Philosophy Discussion Forums

Gertie wrote: ↑February 6th, 2023, 12:23 pm

JackDaydream wrote: ↑February 5th, 2023, 11:46 pm

value wrote: ↑February 5th, 2023, 5:51 pm

JackDaydream wrote: ↑February 3rd, 2023, 12:19 pm... on this forum there often seems little discussion in which both sides are looked at critically. ... it can seem like while the theists are preaching so are the atheists.

Have you ever wondered why atheists might do so? I've been interested in that question for many decades and again, not for religious motives.

Take for example the international atheism campaign with big billboards along highways and with bus and taxi advertising.


no-god-400.jpgdios-no-existe.jpg


I noticed an emotional factor at play with atheists. An emotion that would make them angry when certain sensitive topics are questioned (e.g. 'facts of science') and that naturally leads them to corrupt which would be justified for them by a fundamental disbelief that anything in the cosmos matters (a fundamental and ideological abolishment of morality). This was the reason of my interest in the exact nature of their belief.

My conclusion has been that atheism is a way out for people who would potentially (be prone to) seek the guidance that religions promise to provide. By revolting against religions, they seem to hope to find stability in life.

The emotional urge to attack people that do not share a dogmatic belief in the facts of science could originate from a feeling of vulnerability for religious exploitation of the weakness that results from the inability to answer the Why question of life (“What is the meaning of life?”).

I've also considered that atheism - as an organization - revolts against religions as it does to counter balance for good. Religions have committed atrocities such as the persecution of scientists. However, for many people it seems to be something personal (a real belief) and not strategic.

The problem is that when someone creates a thread to specifically attack theism, just as some threads which are aimed at attacking atheism, it is often done based on some fantasised conception of what the 'other' believes. Such thread topics frequently develop to become ones which go on for many pages because they are based on lack of any sound arguments in the first place and are simply distorted projections.

From my own perspective of having been raised in Christianity, specifically Catholicism, most religious people do not believe in a specific 'being. Paul Tillich argued that God is not a being but Being itself, as the if the spark of nature. Sometimes, as GE has done in the post above this one, is to hone in on the word Being as a buzz word, taking it so concretely.

I am rather confused by this thread and think it should have probably been added to the one which exists on Omnibevelence and Omnipotence because it is really a repeat attempt to try to set up an argument in the other thread which was not followed through. It is really an argument focusing in on a supposition of what people who believe in God think about the problem of evil. The problem is that by setting it up in such a way it gives little opportunity for genuine dialogue about ideas because it is aimed at at showing a particular conclusion, in this case with an argument based on 'toy worlds', which is so far away from the worldview of belief in God.

Jack the problem of evil/suffering is a major ongoing issue in philosophy of religion. There's a whole field of theodicy arising from it. That's why apologists like Swinburne (an Oxford Philosophy prof) are still trying to resolve it with eg hypothetical possible (toy) world arguments. He's not trying to debunk a caricature, he's presumably using it to supplement his free will theodicy.

It's a proper topic for this forum and the OP did a very good job of laying out some of the issues.

I am not dismissing Astro Cat's work and I am writing in it because I am interested in it. I am also working on the problem of good and evil, and suffering in my own thread which I started a few days before this one. As I have written in this thread I am getting a lot of replies here and my own hesitancy in responding is because I just don't wish to get locked into a for against perspective on theism/atheism. I see it in a much wider context, including comparative religion and diverse perspectives in philosophy, especially Buddhism.

Personally, I am interested in the issue of good, evil and suffering but without an agenda of being locked into the either/ or dichotomy of theism vs atheism, because it is a too simplistic division, based on Western philosophy alone. My own thread was intended to offer a wider comparative analysis.

value wrote: ↑February 6th, 2023, 8:10 am

JackDaydream wrote: ↑February 5th, 2023, 11:46 pm I am rather confused by this thread and think it should have probably been added to the one which exists on Omnibevelence and Omnipotence because it is really a repeat attempt to try to set up an argument in the other thread which was not followed through. It is really an argument focusing in on a supposition of what people who believe in God think about the problem of evil. The problem is that by setting it up in such a way it gives little opportunity for genuine dialogue about ideas because it is aimed at at showing a particular conclusion, in this case with an argument based on 'toy worlds', which is so far away from the worldview of belief in God.

I would disagree. The concept toy worlds as it is named by Astro Cat is simply Simulation Theory, an increasingly 'hot topic' in philosophy and as I learned recently, has been worked on by David Chalmers since he began his career.

David Chalmers: From Dualism to Deism (book Reality+ about the cutting edge of VR, AI and philosophy)
A philsopher comes full circle
https://onlinephilosophyclub.com/forums ... =2&t=17829

The "classical" simulation argument is Nick Bostrum's, published in Phil Quarterly in 2003. It is here:

https://www.simulation-argument.com/simulation

GE Morton wrote: ↑February 6th, 2023, 12:47 pm

value wrote: ↑February 6th, 2023, 8:10 am

JackDaydream wrote: ↑February 5th, 2023, 11:46 pm I am rather confused by this thread and think it should have probably been added to the one which exists on Omnibevelence and Omnipotence because it is really a repeat attempt to try to set up an argument in the other thread which was not followed through. It is really an argument focusing in on a supposition of what people who believe in God think about the problem of evil. The problem is that by setting it up in such a way it gives little opportunity for genuine dialogue about ideas because it is aimed at at showing a particular conclusion, in this case with an argument based on 'toy worlds', which is so far away from the worldview of belief in God.

I would disagree. The concept toy worlds as it is named by Astro Cat is simply Simulation Theory, an increasingly 'hot topic' in philosophy and as I learned recently, has been worked on by David Chalmers since he began his career.

David Chalmers: From Dualism to Deism (book Reality+ about the cutting edge of VR, AI and philosophy)
A philsopher comes full circle
https://onlinephilosophyclub.com/forums ... =2&t=17829

The "classical" simulation argument is Nick Bostrum's, published in Phil Quarterly in 2003. It is here:

https://www.simulation-argument.com/simulation

The issue which I have with simulation theory is not that it is to be dismissed but it is imaginary. As you have written in a couple of replies to me good and evil are constructs. Even the idea of 'being' is a construct in the human mind. What may important is to realise that all the imaginary possibilities whether it is simulation, good or evil, theism or atheism are framings of the epistemological imagination. Concrete thinking, especially in relation to a paradigm of realism in philosophy, has its limits and the metaphorical imagination underlies philosophy, ranging from the philosophy of religion and science. In this context it is important to recognize that simulation theory is the scope of the imaginary rather than it being set up as if it were a literal form. If anything, the emergence of simulation theory may arise in the context of materialist or the Newtonian-Cartesian perspective being broken down by the lack of solidity in the quantum picture of reality. In this context, imagination and the metaphorical may be valid as were concrete metaphysical or theoretical assumptions of 'truth' in previous worldviews.

GE Morton wrote: ↑February 6th, 2023, 12:47 pm

value wrote: ↑February 6th, 2023, 8:10 am

JackDaydream wrote: ↑February 5th, 2023, 11:46 pm I am rather confused by this thread and think it should have probably been added to the one which exists on Omnibevelence and Omnipotence because it is really a repeat attempt to try to set up an argument in the other thread which was not followed through. It is really an argument focusing in on a supposition of what people who believe in God think about the problem of evil. The problem is that by setting it up in such a way it gives little opportunity for genuine dialogue about ideas because it is aimed at at showing a particular conclusion, in this case with an argument based on 'toy worlds', which is so far away from the worldview of belief in God.

I would disagree. The concept toy worlds as it is named by Astro Cat is simply Simulation Theory, an increasingly 'hot topic' in philosophy and as I learned recently, has been worked on by David Chalmers since he began his career.

David Chalmers: From Dualism to Deism (book Reality+ about the cutting edge of VR, AI and philosophy)
A philsopher comes full circle
https://onlinephilosophyclub.com/forums ... =2&t=17829

The "classical" simulation argument is Nick Bostrum's, published in Phil Quarterly in 2003. It is here:

https://www.simulation-argument.com/simulation

I just started a new thread on the "simulation argument":

https://onlinephilosophyclub.com/forums ... =2&t=18628

JackDaydream wrote: ↑February 6th, 2023, 11:32 am

Astro Cat wrote: ↑February 6th, 2023, 10:48 am

JackDaydream wrote: ↑February 5th, 2023, 11:46 pm I am rather confused by this thread and think it should have probably been added to the one which exists on Omnibevelence and Omnipotence because it is really a repeat attempt to try to set up an argument in the other thread which was not followed through. It is really an argument focusing in on a supposition of what people who believe in God think about the problem of evil. The problem is that by setting it up in such a way it gives little opportunity for genuine dialogue about ideas because it is aimed at at showing a particular conclusion, in this case with an argument based on 'toy worlds', which is so far away from the worldview of belief in God.

Both threads are about responding to classical theist responses to iterations of the Problem of Evil. The "could God create omniscient and omnibenevolent people" is actually more of an offshoot than this thread is, I would consider this thread the "main" thread. The other thread was just to get some quick analysis from folks while I was in the midst of a separate conversation.

I have tried to give some background on why this thread exists, but let me try another way. What happens is I will present the Problem of Evil to some classical theist. The particular Problem of Evil I present is about the existence of physical suffering and innocent victims. This is where the Toy World bits come on: it's not that classical theism proposes God created a Toy World, it's to point out that a Toy World is possible on classical theism and demands an explanation for why, if God is benevolent, God didn't make the actual world a toy world (which is a world that doesn't have physical suffering).

So hopefully that answers your feeling that it is "so far away from the worldview of belief in God." It's because the question of the PoE is why God didn't make a Toy World; because choosing not to makes God culpable for physical suffering existing.

Then, the rest of the post is about analysing problems with the greater good theodicy. There is plenty of room for genuine dialogue (I'm having some on another forum for instance) that is fully on topic about it. Maybe this forum just doesn't have many people coming from a classical theism perspective so they are weirded out by it. I was thinking maybe people would be able to put on a classical theist hat to just feel it out maybe. "If I were a classical theist, these are my thoughts on the strengths and weaknesses of a greater good theodicy" sort of thing.

Probably what is complicated is that I am on the other forum and did interact with you there as well. Part of my response on this forum was in response to the reply to me on that one! It was the one in.which you argued that theodicy points to ad absurdism. It was a response to my query if you saw God as metaphorical because in order to embrace the concept of 'toy worlds' it is important to be able to understand the nature of the imaginary. I do think the debate on toy worlds has gone better on the other forum even though you have had more responses on this one, which is surprising as TPF has far more users. I do find the area you have raised as being interesting. A couple of times I have written a thread on both forums which was an experiment in itself but it practically drove me schizoidal following the discussion in two threads. Since then, I have found that it is more workable to write the threads a little while apart and, sometimes, in a slightly revised way. However, you may be finding the juxtaposition of the two threads as working well in your thinking and writing.

One other interesting aspect, which I do not wish to build out of proportion is how our different backgrounds come into play. You are a physicist whereas I come from a background in a mixture of psychology and philosophy, including some research on Jung and the theology of evil. What I am saying is that these different backgrounds impact on our thinking. I am certainly not trying to say that these restrict us and that we should stick to our specialities. If anything, I think the opposite and that creative discussion takes place with people who go across the spectrum of disciplines. I am just suggesting that it is an important starting place for thinking about the formation of our unique perspectives.

I had no idea that was you lol!

I, too, appreciate what different backgrounds bring to the table for precisely how they affect our thoughts. I’m out with the girlfriend right now, so short response. I raise my glass to you sir

Astro Cat wrote: ↑February 6th, 2023, 10:56 am So for instance, on omnipotence and omnipotence, no, the disease examples you mentioned wouldn't serve a purpose because the goal achieved by them could be achieved without the suffering in the first place.

How do you know? Isn't such an idea premature?

The suffering that you seem to be indicating could equally apply to 'perceived ugly' people when compared to some sort of ideal of beauty 'of grown up women'. And what about gay people?

In the 1950s, homosexual behavior was officially declared a psychiatric disease. However, due to fierce protests and commotion from American politicians in 1973, the diagnosis was deleted from the psychiatric handbook, the DSM, and homosexuality has been ignored by psychiatry ever since.

But what would it have been like today if psychiatry had won back then? As an adult you can base your resistance to a dogma on all your positive experiences with homosexuality, for example on the potential or benefit that you experienced after overcoming the (initial) problems. But how could a five-year-old possibly do that? What might a child say to parents who are advised by a psychiatrist to have the child's brain treated with anti-gay drugs?

The child wants to be loved and free, it will logically accept that it is sick and undergo the psychiatric treatment.

Despite the fact that psychiatry lost at the time and homosexuality is no longer officially regarded as a disease, many psychiatrists within their practice still regard homosexuality as a disease and treat it medically. Recently there was a stir in Britain when it became known that 1 in 6 British psychiatrists consider homosexuality as a disease and try to cure it with medical treatment.

Professor Michael King: “I was really shocked by this and did not expect this to take place on a large scale. There is no scientific basis for these treatments.”

Parents that raise a Down child often say that the child has enriched their life in unexpected ways that makes them very happy. Families with Down children have shown to be more robust with less divorces. The attempt to prevent such children to be born may come from premature ideals. A story of a mother may provide an insight: outsiders consider it a wonder that the mother loves her child while in reality something of an opposite nature is the case and the child is valuable for the family.

It’s time for more parents to step up for children with Down syndrome
https://socialwork.utexas.edu/its-time- ... -syndrome/

People with Down syndrome are happy. Why are we trying to eliminate them?
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/pos ... nate-them/

The Truth About Down Syndrome
Last week the biologist Richard Dawkins sparked controversy when he wrote about Down children on Twitter: “Abort it and try again. It would be immoral to bring it into the world if you have the choice.”

In further statements, Mr. Dawkins suggested that his view was rooted in the moral principle of reducing overall suffering whenever possible — in this case, that of individuals born with Down syndrome and their families.

But Mr. Dawkins’s argument is flawed. Recent research indicates that individuals with Down syndrome can experience more happiness and potential for success than Mr. Dawkins seems to appreciate.
https://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/29/opin ... drome.html

Down Syndrome Study Finds Families Are Happy
The vast majority of parents said they have a more positive outlook on life because of their child with Down syndrome. And, nearly 90 percent of siblings indicated that they feel like they are better people because of their brother or sister with the developmental disability. And, more importantly, the people with Down syndrome themselves have clearly stated that they consider their lives valuable.
https://www.disabilityscoop.com/2011/09 ... ppy/14087/

An attempt to stand above life as being life logically results in a figurative stone that sinks in the ocean of time.

What's going on under the hood in children with Down syndrome is named by experts 'a Super Genome'. Perhaps from a human evolution perspective work of great significance is being done in children with Down syndrome.

The fact that one in seven hundred children are born with down syndrome may be an indication that a certain level of respect is applicable. The idea of removing such children from humanity for 'perceived' ideals seems unwise.

GE Morton wrote: ↑February 5th, 2023, 9:48 pm

value wrote: ↑February 5th, 2023, 2:15 pm
I am not religious myself but I am also not an atheist. Atheism in my view is principled disbelief that stems from an attempt to escape religious exploitation of the weakness that is caused by the fundamental inability to answer the why question of life.

While I don't describe myself as an atheist and won't pretend to speak for all atheists, that has not been the source of disbelief for those with whom I've discussed the question. Their atheism stems, instead, simply from the incoherence of the "God" concept and/or from the absence of any evidence supporting the theistic thesis.

The "why question of life," BTW, is a nonsensical question, if the "why" is meant in the purposive sense (rather than the causal sense). When you ask it in the former sense you beg the "God" question (because only sentient creatures have purposes). The universe as a whole doesn't need a purpose, and all attempts to impute one to it are vacuous flapdoodle.

When viewing the cosmos as being purely causal of nature one would merely shift the 'why' question backwards to a First Cause which many philosophers in history have done.

Aristotle: First cause, in philosophy, the self-created being (i.e., God) to which every chain of causes must ultimately go back.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/aristotle-causality/

Marcus Aurelius: The nature of the universe did once certainly before it was created, whatsoever it hath done since, deliberate and so resolve upon the creation of the world. Now since that time, whatsoever it is, that is and happens in the world, is either but a consequent of that one and first deliberation.

Spinoza: The Oneness of Everything
https://medium.com/personal-growth/spin ... 1a411085c9

Aristotle's opinion of the cosmos having a "First Cause" is not just any opinion. Aristotle is considered as 'the first teacher' in many cultures, including in regions such as Arabia.

... from the sixth through the twelfth centuries, although the bulk of Aristotle’s writings were lost to the West, they received extensive consideration in Byzantine Philosophy, and in Arabic Philosophy, where Aristotle was so prominent that be became known simply as The First Teacher

In my opinion the error is made to exclude the observer from the consideration. A "First Cause" cannot logically exist because it implies a begin and a begin cannot precede an observer because a begin requires an observer to be possible.

When it concerns the why question of the cosmos, either 'in-the-moment' applicable as I would argue with the observer logically being primary to 'the cosmos' or in the form of a First Cause in a purely causal cosmos, the answer to that why question would be 'purpose'.

GE Morton wrote: ↑February 6th, 2023, 12:47 pm

value wrote: ↑February 6th, 2023, 8:10 am

JackDaydream wrote: ↑February 5th, 2023, 11:46 pm I am rather confused by this thread and think it should have probably been added to the one which exists on Omnibevelence and Omnipotence because it is really a repeat attempt to try to set up an argument in the other thread which was not followed through. It is really an argument focusing in on a supposition of what people who believe in God think about the problem of evil. The problem is that by setting it up in such a way it gives little opportunity for genuine dialogue about ideas because it is aimed at at showing a particular conclusion, in this case with an argument based on 'toy worlds', which is so far away from the worldview of belief in God.

I would disagree. The concept toy worlds as it is named by Astro Cat is simply Simulation Theory, an increasingly 'hot topic' in philosophy and as I learned recently, has been worked on by David Chalmers since he began his career.

David Chalmers: From Dualism to Deism (book Reality+ about the cutting edge of VR, AI and philosophy)
A philsopher comes full circle
viewtopic.php?f=2&t=17829

The "classical" simulation argument is Nick Bostrum's, published in Phil Quarterly in 2003. It is here:

https://www.simulation-argument.com/simulation

I noticed your other topic. Thank you for the link. I will first read Nick Bostrum's argument before returning to your new topic:

On the "Simulation argument"
viewtopic.php?f=2&t=18628

What do you think of Astro Cat's idea of toy worlds?