The God Question
- Angel Trismegistus
- Posts: 568
- Joined: July 25th, 2020, 1:19 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: William James
- Location: New York City
The God Question
A Common error characteristic of atheist polemics, particular the polemics of New Atheism, the militant atheism that broke out following 9/11 -- a common error that has gone viral across Internet social media over the last two decades, under the mentoring of the celebrity leadership of the New Atheism, the so-called "Four Horsemen of Atheism" -- Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, Sam Harris, and Daniel Dennett -- in their books, debates, podcasts, conferences -- the common error, I say, rehearsed by the minions of this new brand of activist atheism in chat rooms, message boards, forums, and blogs all across the Internet, is a simplism of uncritical thought: the conflation of two separate and distinct questions contained in the God Question -- namely, the conflation of the question of God's existence and the question of God's nature.
The former (God's existence) is strictly a philosophical question; the latter (God's nature) is strictly a religious question.
The new militant atheism aims its criticism at religion, mistaking this straw man argument for a refutation of the existence of God.
Time to set the record straight.
THE GOD QUESTION
The God Question involves two propositions that must be distinguished in any discourse that aspires to clarity of thought:
Proposition One: That God exists.
Proposition Two: That the nature of God is _________________.
Proposition One is a matter of reasoning from empirical evidence to knowledge of God's existence.
Proposition Two is a matter of faith -- faith in one of the 1001 stories about God offered by the 1001 religions of the world.
In discourse on The God Question, the conflation of Proposition One and Proposition Two should be avoided for the sake of clarity of thought.
The conflation of Proposition One and Proposition Two makes for incoherence in discourse.
Much of contemporary discourse on The God Question is incoherent.
This thread is devoted to the philosophical exploration of the distinction between Proposition One and Proposition Two.
- Sy Borg
- Site Admin
- Posts: 15004
- Joined: December 16th, 2013, 9:05 pm
Re: The God Question
Some of the above-mentioned do take issue with sophisticated theists, feeling that they should be siding with the non-religious in debunking the obviously childish beliefs of some of their brethren. I too would like to see more sophisticated believers publicly rejecting anthropomorphic notions of God.
For instance, consider Donald Trump's so-called spiritual advisor, Paula White? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5w0kSkvusjI
Would you agree that she is an embarrassment to any reasonable Christian?
- Terrapin Station
- Posts: 6227
- Joined: August 23rd, 2016, 3:00 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: Bertrand Russell and WVO Quine
- Location: NYC Man
Re: The God Question
And "proposition two" should probably bear some resemblance to things that people conventionally claim about god(s), rather than being something like "--is a lint ball, and lint balls exist, so god exists!"
- Terrapin Station
- Posts: 6227
- Joined: August 23rd, 2016, 3:00 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: Bertrand Russell and WVO Quine
- Location: NYC Man
Re: The God Question
- Terrapin Station
- Posts: 6227
- Joined: August 23rd, 2016, 3:00 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: Bertrand Russell and WVO Quine
- Location: NYC Man
Re: The God Question
- Angel Trismegistus
- Posts: 568
- Joined: July 25th, 2020, 1:19 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: William James
- Location: New York City
Re: The God Question
For the record, the OP refers to "the militant atheism that broke out following 9/11" -- a particular cultural resurgence -- not to militant atheism in se.Terrapin Station wrote: ↑August 17th, 2020, 2:17 am By the way, "militant atheism" goes back at least to Madeleine Murray O'Hair and the founding of the "American Atheists" organization, which more or less coincided with O'Hair initiating the Murray v. Curlett lawsuit in 1963.
- Angel Trismegistus
- Posts: 568
- Joined: July 25th, 2020, 1:19 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: William James
- Location: New York City
Re: The God Question
I am unable to view Youtube video on my computer since the upgrade to html5.Greta wrote: ↑August 17th, 2020, 12:25 am Mostly the observers you mentioned (they dislike the term "new atheists") are skewering the more ridiculous aspects of religion - that people in this day an age would believe in an anthropomorphic God and modern literalist interpretations of ancient religious texts.
Some of the above-mentioned do take issue with sophisticated theists, feeling that they should be siding with the non-religious in debunking the obviously childish beliefs of some of their brethren. I too would like to see more sophisticated believers publicly rejecting anthropomorphic notions of God.
For instance, consider Donald Trump's so-called spiritual advisor, Paula White? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5w0kSkvusjI
Would you agree that she is an embarrassment to any reasonable Christian?
Thank you for your behind-the-scenes assistance.
The point of the OP distinction is that attacking absurd articles of faith about the nature of Divinity does not in any way reach the question of the existence of God.
-
- Posts: 10339
- Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm
Re: The God Question
If the object of this topic is to not conflate the two questions which are related to those two propositions, I guess we have to ask one of them before the other. In your view, which one would it make most sense to ask first?Angel Trismegistus wrote:This thread is devoted to the philosophical exploration of the distinction between Proposition One and Proposition Two.
In general, if I ask whether something exists I think I must already have at least partially answered the question of what its nature is, so that people know what to look for. Do you agree?
I don't remember anything like that happening after 9/11. Was that just a US thing?...the militant atheism that broke out following 9/11...
- Angel Trismegistus
- Posts: 568
- Joined: July 25th, 2020, 1:19 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: William James
- Location: New York City
Re: The God Question
Your opening assertion is false, as physical science and common sense both attest.Terrapin Station wrote: ↑August 17th, 2020, 2:09 am In order to say whether a god exists, we need to know what some of the supposed properties of the god are supposed to be. So your "proposition two" can't be entirely separated from your "proposition one."
And "proposition two" should probably bear some resemblance to things that people conventionally claim about god(s), rather than being something like "--is a lint ball, and lint balls exist, so god exists!"
Proposition Two is fill-in-the blank because there are 1001 competing stories about the nature of Divinity and to fill in the blank with, say, "omniscient, omnipotent, loving" just in order to spoon feed the few who will miss the point risked confusing some who otherwise get the point.
-
- Posts: 10339
- Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm
Re: The God Question
So would you say that the question "Does X exist?" is meaningful even if we haven't yet defined the nature of X?Angel Trismegistus wrote:Your opening assertion is false, as physical science and common sense both attest.
-
- Posts: 177
- Joined: May 2nd, 2019, 11:17 pm
Re: The God Question
-
- Posts: 10339
- Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm
Re: The God Question
There are always slightly new angles from new posters. New horses and different horse races.MAYA EL wrote:This topic has been beaten like a stubborn horse at the Kentucky Derby without success.
So I guess you answer the "what is its nature?" question before the "does it exist?" question, huh? Nature = a bit like a person; created everything. Exists = no. How about a different nature?The bottom line is if a deity that resembles the human character and that created everything did in fact exist wouldn't you think it wouldn't be up for debate?
- Angel Trismegistus
- Posts: 568
- Joined: July 25th, 2020, 1:19 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: William James
- Location: New York City
Re: The God Question
Steve3007 wrote: ↑August 17th, 2020, 3:55 amIf the object of this topic is to not conflate the two questions which are related to those two propositions, I guess we have to ask one of them before the other. In your view, which one would it make most sense to ask first?Angel Trismegistus wrote:This thread is devoted to the philosophical exploration of the distinction between Proposition One and Proposition Two.
In general, if I ask whether something exists I think I must already have at least partially answered the question of what its nature is, so that people know what to look for. Do you agree?It's a matter of historical record. The anti-religious diatribes of Britishers Dawkins and Hitchens led the way.
-
- Posts: 10339
- Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm
Re: The God Question
Brits were a relatively heathen bunch before 9/11, and Dawkins had already been given the mantel of "Darwin's rottweiler" (a more aggressive species of dog than T.H. Huxley's "Darwin's Bulldog"). I guess there was some standard talk of the crazy stuff people sometimes do when inspired by various ideologies. But not really any more than at other times. Not so as to create any fundamental change in the zeitgeist as a result of that one event.Angel Trismegistus wrote:It's a matter of historical record. The anti-religious diatribes of Britishers Dawkins and Hitchens led the way.
- Angel Trismegistus
- Posts: 568
- Joined: July 25th, 2020, 1:19 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: William James
- Location: New York City
Re: The God Question
Look closer at the OP before dismissing it as a retread.
Indeed, in your second sentence you commit the very error pointed out in the OP -- the conflation of two separate and distinct issues in the God Question.
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