Atheist opinion polls in America
-
- Posts: 2466
- Joined: December 8th, 2016, 7:08 am
- Favorite Philosopher: Socrates
Re: Atheist opinion polls in America
Now on the face of it it might seem straight forward to generalise theists. But I'm not really convinced here, a theists might claim for example that God is eternal, infinite and that they follow the bible. But eternity and infinity are undefined and each theist is likely to have different interpretations of what those claims mean, if they have even considered them at all. The bible is inconsistent, self contradictory, has been translated and re-translated many times and is open to interpretation. Again each theist has their own personal opinion of what the bible does or doesn't say. Personally I would theists are much harder to generalise than atheists (on their theist claims) but only because the atheist only makes one claim.
-- Updated June 8th, 2017, 6:02 am to add the following --
I should have mentioned all theists also have an atheist claim against all religions other than the one they have. If anything you could say that not believing in Zeus but believing in Christian God was a stronger claim against Zeus than simply not believing in either.
-
- Posts: 2181
- Joined: January 7th, 2015, 7:09 am
Re: Atheist opinion polls in America
To expand on that, I think that compromise is not a rational middle ground but basically the middle ground that we can agree upon. If I take my value in liberty and one takes their value of censorship and we split it half-way, the result is not the most rational and it might not even make sense but if neither will acquiesce their position then nothing else can be done about it. All we can do is try to solve problems in a way that the most people can accept and so in my view that means finding solutions to problems that avoid the point of contention. We get as much of what people want and limit what people don't want wherever possible and where that isn't possible a culture war will occur and eventually one side will win. None of this costs the individual their ability to pursue their own advancement and there is no paradox. It is more paradoxical to believe that everyone can have what they want by finding out the best answers when there will never be anything that is the best option for everyone.
Does it concern you that this approach could result in Might is Right, and/or 'tyranny of the majority' outcomes? That was my first thought. Would you see a need for some counterbalance, like a notion of Rights?
-- Updated June 8th, 2017, 12:27 pm to add the following --
EDIT - first para is obviously me quoting you Judaka, I forgot the quote tags.
-
- Posts: 3601
- Joined: February 28th, 2014, 4:50 pm
Re: Atheist opinion polls in America
That is correct.The observer cannot be the thing observed …
The evaluation must be from a human perspective and therefore is limited to human ways of seeing and judging and knowing.… evaluation demands some degree of transcendence of the thing which is evaluated.
Right, but that assumption may be wrong. We can understand it in ways that are limited to human perspectives. We cannot know them as they are in themselves but only as they show themselves to us, that is, phenomenally.To attempt to understand something presumes it can be understood …
All that is required is the ability of the observer to make a judgment about the observed. To use one of Wittgenstein’s favorite techniques, suppose there is a tribe that discovers a tree with fruits on it that several of the hungry members eat and get sick. It may take several rounds before someone makes the connection. Once the connection is made it is understood not to eat this fruit. There is no unifying principle that transcends yet includes both the tribe and the fruit. They have learned from experience. It is said that it was once thought that tomatoes are poisonous. People understood that they should not eat this fruit. But as we know they were mistaken.… but in order to be understood, logic requires that between the observer and the observed there be a unifying principle that transcends yet includes both …
Mind with a capital M is a metaphysical assumption. John Dewey gives a succinct summary of this assumption in a paper on Darwinian evolution. He points to the Greeks and the idea that since the world is intelligible there must be an intelligent source, Mind, that creates an intelligible world intelligible to the mind of man. The history of science, however, gradually undermines this assumption. Evolution provides the final step in showing how things, including intelligent animals, develop through natural processes.… whether it's Mind, the physical laws of nature, or something else.
The mind of man makes connections between one thing and another, it draws inferences, forms and tests hypotheses. At any given point what is said to be known and understood may turn out to be wrong. It is a process of trial and error.
The physical laws of nature are not a unifying principle. What is the unifying principle that transcends both the observer and an understanding of the laws of nature?
It is not intransigence. If you make a claim that there is a unifying principle then you need to provide evidence or a persuasive argument for it. You have not.Your intransigence on the matter …
Science attempts to understand the natural world in natural terms. The introduction of the supernatural amounts to abandoning the project. The best defense of this procedure is its obvious success.… Richard Lewton …
This is evidently true, but whether any particular disbelief is irrational needs to be determined in a case by case basis.If people can cling to beliefs that are irrational, they can also cling to irrational disbelief.
I think it important for this discussion to understand Zhuangzi’s “three in the morning”. To do so requires seeing how a distinction without a difference applies to those who exhaust the spirit trying to illuminate the unity of things.
-
- Posts: 1366
- Joined: August 18th, 2016, 11:29 am
- Favorite Philosopher: Paul Tillich
Re: Atheist opinion polls in America
This would also be true if all theists were talking about a being alongside other beings like Zeus, but they're not. Broadly speaking, theism is divided into two main camps: theistic personalism and classical theism. In a debate about "God," atheists invariably talk about the former or rest their case on the proposition that there is no "unifying principle" even though positing it is utilizing the very principle they are denying. They have no choice in the matter, for to admit to such a principle is to let the divine foot in the door. This is the reason for my claim that atheists tend to be shallow and superficial. They don't like it and find it insulting, but it is no less so than many of the claims they make about theists -- like comparing God to Santa or Zeus or the tooth fairy.Eduk wrote: I should have mentioned all theists also have an atheist claim against all religions other than the one they have. If anything you could say that not believing in Zeus but believing in Christian God was a stronger claim against Zeus than simply not believing in either.
-
- Posts: 2466
- Joined: December 8th, 2016, 7:08 am
- Favorite Philosopher: Socrates
Re: Atheist opinion polls in America
You are a good example of someone who's religious beliefs would not be easy to generalise. You seem to be attempting to describe a personal religion that exists no where else on earth (although you claim all sorts of other religions prove your point, I'm not sure those religions would agree with you?). Also you seem to believe in the Christian God? Although not the Christian God as defined by the bible or that other Christians might say is a normative definition?
Theism is defined as belief in the existence of God or Gods (normally). Of course you could say there is a creator but they aren't a being. But then aren't you saying that your creator isn't a being? Doesn't that automatically mean the Bible is not correct? Again defining things by what they are not is great, my car is not invisible, what colour is my car?
Also when you say unifying principle, is that another word for God in your language? I don't understand what your unifying principle is,
-- Updated June 8th, 2017, 12:23 pm to add the following --
Also, what's wrong with Zeus?
-
- Posts: 3258
- Joined: December 14th, 2011, 9:42 am
Re: Atheist opinion polls in America
I think you provide some good clarification. On a level below the surface of theism (the common practices) generalisation of theists is difficult, for the reasons that you mention. Although we group or classify people as “theists” individually they may (and do) hold different beliefs and interpretations of their religions and about God.
-- Updated June 8th, 2017, 3:01 pm to add the following --
Also, just an idea. Could the cycle of life be a unifying principle between the observer and the observed that transcends yet includes both? In that, both the observer and the observed are part of the cycle of life. Yet, the cycle of life also transcends them both because it will continue after both the observer and the observed have ceased to exist?
-
- Posts: 1366
- Joined: August 18th, 2016, 11:29 am
- Favorite Philosopher: Paul Tillich
Re: Atheist opinion polls in America
Eduk wrote:I'm sorry Dark Matter, although I have read all your posts on this topic (and many posts on other topics) I still have no idea what your religious views are.
It's a work in progress, although I think I have made it clear enough that I am solidly in the classical theist camp. Nevertheless, religious beliefs are really just the outward expression of one's relationship with the Whole. No one "owns" their beliefs; that's not who they are.
I do not live independently from my religion. To isolate part of life and call it religion is to disintegrate life and to distort religion.I've asked you a number of times if you could give me some practical examples of the kinds of decisions that you make based on your beliefs, but so far you either haven't responded or I haven't understood the response.
Very good.You are a good example of someone who's religious beliefs would not be easy to generalise. You seem to be attempting to describe a personal religion that exists no where else on earth (although you claim all sorts of other religions prove your point, I'm not sure those religions would agree with you?). Also you seem to believe in the Christian God? Although not the Christian God as defined by the bible or that other Christians might say is a normative definition?
Religion is an intensely private affair so there are as many vehicles for religion (beliefs) as there are people on the planet and some are more unique than others.
Yes. That's exactly what I'm saying. Paul Tillich is perhaps best known for saying, "God does not exist, but is existence itself."Theism is defined as belief in the existence of God or Gods (normally). Of course you could say there is a creator but they aren't a being. But then aren't you saying that your creator isn't a being?
I've posted these links before. They may explain why atheists seem to insist that theism be understood only in terms of referring to a being.Doesn't that automatically mean the Bible is not correct? Again defining things by what they are not is great, my car is not invisible, what colour is my car?
In Defense of Classical Theism
The one theology book all atheists really should read
That's certainly what atheists would prefer that's what I mean because it would be a whole hell of a lot easier for them to dismiss it. But, no. A principle is "a fundamental truth or proposition that serves as the foundation for a system of belief or behavior or for a chain of reasoning." Philosophical PrinciplesAlso when you say unifying principle, is that another word for God in your language?
the same thing that's with the Santa analogy.Also, what's wrong with Zeus?
-
- Posts: 3601
- Joined: February 28th, 2014, 4:50 pm
Re: Atheist opinion polls in America
The article contains the following:They may explain why atheists seem to insist that theism be understood only in terms of referring to a being.
In Defense of Classical Theism
Can you explain what you think subsistent being means?On classical theism, God is the most fundamental reality, and just is subsistent being itself.
This is not what a principle means in Daoism. See your post #201.A principle is "a fundamental truth or proposition that serves as the foundation for a system of belief or behavior or for a chain of reasoning.
-
- Posts: 2466
- Joined: December 8th, 2016, 7:08 am
- Favorite Philosopher: Socrates
Re: Atheist opinion polls in America
I didn't ask to you. Although human's do compartmentalise beliefs very well, but that's by the by.I do not live independently from my religion. To isolate part of life and call it religion is to disintegrate life and to distort religion.
I was just trying to work out what kinds of things you believe in relation to your religious beliefs. For example you may or may not go to church. As an atheist you might go to church because you like it there, you value the community, you feel it is a responsibility, you don't want to hurt others. These are all beliefs that an atheist and theist can have without contradiction. But an atheist wouldn't go to church because they believed God wanted them to but a theist might well do that. This is why I was asking for real world examples, I don't understand why it's so hard to give any?
Which classical theist camp? You don't seem to be? Don't the majority of Christian's believe God is a being? I mean you can argue they are interpreting incorrectly that's fine, but you can't say you are both classical and disagree with classical beliefs?solidly in the classical theist camp
Yes but I'm trying to explain that I have no idea what the proposition is, or what chain of reasoning would follow. I'm not trying to put words in your mouth, I'm trying to ask questions so that I can understand. Let us imagine that I wanted to agree with you and someone asked me what the unifying principle is. I would say, it includes the observer and observed and it is God whom we are made of? God observes itself? God isn't a being? So someone then might say 'ok, so what?'. At this point I would be stumped, should I recommend they become a Christian and go to church? do I tell them the Bible is God's word? Am I for or against abortion? Do I like homosexuals? Do I believe God provides ethics? Do I believe in a afterlife? Do I think we will all be judged? Honestly I have no idea what conclusions to draw. You can call the universe God but I don't get how that alone makes any difference? You need to give God properties, like benevolence. You then need to demonstrate those properties beyond reasonable doubt. You have to show that the conclusions of your theory work?A principle is "a fundamental truth or proposition that serves as the foundation for a system of belief or behavior or for a chain of reasoning
Finally I don't get what's up with Zeus. Ok you could argue no one is saying Santa is actually real (at least no adults), he's a recognised work of fiction. I wasn't comparing belief in Santa with a belief in God. I was comparing belief in Zeus with a belief in Christian God, people really used to believe in Zeus. Does it matter that they don't now? If no one believed in your religion would that mean it wasn't true anymore? Feel free to replace Zeus with any God or creator that you don't believe in but that other people do.
-
- Posts: 3601
- Joined: February 28th, 2014, 4:50 pm
Re: Atheist opinion polls in America
Hence my question about what DM thinks subsistent being means as it is used in the article he cites. I will wait for his response, if it is forthcoming, before saying more.Which classical theist camp? You don't seem to be? Don't the majority of Christian's believe God is a being? I mean you can argue they are interpreting incorrectly that's fine, but you can't say you are both classical and disagree with classical beliefs?
-
- Posts: 1366
- Joined: August 18th, 2016, 11:29 am
- Favorite Philosopher: Paul Tillich
Re: Atheist opinion polls in America
-- Updated June 10th, 2017, 1:45 pm to add the following --
If you were interested, you'd do your own research.
-
- Posts: 3601
- Joined: February 28th, 2014, 4:50 pm
Re: Atheist opinion polls in America
-- Updated June 10th, 2017, 1:45 pm to add the following --You will have a long wait. I give up.
The question is about what the term means for you. I can understand why you are reluctant to discuss it. To do so would expose a contradiction in your claims.If you were interested, you'd do your own research.
I discussed the question of being in post #1977 in the topic “If there is a God why is there Evil” and how Thomas Aquinas takes his bearings from Aristotle. I have reposted the relevant parts at the bottom of this post.
Aquinas says that God is “Ipsum esse subsistens”, which translates as subsistent being. He says:
If we are to take Aquinas as representative of classical theism then God is the “First Being”. He distinguishes between the being of God and composite or dependent beings whose existence depends on God.Whatever belongs to something is either caused by the principles of its nature, like risibility in man, or accrues to it from some extrinsic principle, like the light in the air which is caused by the sun. It is impossible that the act of existing itself be caused by the form or quiddity -- and by "caused" I mean as by an efficient cause -- for then something would be the cause of itself and produce itself in existence which is impossible. It is therefore necessary that everything whose act of existing is other than its nature have its act of existing from another. And because everything which exists through another is reduced to that which exists through itself, as to a first cause, there must be something which causes all things to exist, inasmuch as it is subsistent existence alone. Otherwise we would proceed to infinity in causes, since everything which is not a subsistent act of existing has a cause for its act of existing, as we have just said. It is evident, therefore, that an intelligence is form and an act of existing, and that it has its act of existing from the First Being which is (simply) existence only; and this it the First Cause, God.(Aquinas On Being and Essence, chapter 4)
The confusion may at least in part be due to the claim of Plotinus that the One is beyond being. Plotinus follows Plato rather than Aristotle. Plato describes the Good itself as the cause of and beyond being.
Confusion also arises with the claim that God is not a being but being itself. What “being itself” means can be interpreted in different ways. With regard to Aquinas, I take it to mean that God is not a contingent being. This does not mean that God is not a being but that God is the First or preeminent or Supreme Being and that God’s being differs from all other beings that are dependent upon God.
Post #1977 from the topic “If there is a God why is there Evil”:
I should preface this by saying that Aquinas held that reason can never penetrate the truths that can only be revealed. On my reading (which is not original) Aristotle too was aware of the limits of reason but worked to protect philosophy from the claims of revealed truths.
The question, “is God a being?”, led me back to Aristotle’s Metaphysics and what he calls “first philosophy”, and, interestingly enough “theology”. It is the study of “being qua being”. It seeks to know the causes and principles of being, that is, of substance (ousiai). Substance is the “the what it was to be” of a thing. This was translated in Latin as, essentia, a term invented to translate the Greek, meaning “the what it is”. Substance, according Aristotle, is not matter or what stands under something, but rather, what it is to be what it is.
Aristotle says that being is not a genus, and Aquinas reaffirms this. What this means can be illustrated as follows: Life is the genus of living things but life is not itself a living thing. If being is the genus of beings then being itself would not be a being. But,according to both Aristotle and Aquinas, being is not a genus. The question of the being of beings for Aristotle is the question of the causes and principles of being. The answer cannot be being, but not because the being of beings is not a being, but because the same question could be asked of the being who is the being of being . With Aquinas, however, God is the cause of beings.Where Aristotle held that the universe is without beginning, Aquinas follows the teaching of creation as ex nihilo. And so, for Aquinas the answer is to the question of cause of beings is the uncaused being, the supreme being, God. What God is (his essence) is his own being [quod Deus est sit suum esse].
That God is “being itself” does not mean that being is God, for if being is God then all that is is God. Now there are some who hold this position, but Aquinas did not. All other things are contingent beings, including composite beings, not being itself. Their existence is not their essence.
-
- Posts: 1366
- Joined: August 18th, 2016, 11:29 am
- Favorite Philosopher: Paul Tillich
Re: Atheist opinion polls in America
-
- Posts: 3601
- Joined: February 28th, 2014, 4:50 pm
Re: Atheist opinion polls in America
If according the classical theism God is the “First Being” and you identify yourself as “solidly in the classical theist camp” and yet deny that God is a being and fault atheists for “insist[ing] that theism be understood only in terms of referring to a being” then you can feign indifference to the contradictions, but both theists and atheists who value the principles of logic and reason have good reason to question it.So what?
-
- Posts: 1366
- Joined: August 18th, 2016, 11:29 am
- Favorite Philosopher: Paul Tillich
Re: Atheist opinion polls in America
The scholastics were right when they asserted that in God there is no difference between essence and existence. But they perverted their insight when in spite of this assertion they spoke of the existence of God and tried to argue in favor of it. Actually they did not mean “existence.” They meant the reality, the validity, the truth of the idea of God, an idea which did not carry the connotation of something or someone who might or might not exist. ...God does not exist. He is being-itself beyond essence and existence. Therefore, to argue that God exists is to deny him.
The method of arguing through a conclusion also contradicts the idea of God. Every argument derives conclusions from something that is given about something that is sought. In arguments for the existence of God the world is given and God is sought. Some characteristics of the world make the conclusion “God” necessary. God is derived from the world. This does not mean that God is dependent on the world. Thomas Aquinas is correct when he rejects such an interpretation and asserts that what is first in itself may be last for our knowledge. But, if we derive God from the world, he cannot be that which transcends the world infinitely.
-- Updated June 10th, 2017, 5:01 pm to add the following --
The question of God is possible because an awareness of God is present in the question of God. This awareness precedes the question. It is not the result of the argument but its presupposition. This certainly means that the “argument” is no argument at all. The so-called ontological argument points to the ontological structure of finitude. It shows that an awareness of the infinite is included in man’s awareness of finitude. Man knows that he is finite, that he is excluded from an infinity which nevertheless belongs to him. He is aware of his potential infinity while being aware of his actual finitude. If he were what he essentially is, if his potentiality were identical with his actuality, the question of the infinite would not arise. Mythologically speaking, Adam before the fall was in an essential, though untested and undecided, unity with God. But this is not man’s situation, nor is it the situation of anything that exists. Man must ask about the infinite from which he is estranged, although it belongs to him; he must ask about that which gives him the courage to take his anxiety upon himself. And he can ask this double question because the awareness of his potential infinity is included in his awareness of his finitude.
2023/2024 Philosophy Books of the Month
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
by Chet Shupe
March 2023