Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Philosophy Club

[GaryLouisSmith]

I think many atheists believe that a theist is merely someone who has failed to think through matters of existence. Perhaps a theist is mentally ill or mentally inadequate for thought. Or he is afraid and worried about what his acquaintances will think. Or perhaps he is just mentally lazy. What about evidence? Why can't a theist see the lack of evidence for a God? Surely, he muses, if the theist truly looked at the lack of evidence, he would, if honest, change his mind? He will never understand atheism.

This seems to be about an atheist not understanding a theist, but the title is about the opposite direction.

Can a theist understand an atheist? Sure. Most perhaps do not or do not want to rest in their understanding. But anyone who has doubts every about X, can understand people who do not believe X, if we are willing to spend time relating to those doubting moments and imagining them extended. Would this be perfect understanding? No. The same would go for atheists in the other direction, since they likely believe things they cannot prove to others, even if in more banal categories.

My point was that neither the atheist nor the theist understands the other, except in a superficial way, such as you mentioned.

[GaryLouisSmith]

I think many atheists believe that a theist is merely someone who has failed to think through matters of existence. Perhaps a theist is mentally ill or mentally inadequate for thought. Or he is afraid and worried about what his acquaintances will think. Or perhaps he is just mentally lazy. What about evidence? Why can't a theist see the lack of evidence for a God? Surely, he muses, if the theist truly looked at the lack of evidence, he would, if honest, change his mind? He will never understand atheism.

Theists base their theology on faith, which is belief in the absence of proof.

Atheists base their anti-theology on the fallacy of argument from ignorance, which means having neither proof nor absence of proof you/they ass-u-me one or the other. Either way these assumptions are a fallacy to logic and rationalism.

Don't forget about the other two categories of thinking on this topic of God -- namely (3) deism and (4) agnosticism.

A deist and the theist are not the same thing. You may want to google these and read the wiki's on them to find out.

Just as an agnostic and an atheist are not the same thing either.

So your word for the day is Deist.

Good Morning _S, I am well acquainted with deism vs. theism. I am a theist, not a deist. As I understand the difference, a theist such as I - I'm not going to speak for all theists nor am I going to play dictionary - believes in God and the gods because of something directly experienced, while a deist merely infers that there is a God because of certain other experiences he has. Direct experience vs. inference. The question of whether or not one, i.e. a human being, can directly experience God or a god is an age-old question. In Protestantism, it was the Charismatics, such as Wesley, who said Yes, vs. the Calvinists, who said No. I say Yes. Once I was in Istanbul, watching some Whirling Dirvishes. Later, in a tourist gathering with the Imam, I asked if the Dirvishes saw God in their ecstasy or just an image of God. The Imam, very forcefully, insisted that they saw God directly, not an image.

[Felix]

GaryLouisSmith wrote: As I understand the difference, a theist such as I - I'm not going to speak for all theists nor am I going to play dictionary - believes in God and the gods because of something directly experienced, while a deist merely infers that there is a God because of certain other experiences he has. Direct experience vs. inference.

By your definition, the beliefs of both theists and deists can be based on direct experience, but the theists conception is a more literal one.

the theist believes in God and the gods because of something directly experienced

Would you please give an example of such a "something directly experienced" and what distinguishes it from the deists "certain other experiences"? Sounds like you're just expressing your personal bias.

[h_k_s]

Theists base their theology on faith, which is belief in the absence of proof.

Atheists base their anti-theology on the fallacy of argument from ignorance, which means having neither proof nor absence of proof you/they ass-u-me one or the other. Either way these assumptions are a fallacy to logic and rationalism.

Don't forget about the other two categories of thinking on this topic of God -- namely (3) deism and (4) agnosticism.

A deist and the theist are not the same thing. You may want to google these and read the wiki's on them to find out.

Just as an agnostic and an atheist are not the same thing either.

So your word for the day is Deist.

Good Morning _S, I am well acquainted with deism vs. theism. I am a theist, not a deist. As I understand the difference, a theist such as I - I'm not going to speak for all theists nor am I going to play dictionary - believes in God and the gods because of something directly experienced, while a deist merely infers that there is a God because of certain other experiences he has. Direct experience vs. inference. The question of whether or not one, i.e. a human being, can directly experience God or a god is an age-old question. In Protestantism, it was the Charismatics, such as Wesley, who said Yes, vs. the Calvinists, who said No. I say Yes. Once I was in Istanbul, watching some Whirling Dirvishes. Later, in a tourist gathering with the Imam, I asked if the Dirvishes saw God in their ecstasy or just an image of God. The Imam, very forcefully, insisted that they saw God directly, not an image.

I have a simpler explanation of these terms, FYI in case you are interested.

Theist -- believes in a God or Gods and believes that God or Gods is/are watching over him/her.

Deist -- believes in a God or Gods and believes that God or Gods is/are distant and not watching over him/her and that instead he/she is on their own.

Agnostic -- believes it is not possible to know if there is a God or no god.

Atheist -- believes there is no God.

Each of these is a belief system. So each of these believes in something.

I normally believe that I will have another drink.

:D

[GaryLouisSmith]

Good Morning _S, I am well acquainted with deism vs. theism. I am a theist, not a deist. As I understand the difference, a theist such as I - I'm not going to speak for all theists nor am I going to play dictionary - believes in God and the gods because of something directly experienced, while a deist merely infers that there is a God because of certain other experiences he has. Direct experience vs. inference. The question of whether or not one, i.e. a human being, can directly experience God or a god is an age-old question. In Protestantism, it was the Charismatics, such as Wesley, who said Yes, vs. the Calvinists, who said No. I say Yes. Once I was in Istanbul, watching some Whirling Dirvishes. Later, in a tourist gathering with the Imam, I asked if the Dirvishes saw God in their ecstasy or just an image of God. The Imam, very forcefully, insisted that they saw God directly, not an image.

I have a simpler explanation of these terms, FYI in case you are interested.

Theist -- believes in a God or Gods and believes that God or Gods is/are watching over him/her.

Deist -- believes in a God or Gods and believes that God or Gods is/are distant and not watching over him/her and that instead he/she is on their own.

Agnostic -- believes it is not possible to know if there is a God or no god.

Atheist -- believes there is no God.

Each of these is a belief system. So each of these believes in something.

I normally believe that I will have another drink.

I’m not much into definitions. That is pretty much a rationalist’s game and I am definitely not a rationalist. As I mentioned, I am an extreme or radical empiricist.

I’m also gay, an in-your-face, come-and-get-it f*ggot. And that is my relation to God, so why would I want a distant God who doesn’t even know I am here waiting. To each his own I say. Yes, I am still a theist, according to your schoolmarmish “definitions”, I guess.

[LuckyR]

While your comments fit some atheist's thoughts, they are addressing a nonproblem. Theism doesn't need to be "explained". Currently it is the default position. In most of the world those who are religious, that is, most people, are religious because their families are religious and thus they were brought up religious. No deep contemplation required. OTOH, if such people end up atheistic, a certain amount of thought is required to break away from their upbringing.

So do you think a theist can understand atheism? I mean really understand it.

A couple of things: first, theists CAN truly understand atheism, since statistically a large proportion of atheists used to be theists. Second, it is not clear to me if you are saying "can theists truly understand atheism... and yet remain theists? Is that your point?

[GaryLouisSmith]

So do you think a theist can understand atheism? I mean really understand it.

A couple of things: first, theists CAN truly understand atheism, since statistically a large proportion of atheists used to be theists. Second, it is not clear to me if you are saying "can theists truly understand atheism... and yet remain theists? Is that your point?

Yes, that's my point.

[Consul]

Good Morning _S, I am well acquainted with deism vs. theism. I am a theist, not a deist. As I understand the difference, a theist such as I - I'm not going to speak for all theists nor am I going to play dictionary - believes in God and the gods because of something directly experienced, while a deist merely infers that there is a God because of certain other experiences he has. Direct experience vs. inference.

Deists usually appeal to reason rather than experience.

"Deism, according to the Oxford English Dictionary, is the 'distinctive doctrine or belief of a deist; usually, belief in the existence of a Supreme Being as the source of finite existence, with rejection of revelation and the supernatural doctrines of Christianity; 'natural religion'.'
Deism is theism shaken and stirred – but it is theism nonetheless. It defines itself vis-à-vis theism by denying, in varying degrees, the supernatural and revelatory aspects of theism. Deists see true religion as based on reason, as fundamentally ethical or equivalent to morality, and as available to all people (even the very stupid and very intelligent?) at all times with no need for divine intervention in history – which in any case they deny. Deism bluntly denies that justice or God’s goodness is compatible with a religion that makes salvation or well-being dependent upon any revelation in history which would thereby exclude some people from its very possibility."
(p. 277)

"Being parasitic on theism, as well as symbiotic with it, deism may be the least interesting of all historically prominent alternative concepts of deity. Although deists generally deny it, deism appears to regard religion – considered as anything other than morality – as otiose. They acknowledge a creator but see religion as basically reducible to morality and morality as accessible only to collective human reason. If deists allow that historical religious traditions express the moral core of religion in particular ways (Christianity always seen as the best), the force of the reduction of religion to morality is mitigated but not removed.

One strand of deism makes religion doubly unnecessary. lt sees God as deus absconditus, God is not merely hidden but absent. It entertains the notion of God as creator, but rejecting divine intervention in history, revelation, and other supernaturalisms, such deism denies God any further role in creation. It denies that much about God can be ascertained by contemplating creation. Deism in this vein does little to explore its implications other than to claim that ordinary theistic practice like prayer is misguided.
…
This idea that God abandoned his creation may seem negative and on some interpretations it is. If God abandoned creation so that one no longer has recourse to God through religion, then what can the role of religion be for enlightening humankind? Answers vary, but one general deistic response takes the bull by the horns and turns to humanism. There is no role for religion in any traditional sense. People and nations cannot rely on divine guidance (there is none). They must rely on reason (including truths of human nature revealed by novelists, dramatists, and poets), science, moral sentiment and ethics generally, for guidance on how to live well and justly. These are the essential ingredients to a worldview and ethos consonant with the idea that God is not active in human affairs. Leaving issues of creation and immortality aside, this deistic view is barely, if at all, different than thoroughgoing humanism, or the views of Hume, Freud, Marx, or Darwinians on religion.

The majority of deists, however, turn the notion of a deus absconditus into a deus ex machina (god of the machine), where God has providentially done his work in creation by providing humans with reason, which is all that is necessary to working out their own salvation. Some deists (Kant) also believe that historically grounded religions may play a role in symbolically and approximately representing the deeper truths of religion based solely on reason. Historical religions are more readily accessible to the majority and so have a crucial, even necessary, role to play as reason gains the upper hand in history. And many deists are unwilling to give up theism’s promise of personal immortality, which they regard as a demand of reason and justice."
(pp. 278-9)

(Levine, Michael. "Non-Theistic Conceptions of God." In The Routledge Companion to Philosophy of Religion, 2nd ed., edited by Chad Meister and Paul Copan, 272-283. Abingdon: Routledge, 2013.)

[Consul]

About atheism, there is nothing to understand. Like most theists you seem to think that atheism is some sort of belief system, when, of course it is nothing of the kind.
It is simply a negation of a belief system; not one but a series of connected and disconnected belief systems, all of which fail to amount to a serious set of claims.

"Atheism" can mean "negative atheism" or "nontheism" ("the nonbelief in the existence of God or gods"), and it can mean "positive atheism" or "antitheism" ("the belief in the nonexistence of God or gods"). (Note that I use "antitheism" in the purely theoretical, metaphysical sense, i.e. without any practical, political implications.)

[GaryLouisSmith]

About atheism, there is nothing to understand. Like most theists you seem to think that atheism is some sort of belief system, when, of course it is nothing of the kind.
It is simply a negation of a belief system; not one but a series of connected and disconnected belief systems, all of which fail to amount to a serious set of claims.

"Atheism" can mean "negative atheism" or "nontheism" ("the nonbelief in the existence of God or gods"), and it can mean "positive atheism" or "antitheism" ("the belief in the nonexistence of God or gods"). (Note that I use "antitheism" in the purely theoretical, metaphysical sense, i.e. without any practical, political implications.)

So, without quoting authority figures, Consul, what do you yourself believe? I much prefer to read your words, rather than someone else's.

[Consul]

So, without quoting authority figures, Consul, what do you yourself believe? I much prefer to read your words, rather than someone else's.

I'm a positive atheist/antitheist.
If to understand theists is to know what they believe, then I understand them.

[GaryLouisSmith]

So, without quoting authority figures, Consul, what do you yourself believe? I much prefer to read your words, rather than someone else's.

I'm a positive atheist/antitheist.
If to understand theists is to know what they believe, then I understand them.

My point above is that knowing and understanding equals direct acquaintance with. I think in your definition one can understand something without any direct acquaintance with the object. I would say that I have a more radically empirical view of the matter, while you have a more rational view.

[Consul]

My point above is that knowing and understanding equals direct acquaintance with. I think in your definition one can understand something without any direct acquaintance with the object. I would say that I have a more radically empirical view of the matter, while you have a more rational view.

There's Russell's famous distinction between knowledge by acquaintance and knowledge by description. For example, I don't know the Pope in the sense of being personally acquainted with him, but I know something about him as a result of having read something about him.

[Karpel Tunnel]

My point was that neither the atheist nor the theist understands the other, except in a superficial way, such as you mentioned.

I don't think it has to be superficial. People tend to have ups and downs with their beliefs and believing and gaps - iow times when they do not believe or have strong doubt, or simply find themselves without the belief, especially in modern life where we are exposed to both theism and atheism, most of us, from early on. In the US say, most people will have met and experienced through media people with different beliefs or lacking the same beliefs or openly skeptical of same. And these will be there waiting for those moments when the theist in crisis or just staring at an industrial park, suddenly feels there is no God. So, these moments - minor dark night's of the soul or simply flowing into not believing . can provide a basis for understanding others.

Most people don't want to notice anomalies. And most people speak as if belief is a binary affair. I believe, period. There are no degrees or gaps. But there are.

[GaryLouisSmith]

My point above is that knowing and understanding equals direct acquaintance with. I think in your definition one can understand something without any direct acquaintance with the object. I would say that I have a more radically empirical view of the matter, while you have a more rational view.

There's Russell's famous distinction between knowledge by acquaintance and knowledge by description. For example, I don't know the Pope in the sense of being personally acquainted with him, but I know something about him as a result of having read something about him.

I have not completely formed my views on these epistemological questions, so I will have to get back to you on all that.