The absurdity of philosophical conclusions wrt religion

[Grumpy]

Science is not pro atheist, and it certainly cannot support the religions based on magic. Science is a process trying to determine what the reality of the world around us is. It has nothing to say about the existence of the supernatural, but it can point out the falsehoods theists claim are reality(example science definitely shows that thunder is not a result of Thor throwing his hammer). But if someone claims god said "Let there be light" and the Big Bang happened, science has no method of proving that wrong as we just don't know why the BB happened and likely will never know. This Spinoza like god is the one Einstein and many other scientists could accept, but talking snakes and donkeys, puleeze.

Grumpy

 

[wellwisher]

Faith in God is something that is generated internally within the mind/brain via interaction between conscious/unconscious psyches. It is not connected to external sensory input. If it was due to an external phenomena that would be science and not faith. Faith is based on things not seen with the eyes. The phenomena of faith are internal.

Faith is based on internal data generation/organization, via the mind, logic, imagination, feelings, unconscious mind, etc. I could never underatand why science can't seem to figure out it is looking in all the wrong places.

Maybe I can help give science a little common sense, to help with its mystery data collection. If the child starts to believe in God, it is not because of sensory input other than some initial verbal input. His experiences and/or perception is forming within his own mind/brain. It does not matter if science can't see this process outside him. That is not where the phenomena is growing and development, dah. It is happening inside him.

Let me give a loose analogy. Say I had a dream. Science can never be used to prove I had a particular dream. I can not reproduce that dream nor is there a machine to record details. In the above case, science will look outside, in the closet or under the bed. The dream is not there, therefore I did not dream that dream. This is one areas science is weak and is not that qualified to say anything until it can at least show it knows where to look for the data.

Eastern religions use meditation, which should have given science a hint that the data generated is inside the brain. If you pray, the communion is done within the mind and imagination with internal feedback through feelings. It is not under the bed or in the closet or anywhere the eyes see.

 

[wynn]

If "God" is supposed to be a transcendent entity, separate from and outside our physical reality entirely, a resident of some disjoint 'plane of being', then what relevance would natural science have to determining whether or not such an entity exists?

But who said that this is what God is? Where did such an understanding of "God" come from?
Why think of "God" in such a way?

 

[lightgigantic]

It's mostly the subsidiary aspects of religion that are the worst parts.

No its simply broader - much like if we tackle the subsidiary aspects of science (like funding for example) it is also broader (and also more hairy)

The simple existence of a God doesn't come with any specifics.

It is loaded with specifics

It still remains for religious people to prove not only that God may exist, but that they know what God wants from you.

never done much reading on the subject I take it ....

 

[wynn]

It still remains for religious people to prove not only that God may exist, but that they know what God wants from you.

never done much reading on the subject I take it ....

I am sure I have done some more reading on the topic than Spidergoat did, but I don't understand your comment.

In practice, it still comes down to trusting a self-proclaimed theist or theistic organization (and the texts they produce) that they are God's legitimate representatives.

As it is, we have no available document in which God would declare His will on a weekly/monthly/yearly basis.


Do you get weekly/monthly/yearly evaluation reports from God?
Can you show those reports to us, so that we may have justified faith that you are God's legitimate representative?

 

[Xotica]

That which causes all effects cannot itself have a cause
Immanuel Kant ~ The First Antimony

Rather than being a theory of creation, the Big Bang is a theory of after creation.

 

[lightgigantic]

I am sure I have done some more reading on the topic than Spidergoat did, but I don't understand your comment.

In practice, it still comes down to trusting a self-proclaimed theist or theistic organization (and the texts they produce) that they are God's legitimate representatives.

If that was the case there would be no similarities between theistic takes on the notion of god and obedience to his will

As it is, we have no available document in which God would declare His will on a weekly/monthly/yearly basis.

Instead you get instructions which are more or less timeless

Do you get weekly/monthly/yearly evaluation reports from God?
Can you show those reports to us, so that we may have justified faith that you are God's legitimate representative?

what changed last week exactly that would warrant an update?

 

[Sarkus]

If that was the case there would be no similarities between theistic takes on the notion of god and obedience to his will

So you appeal to consensus as well as authority? :shrug:

 

[lightgigantic]

So you appeal to consensus as well as authority? :shrug:

more a similarity of category
for instance one run a general sketch what the president of america would want from you ... even if we are talking about the president 10 years from now

 

[Captain Kremmen]

So, given that even science can't address the question of God, why would one logically conclude that pure philosophy, which has a track record of zero successes in the real world, could be used to address questions that even go beyond the ablity of science to address?

To my knowledge, pure philosophy has never correctly predicted anything.

Philosophy is not used for prediction.
In terms of zero successes, how does Utilitarianism fit in with that assessment?
It has been hugely influential on Politics, Law, Government, Education etc etc

 

[wynn]

If that was the case there would be no similarities between theistic takes on the notion of god and obedience to his will

Instead you get instructions which are more or less timeless

If that is so, then why is there so much strife among the different religions, and why is there religious exclusivism/elitism?
Why the whole "Our religion is the right one, and all others are false" / "Our religion is the best one, and all others are inferior"?


EDIT: Similarities between religions do not guarantee that their source is God Himself.

Natural theology or henology, while potentially compatible with all theisms, still don't actually prove anything about God. And we are again left to trusting theists.

what changed last week exactly that would warrant an update?

If we are to agree that you are a mere human, prone to mistakes, you could have done something that would warrant a revision of our trust in you and your presentation of theism.

Same goes for every other self-declared theist.


Note that I am not saying this from some paranoid skepticism. But the many negative experiences with theists, the strife between the theistic religions, the way theists privately and publicly criticize other theists - all this diminishes the reputation and credibility of the theists.

 

[wynn]

more a similarity of category
for instance one run a general sketch what the president of america would want from you ... even if we are talking about the president 10 years from now

If it is impossible to make spiritual progress on one's own; if in order to make progress, one needs other people, in this case theists; then it follows that relying on theists is the alpha and omega of one's spirituality.

 

[Arioch]

But, alas, even for science the truth of God's existence, or not, is beyond its scope.

"For now". You forgot to add the "for now" to the end of that sentence.

 

[spidergoat]

...It is loaded with specifics

....

OK, name them. Say, for instance, we conclude that there probably is a deist God, what are the implications in our personal lives?

 

[lightgigantic]

If that is so, then why is there so much strife among the different religions, and why is there religious exclusivism/elitism?
Why the whole "Our religion is the right one, and all others are false" / "Our religion is the best one, and all others are inferior"?

lack of realization translates into the bodily concept of life (and all its glory ...)

EDIT: Similarities between religions do not guarantee that their source is God Himself.

More than dis-similarities with religion

Natural theology or henology, while potentially compatible with all theisms, still don't actually prove anything about God. And we are again left to trusting theists.

which then brings us back to the issue that anything provable arises out of action (or trust in those who have acted).

So as far as yourself is concerned the chasm is bridged according tot he degree of your action and trust in those who have acted at a higher level than you

If we are to agree that you are a mere human, prone to mistakes, you could have done something that would warrant a revision of our trust in you and your presentation of theism.

Same goes for every other self-declared theist.

sure
hence guru, saddhu sastra can be like a hedging of one's bets (as but one option in the gamble of life)

Note that I am not saying this from some paranoid skepticism. But the many negative experiences with theists, the strife between the theistic religions, the way theists privately and publicly criticize other theists - all this diminishes the reputation and credibility of the theists.

Hence it requires a bit of perception to discern the various types of theists and their obligations/intentions (which then falls back to guru, saddhu, sastra)

 

[lightgigantic]

If it is impossible to make spiritual progress on one's own; if in order to make progress, one needs other people, in this case theists; then it follows that relying on theists is the alpha and omega of one's spirituality.

If it was the omega there would be no point in having individuality

 

[lightgigantic]

OK, name them. Say, for instance, we conclude that there probably is a deist God, what are the implications in our personal lives?

Since Deism is quite broad you would have to get into specifics of what they believed the ultimate relationship between god, the material world and the living entity are. If it translates into an absence of free will of the living entity (on account of being hardwired into the clockwork mechanics of the universe) or the material world being completely independent from god you are simply left with a material world that has both god and the living entity as its pawns (so IOW the material world is the numero uno that has implications on our personal lives)

 

[wynn]

lack of realization translates into the bodily concept of life (and all its glory ...)

You think that this is all that elitism/exclusivism in the name of religion is about??

which then brings us back to the issue that anything provable arises out of action (or trust in those who have acted).

So as far as yourself is concerned the chasm is bridged according tot he degree of your action and trust in those who have acted at a higher level than you

On principle, yes.

sure
hence guru, saddhu sastra can be like a hedging of one's bets

But these are effectively a self-referential trio that might as well be one.

If you want to properly understand sastra, you need a guru. But to pick a good guru, you need to properly understand sastra. Same with saddhu.
It's a triple bind.

Theoretically, the principle of the triple check is a good one.
But there are several very demanding requirements that one must fulfill first before one can employ it.

If a person doesn't even have a guru, then refering them to the triple check is pointless.

(as but one option in the gamble of life)

The "gamble of life"? What are you talking about?
Do you hold a weak agnostic stance??

Hence it requires a bit of perception to discern the various types of theists and their obligations/intentions (which then falls back to guru, saddhu, sastra)

Somehow, you seem to think that religious association is nice and neat and that Carnegie's approach works well in it.

If it was the omega there would be no point in having individuality

That is a truism. However, it's not clear what relevance individuality is supposed to have in religious life.

 

[Yazata]

Spidergoat wrote:

The simple existence of a God doesn't come with any specifics.​

It is loaded with specifics

The meaning of the word 'God' is often extremely vague. At its most general, 'God' often suggests sort of a set of philosophical abstractions. If we interpret 'God' as creator of the universe, its designer, its sustainer, its first cause and so on, we find ourselves with a generic "God" without specifics.

Whatever additional specifics a particular religious believer's concept of 'God' is fleshed out with, typically derive from his or her religious tradition. But since these additional specifics can be quite diverse and dissimilar, depending on the tradition, somebody's simply saying that they believe in 'God' doesn't tell a listerner a whole lot, unless that listener already knows what tradition the speaker adheres to.

Spidergoat:

It still remains for religious people to prove not only that God may exist, but that they know what God wants from you.​

never done much reading on the subject I take it ....

Ok, so what readings can you cite that argue persuasively against what Spidergoat said? How do they accomplish it?

Religious believers' often seem to begin with arguments for the broadest (and vaguest) possible concept of 'God'. The so-called 'theistic proofs' will often be cited at this stage. If a listener accepts the force of these (rather doubtful) arguments, then he or she is left applying the word 'God' to some generic philosophical functions (first-cause etc.).

Then a non-sequitur often occurs, in which the religious believer, thinking that he or she has successfully demonstrated God's existence, moves immediately on to the God of the Bible, the Koran, or perhaps to your own Krishna. And all of the myths and writings traditionally associated with these religious traditions are simply assumed, without any additional argument, to refer to and to be identical with the hypothetical object of the generic philosophical functions.

My point, and seemingly Spidergoat's as well, is that the step from philosophical abstraction, from a generic belief in "God", to the specific teachings of this or that actual religious tradition, still needs to explained and justified. After all, it's entirely possible that if the universe truly had a first-cause, that the first-cause will turn out to have nothing remotely to do with any of our human religious mythologies.

 

[wynn]

Spidergoat wrote:

The simple existence of a God doesn't come with any specifics.

lightgigantic replied:
It is loaded with specifics

The meaning of the word 'God' is often extremely vague. At its most general, 'God' often suggests sort of a set of philosophical abstractions. If we interpret 'God' as creator of the universe, its designer, its sustainer, its first cause and so on, we find ourselves with a generic "God" without specifics.

Actually, those are often considered the specifics (at least the fundamental specifics).

We have addressed this problem earlier in this thread, for example:
Existence vs. characteristics - which is first?

Some posters argued that first we need to prove that a thing exists, and only then can we talk about its characteristics.

Whatever additional specifics a particular religious believer's concept of 'God' is fleshed out with, typically derive from his or her religious tradition. But since these additional specifics can be quite diverse and dissimilar, depending on the tradition

Such as? God being depicted with a bluish complexion as opposed to being claime dHe has no form to begin with?

somebody's simply saying that they believe in 'God' doesn't tell a listerner a whole lot, unless that listener already knows what tradition the speaker adheres to.

Agreed.

Spidergoat:

It still remains for religious people to prove not only that God may exist, but that they know what God wants from you.​

Ok, so what readings can you cite that argue persuasively against what Spidergoat said? How do they accomplish it?

Seconded.

Religious believers' often seem to begin with arguments for the broadest (and vaguest) possible concept of 'God'. The so-called 'theistic proofs' will often be cited at this stage. If a listener accepts the force of these (rather doubtful) arguments, then he or she is left applying the word 'God' to some generic philosophical functions (first-cause etc.).

Then a non-sequitur often occurs, in which the religious believer, thinking that he or she has successfully demonstrated God's existence, moves immediately on to the God of the Bible, the Koran, or perhaps to your own Krishna. And all of the myths and writings traditionally associated with these religious traditions are simply assumed, without any additional argument, to refer to and to be identical with the hypothetical object of the generic philosophical functions.

Yes, this is how it usually seems - as if there would be a natural progression from natural theology to a particular traditional theism.

My point, and seemingly Spidergoat's as well, is that the step from philosophical abstraction, from a generic belief in "God", to the specific teachings of this or that actual religious tradition, still needs to explained and justified.

True. There is a cleft between natural theology/henology on the one hand, and on the other hand, Christianity/Islam/any other traditional theism.

After all, it's entirely possible that if the universe truly had a first-cause, that the first-cause will turn out to have nothing remotely to do with any of our human religious mythologies.

I think rather that all the existing religions could point to that first cause, just that they do it from different directions, so they look different.