Is there a middle way between theism and atheism

Discuss philosophical questions regarding theism (and atheism), and discuss religion as it relates to philosophy. This includes any philosophical discussions that happen to be about god, gods, or a 'higher power' or the belief of them. This also generally includes philosophical topics about organized or ritualistic mysticism or about organized, common or ritualistic beliefs in the existence of supernatural phenomenon.
Post Reply
User avatar
Dclements
Posts: 76
Joined: November 3rd, 2016, 12:41 pm

Re: Is there a middle way between theism and atheism

Post by Dclements »

Dark Matter wrote:The only genuine "middle way" is silence.
Can you expand on that a little more? In other posts I have mentioned that a middle way may be just discussing the issue instead of arguing so I'm guessing you might have a different opinion, although I can not be sure on just one simple sentence alone. As a person that has argued in favor of theism on other threads your input might be useful on this one as there seems to more atheist discussing the matter than hard core theist here.

-- Updated January 19th, 2017, 3:09 pm to add the following --
Nick_A wrote:Simone Weil was a brilliant atheist who died a Christian mystic. Jacob Needleman is a brilliant Philosophy professor who was an atheist and now has an understanding of God which reminds me of those like Simone and Einstein. A good case can be made that practical atheism is the first step to the God experience since the practical atheist doesn’t practice blind denial but just doesn’t accept blind belief. Jacob Needleman’s recent book: “What is God” deals with the God question and how through inner verification from personal inner work was able to get a fresh taste of reality. Here is an interview in which Prof. Needleman explains what had happened to him. Most prefer to argue and avoid the personal work necessary to “Know Thyself” but there are also those with a need to experience truth who will do the personal work. If you are one, you may appreciate what Prof, Needleman experienced in the paragraph I highlighted.

......

But even so, somewhere in myself, I was still unconvinced—down deep I was still an atheist when it came to my personal, intimate feelings. It was only when I embarked on a personal work of guided self-examination that I experienced a glimpse of a reality that could be called “God.” As my personal explorations continued, I experienced this quality of inner reality more and more and could no longer doubt that the meaning of God lay in this direction. At the same time, these undeniable experiences lit up and were in turn illuminated by all the philosophical and historical knowledge I had by then amassed and I began to understand in an entirely new way the teachings of both Judaism and Christianity as well as the teachings of Buddhism, Hinduism and Islam. I was again astonished that nothing of this understanding seemed to be in all that I had heard about religion and God when I was growing up and when I was being educated in some of the best universities in America…………………………………...
This information is something new to me and I will have to look into it more in order to have something of value to really say anything it. I could be wrong but in skimming over the article the person that is discussing his belief talks about God in not a literal interpretation but a 'God' that is perceived through the spirit of everyone who believes in God. While not the exact same thing, I have talked about there being the possibility of something like 'God' through some sort of 'collective consciousness'. I know that the idea of 'collective consciousness' is looked down by several theist and atheist alike but I'm kind of happy to see I'm not the only one that sort of thinks along these lines. :)

Of course, I could be just misreading the article and the guy could be talking about something else since I really didn't read enough of it.
Eduk
Posts: 2466
Joined: December 8th, 2016, 7:08 am
Favorite Philosopher: Socrates

Re: Is there a middle way between theism and atheism

Post by Eduk »

I have now explained twice, in successive posts, why ‘true’ and ‘false’ are not a dichotomy. They are not mutually exclusive. I don’t see why I should have to explain a third time. If you have a problem with my line of argument, then please tell me what it is. “Precise and logical” does not equate to ‘true’. Newton’s law of gravity was considered true by many until relativity demonstrated that it was not. Relativity was considered a ‘new truth’ by some until it came into conflict with quantum mechanics. Even now, that conflict has not been fully resolved.
My argument was that you not knowing if something is true or false does not effect whether something is true or false. So unicorns can be true or false, even if you can't prove it.

Also you mis-characterise science. Science does not think theories are the 'truth'. It thinks they are models which fit certain situations, new evidence changes the models and the models evolve. No scientist would say any theory was the 'truth' and not open to revision. This is the point of the scientific method. This is as close as humans can get to reality.
If you can disprove the existence of unicorns, then am am sure the world would be very interested. “Close to zero” is not zero.
Close to zero is as close as it's possible to get so why demand more? You can't prove a negative. Like you say if I could then a number of people would be interested but in this specific instance the only interest would be in the process, actually proving unicorns didn't exist would be of interest to hardly anyone. I am as sure that unicorns don't exist as I am sure that I do exist. If I was provided with empirical evidence to the contrary I would revise my outlook. For example I will not be spending my time looking for unicorns, I doubt very much you will be either. In practical terms I would be very surprised if you thought unicorns were worth looking for? It is, in my opinion, over intellectualising to say nothing can be proved therefore unicorns may exist. I am sure that you make decisions based on what you think is true and what you think is false.
Unknown means unknown.
User avatar
Dclements
Posts: 76
Joined: November 3rd, 2016, 12:41 pm

Re: Is there a middle way between theism and atheism

Post by Dclements »

Iapetus wrote: Reply to Dclements:
I think that the owner and/or moderators have a responsibility and some rights in how a forum is maintained (and it is often a good thing when they ban a troll from ruining a thread for the rest of us), but over censoring a forum can have it's problems too …
I agree. But my point remains; the form of the conversations is at least partly determined by the structure of the forum. There are rules and we could, of course, discuss those rules. But they have been put there for a reason.
Ok, I don't see a need to disagree with that.
Iapetus wrote:
The 'd' in dclements is for Daniel, so I'm male. If it is a problem you can use either he/she, he or she, or they (although doing so almost sounds like your address a group) when you don't know one's gender; although that is just a suggestion and not something you have to do.
Yes; I chose s/he. The moan was directed at those responsible for the site.
Ok, I apologize for that.
Iapetus wrote:
Can you post some links about this (Vatican science), I try and look it up myself but unsure if I can find what you are talking about.
All you need to do is to google ‘Vatican science’ and the first entry is a Wikipedia article relating to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, established in 1936, though there were also earlier academies. The second entry is their web site. The founding aim is "the promotion of the progress of the mathematical, physical, and natural sciences, and the study of related epistemological questions and issues." Amongst its members are 45 Nobel-winning members and Georges Lemaitre, a Catholic priest and one of the founders of contemporary cosmology, was its President from 1960 to his death in 1966. I first learned about it a long time ago from articles in astronomy magazines. I have also visited the Vatican.
Ok, I'll make a note of that and read up on it as soon as I get a moment.
Iapetus wrote:
I think numbers fallacy isn't as bad as you might think as people that know how to PROPERLY use statistical information are as careful as they can be in avoiding such pitfalls …
The numbers fallacy is a numbers fallacy, however you look at it. I said nothing about the use and misuse of statistics but, as you say, they can be used and misused.
Your right, a fallacy is a fallacy no matter what but you should understand that it is common for people to have fallacies in their thinking and/or statements and it might be a little wiser to not be too harsh when you see them or at least some of the more minor ones; not that it is a given that the numbers fallacies you are talking about are trivial. I guess what I was trying to say that it would be better if more people were at least will to use statistics and/or something like game theory to help in guiding their decisions, but I didn't mean to undermine what you where trying to say.
Iapetus wrote:
I'm unsure that there is a problem or should be a problem with anyone 'adoption of new or different beliefs'.
I don’t think it should be a problem. My point was that it should not be a requirement. I didn’t want to get into a repetition of things which have already been discussed in detail. What I did say explicitly was that we should seek compromise and and attempt to accommodate conflicting beliefs to the maximum whilst being clear about what cannot be accepted. I also explained that, rather than seeking a ‘middle way’ of belief, we should focus on assuring that the laws of the state are well-founded and interpreted.

With regard to your last paragraph, I agree that we should pay attention to the views of others and be prepared to change position if the argument deems it necessary. I don’t like using the terms ‘right’ and ‘wrong’ because they are value judgement and are often unhelpful. I do believe that my views have adapted in the light of conversations I have held.
If you agree that 'we should pay attention to the views of others and be prepared to change position if the argument deems it necessary' and believe 'your views have adapted in the light of conversations you have held' there is not much more that I can ask you to do. :)

I know that when I talk about 'middle way'/'middle ground' that some people expect that I'm asking them to do something that they are not doing already and/or something they are unwilling to do, but for some people I'm not asking them to do something more (or at least much more) than they already do on their own. If someone wants to stick to their guns in a conversation but they are still open minded, there is hardly anything I can ask of them than for them to be as open minded as they can be to other opinions. Of course it might help if someone also chooses to study comparative religions and/or something along those lines, but I don't have the authority to tell them they 'ought' to do that. If all one can do is try to be open minded I believe that is a good start until they feel the need to do more.

As a person partial to nihilism, I too often dislike the words 'good'/'evil' and 'right'/wrong' as I feel they are as loaded as something like the word 'God'. For me the words 'good' and 'evil' more often than not translate into the words 'useful' and 'counter productive' for the person that is speaking since what is useful and counter productive for them isn't the same as some kind of objective good and evil. As a extreme skeptic/nihilist, I believe that everything we think is a given may not be a given (even if questioning such things can lead to more anxiety and depression for those that choose to do so) such as 'human life (and the human race) has value', technological and social progress is good, 'God' exist and he is good, there are things we 'ought' to do as human beings, etc, etc . While there may be other things to call such moral/religious beliefs, I tend to think of them as ideological axioms (ie self evident moral truths).

While I can't tell you that you 'ought' to question ideological axioms (or at least not without getting preaching and contradicting my own nihilistic beliefs), if you wish a way around the problem of getting stuck with having to use 'good'/'evil' in your own thinking I suggest that you identify the axioms in your own system of beliefs and question whether it is a given that they are true. It might also help to think of each ideology/religion/system of beliefs as merely a tool for us to perceive the world (since without them the world can sometimes be much more confusing), however we often forget that they are meant to be just tools and sometimes we rely on them too much when instead we should be thinking for ourselves. :)
Nick_A
Posts: 3364
Joined: April 19th, 2009, 11:45 pm

Re: Is there a middle way between theism and atheism

Post by Nick_A »

Dclemeents wrote:
Nick_A wrote:Simone Weil was a brilliant atheist who died a Christian mystic. Jacob Needleman is a brilliant Philosophy professor who was an atheist and now has an understanding of God which reminds me of those like Simone and Einstein. A good case can be made that practical atheism is the first step to the God experience since the practical atheist doesn’t practice blind denial but just doesn’t accept blind belief. Jacob Needleman’s recent book: “What is God” deals with the God question and how through inner verification from personal inner work was able to get a fresh taste of reality. Here is an interview in which Prof. Needleman explains what had happened to him. Most prefer to argue and avoid the personal work necessary to “Know Thyself” but there are also those with a need to experience truth who will do the personal work. If you are one, you may appreciate what Prof, Needleman experienced in the paragraph I highlighted.

http://www.watkinsmagazine.com/what-is- ... -needleman

But even so, somewhere in myself, I was still unconvinced—down deep I was still an atheist when it came to my personal, intimate feelings. It was only when I embarked on a personal work of guided self-examination that I experienced a glimpse of a reality that could be called “God.” As my personal explorations continued, I experienced this quality of inner reality more and more and could no longer doubt that the meaning of God lay in this direction. At the same time, these undeniable experiences lit up and were in turn illuminated by all the philosophical and historical knowledge I had by then amassed and I began to understand in an entirely new way the teachings of both Judaism and Christianity as well as the teachings of Buddhism, Hinduism and Islam. I was again astonished that nothing of this understanding seemed to be in all that I had heard about religion and God when I was growing up and when I was being educated in some of the best universities in America…………………………………...
This information is something new to me and I will have to look into it more in order to have something of value to really say anything it. I could be wrong but in skimming over the article the person that is discussing his belief talks about God in not a literal interpretation but a 'God' that is perceived through the spirit of everyone who believes in God. While not the exact same thing, I have talked about there being the possibility of something like 'God' through some sort of 'collective consciousness'. I know that the idea of 'collective consciousness' is looked down by several theist and atheist alike but I'm kind of happy to see I'm not the only one that sort of thinks along these lines.

Of course, I could be just misreading the article and the guy could be talking about something else since I really didn't read enough of it.
God is ineffable. As I understand it, the conscious source for the machine called our universe doesn't exist but rather IS outside the process of existence taking place within time and space. When we put a face on the ineffable it is idolatry and creates all the problems natural for idolatry.

Jacob Needleman wrote of the conscious universe. It isn’t that man as a whole creates collective consciousness but rather that human consciousness already exists and people can become open to it.

Someone placed chapter one of Jacob Needleman’s book “A Sense of the Cosmos on the net. If it makes sense perhaps we could discuss the ramifications of a conscious universe for our own conscious evolution.

http://www.tree-of-souls.com/spirituali ... leman.html

When I first discovered this premise of the universe as a vertical structure it made a profound impression on me: From the link:
In this understanding, the earth is inextricably enmeshed in a network of purposes, a ladder or hierarchy of intentions. To the ancient mind, this is the very meaning of the concept of organization and order. A cosmos--and, of course, the cosmos--is an organism, not in the sense of an unusually complicated industrial machine, but in the sense of a hierarchy of purposeful energies.
From this perspective your idea of a collective consciousness makes perfect sense. It is our origin.

-- Updated Thu Jan 19, 2017 11:38 pm to add the following --
Eduk wrote:Nick_A. I finally read the article you linked from Nicolescu. I don't follow the logic or when it can be applied. He himself confirms that in simple cases the law of excluded middle is correct but not in complex cases, but does not illustrate what is complex or not. For example I could say that I am holding a pen and that can be true or false, no third option of it being both true and false exists. I assume Nicolescu would agree with this? I would also say either the christian god from the bible exists or does not with no third option of existing and non-existing both being true and non contradictory. But I assume this doesn't count as simple? Although to my mind it is pretty simple?
But let's say that we agree with his axioms that there are infinite levels of reality, that there always exists the third option at a different level of reality and that the godelian paradox both proves Nicolescu can't prove any of his theories are complete and also proved they are correct at the same time and that none of this is in anyway a contradiction or shows any bias etc etc. Lets just assume that all of that is true. My initial question of so what can we deduce from this still remains? Please give me some practical examples which show differences. For example I believe in christian God I go to church on Sunday, I don't believe in christian God I don't go to church on Sunday, I believe a third state that there is a level of reality which christian God is real and also not real, so do I go to church or not? I can't physically go and not go (or at least I don't think I can - maybe I'm being too classical).
The process of inner self-examination brings about a knowledge that is as rigorous and supported by evidence as anything science has to offer
I remember as a child I was walking home (quite a long walk of about an hour) one day and was thinking about ghosts. I managed to reach a quite scary state where I genuinely felt an external malevolent presence. Which I quickly backed away from. There are two options here, by self-examination had revealed a hidden reality totally unverified by all mankind with no insights whatsoever to that reality (ie I had learned nothing, other than possibly I was being told to stay away, I guess that's the most you take from that). Or that the brain is complex and hallucinations and similar well known and well studied phenomena are a better explanation for my experience.

Also as a final point it would be nice if you could educate me in your opinion without first insulting me (by me I mean everyone who doesn't 100% agree with you). I don't think I have written anything insulting about you? and if I have that is certainly not my intention. For example if you don't agree with me I'm not going to say that's because of your isolated intellect or because you are blind or that my quality of thought will perplex you or that anyone who is blind will be annoyed etc etc. I don't think all the personal insults really help a genuine discussion.

Hello Eduk. You wrote:
Please give me some practical examples which show differences. For example I believe in christian God I go to church on Sunday, I don't believe in christian God I don't go to church on Sunday, I believe a third state that there is a level of reality which christian God is real and also not real, so do I go to church or not? I can't physically go and not go (or at least I don't think I can - maybe I'm being too classical).
Consider the excerpt below and the section I highlighted. As I understand it, the quanton is a middle at a higher level of reality which exists both as a corpuscle and a wave at a lower level. The quanton is the middle within which the apparent contradiction of wave and corpuscle exist as one. Of course fantasy by definition could not be reconciled at a higher level of reality.

Take the same triangle Dr. Nicolescu described at at one end of the horizontal line is theism and atheism is on the other end. As you know they are not reconciled along the horizontal line since both are misconceptions of a higher whole.. Reconciliation takes place at a higher level of reality where belief and denial are conscious actions and then the simultaneous truth of both belief and denial exist as one.

http://ciret-transdisciplinarity.org/bulletin/b15c4.php

History will credit Stéphane Lupasco with having shown that the logic of the included middle is a true logic, formalizable and formalized, multivalent (with three values : A, non-A, and T) and non-contradictory [6]. His philosophy, which takes quantum physics as its point of departure, has been marginalized by physicists and philosophers. Curiously, on the other hand, it has had a powerful albeit underground influence among psychologists, sociologists, artists, and historians of religions. Perhaps the absence of the notion of "levels of Reality" in his philosophy obscured its substance : many persons wrongly believed that Lupasco's logic violated the principle of non-contradiction.

Our understanding of the axiom of the included middle — there exists a third term T which is at the same time A and non-A — is completely clarified once the notion of "levels of Reality" is introduced.
In order to obtain a clear image of the meaning of the included middle, we can represent the three terms of the new logic — A, non-A, and T — and the dynamics associated with them by a triangle in which one of the vertices is situated at one level of Reality and the two other vertices at another level of Reality. If one remains at a single level of Reality, all manifestation appears as a struggle between two contradictory elements (example : wave A and corpuscle non-A). The third dynamic, that of the T-state, is exercised at another level of Reality, where that which appears to be disunited (wave or corpuscle) is in fact united (quanton), and that which appears contradictory is perceived as non-contradictory.


It is the projection of T on one and the same level of Reality which produces the appearance of mutually exclusive, antagonistic pairs (A and non-A). A single level of Reality can only create antagonistic oppositions. It is inherently self-destructive if it is completely separated from all the other levels of Reality. A third term, let us call it T0, which is situated on the same level of Reality as that of the opposites A and non-A, can not accomplish their reconciliation.

The T-term is the key in understanding indeterminacy : being situated on a different level of Reality than A and non-A, it necessarily induces an influence of its own level of Reality upon its neighbouring and different level of Reality : the laws of a given level are not self-sufficient to describe the phenomena occuring at the respective level.

The entire difference between a triad of the included middle and an Hegelian triad is clarified by consideration of the role of time. In a triad of the included middle the three terms coexist at the same moment in time. On the contrary, each of the three terms of the Hegelian triad succeeds the former in time. This is why the Hegelian triad is incapable of accomplishing the reconciliation of opposites, whereas the triad of the included middle is capable of it. In the logic of the included middle the opposites are rather contradictories : the tension between contradictories builds a unity which includes and goes beyond the sum of the two terms. The Hegelian triad would never explain the nature of indeterminacy.

One also sees the great dangers of misunderstanding engendered by the common enough confusion made between the axiom of the excluded middle and the axiom of non-contradiction . The logic of the included middle is non-contradictory in the sense that the axiom of non-contradiction is thoroughly respected, a condition which enlarges the notions of "true" and "false" in such a way that the rules of logical implication no longer concerning two terms (A and non-A) but three terms (A, non-A and T), co-existing at the same moment in time. This is a formal logic, just as any other formal logic : its rules are derived by means of a relatively simple mathematical formalism.

One can see why the logic of the included middle is not simply a metaphor, like some kind of arbitrary ornament for classical logic, which would permit adventurous incursions into the domain of complexity. The logic of the included middle is the privileged logic of complexity, privileged in the sense that it allows us to cross the different areas of knowledge in a coherent way, by enabling a new kind of simplicity.

The logic of the included middle does not abolish the logic of the excluded middle : it only constrains its sphere of validity. The logic of the excluded middle is certainly valid for relatively simple situations. On the contrary, the logic of the excluded middle is harmful in complex, transdisciplinary cases. For me, the problem of indeterminacy is precisely belonging to this class of cases.
Also as a final point it would be nice if you could educate me in your opinion without first insulting me (by me I mean everyone who doesn't 100% agree with you).
I didn’t mean to be insulting. Both Plato’s cave and the Buddhis prable of the Burning House both indicate tht we are sleep to reality and as such live with both blind belief and blind denial. It is that way with me too. I’m sorry if you took it the wrong way since I was only describing the psychology of the human condition as I’ve verified it within me..
Man would like to be an egoist and cannot. This is the most striking characteristic of his wretchedness and the source of his greatness." Simone Weil....Gravity and Grace
Iapetus
Posts: 402
Joined: January 5th, 2015, 6:41 pm
Location: Strasbourg, France

Re: Is there a middle way between theism and atheism

Post by Iapetus »

Reply to Eduk:
My argument was that you not knowing if something is true or false does not effect whether something is true or false. So unicorns can be true or false, even if you can't prove it
My very last post to you began with, “I have now explained twice, in successive posts, why ‘true’ and ‘false’ are not a dichotomy. They are not mutually exclusive. I don’t see why I should have to explain a third time. If you have a problem with my line of argument, then please tell me what it is”. You seem to have ignored this completely.

So the existence of unicorns could be ‘true’ or ‘not true’. It is up to the person making the claim to demonstrate the ‘truth’. If the ‘truth’ cannot be demonstrated, then the default position is ‘not true’. Similarly, the existence of unicorns could be ‘false’ or ‘not false’. If somebody is making a claim to falseness, then it is up to them to demonstrate it. Otherwise the default position if ‘not false’. This argument has been examined extensively by many philosophers, Bertrand Russell amongst them. So ‘true’ and ‘false’ are not the only options. There is also ‘not true’ and ‘not false’. My position with regard to unicorns is that they cannot be demonstrated to be true and they cannot be demonstrated to be false. That would also be my position in relation to God, Santa Claus and teapots orbiting between the Earth and Mars. None of that prevents me from holding beliefs about their existence or otherwise based on the balance of probability.

Similarly, in court proceedings, only one proposition is tested. The prisoner is either deemed to be guilty or not guilty. Innocence is never tested. The default assumption is not guilty. If guilty is demonstrated ‘beyond reasonable doubt’ (never with certainty) then there are consequences. If guilt is not demonstrated, then the prisoner is usually set free. But ‘not guilty’ does not mean innocent. The innocence has not been examined.
So unicorns can be true or false, even if you can't prove it.
Please present me with an argument which can justify this statement.
Also you mis-characterise science. Science does not think theories are the 'truth'. It thinks they are models which fit certain situations, new evidence changes the models and the models evolve. No scientist would say any theory was the 'truth' and not open to revision. This is the point of the scientific method. This is as close as humans can get to reality.
‘Science’ thinks nothing; it is a process. But scientists do. If you are of the view that no scientists claim truth, then google ‘truth in science’. There is even a web site with that name. I am entirely in agreement with your view in relation to ‘truth’ in science and if you had even glanced at the ‘Value of Truth’ discussion which I referenced, then that would have become abundantly clear to you. I do not believe I am mis-characterising science. I have long argued that there are no truths in science, at least according to my interpretation of ‘truth’. But, as I have also pointed out, ‘truth’ can be interpreted in many different ways. That is why I am reluctant to use the term.
Close to zero is as close as it's possible to get so why demand more?
Are you serious? If ‘close enough’ is OK, then why so do many scientists concern themselves with precision? Current theories take scientists to within 10-43 seconds of the ‘zero’ of the Big Bang. If you think that is incredibly close to zero then it is nowhere near close enough. Beyond that, all current theories break down because the mathematics cannot handle an infinitely small point. That anomaly is sufficient to set scientists investigating, at massive expense, alternative hypotheses. The difference between zero and ‘close to zero’ is massive. The Bose-Einstein condensate is a fifth state of matter, along with solid, liquid, gas and plasma. But it only exists at temperatures below 0.15 degrees C above absolute zero. If we could only achieve temperatures of -273.5 degrees C, then we would never confirm its existence. We would have to demand more. In the case of absolute zero, this is defined as the state in which no particles are moving. If bosons can move – as is the case with the Bose-Einstein condensate – then we are not at absolute zero. The difference between zero and ‘close to zero’ is massive.
You can't prove a negative.
Thanks for accepting that. Can you prove a physical truth? You seem to accept that you can’t.
For example I will not be spending my time looking for unicorns, I doubt very much you will be either.
And I have explained why; “My position with regard to unicorns is that they cannot be demonstrated to be true and they cannot be demonstrated to be false”. If something comes along to change that state of affairs then I shall need to re-examine my position.
It is, in my opinion, over intellectualising to say nothing can be proved therefore unicorns may exist.
We are in a philosophy forum.
Eduk
Posts: 2466
Joined: December 8th, 2016, 7:08 am
Favorite Philosopher: Socrates

Re: Is there a middle way between theism and atheism

Post by Eduk »

Nick_A, I did indeed read the whole article you earlier linked, though not the easiest read I managed to just about struggle through with a lot of back and forth with google :)

As I said let's just assume that everything as written is correct (for the purposes of a thought experiment). Can you give me a practical example show casing the difference of behaviour? I can't think of one? What test can you run to confirm or deny, what predictions do you make, what evidence do you have? The role of science is untouched and remains pretty clear, you make predictions you test those predictions you repeat. The role of religion is to discard all formal interpretations like Christianity (the same as an atheist) but at the same time to say religion is true and vital and important. But I can find no details on which bits of religion are right and which bits are wrong. Again to reiterate, what practical example can you show me to help me to understand. Personally I find pure thought without examples pretty tricky to deal with.

For example Einstein did not call himself an atheist although he refuted the idea of the christian god as childish. He seemed to believe that the emotions of wonder/awe belonged to religion and that an atheist was somehow denying that those emotions existed or had any relevance? Personally I feel he mis-characterises atheism, but there are so many atheists of more or less random beliefs that I'm sure it applies to some and maybe the ones he met. Anyway in practical terms there is little to distinguish Einstein and an atheist. They both don't go to church, they both believe in the scientific method. I guess you could say Einstein was more biased towards religious opinions than atheist opinions?

I can't see into Einstein's mind, but as I understand it he did his best thinking without thoughts or words or logic (I am attempting to paraphrase his own words). Maybe for him this is a religious exercise and maybe this is what he (and you?) mean by religious thought? Of course after he had these spiritual thoughts he then needed to form them into rational, testable theories, discarding the ones that didn't fit into the scientific method. But the religious thought is in a way more vital to Einstein than the rational thought. Again I am really just guessing here but this makes sense to me.

My counter to that would be that atheism does not rule out creativity, or human emotions and what would normally be called spirituality. All those things sit happily alongside the scientific method to my mind, many scientists are interested in science in the first place because they experience a sensation of awe and wonder when they think about their field. I see no contradiction in this?

To me Einstein's views just feel like a misappropriation of spirituality to religion. Or at least an argument about what religion is or isn't. For example as an atheist I wouldn't say that nothing written in the bible is true. I would agree with great swaths of it. But they all relate to morals, historical facts, or spirituality. None of which I feel is owned by religion?

I am maybe being cynical but to me Nicolescu's views read like those of a very well educated, well read and intelligent man who sees a contradiction in himself and attempts to rationalise it. He wouldn't be the first by a long way.
Unknown means unknown.
Iapetus
Posts: 402
Joined: January 5th, 2015, 6:41 pm
Location: Strasbourg, France

Re: Is there a middle way between theism and atheism

Post by Iapetus »

Reply to Dclements:

Thanks for your considered reply and I go along with most of what you say. I don’t, however, accept that there are self-evident moral truths and I am even reluctant to use the term, ’morality’, particularly in a social setting, because the way I see it is as an entirely subjective thing. In a social setting I would prefer to talk about codes of behaviour. But that is going way off-topic so I won’t say more.
Eduk
Posts: 2466
Joined: December 8th, 2016, 7:08 am
Favorite Philosopher: Socrates

Re: Is there a middle way between theism and atheism

Post by Eduk »

Nick_A

We seem to just be arguing about what the words 'prove' 'disprove' and 'truth' mean. Let me attempt to break it down as best I can. Let's call one strict TRUTH, this is the one we can't touch, we fundamentally have to live from an axiom. No one can PROVE the universe exists, we can only say that we think it does (hence the axiom). I think we both agree with this definition?

Can we go further and say some statements are more likely to be TRUE than others. As you say, you can define it in terms of probabilities. I am 99.9(recurring)% sure that unicorns don't exist? When I said close to zero is as close as you can get I meant that only in terms of PROOF of unicorns, I meant the chance of unicorns existing was 0.0(recurring)1%. It's not worth straw-manning my argument, it's not helpful.

So onto the key point I was making. If you can't get to a 0% chance of unicorns existing and it's impossible to get to a 0% chance of unicorns existing then it's unreasonable to make demands that someone does get to a 0% of unicorns existing. The practical upshot of this is we may as well accept the axiom that we think we exist and treat unicorn existence as 0% in all practical senses. I am unsure exactly what the alternative is to not accepting the axiom? And while you may intellectually entertain that idea I doubt you practically entertain that idea. I mean you get up in the morning and brush your teeth as if they are really there.
If you are of the view that no scientists claim truth, then google ‘truth in science’.
Ha ha, if I google truth in science I get http://www.truthinscience.org.uk/. Which is a religious anti-science website. I agree non-scientists and bad scientists (or maybe just scientists having a bad day or being slightly muddled in their thinking) might talk about truth in science. But this is firmly against the scientific method. Either way we seem to be in agreement that science does not claim 'TRUTH'.

So again in an attempt to combine our thought processes. We both agree you can't PROVE things?
1. My conclusion is that we simply make the best attempt we can and get as close to the TRUTH as is possible. And we constantly chip away getting nearer and nearer (hopefully). As your earlier example demonstrates well, Newton is improved (in some situations) into Relativity which is refined further into quantum mechanics (for other situations, all three theories are still useful). Who knows where we will go next? My hope is that further refinements and improvements continue. Do I BELIEVE in relativity as the TRUTH? no. Do I believe relativity is an amazing tool with many practical uses such as satellite navigation? yes. Do I believe in satellite navigation? yes. Do I believe relativity is more TRUE than Newtonian physics? yes. Do I think that it's reasonable to act like unicorns don't EXIST? yes. Do I think in practical day to day usage it's reasonable to say unicorns don't exist? yes.
2. So I'm unsure on your exact conclusions from this lack of an ability to PROVE? For example I say unicorns don't EXIST, you say you can't PROVE this. But what practical difference does this make to you? I gave you an example of the practical difference it made to me, I won't spend time looking for unicorns. Can you tell me how your conclusions change your behaviour?
Unknown means unknown.
Belindi
Moderator
Posts: 6105
Joined: September 11th, 2016, 2:11 pm

Re: Is there a middle way between theism and atheism

Post by Belindi »

Nick_A quoted Jacob Needleman:
In this understanding, the earth is inextricably enmeshed in a network of purposes, a ladder or hierarchy of intentions. To the ancient mind, this is the very meaning of the concept of organization and order. A cosmos--and, of course, the cosmos--is an organism, not in the sense of an unusually complicated industrial machine, but in the sense of a hierarchy of purposeful energies.


This understanding is the basal axiom of God: mind-independent order. Purpose is intrinsic to God, and is the juncture at which teleology becomes an acceptable cause, the uniquely acceptable cause.

All else about God is superstructure.

I believe that if there were such a God who is order and purpose then he would want human beings to take responsibility for their own purposiveness and ordering. If God is love than he would want human beings to be not passive recipients but co-creators of love.
User avatar
Dclements
Posts: 76
Joined: November 3rd, 2016, 12:41 pm

Re: Is there a middle way between theism and atheism

Post by Dclements »

Iapetus wrote:Reply to Dclements:

Thanks for your considered reply and I go along with most of what you say. I don’t, however, accept that there are self-evident moral truths and I am even reluctant to use the term, ’morality’, particularly in a social setting, because the way I see it is as an entirely subjective thing. In a social setting I would prefer to talk about codes of behaviour. But that is going way off-topic so I won’t say more.
I think you misread part of my post and believe that I believe in self-evident moral truths where as I not only don't believe in self-evident moral truths, I believe that other people than myself should question them as well; even though part of the reason is that I hope that I can find a few other people that think along the same lines which I will admit is purely a selfish reason to expect or hope people to think a certain way.

As I have said before in other posts, I'm partial to nihilism so I disagree that it is a given that there is an objective 'good' or 'evil' beyond that which is useful or counter productive to our own wants and needs. If I misread your post in any way, I apologize in advance.
Iapetus
Posts: 402
Joined: January 5th, 2015, 6:41 pm
Location: Strasbourg, France

Re: Is there a middle way between theism and atheism

Post by Iapetus »

Reply to Dclements:

Sorry about that; on this matter we seem to be in tune.
User avatar
Dclements
Posts: 76
Joined: November 3rd, 2016, 12:41 pm

Re: Is there a middle way between theism and atheism

Post by Dclements »

Nick_A wrote: Hello Eduk. You wrote:
..
Also as a final point it would be nice if you could educate me in your opinion without first insulting me (by me I mean everyone who doesn't 100% agree with you).
I didn’t mean to be insulting. Both Plato’s cave and the Buddhis prable of the Burning House both indicate tht we are sleep to reality and as such live with both blind belief and blind denial. It is that way with me too. I’m sorry if you took it the wrong way since I was only describing the psychology of the human condition as I’ve verified it within me..
I know I shouldn't intrude on other peoples arguments, but one of the things I'm kind of hoping to do in this thread about finding a middle way/middle ground is to get people to be a little less combative in their debates. I apologize that I haven't looked at Nick_A's previous post yet, but I don't think he may have meant his post to sound as insulting as you might have read into it. In my experience on the various forums, I have noticed that it is often difficult for people to give their opinion without coming across as insulting in one way or another and/or telling the other side that they are 'wrong'. Sometimes it comes from how someone reads into a post and other times it is due to someone miswritting it.

Since it is human nature to make mistakes no matter how careful we are, the only thing I can suggest is to try an be a little bit more patience with other forum members when the discussion has a confrontation element to it and realize that the other side may not trying to be as much of a jerk as you picture them to be. Apart from that it doesn't hurt to be a little careful when writing and proofreading your post too. :)

Of course this is just a suggestion.

-- Updated January 20th, 2017, 3:52 pm to add the following --
Iapetus wrote:Reply to Dclements:

Sorry about that; on this matter we seem to be in tune.
No problem. :D

Since we more or less agreed on that topic might I suggest if you get a chance read up on the terms Turtles all the way down, Münchhausen trilemma, and Fallibilism. Each of these topics in one way or another explain the problem of moral/ideological/epistemological axioms. The only reason I know of them is that another forum kept making thew comment of something being "turtles all the way down" which I took that as something being beyond our scope of understanding until I read a little more about it. One thing I have found useful about them is they can be used to explain to others how science, logic, etc can be used to explain something but not beyond a certain point; which can be frustrating when the other side assumes you are 'wrong' because you can't go beyond that point without starting to speculate on things nobody really knows about. Anyways I hope it helps in some way.


Turtles all the way down
(Tried to use wiki link but forum warned/banned against doing so :( )
https://philosophia.uncg.edu/phi111-met ... -way-down/

Münchhausen trilemma
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_RCIYI9dY1Y
(Tried to use wiki link but forum warned/banned against doing so :( )

Fallibilism
(Tried to use wiki link but forum warned/banned against doing so :( )
Nick_A
Posts: 3364
Joined: April 19th, 2009, 11:45 pm

Re: Is there a middle way between theism and atheism

Post by Nick_A »

Eduk wrote:
As I said let's just assume that everything as written is correct (for the purposes of a thought experiment). Can you give me a practical example show casing the difference of behaviour? I can't think of one? What test can you run to confirm or deny, what predictions do you make, what evidence do you have? The role of science is untouched and remains pretty clear, you make predictions you test those predictions you repeat. The role of religion is to discard all formal interpretations like Christianity (the same as an atheist) but at the same time to say religion is true and vital and important. But I can find no details on which bits of religion are right and which bits are wrong. Again to reiterate, what practical example can you show me to help me to understand. Personally I find pure thought without examples pretty tricky to deal with.
Could we agree that the emotional attraction to scientific truth is that it is good? A scientist is attracted to science because because scientific knowledge, the knowledge of facts, is good. It satisfies a need to understand how the universe and the world works. Let me quote here from Simone Weil

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/questionofgod/voices/weil.html
There is a reality outside the world, that is to say, outside space and time, outside man's mental universe, outside any sphere whatsoever that is accessible to human faculties.

Corresponding to this reality, at the centre of the human heart, is the longing for an absolute good, a longing which is always there and is never appeased by any object in this world.

Another terrestrial manifestation of this reality lies in the absurd and insoluble contradictions which are always the terminus of human thought when it moves exclusively in this world.

Just as the reality of this world is the sole foundation of facts, so that other reality is the sole foundation of good.
That reality is the unique source of all the good that can exist in this world: that is to say, all beauty, all truth, all justice, all legitimacy, all order, and all human behaviour that is mindful of obligations.
As you can see she is describing the Source much like Einstein and Jacob Needleman. Why are we attracted to the ineffable? Is it a God gene that forces an imaginary yearning or is it a quality of being within our collective being which yearns for the absolute good?

These people all sense the contradictions which we live with. You sensed it in Dr. Nicolescu. This is normal for people who have experienced the core of philosophy or the essence of religion. They invite us to verify our hypocrisy.

The interactions of elemental laws in the world is the domain of science. It is the good of scientific knowledge. The struggle between atheism and the premise of the Source is the source of human values. Do they originate with Man or does Man remember them as Plato suggests through anamnesis.

Can a secularist receive proof of anamnesis? Yes it happens. But this is a rarity. The only proof possible for the secularist is through efforts towards conscious attention, contemplative attention and or meditative contemplation. For most the potential to experience what is said to be the inner conscious direction leading towards higher consciousness is not considered important so is avoided as fantasy. Simone goes on to write:
Those minds whose attention and love are turned towards that reality are the sole intermediary through which good can descend from there and come among men.

Although it is beyond the reach of any human faculties, man has the power of turning his attention and love towards it.

Nothing can ever justify the assumption that any man, whoever he may be, has been deprived of this power.
It is a power which is only real in this world in so far as it is exercised. The sole condition for exercising it is consent.
Those who experience proof must need it and make the conscious efforts to turn their attention towards what is higher than our self importance. Since the world as a whole denies the importance of acquiring impartial conscious attention, proof is denied and everything remains the same.

Einstein practiced conscious attention and called it intuition. Is this related to anamnesis? I believe so but it is just me. I practice these things because something in me craves understanding that doesn’t exist in the world. This is proof. It cannot be shared as scientific proof but it doesn’t matter. Socrates invited us to “Know Thyself.” It is insulting and annoying but anyone who needs the experience of knowledge facts cannot produce will have at some point to make efforts to “Know Thyself.”

-- Updated Fri Jan 20, 2017 8:19 pm to add the following --

Eduk wrote
2. So I'm unsure on your exact conclusions from this lack of an ability to PROVE? For example I say unicorns don't EXIST, you say you can't PROVE this. But what practical difference does this make to you? I gave you an example of the practical difference it made to me, I won't spend time looking for unicorns. Can you tell me how your conclusions change your behaviour?
Consider this quote:
Religion in so far as it is a source of consolation is a hindrance to true faith; and in this sense atheism is a purification. I have to be an atheist with that part of myself which is not made for God. Among those in whom the supernatural part of themselves has not been awakened, the atheists are right and the believers wrong.
- Simone Weil, Faiths of Meditation; Contemplation of the divine
the Simone Weil Reader, edited by George A. Panichas (David McKay Co. NY 1977) p 417
I can prove many things through science and just looking out the window. Humanity as a whole is governed by dualism which is the realm of science. God has nothing to do with it. The world is a machine governed by universal laws. It runs by itself and serves its cosmic purpose..

The supernatural part she writes of means to me the same thing as the law of the included middle. It seems supernatural because it turns thought into a different vertical direction. So science is all that is necessary for following the natural cycles within Plato’s cave. However there are those like me who believe this is an unnatural condition and a person can awaken to their conscious connection leading towards higher consciousness. I see why people call it supernatural but for me this conscious vertical inner direction is completely natural. I am unnatural for not having experienced it more than I already have. This is a lawful result of the human condition. My behavior has changed since it is no longer necessary to worry as much about winning and losing but because of a greater awareness of a conditioned process I have become a slave to over the years. Broad shouldered, long nosed, Aries males are not happy being slaves. Psychological freedom is attractive and it is only possible through consciously and impartially experiencing the world and myself in it realistically and opening to a level of reality which reconciles it..
Man would like to be an egoist and cannot. This is the most striking characteristic of his wretchedness and the source of his greatness." Simone Weil....Gravity and Grace
Iapetus
Posts: 402
Joined: January 5th, 2015, 6:41 pm
Location: Strasbourg, France

Re: Is there a middle way between theism and atheism

Post by Iapetus »

Reply to Dclements:

Thanks for the links.
Eduk
Posts: 2466
Joined: December 8th, 2016, 7:08 am
Favorite Philosopher: Socrates

Re: Is there a middle way between theism and atheism

Post by Eduk »

Could we agree that the emotional attraction to scientific truth is that it is good? A scientist is attracted to science because because scientific knowledge, the knowledge of facts, is good. It satisfies a need to understand how the universe and the world works.
I believe scientists seek to unravel the mysteries of the world as it satisfies an emotional need. I believe the scientific method is good for replication of human organisms. I wouldn't say that scientific truth was 'good' though, that's a bit too open to interpretation for my liking. It would very much depend on how you defined good and I think different people define good differently. For example you give it special religious objective properties which I don't.
Personally when I consider something like existence, it feels literally impossible with our current understanding. If the world is mechanistic how do you get conscious thought. If the world is causal how do you get a first cause? How do quantum effects create macrophysical effects? It's kind of awe inspiring that we can even be awe inspired. How can inspiration even have subjective meaning, how does meaning even come out of physical systems? How is it even possible to think why? in the first place. I could go on and each thing I mentioned has such depth you could write books on each concept (many people have).

But at the end of all this, where I think we can agree on a lot up to this point, this is where we seem to diverge? You offer this incomprehension as proof of God and Love and Good and Source I simply offer it as incomprehension. For me the wonder of life has no less value or wonder for not having a God layer. I think of it as a misrepresentation and I am happy in leaving it undefined with the hope and goal of maybe one day there being comprehension.
Unknown means unknown.
Post Reply

Return to “Philosophy of Religion, Theism and Mythology”

2023/2024 Philosophy Books of the Month

Entanglement - Quantum and Otherwise

Entanglement - Quantum and Otherwise
by John K Danenbarger
January 2023

Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul

Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul
by Mitzi Perdue
February 2023

Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness

Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness
by Chet Shupe
March 2023

The Unfakeable Code®

The Unfakeable Code®
by Tony Jeton Selimi
April 2023

The Book: On the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are

The Book: On the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are
by Alan Watts
May 2023

Killing Abel

Killing Abel
by Michael Tieman
June 2023

Reconfigurement: Reconfiguring Your Life at Any Stage and Planning Ahead

Reconfigurement: Reconfiguring Your Life at Any Stage and Planning Ahead
by E. Alan Fleischauer
July 2023

First Survivor: The Impossible Childhood Cancer Breakthrough

First Survivor: The Impossible Childhood Cancer Breakthrough
by Mark Unger
August 2023

Predictably Irrational

Predictably Irrational
by Dan Ariely
September 2023

Artwords

Artwords
by Beatriz M. Robles
November 2023

Fireproof Happiness: Extinguishing Anxiety & Igniting Hope

Fireproof Happiness: Extinguishing Anxiety & Igniting Hope
by Dr. Randy Ross
December 2023

Beyond the Golden Door: Seeing the American Dream Through an Immigrant's Eyes

Beyond the Golden Door: Seeing the American Dream Through an Immigrant's Eyes
by Ali Master
February 2024

2022 Philosophy Books of the Month

Emotional Intelligence At Work

Emotional Intelligence At Work
by Richard M Contino & Penelope J Holt
January 2022

Free Will, Do You Have It?

Free Will, Do You Have It?
by Albertus Kral
February 2022

My Enemy in Vietnam

My Enemy in Vietnam
by Billy Springer
March 2022

2X2 on the Ark

2X2 on the Ark
by Mary J Giuffra, PhD
April 2022

The Maestro Monologue

The Maestro Monologue
by Rob White
May 2022

What Makes America Great

What Makes America Great
by Bob Dowell
June 2022

The Truth Is Beyond Belief!

The Truth Is Beyond Belief!
by Jerry Durr
July 2022

Living in Color

Living in Color
by Mike Murphy
August 2022 (tentative)

The Not So Great American Novel

The Not So Great American Novel
by James E Doucette
September 2022

Mary Jane Whiteley Coggeshall, Hicksite Quaker, Iowa/National Suffragette And Her Speeches

Mary Jane Whiteley Coggeshall, Hicksite Quaker, Iowa/National Suffragette And Her Speeches
by John N. (Jake) Ferris
October 2022

In It Together: The Beautiful Struggle Uniting Us All

In It Together: The Beautiful Struggle Uniting Us All
by Eckhart Aurelius Hughes
November 2022

The Smartest Person in the Room: The Root Cause and New Solution for Cybersecurity

The Smartest Person in the Room
by Christian Espinosa
December 2022

2021 Philosophy Books of the Month

The Biblical Clock: The Untold Secrets Linking the Universe and Humanity with God's Plan

The Biblical Clock
by Daniel Friedmann
March 2021

Wilderness Cry: A Scientific and Philosophical Approach to Understanding God and the Universe

Wilderness Cry
by Dr. Hilary L Hunt M.D.
April 2021

Fear Not, Dream Big, & Execute: Tools To Spark Your Dream And Ignite Your Follow-Through

Fear Not, Dream Big, & Execute
by Jeff Meyer
May 2021

Surviving the Business of Healthcare: Knowledge is Power

Surviving the Business of Healthcare
by Barbara Galutia Regis M.S. PA-C
June 2021

Winning the War on Cancer: The Epic Journey Towards a Natural Cure

Winning the War on Cancer
by Sylvie Beljanski
July 2021

Defining Moments of a Free Man from a Black Stream

Defining Moments of a Free Man from a Black Stream
by Dr Frank L Douglas
August 2021

If Life Stinks, Get Your Head Outta Your Buts

If Life Stinks, Get Your Head Outta Your Buts
by Mark L. Wdowiak
September 2021

The Preppers Medical Handbook

The Preppers Medical Handbook
by Dr. William W Forgey M.D.
October 2021

Natural Relief for Anxiety and Stress: A Practical Guide

Natural Relief for Anxiety and Stress
by Dr. Gustavo Kinrys, MD
November 2021

Dream For Peace: An Ambassador Memoir

Dream For Peace
by Dr. Ghoulem Berrah
December 2021