Philosophy Discussion Forums

Dark Matter wrote:I’m curious. Is anyone taking Spectrum’s nonsense seriously?

Spectrum seems to be taking it seriously but, unlike you, I'm not curious enough to wonder whether anyone else is.

I guess it's possible that someone takes him seriously.
Personally not a fan of repeated sentences with no rational justification myself.
For example it's obvious that Greta's point that tribalism is a factor in religious belief is true. To simply say no it isn't and then repeat the original claim unedited is a bit weird.
Almost nothing is simple. And proposing a single cause of religion and a single effect of religion seems insanely arrogant to me.

Eduk wrote:I guess it's possible that someone takes him seriously.
Personally not a fan of repeated sentences with no rational justification myself.
For example it's obvious that Greta's point that tribalism is a factor in religious belief is true. To simply say no it isn't and then repeat the original claim unedited is a bit weird.
Almost nothing is simple. And proposing a single cause of religion and a single effect of religion seems insanely arrogant to me.

'Tribalism' was Steve's point.

If you read again I gave sufficient points to justify why tribalism is not the critical factor for religious belief. Rather what drives religion from the base is the existential crisis.

Note the sexual instinct in all living things is to trigger reproduction to produce the next generation. However as the living things get more complex, this sexual impulse is expanded to a wide variety of sexual driven acts where some of these acts has deviated from its original purpose of reproduction to the extreme of perversions.
Perhaps sexual orgies are related to 'tribalism' but the ultimate root cause is the generic original sexual instinct and impulse.
'Tribalism' is not a primary impulse but a secondary one leading to social and cultural impulses.

It is the same for religion, the generic and original impulse is from that inherent existential crisis and the associated angst.

My points are gleaned from various in dept research but due to limitation in such a forum, I cannot present the full details, thus what I have presented are only 'tip of icebergs'.

If you have alternative views why don't you present them with justifications.

-- Updated Sun Nov 05, 2017 5:27 am to add the following --

Dark Matter wrote:I’m curious. Is anyone taking Spectrum’s nonsense seriously? His diatribe is so irrational that to refute it would give it validation it doesn’t deserve.

Point is your views are too narrow and shallow, thus your usual short condemnations and one-liners.

At least in a limited forum like this, I have made the attempts to explain as much as possible, and definitely more than the screwed-up one liners and condemnations you have attempted.
This is the usual problem with many [not all] theists who think that once they have believed in an all powerful, omnipresent and omniscience God they have every thing covered where no one can dispute. Therefrom they are not bothered to venture into new views of knowledge.

I suggest you research the related topics extensively and then you will be able to present a reasonable argument.

I can't think of anything off the top of my head that isn't at its root existential. The defining property of life is life. But the problem is that this is not particularly useful.
Take your sexual instinct example. Sure sex is at root existential, hard to think of it otherwise. But let us imagine multiple versions of the same person. Person a fulfills their sexual desire with their wife. Person b was imprisoned and seeks out male company. Person c was born in ancient Greece and has sex with his wife and young men. Person d has taken a vow of celebacy and has thoughts of children. I mean sure they all want/need sex. It's a primal desire/need. But it is expressed in different ways. And there are different reasons how and why it is expressed. And they can lead down very different paths. Saying it is all existential doesn't shed a lot of light.

Eduk wrote:Person a fulfills their sexual desire with their wife.

Do you have any details?

Person b was imprisoned and seeks out male company.

Unless person b was incarcerated in a women's prison he will probably get more than enough male company without having to seek it out.

Person c was born in ancient Greece and has sex with his wife and young men.

Of course he does, when in Rome, do as the ancient Greeks do.

Person d has taken a vow of celebacy and has thoughts of children.

I assume person d is a Catholic priest.

Interesting topic Spectrum:

Just a side note. I think that perfection is a subjective observation that is defined as such relative to the observer. I don't think that something can be objectively perfect, but I could be wrong. Also, "perfect" is a term used to describe something that cannot be improved upon. So absolute perfection would be "perfect perfection" which seems like an unnecessary qualifier? When you say: "Absolute perfection is an idea, ideal, and it is only a thought that can arise from reason and never the empirical at all." Try telling that to a couple who just had their first baby after trying to conceive for 10 years. From my perspective, perfection is relative and the term "absolute perfection" sets a false ideal as nothing can realistically be perfection perfected. Right or wrong, these are my thoughts, other opinions are invited.

-- Updated November 5th, 2017, 2:07 pm to add the following --

I mean to say "perfect perfection" not perfection perfected".

Eduk wrote:I can't think of anything off the top of my head that isn't at its root existential. The defining property of life is life. But the problem is that this is not particularly useful.
Take your sexual instinct example. Sure sex is at root existential, hard to think of it otherwise. But let us imagine multiple versions of the same person. Person a fulfills their sexual desire with their wife. Person b was imprisoned and seeks out male company. Person c was born in ancient Greece and has sex with his wife and young men. Person d has taken a vow of celibacy and has thoughts of children. I mean sure they all want/need sex.
It's a primal desire/need. But it is expressed in different ways. And there are different reasons how and why it is expressed. And they can lead down very different paths. Saying it is all existential doesn't shed a lot of light.

That is my point,
"it is expressed in different ways"

What is critical is to understand ALL the different known ways & paths related to sex is linked to the 'ultimate' root primal impulse/desire/need.
Once we understand all the ways and paths related to the basic sexual impulse we can then mapped them as an interlinked system.
From this map of connection of sexual impulses and its various paths we have an effective system to understand, improve sex and prevent sexual related problems.

Say [example] we have a massive problem of rapes around the World.
Straight away from the sex-map we know the root cause is the primal sexual impulse to facilitate reproduction of the next generation.
The easy solution is to get rid of that primal sexual impulse and there will no more rapes, but that would be immoral as the human species would be extinct in time.
Since we have mapped all the sexual paths to its root, we can then study at what point does this primal sexual drive combines with other impulses to trigger a person to rape another.

It is the same with religion and theism.
We need to map ALL the pathways and the good and evil consequences related to theism.
The ultimate root cause of theism is existential, but at some point it trigger a proximate root cause of an inherent existential crisis that drive people to religion and theism. From theism there arise [besides whatever is good] terrible evils and violence. Point is whatever pros from theism is expected to be outweighed by its cons as evident.

Once we understand the full map from the existential elements to theism, then its evil, we can study [pros and cons] and take the appropriate corrective actions.
As I has asserted, theism is driven by an inherent unavoidable existential crisis, the question is thus can we find alternatives to replace theism [with its associated evils] to deal with that unavoidable existential crisis?
I am optimistic we can replace theism, as non-theistic Buddhism and others has done it.

You seem to be doubtful on the point of the existential factors, my point is we need to map all the pathways from the existential root to all human behaviors and thinking.

-- Updated Sun Nov 05, 2017 9:34 pm to add the following --

[b]Fanman[/b] wrote:Interesting topic Spectrum:
Just a side note. I think that perfection is a subjective observation that is defined as such relative to the observer. I don't think that something can be objectively perfect, but I could be wrong.

Philosophically, there are the concepts 'relative perfection' and 'absolute perfection'. I have explained the above in details in the OP and other posts.
"Relative perfection" is relevant, e.g. 100% perfect score on an objective test, or an athlete scoring 7/7 in a diving competition, and the likes.
I agree no empirical thing can be objectively perfect, but absolute perfection can thought of as an ideal, e.g. a perfect circle.

Also, "perfect" is a term used to describe something that cannot be improved upon. So absolute perfection would be "perfect perfection" which seems like an unnecessary qualifier? When you say: "Absolute perfection is an idea, ideal, and it is only a thought that can arise from reason and never the empirical at all." Try telling that to a couple who just had their first baby after trying to conceive for 10 years. From my perspective, perfection is relative and the term "absolute perfection" sets a false ideal as nothing can realistically be perfection perfected. Right or wrong, these are my thoughts, other opinions are invited.
-- Updated November 5th, 2017, 2:07 pm to add the following --
I mean to say "perfect perfection" not perfection perfected".

When a couple claimed their baby is perfect [absolute or whatever], it is merely a very subjective personal opinion and related to something empirical.

I added 'absolutely' to perfect [ideal thought only] to emphasize, differentiate and avoid confusing it with relative perfection [used for the empirical, e.g. perfect circle, perfect test scores and the likes].
An absolutely perfect God is also a reflection of what an ontological God is claimed to be.
As ontological God as claimed by St. Anselm is 'a god than which no greater can be conceived.'

You are right, there cannot be 'objective perfection' i.e. absolute perfection. I say it is impossible in reality.
But by default and theists will insist explicitly or implicitly their God is 'objectively perfect' i.e. absolutely perfect. This is why the OP claims, God is an impossibility because absolute perfection is an impossibility.

Spectrum:

Thanks, your clarification is useful. I agree that perfection is an ideal and may be something that cannot be actualised empirically, as perfection is a subjective observation. However, as we are constantly learning about the nature of our existence and what constitutes reality, it may be possible that in the future we encounter a form of perfection that is universally recognised as being so, which is as close to objective perfection as I think we can get. The closest thing to objective perfection I can think of is a flawless diamond. Which is perfect in the sense that it has no inclusions, I don't think that anyone can disagree that a flawless diamond (in terms of inclusions) is perfect. Hence it is objectively perfect.

As you say, an absolutely perfect God is an ideal that cannot be proven to exist empirically, but I'm not sure if that means an absolutely perfect God cannot exist QED? That conclusion requires absolute faith in our current knowledge and understanding of reality. For such a being to exist, it would mean that a flaw could not be found with it, I don't think that any God described in religious texts fulfils that criteria, so it may be that an imperfect God could exist, or that no God exists at all if absolute perfection is the necessary requirement to be "God". I think that your argument has some merit, but as other knowledgeable posters have disagreed with you, I may be misunderstanding things.

Spectrum wrote:

Wiki wrote:In monotheistic thought, God is conceived of as the Supreme Being and the principal object of faith.[3]
The concept of God, as described by theologians, commonly includes the attributes of omniscience (all-knowing), omnipotence (unlimited power), omnipresence (present everywhere), divine simplicity, and as having an eternal and necessary existence.
Many theologians also describe God as being omnibenevolent (perfectly good) and all loving.

nb:.. for more details, read the wiki article or elsewhere..

To date there is no convincing proof for the existence of a God.
I have demonstrated here 'God is an Impossibility.'

Despite the above, why do theists continue to believe in a God even to the extent of killing non-theists when they perceive threats against theism?

I believe why the majority of humans believe in a God is due to a very forceful existential psychological impulse that is compelling [subliminally] them to believe in a God or some powerful forces with or without agency.

Views?

Believing you can know the unknowable must boil down to psychology once you get past the various rationalisations, and I think existential angst is definitely often a factor.

But there are loads of god beliefs (you might even say every believer creates their own made-to-measure god just right for them). Then are themes which regularly crop up in conceptions of gods, which can give clues as to which psychological need they are a response to. Existential angst points towards the need for a powerful, caring god which will make things right, this a powerful, universal force amongst humans, and must have some part in the popular monotheistic religions which speak of a metaphorical father figure, but there are other characteristics which have been assigned to gods too. For example as well as comfort, gods often play an explanatory role ('gods of the gaps'), or offer meaning and coherence to the universe, or will help you conquer your enemies, unite the tribe, or make sure there's a good harvest, or animate the trees and rivers and all things, etc.

So... it's complicated. IMO you have to look at a particular god conception to get an idea of the role it is playing for the believer or group. A religion like Christianity might be so successful in part because it fulfills many roles for believers, and has evolved as those needs change.

You seem to be doubtful on the point of the existential factors, my point is we need to map all the pathways from the existential root to all human behaviors and thinking.

What I am saying is that everything is existential. Therefore saying something is existential is of limited value.
Belief in god or gods is at root existential. Not believing in god or gods is at root existential. So what have we learned?
In my opinion being a theist or a non theist is not automatically any different. Simply removing theism from the world is not necessarily 'good'. For example North Korea could be the most religious atheist state imaginable. Clearly you need to do more than simply remove religion.

The key word here is "believe".

If by "believing" you mean "acting as if you know", then certainly it's ludicrous to "believe" in a God. We should not act as if we know something which is actually impossible to know.

However, if by "believing" you mean merely "having an opinion", then I'd argue it's more rational to be of the opinion that there are likely many organisms ("Gods"?) in the Universe which are far more powerful and intelligent than humans.

To me, nothing is more irrational than taking the view that we are probably one of the most advanced forms of life in the entire Cosmos.

Because actually, we are probably not....

Fanman wrote:Spectrum:

Thanks, your clarification is useful. I agree that perfection is an ideal and may be something that cannot be actualised empirically, as perfection is a subjective observation. However, as we are constantly learning about the nature of our existence and what constitutes reality, it may be possible that in the future we encounter a form of perfection that is universally recognised as being so, which is as close to objective perfection as I think we can get. The closest thing to objective perfection I can think of is a flawless diamond. Which is perfect in the sense that it has no inclusions, I don't think that anyone can disagree that a flawless diamond (in terms of inclusions) is perfect. Hence it is objectively perfect.

As long as you are referring to something related to the empirical [e.g. diamond, circle, square], it is by default must be a 'relative perfection' never absolute perfection.

How do you measure or assess a 'perfect' diamond?

1. By its shape? which depend on human or machines made by human to cut it?
As with a perfect circle, looking at the supposedly 'perfect' diamond through an electron microscope, you will find the supposedly perfect lines are not so perfect after all.

2. By its atomic structure and how each atoms are linked together?
At the sub-atomic level, the sub-atomic particles are moving all the time, so there is no way one can determine an absolute perfect diamond.
With the above at the most ultimate consideration, there will not be an absolutely perfect diamond.

I missed one point earlier.
What is 'objective' perfection is actually intersubjective perfection, i.e. relative perfection and not absolute perfection. I have argued elsewhere what is objective reality is intersubjective, e.g. scientific theories which is conditioned/relative upon a human made and inter-agreed scientific framework, system and methods

As you say, an absolutely perfect God is an ideal that cannot be proven to exist empirically, but I'm not sure if that means an absolutely perfect God cannot exist QED? That conclusion requires absolute faith in our current knowledge and understanding of reality. For such a being to exist, it would mean that a flaw could not be found with it, I don't think that any God described in religious texts fulfils that criteria, so it may be that an imperfect God could exist, or that no God exists at all if absolute perfection is the necessary requirement to be "God". I think that your argument has some merit, but as other knowledgeable posters have disagreed with you, I may be misunderstanding things.

I stated an absolutely perfect God can only exists in thoughts only and God is never possible empirically.
I have demonstrate above to you how empirically related diamond, circle, or any thing empirical can never be absolutely perfect.

OTOH, God per se must be defined [thought based] to be absolutely perfect, i.e. an ontological God, THAN WHICH NO GREATER CAN BE CONCEIVED - St. Anselm.
There is no other way, else one will end up with an inferior god which will not god per se.

The God [Allah] described in the Quran is an absolutely perfect God where no other gods can exist.
The God in the Bible which is supposed to be the same Abrahamic God as Allah, may not be described fully a absolutely perfect and this is why theologians like St. Anselm and philosophers like Descartes must logically and necessarily complete the picture of the Biblical God as Ontological, i.e. an absolute perfect God.
You will note many Christians will have ways and excuses to cover up [desperately] for any flaws others have brought up about their God. To these Christians their God is implicitly, inherently and absolutely perfect. Those who accept a God with a sliver of flaw will find their God in definition is inferior to the Quranic God. To avoid this, the logical strategy is to accept the Ontological God 'than which no greater can be conceived'.

I have expressed my views based on the views of philosophers giants [e.g. Kant] in combination with other 'great' sources of knowledge.
Others will definitely have their own views or borrowed from elsewhere, but so far I have not come across any views here that is convincing enough to put a dent or knock off my argument.

Also, no one has actually addressed the OP's WHY? Why believe in a God that is impossible to prove [since 10s or 100s of thousand of years ago] and as you acknowledge it is based on faith. Why? Why? Why?
I have introduced the possible root reason of 'Why' i.e. that it is psychological [existential crisis and angst] as has been practiced by Eastern spirituality thousands of years ago. No one seem to be able to align with this view.

-- Updated Mon Nov 06, 2017 8:36 pm to add the following --

[b]Gertie[/b] wrote:Believing you can know the unknowable must boil down to psychology once you get past the various rationalisations, and I think existential angst is definitely often a factor.

Yes.

But there are loads of god beliefs (you might even say every believer creates their own made-to-measure god just right for them). Then are themes which regularly crop up in conceptions of gods, which can give clues as to which psychological need they are a response to. Existential angst points towards the need for a powerful, caring god which will make things right, this a powerful, universal force amongst humans, and must have some part in the popular monotheistic religions which speak of a metaphorical father figure, but there are other characteristics which have been assigned to gods too. For example as well as comfort, gods often play an explanatory role ('gods of the gaps'), or offer meaning and coherence to the universe, or will help you conquer your enemies, unite the tribe, or make sure there's a good harvest, or animate the trees and rivers and all things, etc.

Note my point to Fanman above and I have repeated it many times. The point is ultimately, regardless of what 'forms' are assigned to God, the 'substance' of a God per se must be an ontological God, i.e. an absolutely perfect God. This is the reason for the evolutionary trend of the conception of a God from primitive elements to polytheism to monotheism [ presently by the majority >5 billion believers].

-- Updated Mon Nov 06, 2017 8:46 pm to add the following --

[b]Atreyu[/b] wrote:The key word here is "believe".
If by "believing" you mean "acting as if you know", then certainly it's ludicrous to "believe" in a God. We should not act as if we know something which is actually impossible to know.

However, if by "believing" you mean merely "having an opinion", then I'd argue it's more rational to be of the opinion that there are likely many organisms ("Gods"?) in the Universe which are far more powerful and intelligent than humans.

As per Kant, there are big differences between opinion [no objectivity], beliefs [minimal objectivity], and knowledge [much objectivity].
The majority of theists are not acting but sincerely believed based on their personal experiences, emotions and thinking believe God exists as real. This is of course based on faith [100% subjective confidence but insufficient objectivity].

There is no issue if such a belief is kept private and personal but the reality is such a personal belief in a God is translated to REAL terrible terrors, evils, and violence by SOME believers who are inspired by the evil elements in their holy book.
This is why we must get to the proximate root causes and deal with the problem at that level and not veer off into fire fighting or worst being cowards in the ostrich-mode.

-- Updated Mon Nov 06, 2017 9:40 pm to add the following --

[b]Eduk[/b] wrote:

You seem to be doubtful on the point of the existential factors, my point is we need to map all the pathways from the existential root to all human behaviors and thinking.

What I am saying is that everything is existential. Therefore saying something is existential is of limited value.

It will not be effective if we simply say 'existential' and stop there. But, saying everything is existential is of critical significance if we refer to it as the root cause and map all its paths [I gave examples above, e.g. sex].
The technique of tracing to the root cause is a critical to all problem-solving techniques to ensure efficiency.

Belief in god or gods is at root existential. Not believing in god or gods is at root existential. So what have we learned?

'Not believing in god or gods is at root existential' itself is not critical to humanity as that is something indifferent.
What is critical is believing in any ideology is existential and when any of these ideologies promote evils and violence, we must direct our attention first to its existential root and investigate the problem from it root level to it varied 'branches' and 'leaves'.

My point is when we are not mindful of a problem's existential root, many are likely to focus on the leaves or branches and thus not solving the problem efficiently.
Note the present, the majority and the authorities are not looking at the problem of theistic-based terror from its existential root but jump to some 'branches' like poverty, foreign intervention & intrusion, education, inability to integrate, resort to political correctness. They are totally ignorant the root of the problem starts from its existential root and works it way up to the 'leaves.'

In my opinion being a theist or a non theist is not automatically any different. Simply removing theism from the world is not necessarily 'good'. For example North Korea could be the most religious atheist state imaginable. Clearly you need to do more than simply remove religion.

Yes, in terms of evil acts, there is no difference in terms of its proximate root which is 'existential' and note the existential crisis.

But note from its proximate root, the existential - existential crisis branches into two main trunks, i.e. secular and the religious. Each trunk then 'branches' into its 'leaves' of negative evil acts.

• The problems of the 'existential - existential crisis - secular' manifest all sort of negatives and evil acts, e.g. the drug problem, social problems, gangs, wars, etc.
  
  The 'existential - existential crisis - existential angst - religions' manifest all the religious-theistic range of negatives and evil acts, e.g. real terrible terrors, evils, violence, infringing on the rights of others by the theistic majority, etc.

Thus the existential-based secular or religious has its own source of evils and getting rid of religion or theism will make a difference, i.e. we get rid of ALL religious/theistic based evils.
Note the point of efficiency in breaking down the problem into manageable categories. It is easier to tackle the easily identified theistic problem than the widely secular-based evils.

When we worked from the existential root rather than the 'leaves' it will naturally lead us to the internal psychological aspects of the individual[s] involved and a scrutiny of the evil element within the religion and its text.
At present the majority are so ignorant of its existential root of theistic based evils that the best they can muster is to deal with the superficial symptoms.

Your view above is similar to this analogy;

• Say we are facing a garden full of various types of weeds and unwanted plants.
  
  I pointed out we must focus our attention on the roots of the weeds. We must kill these weed on the basis of their roots. So if we get rid of the weeds down to its root system we will get rid of all the weeds.
  
  You say my views are frivolous. You insist all weeds has roots and thus no differences.
  So you propose we study the difference nature of the weeds, its structures, leaves, etc. and deal with them with differently.
  In this case we can cut the grass and unwanted plants, poison the leaves, etc. but not addressing the roots. This solution is temporary. It is obvious the problem will continue to persists.

Also, no one has actually addressed the OP's WHY? Why believe in a God that is impossible to prove [since 10s or 100s of thousand of years ago] and as you acknowledge it is based on faith. Why? Why? Why?

I thought you said it was existential? I gave one reason (I could give many many others) and provided a link to an article, did you miss that? Here is the link again

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... god-belief

Also, no one has actually addressed the OP's WHY? Why believe in a God that is impossible to prove [since 10s or 100s of thousand of years ago] and as you acknowledge it is based on faith. Why? Why? Why?

Why not? It can’t be disproved. Besides, how much of real life-experience is “empirical”?

P.S.

Faith and reason are inseparable.

Eduk wrote:

Also, no one has actually addressed the OP's WHY? Why believe in a God that is impossible to prove [since 10s or 100s of thousand of years ago] and as you acknowledge it is based on faith. Why? Why? Why?

I thought you said it was existential? I gave one reason (I could give many many others) and provided a link to an article, did you miss that? Here is the link again

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... god-belief

It was only me who proposed 'existential' and critically the arising 'existential crisis'.

I missed your link.
The impulse "to believe" is inherent in humans as programmed in the DNA and RNA. But I don't agree children will believe in a God until they are informed of the 'concept' of a God from their parents or society.

Note this;

• Older People Hold Stronger Belief in God
  Across the world, people have varying levels of belief (and disbelief) in God, with some nations being more devout than others. But new research reveals one constant across parts of the globe: As people age, their belief in God seems to increase.
  https://www.livescience.com/19971-belie ... m-age.html

The reason seem to be the age factor, but why?

My thesis is, why people believe in a god that is impossible to exists as real is due to existential elements, the inherent existential crisis and its related elements.

A baby's and child's existential instinctive impulse is taken care by the parents [their pseudo 'God'] and if there is an existential crisis they will cry to get their parents' attention.
It is only when a child is old enough to realize their father/mother is not 'god' per se to take care of all their psychological needs and if they their existential crisis is still pulsating [subliminally] strongly, they will seek God.

Point is, whatever reasons for a belief in God you can think of, they are all reducible to the existential factor and the existential crisis.

-- Updated Tue Nov 07, 2017 8:41 pm to add the following --

[b]Dark Matter[/b] wrote:

Also, no one has actually addressed the OP's WHY? Why believe in a God that is impossible to prove [since 10s or 100s of thousand of years ago] and as you acknowledge it is based on faith. Why? Why? Why?

Why not? It can’t be disproved. Besides, how much of real life-experience is “empirical”?
P.S.
Faith and reason are inseparable.

I have proven here 'God is an Impossibility' despite the general standard the positive claimant must provide proof.

Reality is reducible to two main elements, i.e. empiricism and rationalism [reason based].
Neither 'Empiricism' nor 'Rationalism' can be realistic on their own.
'Empiricism' must be complemented with 'Rationalism' to justify reality.

Faith is actually based on 'reason' to a degree, but such reason is primal and pure [thus Kant's Critique of Pure Reason]. The idea of God is concluded based solely on 'pure' reason, where God is an illusion.

Since the idea of God is purely based on reason without any empirical elements, God cannot be real.

The reason why theists insist God is real is due to psychological reason related to the existential crisis.