Philosophy Now Forum

Article by Kimblerley Winston, including a 4 min clip of interview, here:
http://www.religionnews.com/2013/10/21/ ... e-atheist/

A response by David Noise, a humanist:
http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/our ... ts-so-much

Unfair prejudice is most shocking not when it comes from expected sources—a KKK leader, for example, or a skinhead—but when it comes from a respected mainstream spokesperson who supposedly reflects enlightened contemporary values. Thus, brace yourself for Oprah Winfrey, as she disparages millions of atheists by telling her audience that, in her opinioin, atheists are incapable of awe.

She is chatting with endurance swimmer Diana Nyad, who recently swam from Cuba to Florida at age 64. Nyad unhesitatingly identifies as an atheist when asked about her beliefs, then adds that she sees no contradiction between her atheism and her ability to experience awe, or in her words to “weep with the beauty of this universe and be moved by all of humanity.''
Oprah, however, apparently found this description unsettling, for it seems that in her view atheists must be cold, emotionless rationalists. “Well I don’t call you an atheist then,” Oprah responded to Nyad's disclosure. “I think if you believe in the awe and the wonder and the mystery, then that is what God is.”

Response by David Lose, author of 'Making Sense of Scripture'

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-los ... 50502.html
[emphasis added]

[There are] profound and important challenges of living in our increasingly pluralistic world. Can we genuinely respect those whose worldview seems utterly irreconcilable to our own?
... what if we reclaimed a sense that belief in God -- or, for that matter, disbelief in God -- is less a matter of proof than it is confession: a willingness to give one's good reasons and evidence for one's views but also to surrender a claim to final proof. In this approach to articulating views, the boldness of a well-reasoned conviction is also and always accompanied by a commensurate acceptance that some things are ultimately beyond proof.

...had Oprah simply valued and identified with Diana Nyad's expression of awe and wonder at the world instead of reducing it to a slightly different but essentially similar expression of faith as her own, then the conversation might have moved on to how they could work together to save this precious world that elicits wonder from one and belief from another.

To move in this direction, however, requires the capacity to live with ambiguity, and such a commodity seems strikingly rare of late. We live in a culture that prefers black and white clarity to the grey hues of ambiguity. We value certainty over discernment, absolute knowledge over tentative belief, and the illusion of stability that dogmatism (of the religious and non-religious types) offers in response to the perceived threat of chaos some fear ambiguity portends.

'Some things ar ultimately beyond proof': isn't this where all philosophy of religion leads.

If we think it is important for humanity to get to grips with the fall-out from religious or non-religious leaders; black and white thinking and dogmatism from any quarter - then how do we move forward...

Philosophy as a worldview - defined by academics

'Some things ar ultimately beyond proof': isn't this where all philosophy of religion leads.

Just as importantly, we might ask, "What is 'proof'?"

We know what it is in mathematics; and there it is determinative, because maths is a system of internally-consistent abstractions, so it can both "set" its own terms, and then "meet" them on its own terms, with no necessary reference to outside empirical, circumstantial or ontological uncertainties.

But pure proof only works there. Even in "hard" sciences, the best we can get is very high probabilities. As Hume pointed out, we're never 100% certain that the very next calculation or experiment that science performs won't contradict every test that has been run previously, no matter how many tests we run. We aim to eliminate the improbable in science: but we don't per se "prove" anything with the 100% certainty of mathematics.

Probability is still a very, very good thing: but it's not actually "proof," just high likelihood. In all empirical endeavours, therefore, we have an element of projection of results, uncertainty, guess-making, hypothesizing, and belief. And in areas like cosmology, the speculations science generates are sometimes highly *improbable,* as they are in things like the multiverse hypothesis (which some people would still want to say was legit "science"). So it's pretty clear that even low probability guesses are getting into what we call "science."

Well, how do we estimate "proof" in the case of metaphysical entities, assuming such things exist? We all tend to *feel* very strongly that we have things like mind, consciousness, reasoning, identity, values...and so on. But these have no real "proof" except for our profound existential conviction that they are real. Where then is "proof"?

It seems the best we *ever* get is some leading evidence, plus some hopeful hypothesizing from that evidence to a conclusion we cannot absolutely "prove." If religious reasoning would work in the same mode -- not forsaking evidence altogether, but rather combining probability estimations from available data -- then we might have a philosophy of religion that is not actually merely speculative. But "proof" of a conclusive kind comes only in maths.

We might well ask 'what is proof'; however, I'm not really into that.

What concerns me more are people's perception of selves and others; generalisations and 'black and white', or 'red and blue' thinking.

I see the importance of arguments which explain and explore viewpoints which come to some kind of a justified or qualifiied conclusion. Either a 'Yes, I agree'; 'No, I don't' or 'In some ways yes, in others no'. Also, dealing with the implications of different positions.

Rather than searching or arguing for proof of God, maintaining divisive 'Us and Them' attitudes; isn't it better, as David Lose suggests, to move on with core discussions about how life and the world might be improved.

Shades of grey and purple might not be to everyone's taste but don't we all agree that the world is brighter with colour.

Philosophy can either help or be a major hindrance in all of this.
Stuck in a 'prove it' God groove is painful to the ears.