Philosophy Now Forum

Atla wrote: ↑Sat Oct 26, 2019 6:56 pm

Tesla wrote: ↑Sat Oct 26, 2019 6:25 pm

Atla wrote: ↑Sat Oct 26, 2019 6:15 pm
Ok I don't get it. I started with a non-religious idea about godlike beings across the hypothized multiverse, a consequence of a fairly mainstream scientific idea nowadays, but you dismissed that.

I dismissed it as a final outcome. Its a potential that cannot be explored with current technology. A valid point for a class, but not the object of the class. this post is more about teaching the idea of God in a classroom. Should it be done, Could one convince the education system to do it?

Hmm that's a tough one. I think I slightly favour the idea to teach that God / gods have always had a defining role in human existence, without them one can't even make sense of history, but none of them were actually found so far. Thus promoting soft atheism.

Plus teaching how to differentiate between such beliefs and psychosis/schizophrenia.

aye. healthy skepticism. Socrates was killed for it. but to teach the role of God and gods is more of history and philosophy, not science. To teach God in the classroom we have to win scientists, the very ones who won the court battle against it.

Atla wrote: ↑Sat Oct 26, 2019 6:56 pm Thus promoting soft atheism.

Why "soft"? If the truth is Atheism, promote it hard. Why would you want to teach your students anything but truth?

But the problem is that Atheism is not an evidentiary position. It's neither logical nor rationally/scientifically defensible. As such, it's very rationally vulnerable. That's why even Dawkins doesn't make the mistake of calling himself a full-blown Atheist. He prefers, "strong agnostic." He knows if he says "Atheist," he's pegged for claiming knowledge he can't possibly possess. And he's too smart to allow that.

Plus teaching how to differentiate between such beliefs and psychosis/schizophrenia.

Ah. Religion as "mental illness"? Now we are talking a thoroughly Atheist kind of indoctrination. But again, why would anyone take a course in delusions of the mentally ill? Is it for psychiatrists? Did you mean that, when you wrote "taught in school"?

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sat Oct 26, 2019 7:00 pm

Tesla wrote: ↑Sat Oct 26, 2019 6:52 pm You just passed the course. The point is to bring that to awareness. When God has parts to study, it would exist outside the realm of idea. It is a potential. but not currently a part of humankind's capability. Its an idea only.

"God is an idea only." That's your position?

It is, then, as I said. You're unconsciously (or consciously? I don't know) taking it for granted that God is merely an idea without relationship to reality. That is, a delusion. So in all honestly, your "religion" course could be titled, "God: the Study of a Delusion." It sounds pretty Atheist to me.

I guess you are religions and have decided God 'is', When all data says 'maybe'. you cant examine the idea based on religious context if your looking for one in reality. you need verifiable data outside of the mind. religious text is just that:text. words of the mind.

A true God(s) will have parts to verify that it is reality.

"Parts"? What do you mean "parts"? Do you mean you think God is a big man with a body, floating in space, or else isn't real? If so, then your view of "god" wouldn't pass the first hurdle of religious studies...nobody sane says that.

I mean to say there is nothing to explore yet outside of thoughts and beliefs. Humanity should look outside of idea and belief to define whatever it is supposed to be.

The potential also exists, their isn't a God(s).

Okay, we can include that possibility in our thinking, and we can talk about the relevant evidence for each religious view, of course. But here's the crucial question: are we going to stay open to the possibility that there IS, or are we going to "cook the books" in advance by saying we want only "non-religious" stuff?

You cant really verify extraordinary claims that religions make. 'miracles' and witnesses described by one supposed witness who followers take at their word. We aren't going to cook anything. We must simply look into the empty pot and ask what could fill it that would be verifiable and real to all of humanity and science. It is by design to open the mind to the potential it IS. but that IF it is, where and what is it? how do we scientifically verify it?

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sat Oct 26, 2019 7:05 pm

Atla wrote: ↑Sat Oct 26, 2019 6:56 pm Thus promoting soft atheism.

Why "soft"? If the truth is Atheism, promote it hard. Why would you want to teach your students anything but truth?

But the problem is that Atheism is not an evidentiary position. It's neither logical nor rationally/scientifically defensible. As such, it's very rationally vulnerable. That's why even Dawkins doesn't make the mistake of calling himself a full-blown Atheist. He prefers, "strong agnostic." He knows if he says "Atheist," he's pegged for claiming knowledge he can't possibly possess. And he's too smart to allow that.

Soft atheist = strong agnostic.

Plus teaching how to differentiate between such beliefs and psychosis/schizophrenia.

Ah. Religion as "mental illness"? Now we are talking a thoroughly Atheist kind of indoctrination. But again, why would anyone take a course in delusions of the mentally ill? Is it for psychiatrists? Did you mean that, when you wrote "taught in school"?

I said differentiate between them, not religion as "mental illness".

Tesla wrote: ↑Sat Oct 26, 2019 7:10 pm I guess you are religions and have decided God 'is', When all data says 'maybe'.

I'm not arguing about this, at the moment. I'm only answering the issue you raised, which is how one goes about teaching "God" "non-religiously." I'm suggesting the idea is fraught with contradictions, and is unlikely to succeed in doing any good at all.

you cant examine the idea based on religious context if your looking for one in reality.

Sure you can. I see no problem in looking at "religious context" when one looks at religion. But if there's no "God" in reality, then we're only studying a delusion -- and studying it in a way already indoctrinated with Atheist presuppositions.

you need verifiable data outside of the mind. religious text is just that:text. words of the mind.

Could you put this claim in some sort of sentences, so I could see what proposition you're trying to make there? Thanks.

I mean to say there is nothing to explore yet outside of thoughts and beliefs.

Right. So you mean "God is a delusion."

Humanity should look outside of idea and belief to define whatever it is supposed to be.

Again, I can't understand this claim. It's full of unclear terms. What do you mean when you say, "should"? Why "should" they? And when you say they need to "look," how can anyone do this "looking" in a way "outside of idea and belief" and what is "whatever it is supposed to be?"

Can you clear any of that up?

You cant really verify extraordinary claims that religions make.

Like what?

'miracles' and witnesses described by one supposed witness who followers take at their word.

Well, that's history. We always study history through "witnesses," because none of us were there at the time. But there are plausible and implausible witnesses, and maybe one question we could raise for students is how you tell the difference between witnesses you can trust and those you can't.

We aren't going to cook anything.

"Cook the books" is an idiom meaning, "preset the conclusion of our inquiry before we begin." In other words, when we've "cooked the books," the answer is always going to come out to be one thing, but not because we conducted an open-minded, fair or scientific inquiry, but because we began by hedging off essential questions.

I'm just suggesting that the truth-content of religious claims is one such "essential question" we cannot hedge off without "cooking the books," and becoming indoctrinators. That's one of the key differences between a teacher and an indoctrinator: a teachers knows stuff, but is open to learning more or different things from what he/she already knows, and goes on a join inquiry with his/her students. An indoctrinator has no sincere intention to investigate anything, or remain open to learning; he's got an outcome he's going for, and he's going to make the "inquiry" come out that way at all costs.

I'm saying, let's not be indoctrinators on behalf of Atheism. Let's be open, and do the inquiry.

Atla wrote: ↑Sat Oct 26, 2019 7:24 pm Soft atheist = strong agnostic.

No, they're different. An Atheist makes a knowledge claim. An agnostic makes only a personal claim about his present state of conviction, based on the evidence he happens to have.

I said differentiate between them, not religion as "mental illness".

Oh. So religion is NOT a mental illness, but it LOOKS like one, so it's tough to differentiate?

Just how does one do that?

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sat Oct 26, 2019 7:28 pmNo, they're different. An Atheist makes a knowledge claim. An agnostic makes only a personal claim about his present state of conviction, based on the evidence he happens to have.

A strong atheist makes a knowledge claim, a soft doesn't.

Oh. So religion is NOT a mental illness, but it LOOKS like one, so it's tough to differentiate?

Just how does one do that?

Psychotics tend to literally hear voices in their head that they often mistake for God, or believe themselves to be God. Sometimes they also visually hallucinate.

Atla wrote: ↑Sat Oct 26, 2019 7:32 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sat Oct 26, 2019 7:28 pmNo, they're different. An Atheist makes a knowledge claim. An agnostic makes only a personal claim about his present state of conviction, based on the evidence he happens to have.

A strong atheist makes a knowledge claim, a soft doesn't.

Well, then, you're going to have to explain to me why "soft atheism" is a better term than "agnostic." Because you've just made them out to be exactly the same. "Agnostic" is obviously a better term, if one does not have knowledge of the relevant matter: it actually means " don't know."

Oh. So religion is NOT a mental illness, but it LOOKS like one, so it's tough to differentiate?

Just how does one do that?

Psychotics tend to literally hear voices in their head that they often mistake for God, or believe themselves to be God. Sometimes they also visually hallucinate.

Okay, so now we know what a psychotic is. But how do we differentiate that with someone who's just "religious"? Moses and Jesus Christ claimed to know and have spoken to God, and Mohammed and John Smith claimed to have received angelic messengers with words from a god. Is your suggestion, then that all these major religious figures were "psychotic"?

Just asking.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sat Oct 26, 2019 7:37 pm Well, then, you're going to have to explain to me why "soft atheism" is a better term than "agnostic." Because you've just made them out to be exactly the same. "Agnostic" is obviously a better term, if one does not have knowledge of the relevant matter: it actually means " don't know."

I said strong agnostic.

Okay, so now we know what a psychotic is. But how do we differentiate that with someone who's just "religious"? Moses and Jesus Christ claimed to know and have spoken to God, and Mohammed and John Smith claimed to have received angelic messengers with words from a god. Is your suggestion, then that all these major religious figures were "psychotic"?

Just asking.

They were probably both.

Atla wrote: ↑Sat Oct 26, 2019 7:46 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sat Oct 26, 2019 7:37 pm Well, then, you're going to have to explain to me why "soft atheism" is a better term than "agnostic." Because you've just made them out to be exactly the same. "Agnostic" is obviously a better term, if one does not have knowledge of the relevant matter: it actually means " don't know."

I said strong agnostic.

It doesn't help. The adjective isn't the problem: it's the noun.

Okay, so now we know what a psychotic is. But how do we differentiate that with someone who's just "religious"? Moses and Jesus Christ claimed to know and have spoken to God, and Mohammed and John Smith claimed to have received angelic messengers with words from a god. Is your suggestion, then that all these major religious figures were "psychotic"?

Just asking.

They were probably both.

Wow. So your supposition would be, "If anybody hears from God, he's probably psychotic." And this includes all the leaders of all the major religious traditions, and a good many of the minor ones.

So your supposition has to be that God does not exist, right? Because IF (note the hypothetical there) God exists, then for Him to speak would surely be absolutely no problem at all. It's such a routine activity that we all do it every day -- hardly a difficulty to the Supreme Being.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sat Oct 26, 2019 7:49 pm It doesn't help. The adjective isn't the problem: it's the noun.

Well Dawkins may have misused it when he meant soft atheism by it.

Wow. So your supposition would be, "If anybody hears from God, he's probably psychotic." And this includes all the leaders of all the major religious traditions, and a good many of the minor ones.

Well either that or they were faking it well.

So your supposition has to be that God does not exist, right? Because IF (note the hypothetical there) God exists, then for Him to speak would surely be absolutely no problem at all. It's such a routine activity that we all do it every day -- hardly a difficulty to the Supreme Being.

There is no known good reason to believe in God(s) so far, but that doesn't mean that they certainly don't exist.

Atla wrote: ↑Sat Oct 26, 2019 7:54 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sat Oct 26, 2019 7:49 pm It doesn't help. The adjective isn't the problem: it's the noun.

Well Dawkins may have misused it when he meant soft atheism by it.

No, he was quite precise. I happened in a major public debate with theologians. They referred to him as "the world's most famous Atheist," and he took them on, disowned the term "Atheism" completely, and said he was only a "strong agnostic." I can even show you the clip if you want.

Here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dfk7tW429E4 It's short.

Wow. So your supposition would be, "If anybody hears from God, he's probably psychotic." And this includes all the leaders of all the major religious traditions, and a good many of the minor ones.

Well either that or they were faking it well.

Okay, so psychotics or charlatans, but not truthful. That's your view? And the reason for saying that is the very fact that they claimed to hear from God?

So your supposition has to be that God does not exist, right? Because IF (note the hypothetical there) God exists, then for Him to speak would surely be absolutely no problem at all. It's such a routine activity that we all do it every day -- hardly a difficulty to the Supreme Being.

There is no known good reason to believe in God(s) so far, but that doesn't mean that they certainly don't exist.

Oh, Theists would argue that's patently not so. There are many good reasons for believing in God. But IF you even were to allow the possibility that God could exist, then your "psychotics and charlatans" explanation is in peril; one of them, or more, might have actually heard from God, if He exists.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sat Oct 26, 2019 7:58 pmNo, he was quite precise. I happened in a major public debate with theologians. They referred to him as "the world's most famous Atheist," and he took them on, disowned the term "Atheism" completely, and said he was only a "strong agnostic." I can even show you the clip if you want.

It doesn't really matter, we can bend it either way when we get down to the basic fact that technically we can't ever be sure of anything outside our minds. Or we can go even more basic and say that we can't be sure of anything inside our (what appears to be) minds either.
And atheism is used in multiple ways too.

Okay, so psychotics or charlatans, but not truthful. That's your view? And the reason for saying that is the very fact that they claimed to hear from God?

Yep pretty much. If they literally spoke to God.

Oh, Theists would argue that's patently not so. There are many good reasons for believing in God. But IF you even were to allow the possibility that God could exist, then your "psychotics and charlatans" explanation is in peril; one of them, or more, might have actually heard from God, if He exists.

It's possible that some people we see as schizophrenics do actually talk to God, and the rest of the world only makes it seem like they were hallucinating. Just unlikely.

Atla wrote: ↑Sat Oct 26, 2019 8:06 pm And atheism is used in multiple ways too.

Indeed. It is used both correctly and incorrectly. I jus think the latter is better.

Okay, so psychotics or charlatans, but not truthful. That's your view? And the reason for saying that is the very fact that they claimed to hear from God?

Yep pretty much. If they literally spoke to God.

Is that because God can't possibly exist, in your estimation? Because that's the only way that deduction would follow: they'd be listening to something that definitely was not real, so they're psychotic; or pretending to, so they're charlatans.

But it is your considered view that there is NO possibility that anyone could ever hear from God?

But then, why would you admit that you're less then absolutely certain that God doesn't exist? That will ruin that argument.

Just unlikely.

What makes it "unlikely"? Is it that even though God might exist, you think it's "unlikely" He does? So it's more "likely" that the people who claim to have heard from God are lying or psychotic?

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sat Oct 26, 2019 7:26 pm [

I'm saying, let's not be indoctrinators on behalf of Atheism. Let's be open, and do the inquiry.

Lets not be indoctrinators on behalf of religion. Atheism is like religion. Pretending to know what isn't known.

The object of looking for God outside of religious context doesn't endorse either. I feel that now your just looking for something to discuss. Surly you know this argument has been completed.