Philosophy Now Forum

Posted: **Mon Sep 05, 2011 10:23 am**

Ron de Weijze wrote:Your perceptual training results in your belief-system which then also starts to act as your guide.

Unless your perceptual training tells you to reject anything that looks like a belief system.

Posted: **Mon Sep 05, 2011 10:24 am**

Notvacka wrote:
evangelicalhumanist wrote:
Notvacka wrote:There is no reason to describe or even mention God at all. The main issue here is whether the universe was created by somebody or not. If you believe that it wasn't created by anybody, then you are an atheist. If you believe that it was created by somebody, then you are a theist and must define and describe who the creator you believe in is.
And for me, to suppose that there can exist a "somebody/creator" that is itself creatorless, seems to mean that the universe itself (or at least the most basic "stuff" of it) might just as easily exist creatorless. And that, by the way, seems easier to me. This "somebody/creator" seems arbitrarily complex already, where the universe-stuff can become complex on its own over time through a few really quite basic characteristics of its compostion. So, no, I don't require a creator, and therefore have no need to define it. Which is a good thing, since most who do, must then go on and try to figure out what their creator's impact is upon them now, and how to behave accordingly -- a complete impossibility, in my view, as is demonstrated through the myriad of answers that humans have given to that question.
Yes. Based upon all the hard work done by scientists through history, atheism is the easy way out nowadays, whereas once upon a time, theism was the easy way out.

And yours are perfectly reasonable arguments for choosing to believe that the universe exists without a creator, perhaps more reasonable than my arguments for believing the opposite.

Easy way out of what?
It seems to be the easy way out is to pretend to be agnostic whilst being a theist.

Posted: **Mon Sep 05, 2011 10:57 am**

chaz wyman wrote:It seems to be the easy way out is to pretend to be agnostic whilst being a theist.

Are you accusing me of pretending?

I can readily accept that you don't share my point of view or that you perhaps don't understand it, but this is an insult.

I don't know anything about God outside of my imagination, and I don't believe such knowledge is possible in reality. Can I get any more angostic? And how is that "pretending"?

I'm also a theist, since I believe in (a version of) God. (Defined as the conscious creator of the universe, who therefore can't reasonably exist within the universe.)

Any sensible person is an agonstic in my book, because not being agnostic is believing that knowledge about God is possible. But how could knowledge about something outside of our reality be possible in reality?

Posted: **Mon Sep 05, 2011 11:03 am**

Is it important to you, for some reason, that everybody admit to "belief?"

Nope. Just you will do.

Will it improve the world in some way?

You know, we believe in the same thing, you just don't wish to apply it to yourself and your group.

Will it help the world if adamant theists stop parading around pretending they are superior to everybody else based on things they couldn't possibly know? Yes, we agree it would.

Will it help the world if adamant aphilosophers stop parading around pretending they are superior to everybody else based on things they couldn't possibly know? Yes, we agree it would.

Will it help the world if adamant atheists stop parading around pretending they are superior to everybody else based on things they couldn't possibly know? Here we don't agree, because now we're talking about you and your group.

All I've asked in any of our exchanges on this topic is that you at least try to be loyal to a world view you are continually proclaiming, a world view that we both agree on and share.

We agree a certain set of behaviors are unhelpful.

You are earnest in resisting these behaviors when they are displayed by theists. You seem to show little interest in resisting these behaviors when they are displayed by atheists.

My proposal is, let's focus on the behaviors, not the groups, and resist the negative behaviors where ever they may appear.

Further, I would suggest that realistically, the only place we can probably make any real progress in resisting these negative behaviors is within ourselves, as that's generally the only zone we have any control over.

You know...

I've typed 45 billion words on aphilosophy here, and it's had no impact upon anyone. You're typed 45 billion words about why theism is a big problem, and probably not converted a single theist to your side despite years of trying.

The facts are the facts, and they point to a reality that all this focus outward is probably little more than an excuse to avoid the only direction we might have a chance of being effective, inward.

I am a skeptic not because I don't want to believe. I'm a skeptic because I want to know.

Yes, agreed. And that's why I keep saying that theism and atheism are branches of the same philosophy. Both insist on knowing, despite any evidence that we have such an ability. Both decline to explore the reality of our unknowing. Both are living in fantasy. As both have a right to do.

Take that where you will, but you must at least, I think, allow that yes it's possible that my brain is as partial to belief as anyone's, but that I -- perhaps more than some few others -- challenge my own beliefs.

And that may well mean that what you are calling "beliefs" aren't quite so strong as to deserve that name at all...or that at least I may be a little justified in thinking of them as less than "faith."

What I see is that you are struggling to maintain a fiction that you are different than and superior to theists, and this emotion based struggle is presenting annoying challenges to the part of your mind that is indeed sincere about reason.

To debunk myself, I've typed all this a million times already, and it's had no effect on anyone. But I keep typing it, typing it, typing it. I join you in enjoying a rich fantasy life. We share this as well.

Posted: **Mon Sep 05, 2011 11:39 am**

Notvacka wrote:
chaz wyman wrote:It seems to be the easy way out is to pretend to be agnostic whilst being a theist.
Are you accusing me of pretending?

Are you accusing me of taking the easy way out?

I can readily accept that you don't share my point of view or that you perhaps don't understand it, but this is an insult.

So what is the "easy way out?"

I don't know anything about God outside of my imagination, and I don't believe such knowledge is possible in reality. Can I get any more angostic? And how is that "pretending"?

... and yet you claim to be a Theist. Think about it!

I'm also a theist, since I believe in (a version of) God. (Defined as the conscious creator of the universe, who therefore can't reasonably exist within the universe.)

That makes you either a walking contradiction or pretending

Any sensible person is an agonstic in my book, because not being agnostic is believing that knowledge about God is possible. But how could knowledge about something outside of our reality be possible in reality?

Are you an agnostic about unicorns too?

Posted: **Mon Sep 05, 2011 12:51 pm**

chaz wyman wrote:Are you accusing me of taking the easy way out?

That wasn't meant as an accusation. It was a joke, and it was mostly on me.

chaz wyman wrote:So what is the "easy way out?"

The one that requires least effort. Not believing something that you don't see requires no effort. Believing something you don't see is harder.

chaz wyman wrote:... and yet you claim to be a Theist. Think about it!

I have thought about it. A lot. From a materialistic viewpoint, there is no reason for anything to exist. You can of course be satisfied with that, and believe that the universe and everything in it exists for no reason. Or you can try to come up with something else, like a notion of God that makes sense.

chaz wyman wrote:Are you an agnostic about unicorns too?

Yes. In all of the universe, a creature corresponding to the popular image of a unicorn might very well exist. How could we possibly know? As for our own humble planet, I think that we can safely say that the rhinoceros is as close as we get.

Posted: **Mon Sep 05, 2011 2:28 pm**

Notvacka wrote:
chaz wyman wrote:Are you accusing me of taking the easy way out?
That wasn't meant as an accusation. It was a joke, and it was mostly on me.

If that was a joke then I am sure you can see that my rejoinder was meant in the spirit of levity also.

chaz wyman wrote:So what is the "easy way out?"
The one that requires least effort. Not believing something that you don't see requires no effort. Believing something you don't see is harder.

I disagree entirely. You have the luxury of doubt, by sitting on the fence. There might even be a hint of Pascal's wager about your position. For it means complete death with no chance of redemption. It might even mean eternity in Hell. I was once a Christian. It has taken effort and soul searching to abandon my faith.

chaz wyman wrote:... and yet you claim to be a Theist. Think about it!
I have thought about it. A lot. From a materialistic viewpoint, there is no reason for anything to exist. You can of course be satisfied with that, and believe that the universe and everything in it exists for no reason. Or you can try to come up with something else, like a notion of God that makes sense.

Cogito ergo at least my friend. You can't play that game here, It's too easy!
Why would you want to come up with ANY notion of God? Please answer!
Especially when you have already said such knowledge is impossible?

chaz wyman wrote:Are you an agnostic about unicorns too?
Yes. In all of the universe, a creature corresponding to the popular image of a unicorn might very well exist. How could we possibly know? As for our own humble planet, I think that we can safely say that the rhinoceros is as close as we get.

And are you agnostic about Gandalf?

Posted: **Mon Sep 05, 2011 3:19 pm**

Typist wrote:
Evangelicalhumanist wrote:I am a skeptic not because I don't want to believe. I'm a skeptic because I want to know.
]Yes, agreed. And that's why I keep saying that theism and atheism are branches of the same philosophy. Both insist on knowing, despite any evidence that we have such an ability. Both decline to explore the reality of our unknowing. Both are living in fantasy. As both have a right to do.

Well, by lacking "such an ability" (to know), do you mean everything? Or are you restricting to only certain topics, like gods and ultimate realities? Because it seems to me that using our reason, we are capable of knowing at least a few things. We know, for example, that Pi cannot be represented by a fraction. We know that there are an infinite number of prime numbers. We know that if we remove the head of a human being, that human being will cease to live -- at least in human form.

So the question, to me, then becomes a little different. If you assert that there is no possibility of knowing about the existence of gods, then I can only conclude that is because, if they exist, they can have no effect whatever upon us. It is clear, in principle at least, that if there were an effect attributable to gods and only to gods, then that effect would be detectable (otherwise, how can it be an "effect?"). And in that case, again at least in principle, it could be studied and possibly learned about.

In the absence of any such effect from which we might discover at least some small hint, then, I propose that the existence of gods is utterly irrelevant, along with the existence of anything else which can have no possible noticeable effect.

So all right, you win. That's an argument based on some beliefs. Congratulations! Hallelujah, I'm a believer oh lawsy, lawsy! Miserable, ignorant, completely at the mercy of the mysteries of the universe, believing that life is worth living, or not, and even believing that I could tell the difference. Feel better now? Do you have a service for these sorts of things?

But I will still not be worrying about this thing which cannot impact upon me in the slightest possible way. I think, however, that I will continue to worry about those whose beliefs in such things urge them to make those beliefs real and measurable. And I think you will recall, I have already admitted to the reality of "the God in your head." And its very real impact throughout the history of the world up to the present moment.

I've typed 45 billion words on aphilosophy here, and it's had no impact upon anyone. You're typed 45 billion words about why theism is a big problem, and probably not converted a single theist to your side despite years of trying.

It's an interesting thing to consider, however, that at least some few of the billions of words exchanged around the world on this topic have had some small effect. We rarely burn people for heresy anymore. We're learning to tolerate others, and to expect others to tolerate us (even if we are "sinning" against whatever your particular belief posits). We've made some small progress against superstitions that really don't do the world any good, and possibly do it some harm. We're not slapping people in jail (or worse) for being born differently than they usual, and we're beginning to allow for the fact that some things various "gods" through history have detested are in fact so natural in origin that there must be an error somewhere in the scripture that declares the god's displeasure.

There's a ways to go, to be sure, and therefore probably the need to exchange more billions of words. And perhaps they won't all be wasted.

Posted: **Mon Sep 05, 2011 5:42 pm**

chaz wyman wrote:I disagree entirely. You have the luxury of doubt, by sitting on the fence. There might even be a hint of Pascal's wager about your position. For it means complete death with no chance of redemption. It might even mean eternity in Hell. I was once a Christian. It has taken effort and soul searching to abandon my faith.

I never considered doubt a luxury. It's a necessity. Without doubt, how could you truly believe in anything? If I didn't doubt my beliefs, they would be worthless. I doubt God every day. But if I didn't believe, there would be no reason for doubt. Doubt and belief need each other.

And I resent Pascal's wager. It's ridiculous. Even Pascal's God would not fall for it.

chaz wyman wrote:Why would you want to come up with ANY notion of God? Please answer! Especially when you have already said such knowledge is impossible?

Because you can't hold the cold, dumb, material universe responsible for anything!

Cogito ergo sum. Descartes had many stupid ideas, but this, his most famous one, is the very foundation of my philosophy. That's why I sometimes jokingly refer to myself as a Cartesian fundamentalist agnostic. I know that I exist as a conscious piece of imagination. In the strictest sense, that's all I know.

I'm pretty sure that other people exist, because I recognise myself in them, and it seems fair to assume that they are conscious pieces of imagination just like me. I'm also pretty sure that physical reality exists out there, because it won't go away. I'm a reasonable person, and everything I do, I do for a reason. The universe seems quite reasonable too. It behaves in a fairly consistent manner and there should be a reason for it's existence. But since the material universe is cold and dumb in itself, it doesn't have any reason of its own to exist. Reason can only exist in some conscious imagination. So, the reason for the universe must be sought outside physical reality, where I imagine a much larger consciousness, one large enough to contain all of physical reality within itself. I call that imagination, that fundamental mind, God. And I hold it responsible for everything.

chaz wyman wrote:And are you agnostic about Gandalf?

I'm agnostic about almost everything, including you, Chaz. Though I'm pretty sure that you exist, I can't entirely rule out the possibility that you're an illusion.

There can be no belief without doubt, and no knowledge at all.

Posted: **Mon Sep 05, 2011 6:38 pm**

Notvacka wrote:
chaz wyman wrote:I disagree entirely. You have the luxury of doubt, by sitting on the fence. There might even be a hint of Pascal's wager about your position. For it means complete death with no chance of redemption. It might even mean eternity in Hell. I was once a Christian. It has taken effort and soul searching to abandon my faith.
I never considered doubt a luxury. It's a necessity. Without doubt, how could you truly believe in anything? If I didn't doubt my beliefs, they would be worthless. I doubt God every day. But if I didn't believe, there would be no reason for doubt. Doubt and belief need each other.

And I resent Pascal's wager. It's ridiculous. Even Pascal's God would not fall for it.

chaz wyman wrote:Why would you want to come up with ANY notion of God? Please answer! Especially when you have already said such knowledge is impossible?
Because you can't hold the cold, dumb, material universe responsible for anything!

Cogito ergo sum. Descartes had many stupid ideas, but this, his most famous one, is the very foundation of my philosophy. That's why I sometimes jokingly refer to myself as a Cartesian fundamentalist agnostic. I know that I exist as a conscious piece of imagination. In the strictest sense, that's all I know.

I'm pretty sure that other people exist, because I recognise myself in them, and it seems fair to assume that they are conscious pieces of imagination just like me. I'm also pretty sure that physical reality exists out there, because it won't go away. I'm a reasonable person, and everything I do, I do for a reason. The universe seems quite reasonable too. It behaves in a fairly consistent manner and there should be a reason for it's existence. But since the material universe is cold and dumb in itself, it doesn't have any reason of its own to exist. Reason can only exist in some conscious imagination. So, the reason for the universe must be sought outside physical reality, where I imagine a much larger consciousness, one large enough to contain all of physical reality within itself. I call that imagination, that fundamental mind, God. And I hold it responsible for everything.

chaz wyman wrote:And are you agnostic about Gandalf?
I'm agnostic about almost everything, including you, Chaz. Though I'm pretty sure that you exist, I can't entirely rule out the possibility that you're an illusion.

There can be no belief without doubt, and no knowledge at all.

ISTM, Notvacka, that you have lumbered yourself with an absurdly absolutist idea of 'knowing'.
I can strum the guitar, a little. I can manage maybe twenty chords, and I have some sense of rhythm. This means I can play guitar, just not terribly well.
A few decades ago, I was in the habit of making funny little poems, to amuse my children. They weren't terribly good, but they were poems.
If I see my bus a few yards ahead just about to pull away from the bus-stop, I can probably get to it in time, but maybe not. All the same, I can say "I can run'.
I cannot run perfectly, I cannot play guitar perfectly, nor can I write poetry very well, but I can run, play guitar, and write ok poems.
Even scaffolding, a practice for which I was paid quite handsomely (by manual-worker standards) across many years, is something I can do only well enough to be confident that my structures will be safe enough for their purposes. They don't have to be perfect. Just good enough..
Likewise knowing. The fact that I can't know 'perfectly' doesn't mean I can't know at all.

Posted: **Mon Sep 05, 2011 7:59 pm**

Thundril wrote:
Notvacka wrote:
chaz wyman wrote:I disagree entirely. You have the luxury of doubt, by sitting on the fence. There might even be a hint of Pascal's wager about your position. For it means complete death with no chance of redemption. It might even mean eternity in Hell. I was once a Christian. It has taken effort and soul searching to abandon my faith.
I never considered doubt a luxury. It's a necessity. Without doubt, how could you truly believe in anything? If I didn't doubt my beliefs, they would be worthless. I doubt God every day. But if I didn't believe, there would be no reason for doubt. Doubt and belief need each other.

And I resent Pascal's wager. It's ridiculous. Even Pascal's God would not fall for it.

I agree. I am a natural skeptic, but doubt is an allowance that you give yourself. I don't do believe, so I don't do doubt.

chaz wyman wrote:Why would you want to come up with ANY notion of God? Please answer! Especially when you have already said such knowledge is impossible?
Because you can't hold the cold, dumb, material universe responsible for anything!

Fine - why would you want to blame? Were you brought up a Catholic. Blame is probably the most destructive human feeling. I try to avoid it where possible. I resign it to the pile of useless emotions like saying sorry or being regretful.
It seem a stupid reason to hold onto God. Are you angry about something?

Cogito ergo sum. Descartes had many stupid ideas, but this, his most famous one, is the very foundation of my philosophy. That's why I sometimes jokingly refer to myself as a Cartesian fundamentalist agnostic. I know that I exist as a conscious piece of imagination. In the strictest sense, that's all I know.

Well that is something. But you drive a car and your existence changes in space- you can take the next step. If you are really worried about the simple stuff god ought to be a long way aways.

I'm pretty sure that other people exist, because I recognise myself in them, and it seems fair to assume that they are conscious pieces of imagination just like me. I'm also pretty sure that physical reality exists out there, because it won't go away. I'm a reasonable person, and everything I do, I do for a reason. The universe seems quite reasonable too. It behaves in a fairly consistent manner and there should be a reason for it's existence. But since the material universe is cold and dumb in itself, it doesn't have any reason of its own to exist. Reason can only exist in some conscious imagination. So, the reason for the universe must be sought outside physical reality, where I imagine a much larger consciousness, one large enough to contain all of physical reality within itself. I call that imagination, that fundamental mind, God. And I hold it responsible for everything.

You have an imagination. Why not use it to figure out the basics? - before you dream up a god to blame -

MUST GO.

chaz wyman wrote:And are you agnostic about Gandalf?
I'm agnostic about almost everything, including you, Chaz. Though I'm pretty sure that you exist, I can't entirely rule out the possibility that you're an illusion.

There can be no belief without doubt, and no knowledge at all.
ISTM, Notvacka, that you have lumbered yourself with an absurdly absolutist idea of 'knowing'.
I can strum the guitar, a little. I can manage maybe twenty chords, and I have some sense of rhythm. This means I can play guitar, just not terribly well.
A few decades ago, I was in the habit of making funny little poems, to amuse my children. They weren't terribly good, but they were poems.
If I see my bus a few yards ahead just about to pull away from the bus-stop, I can probably get to it in time, but maybe not. All the same, I can say "I can run'.
I cannot run perfectly, I cannot play guitar perfectly, nor can I write poetry very well, but I can run, play guitar, and write ok poems.
Even scaffolding, a practice for which I was paid quite handsomely (by manual-worker standards) across many years, is something I can do only well enough to be confident that my structures will be safe enough for their purposes. They don't have to be perfect. Just good enough..
Likewise knowing. The fact that I can't know 'perfectly' doesn't mean I can't know at all.

Posted: **Mon Sep 05, 2011 8:07 pm**

Thundril wrote:ISTM, Notvacka, that you have lumbered yourself with an absurdly absolutist idea of 'knowing'.

Oh, this "absolutist idea" isn't such a burden in every day life. I mainly use it when discussing epistemology, like in this topic. I play guitar too, but I think you perhaps confuse "knowledge" with "skill" to some extent here. However, God is such an grand concept, involving extremes like omni-this and omni-that, that any lesser approach just wouldn't cut it.

I'm fairly certain that we understand much less about existence than we usually think we do. Mathematics, for instance, is not something that you can understand. You get used to it and learn how to make use of it, but that's about it. The same goes for everything else we encounter in our experience. We get used to it and impose some kind of structure on it, in order to get on with our lives. But we don't understand much of it.

Recently, we have discussed concepts like time and free will in other topics. The fact that neither of us believe that free will exists in reality, doesn't prevent us from taking free will for granted when discussing ethics in yet another topic.

We are so used to physical reality that we take it for granted, which is very useful in every day life, but less useful in an epistemological discussion. In the wiggle-room of doubt, it's possible to believe in almost anything, and outside our physical universe, like before birth and after death, anything is possible.

Posted: **Mon Sep 05, 2011 8:27 pm**

chaz wyman wrote:I agree. I am a natural skeptic, but doubt is an allowance that you give yourself. I don't do believe, so I don't do doubt.

Allright! It all falls into place. That's why you seem so certain all the time! You are the kind who knows. Myself, I'm very much into belief and doubt.

chaz wyman wrote:Fine - why would you want to blame? Were you brought up a Catholic. Blame is probably the most destructive human feeling. I try to avoid it where possible. I resign it to the pile of useless emotions like saying sorry or being regretful. It seem a stupid reason to hold onto God. Are you angry about something?

There is so much suffering in the world. People deserve compensation. But it's obvious that most of them won't get any in this life. Actually, if this is all there is, it's insufferable. (Don't worry, I'm not suicidal, I can wait.) I find physical reality tolerable only if it can be shown to serve a higher purpose. Religious people usually don't understand the God concept, though. An omnipotent creator would not only be able, but morally obliged, to compensate everybody.

chaz wyman wrote:You have an imagination. Why not use it to figure out the basics? - before you dream up a god to blame?

Every day life only requires a modicum of my imagination.

Posted: **Mon Sep 05, 2011 11:40 pm**

Notvacka wrote:
chaz wyman wrote:I agree. I am a natural skeptic, but doubt is an allowance that you give yourself. I don't do believe, so I don't do doubt.
Allright! It all falls into place. That's why you seem so certain all the time! You are the kind who knows. Myself, I'm very much into belief and doubt.

I know what I know- but it is subject to change. I have an approach to things which is basically skeptical. I am able to take a position, but speculation is usually futile - mainly because I have Heard it all (or most of it) before and know where things fall down.

chaz wyman wrote:Fine - why would you want to blame? Were you brought up a Catholic. Blame is probably the most destructive human feeling. I try to avoid it where possible. I resign it to the pile of useless emotions like saying sorry or being regretful. It seem a stupid reason to hold onto God. Are you angry about something?
There is so much suffering in the world. People deserve compensation. But it's obvious that most of them won't get any in this life. Actually, if this is all there is, it's insufferable. (Don't worry, I'm not suicidal, I can wait.) I find physical reality tolerable only if it can be shown to serve a higher purpose. Religious people usually don't understand the God concept, though. An omnipotent creator would not only be able, but morally obliged, to compensate everybody.

I cannot imagine that in a universe with a creator that there can exist "Killed by Death" by Motorhead, and "All things bright and beautiful", - and that is just music. You just need to learn to accept what you know (underneath it all) is reality. You know there is not God and looking for a higher purpose in one is not only fruitless it is just delaying any improvement in our lot. The suffering and conflict in the world make the idea of a God completely incomprehensible. Whoever thinks the world is going okay then they are not paying attention. Most who do are theists.
The higher purpose has to come from humans, for humans, by humans. The longer we dream and hold on to God the worst it will be.

chaz wyman wrote:You have an imagination. Why not use it to figure out the basics? - before you dream up a god to blame?
Every day life only requires a modicum of my imagination.

That is exactly where you are fooling yourself. Everyday life is all there is and no one knows what to do! Everyday life is suffering and pain and conflict, death and disease - and love and laughter and happiness too. Whilst you confidently and foolishly pretend that it does not require your imagination you have your head in the clouds looking for a god that cannot and does not exist.

But even if we found god, it would not make one gram of difference.
What would that change?
We can blame his negligence. But we would still have ourselves. All examples I can think of where societies have claimed to find god have led inevitably to more conflict; a fight against new ideas and science; an increase in guilt, shame and blame.
It's obvious we are on our own - god or not.

Posted: **Tue Sep 06, 2011 12:46 am**

Well, by lacking "such an ability" (to know), do you mean everything? Or are you restricting to only certain topics, like gods and ultimate realities?

Yes, the later. We can document and prove that I can reliably know whether there is orange juice in my refrigerator. I'm not interested in turning that in to some grand philosophical question.

So the question, to me, then becomes a little different. If you assert that there is no possibility of knowing about the existence of gods, then I can only conclude that is because, if they exist, they can have no effect whatever upon us.

I assert that at the present time there is no evidence that we are in a position to come to conclusions on topics of this scale. As example, we also currently have not the slightest idea whether there is one universe, or 17 trillion universes.

That said, apologies, but your logic is sloppy, and seems to be driven by the conclusion you want to reach. Until recently we had no way of knowing about gamma rays and all kinds of things like that etc, but they still have an effect on us. Why couldn't gods fall in to this huge class of phenomena?

It is clear, in principle at least, that if there were an effect attributable to gods and only to gods, then that effect would be detectable (otherwise, how can it be an "effect?").

No, that's not clear at all. Why do you assume the human mind would be capable of detecting and analyzing "the hand of god"?

And in that case, again at least in principle, it could be studied and possibly learned about.

I agree it might someday be possible.

In the absence of any such effect from which we might discover at least some small hint, then, I propose that the existence of gods is utterly irrelevant, along with the existence of anything else which can have no possible noticeable effect.

If it's utterly irrelevant, why are you, me and billions of other folks unable to let go of the subject? Our interest is a well documented hard fact. It could also be a fact that this question is the biggest cultural event in human history.

So, let's start from the facts. Many of us, including you, are incurably interested. I'm not prejudging in any way what it is we are interested in, only stating the obvious point that we are interested in a concept generally labeled god.

To me, the relevant question is...

Do we wish to continue pursuing our interest in the same way we've always pursued it, in the hopes that doing the same thing over and over again will somehow lead to different results?

That is, do we wish to align our actions with the definition of stupidity?

So all right, you win. Feel better now? Do you have a service for these sorts of things?

You've been attending that service for months now.

And do I feel better? NO! Agreeing with me is the only secret weapon that can defeat me, as my wife has proven in 30 years of marriage. So don't tell anybody! But, I'm not really too worried in your case, because....

But I will still not be worrying about this thing which cannot impact upon me in the slightest possible way.

You'll be back to your beliefs in no time flat.

Here's the deal EH. You don't know if gods exist, nor do you know whether they have impact upon you or not. We simply do not know. Our ignorance is the one hard fact at the heart of all this.

So if you wish to conduct an investigation based upon facts, upon what we do know, our ignorance is where we should begin.

Face it, accept it, work with it. Deal with reality, instead of our fantasy imaginary knowings.

It's an interesting thing to consider, however, that at least some few of the billions of words exchanged around the world on this topic have had some small effect.

Ok, I agree.

Philosophy Now Forum

Is "lack of belief" a "kind of belief?"

Re: Is "lack of belief" a "kind of belief?"

Re:

Re: Re:

Re: Is "lack of belief" a "kind of belief?"

Re: Re:

Re: Re:

Re: Re:

Re: Is "lack of belief" a "kind of belief?"

Re: Re:

Re: Re:

Re: Re:

Re: Re:

Re: Re:

Re: Re:

Re: Is "lack of belief" a "kind of belief?"