal propositions. aufbau87 wrote: I came to a low degree of belief in God for cultural/psychological reasons. But I can still meaningfully ask whether or not the degree of belief is justified by the evidence. What kind of evidence? Evidence via a verbal description? If so, you haven't explained how. Overall, I think you misunderstood most of my post.

Death Monkey
Tenured Poster

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

Total Topics: 7
Total Posts: 2598

2 of 2 people found this post helpful Posted 07/03/09 - 02:39 AM:	#4
kNoctis, So, 2) The debate between theism and atheism results from confusion regarding the nature of religion and religious truth. The theist/atheist debate is a conflict between two contradictory propositions - a: God literally and factually exists, and b: (a) is false. Both sides hold to what they believe is a literal fact regarding the truths of religion. However, religion doesn't, or at least shouldn't, convey literal truths. The claims of religion, and specifically the claims of a religion regarding it's "divine reality" - God, Allah, Tao, Nirvana, etc... are not claims that can be interpreted literally. Do you realize that this just amounts to a special case of saying "(a) is false"? According to your own words, you are an atheist. You do not think that God literally and factually exists. Additionally, you have posited that religion doesn't, or at least shouldn't, convey literal truths. And yet this is precisely the point of debate between theists and atheists. The atheist claims that the various religions do not convey literal truths, while the theists claim that their religion does convey literal truths. Note that religious people who do not think that their religions convey literal truths, are not theists. Theists believe that a personal god exists. That is what the word means. If you do not consider it to be a literal fact that a personal god exists, then by definition, you are not a theist. DM
Pseudoscience makes Baby Jesus cry.

mayor of simpleton
CAT vs. DOGMA

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Feb 20, 2009
Location: Vienna, Austria

Total Topics: 12
Total Posts: 515

Posted 07/03/09 - 03:17 AM:	#5
<"Subject: Atheism, Theism, and the Nature of Religion"> Here we go again! Thank heavens otherwise I'd have nothing to do today. <"The philosophy of religion forum sees the same arguments over and over. That's a complaint on two levels. 1) On an entertainment level, the thousands of variations of a few arguments leave the forums looking tired and boring. Of course, not all of the discussions follow this trend, and some of the ones that do can still produce interesting corollaries. However, for the most part, I'm interested in a different take."> I agree that the arguments are the same again and again. Perhaps it is because we have not resolved any. I do not stand against the possibility of a resolve, but the same questions have been posed throughout the centuries. If in Paul's Forum an answer can be found, WOW! So let's try to do what has not been successfully acomplished in all the Churches, Universities and local Pubs. I'm all for it. <"So, 2) The debate between theism and atheism results from confusion regarding the nature of religion and religious truth. The theist/atheist debate is a conflict between two contradictory propositions - a: God literally and factually exists, and b: (a) is false. Both sides hold to what they believe is a literal fact regarding the truths of religion."> So in short, Theism = God Yes. Atheism = God No. As for the nature of religion and religious truth, this is a whole different kettle of fish. I see that most argument are build out of convenience sake on both sides and are "rational" insofaras the "rationality" is build upon personal opinion to support the same personal opinion. Now I have offended everyone equally. I love democracy. <"However, religion doesn't, or at least shouldn't, convey literal truths. The claims of religion, and specifically the claims of a religion regarding it's "divine reality" - God, Allah, Tao, Nirvana, etc... are not claims that can be interpreted literally."> You are refering to symbolic language and myth and metaphor. The only problem here is that too many believers and non-believers confuse prose with poetry. In addition, the terms metaphor and myth have a connotation of being less than important. I find the opposite to be true and the power of myth to be greater than that of scienfic method. Myth is not bound by limitations and preconceptions. Myth goes where logic cannot. Myth is the bridge to the "Universal, Objective and Dennotative". It is the link between determinisim and free will. I'm leaving the topic at hand, sorry. <"The language we use to describe these 'divine', or 'Ultimate Realities' consists of terms that are used to describe things and events that happen in regular experience. They were adopted as necessary for describing the world that we experience with our senses. But these 'Ultimate Realities' are not held to be part of our regular experience, and they are held to be outside of sense perception as well. So, our terms cannot be used to apply directly to the Ultimate Reality of the various religions."> Is this perhaps like trying to describe something in it's dennotative quality, but only having the language tools within the realm of the connotative? Your choice of the term 'Ultimate Realities" sounds very similar to my concept of the "Universal, Objective, All-Inclusive, Dennotative, Non-Rational, Non-Irrational,'Ethics'". We have no real language in our lungs to describe what we mean here. I think we are on the same page. <"Similarly, languages themselves develop in-tandem with their society. They influence one another, flowing an intricate culture-web that is incapable of being untangled. A language also develops in-tandem with how the religion of that language sees its Ultimate Reality. Thus the notion of the Ultimate Reality in any particular religion is inextricably tied to the culture and history of the society it belongs to."> I would extend this development within society to Myth as well. By updating the Myths, changing language, costumes, set designs, but maintaining the content, social and "religious" rituals within a given tribe maintain their strength. Without this development, the symbolic language is lost in a sea of trivial differences. Instead of pursuing the content behind the words, we are obcessed with the trivial surface of things that has really next to nothing to do with the content of a myth. Thus, proving the "literal" existence of god or the Mary was a "literal" virgin and the like. Trivial Pursuit is more than a game. <"Therefore, our language regarding the Ultimate Realities of each religion can only be analogical and metaphorical. There are no literal truths to dispute. A term that we may use to describe a particular divinity must be analogous at best, and the more we stretch a word by making it an analogy, the more meaning the word loses. Similarly, the verbal conception that a particular religion has of its divinity is filtered through a lifetime of cultural conditioning. Thus, propositions regarding a religion's Ultimate Reality are not meant to convey literal truth."> B - I - N - G - O! We are on the same page. This is the realm of "Comparative Mythology". Have fun swimming in the mystic sea, rather then drowning or fighting the current. Meow! GREG <"Instead, propositions about a religion's Ultimate Reality reflect how a particular culture sees the Ultimate Reality of its religion. Metaphorical and analogical language promotes poetry, myth, proverb, and fable. Instead of attempting to explain or describe the world we live in, religion seeks to entertain and inspire one to moral improvement.> -- Moral Improvement? How about moral perspective in relation to the morals of other systems of belief or non-belief? Perhaps a clearer perspective of the symbolic nature of religion and myth would open the doors to non-tribalism with regard to a global perspective. Us and them would lose on meaning and wars would not be fought in the name of god. I hoping for too much probably. Edited by mayor of simpleton on 07/03/09 - 03:24 AM
I am not one to attribute that which I cannot understand immediately to be god(s)-perhaps I will never understand, but god(s) are not defined by my lack of understanding-this is the foundation of dogmas, the pressing of connotative values into the realm of dennotative meaning. - MOS

kNoctis
slide away boat

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jan 06, 2005

Total Topics: 67
Total Posts: 619

Posted 07/03/09 - 03:29 AM:	#6
Death Monkey wrote: kNoctis,Do you realize that this just amounts to a special case of saying "(a) is false"? Not exactly. I'm only saying that verbal knowledge, i.e. knowledge by description is impossible. Thus, more accurately, I'm agnostic regarding the individual Ultimate Realities of each religion. My view doesn't entail that the statement 'there is an ultimate reality that all religions point to', is necessarily false though. Death Monkey wrote: According to your own words, you are an atheist. You do not think that God literally and factually exists... Additionally, you have posited that religion doesn't, or at least shouldn't, convey literal truths. I think it would be helpful to make a distinction between critical realism and naive realism. Naive realism in ontology says that things exist exactly as we perceive them. Critical realism says that the things we perceive exist, but they don't exist exactly as we perceive them. I'm simple arguing that naive realism regarding an Ultimate Reality is false. I'm not an anti-realist, as was Ludwig Feuerbach. Because of the limited applicability of our terms and the cultural conditioning of our language, our inability to adequately describe God or any other Ultimate Reality entails at best a critical realism regarding the existence of the divine. That is how I view religion, i.e. the culturally conditioned institution of verbally describing an Ultimate Reality in order to inspire moral change. That doesn't entail an anti-realist perspective because it says nothing regarding mysticism, spiritual experiences, etc... which are non-verbal and non-inferential. Russell termed this type of knowledge 'knowledge by acquaintance'. Death Monkey wrote: And yet this is precisely the point of debate between theists and atheists. The atheist claims that the various religions do not convey literal truths, while the theists claim that their religion does convey literal truths. An atheist claims only that theistic religions do not convey literal truths about the Ultimate Reality that they point to. That says a lot more than your definition. Death Monkey wrote: Note that religious people who do not think that their religions convey literal truths, are not theists. Theists believe that a personal god exists. That is what the word means. If you do not consider it to be a literal fact that a personal god exists, then by definition, you are not a theist. I am also a critical realist regarding the existence of desks. In other words, I believe that desks exist, although I believe that they exist differently that how I perceive them. Does that make me someone who does not believe in the literal existence of the desk in front of me? When I use the term 'literal', I am referring to our knowledge of what exists, not whether or not something literally exists. I believe God literally exists like I believe the desk I am sitting at literally exists. I believe neither exist as I perceive or describe them, and particularly so with God

kNoctis
slide away boat

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jan 06, 2005

Total Topics: 67
Total Posts: 619

Posted 07/03/09 - 03:56 AM:	#7
mayor of simpleton wrote: -- Moral Improvement? How about moral perspective in relation to the morals of other systems of belief or non-belief? I would call it moral improvement, because the moral function of religion in society is to move people from being self-centered to other-centered.

mayor of simpleton
CAT vs. DOGMA

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Feb 20, 2009
Location: Vienna, Austria

Total Topics: 12
Total Posts: 515

Posted 07/03/09 - 04:07 AM:	#8
With this as the given, to move from self-centered to other-centered, perhaps "non-centralistic", then the function of morals sounds fine. Unfortunately, I fear this will be difficult, as there is much power involved here. There are a lot of melgomanics who wish to run the show, but this is another issue. Good Luck in freeing symbolic language from literal interpretations on both fronts. Meow! GREG
I am not one to attribute that which I cannot understand immediately to be god(s)-perhaps I will never understand, but god(s) are not defined by my lack of understanding-this is the foundation of dogmas, the pressing of connotative values into the realm of dennotative meaning. - MOS

aufbau87
Student

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jun 08, 2008
Location: Southern California

Total Topics: 1
Total Posts: 62

Posted 07/03/09 - 02:03 PM:	#9
kNoctis wrote: Not exactly. I'm only saying that verbal knowledge, i.e. knowledge by description is impossible. If knowledge by description is impossible, then so much the worse for knowledge. It is by our descriptive language that is more important and has more utilities for science and everyday life than some abstract and disconnected idea of "knowledge". Thus, more accurately, I'm agnostic regarding the individual Ultimate Realities of each religion. My view doesn't entail that the statement 'there is an ultimate reality that all religions point to', is necessarily false though. I actually agree with you here. But perhaps we can be less radical than you have been in getting up to this point. We can be agnostic in regards to their ultimate realities by just saying they are empirically indistinguishable (i.e. not testable). I think it would be helpful to make a distinction between critical realism and naive realism. Naive realism in ontology says that things exist exactly as we perceive them. Critical realism says that the things we perceive exist, but they don't exist exactly as we perceive them. I'm simple arguing that naive realism regarding an Ultimate Reality is false. I'm not an anti-realist, as was Ludwig Feuerbach. Because of the limited applicability of our terms and the cultural conditioning of our language, our inability to adequately describe God or any other Ultimate Reality entails at best a critical realism regarding the existence of the divine. I'd agree. No one literally sees the Ultimate Reality of things. When I use the term 'literal', I am referring to our knowledge of what exists, not whether or not something literally exists. I believe God literally exists like I believe the desk I am sitting at literally exists. I believe neither exist as I perceive or describe them, and particularly so with God Well, there is a difference between how you perceive a thing and your description of it. I see no self-contradiction in asserting that I perceive a desk as such-and-such, which is not a perception of the desk directly, but describe the desk literally and truly. I don't have to describe my perceptions.

kNoctis
slide away boat

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jan 06, 2005

Total Topics: 67
Total Posts: 619

Posted 07/03/09 - 03:59 PM:	#10
aufbau87 wrote: If knowledge by description is impossible, then so much the worse for knowledge. It is by our descriptive language that is more important and has more utilities for science and everyday life than some abstract and disconnected idea of "knowledge". There are other ways of knowing about 'x' than by description. If I asked you if you knew Barack Obama, and you said 'no', I could either tell you that Barack Obama is the current president of the United States, i.e. I could describe who Barack Obama is, or I could point Barack Obama out to you during a press conference, i.e. I could let you acquaint yourself with Barack Obama. Likewise, when you perceive a chair, your perception is not necessarily verbal or descriptive. You acquaint yourself with the chair in a non-inferential way that gives you knowledge. In many ways, this type of knowledge is "more important" than knowledge by description, because it is knowledge by acquaintance which allows for basic perception and observation. aufbau87 wrote: Well, there is a difference between how you perceive a thing and your description of it. I see no self-contradiction in asserting that I perceive a desk as such-and-such, which is not a perception of the desk directly, but describe the desk literally and truly. I don't have to describe my perceptions. Huh?

Page: 1 2 3

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