The Philosophy Forums at OnlinePhilosophyClub.com aim to be an oasis of intelligent in-depth civil debate and discussion. Topics discussed extend far beyond philosophy and philosophers. What makes us a philosophy forum is more about our approach to the discussions than what subject is being debated. Common topics include but are absolutely not limited to neuroscience, psychology, sociology, cosmology, religion, political theory, ethics, and so much more.
This is a humans-only philosophy club. We strictly prohibit bots and AIs from joining.
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.
It's not a matter of apprehending objectively or subjectively, it's the nature of the phenomenon. That is not only relevant, it is key. Your responses suggest that you doubt that subjective phenomena exist.
Subjective phenomena?? Have you thought about what that phrase means?
Gandalf is a subjective phenomenon. To that extent he exists, in people's minds.
So is the tooth fairy and Santa. Superman might seem very real when you are watching the latest blockbuster from DC, as without that dispension of disbelief you could not enjoy any drama. But I suggest that outside the world of books and film and other fantasies we are best placed to understand the world as it is, and not how we would wish it to be.
So much is obvious.
It's called imagination, and atheist agree that god is an imaginary figure. So no, there is no denial of the subjective. IN fact atheism affirms that god is nothing more.
Santa too has a subjective reality, or rather, multiple subjective realities, with each Santa that exists in a child's mind being somewhat different. Just because a reality is exclusive/subjective does not make it unreal, just not available for general consumption.
Santa is as real within young children's heads as material things. Santa's reality may be exclusive to the child's imagination, but it is still potent, adding excitement to Christmas and encouraging children to behave. Creative imagination is a powerful part of human mentality. It's logical to use a capacity if one has it. Trouble is, Biblical literalism has confused many theists, hence their many pointless attempts to prove that God exists objectively as a physical being.
Sculptor1 wrote: ↑October 19th, 2021, 5:34 amAs for being certain. Atheism says nothing about certainty.
You can't say atheism is one thing or another because the term is necessarily as defined as the term "God", which has numerous definitions and conceptions. However, when individual atheists display contempt for theists, they make clear their level of certainty.
Sculptor1 wrote: ↑October 19th, 2021, 5:34 amAs to knowing the nature of the universe, that too is a delusion of the theist. I do not regard any version of god as adequate to do the job of explaining the universe, and so the idea that atheist is a affirmation of such an understanding could not be more wrong.
Theism lacks basic humility.
I humbly accept that we are never going to know the answer to the ultimate question. But one thing I do know; no version of god begins to answer that question is any way whatever and is essentialy illogical and absurd.
Who says that gods must explain the universe? That's what science and philosophy are for. Deities are ultimately personal. Churches and their followers down the ages have pushed public piety, but that is just a politicised display behaviour designed to boost the status of the overtly pious (who so often end up being busted for private misdeeds).
I think you have confused "imagination" with "reality" in your post.
The logicality of atheism is not diminished with imagination, as imagination is not the same as "reality".
thanks for playing
Steve3007 wrote:My point was that if we were to say "the difference between 'pretty sure' and 'certain' is so trivial that we can treat them as synonymous" then the statements of science could be treated as being like the statements of mathematics in that the statements of science are no more than "pretty sure" but the statements of mathematics (being tautologies) are certain.
I don’t believe that any slight credibility gap between “pretty sure & certain” would entail the near generalization that one domain can be stated in terms of another, science and mathematics having separate ontologies. To do so sounds to me like a classic category error.
I agree that it would be wrong to say that one of those domains can be stated in terms of the other. I hope my use of the term "in that" clarified that.
Nietzsche wrote:The earth has a skin and that skin has diseases; one of its diseases is called man.
Sounds like something a James Bond supervillain would say while stroking a cat and addressing world leaders via a conference call on Teams. Lighten up Fred.
Sculptor1 wrote: ↑October 18th, 2021, 5:05 pm
I am content to know what can be known and to reject fantasy.
Pattern-chaser wrote: ↑October 19th, 2021, 7:02 am
What is the definition or description of fantasy that you use to recognise and reject it? Is it just something you consider to be fantastic?
Sculptor1 wrote: ↑October 19th, 2021, 5:53 pm
Why?
Don't you aslo reject fantasy as truth? I thought we all did that?
The evidence of god is all from a jewish myth. I treat it in the same way as Homer and Virgil, or in the same way as Beowulf and King Arthur. Why would you think otherwise?
You might like to extend your POV to include the foundational myths of Cambodia and Laos too. Ancient Egypt, South America: all very interesting and conforming to what you might call cultural logic. But far from truth.
You're not answering the question I asked. It's not about whether we reject 'fantasy', but how we recognise it, and how we distinguish it from non-fantasy?
Sculptor1 wrote: ↑October 18th, 2021, 5:05 pm
I am content to know what can be known and to reject fantasy.
Pattern-chaser wrote: ↑October 19th, 2021, 7:02 am
What is the definition or description of fantasy that you use to recognise and reject it? Is it just something you consider to be fantastic?
Sculptor1 wrote: ↑October 19th, 2021, 5:53 pm
Why?
Don't you aslo reject fantasy as truth? I thought we all did that?
The evidence of god is all from a jewish myth. I treat it in the same way as Homer and Virgil, or in the same way as Beowulf and King Arthur. Why would you think otherwise?
You might like to extend your POV to include the foundational myths of Cambodia and Laos too. Ancient Egypt, South America: all very interesting and conforming to what you might call cultural logic. But far from truth.
You're not answering the question I asked. It's not about whether we reject 'fantasy', but how we recognise it, and how we distinguish it from non-fantasy?
Seriously?
If it looks, smells, tastes, feels like fantasy than it probably is.
Ask yourself what distiguishes a religion from fantasy?
If the answer is nothing, then religion is also fantasy.
So tell me about any version of God that you think is convincing and I'll show you why it cannot pass the test.
Who says that gods must explain the universe? That's what science and philosophy are for. Deities are ultimately personal. Churches and their followers down the ages have pushed public piety, but that is just a politicised display behaviour designed to boost the status of the overtly pious (who so often end up being busted for private misdeeds).
Genesis 2:
7 And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.
God "formed" man-- even the atheists -- whether He exists ourside of human imagination or not. The Christian God (imaginary though he may be) has had such an influence on Western culture that anyone living in the West today has been, to some extent, created by HIm. Man makes himself (that's the title of a good book by V. Gordon Childe). While we are created biologically, we are also created by our cultures. Without language, for example, our modes of thinking, life, reasoning and social interaction would be very different than they are. It is perhaps also true that without religion our lives would be very different than they are.
When atheists try to disparage God by calling him a "fairy tale", they fail. That's because fairy tales also help make us what we are (to a lesser extent than religion). I tried to point that out when I quoted G.K. Chesterton's chapter "The Ethics of Elfland". Our ethics, our modes of thinking, and our vision of the world are influenced (even "created") by both religion and fairy tales. They probably have more influence on human ethics (even those of the atheists posting here) than philosophy.
Ecurb wrote:...Our ethics, our modes of thinking, and our vision of the world are influenced (even "created") by both religion and fairy tales. They probably have more influence on human ethics (even those of the atheists posting here) than philosophy.
That's true of all aspects of the culture in which we live. Not just religion and fairy tales. We create them and they create us. For example, just this afternoon on my family WhatsApp group my younger sister posted a link to a story told by a children's TV presenter from the 1970's that me and both my sisters grew up with. It was on a scratchy vinyl record that we used to play endlessly on a small portable record player. That, including the scratches, made me (us) just as much as any other piece of culture did. In fact, there's a particular scratch on a particular part of the record that is special to us.
(The story was told by a guy called Brian Cant. Alas now dead.)
Sculptor1 wrote: ↑October 18th, 2021, 5:05 pm
I am content to know what can be known and to reject fantasy.
You have recently posted about the need to define what is meant by "God" so that it/he/she can be accepted or denied.
In the same way, I wonder how you can reject "fantasy"? What is the definition or description of fantasy that you use to recognise and reject it? Is it just something you consider to be fantastic?
Why?
Don't you aslo reject fantasy as truth? I thought we all did that?
The evidence of god is all from a jewish myth. I treat it in the same way as Homer and Virgil, or in the same way as Beowulf and King Arthur. Why would you think otherwise?
You might like to extend your POV to include the foundational myths of Cambodia and Laos too. Ancient Egypt, South America: all very interesting and conforming to what you might call cultural logic. But far from truth.
I may have missed it, did you explain your 'fantasy v truth' yet? Just an observation, and I hope I'm wrong, but your responses seem to feed into the Einsteinian 'grudge' meme. Are you angry about something? Are you an Atheist?
“Concerning matter, we have been all wrong. What we have called matter is energy, whose vibration has been so lowered as to be perceptible to the senses. There is no matter.” "Spooky Action at a Distance"
― Albert Einstein
That's true of all aspects of the culture in which we live. Not just religion and fairy tales. We create them and they create us. For example, just this afternoon on my family WhatsApp group my younger sister posted a link to a story told by a children's TV presenter from the 1970's that me and both my sisters grew up with. It was on a scratchy vinyl record that we used to play endlessly on a small portable record player. That, including the scratches, made me (us) just as much as any other piece of culture did. In fact, there's a particular scratch on a particular part of the record that is special to us.
(The story was told by a guy called Brian Cant. Alas now dead.)
Of course I agree. But it is also true that shared cultural memes (like religion and fairy tales) have more overall influence on our culture, and thus our thinking, than personal favorites (although personal favorites can have a big influence, too).
Who says that gods must explain the universe? That's what science and philosophy are for. Deities are ultimately personal. Churches and their followers down the ages have pushed public piety, but that is just a politicised display behaviour designed to boost the status of the overtly pious (who so often end up being busted for private misdeeds).
Genesis 2:
7 And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.
God "formed" man-- even the atheists -- whether He exists ourside of human imagination or not. The Christian God (imaginary though he may be) has had such an influence on Western culture that anyone living in the West today has been, to some extent, created by HIm.
My question was rhetorical, because I'd been speaking about subjective affects and suddenly Sculptor points to creation myths, as though God must be either accepted as the full package as described by the most literalist fundamentalists - or not at all.
Sy Borg wrote: ↑October 20th, 2021, 3:23 pm
as though God must be either accepted as the full package as described by the most literalist fundamentalists - or not at all.
Well, at least as creating the universe, I'd say, since the full package of the Biblical Genesis doesn't hold up.
Ecurb wrote:Of course I agree. But it is also true that shared cultural memes (like religion and fairy tales) have more overall influence on our culture, and thus our thinking, than personal favorites (although personal favorites can have a big influence, too).
Yes, true, shared cultural memes do have a greater overall influence in that they're visible to a larger number of people. But personal memes, like the one I talked about, might collectively have a lot of influence too. Obviously the example I gave is very personal to me and my sisters. It's not even shared by our parents (although they've become aware of it because we often talk about such things as adults). But other small groups of people (e.g. families) probably have other personal memes.
On Christianity though, you're undoubtedly right that in the western world it forms part of the backdrop to almost everything. For example, it's probably not really possible to understand almost any work of western literature without some understanding of Christianity and its influence. And of course Christianity, and conflicts between its rival factions, is central to our history.
Sy Borg wrote: ↑October 20th, 2021, 3:23 pm
as though God must be either accepted as the full package as described by the most literalist fundamentalists - or not at all.
Well, at least as creating the universe, I'd say, since the full package of the Biblical Genesis doesn't hold up.
I quite like the first page of Genesis - a metaphorical account of how ancient people of the time thought about the process of evolution.
The flaw is not in the writing so much as the literal interpretation of metaphorical work. It's not as though people don't understand metaphor. I'm yet to see anyone claim that the titular tiger in Rudyard Kipling's poem had caught fire.
Who says that gods must explain the universe? That's what science and philosophy are for. Deities are ultimately personal. Churches and their followers down the ages have pushed public piety, but that is just a politicised display behaviour designed to boost the status of the overtly pious (who so often end up being busted for private misdeeds).
Genesis 2:
7 And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.
God "formed" man-- even the atheists -- whether He exists ourside of human imagination or not. The Christian God (imaginary though he may be) has had such an influence on Western culture that anyone living in the West today has been, to some extent, created by HIm. Man makes himself (that's the title of a good book by V. Gordon Childe). While we are created biologically, we are also created by our cultures. Without language, for example, our modes of thinking, life, reasoning and social interaction would be very different than they are. It is perhaps also true that without religion our lives would be very different than they are.
When atheists try to disparage God by calling him a "fairy tale", they fail. That's because fairy tales also help make us what we are (to a lesser extent than religion). I tried to point that out when I quoted G.K. Chesterton's chapter "The Ethics of Elfland". Our ethics, our modes of thinking, and our vision of the world are influenced (even "created") by both religion and fairy tales. They probably have more influence on human ethics (even those of the atheists posting here) than philosophy.
I did not know you were a Marxist, odd that you chose to mention a book of Childe that you will never read.
He would have been horrified that you tried to assocaite him with the god delusion.
Last edited by Sculptor1 on October 20th, 2021, 4:32 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Sculptor1 wrote: ↑October 18th, 2021, 5:05 pm
I am content to know what can be known and to reject fantasy.
You have recently posted about the need to define what is meant by "God" so that it/he/she can be accepted or denied.
In the same way, I wonder how you can reject "fantasy"? What is the definition or description of fantasy that you use to recognise and reject it? Is it just something you consider to be fantastic?
Why?
Don't you aslo reject fantasy as truth? I thought we all did that?
The evidence of god is all from a jewish myth. I treat it in the same way as Homer and Virgil, or in the same way as Beowulf and King Arthur. Why would you think otherwise?
You might like to extend your POV to include the foundational myths of Cambodia and Laos too. Ancient Egypt, South America: all very interesting and conforming to what you might call cultural logic. But far from truth.
I may have missed it, did you explain your 'fantasy v truth' yet? Just an observation, and I hope I'm wrong, but your responses seem to feed into the Einsteinian 'grudge' meme. Are you angry about something? Are you an Atheist?
You are not interested in what I have to say so why ask.
WTF is an Einsteinian 'grudge' meme?