It's logical, given the premises.
What do we really mean by "God"?
- Thread starter Magical Realist
- Start date
It's logical, given the premises.
In short, the conversation between a theist and an atheist looks like this:
Theist: P.
Atheist: Why P?
How come the atheist asks Why? It's as if they are automatically taking the stance of the victim (in this case, philosophically being the victim).
It is the most fundamental question.
"Why is there Gravity?" We don't have the answer. Workin' on it.
"Why do people get sick?" Asking led us to learning about biology, virus, bacteria, toxins and cancers. This leads us to ask, "Why can't we do something about it?"
"Why do people behave a certain way in a crowd?" "Why do people vote the way they do?" "Why does this element react this way with this element?" "Why does electricity do this?" "Why do protons do that?"
"What happens if I heat this up?" "Add water?" "Hydrochloric acid?"
Finding the answers to "why" enlightens, assists, enriches, and progresses society.
"Why do some people react in certain ways to people that are different from them?"
"Why can't we all just get along?"
Answers to "why" allow us to examine our most basic parts, our beliefs, our ideas. It enables us to check them for accuracy, to even change them, improve them.
"Why are we here?" "Why does Wynn never reveal Wynns gender?"
Well, for some things, we may never have satisfying answers. But we may, too. Maybe some "why" questions are absurd questions that cannot be answered because the question is false.
Far better to ask than to make up some dumb crap that doesn't provide useful answers.
Exactly.
So one would need to figure out which Why question is meaningful, and which one isn't.
How is asking why taking the position of a victim? And what does it mean to be "philosophically" the victim?
Let's backtrack a bit. You disagreed with Yazata's position that one can, if they so choose, seek out a potential existing referent for the various gods of religion on the basis that such a thing is impossible. I suggest that it's entirely possible. You now say that asking why is...what? indicative of low self-esteem? I'm really not sure where you're going here. Choose clarity over brevity.
The "Why P" question is not the same as "Does P exist," mind you.
Yes, at least sometimes.
If someone tells you to jump off a bridge into what looks like certain death, and you ask that person why ...
"P" usually stands for "premise."
This is a non-sequitur. We were discussing the potential existing referent of a god, not responding to someone's charge to go jump off a bridge.
Again, relevance?
I gave an example of when it is absurd to ask why.
It seems to me that is is also sometimes absurd to ask Why questions when it comes to religious issues.
I explained what I meant by "P."
Asking a particular theist who has made a claim on the topic of "GOD", "Why should I believe you this claim?" is a why question.
"Why do you think it is meaningful to ask 'Does God exist?' ?" is also a why question.
Only when you are asking the theist. What we're talking about is looking for some evidence as to the validity of the claim. That means doing research. You consider such an endeavor meaningless?
And you still have not demonstrated how such questions are meaningless. What makes a why question meaningless?
And what's so meaningless about that? You don't think there's some insight to be gained there?
Magical Realist,
If you think something to be ''clearly unlike a God'', then you can answer your own question, and draw
conclusions from that.
What are the original boundaries of ''meaning and scope''?
jan.
If you think something to be ''clearly unlike a God'', then you can answer your own question, and draw
conclusions from that.
What are the original boundaries of ''meaning and scope''?
jan.
Yazata
Valued Senior Member
"A parody, in current use, is an imitative work created to mock, comment on or trivialize an original work, its subject, author, style, or some other target." (from Wikipedia) Yeah, I suppose that's broad enough to include the FSM.
In the FSM's case, what precisely is the thing being ridiculed? And how does the 'comedy' emerge?
The thing is, merely ridiculing something can often be kind of mindless. It's the rhetorical equivalent of saying "fuck you". In my opinion there's nothing inherently funny about "fuck you". To those who agree with the one saying it, it's basically an occasion for feeling solidarity (hence humor's barking laughter) and for those on the receiving end, it's a challenge to fight. We already know that some of the more angry and militant atheists out there are hostile towards and thoroughly dismissive of religion. (Sometimes for little intelligent reason.) If that's the only thing that the FSM is communicating, then it's neither enlightening or interesting, except perhaps in a psychological way.
What makes the FSM more interesting and perhaps even informative is if it communicates something more than ridicule, more than the speaker and his barking listeners' feelings of disdain for religious believers. There needs to be an intelligible (and hopefully credible) reason for their sarcasm, a reason that the parody neatly encapsulates. That's where the reductio-ad-absurdum aspect comes in, it's what saves the FSM from merely being an expression of hostility, by (arguably) making it smart.
Broad enough? The FSM matches that definition exactly. Have you ever read the original letter written by the guy who started this whole thing?
http://www.venganza.org/about/open-letter/
It's ridiculing the Intelligent Design movement. As for the comedy, I mean, read up on it. Read the letter. If you don't find it funny, fair enough, but the intent is what matters, not your opinion of it.
Sort of like how you're hostile towards and thoroughly dismissive of the FSM for little intelligent reason? You seem to have no earthly idea what it is, yet you're condemning it. I don't understand that.
Ridicule can be mindless when there's no substance to it, but in the form of parody or ridicule I can't see how it can be reduced to a mere "fuck you."
Again, you can make a reductio-ad-absurdum argument from its parts, if you're so inclined to mine it, but that's not what it is. It is not an argument, it is a parody. It is intended to lampoon, ridicule, whatever other synonym you like, the ID movement. It has grown into more than that since, of course, but at its heart it is a parody of that movement. And I'm sure the letter was written in anger. As well it should have been. Hostility is fine, so long as there is a good reason for it, and I would call brainwashing American children by teach mythology as science is plenty of reason to be pissed.
Yazata
Valued Senior Member
Well, for one thing, I'm not "hostile" or "dismissive" towards the "Flying Spaghetti Monster" image, nor am I "condemning" it. I'm actually defending it.
I'm doing that by pointing out that it actually illustrates a point. I'm saying that it's something more substantial than atheists (once again) saying "fuck you" to religious believers.
If you don't like my reductio ad absurdum reading, then how would you explain it? Is the FSM simply "mocking" and "trivializing"? (That's effectively just saying "fuck you" and can be dismissed as expression of mindless atheist attitude.) Or is it actually "commenting on" religious faith somehow, in some more intelligent way? If so, then what do you think it is addressing and communicating?
No, you're right. You've been taking this as an opportunity to be hostile towards atheists. My fault.
I've already explained it to you. I suggest re-reading my posts. And trivializing something is not automatically or inherently mindless.
Yazata
Valued Senior Member
I don't really know how to define the word "God". As I wrote earlier, I think that the word has a whole collection of related, but sometimes inconsistent, uses. That was one of the points that Magical Realist wanted to make in starting this thread, I think.
But having said that, I agree with what you said. The difficulty that an imperfect (or finite) being would experience in determining whether some other being is perfect (or infinite) is the kind of problem that motivates my agnosticism. I've called it the 'Independence Day problem'. Just because an aerial visitation (or whatever it might be) totally exceeds our human experience and understanding, and just because it's impressive as all hell, still doesn't tell us that it's divine or truly worthy of religious worship.
An awful lot of our atheist vs theist battling here on Sciforums is over the question of whether or not God exists. My point was simple, it's just that it might help a little bit if we had some idea of what we are talking about, before we start announcing its existence or non-existence.
The answers that we finally arrive at, assuming that we can arrive at an answer at all (which as you point out isn't obvious) will depend on what it is that we think that we are seeking. It's possible to imagine science discovering a first-cause, for example. (The big-bang may or may not qualify for that one.) 'First cause' is one of the ways that the word 'God' is sometimes defined. But at the same time, there may be nothing out there that corresponds to the traditional descriptions of Yahweh or Allah. (I don't believe that there is.)
Another point that Magical Realist made that I agree with, is that there might not be a whole lot of reason to apply the word 'God' to some of the more philosophical definitions of 'God'. First-cause, fundamental-ground-of-being, necessary-being, source-of-cosmic-order and so on. Applying the word 'God' to whatever the answers might be to what are basically philosophical questions just confuses things by importing many of the more traditional religious implications and connotations that are associated with the word 'God'.
I mean, the big-bang might (arguably, just for the sake of illustration) be the universe's first-cause, but is the big-bang really a cosmic person who answers prayer? Did it reveal itself to Moses on a mountaintop?
Yes, it has all sorts of uses, to the point of being useless.
A case can be made that the word "GOD" (note the difficulty in figuring out how to write it, whether to capitalize it or not) should be done away with altogether, or reserved specifically for Christianity, given that in individual theistic religions, it is usually not used and instead, they talk about "Allah," "Yahweh," "Vishnu" etc.
Some atheists, like Balerion here, do believe that a human, despite the human limitations, is in the position to discover whether there exists a being that fits the usual descriptions of "GOD" (ie. a being that is omniscient etc.).
It's not clear how they have come to this conclusion - although the claim it's perfectly clear ...
There is an aspect to the FSM that atheists don't always point out and theists tend to refuse to acknowledge once pointed out: namely, issues of religious epistemology as they arise for a potential convert in the process of proselytizing.
Although I myself wouldn't use an analogy from Italian cuisine, when a theist asks me to believe in God, that idea of "believing in God" does strike me as outlandish to the extreme, pure fideism.
I feel hurt at how little empathy theists tend to have for those they preach to and desire to convert.
They talk to us on the topic of "GOD," they even ridicule us and threaten us, but they adamantly refuse to put themselves in our shoes.
It is this lack of empathy that makes me doubt whether those theists really have anything of value to convey.
Whether what they say on the topic of "GOD" is true or not, that I cannot judge.
But what I can judge is whether someone understands me or makes an effort to understand me, or whether they are in mostly for one-upmanship.
Of course, this one-upmanship and lack of empathy could be part of their theistic message to begin with.
I've already explained to you how it's possible to effectively rule in or out such a being, so why are you pretending it isn't clear? I've never understood your common tack of pretending to not understand the reason behind an opposing position. I mean, I get what it does--it's an attempt to portray my position as being unintuitive, thus requiring something like faith to maintain--but I don't get what purpose it serves you, as a member of this forum, to act as if you don't know what I'm talking about. Is having the appearance of being right really preferable to taking on a new perspective? I feel like the shame of knowing that I'm a fraud would be too great to bear.
But then, maybe that's why you bail on so many conversations when you're pressed.