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

[FrankSophia]

Also, to actually stop the conversation just stop replying to me.

How dare you grab my attention just to tell me to stop grabbing yours.

[Thomyum2]

As an atheist, I still find myself uttering phrases such as “Oh, my god!”, “God only knows!”, “Heaven help us!”, “Why the hell did you do that?”… I don’t think that this is an indication that I haven’t fully ditched religion; that I still harbor belief in god(s) or hopes of ending up in heaven and not hell when I die. It’s just habit, and an indication of how deeply these expressions, which denote shock, surprise, fear, etcetera, are imbedded in our language. I understand that they just express emotions and that they do not refer to anything that I consider to be unreal such as gods, heaven or hell. By continuing to utter them, I don’t think I’m subconsciously trying to keep a foot in both camps.

On the spectrum of belief in the supernatural, it seems to me that there are atheists like me at one end and, at the other end of the spectrum, there are fully practicing religious believers who organize their lives around religion, some of whom even go around knocking on doors in an effort to convert others to their religion. Between these extremes there are agnostics who just don’t know. I this middle area, I understand that there are also those who call themselves “non-religious but spiritual”. Some of these even say that they don’t believe in anything supernatural and yet they still call themselves “spiritual”.

It may be an indication of my own limitations, but I have trouble getting my head around this section of the middle area of the spectrum. If one does not believe in the supernatural then surely one is an atheist, no? What does it mean, what could it mean, to be a “spiritual” atheist? Is it just trying to keep a foot in both camps? Is there a way to be a spiritual atheist and still maintain a straight face? Are there any spiritual atheists here who could tell us how they manage it?

I think you've asked a thought-provoking question. In considering it, I find it helpful to refer to William James' working definition of religion that he offers in The Varieties of Religious Experience, and which I believe can be applied also to what's commonly called 'spirituality' as well:

Were one asked to characterize the life of religion in the broadest and most general terms possible, one might say that it consists of the belief that there is an unseen order, and our supreme good lies in harmoniously adjusting ourselves thereto.

Like James, I think that this is what lies at the heart of both theistic belief and non-religious spirituality - the sense that there is more to our life than just our mere physical existence and that we are called to something beyond it. Though some people find that they can best give expression to this understanding of an unseen order through participation in religious communities or traditions that involve belief in God, others find it more meaningful to articulate this in other ways that don't involve the concept of gods or religions at all. But I think the essence is the same, and in fact I'd argue that in its most rudimentary form, religion or spirituality is akin to morality: the deep sense that other persons or living beings have rights and that we have duties to honor those rights - these ideas are precisely the kind of 'unseen order' that James is describing and that virtually all humans are naturally drawn to 'adjust ourselves thereto' in one way or another, whether religious or not. Religions are just differently structured approaches to the same questions about how and why we should live. So it does not seem contradictory to me at all for an atheist to consider themselves 'spiritual'. Actually, I'd suggest that the opposite of spiritual is materialist - one who sees no purpose beyond their own material existence - rather than atheist.

I see religious beliefs not as collections of facts about the ultimate nature of reality, but rather as beliefs which allow us to understand a sense of purpose in our lives and orient ourselves to it. James, in fact, was influenced by Charles Peirce, who understood beliefs to be 'rules for action'. Quoting James again:

Mr. Peirce, after pointing out that our beliefs are really rules for action, said that, to develop a thought’s meaning, we need only determine what conduct it is fitted to produce: that conduct is for us its sole significance.

God, however one might define the term, is really part of a set of complex foundational beliefs by which a person orients their life and directs their own moral purpose and their actions in life. For some people, that belief may take the form of a living, conscious and intelligent entity, but for others it may be simply an inner sense of what is right and good. But ultimately, these are the same. With this understanding, one could argue that many more people actually have gods that just those who identify them as such.

[Lagayascienza]

Thanks for that really thoughtful response, Thomyum2. It reminds me a lot of how Einstein viewed things. He didn't believe in a personal god but he did believe that there was an underlying, hidden order to the universe which provoked a sense of awe and reverence. I think that is a form of spirituality that I, as an atheist can, can feel comfortable with. And I liked the way you linked spirituality to our moral sentiments. Of course, we cannot prove this in any scientific way but I have an intuition that my strong sense of morality is somehow linked to this underlying order to the universe. Thanks for putting things in terms that make sense to me. It was a pleasure to read.

[Lagayascienza]

Oh, and I forgot to mention. This form of spirituality sits very well with my meditation practice. The feeling I get of union with with an underlying reality is very real to me. But it has nothing to do with the gods of organized religion and is far removed from all the evils that attach thereto.

[Lagayascienza]

I find it strange how some people think that it's up to those who dispute a claim to disprove a negative. For example, I don't believe claims such as "there is a pink teapot in orbit around Mars". I believe for many sound reasons that this claim is vanishingly unlikely to be true. And if someone then turns around and says, but you cannot prove it's not true, I don't feel it's up to me to prove it's not true. It's up to the person making the extraordinary claim to provide evidence for it. Saying simply that nobody cannot prove it is not true, is no argument in favor of the claim, and no reason for agnosticism on the issue. As I see it, it's the same for claims about gods, fairies, ESP, astrology, etcetera. If people want to convince others of the likely truth of such extraordinary claims the best way to do so is to provide evidence for them. They are never able to do so because there is no such evidence, and just saying, well, you cannot prove fairies are not true, is no argument at all. It's just a philosophically bad move. And it's childish.

There's a lot to unravel here, but there are several strands that can be identified and discussed. Perhaps the most fundamental one is binary thinking? You seem to think that if you do not "believe" (i.e. accept) something, you must reject it, or vice versa. Not so.

You claim a commitment to logic, but seem unwilling to follow it. If you would like to determine whether something is true or false, but have no logically-sufficient reason to justify either conclusion — perhaps because of a lack of evidence? That's the usual reason — then you must accept a third possibility: "maybe"/"unresolved"/"don't know".

And so, if we apply logic — and let's apply no other tool but logic, for simplicity and clarity — to "there is a pink teapot in orbit around Mars", we discover that we have no logically-sufficient reason to dismiss it. But that does not mean that we must accept it. The third option now comes into play: the matter is unresolved, maybe even unresolvable. To accept would be illogical (i.e. not in accord with the rules of logic). To reject would be illogical (i.e. not in accord with the rules of logic). If we accept and abide by the rules of logic, we are compelled not to reach a conclusion, because there is no logically-sufficient reason to do so.

The practical way to deal with all this is to accept the above, but not to feel compelled to deal with a problem that holds less interest for us than other problems do. There are a near-infinite number of 'maybes' that we could choose to consider, and only a few philosophers or scientists to consider them, it doesn't really matter which of them we choose to examine. We have to apply 'common sense'.

So I agree with you, that the pink teapot idea doesn't interest me. And so I choose to set it aside, in favour of ideas that interest me more. But, if I am to remain in accordance with logic, I may not reject it, but only set it aside, and put it back on the Maybe pile, where it should probably remain, gathering dust.



Another strand we could consider is likelihood, or probability, if we formalise our use of a statistical vocabulary. You happily claim that some things are unlikely/improbable — "vanishingly unlikely" — when you have no means or technique that might justify such a conclusion. And again, we return to conclusions reached without logical justification. Without evidence, logic tells us there is no valid argument that could lead to a logically-valid conclusion. And statistics can't work in the absence of data (evidence).

Saying simply that nobody cannot prove it is not true, is no argument in favor of the claim, and no reason for agnosticism on the issue.

The first part is correct; the latter part is not. Agnosticism is the Maybe option, it neither accepts nor rejects. It is the only conclusion that is in accord with logic, when there is no valid argument that would allow a firmer conclusion. And so, in the final words of your sentence, "there is *every* reason for agnosticism on the issue"

Some claims are true a priori just as a matter of logic: 1=1=2, is indisputably true. It cannot be logically questioned.

Similarly, syllogisms such as:

All unmarried men are bachelors. (major premise)
Joe is an unmarried man. (minor premise)
Therefore, Joe is a bachelor. (Conclusion)

are true by definition - that is, they are made true by the meanings of the words “unmarried”, “men”, “man” and “bachelor” and the conclusion is validly implied by the premises.

However, arguments of the following form are invalid:
There is a pink ping pong ball in retrograde orbit around the asteroid Athamantis. (major premise)
No one can prove there is not a pink ping pong ball in retrograde orbit around Athamantis. (minor premise)
Therefore, we would be wise to keep an open mind on the question of whether there is a pink ping pong ball in retrograde orbit around Athamantis. (Conclusion)

The problem with this is that the major premise is overwhelmingly likely to be false. The second premise is probably true in practical terms for the present. However, given the virtually 100% certainty of the falsity of the first premise, the conclusion does not follow.
Believers in various sorts of supernaturalism often come up with similar premises in the belief that they can form part of a valid syllogism. But they do not. We are therefore justified in rejecting their conclusions.

For example, if we substitute words such as “god”, “fairies”, “ESP”, “tarot”, “astrology” for “ping pong ball” in similarly constructed arguments to the one above, we can similarly reject their conclusions. The following is an example:

The universe exists.
The universe could not have existed without a god to create it.
Therefore, god exists

This argument is invalid because the second premise is untrue. It is logically possible and there are valid arguments and evidence to suggest that a god was not needed for the creation of the universe.

And the assertion “You can’t prove there is not a god, whilst true, is not an argument for the existence of a god. It doesn't even seem to be an argument for agnosticism on the issue. I challenge anyone to come up with a valid and sound argument for the existence of a god whose premises are true and which premises make it impossible for the conclusion to be false.

[chewybrian]

(I can speak on many religions in this way, because I have looked into each with insight rather than from ignorance)

(I am not religious because taking a position before inquiry is unreasonable)

(I favor philosophy because it provides tools to find out)

(I am a sage because I let go of ignorance)

Nobody is a sage.

The stoics understood that this was a goal to approach which could never be achieved. The oracle told Socrates that nobody was wiser, and he spent the rest of his life trying to disprove this assertion.

I don't recall Socrates calling people stupid or getting angry at them while at the same time asserting that they had no control over anything they did. I don't recall him telling people that they were so unworthy of his time and attention that he should not be required to support his positions. I don't recall Socrates or Epictetus or Marcus or Seneca claiming to be a sage.

Never call yourself a philosopher, nor talk a great deal among the unlearned about theorems, but act conformably to them. Thus, at an entertainment, don't talk how persons ought to eat, but eat as you ought. For remember that in this manner Socrates also universally avoided all ostentation. And when persons came to him and desired to be recommended by him to philosophers, he took and- recommended them, so well did he bear being overlooked. So that if ever any talk should happen among the unlearned concerning philosophic theorems, be you, for the most part, silent. For there is great danger in immediately throwing out what you have not digested. And, if anyone tells you that you know nothing, and you are not nettled at it, then you may be sure that you have begun your business. For sheep don't throw up the grass to show the shepherds how much they have eaten; but, inwardly digesting their food, they outwardly produce wool and milk. Thus, therefore, do you likewise not show theorems to the unlearned, but the actions produced by them after they have been digested., Epictetus, "The Enchiridion"

“What’s likely, gentlemen, is that in reality it’s the god who is wise, and that in this oracle he is saying that human wisdom is worth little or nothing ... as if he were saying ‘he among you humans is wisest who, like Socrates, knows that he’s really worth nothing when it comes to wisdom’.”
Socrates, in Plato’s "Apology"

[Lagayascienza]

As a summary of my post above, logic cannot be used to prove the existence of gods or ping pong balls in orbit around an asteroid out in the far reaches of space that humans have never visited. Neither do such arguments prove that we would be wise to be agnostic on such issues. Some other form of reasoning would be needed to persuade non-believers that orbiting ping pong balls, gods and other posited supernatural entities are real or to persuade them of the wisdom of being agnostic about such claims.

[FrankSophia]

Nobody is a sage.

The stoics understood that this was a goal to approach which could never be achieved. The oracle told Socrates that nobody was wiser, and he spent the rest of his life trying to disprove this assertion.

I don't recall Socrates calling people stupid or getting angry at them while at the same time asserting that they had no control over anything they did. I don't recall him telling people that they were so unworthy of his time and attention that he should not be required to support his positions. I don't recall Socrates or Epictetus or Marcus or Seneca claiming to be a sage.

Stoics believe only the sage is happy, so you're saying they actually mean no one is happy?

Would you like to discuss how your position relates to men like Diogenes instead? Most of his best stories are of him making Plato look like an idiot...

If you're right though I can just move to a different label, the most accurate I've found is brahmavadhut.

[Belindi]

What it you that brought up Advaita Vedanta?

Every Seguna has particular attributes, transcending this reveals Nirguna Brahman... this coincides with the same inquiry into the self through neti neti, and thus there is only nirguna.

This is jivanmukti... liberation from maya, matter.

Much of what you write here (that I've read) is either quantum physics jargon or Advaita Vedanta (I am guessing) jargon.Nevertheless from my limited knowledge of those I may see the notions you see. Can you express your interesting ideas in everyday language and assist my understanding ?

(BTW I conscienciously Googled Seguna and discovered no philosophical, or physics ,information.)

[FrankSophia]

Much of what you write here (that I've read) is either quantum physics jargon or Advaita Vedanta (I am guessing) jargon.Nevertheless from my limited knowledge of those I may see the notions you see. Can you express your interesting ideas in everyday language and assist my understanding ?

(BTW I conscienciously Googled Seguna and discovered no philosophical, or physics ,information.)

Seguna means with attributes, it is an important concept within Advaita.

I don't really want to teach you either topic though, I was addressing someone I thought was familiar with it...

[FrankSophia]

It's the same as Monad and Nous within philosophy.

Monad is nirguna, it is beyond all forms.

Nous is seguna, it is the primary form.

The psyche merges with nous to encounter the monad.

Neti neti is direct way to accomplish this.

[Lagayascienza]

I don’t pay any heed to religious doctrine or dogma. I hate it, and it's one of the reasons I hate organized religions - especially the Abrahamic sort. However, I do feel an affinity for forms of Advaita Vedanta that deny gods and souls. As I understand it, the central thesis of my form of Vedanta is that gods and souls are entities that don’t exist. There is only “Absolute Reality” or “Ground of All Being” which is an unchanging, eternal, reality beyond all human description or comprehension. As a scientismist, it might sound strange that I have no problem at all with this. But it is all I need in order for my form of meditation to sit well with my scientific understanding of the universe. The universe, the multiverse, (whatever you want to call it) and the laws of nature that govern it all, are a unity and the goal of meditation is to feel one’s unity with this eternal, unified reality. My form of meditation seems to put me in touch, however fleetingly and imperfectly, with this underlying reality - not with a scientific understanding of it, (for that, we have to do the hard scientific work ourselves) but with an acceptance and contentedness with not ever being able knowing everything in my limited state as a medium sized, bipedal Johnny-come-lately mammal on this planet. Looking at things this way does not conflict or compete with my scientific view of the universe. If it did, I’d put it on the backburner without a thought. I don't even call it spirituality. I'm an atheist. But, with this view, I don't need gods, devils, angels, holy books, monsters, miracles or anything supernatural. I can be happy accepting the universe insofar as I am capable of understanding it, and content that as limited being, I can never understand it completely. I'm not meant to. Nothing is meant.

[Stoppelmann]

I don’t pay any heed to religious doctrine or dogma. I hate it, and it's one of the reasons I hate organized religions - especially the Abrahamic sort. However, I do feel an affinity for forms of Advaita Vedanta that deny gods and souls. As I understand it, the central thesis of my form of Vedanta is that gods and souls are entities that don’t exist. There is only “Absolute Reality” or “Ground of All Being” which is an unchanging, eternal, reality beyond all human description or comprehension.

I don't know what your "form of Vedanta" is, but the central thesis of Vedanta is not that gods and souls do not exist but rather that the ultimate reality, often referred to as "Brahman," is the foundational and unchanging reality that underlies everything, including gods, souls, and the entire universe.
In Vedanta, Brahman is considered the ultimate reality, which is beyond all human description or comprehension. It is unchanging, eternal, and the source of all that exists. It is often described as formless, infinite, and beyond any specific attributes. It is the Ground of All Being in the sense that it is the foundational source and substance of the universe.

Vedanta also emphasizes the concept of "Atman," which is the individual soul or self. Atman is believed to be identical to Brahman, which means that the individual soul is not fundamentally separate from the ultimate reality. This is expressed in the famous saying "Aham Brahmasmi," which means "I am Brahman."

Although Vedanta does acknowledge the existence of gods and deities within the Hindu pantheon, it does not see them as the ultimate reality. Rather, they are considered manifestations or expressions of Brahman, representing various aspects of the divine. The gods and deities have a role in the religious and mythological aspects of Hinduism, but Vedanta seeks to transcend these representations to realize the oneness of the individual soul (Atman) with the ultimate reality (Brahman).

So, Vedanta doesn't deny the existence of gods and souls but places them in a broader metaphysical context where they are seen as relative and contingent aspects of the ultimate reality, Brahman. The goal of Vedanta is to attain self-realization or "moksha" by recognizing the identity of one's individual self (Atman) with the supreme reality (Brahman), thereby transcending the cycle of birth and death.

[chewybrian]

Nobody is a sage.

The stoics understood that this was a goal to approach which could never be achieved. The oracle told Socrates that nobody was wiser, and he spent the rest of his life trying to disprove this assertion.

I don't recall Socrates calling people stupid or getting angry at them while at the same time asserting that they had no control over anything they did. I don't recall him telling people that they were so unworthy of his time and attention that he should not be required to support his positions. I don't recall Socrates or Epictetus or Marcus or Seneca claiming to be a sage.

Stoics believe only the sage is happy, so you're saying they actually mean no one is happy?

I can't know the subjective experience of others, but I suspect there is a lot of truth to that. I don't really feel happy by studying and practicing philosophy. I'm just less angry, sad or afraid, and I function better and achieve most of what I set out to achieve. I could project that experience onto others, but that doesn't seem fair. The only people I've known that *seemed* truly happy to me were my grandmother and great aunt. I attribute this to their true belief in their religion. They never displayed their beliefs or tried to use them for power or prestige, or tried to argue that their beliefs implied any duty or restriction on anyone else. Yet, it seemed to me that their belief brought them a peace of mind few others seemed to have.

The Stoics also believed that our free will was a gift from God, a small piece of God within each of us. God was able to give us control over our opinions, desires, aversions and attitudes and nothing more. Thus, pretty much everything you've said in the last few days on various threads has disqualified you from consideration. For example, they believe in this special kind of compatibilism, rather than determinism.

Would you like to discuss how your position relates to men like Diogenes instead? Most of his best stories are of him making Plato look like an idiot...

Diogenes is interesting but not a valuable measuring stick for me. I sometimes recall, for example, that he discarded his cup when he saw a child drinking from his hand. I don't follow by discarding my coffee mug, but I use his example to make me feel that small 'sacrifices' like cooking at home rather than eating out are not so much of a burden that I can't bear them. Epictetus lived very simply but did not flaunt his simple lifestyle or take it to extremes as Diogenes did, and I prefer his example.

I mostly find value in Plato in his description of the life, thoughts and actions of Socrates. Thus, I would not choose him over Socrates any more than I would choose Arrian over Epictetus. Epictetus is the first person I call to mind when I wish to decide if my actions seem just or if my choices are likely to make my life better.

If you're right though I can just move to a different label, the most accurate I've found is brahmavadhut.

I'm disputing the concept, the sentiment, the very idea that one should claim that they are wise, not the choice of the label. It seems to me that the wise seldom if ever claim to be so, but rather let their ideas speak for themselves, and worry little if others see them as wise or not. In fact, I suspect that a wise man would not consider himself wise. This is what a seemingly wise man says to me which seems relevant:

"If you want to improve, be content to be thought foolish and stupid with regard to external things. Don't wish to be thought to know anything; and even if you appear to be somebody important to others, distrust yourself. For, it is difficult to both keep your faculty of choice in a state conformable to nature, and at the same time acquire external things. But while you are careful about the one, you must of necessity neglect the other., Epictetus, 'The Enchiridion'"

I read your conversations with Pattern Chaser and Lucky, and I did not wish to be drawn in. They seemed to be playing the role of the true philosopher, while you seemed to play the role of the interlocutor which Plato would set up against Socrates, or Arrian would set up against Epictetus. This idea that you think you are a sage was simply to much to bear, so I've given you my opinion, for what it's worth.

[Lagayascienza]

The goal of Vedanta is to attain self-realization or by recognizing the identity of one's individual self with the supreme reality.

Yes, that's it.

But "Brahman", "Atman", etcetera are just human invented words that have nothing to do with the underlying reality. Like I said, I pay no heed to doctrine and dogma. I don't need mysterious sounding words from any tradition. If the central thesis does not conflict with science it can inform my meditation practice. That's all I need. I can be an atheist and feel connected in a deep sense with the unity of the universe even if, as a limited part of it, I can never fully comprehend the whole. The awe and reverence I feel in the face of the vast universe and its eternal laws, and knowing that I belong to it and that every atom of myself exists in accordance with it's governing laws, is all I need.