Philosophy Discussion Forums

Belindi wrote:
I haven't read Paul Tillich. I tried and found him difficult to understand but I might have another go. Don Cupitt does in fact fit your description.

Mind-dependent God, i.e. the non-theist's God is obviously , for some people, the way to go. However for perhaps most people from cultures that traditionally have been Abrahamic and theist, it's difficult for them to understand how a god which doesn't exist in a thingy sense can be important for anybody.

I had to look up Cupitt and I will grant you that Tillich is difficult to read, but they are nothing alike from what I can see. Tillich is more like Meister Eckhart or Jacob Boheme. He's very much a theist, but the likes of Daniel Dennett latch on to him because he's known for saying, "God does not exist, but is existence itself." By doing so, atheists like Dennett only show their ignorance and superficiality. Tillich is a Protestant, but that saying is not uncommon among Catholics or Eastern Orthodox.

It may be difficult for followers of popular theism "to understand how a god which doesn't exist in a thingy sense can be important for anybody," but it's even more difficult for atheists whose exposure to theism is limited to the kind of stuff they see on TV.

Belindi wrote: I haven't read Paul Tillich. I tried and found him difficult to understand but I might have another go. Don Cupitt does in fact fit your description.

Your experience with these two writers may be the effect of Don Cupitt's success at beating himself at his own argument, while Paul Tillich lost against himself.

Fooloso4 wrote:Two different claims. As to the first, I do not know what exists or does not exist beyond our human limits. As to the second, I do not think that anyone else does either. If they did then the limits would not be human limits. Since they do not know then any claim they make is questionable.

Their claims based on ignorance are unacceptable, your counter claims based on ignorance are valid. Yes, you're making a claim, whether you know that or not remains to be seen.

Why do you ask me questions if you are only interested in providing your own answers that you have devised without regard to anything I have said?

I'm reading what you write. You don't like my replies. That's the situation.

Do you believe every claim made by every person regarding the divine? If you do not accept them is it because you have analyzed the claims with human reason, a methodology you judge qualified for that task?

Human claims and counter-claims about "the divine" are like claims squirrels make about the Internet. The concepts "believe" and "dis-believe" are for those enjoying the fantasy they are in a position to evaluate such claims.

Apparently I am since you are not listening. You are insisting that you know better than I why I do not believe what I do not believe, and you have ignored what I have actually said.

I understand why you believe what you believe better than you do. I can't help that. If you would simply admit to what is OVERWHELMINGLY OBVIOUS you could save us both a lot of typing.

If a claim is beyond the limits of reason that means it cannot be resolved by reason. The fact that such claims cannot be resolved by reason does not mean that I should accept every or any claim made about things we do not know and cannot determine to be true.

If you accept or don't accept a claim about the largest of questions, you are yet again asserting, knowingly or not, that the topic in question is within the limits of reason. You're trying to have your cake and eat it too. You want to position a topic as being beyond the limits of reason, and then you want to use reason to comment on that topic.

I am aware of your fondness for simplistic answers, but in this case it comes at the expense of ignoring what I have said and instead giving your little speech about what atheists always do.

I AM READING WHAT YOU SAY. I just don't agree with it.

I have repeatedly noted the limits of reason.

Except as where your own perspective is concerned.

It is your rejection of such definitions that is obfuscation, because based on those definitions you have no argument.

I care about what's happening in the real world, not in the dictionary.

What you fail to see, or I now strongly suspect you are simply ignoring because it does not fit your argument, is that I am not making any claims.

You don't realize that you are making the claim that reason is a qualified authority for the job at hand. Or, you simply refuse to admit to that claim, because to do so would require you to defend your claim.

You want theists to provide proof of the qualifications of their chosen authority, but when it comes to your chosen authority we are expected to take it's qualifications on faith as you do. Please don't say yet again that you see the limits of reason, because if you did you would not be calling yourself an atheist.

It is complicated because you are not challenging my beliefs, you are challenging a particular atheistic position that I do not hold.

OK, I give up, you're hopelessly lost in self delusional fantasy, and I am being equally irrational in thinking I can do anything about it. We should let this go and focus on discussing other topics together.

Dclements wrote:So your just a atheist or agnostic playing the devil's advocate all this time since even you don't believe in 'God'.

Try this: http://onlinephilosophyclub.com/forums/ ... 15#p281825

Renee wrote: I think arguments ought to be stated in nominative sentences. He asks questions. That's the strength of his what seems to me faux-intellect.

This merits a bit of explanation. There are many posts across the forum where I express my own views in declarative sentences. There's one such post just above yours, which you have chosen to ignore, which is of course entirely your right.

But you're right, I will more often ask questions. There's a point to this. It's not my goal that readers should simply agree or disagree with whatever I've said, because that's a shallow enterprise which will have no lasting impact. I would prefer if possible that readers think these topics through for themselves, conduct their own inquiry, do their own homework. The relentless questioning and challenging is intended to stir that pot. I'm not a real philosophy professor, but I imagine this is how a good one might operate, not by spoon feeding, but by trying to encourage listeners to do their own work.

How well my method works is up the reader to decide, and I'm sure my writing style very often doesn't work. I don't worry too much about this because whatever my writing style might be there would always be readers who couldn't relate to it. So I just do what I do. I don't mind if anyone chooses not to read my posts, because half the time I wish I wasn't writing them.

Renee wrote: To be quite honest: I never even read his posts.

And yet, this might not be quite so honest after all, as you seem to have formed quite a few opinions about the posts you never read.

Please note: It's not that unusual for me to find myself debating an entire forum in a thread, and when that happens I simply can't reply to every sentence by every poster. It becomes a survival of the fittest situation, and if I'm yelling at you, that means I found your post worth yelling at.

I replied to your interesting post, Dark Matter, but was not permitted to post it. I don't know why. Anyway, it's gone through to the comments and feedback place.

-- Updated January 3rd, 2017, 1:46 pm to add the following --

Renee wrote:

Belindi wrote: I haven't read Paul Tillich. I tried and found him difficult to understand but I might have another go. Don Cupitt does in fact fit your description.

Renee, I don;t understand the expressions you use in the following.

Your experience with these two writers may be the effect of Don Cupitt's success at beating himself at his own argument, while Paul Tillich lost against himself.

Dark Matter wrote:

Spiral Out wrote:
We have an atheist who argues against atheism. Too funny.

What's funny about that? One of the most influential theologians of the twentieth century argued against theism, and he was hardly an atheist.

-- Updated January 2nd, 2017, 12:15 am to add the following --

Ormond wrote: Many members here have succeeded in liberating themselves from theism. I'm simply asking that we continue the very same process by which that occurred and over throw atheist ideology too. When you left theism you started on a journey. Ok, good idea, that seems like an appropriate decision for many people.

But don't stop and build a little fort.

Keep going on the journey.

Didn't I express similar sentiments somewhere?

Already been there, done that and bought the t-shirt but eventually after 'liberating' yourself from 'all' ideologies your still left with either skepticism/nihilism and hedonism; which seem to be not uncommon among people that study religion/ethical philosophy for a few years. The catch is even if you you are able to liberate yourself from all axioms and ideologies but your still stuck with the problems of dealing with the human condition, plus not everyone else is free for their ideological/axiom biases. I don't doubt that being free from ideological/axiom biases has it advantages, the thought that it makes enough difference to allow one to be liberated may be an overstatement when you still deal with all the problems it doesn't help with.

Also it is odd that make this argument when you seem to be against skepticism/nihilism throughout this thread and more on the side of theist than any other.

-- Updated January 3rd, 2017, 4:39 pm to add the following --

Renee wrote:

Dclements wrote:In a nutshell I guess what I'm trying to really say is that I have enjoyed some of your previous posts(even though you didn't reply to many of my posts or replies), that I find you are fairly rational as a theist,

Ormond wrote:Thanks but um, I'm not a theist.

Dclements wrote:So your just a atheist or agnostic playing the devil's advocate all this time since even you don't believe in 'God'.

I find Ormond to be a weather-vane... he will face against the wind always and let it out in a stream of golden shaft.

I find his arguments unconvincing, because he does not follow through, he abandons topics and evades questions while he insists on his questions answered, and he argues by asking questions. I find that spineless. I think arguments ought to be stated in nominative sentences. Otherwise you can do what Ormond does: dance around the argument, contradicting himself, others, and not follow up, and still claim to come out on top, since he never makes a stand actually. He asks questions. That's the strength of his what seems to me faux-intellect.

To be quite honest: I never even read his posts. I admire you guys out there who give him the proper attention all of us deserve here. I read one post of his, tried to get a clarification in order to properly answer his question, and he did not give it to me. No big deal, but it is indicative of his argumenting style: there is no discipline there, only a playful flight of fancy, and I can't for the life of me decide if he actually has any clue or not. But one thing is for sure: I'm not going into the quagmire of trying to find sense in his quirky, quizzical posts, and in his quickly jumping tracks without picking up the pieces first; too much work for too little return.

Yeah it is a bit of a tight rope of whether to take everything anyone says with a grain of salt on a forum or to give them the benefit of the doubt and try to carry on a real conversation. I guess if you do the former too much there might not even be a reason to come here, and the latter you'll waste more time than you should but at least you'll eventually realize your pretty much just talking to a brick wall if they have nothing to really say.

Dclements wrote:
Already been there, done that and bought the t-shirt but eventually after 'liberating' yourself from 'all' ideologies your still left with either skepticism/nihilism and hedonism; which seem to be not uncommon among people that study religion/ethical philosophy for a few years. The catch is even if you you are able to liberate yourself from all axioms and ideologies but your still stuck with the problems of dealing with the human condition, plus not everyone else is free for their ideological/axiom biases. I don't doubt that being free from ideological/axiom biases has it advantages, the thought that it makes enough difference to allow one to be liberated may be an overstatement when you still deal with all the problems it doesn't help with.

Also it is odd that make this argument when you seem to be against skepticism/nihilism throughout this thread and more on the side of theist than any other.

Ormond makes the mistake of making ignorance an object of certain knowledge. I come at it a bit differently.

"Certainty" is not a value that can be applied to the world of our convictions in any but the most limited and artificial ways. To ask for certainty is to make an unreal demand on life. And to refuse to act or believe it because certainty is lacking, or because viable alternatives are available, is to separate ourselves from the life impulse itself.

We know that even our highest concepts are relative to the actual. They are tentative and processive, but we must not let uncertainty paralyze us by making us afraid to commit ourselves to our highest ideals.

Ormond:

OK, I give up, you're hopelessly lost in self delusional fantasy, and I am being equally irrational in thinking I can do anything about it. We should let this go and focus on discussing other topics together.

It is not likely that I will be discussing any other topic with you. I have no problem with disagreement, it is an essential part of philosophy, but when you ignore both standard definitions of atheism and how members here define their own position because you “care about what's happening in the real world” it clearly demonstrates that what is really at issue has nothing to do with philosophical differences. You will have to carry on your rants against the “real world” without me.

Which of the following do members disagree with?

1) Atheism is derived from reference to human reason.

2) Human reason has not been proven a qualified methodology for addressing the very largest questions (ie. scope of God claims).

3) Therefore atheists are people of faith in the same way theists are people of faith, each base their perspective on a chosen authority which has not been proven qualified to deliver credible answers on the topics being discussed.

4) Most atheists could care less about any of this, ideological atheists tend to find such reasoning a threat to their personal identities (as being fundamentally different from and superior to theists).

5) I'm a total idiot for thinking or typing about any of this.

Belindi

I haven't read Paul Tillich. I tried and found him difficult to understand but I might have another go. Don Cupitt does in fact fit your description.

Mind-dependent God, i.e. the non-theist's God is obviously , for some people, the way to go. However for perhaps most people from cultures that traditionally have been Abrahamic and theist, it's difficult for them to understand how a god which doesn't exist in a thingy sense can be important for anybody.

I think that many clergy who've been through the theological education process think this way, for example the last Archbishop of Canterbury speaks in terms of God as 'pure being' - while concurrently arbitrating on whether gay clergy are too sinful to be allowed into the club. And there you have the quandary for contemporary 'sophisticated theism', they can only grow the church by spreading to 'unsophisticated' communities and pitching themselves in an appropriate way to attract converts, but then get bitten in the bum by those tactics when 'less sophisticated' developing world bishops want to indulge their homophobia and point to the Bible.

As long as they pitch their linguistic and conceptual framing at what they consider to be appropriate for the congregation, talking to us plebs one way on Sundays, and each other in a much more - well call it sophisticated or vague and obfuscatory depending on whether it resonates with you, they can be all things to all people - a bit like their god of choice. Hence Jesus is both real and symbolic.

-- Updated January 3rd, 2017, 11:59 pm to add the following --

Fooloso4 wrote:Ormond:

OK, I give up, you're hopelessly lost in self delusional fantasy, and I am being equally irrational in thinking I can do anything about it. We should let this go and focus on discussing other topics together.

It is not likely that I will be discussing any other topic with you. I have no problem with disagreement, it is an essential part of philosophy, but when you ignore both standard definitions of atheism and how members here define their own position because you “care about what's happening in the real world” it clearly demonstrates that what is really at issue has nothing to do with philosophical differences. You will have to carry on your rants against the “real world” without me.

For what it's worth my emphasis might have been a little different, but I agreed with pretty much all you said.

Fooloso4 wrote:but when you ignore both standard definitions of atheism and how members here define their own position

I ignore how they define their own position because they don't understand their own position. They don't. They don't realize that their relationship with reason is faith based. I had nothing to do with that state of affairs, and don't seem to have the power to do anything about it. You can be mad at me if you wish, I probably deserve it, but that won't fix the member's misunderstandings.

Gertie wrote:I think that many clergy who've been through the theological education process think this way, for example the last Archbishop of Canterbury speaks in terms of God as 'pure being' - while concurrently arbitrating on whether gay clergy are too sinful to be allowed into the club. And there you have the quandary for contemporary 'sophisticated theism', they can only grow the church by spreading to 'unsophisticated' communities and pitching themselves in an appropriate way to attract converts, but then get bitten in the bum by those tactics when 'less sophisticated' developing world bishops want to indulge their homophobia and point to the Bible.

As long as they pitch their linguistic and conceptual framing at what they consider to be appropriate for the congregation, talking to us plebs one way on Sundays, and each other in a much more - well call it sophisticated or vague and obfuscatory depending on whether it resonates with you, they can be all things to all people - a bit like their god of choice. Hence Jesus is both real and symbolic.

Really well articulated. Thank you.

The problem is that sophisticated theism is weak and pointless compared with fundamentalism and literalism for many people, the latter providing provides placebo effects and much more visceral emotional import. Fundamentalism's promises are alluring while sophisticated theism doesn't make any promises and, in that sense, is becoming more philosophy-like.

Gertie wrote:I think that many clergy who've been through the theological education process think this way, for example the last Archbishop of Canterbury speaks in terms of God as 'pure being' - while concurrently arbitrating on whether gay clergy are too sinful to be allowed into the club. And there you have the quandary for contemporary 'sophisticated theism', they can only grow the church by spreading to 'unsophisticated' communities and pitching themselves in an appropriate way to attract converts, but then get bitten in the bum by those tactics when 'less sophisticated' developing world bishops want to indulge their homophobia and point to the Bible.

As long as they pitch their linguistic and conceptual framing at what they consider to be appropriate for the congregation, talking to us plebs one way on Sundays, and each other in a much more - well call it sophisticated or vague and obfuscatory depending on whether it resonates with you, they can be all things to all people - a bit like their god of choice. Hence Jesus is both real and symbolic.

If you remove the ecclesiastic reference, then I think you just called the United States (in the bible belt, anyhow), a third world country.

-- Updated January 4th, 2017, 1:54 am to add the following --

Ormond wrote: I ignore how they (the other members here) define their own position because they don't understand their own position. They don't. They don't realize that their relationship with reason is faith based. I had nothing to do with that state of affairs, and don't seem to have the power to do anything about it. You can be mad at me if you wish, I probably deserve it, but that won't fix the member's misunderstandings.

... this member's position is that you, Ormond, have a horribly low underestimation of other members, (which lot includes me), and you therefore seem to be elitist.

You cling desperately to being different. You try so desperately to being original. But you don't have the bang-power behind it, and therefore you seem at best odd.

Which is not to say you are not worthy of the forum. You are a smart man, no denying it; on the other hand, you have some aspirations that force you to think in a weather-vane fashion, pointing always against the wind, so to speak, and it is actually very, very tiresome. To some others. Which lot also includes me.

You'd sell your soul, so to speak, for shock value. But shock value is delivered with a kernel of truth, some revelation, some true insight. Your attempts to shock, in posts lacking the real qualities needed, come through as being a contrarian, by one who, for instance, is not too shy to give one impression only in order to deny the self of that impression in the next given impression.

I can't say you're unkind. You are just a bit more highly obvious in being unique than other members here. Me included. Your needs are different, and you are admirably neither cruel, nor bitter, which many other members ought to learn from you (me included in that lot) but to me, and this is my own private opinion, your posts lack substance and they are tiresome.

I felt compelled to write this only in order for you to see your own refection on how you affect others. Maybe you'll find some usefulness in my post here. Maybe you won't. But I feel better, because I gave an honest account of the ongoing impression you give, and I am not sure if what I see of you has been your original or evolving goal to appear as. If the impression you read here covers fairly well the impression you've been attempting to give, fine, well done. If the two are different, the two being the attempted and the actual impressions, then you know there is room for improvement.

Greta wrote: The problem is that sophisticated theism is weak and pointless compared with fundamentalism and literalism for many people, the latter providing provides placebo effects and much more visceral emotional import. Fundamentalism's promises are alluring while sophisticated theism doesn't make any promises and, in that sense, is becoming more philosophy-like.

I agree. Both atheists and theists generally prefer the concrete, but what you call "sophisticated theism" is, for the lack of a better description, relational; philosophy is the conceptual interpretation This makes religion seem vague and arbitrary when viewed from the outside, but it's reasonable when viewed from within.