For James R. 'The Honest Theist'.

[phlogistician]

Look, would it be easier for you if I dropped my claim that God is neither male nor female? If you like, I can argue on the basis that God is male. That's if you require that to prove my supposed dishonesty.

If you swap back to saying that God is male, please restate that, along with a footnote showing the interim statement without the gender claim.

Oh, and of course I get to set the terms. I said in the other thread I'd ask you some questions. That's the entirety of it. I ask questions, you answer. It really is that simple.

So, decide what your statement now is, and repost it please.

 

[Yazata]

For the purposes of this thread, I will argue the theist position to the best of my ability. I am quite happy for other people to participate too. My aim here is to show phlogistician that being a theist is not "unreasonable".

I think that being a theist can often be unreasonable. But that isn't typically dishonest. Those are two separate things. It's possible to be honest and mistaken. It's even possible to be honest and stupid.

We often see the same thing with atheists. There are people out there (often adolescents perhaps) filled with faith that atheism is more 'intelligent' than theism, so that if they simply boast of being an atheist, then they will automatically be smarter than any theist. There's an unshakeable faith that every atheist argument will beat every theist argument.

So there's no way that either side is going to acknowledge any weakness in their own thinking. One side has God's revelation to depend on. The other side is a-priori brilliant. Both sides are simply locked into their rhetorical positions.

This thread was prompted by another one in which phlogistician was arguing essentially that theists shouldn't be given the time of day on sciforums.

I think that religion is a fascinating subject of discussion. (It's my academic specialty.) It's certainly a core aspect of human culture and likely of human psychology as well. The agitation that religion discussion generates here on Sciforums suggests the kind of passion that the subject can still generate, even among people who claim to totally reject it.

One weakness that many (but not all) atheists display is abysmal ignorance of the whole subject of religion. Atheists often seem to think that religion is bullshit, so why should discerning people waste any of their time learning the details of global religious history, doctrine and practice? Unfortunately, these same people are filled with an unshakeable confidence that they already understand and can summarily dispose of any religious idea or argument. I don't know, it just kind of rubs me the wrong way when militantly ignorant people try to pose as the sophisticated ones. Sometimes I enjoy popping those kind of bubbles.

My point here isn't really about whether atheism or theism is correct. (I'm essentially an atheist myself.) It's about the quality of discussion.

 

[Yazata]

how can one describe something indescribable?

A great deal of theology and religious philosophy, both theist and non-theist, has imagined the ultimate principle, source, "God" or whatever we call it, as being entirely transcendent and beyond the realm of human conceptualization. We see it exemplified in Christian apophaticism, for example. So a theist responding as NMSquirrel did is consistent with tradition.

If you cannot describe, in any way at all, something you profess to believe in then why do you believe in it?

That's a legitimate question. I think that this kind of religious non-cognitivity is usually associated with some form of religious mysticism. The idea is that the mystic experiences some kind of non-conceptual and non-cognitive meeting (or merging perhaps) with the ultimate divine principle. Leaving the mystic in a position, once the mystical experience is over, where he or she can only refer kind of psycho-ostensively to "that", the unspeakable object of the experience, in the presence of which every human word falls short.

A theist could probably answer Phlogistician's original question in a variety of ways. (There are whole theological traditions in several religions that argue about the supposed attributes of God and how they should be understood.) NMSquirrel suggested one of the more interesting and defensible ways of doing it, in my opinion.

 

[wynn]

My point here isn't really about whether atheism or theism is correct./.../ It's about the quality of discussion.

But if everyone would be really open-minded and educated - would there be much to discuss at all?

 

[Mr MacGillivray]

What? All of them? You're as bad as phlogistician.

Have you considered the possibility that some theists have considered a range of other possibilities and honestly come to the conclusion that God is the best explanation?

yes, all of them. It is what defines a theist.

Not that any human is honest in nature. After all human nature prevents this from happening.

It's just that the definition of theist requires the abandonment of skepticism and the acceptance of blind belief. And these two processes vary in intensity in different theists.

Some theists will be more skeptical. Some will be more 'blind'. There is variation.

But the moment blind belief stops a person isn't a theist any more. They become agnostic or atheist.

Blind belief is the opposite of honesty, because you lie to yourself. You are not willing to accept all factors as equal.

 

[wynn]

Blind belief is the opposite of honesty, because you lie to yourself. You are not willing to accept all factors as equal.

Well, if you don't brush your teeth with the toilet brush, I suppose that makes you dishonest, lying to yourself, because you are, after all, not willing to accept all factors as equal ...

:shrug:

 

[Mr MacGillivray]

Well, if you don't brush your teeth with the toilet brush, I suppose that makes you dishonest, lying to yourself, because you are, after all, not willing to accept all factors as equal ...

:shrug:

That would be a strawman tactic you are presenting here. That's uncivilized.

---

Theism is more like brushing your teeth with a toilet brush because you refuse to accept a study that shows that toothbrushes are more effective at doing so.

Or you have a collection of brushes: tooth brush, hair brush, toilet brush etc. and you prefer the hair brush because you 'believe' in it, and will not open your mind to the possibility that another brush might be more functional.

Or more in the line of thought we discussed. You refuse to go to a level of skepticism that would dismiss the toilet brush as being a functional tool for brushing your teeth.

 

[Yazata]

It's just that the definition of theist requires the abandonment of skepticism and the acceptance of blind belief. And these two processes vary in intensity in different theists.

Some theists will be more skeptical. Some will be more 'blind'. There is variation.

But the moment blind belief stops a person isn't a theist any more. They become agnostic or atheist.

You're probably giving many atheists more credit than they deserve. They don't typically have sound and convincing justification for their belief that God doesn't exist, do they?

Blind belief is the opposite of honesty, because you lie to yourself. You are not willing to accept all factors as equal.

Why is theist belief necessarily "blind"? You guys just kind of toss assumptions like that in there, hoping that nobody will notice that they are gratuitous.

A theist can point to their own religious experience. How can some stranger discredit what somebody else has (supposedly) experienced firsthand for themselves?

Atheists 'know' that God doesn't exist because they know of no evidence for God. (Never mind the epistemological problems with that.) But even that weak justification doesn't appear to be true -- people often insist that they've had experiences of divine presence. In history, that claim is rather common. Isn't that evidence? Well no, it can't be evidence, it has to simply be delusion. Why? Because it's an experience of something that doesn't exist! (And that's circular reasoning.)

Now it so happens that I don't place a whole lot of credibility in other people's religious experiences myself. Another person's religious experiences aren't likely to convince me to convert to their religion. I think that there are probably naturalistic explanations for religious experiences that are more likely than supernatural explanations. So I'm quite comfortable in my own agnosticism.

What I don't want to do is MORALLY dismiss every religious believer as "dishonest". Those believers might have what seems to be excellent justification for their beliefs from their perspective.

Atheists' moral condemnation of believers isn't really any better than believers' moral condemnation of unbelievers, in my estimation.

 

[spidergoat]

...people often insist that they've had experiences of divine presence. In history, that claim is rather common. Isn't that evidence? Well no, it can't be evidence, it has to simply be delusion. Why?

It doesn't have to be delusion, but it is most likely delusion. Delusion, insanity, mass hysteria, and hallucinations are common, but there is no evidence of the divine anywhere other than in the minds of men.

How can some stranger discredit what somebody else has (supposedly) experienced firsthand for themselves?

More to the point, why are these experiencers not doubting their own experiences? They should be.

 

[Me-Ki-Gal]

This is for all the people that have woke up from the illusion that there is free will . So if we don't have free will we must be governed by a force? Right ? With Me so far ? What kind of name could we possibly give this force so we could understand that there are Forces Governing our actions ? Anybody ? Our minds can't fathom what the force is ( much less the people that live in the past and believe there is free will ) Anybody ? What would humans call this force that governs ? Mind you laws of determinism state information is lock up in silos like grain silos and the information trickles out . Could we call it the word possibly ? Is that not another word for God in scripture. I read that d. Did you read that ? I read that " In the beginning god was the Word .

 

[wellwisher]

In the beginning god was the Word

There is undiscovered truth to this, if you think about it logically. Before there was science, the word/concept god (s) was used as an explanation for anything unknown. Why do waves move ashore; God. As humans first began to explore the world, god was the word, that was used to describe everything new. That one word had endless meanings and became the placeholder word that helped differentiate reality until science could give it other words.

A very loose analogy in modern times is the F-word. Although this is only one word, it has a very wide range of meanings and can express a very wide range of emotions. Some college students, high school students, and gang members, can communicate extensively with this one word.

If we go back to the beginning of civilization, there was the "G-word" and that word was God. Why does the sun rise and set; God. Why do the rivers flow; God, etc. God being omnipotent and omnipresent was in everything, thereby providing a verbal place holder for the brain onto which the details of nature would stack. Later the G-word is differentiated into many words, with science adding its share of words.

 

[Me-Ki-Gal]

There is undiscovered truth to this, if you think about it logically. Before there was science, the word/concept god (s) was used as an explanation for anything unknown. Why do waves move ashore; God. As humans first began to explore the world, god was the word, that was used to describe everything new. That one word had endless meanings and became the placeholder word that helped differentiate reality until science could give it other words.

A very loose analogy in modern times is the F-word. Although this is only one word, it has a very wide range of meanings and can express a very wide range of emotions. Some college students, high school students, and gang members, can communicate extensively with this one word.

If we go back to the beginning of civilization, there was the "G-word" and that word was God. Why does the sun rise and set; God. Why do the rivers flow; God, etc. God being omnipotent and omnipresent was in everything, thereby providing a verbal place holder for the brain onto which the details of nature would stack. Later the G-word is differentiated into many words, with science adding its share of words.

Some one with a friggen brain . F--ck I can feel my face turning from blue back to its normal color . Shit there is hope in the world after all. Good job my man for your support !

 

[NMSquirrel]

So a theist responding as NMSquirrel did is consistent with tradition.

eck..I am not traditional...
i understand that God is too complex for any one definition.

NMSquirrel suggested one of the more interesting and defensible ways of doing it, in my opinion.

notice how phlo has not responded to my posts..
he just said that as an emotional outburst and now he is having probs justifying his comment.
admit it phlo,you are defeated.

my vote is for JamesR as winner of this debate as phlo has done nothing but waffle..



------------

Not that any human is honest in nature. After all human nature prevents this from happening.

good point..

It's just that the definition of theist requires the abandonment of skepticism

why?
in order to separate God from religion one must be skeptical,
If all you are doing is 'do as your told' then you have to take responsibility for that yourself,IOW if someone tells you to do something, and you do it, and it goes screwy, its your fault for choosing to listen to him in the first place.

there has to be a certain amount of skepticism for the true seekers..(the others are happy with 'do as your told')

But the moment blind belief stops a person isn't a theist any more. They become agnostic or atheist.

i think the terms theist/atheist are generally used in a general context, cept when someone wants to argue somantics..

Blind belief is the opposite of honesty, because you lie to yourself.

sounds like you are either trying to justify an attitude.
Blind in this context means 'accept without question'
you do not have to lie to accept.

You are not willing to accept all factors as equal.

who you? not me.

------------

Atheists' moral condemnation of believers isn't really any better than believers' moral condemnation of unbelievers, in my estimation.

here at Sciforums the atheist earn the prejudice/bigot badge.
in the real world its pretty much 50/50..

 

[James R]

phlogistician:

Here is a list of my claims (again - *yawn*).

God is an all-powerful supernatural being who created the universe we live in. He is omniscient and omnipotent.

God doesn't really have a gender because he is not a biological entity like a human being. He is, however, a person, and we're most comfortable referring to persons as "he" or "she". The convention in religious texts has traditionally been to refer to God using masculine pronouns and terms. But you don't need to think of him that way if you don't want to. You may prefer to think of him as a kind of disembodied spirit of indeterminate gender.

Do you want me to state them again, or can you work with these?

This is going to be a very slow process if I have to keep repeating things over and over again for you.

 

[James R]

Mr MacGillivray:

It's just that the definition of theist requires the abandonment of skepticism and the acceptance of blind belief.

No it doesn't. Beliefs are generally informed by evidence of some kind. People don't ordinarily believe things for no reason at all.

But the moment blind belief stops a person isn't a theist any more. They become agnostic or atheist.

Both theists and atheists, if they are honest (which is what this thread is about), will admit that they don't know whether God exists or not. So, both of them judge the evidence they have seen for God and make a judgment call on whether they believe in God or not. The atheist comes down on one side of the line; the theist comes down on the other side. Agnosticism is different, because it's a philosophical position about what is provable.

 

[wynn]

That would be a strawman tactic you are presenting here. That's uncivilized.

---

Theism is more like brushing your teeth with a toilet brush because you refuse to accept a study that shows that toothbrushes are more effective at doing so.

Or you have a collection of brushes: tooth brush, hair brush, toilet brush etc. and you prefer the hair brush because you 'believe' in it, and will not open your mind to the possibility that another brush might be more functional.

Or more in the line of thought we discussed. You refuse to go to a level of skepticism that would dismiss the toilet brush as being a functional tool for brushing your teeth.

I am still continually amazed by our vigilante atheists at Sciforums!

I am not a theist, but they nevertheless attack me as if I were one!

 

[Mr MacGillivray]

I am still continually amazed by our vigilante atheists at Sciforums!

I am not a theist, but they nevertheless attack me as if I were one!

How do you know I am an atheist? I have given no proof for that. It's your blind belief that assumes I must be an atheist.

Notice that I did not say that religion is the toilet brush or for instance the toothbrush is science.

Your prejudiced mind filled in the blanks automatically.

Hence I believe that you are somewhat dishonest with yourself. You do not allow for conclusions outside your comfort zone.

It's ok. We are all somewhat dishonest with ourselves. But as I stated before, some are dishonest per definition. Others have an option, although this option is almost never taken, since it is very very difficult to be honest.

 

[wynn]

More to the point, why are these experiencers not doubting their own experiences? They should be.

Do you doubt all your experiences?

Why don't you doubt that you are enlightened?

 

[wynn]

How do you know I am an atheist? I have given no proof for that. It's your blind belief that assumes I must be an atheist.

That post I replied to was atheistic, hence I was right.

If you want to role-play, that is your prerogative. But if this then leads to confusion for others, they are not to be blamed, Mr. Honest.

It's ok. We are all somewhat dishonest with ourselves. But as I stated before, some are dishonest per definition. Others have an option, although this option is almost never taken, since it is very very difficult to be honest.

And you are the Omnimax Galactic Judge on who is honest and who isn't, right?

 

[phlogistician]

This is going to be a very slow process if I have to keep repeating things over and over again for you.

Well, given you have had a lifetime to hone and perfect your understanding of your deity, what's the rush?

Back to your definition:

God is an all-powerful supernatural being who created the universe we live in. He is omniscient and omnipotent.

God doesn't really have a gender because he is not a biological entity like a human being. He is, however, a person, and we're most comfortable referring to persons as "he" or "she". The convention in religious texts has traditionally been to refer to God using masculine pronouns and terms. But you don't need to think of him that way if you don't want to. You may prefer to think of him as a kind of disembodied spirit of indeterminate gender.

How do you know God is not a biological entity? Surely, you have to admit at the very least, you don't know, and have to entertain this possibility.