Beyond The Theism vs. Atheism Debate

[Typist]

As you know, the Theism vs. Atheism Debate dominates the religion sections of philosophy forums. For old timers this may be a too well worn path that has become tiresome. And so we might ask...

1) Do we want to explore beyond the boundaries of the theism vs atheism debate? I don't take it for granted that we do, as many on all sides may have grown quite comfortable with the routine. If we do wish to explore beyond this age old debate, is it possible? How would that work?

I see two necessary conditions for such a project.

CONDITION ONE: A reader has to have come to the conclusion, largely on their own, that nobody really knows the answer to the God question.

Such a reader has probably also concluded that there is little chance this question will be convincingly answered one way or the other in our lifetimes. Possible of course, but not very likely.

That is, if a reader feels they are in a position to come to an answer on the God question, there would seem to be little reason for them to explore further. What's to explore, and why bother, if we already know the answer, or think we do?

CONDITION TWO: If a reader has met Condition One then the question becomes, are they still interested in the topic?

If a reader decides nobody knows, and probably nobody will know any time soon, does that lead to them dropping the subject and walking away? Do they feel there's no point to the inquiry if we aren't going to reach an answer?

Or are they still interested despite that limitation, and do they wish to continue an inquiry nonetheless?

[V-OutOfTheWilderness]

Or are they still interested despite that limitation, and do they wish to continue an inquiry nonetheless?

Well some of us readers are just keeping an eye open, should new evidence crop its head up ... either way.

Right now we've come to a dead end.

A perfect place from whence to step into faith. Where else do we have to go? We're in the dark looking for the light switch. But that light bulb burnt out long ago. Put your arms out and start walking ... and bumping into things ...

[James S Saint]

If you want to pursue the truth of the matter you have to establish a foundation for belief, else the debating is merely political never ends.

Definitional Logic in Rational Metaphysics offers such a foundation.
And gets to that end result.

[felix dakat]

Would going beyond the theism vs. atheism because of our ignorance as proposed in the OP include the possibility of acknowledging this and yet making a conscious decision to continue by faith?

[James S Saint]

Would going beyond the theism vs. atheism because of our ignorance as proposed in the OP include the possibility of acknowledging this and yet making a conscious decision to continue by faith?

In what direction were you referring to?

[Typist]

Would going beyond the theism vs. atheism because of our ignorance as proposed in the OP include the possibility of acknowledging this and yet making a conscious decision to continue by faith?

Surely some would make this choice. Whether this is going beyond theism/atheism is uncertain, and perhaps an issue of semantics? If one's has faith in God, it seems one is a theist. If one places one's faith in reason instead, it seems one might be called an atheist?

Hmm... "Beyond" is probably a poor choice of words on my part, as it may imply "superior to" to some readers. How about "explore outside" the theism/atheism debate instead?

Why might we want to explore outside the usual debate? If we do, it might be because the theism/atheism debate has been going around in circles for a very long time. Clearly the debate has proved it's entertainment value, but we don't have a lot evidence of actual progress in understanding the issues involved.

What issues?

We might assert that religion is the biggest cultural event in human history. It's arisen in every time and place for thousands of years, and remains vibrant to this day. Not universal, it's never been that, but usually a very significant factor in human cultures.

If billions of people for thousands of years in every corner of the world had been interested in say, um, donuts, we would reasonably speculate that there must be some significant human need that people are attempting to address with donuts. What is that need?

The question may boil down to this.

Are we really interested in religion? Not in joining or promoting a religion, but in religion as a major cultural factor.

Here's a test that might yield some clarity for some readers. Suppose the forum mods banned debating about religion. Would we still wish to discuss religion? That is, what is it that we're really interested in, religion, or debating? If we had to choose, what's our choice?

It seems the most constructive reason to pursue a discussion of religion could be to understand what the underlying need driving religion is, and consider how it might be met. Understanding this need doesn't have to imply either support or rejection of religion, but can be an objective analysis.

If such a project doesn't require arguing about Gods, then a huge amount of time, energy and intelligence is liberated, and can perhaps be applied to another hopefully more promising game plan. What is our game plan? What is our goal in all these conversations?

[Moreno]

CONDITION ONE: A reader has to have come to the conclusion, largely on their own, that nobody really knows the answer to the God question.

That's a rather amazing chunk of knowledge to come over. On the order of knowing whether there is a God or not.

[James S Saint]

The question may boil down to this.

Are we really interested in religion? Not in joining or promoting a religion, but in religion as a major cultural factor.

Here's a test that might yield some clarity for some readers. Suppose the forum mods banned debating about religion. Would we still wish to discuss religion? That is, what is it that we're really interested in, religion, or debating? If we had to choose, what's our choice?

It seems the most constructive reason to pursue a discussion of religion could be to understand what the underlying need driving religion is, and consider how it might be met. Understanding this need doesn't have to imply either support or rejection of religion, but can be an objective analysis.

If such a project doesn't require arguing about Gods, then a huge amount of time, energy and intelligence is liberated, and can perhaps be applied to another hopefully more promising game plan. What is our game plan? What is our goal in all these conversations?

Those questions are already being addressed under different names; "Social Science", "Political Science", "Rational Metaphysics", "Utopia",...

A religion is no more than a means to maintain a society. That is why they last so long.
But a very relevant question is.. Don't Believe The Truth - Double Indemnity

[Typist]

CONDITION ONE: A reader has to have come to the conclusion, largely on their own, that nobody really knows the answer to the God question.

That's a rather amazing chunk of knowledge to come over. On the order of knowing whether there is a God or not.

It's not possible to prove that assertion, any more than it is any of the others. But, imho, it is possible to make a stronger case for this assertion than any of the others.

It's not really so complicated to reason that's it's unlikely that one species, on one planet, in one of billions of galaxies, a species only recently living in caves, a species constantly at war with itself both personally and socially, knows what does or doesn't lie at the heart of all reality.

If I was describing any species but our own, I believe we'd all pretty quickly agree that the infinite scale claims of such a species should be considered with extreme scepticism bordering on hilarity.

All that said, I really do believe each reader will likely have to do this calculation on their own.

[Typist]

Those questions are already being addressed under different names; "Social Science", "Political Science", "Rational Metaphysics", "Utopia",...A religion is no more than a means to maintain a society. That is why they last so long.

Ok, so you already know your answer, and thus will have no use for this thread. Fair enough. Thanks for stopping by!

[James S Saint]

Ok, so you already know your answer, and thus will have no use for this thread. Fair enough. Thanks for stopping by!

Haha..
I guess that is a tender way of putting it.

[Moreno]

CONDITION ONE: A reader has to have come to the conclusion, largely on their own, that nobody really knows the answer to the God question.

That's a rather amazing chunk of knowledge to come over. On the order of knowing whether there is a God or not.

It's not possible to prove that assertion, any more than it is any of the others. But, imho, it is possible to make a stronger case for this assertion than any of the others.

It's not really so complicated to reason that's it's unlikely that one species, on one planet, in one of billions of galaxies, a species only recently living in caves, a species constantly at war with itself both personally and socially, knows what does or doesn't lie at the heart of all reality.

If I was describing any species but our own, I believe we'd all pretty quickly agree that the infinite scale claims of such a species should be considered with extreme scepticism bordering on hilarity.

All that said, I really do believe each reader will likely have to do this calculation on their own.

There are so many assumptions - mostly implicit - in the above, I think it's best to just mention that fact and if you are interested you may go back and try to see what I mean. I find it amazing you think a math metaphor - calculate - is appropriate or perhaps not even a metaphor for how one arrives at the truth of what no one could know.

[Typist]

Haha.. I guess that is a tender way of putting it.

Sorry, I had one of my little snotty attacks.

[James S Saint]

Haha.. I guess that is a tender way of putting it.

Sorry, I had one of my little snotty attacks.

You do "snotty" well.

[Typist]

You do "snotty" well.

Ha, ha! You're keeping up, you're keeping up...

[felix dakat]

Typist

Surely some would make this choice. Whether this is going beyond theism/atheism is uncertain, and perhaps an issue of semantics? If one's has faith in God, it seems one is a theist. If one places one's faith in reason instead, it seems one might be called an atheist?

The limitations you specified were based on ignorance relating to the God question. Faith based on decision rather than knowledge claims wouldn't violate the limits you set. The theist/atheist debate usually focuses dispute over what is known. Agnostics admit they don't know. If faith is not a matter of knowledge than a person could admit agnosticism but still have faith.

[Contra-Nietzsche]

I am opposed to anything that threatens the status quo of the atheism vs religion debates that goes on in societies in general. It works out rather nicely, religion's adapted to it over a half millennium of gestation since the Averroist, and has come to several solutions to it, including ironically showing initially by accident how detractors themselves build up traditions of lazy assumptions and then watch as it turns into faith and scientism, completely undermining their arguments.

Honestly, nothing makes the church more interesting than comparing it to the best arguments available.... if the church is boring it's for a simple reason, we've got fools and boring people attacking it..... but it produces a counter-result of keeping evangelists and philanthropists energetic and motivated, flooding coffers and setting up missions..... these are average, everyday people with the exact same mindset as your average Dawking's fan.... saying to themselves 'This seems like something even I can accomplish, I can honestly do something here' and in their case they do. They convert entire nations or go door to door in communities.

I strongly encourage this theory and emphasis on attacking 'faith' via the position of ridiculing it because it's not reason. Nothing fires up religion more, and causes a evolutionary response in the religious than this. Atheism comes and goes, doesn't have a half life, just isn't with the presence of contradicting elements. It's a rather easy element to manage and difficult to maintain, as reason when pushed through any given synthesis will meet it's paradox and ends in mood, assumption, imagination, and principled assertions..... higher forms of though that are a landmind for any atheist. I doubt there's ever been a authentic life long atheist.... they must of repeatedly fallen into faith and religion on a daily basis after a while in trying to resist it. Too damn ingrained in our psychology. Not culture.... psychology.

So stop trying to move past this, and just enjoy the landmine ridden ruins of this forum. It's laughable and absurd, and is a big old attrition trap. Thing about it 'atheists'..... for however smart you think you are, these 'dumb idiots' all around you.... debating you, still continue to believe, gain better arguments again reason, you do next to nothing to dent their faith, and they occupy your time and thinking capacity. We win. You've lost, and it's not the battle you've lost, but the war in pursuing the battle. You really don't grasp the nature of the game your playing. WE INDUCTED YOUR TRADITIONS. We introduced them into theologically ran seminaries, we ran the damn crap for centuries, and the effects of our censorship on the university level, and the imprint of the Intellectual Rules of the Jesuits are the foundations by which you invisibly follow without question. You simply put can't threaten us, any more than a test rat navigating a maze can hope to truly escape.

Just continue on as you were, mock me and lambast me, secular this, atheist that..... how great the universities are, and who the head honchos in the atheist movement are, how great it is and how foolish arguments A, B, and C are.... and watch us squirm. You're clearly having a effect!

(P.S..... I am honestly a big fan of your work {ye atheists} in the middle east..... it will make conversions there a lot easier as they increasingly give up and then become despondent, and see how well other religions are still doing, especially Christianity, as we definitely have a certain advantage there, being people of the book and rich and successful with a set of professed values amongst most denominations in many way diametrically opposed to violence and jihad.)

[Typist]

The limitations you specified were based on ignorance relating to the God question. Faith based on decision rather than knowledge claims wouldn't violate the limits you set. The theist/atheist debate usually focuses dispute over what is known. Agnostics admit they don't know. If faith is not a matter of knowledge than a person could admit agnosticism but still have faith.

Hmm.... Faith in what?

I would agree it's possible to have faith without making an infinite scale assertion.

As example, in my case I have a feeling that everything will be ok when I die, and that dead relatives are still watching over me, whispering advice in my ear from time to time. This feeling arose on it's own, and it feels good, so I let it happen. Why not?

I do however acknowledge that the feeling is based on nothing but feeling, and readily accept and agree it could very well be a complete fantasy falsehood. I'm just feeling what makes me feel good and not asserting any position, other than that the feeling feels good, which it seems I have the authority to claim.

Am I on the right track here? Or?

[Typist]

Contra-Nietzsche, stop being a stingy pot bong hog, and pass it over here, wouldya??



PUBLIC NOTICE: No wine bottles were harmed in the production of this message.

[felix dakat]

The limitations you specified were based on ignorance relating to the God question. Faith based on decision rather than knowledge claims wouldn't violate the limits you set. The theist/atheist debate usually focuses dispute over what is known. Agnostics admit they don't know. If faith is not a matter of knowledge than a person could admit agnosticism but still have faith.

Hmm.... Faith in what?

I would agree it's possible to have faith without making an infinite scale assertion.

As example, in my case I have a feeling that everything will be ok when I die, and that dead relatives are still watching over me, whispering advice in my ear from time to time. This feeling arose on it's own, and it feels good, so I let it happen. Why not?

I do however acknowledge that the feeling is based on nothing but feeling, and readily accept and agree it could very well be a complete fantasy falsehood. I'm just feeling what makes me feel good and not asserting any position, other than that the feeling feels good, which it seems I have the authority to claim.

Am I on the right track here? Or?

Yes you are on the right track. Faith is our connection to ultimate reality. But, even that statement can be misleading. The tendency of the human mind is to objectify even that which is no object. Ultimate reality must be, but we cannot even imagine its content. Faith is a direction. The experience of God is a direction. If this is so, God, in so far as God can be apprehended in this life is a direction. Some will reject the term God, as the term itself has become a big part of the problem I am trying to identify. The term Spirit was meant to imply the non-concrete character of this experience, but such is the nature of human thought that even Spirit is concretized into dogma. Every formulation of this process, including this one, is problematic and can be misleading. Therefore, all formulations must be tentatively maintained or they become a new dogma.

[James S Saint]

Therefore, all formulations must be tentatively maintained or they become a new dogma.

Therefore dogma must be tentatively maintained?
Hmm.. I wonder how long "tentatively" is..

[Typist]

Therefore dogma must be tentatively maintained?
Hmm.. I wonder how long "tentatively" is..

I read felix to be suggesting we hold our conclusions lightly.

[felix dakat]

Therefore, all formulations must be tentatively maintained or they become a new dogma.

Therefore dogma must be tentatively maintained?
Hmm.. I wonder how long "tentatively" is..

Me too. Until the end of the aeon? The apocalypse has been delayed, but some in every generation think it's right around the corner To some people, death itself was but the rending of a veil which would admit us to the full vision of the ultimate. If it takes an eternity to reveal the nature of eternity, it may take a while. Try to be patient.

You and I have a different understanding of our epistemological situation, James. I don't expect to achieve certainty regarding ultimate reality in this lifetime. You apparently think you already have achieved it. I think you are mistaken. But, arguing about it is what Typist is proposing that we go "beyond." Since we are both human, there must be some overlapping experience that our disagreement misses. If we are to get beyond the theism vs. atheism debate we would need to focus on identifying that area of commonality.

[Typist]

If we are to get beyond the theism vs. atheism debate we would need to focus on identifying that area of commonality.

To refine my request, I'm not suggesting we drop all debate, but perhaps take a break from what seems to be pointless debate, like the question of a God's existence etc. Just in one thread, to provide what might be a refreshing alternative to the usual routine.

One area of possible commonality I've tried to suggest is the question, are we actually interested in religion? As example...

Many atheists want religion to go away. In order for that to actually happen, whatever need is motivating people to adopt religions will have to met by some other means.

Many theists want the best goals of religion to be achieved. The best goals of religion would be to fully meet the needs of the religious and surrounding community.

It seems these goals are complementary. If the human needs that fuel religion were somehow met, religion would have achieved it's victory, and thus religion would no longer be needed. Here's a colorful example...

Who thinks about religion or God while they're in the middle of wild sex? Who thinks about atheism while they're in the middle of wild sex? Who wants to argue about any of it while they're in the middle of wild sex?

So, that's my suggestion. Wild sex 24 hours a day for every person on earth. Ok, ok, I know that will result in a population explosion, but just think of it as more people to have wild sex with.

Why does religion exist in the first place? Why do even atheists have this need to feel they KNOW the answer? It seems it would be in everybody's interest to understand these human needs and deal with them.

We don't have to call this inquiry religion, or debunking religion. We could just call it, trying to be happier human beings.

[felix dakat]

One area of possible commonality I've tried to suggest is the question, are we actually interested in religion? As example...

Please define what you mean by religion. It's not clear that everyone is talking about the same thing when they use that word.

Many atheists want religion to go away. In order for that to actually happen, whatever need is motivating people to adopt religions will have to met by some other means.

Are you sure? Atheists including notably Sam Harris want to retain "spirituality" which may be a euphemism for at least some aspects of religion depending on what you mean by religion.

Many theists want the best goals of religion to be achieved. The best goals of religion would be to fully meet the needs of the religious and surrounding community.

Theists don't agree about what the best goals of religion are or about what religion is.

It seems these goals are complementary. If the human needs that fuel religion were somehow met, religion would have achieved it's victory, and thus religion would no longer be needed. Here's a colorful example...

Who thinks about religion or God while they're in the middle of wild sex? Who thinks about atheism while they're in the middle of wild sex? Who wants to argue about any of it while they're in the middle of wild sex?

People shout "O my God" during sex. Religionists use sex as a metaphor for the experience of "knowing" God [See the Son of Solomon in the Hebrew Bible]. Based on such evidence theism is unconsciously closer to sex than atheism.

So, that's my suggestion. Wild sex 24 hours a day for every person on earth. Ok, ok, I know that will result in a population explosion, but just think of it as more people to have wild sex with.

Now you're just playing.

Why does religion exist in the first place? Why do even atheists have this need to feel they KNOW the answer? It seems it would be in everybody's interest to understand these human needs and deal with them.

Religion exists to fulfill humankind's need for ultimate meaning. The atheist's need to feel they know comes from the same place.

We don't have to call this inquiry religion, or debunking religion. We could just call it, trying to be happier human beings.

It doesn't matter what you call it. Unless we destroy ourselves, religion will outlive us all.