Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[JackDaydream]

I am aware that there are threads on the idea of proof of God's existence, as well as ones which look at at what is logical. Having come from a background of growing up in the belief systems of Christianity, especially Catholicism, I am aware of the worldview of belief in thr existence of God. It impacts on aspects of understanding, including ideas of design in the universe and matters of salvation and ethics.

I come from a perspective of the perennial aspects of religion, especially comparative religion In that respect, it may be that ideas of the transcendent and enlightenment are not related to a belief in an actual deity. In a previous thread, I asked about how people conceive of ideas of God, especially in relation to human ideas of God, which may involve anthromorphism and what is projected onto ideas and images of God.

There are often fierce debates between theism and atheism. What is it about and from a philosophy point of view, what difference does it make to all other systemis of thought to believe, or not believe, in the existence of God? To what extent is it a premise or conclusion within philosophy; and this may relate to intrinsic purpose and design in the universe. How do you answer this and how important is the question of ''God' in the larger scope of understanding the nature of reality? To what extent is the idea of God about understanding the inexplicable, or is this going into the territory of mysticism and, to what extent is mysticism valid in philosophical argument?

[Stoppelmann]

There are often fierce debates between theism and atheism. What is it about and from a philosophy point of view, what difference does it make to all other systemis of thought to believe, or not believe, in the existence of God? To what extent is it a premise or conclusion within philosophy; and this may relate to intrinsic purpose and design in the universe. How do you answer this and how important is the question of ''God' in the larger scope of understanding the nature of reality? To what extent is the idea of God about understanding the inexplicable, or is this going into the territory of mysticism and, to what extent is mysticism valid in philosophical argument?

Philosophically, it is a question of the nature of reality, whether there is reason to believe that there is a purpose behind our existence, or whether it is all just a coincidence, a confluence of favourable moments, circumstances and processes that happen to produce a species that reflects on and discusses its existence. It is also about the question of the basis of our ethical ideas, whether they are divine or human experiences. It is also about the question of what we know and how we came to know it, when did we awaken and acquire our present sentience?

I think that the question has more importance than commonly attributed to it, because we tend to regard ourselves as informed, intelligent beings, that can rationally account for their species, and give an account of what is known about history and the world. At the same time, there are many open questions that have not been answered, and which we sometimes have a feeling are being neglected in favour of the assurance that there is nothing left to surprise us. Religion was at some time demoted to the humanities, and duly disregarded as only fiction.

About the same time, an awareness grew that a mystical understanding would prevail, and thinkers like Paul Tillich and Pierre Teilhard de Chardin were grappling with the challenge of reconciling traditional Christian theology with modern scientific understandings of the world. Teilhard de Chardin said, "The Church of the future will be a cosmic Church. It will be the mystic realization of the ‘Body of Christ’. We will have no more Occidents or Orientals, but a universal humanity infused by the Divine."

I think that we can see this happening, with a growing appreciation that God is the name we give to the universal consciousness that finds expression in each of us, even though we seem to be disassociated and seem to have the task of re-associating with the ground of being we call God. Of course, there will be a struggle, just as there always is when a new paradigm comes along.

[JackDaydream]

There are often fierce debates between theism and atheism. What is it about and from a philosophy point of view, what difference does it make to all other systemis of thought to believe, or not believe, in the existence of God? To what extent is it a premise or conclusion within philosophy; and this may relate to intrinsic purpose and design in the universe. How do you answer this and how important is the question of ''God' in the larger scope of understanding the nature of reality? To what extent is the idea of God about understanding the inexplicable, or is this going into the territory of mysticism and, to what extent is mysticism valid in philosophical argument?

Philosophically, it is a question of the nature of reality, whether there is reason to believe that there is a purpose behind our existence, or whether it is all just a coincidence, a confluence of favourable moments, circumstances and processes that happen to produce a species that reflects on and discusses its existence. It is also about the question of the basis of our ethical ideas, whether they are divine or human experiences. It is also about the question of what we know and how we came to know it, when did we awaken and acquire our present sentience?

I think that the question has more importance than commonly attributed to it, because we tend to regard ourselves as informed, intelligent beings, that can rationally account for their species, and give an account of what is known about history and the world. At the same time, there are many open questions that have not been answered, and which we sometimes have a feeling are being neglected in favour of the assurance that there is nothing left to surprise us. Religion was at some time demoted to the humanities, and duly disregarded as only fiction.

About the same time, an awareness grew that a mystical understanding would prevail, and thinkers like Paul Tillich and Pierre Teilhard de Chardin were grappling with the challenge of reconciling traditional Christian theology with modern scientific understandings of the world. Teilhard de Chardin said, "The Church of the future will be a cosmic Church. It will be the mystic realization of the ‘Body of Christ’. We will have no more Occidents or Orientals, but a universal humanity infused by the Divine."

I think that we can see this happening, with a growing appreciation that God is the name we give to the universal consciousness that finds expression in each of us, even though we seem to be disassociated and seem to have the task of re-associating with the ground of being we call God. Of course, there will be a struggle, just as there always is when a new paradigm comes along.

Thank you for your detailed reply and I am glad that you appreciate the basis of my question, which is about the nature of reality itself. It links the question of whether there is a God, materialism vs idealism and the issue of what is consciousness? It does seem that in the light of science and especially neuroscience that many have come to reduce all to materialism. Even then, it can be asked what is matter and where does it come from?

I have read some of Paul Tillich's writing and he sees God as Being Itself as opposed to 'a Being'. This involves God not as a mere transcendent deity but as imminent, as consciousness itself. It parallels with Shopenhauer's way of making Kant's idea of the numinous as realised in the Will of life itself, even though he did not subscribe to a literal form of theism. In a similar way, Buddhists and thinkers from the Perennial philosophy tradition don't speak of a God as such but give value to an underlying source and the value of consciousness.

What may have happened is that many have latched onto the idea of God in the form of fundamentalist views of God, almost as a gross caricature of what it signifies. This may have given rise to a form of fundamentalist atheism, in which everything is seen in a deterministic materialistic way, but also as a result of sheer accidental randomness. Even here, there is contradiction between a clockwork mechanistic picture and randomness. It misses out the nature of complexity and laws of nature. Even within chaos theory, although there is a background of underlying chaos, a general emergent order is perceived to exist.

[AgentSmith]

Some say one thing and others say another thing. Why? A survey of the corpuses on religion and philosophy should be fruitful. It's going to be difficult, but heeding the words of a few wisdom-seekers should get you to your destination without any major mishaps along the way.

What exactly is your goal? Does it even matter? These questions and there are more, should put you on the right path to catalepsy in re such matters.

Your concern is as old as the hills and what that necessarily implies is obvious.

"Look at the bill, Dick. Our pal has been to America!"

"Not necessarily, Tom, not necessarily!"

"Why, whatever do you mean?!!"

"Oak tree, Tobelorone wrapper, old man with dog, ring any bells?"

"Hahaha, Toyota with a broken backlight?"

"Bingo!"

[Stoppelmann]

Thank you for your detailed reply and I am glad that you appreciate the basis of my question, which is about the nature of reality itself. It links the question of whether there is a God, materialism vs idealism and the issue of what is consciousness? It does seem that in the light of science and especially neuroscience that many have come to reduce all to materialism. Even then, it can be asked what is matter and where does it come from?

This has been a subject mentioned in the thread on “Do You Believe in an Afterlife? Why? Any Evidence?”, referencing Bernardo Kastrup’s essay, “A rational, empirical case for post-mortem survival based solely on mainstream science.” It is available here: https://medecineetconscience.com/wp-con ... astrup.pdf

I have read some of Paul Tillich's writing and he sees God as Being Itself as opposed to 'a Being'. This involves God not as a mere transcendent deity but as imminent, as consciousness itself. It parallels with Shopenhauer's way of making Kant's idea of the numinous as realised in the Will of life itself, even though he did not subscribe to a literal form of theism. In a similar way, Buddhists and thinkers from the Perennial philosophy tradition don't speak of a God as such but give value to an underlying source and the value of consciousness.

Our big problem when talking about God is our anthropomorphism, which the Bible makes very clear is not appropriate, and still Christians use it to dramatize their message, which is okay as long as you know you are doing it. When I see people in fervent prayer I think of a poem by CS Lewis "A Footnote to All Prayers":

He whom I bow to only knows to whom I bow
When I attempt the ineffable Name, murmuring Thou,
And dream of Pheidian fancies and embrace in heart
Symbols (I know) which cannot be the thing Thou art.
Thus always, taken at their word, all prayers blaspheme
Worshipping with frail images a folk-lore dream,
And all men in their praying, self-deceived, address
The coinage of their own unquiet thoughts, unless
Thou in magnetic mercy to Thyself divert
Our arrows, aimed unskillfully, beyond desert;
And all men are idolaters, crying unheard
To a deaf idol, if Thou take them at their word.

Take not, oh Lord, our literal sense. Lord, in thy great,
Unbroken speech our limping metaphor translate.

What may have happened is that many have latched onto the idea of God in the form of fundamentalist views of God, almost as a gross caricature of what it signifies. This may have given rise to a form of fundamentalist atheism, in which everything is seen in a deterministic materialistic way, but also as a result of sheer accidental randomness. Even here, there is contradiction between a clockwork mechanistic picture and randomness. It misses out the nature of complexity and laws of nature. Even within chaos theory, although there is a background of underlying chaos, a general emergent order is perceived to exist.

I think this has been a problem, with fundamentalist views being so loud and present, especially in America, but also in Europe for a while in the 1990s when Billy Graham led his “crusade” here. It caused two reactions, and people either loved it or hated it, causing a clear divide between the fundamentalists and the historical-critical school, which I experienced quite personally. I was one of those speakers in church meetings who both sides seemed to appropriate or disagree with, with some calling me “charismatic” and others “theologically grounded,” but I had a feeling that they disagreed with each other about what I had said, which does beg the question, whether they only heard what they wanted to hear.

The problem is that things that “matter” in our world are only those of materialistic importance, and when you are in that mindset, it seems you can’t just look out of the box. When you hear of evangelicals wanting to force Armageddon, in the hope that Christ will reappear, they have a very materialist vision, and are willing to see the world burn for that. On the other hand, everything about God is impossible for people who say that astronauts didn’t find God out there, for whom consciousness comes out of matter. Lateral thinkers were always a challenge to institutions, whether it is a religious, political, or a scientific institution, and prophets, mystics, sages, healers, and also scientists and philosophers have been exiled and killed for contradicting the status quo, the standard worldview, especially in the ancient world. Today, lateral thinkers can still lose their job if their ideas are not embraced.

[Stoppelmann]

I just discovered this, which could be a valuable contribution to the discussion:
https://unherd.com/2023/04/the-death-of ... privilege/

[EricPH]

Believing, or not believing has little meaning. The challenge is, what do your beliefs inspire you to do, how much do you really trust in God? I can sit here and say, I believe parachuting is safe. But the only time I put my trust in parachuting, is when I put one on, go up in a plane and jump.

Faith and trust in God has helped me for the last fifteen years, when I go out with the Street Pastors. We wonder the streets of our town until 3-4 am, to listen, care and help when we can. We meet lots of wonderful people, troubled and those suffering the darkest of despair. We have walked in the middle of many fights, including times when broken bottles have been used as weapons.

Faith and trust in God; has helped me to find a profound sense of peace; when I am out on the streets.

[Sy Borg]

I'm with Camus on this. Belief in the supernatural is one way to deal with the absurdity of being a meaning-seeking animal in an uncaring universe.

[JackDaydream]

I am sorry that I have not written replies or contributed to the thread which I started, because I haven't felt too well (with a broken elbow). However, what I have been thinking about is the tension between rational thinking and psychological aspects, as captured in William James' notion of, 'The Will to Believe'. James was a pragmatist.

The rational basis of ideas and psychology vary in many different stages in an individual's life journey, especially in relation to belief in God. This has a profound aspects for motivation and faith. In speaking of faith this is not exclusive to religious believers because faith is an inherent aspect of construction of a picture of reality.

[Sy Borg]

There's the rub. Faith is inherent and spontaneous. You can't decide to believe something - you either believe, disbelieve or question.

So religious demands to believe are manipulative. They do not expect belief, but obedience. Very understandable, given what a wild bunch of loons humans were in that place and time. Leaders had to do something to stop people from killing, raping and robbing each other like a troupe of chimps, in the hope of forming a functional and civilised society, or at least "civilised" according to the standards of the time.

Good on the old Christians. They helped to make modern civilisation possible, but it's psychologically unhealthy to take on board ancient schemes designed to keep people under control without considering context.

There are timeless passages in the Bible, just as there were timeless observations by ancient Greek and Roman philosophers. However, the Bible is a blend of many things - mythology, history, politics, art, ethics, civics, psychology, propaganda (pity the hatchet job they did on the poor old Canaanites), etc - all rolled up in a single book. The ancients did not specialise - knowledge was just knowledge - not split into categories.

[LuckyR]

There's the rub. Faith is inherent and spontaneous. You can't decide to believe something - you either believe, disbelieve or question.

So religious demands to believe are manipulative. They do not expect belief, but obedience. Very understandable, given what a wild bunch of loons humans were in that place and time. Leaders had to do something to stop people from killing, raping and robbing each other like a troupe of chimps, in the hope of forming a functional and civilised society, or at least "civilised" according to the standards of the time.

Good on the old Christians. They helped to make modern civilisation possible, but it's psychologically unhealthy to take on board ancient schemes designed to keep people under control without considering context.

There are timeless passages in the Bible, just as there were timeless observations by ancient Greek and Roman philosophers. However, the Bible is a blend of many things - mythology, history, politics, art, ethics, civics, psychology, propaganda (pity the hatchet job they did on the poor old Canaanites), etc - all rolled up in a single book. The ancients did not specialise - knowledge was just knowledge - not split into categories.

The ability to create and then believe in the nonphysical is what separates H sapiens from all the other humans and of course from other animals. As you cite it allowed large groups to coalesce and great projects to be completed.

But we shouldn't look down on god myths while we believe in current myths like the legal system, the financial system and corporations. They all have their place.

[Sy Borg]

There's the rub. Faith is inherent and spontaneous. You can't decide to believe something - you either believe, disbelieve or question.

So religious demands to believe are manipulative. They do not expect belief, but obedience. Very understandable, given what a wild bunch of loons humans were in that place and time. Leaders had to do something to stop people from killing, raping and robbing each other like a troupe of chimps, in the hope of forming a functional and civilised society, or at least "civilised" according to the standards of the time.

Good on the old Christians. They helped to make modern civilisation possible, but it's psychologically unhealthy to take on board ancient schemes designed to keep people under control without considering context.

There are timeless passages in the Bible, just as there were timeless observations by ancient Greek and Roman philosophers. However, the Bible is a blend of many things - mythology, history, politics, art, ethics, civics, psychology, propaganda (pity the hatchet job they did on the poor old Canaanites), etc - all rolled up in a single book. The ancients did not specialise - knowledge was just knowledge - not split into categories.

The ability to create and then believe in the nonphysical is what separates H sapiens from all the other humans and of course from other animals. As you cite it allowed large groups to coalesce and great projects to be completed.

But we shouldn't look down on god myths while we believe in current myths like the legal system, the financial system and corporations. They all have their place.

I would think that the main difference between humans and other animals is technology, made possible by our big brains and manual dexterity. What was religion but a form of social technology - a means to control the "machinery" of societies? Language is another form of social technology that made a great difference. It should be said that Neanderthals were believed to be intellectually similar to H. sapiens (hence all the cross-breeding).

Religions have been given plenty enough respect IMO. In fact, they basically had a free run until people realised that they were using the freedom that came from being implicitly trusted as "good people" to rape young boys.

I don't think that religions should be entirely rejected any more than Christian colonists (ie. invaders) should have entirely rejected the knowledge of indigenous people. In that instance, the Christians threw the baby out with the bathwater, and numerous environmental disasters from naive land management followed because so much environmental knowledge was lost.

Ultimately, I think the most important lesson from religions is that humans are not the be-all-and-end-all, that there are far larger forces at play of which we are just a part. Sadly, this lesson warning against anthropocentrism has been reversed, with theists believing that humans are potentially divine, resulting in great cruelty and ruthlessness being shown to other denizens of the planet.

[JackDaydream]

There's the rub. Faith is inherent and spontaneous. You can't decide to believe something - you either believe, disbelieve or question.

So religious demands to believe are manipulative. They do not expect belief, but obedience. Very understandable, given what a wild bunch of loons humans were in that place and time. Leaders had to do something to stop people from killing, raping and robbing each other like a troupe of chimps, in the hope of forming a functional and civilised society, or at least "civilised" according to the standards of the time.

Good on the old Christians. They helped to make modern civilisation possible, but it's psychologically unhealthy to take on board ancient schemes designed to keep people under control without considering context.

There are timeless passages in the Bible, just as there were timeless observations by ancient Greek and Roman philosophers. However, the Bible is a blend of many things - mythology, history, politics, art, ethics, civics, psychology, propaganda (pity the hatchet job they did on the poor old Canaanites), etc - all rolled up in a single book. The ancients did not specialise - knowledge was just knowledge - not split into categories.

The problem which you identify is more about the practical applications of belief in God, especially the political aspects of Christianity. There has been so much corruption done under the banner of belief in God, which is the exact opposite of the message of Christ's teachings. This is more a demonstration of human hypocrisy rather than showing whether God does or does not exist.

[JackDaydream]

I'm with Camus on this. Belief in the supernatural is one way to deal with the absurdity of being a meaning-seeking animal in an uncaring universe.

To a large extent, the question of the existence of God may come down to the issue of the supernatural. For the last couple of years, I have maintained that the idea of the existence of God depends on language and framing. However, I have been wondering recently if I am sidestepping from the underlying philosophical issue.

One book which I have been reading recently is , 'Miracles', by CS Lewis. The author gives an in depth discussion of the ideas of the natural and supernatural. One important passage is:
'The difference between Naturalism and Supernaturalism is not exactly the same as the difference between belief in God and disbelief. Naturalism, without ceasing to be itself, could admit a certain kind of God. The great interlocking event called Nature might be such as to produce at some stage a great cosmic consciousness, an indwelling 'God' arising from the whole process as human mind arises (according to the Naturalists) from human organisms... What Naturalism cannot accept is the idea of a God who stands outside Nature and made it.'
As far as I see the aspect of anything 'outside Nature', may be the essential aspect to any belief in the existence of God, including Deism, in which there is the idea of God as the initial cause behind the scenes of the creation.

[JackDaydream]

Having read the book; 'Miracles' by CS Lewis, I have to admit that I am not clearer in my answer to the existence of God. CS Lewis's argument does include miracles as proof of the supernatural. Nevertheless, he acknowledges David Hume's scepticism and admits that some stories of miracles may be exaggerations. Personally, although I was brought up with a literal teaching of the Bible I find it hard to disentangle the literal and the symbolic. Also, the scope of comparative religion is important too.

My own current impasse also incorporates Lewis's query about the limitations of the terms nature and supernatural. He says, .
'Just because the Naturalist thinks that nothing but Nature exists, the word 'Nature' means to him merely 'everything' or 'the whole show' or 'whatever there is'. The real question between him and the supernaturalist has evaded us. Some philosophers have defined Nature as, 'What we perceive with our five senses'. But this also is unsatisfactory...'

Even though many have argued that God exists or does not existed in a clear way, I see it as the hardest question in philosophy, because it is about the nature of reality itself. Perhaps, I am adopting the agnostic position in seeing the limitations of human knowledge and understanding...Nevertheless, I keep the question open in my own philosophy quest as even though it is so difficult it is at the core of most other central questions.