Philosophy Now Forum

ReliStuPhD wrote:

thedoc wrote:

ReliStuPhD wrote: Fair enough, just know that as a member of "the field," I represent it.
(And I get your point about "God." I do the same. It still may prove more restrictive than "religion" will allow.)

From what I have read, most religions have a definition of God that is more restrictive than mine.

Fair enough. I can guess at the expanse of your definition of "god" (I won't be surprised to find it's similar to mine). That said, Religious Studies (where it does things right in my opinion) tries to avoid what we might term a "theological" take on the nature of "God." As such, something has to be done with, e.g., the Confucianist. It is in that respect that "god" is too restrictive. As in, a generally-accepted definition of "god" as being one, non-illusory, etc. I imagine we'll tease this out more at some point, but of the moment I think it's sufficient to lay it out as I've done here. That is, my definition of "religion" will tend towards a direction that is more generic and doesn't use words that could be misconstrued by a third party, etc. (Hope that makes sense.)

thedoc wrote:And sorry if my comments about "the field" were offensive to one "in the field", I always considered someone "in the field" to be a farmer.

Not at all. I have my own qualms with "the field," but do feel a certain responsibility to represent it fairly.

Over the years I have come to the point of being mildly annoyed when religious people stand there and say they "know" this of that about their religion, when I understand that they believe these things. It seems that they don't know or accept that there is a difference between knowing and believing. As far as my definition of God I believe that God exists and that is as much as I will declare about God, so my definition of God is about as broad as it can get.

One of the criticisms is that the universe is so vast and the earth so small and insignificant, why should God pay any attention to it or be at all concerned about people, and to that I can only answer that God being God would have the capability to pay attention to and be concerned about whatever God chose to be concerned about. These critics are just placing human limits on God, and I think that is a mistake.

Something that might help to tie things together is that for years I have known about the work of Joseph Campbell, and his ideas about mythology seemed to make a lot of sense and seemed true to my way of thinking. According to my understanding, religion grew out of mythology, and according to Campbell all mythology had the same or similar origins. He has stated that all the earliest myths were basically the same no matter where they were invented and independently created. This identity of myth, would indicate to me that there is something that is inspiring these similar myths all over the world, and that something is the same everywhere. Atheists would say that it's just human nature and people are the same everywhere with the same fears and desires, but I don't accept that entirely and would say that there is something more underlying these myths, and that something is possibly God.

I know I'm hedging a bit, but as I indicated above, I don't feel comfortable saying I 'know' something, when in fact I 'believe' it to be true. I'll let the Knowing to those of less analytical thinking.

thedoc wrote:I know I'm hedging a bit, but as I indicated above, I don't feel comfortable saying I 'know' something, when in fact I 'believe' it to be true. I'll let the Knowing to those of less analytical thinking.

I think you're being a bit too uncharitable here. Perhaps the smartest person I (personally) know is an analytical philosopher-theologian in my Ph.D. program. He argues, quite convincingly, that it is because he engages in a rigorously analytical approach to epistemology that he has warrant to know God exists, alongside some other basic propositions. There are certainly those disagree with him, mind you, but they are consistently unable to provide greater warrant for their contention that he can't know these things than he can provide that he can. At a minimum, they arrive at something of a stalemate (which may well mean he wins if we assume a sort of legal, beyond-a-reasonable-doubt approach to defending one's argument).

Freely acknowledging that I am not an analytical philosopher-theologian, I nevertheless don't see that I can agree with the broader thrust of your reply—at least not fully. It's not because it strikes me as somehow "completely wrong" (it doesn't) but because it appears to allow for a certain epistemological certitude that's not allowed the religionist. That is to say (using Joseph Campbell as an example), is it warranted to state with a fair degree of certainty that we "know" that religion emerges from myth. If so, how? Wouldn't one first need to show that we don't or can't "know" that religion actually emerges as the human response to the ontologically-real God? Mind you, I'm not saying that the latter is the case, only that it seems that the claim that one can know that Christians can't know God as they claim to is itself a claim to the same level of epistemological certainty. Surely this is unfair?

I do understand your point about "belief" vs "knowing" (though even there, a philosopher might take exception to how "believe" is being used), but the point I want to argue for is one where we don't discount the theist's ability to "know" something by appealing to the very same type of epistemological certainty that we appeal to in saying he/she can't. Surely at the end of the day it is either that neither of can know these things or that we can and we're arguing about whose knowledge is justified.

PS It's also the AM, so my brain hasn't revved up yet. Let me know if I've mischaracterized your argument (I hope not) or focused in on something that was a minor piece of your argument (quite likely).

Not bad, for morning brain.

We have to watch that word "know" too. We "know" in different ways, and to different degrees. We "know" our own names by being taught them. We "know" the sun will come up because of probability. We "know" our friends personally. We "know" Kansas topographically, if we've been there, but merely theoretically if we haven't. We "know" Mars by means of distant information....and so on. However certain all these things may seem to us, not one of them is known with sufficient certainty that we can say we "know" it on the level we "know" 1+1=2.

Belief and knowledge are not opposites. Elements of both exist in all our "knowing." So we really ought not to disdain "belief" and privilege "knowledge" in an unsubtle way. Rather, I think we should see them as natural, co-working mental processes: as in the (hypothetical) statement, "I know evidence for Global Warming exists because I've considered it, and I also that there are skeptics and have heard their arguments, but I believe the proponents have the better evidence."

I might remain less than 100% certain that Global Warming is a reality, but I think we could still safely use a word like "know" in reference to it -- that is, provided we keep duly modest in our understanding of what knowledge claims require. It's only when we start to imagine that "know" must always be a claim to 100% certain knowledge that we (rightly) must become squeamish about using it. For 100% knowledge of *anything* is impossible outside of mathematics.

Immanuel Can wrote:However certain all these things may seem to us, not one of them is known with sufficient certainty that we can say we "know" it on the level we "know" 1+1=2.

While I don't find too much to disagree with on your reply, this is a good point to narrow in on. As you've stated, there are different ways of knowing and levels of knowledge. That said, it's a fair question as to whether a theist "knowing" of God's existence is better-compared to a flat Kansas or 1+1=2. Too many make the mistake (?) of associating knowledge of God with knowledge of Kansas' topography. It seems to me it's closer to the level of knowledge that 1+1=2 (or, if one is inclined towards atheism, that 1+2 != 2). That is to say, there may be greater epistemological warrant to assent to the phrase "God exists" (or doesn't) than "Kansas is flat" (or isn't).

I agree that philosophy of religion has a sort of fatal flaw in it...even if our reasoning is true, it can take us only so far as probabilistic knowledge of the factual existence of God. But again, that's not the only kind of knowledge there is -- nor is it the most valuable type.

There is also experiential and relational knowledge. One can "know" not facts and propositions, but persons as well, and that "knowing" comes not out of arguments but out of connectedness.

Elsewhere, thedoc was talking about being "connected": that's the kind of relationship I'm talking about. We can "know" something very powerfully when we are personally connected with it -- or better, we can "know" a person only when we *are* personally connected with him/her...and this sort of "knowledge" can be very rational and compelling indeed.

That being said, without an initial recognition that philosophy of religion *can* produce, what's the chance one is ever going to look for that second type of "knowledge"?

ReliStuPhD wrote:

thedoc wrote:I know I'm hedging a bit, but as I indicated above, I don't feel comfortable saying I 'know' something, when in fact I 'believe' it to be true. I'll let the Knowing to those of less analytical thinking.

I think you're being a bit too uncharitable here. Perhaps the smartest person I (personally) know is an analytical philosopher-theologian in my Ph.D. program. He argues, quite convincingly, that it is because he engages in a rigorously analytical approach to epistemology that he has warrant to know God exists, alongside some other basic propositions. There are certainly those disagree with him, mind you, but they are consistently unable to provide greater warrant for their contention that he can't know these things than he can provide that he can. At a minimum, they arrive at something of a stalemate (which may well mean he wins if we assume a sort of legal, beyond-a-reasonable-doubt approach to defending one's argument).

Freely acknowledging that I am not an analytical philosopher-theologian, I nevertheless don't see that I can agree with the broader thrust of your reply—at least not fully. It's not because it strikes me as somehow "completely wrong" (it doesn't) but because it appears to allow for a certain epistemological certitude that's not allowed the religionist. That is to say (using Joseph Campbell as an example), is it warranted to state with a fair degree of certainty that we "know" that religion emerges from myth. If so, how? Wouldn't one first need to show that we don't or can't "know" that religion actually emerges as the human response to the ontologically-real God? Mind you, I'm not saying that the latter is the case, only that it seems that the claim that one can know that Christians can't know God as they claim to is itself a claim to the same level of epistemological certainty. Surely this is unfair?

I do understand your point about "belief" vs "knowing" (though even there, a philosopher might take exception to how "believe" is being used), but the point I want to argue for is one where we don't discount the theist's ability to "know" something by appealing to the very same type of epistemological certainty that we appeal to in saying he/she can't. Surely at the end of the day it is either that neither of can know these things or that we can and we're arguing about whose knowledge is justified.

PS It's also the AM, so my brain hasn't revved up yet. Let me know if I've mischaracterized your argument (I hope not) or focused in on something that was a minor piece of your argument (quite likely).

It is possible that we are talking about the opposite ends of the analytical spectrum here. You are obviously referring to someone quite skilled at analyzing the relevant material while I was referring to those who don't analyze at all, but just accept the dogma as fact.

Something else I'll point out here is that usually I will take a small point of a post and respond because that is what I've worked out an answer for, the rest I'm sometimes still working on, and sometimes I just don't have an answer for.

It is now PM where I am and I've had plenty of coffee so I don't have a good excuse, except that now it's nap time.

thedoc wrote:It is possible that we are talking about the opposite ends of the analytical spectrum here. You are obviously referring to someone quite skilled at analyzing the relevant material while I was referring to those who don't analyze at all, but just accept the dogma as fact.

Yeah, I think you're right. In that case, I agree with your point.

thedoc wrote:Something else I'll point out here is that usually I will take a small point of a post and respond because that is what I've worked out an answer for, the rest I'm sometimes still working on, and sometimes I just don't have an answer for.

Same here. Unfortunately, I'm too easily tempted by the parts I haven't worked out an answer for

thedoc wrote:It is now PM where I am and I've had plenty of coffee so I don't have a good excuse, except that now it's nap time.

Ah, nap time. We've all made a mistake by not realizing how good we had it in Kindergarten.

Part of my belief is that God being God knows each individual and what that individual needs to believe in God's existence. I also believe that some people will reject whatever is presented to them, a bit like the story of the man caught in a flood with the water rising around his house. First a truck came by and he was offered a ride to safety, he refused saying "God will take care of me." As the waters rose he climbed to the 2nd floor, a boat came by and he was again offered a ride to safety, and gave the same reply. The waters continued to rise and he was sitting on the roof when a helicopter flew by and offered to take him to safety, again he refused saying "God will take care of me." The flood rose higher, swept him away and he drowned. Meeting God in Heaven he asked, "Why didn't you save me?" and God replied "I sent you a truck, a boat, and a helicopter, What more did you want?" I won't bore you with the details but many years ago I had an experience that demonstrated the existence of the Holy Spirit and if the Spirit exists that demonstrates to me that God exists. Perhaps I needed that, or perhaps not, but it happened and that is all that I needed. Some people only need to hear the stories of others to believe and I think this fits with the idea that God knows what is needed even though some will continue to reject the signs.

I also believe that some people will reject whatever is presented to them,

Yes, I think that's true. And if they do, is that a choice that the Supreme Being should respect, in order to uphold their genuine freedom, or countermand, in order to save them from making a wretched choice?

I think if their choice to relate to God is to be genuine and free, then it cannot be a forced choice. Nor can God protect them from rejecting that relationship, even if that rejection has dire consequences. If He does, then the choice was never free for anyone in the first place. And forced relationships? Well, we have names for that -- but none of them are nice.

A second thought: if, as is said of the Supreme Being, that He is the Source of all truth, light, love, goodness, life, health, happiness, wisdom, peace, relatedness...and so on, then what would be entailed in God respecting a decision made by a free agent to reject any relationship with that Source?

The only place one could be while rejecting the Source of all goodness would be a place where the free agent does not have any of that (just as the free agent himself/herself has determined) but rather all the opposites, like deception, darkness, hatred, badness, death, sickness, misery, folly, strife, loneliness...

Sounds kind of Hellish to me.

Immanuel Can wrote:

I also believe that some people will reject whatever is presented to them,

Yes, I think that's true. And if they do, is that a choice that the Supreme Being should respect, in order to uphold their genuine freedom, or countermand, in order to save them from making a wretched choice?

I think if their choice to relate to God is to be genuine and free, then it cannot be a forced choice. Nor can God protect them from rejecting that relationship, even if that rejection has dire consequences. If He does, then the choice was never free for anyone in the first place. And forced relationships? Well, we have names for that -- but none of them are nice.

A second thought: if, as is said of the Supreme Being, that He is the Source of all truth, light, love, goodness, life, health, happiness, wisdom, peace, relatedness...and so on, then what would be entailed in God respecting a decision made by a free agent to reject any relationship with that Source?

The only place one could be while rejecting the Source of all goodness would be a place where the free agent does not have any of that (just as the free agent himself/herself has determined) but rather all the opposites, like deception, darkness, hatred, badness, death, sickness, misery, folly, strife, loneliness...

Sounds kind of Hellish to me.

I would suggest that God would respect whatever decision a free agent has made, but it should be remembered that God should also be considered as a free agent and is free to keep trying. I have heard somewhere that God can be quite patient since God is not limited to a human life span. I have also read and heard that Christians reject the idea of reincarnation, but it seems that no-one can prove it either way, even though there is a lot of anecdotal evidence. Could it be that reincarnation happens, but only when God is giving an individual a second chance? The increase in population would seem to indicate that a lot of people are getting second chances.

In regard to your last line, have you looked at the world around you lately?

Yes, it's the usual...a beautiful place, in some ways making significant improvements, but in general going progressively bad. Just what you'd expect, I think, from a good Creation fallen into the hands of people who are out of sync with God.