Trying to hard to believe

[Motor Daddy]

And "facts" and "reality" are what?


Surely you are aware that for the past few millennia, philosophy has been focusing on these terms intensely, noting that they are anything but easily definable.

In the context that we are speaking, namely the question, "is God real or not," there are two possible answers, 1. God is real. 2. God is not real. That is the only possible answers to the question is god real or not. One of those answers is a true fact and the other answer is false. You are saying that it is up to the individual to judge which is a true fact and which one is false, correct?

 

[James R]

wynn:

Theism: worship of, service to, loyalty to God.

Does that not presuppose belief that God is real?

One of the problems with defining theism as "belief in God or god(s)" is that by this criteria, Satan, the demons and some atheists would have to be counted as theists, since these beings are said to know God or believe that God exists, but they refuse to acknowledge God as their Lord.
Surely you see there's a problem with defining theism in a way that includes its opposite.

I can't speak for Satan and demons, but I can tell you that Satanists, if they believe in the reality of Satan, are theists. As for atheists, they don't believe in the reality of God. It's not a matter of refusing to acknowledge God as their Lord. They don't acknowledge God as their Lord for the same reason that I don't acknowledge Peter Pan as my Lord.

Bottomline, one cannot start off by believing that God is real, unless one already works with some attributes of God. Without having some idea of God's attributes, one cannot judge about God's realness. - The same goes for every other thing we wonder about whether it exists or not.
To work with some attributes of God, one has to choose a definition of "God," and this can be religion-specific.

I agree. Of course it is impossible to decide if a particular thing is real or not when you have no idea what the thing is.

I don't have grounds for believing in the Sun until I see it (or a picture of it, or I hear about it or whatever) and somebody tells me "that's what we call the Sun".

But this is a simple point, not a deep one.

You are defining a phenomenon with a definition that is extraneous to it.

Believing that God is real is extraneous to theism?

Give me a break.

 

[wynn]

In the context that we are speaking, namely the question, "is God real or not," there are two possible answers, 1. God is real. 2. God is not real. That is the only possible answers to the question is god real or not. One of those answers is a true fact and the other answer is false.

Again, what do you mean by "real"?

You are saying that it is up to the individual to judge which is a true fact and which one is false, correct?

No.

 

[wynn]

Does that not presuppose belief that God is real?

Leaving aside for the moment the problem of what "real" means (ie. the philosophy of mind that is implied when one uses the term "real", along with terms like "truth" and "fact"), generally, yes.

I can't speak for Satan and demons, but I can tell you that Satanists, if they believe in the reality of Satan, are theists.

Do Satanists call themselves "theists"? As far as I know, they don't.

As for atheists, they don't believe in the reality of God. It's not a matter of refusing to acknowledge God as their Lord.

I was talking about some atheists, not all.

I agree. Of course it is impossible to decide if a particular thing is real or not when you have no idea what the thing is.

I don't have grounds for believing in the Sun until I see it (or a picture of it, or I hear about it or whatever) and somebody tells me "that's what we call the Sun".

But this is a simple point, not a deep one.

It is a simple point, indeed. It's also one you keep forgetting.

You are able to keep to this point in all other matters except God.

Believing that God is real is extraneous to theism?

Give me a break.

You are strawmaning again. This is really hurtful.


You are insisting on a definition of "theism" that probably nobody who considers themselves a theist has ever held.
And yet you think this is an appropriate way to define the meaning of a term??

 

[Jan Ardena]

James R,

I linked you to that book as an example of somebody who was "called" to the service of God, who was a preacher and Christian song writer for many year, who was a keen evangelical out to convince others to come to God etc. etc., but who gradually came to the realisation that God isn't real. In other words, this is an example of somebody who had strong faith, who honestly felt personally called by God, but who nevertheless eventually stopped believing in God.

You didn't make much of an effort did you? Really?
You want me to buy a book in order to answer my question. Really?

Anyways I looked him up and all I could find was him bashing religion with his atheist merchandise.

Your claim is that such a thing can never happen. You would presumably claim, in this case, that Dan Barker never really, properly atbelieved in God like he should have, that he was always really an atheist, and so on and so forth - against the actual man's testimony that refutes your claim.

What I want to know is, what was it like for him when God ''called'' him? What happened?
Presumably he must have had some real connection to God why he decided to serve Him. What was that connection to the Supreme Being?
It must have been real because he committed himself to bringing other people to the same level of communication that he was privilidged to acquire.
What was it? And why would anyone denounce it? What was going on at the time? You see there are so many questions when you delve into the reality of what he's saying.
Now he goes around saying it's all make belief nonsense. So what was it he actually believed in?

In other words, your claim is that a person like Dan Barker was always really of an "atheist mentality", regardless of anything he tells us to the contrary. You, Jan Ardena, know him better than he knows himself. Apparently. The arrogance of your position is quite breath-taking.

...

How happy can you be when you think every action and thought is being monitored by a judgmental ghost? [Dan Barker, Losing Faith in Faith]

According to you Mr Barker was called from this ''judgmental ghost''.
Did God come all Mr Nice guy on him, and then turn, or did Mr Barker opt to serve this judgmental ghost, or did God hold a celestial gun to his head???
Did Mr Barker know what he was doing at the time, or was he in some kind daze?

Correct. I would say, however, that many atheists like that, who would apparently spin on a dime, probably would not have been strongly religious or anti-religious prior to their theism "kicking in". Compare somebody like Dan Barker, who was so strongly committed to his religion that he dedicated his life to it, becoming an evangelical preacher.

I dare say he was committed to his religion.
But while he now regards God as a ''judgemental ghost'', he claimed at the time to have been called by God, and continued to serve him?
Did he have some experience of God why he describes Him thus? Or is he saying that God doesn't exist, it's all make belief?
If the former, then why doesn't he talk more about the experience as it must have been life-changing?
If the latter, then it is likely that he has known all along that God doesn't exist, but chose to suppress it. Theism means to believe in God, not pretend to believe, or hope that someday God is proven to exist.

I think you'll find that for at least some atheists, it's a very conscious decision.

My interest lies in finding out what that decision is based on.
Did God exist for them, and then one day He didn't?
Or did they just have faith based on what people had told them?

I notice, also, that all along your language is loaded. You say atheists "deny God", which carries the baggage of the presumption that there is a God to deny. position.

You question the existence of God because you see no evidence of Him, so if ''evidence'' is how you decide whether or not God exists, then you must have some idea of what evidence would make you accept. The problem is that you don't know what that evidence could possible be, other than your perception of God. This is nothing short of materialism, the philosophical basis of the atheist mindset.
If you are only prepared to accept on the basis of something spectacular to prove His existence, then you will always wonder whether that spectacular thing was just the work of nature. So in this way you will never accept that God exists (unless something personally happens to you and you become faced with something that you cannot deny).
That non acceptance is what makes you an atheist, so for you God doesn't exist. For others, God exists, and can easily use you're own level of information to justify that belief. Thing always works both ways in this world.

In fact, from the other side, all atheists have is a lack of belief in an imaginary being that you happen to think is real. Denial involves refusing to admit to the truth of a fact. If God doesn't exist, then atheism isn't denying anything - it is actually the truthful

So you're saying God IS imaginary, and therefore doesn't exist?
I'll take ''lack of belief'' as ''no belief'', either you believe that God exists, or you don't, you can't sit on the fence with this.
And you're quite right, if God doesn't exist then atheism isn't denying anything, then it's actually truthful. Well, good luck with that, in sincerity.

jan.

 

[Balerion]

As a matter of truisms, how could it be otherwise? One can and does grow out of inferior definitions of "God," leaving them behind - because they are inferior. How could one leave behind the supreme definition?

The same way they leave behind the "lesser" god: By evaluating the reasons they believe. I don't see the problem here, and I really want to, because I feel like I'm missing the largest point to your argument.

If belief in God includes a progressive refining of one's understanding of "God," then such a belief is self-perpetuating.

Again, it's easy to say that, but what is the mechanism that makes it so? For example, if I make a claim such as "Scientific advancements have lead to the secularization of the western world," I could support it by saying "With natural explanations for once-misunderstood phenomena such as droughts, floods, and earthquakes, superstition makes up much less of a person's worldview, resulting in less human or animal sacrifices in effort to appear rain or fertility gods, etc.." I've made the claim and explained the mechanism by which the claim is (supposedly) true. You have made the claim that believing in an omnimax god does not allow for one to stop believing; now you have to explain how.

And some people think these

are kinds of apples (the Germans and the French do).

So misconceptions of certain concepts are just as valid as accepted definitions/parameters? In other words, if I begin to define blue as red, my definition of blue becomes just as valid as yours? Why can't I simply be mistaken? What's wrong with standard definitions, particularly when allowing non-standard definitions to be equally valid renders a term entirely useless?

IOW, a term may be so broad that it becomes useless, misleading, or falsely produces a semblance of phenomena being of the same kind, when in fact they are not.

Agreed, and I probably shouldn't have worded my response in such a way. What I should have said is that theism is specifically a belief in a god or gods. I said "broad" because it doesn't address the dogmas of the various religions within its context, but it would have been better to simply say that--that it doesn't address the dogmas of the various religions within its context.

In other words, there's nothing wrong with defining theism as "a belief in a god or gods," because it works as a definition. If you want to differentiate between theists based on their beliefs, it's better to identify them by their particular faith (ie. Christian, Jew) rather than calling them "theists who believe in the divinity of Christ, and theists who do not believe in the divinity of Christ."

 

[James R]

wynn:

Do Satanists call themselves "theists"? As far as I know, they don't.

If they believe Satan is a supernatural, godlike entity, then they are theists. I'm not sure if this is what modern Satanists claim to believe, however.

It is a simple point, indeed. It's also one you keep forgetting.

You are able to keep to this point in all other matters except God.

Your claim seems to be that I don't know what the meaning of "God" is. You're wrong. I'm sure I know what God is about as well as you do.

You are strawmaning again. This is really hurtful.

I honestly thought that you were claiming that belief in God as a real, existent being is "extraneous" to theism. That's more or less what you wrote, isn't it?

You are insisting on a definition of "theism" that probably nobody who considers themselves a theist has ever held.

You think if I went and asked a theist "Do you believe that God is real?", most of them would reply "That's not important to me" or "That doesn't matter to my beliefs", or "That's extraneous to what I believe"?

And yet you think this is an appropriate way to define the meaning of a term??

You haven't refuted my claim that belief in God or gods is the minimum required to be a theist.

 

[James R]

Here is an extract from Dan Barker's book. Jan Ardena claims that Barker was never a "real" theist. Let's hear what Barker himself has to say:

When I was 15 I received a "call to the ministry". It happened one evening in late 1964 during a week of revival meetings at Anaheim Christian Center in Anaheim, California. ....

I had already been "saved". My parents were Christian, but belonging to a Christian family does not make you a Christian any more than having a baker for a father makes you a loaf of bread. Each person has to make his or her own decision. According to the teachings of hte New Testament, I had confessed to God that I was a sinner deserving eternal torment and I had accepted the death of Jesus on the cross as payment for my sin. I humbly asked Christ to come into my heart and make me a new creature, and I became "born again" by faith. I had been baptised and I knew I was going to heaven, but I didn't know what to do with the rest of my life ... until that evening in Anaheim.

Sitting in that meeting, I felt an intense desire to sing, pray and worship and I experienced strong inner sensations that I could only describe as "spiritual". I was convinced I was communicating with God and that He was talking to me through His Spirit. I had never had these feelings in any other context, and since the "spirit-filled" environment triggered them, I knew that I had confirmation of the reality of God. ... It felt real, and good. .... God was not just an idea, He was a reality. I had a personal relationship with Jesus, and he had something to say to me as one of his close friends and servants.

.... I knew God was talking directly to me, and I knew right then how to live the rest of my life. I accepted the call. I would spend the rest of my life bringing lost people into the kingdom of heaven.

This man later became an atheist and co-founded the Freedom From Religion Foundation.

Jan Ardena would have us believe that Barker always had an "atheist mindset" (without having read the memoir from which the above was extracted), and that he never really believed in God.

Judge for yourself.

 

[James R]

Jan Ardena:

You didn't make much of an effort did you? Really?

It was you who didn't make any effort.

You want me to buy a book in order to answer my question. Really?

No. As I said, this is simply one example of thousands or millions. Such accounts are easy to find, if you make an effort. And you can find them for free - a brief Google search will do the trick.

What I want to know is, what was it like for him when God ''called'' him? What happened?

See my previous post.

Presumably he must have had some real connection to God why he decided to serve Him. What was that connection to the Supreme Being?

You tell me. You're the expert on the Supreme Being, aren't you?

It must have been real because he committed himself to bringing other people to the same level of communication that he was privilidged to acquire.
What was it? And why would anyone denounce it? What was going on at the time? You see there are so many questions when you delve into the reality of what he's saying.
Now he goes around saying it's all make belief nonsense. So what was it he actually believed in?

See my previous post. If you're interested in why he became an atheist, I could extract another short section for you. Please let me know. But first, you will have to admit that he was a sincere believer prior to becoming an atheist.

How happy can you be when you think every action and thought is being monitored by a judgmental ghost? [Dan Barker, Losing Faith in Faith]
According to you Mr Barker was called from this ''judgmental ghost''.
Did God come all Mr Nice guy on him, and then turn, or did Mr Barker opt to serve this judgmental ghost, or did God hold a celestial gun to his head???
Did Mr Barker know what he was doing at the time, or was he in some kind daze?

You tell me. Read his account, above.

I dare say he was committed to his religion.
But while he now regards God as a ''judgemental ghost'', he claimed at the time to have been called by God, and continued to serve him?

Yes.

Did he have some experience of God why he describes Him thus? Or is he saying that God doesn't exist, it's all make belief?

He is now saying that God doesn't exist and it's all make believe.

If the latter, then it is likely that he has known all along that God doesn't exist, but chose to suppress it.

Read the above extract, and tell me how you know he was never a real theist at all.

My interest lies in finding out what that decision is based on.
Did God exist for them, and then one day He didn't?
Or did they just have faith based on what people had told them?

It varies. For some atheists, there is a slow process of realising that God isn't real. For some, there is a sudden realisation. Descriptions of becoming an atheist are, in that sense, very similar to descriptions of becoming a believer.

You question the existence of God because you see no evidence of Him, so if ''evidence'' is how you decide whether or not God exists, then you must have some idea of what evidence would make you accept. The problem is that you don't know what that evidence could possible be, other than your perception of God. This is nothing short of materialism, the philosophical basis of the atheist mindset.

As a general principle, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. I could, in principle, accept the idea of a strictly non-interventionist Creator of the universe on faith, with some level of convincing evidence for such a being. On the other hand, to accept the God of the bible would require, at the least, evidence that the events of the bible actually happened, for starters.

You speak of materialism as if it is a bad thing. Perhaps you'd like to explain why.

If you are only prepared to accept on the basis of something spectacular to prove His existence, then you will always wonder whether that spectacular thing was just the work of nature. So in this way you will never accept that God exists (unless something personally happens to you and you become faced with something that you cannot deny).
That non acceptance is what makes you an atheist, so for you God doesn't exist. For others, God exists, and can easily use you're own level of information to justify that belief. Thing always works both ways in this world.

I do not claim that I could automatically recognise any supernatural event as that, but I can think of lots of events that wouldn't be hard to identify as such. But there's no good evidence that any of those kind of events have ever happened.

I'll take ''lack of belief'' as ''no belief'', either you believe that God exists, or you don't, you can't sit on the fence with this.

Ok.

And you're quite right, if God doesn't exist then atheism isn't denying anything, then it's actually truthful. Well, good luck with that, in sincerity.

Thanks, Jan!

 

[wynn]

Presumably he must have had some real connection to God why he decided to serve Him. What was that connection to the Supreme Being?
It must have been real because he committed himself to bringing other people to the same level of communication that he was privilidged to acquire.

I seriously doubt that.
I've seen what human pride and delusion are capable of, and that gives me reason to be suspicious of people who make a point of claiming to be religious, or to have been religious in the past.

What was it? And why would anyone denounce it? What was going on at the time? You see there are so many questions when you delve into the reality of what he's saying.
Now he goes around saying it's all make belief nonsense. So what was it he actually believed in?

I think that from a psychological perspective, such phenomena are easy enough to explain: A young person, whose identity has not yet formed, was going through an identity crisis (as is common for young people), and in an attempt to resolve that identity crisis, has intensely devoted themselves to an already existing system of beliefs and practices.

This is in roundabout how, for example, some young people's adherence to Neonazism or other extremist outlooks is explained. Officially, though, it seems off-limits to explain some people's (!) apparent religiosity that way.

Did Mr Barker know what he was doing at the time, or was he in some kind daze?

That's more like it.

You question the existence of God because you see no evidence of Him, so if ''evidence'' is how you decide whether or not God exists, then you must have some idea of what evidence would make you accept. The problem is that you don't know what that evidence could possible be, other than your perception of God. This is nothing short of materialism, the philosophical basis of the atheist mindset.

I don't think it's materialism; it's poor thinking.
It's like when clingy infatuated people sometimes want proof that the other person loves them back, but they have no idea what could possibly constitute that proof.

If one wants proof or evidence, one needs to know in advance what that proof or evidence would be.

I'll take ''lack of belief'' as ''no belief'', either you believe that God exists, or you don't, you can't sit on the fence with this.

I think this is too simplistic, though.
"God," "exists" and "belief" are complex terms, and without going into what they mean for each particular person, expressing oneself in short soundbites is likely to just rile people up, and not lead to any productive reasoning or communication.

 

[wynn]

But first, you will have to admit that he was a sincere believer prior to becoming an atheist.

From the way he describes himself - no, I don't think he was a sincere believer.
I've read many similar accounts, and to me, they sound like fanaticism.

Originally Posted by Dan Barker (from "Godless")
When I was 15 I received a "call to the ministry". It happened one evening in late 1964 during a week of revival meetings at Anaheim Christian Center in Anaheim, California. ....

I had already been "saved". My parents were Christian, but belonging to a Christian family does not make you a Christian any more than having a baker for a father makes you a loaf of bread. Each person has to make his or her own decision. According to the teachings of hte New Testament, I had confessed to God that I was a sinner deserving eternal torment and I had accepted the death of Jesus on the cross as payment for my sin. I humbly asked Christ to come into my heart and make me a new creature, and I became "born again" by faith. I had been baptised and I knew I was going to heaven, but I didn't know what to do with the rest of my life ... until that evening in Anaheim.

Sitting in that meeting, I felt an intense desire to sing, pray and worship and I experienced strong inner sensations that I could only describe as "spiritual". I was convinced I was communicating with God and that He was talking to me through His Spirit. I had never had these feelings in any other context, and since the "spirit-filled" environment triggered them, I knew that I had confirmation of the reality of God. ... It felt real, and good. .... God was not just an idea, He was a reality. I had a personal relationship with Jesus, and he had something to say to me as one of his close friends and servants.

.... I knew God was talking directly to me, and I knew right then how to live the rest of my life. I accepted the call. I would spend the rest of my life bringing lost people into the kingdom of heaven.

To me, this sounds first and foremost a short description of a snowballing effect: a person feels and does something, and at a loss of how to call it, goes for the nearest explanation available to them (in this case, a particular Christian outlook), and from then on, things kind of take on a life of their own, snowballing, gaining momentum, further seeming to verify what one has set out to verify.

I think it's very common; I've seen it happen with a political outlook, with a religious outlook, with a fashion outlook, etc.

It varies. For some atheists, there is a slow process of realising that God isn't real. For some, there is a sudden realisation. Descriptions of becoming an atheist are, in that sense, very similar to descriptions of becoming a believer.

An alternative explanation is that specific conditioning (in this case the conditioning of apparent religiosity) wears off over time - either slowly or suddenly.
That doesn't mean though that what is left is genuine - there may be other layers of other conditioning that wear off and build up at different paces.

If they believe Satan is a supernatural, godlike entity, then they are theists. I'm not sure if this is what modern Satanists claim to believe, however.

And to you, it is completely irrelevant whether those Satanists consider themselves theists or not?

Your claim seems to be that I don't know what the meaning of "God" is. You're wrong. I'm sure I know what God is about as well as you do.

I'm sure you know a particular dictionary definition of "God." But that's it.

You think if I went and asked a theist "Do you believe that God is real?", most of them would reply "That's not important to me" or "That doesn't matter to my beliefs", or "That's extraneous to what I believe"?

I think you'd find that these things are a lot more complex than what you present them here to be.

You haven't refuted my claim that belief in God or gods is the minimum required to be a theist.

And it cannot be refuted, as long as you are the one who gets to set the terms.

:shrug:



LG replied to you in the other thread, I'd like to see your comments.

 

[James R]

wynn:

From the way he describes himself - no, I don't think he was a sincere believer.

Why not?

I've read many similar accounts, and to me, they sound like fanaticism.

So fanaticism is not sincere belief?

Tell me, wynn. What does it take to be a sincere believer?

To me, this sounds first and foremost a short description of a snowballing effect: a person feels and does something, and at a loss of how to call it, goes for the nearest explanation available to them (in this case, a particular Christian outlook), and from then on, things kind of take on a life of their own, snowballing, gaining momentum, further seeming to verify what one has set out to verify.

I think it's very common; I've seen it happen with a political outlook, with a religious outlook, with a fashion outlook, etc.

So what would a true believer's story look like? Please give me an example. Post a true believer's account for me, so we can compare.

It varies. For some atheists, there is a slow process of realising that God isn't real. For some, there is a sudden realisation. Descriptions of becoming an atheist are, in that sense, very similar to descriptions of becoming a believer.

An alternative explanation is that specific conditioning (in this case the conditioning of apparent religiosity) wears off over time - either slowly or suddenly.
That doesn't mean though that what is left is genuine - there may be other layers of other conditioning that wear off and build up at different paces.

And I suppose that every time somebody undergoes a religious awakening, it is really just their prior atheistic or non-religious conditioning wearing off. God doesn't come into it. Right?

If they believe Satan is a supernatural, godlike entity, then they are theists. I'm not sure if this is what modern Satanists claim to believe, however.

And to you, it is completely irrelevant whether those Satanists consider themselves theists or not?

Obviously, what they have to say about their beliefs is very relevant. But I believe I already said that.

Your claim seems to be that I don't know what the meaning of "God" is. You're wrong. I'm sure I know what God is about as well as you do.

I'm sure you know a particular dictionary definition of "God." But that's it.

It seems to me you're making a lot of assumptions about me.

Please tell me why your knowledge of God is so obviously superior to mine. What are your qualifications, being the atheist you are and all?

You think if I went and asked a theist "Do you believe that God is real?", most of them would reply "That's not important to me" or "That doesn't matter to my beliefs", or "That's extraneous to what I believe"?

I think you'd find that these things are a lot more complex than what you present them here to be.

Nice try at avoiding the question. Let's take it you concede that point then, and move on.

You haven't refuted my claim that belief in God or gods is the minimum required to be a theist.

And it cannot be refuted, as long as you are the one who gets to set the terms.

Good. So we agree once again.

 

[wynn]

/.../

 

[wynn]

The same way they leave behind the "lesser" god: By evaluating the reasons they believe. I don't see the problem here, and I really want to, because I feel like I'm missing the largest point to your argument.

The supreme definition of "God" is one that contextualizes everything else, including issues of one's own belief.
So how could one possibly leave it behind?

Again, it's easy to say that, but what is the mechanism that makes it so? For example, if I make a claim such as "Scientific advancements have lead to the secularization of the western world," I could support it by saying "With natural explanations for once-misunderstood phenomena such as droughts, floods, and earthquakes, superstition makes up much less of a person's worldview, resulting in less human or animal sacrifices in effort to appear rain or fertility gods, etc.." I've made the claim and explained the mechanism by which the claim is (supposedly) true. You have made the claim that believing in an omnimax god does not allow for one to stop believing; now you have to explain how.

I'm not sure I can explain it any more than I, or anyone else, can explain why 2x + 2x = 4x.

So misconceptions of certain concepts are just as valid as accepted definitions/parameters?

They are not necessarily misconceptions. They are just things that happen, complex developments that may be a mixture of many processes.

Like with the apple example: In English, "apple" primarily means the fruit of the tree that in Latin is called "malus." But in German, even though etymologically related, the world "Apfel" has a broader use, so that when in connection with a qualifier, it can be used to mean 'potato' - "Erdapfel" or 'pomergranate' - "Granatapfel." This German use has no idiomatic equivalent in English.
Of course, the Germans know that potatoes and pomergranates don't grow on trees called malus in Latin; there is no mistake about this on their part.
It's just that even though Apfel and apple are etymologically related, and thus may be expected to mean the same thing and be used the same way, they don't and aren't.

In a similar manner, when theism is taken to mean 'belief in God or god(s)', this can end up including things that aren't theism.

What's wrong with standard definitions, particularly when allowing non-standard definitions to be equally valid renders a term entirely useless?

What gets to be a standard definition or not, changes over time. Dictionaries are rewritten every few decades.
Dictionaries from different institutions can include different definitions of terms.

In other words, there's nothing wrong with defining theism as "a belief in a god or gods," because it works as a definition.

The question is, for whom does such a definition work? (Play of words intended.)

 

[Jan Ardena]

Here is an extract from Dan Barker's book. Jan Ardena claims that Barker was never a "real" theist. Let's hear what Barker himself has to say:



This man later became an atheist and co-founded the Freedom From Religion Foundation.

Jan Ardena would have us believe that Barker always had an "atheist mindset" (without having read the memoir from which the above was extracted), and that he never really believed in God.

Judge for yourself.

How could I have read the memoir without obtaining a copy of the book?
All I had to go on was whatever information was out there. As it turns out there are quite a few debates and conversation
which features Mr Barker talking about his current and former position. He claims that he was deluded and therefore not in his right mind, because he now knows God doesn't exist. So for approximately 19 years he was walking around in a daze. There was no experience in all that time that (save the last 5 years of gradual decline) that God didn't actually exist. Week in and week out he preached on behalf of God and it never dawned on him that God didn't exist. That those feelings he felt were delusions, that all the money he made, and is still making from the music ministry was based on a delusion.

Now it seems that he's gone over to what he sees as the other side, and doing the same thing. Is it possible that he's simply a business man selling his wares?

There's a film that came out years ago with Robert Duvall called The Apostle, about a powerful preacher. In that film the dialouge is obviously based on real pentecostal preaching, and Mr Duvall gives a powerful performance as a fire and brimstone preach. Very convincing. Should I believe that he is a theist, or a baptist/pentecostal preacher because he said he was in that film? Or despite the convincing the performance should I hold that because he say's something, it doesn't mean that he believes, or is that thing? What would you do?

jan.

 

[wynn]

There's a film that came out years ago with Robert Duvall called The Apostle, about a powerful preacher. In that film the dialouge is obviously based on real pentecostal preaching, and Mr Duvall gives a powerful performance as a fire and brimstone preach. Very convincing. Should I believe that he is a theist, or a baptist/pentecostal preacher because he said he was in that film? Or despite the convincing the performance should I hold that because he say's something, it doesn't mean that he believes, or is that thing? What would you do?

I find the reference to the film to be even more relevant because in the film, I got the impression that the Apostle (the character played by Duvall), doesn't seem to actually believe, but seems more like a fanatic.

It's hard to explain why exactly someone seems like a true believer, and someone else doesn't. I suppose one judges these things on a more intuitive basis, as a matter of "I know one when I see one."

But even so, I find it interesting to try to look into how come someone considers someone a believer, and another one doesn't.


Another film worth seeing is The Believer.

 

[Balerion]

The supreme definition of "God" is one that contextualizes everything else, including issues of one's own belief.
So how could one possibly leave it behind?

I don't understand how contextualizing everything makes disbelief impossible. I think--and please correct me if I'm wrong--you're trying to argue that belief in an omnimax god is a logical trickbox. In other words, you can't reason your way out of it once you're in it, because, according to you, there are no cracks or loopholes in it. Is that about right?

I'm not sure I can explain it any more than I, or anyone else, can explain why 2x + 2x = 4x.

Certainly there's a better explanation than that. Nothing you've said has the appearance of being so self-evidently true.

They are not necessarily misconceptions. They are just things that happen, complex developments that may be a mixture of many processes.

Like with the apple example: In English, "apple" primarily means the fruit of the tree that in Latin is called "malus." But in German, even though etymologically related, the world "Apfel" has a broader use, so that when in connection with a qualifier, it can be used to mean 'potato' - "Erdapfel" or 'pomergranate' - "Granatapfel." This German use has no idiomatic equivalent in English.
Of course, the Germans know that potatoes and pomergranates don't grow on trees called malus in Latin; there is no mistake about this on their part.
It's just that even though Apfel and apple are etymologically related, and thus may be expected to mean the same thing and be used the same way, they don't and aren't.

This is incorrect. "Apfel" means "apple." It has no broader meaning. No more than "apple" has a broader meaning in English just because we have a fruit called the pineapple that is also not actually an apple. The reason this fruit--and the ones you talk about above--has "apple" in its name is because people tend to name things after the familiar. Sort of like how sea lions and sea cows aren't really lions and cows.

In a similar manner, when theism is taken to mean 'belief in God or god(s)', this can end up including things that aren't theism.

That's impossible, unless there's some other, secret definition of "theism" that you're working with. Care to share? How does one define theism if not by its definition?

What gets to be a standard definition or not, changes over time. Dictionaries are rewritten every few decades.
Dictionaries from different institutions can include different definitions of terms.

Absolutely. But we have to operate with common definitions, otherwise we can't communicate. If you want to discuss the value of one definition over another, I'm all for it, but we at least have to hear them.

The question is, for whom does such a definition work? (Play of words intended.)

So far, you're the only person I've encountered who has a problem with it. Not that you're wrong in questioning it or having a personal definition of the term, but the standard definition seems to suit it well enough for purposes of philosophical discussion.

 

[James R]

Jan Ardena:

Your argument is a rather obvious example of the No True Scotsman fallacy.

Obviously, no example I could give you of a theist becoming an atheist would ever satisfy you. You would simply claim that those people were never true theists, moving the goalposts as required.

I could just as easily claim that no religious conversion experience can ever be legitimate, and that anybody who claims to have had such an experience was always of a "religious mindset" anyway, so that all accounts of finding God are just what they would say, etc. etc. That would be a similar example of the same fallacy.

Obviously there's no point in continuing this particular discussion until you can start to be honest.

 

[wynn]

I don't understand how contextualizing everything makes disbelief impossible. I think--and please correct me if I'm wrong--you're trying to argue that belief in an omnimax god is a logical trickbox. In other words, you can't reason your way out of it once you're in it, because, according to you, there are no cracks or loopholes in it. Is that about right?

This is not a particularly friendly way to put it, but in roundabout, yes, belief in the omnimax God is a kind of "logical trickbox."

As one's understanding progresses, so one's understanding of what it means "to believe" etc. changes - and changes in ways that are impossible to predict in advance. Ie. currently one doesn't know what it will be like after one has been working on refining one's understanding for a couple of years.

People who are going through this process can verify this.

Certainly there's a better explanation than that. Nothing you've said has the appearance of being so self-evidently true.

You do realize that an element of will or willingness plays a part in how people perceive things?

Which is one of the reasons why there is a limit to what can be accomplished via discussion.

This is incorrect. "Apfel" means "apple." It has no broader meaning. No more than "apple" has a broader meaning in English just because we have a fruit called the pineapple that is also not actually an apple. The reason this fruit--and the ones you talk about above--has "apple" in its name is because people tend to name things after the familiar. Sort of like how sea lions and sea cows aren't really lions and cows.

Same with the definitions of "theism."

People/cultures differ in what they find familiar.

My point is that different people/cultures differ in what they find familiar about theism, so they define it differently.

That's impossible, unless there's some other, secret definition of "theism" that you're working with. Care to share? How does one define theism if not by its definition?

Absolutely. But we have to operate with common definitions, otherwise we can't communicate. If you want to discuss the value of one definition over another, I'm all for it, but we at least have to hear them.

So far, you're the only person I've encountered who has a problem with it. Not that you're wrong in questioning it or having a personal definition of the term, but the standard definition seems to suit it well enough for purposes of philosophical discussion.

If the standard definition of "theism" would suit well enough for philosophical purposes, then how come there is so much philosophical and other conversation going on about theism and related issues - in which the issue is what counts for theism and what doesn't?

Your argument is a rather obvious example of the No True Scotsman fallacy.

Already brought up earlier in the thread.

Wynn, have you heard of the no true Scotsman fallacy?

And "No true cat is a dog" is an example of it, eh?

Obviously, no example I could give you of a theist becoming an atheist would ever satisfy you. You would simply claim that those people were never true theists, moving the goalposts as required.

I could just as easily claim that no religious conversion experience can ever be legitimate, and that anybody who claims to have had such an experience was always of a "religious mindset" anyway, so that all accounts of finding God are just what they would say, etc. etc. That would be a similar example of the same fallacy.

I don't think this is the case.

Obviously there's no point in continuing this particular discussion until you can start to be honest.

There is a limit to what can be discussed when people involved in a discussion have a limit on how open and friendly they are.
There is a limit to what can be discussed when people involved in a discussion don't all have equal status in the social context in which the discussion is taking place.

I think this discussion has reached that limit, already a few posts ago with your last reply to me.

 

[Balerion]

This is not a particularly friendly way to put it, but in roundabout, yes, belief in the omnimax God is a kind of "logical trickbox."

Okay, now I feel like we're on the same page. The problem I have with this assertion is that I don't see what about the omnimax god is so hard to escape. For example, if a person comes to believe in this god because they believe they were spoken to in a dream, then later decides the dream was either imagined or just a dream and no longer believes? How is this impossible with an omnimax creator?

As one's understanding progresses, so one's understanding of what it means "to believe" etc. changes - and changes in ways that are impossible to predict in advance. Ie. currently one doesn't know what it will be like after one has been working on refining one's understanding for a couple of years.

So?

You do realize that an element of will or willingness plays a part in how people perceive things?

Which is one of the reasons why there is a limit to what can be accomplished via discussion.

That sounds like an attempt to avoid the discussion by blaming the other person for not agreeing with you. I hope I'm wrong, but that's what it looks like.

Same with the definitions of "theism."

People/cultures differ in what they find familiar.

No, you're misunderstanding. Apple means apple regardless of the culture. When someone named the potato the "earth apple," they didn't really think it was an apple that grew in the dirt. Again, it's like calling something a sea lion; it's not that anyone mistook this creature for a lion in the sea. So your original point about the potato and pomegranite being considered kinds of apples is incorrect. Just like nobody really thinks the pineapple is a kind of apple.

My point is that different people/cultures differ in what they find familiar about theism, so they define it differently.

I'm not sure that's really your point. Going back through this thread, I'm having a hard time pinning down exactly what you're trying to get at. Your first incursion was by claiming that people who believe in God do so forever. In support of this, you tried to demonstrate that belief in God is an inherently unique phenomenon by comparing it to "belief" in Elvis, but what you were really describing (as James pointed out, and I also later pointed out) was an admiration of Elvis rather than a belief in his existence. Then you said belief in the two are different because they themselves are different, which doesn't make any sense. Then you started in on this theism kick, and how defining it by its standard definition is "problematic" because it doesn't include worship or loyalty or any of the things you see theists do. When it was explained to you that defining theism as everything a theist could possibly do means that theism effectively has no definition, and that more sophisticated definitions exist for people depending on their denomination, etc., you said that making theism so broad robbed of meaning--even though the alternative you proposed was what actually robbed it of meaning. And you based this on the absurdly incorrect premise that Germans think the potato is a kind of apple.

So...yeah. I'm not really sure what your point is. All I can tell you is that whatever you're getting at, it's based on a ton of incorrect information. Belief in God isn't any different than the belief in Elvis. There is no problem in defining theism as a belief in God or gods, because that's what it is for every theist. Sure it can be more than that, but for levels of complexity beyond "belief," it's best to get into terms like "Christian" or "Muslim," and terms like "Catholic" or "Shia" for even greater complexity. And for the love of Elvis, nobody in Germany thinks the potato is an apple.

If the standard definition of "theism" would suit well enough for philosophical purposes, then how come there is so much philosophical and other conversation going on about theism and related issues - in which the issue is what counts for theism and what doesn't?

Where is this happening, exactly? And where are people coming down on the issue?