It would have been more helpful if you at least could explain to us why you think the definitions are wrong.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Extremes of Atheism vs Theism
- Thread starter idav
- Start date
Enai de a lukal
Well-Known Member
No, you made the claim- a prima facie ludicrous one; if you can't even give some sense to the statement, much less substantiate it, then it needn't even be taken seriously.
Again, this is just sort of lovey-dovey nonsense. "Arguing as a binary truth about a propositional God"? Do you even know what that means? I sure don't.
Why?
What does that even mean?
A better question would be, how could it be argued non-propositionally?
In any case, if you're saying that God is not a possible object of coherent thought or discourse, then you're basically conceding my case: theism cannot be true.
If God, or God's existence, cannot be expressed in a proposition, then it cannot be an object of propositional knowledge (in other words, one could not know that God exists, or that God is omnipotent, or that God created the universe).
Enai de a lukal
Well-Known Member
I already said- this thread isn't about the definitions of atheism/agnosticism/theism/non-theism/whatever. There recently was a thread that ran close to 100 pages if not more on precisely that subject, and I, and others, stated some reasons for not accepting the sort of definitions you've offered here. The subject has been done to death. Moreover, its pretty clear that the sense of the term "atheism" the OP is thinking of is more than simply non-theism, but strong/explicit/real atheism.
But if you need to see that your definitions are not the only possible ones, browse some atheist or philosophy forums, or read up on the history of atheism in general (hint: for most of history, "atheism" has NOT denoted anything like "lack of belief in gods"- for centuries, it basically meant "blasphemy" or "heresy", and after that, conscious rejection of theism, as in Marx, Nietzsche, and so on).
This is 2014. Please use the definitions most atheists currently use and stop living in the previous millennium. The OP said: "I see atheism and theism being extremes as to an explantion of origins." They are of course not extremes. A theist postulates a god or gods as an explanation of origins, an atheist don't. That is all there is to it. Nothing extreme about it.
"The more common understanding of atheism among atheists is "not believing in any gods." No claims or denials are made - an atheist is any person who is not a theist. Sometimes this broader understanding is called "weak" or "implicit" atheism. There is also a narrower sort of atheism, sometimes called "strong" or "explicit" atheism. Here, the atheist explicitly denies the existence of any gods - making a strong claim which will deserve support at some point."
Atheism 101: Introduction to Atheism & Atheists - Answers to Questions & Mistakes
The only claim I made was that there are shades of grey to understanding what is truth. Points of view influence what is known, and truth is relative. If you consider this "ludicrous", then what can I possibly say to help your mode of thought to move from concrete-literal terms to relativistic terms?
Yes, you don't know what that means, and this underscores my point. And the fact that you feel it's necessary to include editorializing comments such as "lovey-dovey", "slogans", etc attaching these in response to what I am saying typically indicates a need to bolster up your position with pejoratives rather than substance. That always says to me the person lacks an actual response and just needs to insult the argument away rather than try to understand the others point of view.
I've explained this already. It's very simple actually. Because God is not an object, a logical statement that the mind can comprehend. Rather God is apprehended. There is a difference between apprehend and comprehend.
Because mental objects are not the only way to know. For instance, you don't reason a sunset. You experience a sunset. Anytime you are relating to your ideas, you are not in communion with the actual reality.
I have a saying that expresses this in regard to ideas of God. Theology is the mind's last ditch attempt to realize God before it fails, and does.
Now, rather than just responding to statements like this with pejoratives, it would be nice to see you make an effort to try to penetrate what that means and have an actual discussion about it.
It's not argued non-propositionally. It's not argued at all. I am not making an argument for the existence of God to be examined, debated, and a conclusion reached. The only thing I have ever said is that to make a positive statement that God does not exist betrays a lack of exploring all of what God entails.A better question would be, how could it be argued non-propositionally?
If one wants to explore ways of apprehending that question, that is not just some series of logic arguments (which summarizes your approach), then there are other options available. At which point, then you or anyone else may find that these questions framed in the way you do, are moot.
I am saying that both theism and atheism are true, and not true. The reason is because these are perspectives to something that itself is beyond definitions, including that definition itself. Theism is a perspective of that which is wholly beyond mental ideas. Atheism is actually correct in saying that theism cannot be correct. But not in the way it then concludes there is therefore no God, period, end of story. Because it is tied to the fault of a literal definition of God. It's enlightened enough to realize it doesn't match up with the larger picture, but not enlightened enough to avoid falling into the same trap and make a conclusion themselves, defining God in a particular way, which is what you do.
Atheism to me, paves the way to understanding the Divine, because it deconstructs the inconsistencies of a mythic-literal theistic view of God. But then it stops there and celebrates itself as enlightened, and goes on its merry way self-congratulating upon now knowing the truth. It is stuck a debunking a mythic-literal perspective of God, and doesn't move beyond that in any actual investigation of that 'baby in the bathwater'. No perspective that entails entire worldviews is without truth in it. But black and white thinking, that mode of thought itself, does not seem able to recognize that.
You cannot know propositionally, because it limits understanding to patterns of logical thought. But you can know other ways.
camanintx
Well-Known Member
Isn't the question "does God exist" a binary one? Either God exists or it doesn't, there is no in-between. Either the theist or the atheist is correct, and while saying you're undecided is perfectly acceptable, it will never be the right answer.
Truth is binary--what it means to be true is binary. And thoughts are exempt from being actual. As I said long ago, there has to be a better way of talking about these things.
AmbiguousGuy
Well-Known Member
'God' is only a word used to label something in the exterior world. What is that thing? Well, with God being invisible and all, God's nature depends entirely on each individual human's personal conception of God.
So in my opinion, anyone who insists upon answering the question with a Yes/No -- without first discussing the nature of the other guy's God -- is probably a bit confused.
Substitute 'justice'. Does justice either 1) exist or 2) not exist?
I don't think so. I think it's just a matter of human opinion.
We can't ever talk about this things in defining ways. We can point to them with words, but then leave words at the shore and enter into them wholly in mind, body, and spirit in order to apprehend the reality of it. At which point there are illuminations in reflections which convey Knowledge. Poetry is the closest language because it deconstructs literal viewpoints, defocusing thought itself to allow the mind to receive insight.
But I do agree that as we think about what is true, we do so by creating a duality, which at best is a perception of Truth itself. This is why I say Truth is nondual, not propositional truths which are relative. And all relative truths contain Truth itself. Which is why theism contains Truth, and atheism contains Truth. Both contain relative truths, and neither be Truth itself. And since they are relative to perceptual realities, none can claim to absolute.
Not necessarily. I heard the Episcopalian priest Cynthia Bourgeault say this remarkable insight. She said, "God is not the object of our faith, but the Subject of our Love." I think God as a word speaks of something nondual, that includes the interior reality of life itself, as well as the Face of objective, exterior reality.
Still, if it's words that are to accomplish this pointing, they have to be used in such a way to point in the right direction, else it's all for naught.
Truth is binary.
But which direction is the right direction?
For instance, apophatic theology points to what God is not, whereas cataphatic theology uses positive language. Which is right? Both, and neither, again.In a billion shades of grey at any given moment, and another billion the next, and the next. It's binary, on a relative scale of infinite gradations.
Enai de a lukal
Well-Known Member
You are just dead set on engaging in this tangent, aren't you? Why not create a new thread? For one thing, that "most atheists" currently use the definitions you offer has not been established (provide some statistics or evidence if you wish to claim that it is) and isn't obvious to me, and there are some good reasons for rejecting it, regardless of what "most" people are doing. Its just a bad way of delineating these positions because it allows too much ambiguity and overlap.
I'm not sure why you keep citing stuff like this; nobody is disputing that this is one way of defining these terms, one that people do commonly use. But, as I said, why don't you start a new thread if you really want to talk about this more.
shawn001
Well-Known Member
What about the person Dr Ramachandran talks about here?
"Neurologist VS Ramachandran explains the case of split-brain patients with one hemisphere without a belief in a god, and the other with a belief in a god.
Split brain with one half atheist and one half theist
[youtube]PFJPtVRlI64[/youtube]
Split brain with one half atheist and one half theist - YouTube
"Neurologist VS Ramachandran explains the case of split-brain patients with one hemisphere without a belief in a god, and the other with a belief in a god.
Split brain with one half atheist and one half theist
[youtube]PFJPtVRlI64[/youtube]
Split brain with one half atheist and one half theist - YouTube
Enai de a lukal
Well-Known Member
You could give an example, or try to back up your claim.
Nice dodge. Care to answer the question, maybe explain what the prima facie incoherent phrase you used was supposed to mean?
Sure. I'm not sure that its salient here, however. And if God is not an object, in a broad sense, then God cannot satisfy "X exists", and atheism is the case.
I never said anything about mental objects at all.
You don't necessarily "reason a sunset", but you certainly can reason about sunsets. We reason about the things we experience; and if God is an object of experience, he can be an object of reason a well.
Well, not really. If it is not the case that there is some object in the world with at least some of the properties ascribed to God, then it is warranted and rational to affirm that God does not exist.
You're essentially pulling the rug out from under theism's feet, which is OK by me; if God is not something of which we can make any meaningful and true statements, including that God exists, then theism is false, and atheism is true.
How/why?
You want your cake and to eat it too; you want to claim that God/the Divine/whatever cannot be understood, cannot meaningfully be spoke of, true claims cannot be made of it, and so on, and then at the same time you continue with the assumption that there is something, anything, REAL corresponding to these words "the Divine", "God", etc. You can't really have it both ways.
The problem is that what truth remains in theism is merely trivial.
Such as?
Looncall
Well-Known Member
Thanks for this. It's long past time for these so-called other ways of knowing to be made explicit.
I do find all this furious intellectual tapdancing aimed at putting religious ideas beyond examination quite pathetic.
I'm speaking of relativism as a whole, of course. You wish me to give specific examples of where you see this? You wish to debate relativism as having valid insights? An easy example is our very attempt at a discussion over what God is, or is not. I guarantee you that what you have in your mind as you think of God and reject that, is not what I see as God. My perceptions, based on my experiences, cultural influences, languages I use, etc all change my understanding of that. So much so that it actually allows God to exist consistently within a rational worldspace which embraces science and reason. Your experiences for you do not.
This is very much the same conversation I had recently with a fundamentalist Christian who could not avoid coming back to the mantra that "this is what the Bible says". I would point out that both she and I were reading the same verses but coming away with a different understanding of the truth of it, to the point it may be completely opposite truths, so I could say as well, 'This is what the Bible says', but in reality I'm simply saying my perception of what it says. The Bible says, or does not say, whatever we see due to the set of eyes we are using.
Objective truth is not just laying out there for you discovery if you can only just reason it well enough. It's called the myth of the pregiven world. It completely overlooks the person observing and the cultural influences that create blind spots, for both them, and for others of their own cultural frameworks. Often, even though everyone agrees on the same thing, it may be completely not that. Just because a thing is believed to be objective, does not necessarily make it so.
Hence why to speak of God as objective and 'here's your proofs', as a line of reasoning is deeply flawed. Both in the claim of those proofs, and in the rejection of those proofs. God is not a Yeti or an extra terrestrial.
I answered all your questions. That paragraph was to point out your tendency to resort to pejoratives instead of substance in these discussions. Is this an attempt at deflection away from that, by insinuating I'm dishonest? Could I say, "nice dodge" too?
What I was referencing was your saying theism is "incoherent". See your post here:
You assume all these things are incoherent. What exactly is this "fundamental truth claim"? Is it one I share? Do you know?
Did you completely miss my response in my previous post? Let me direct you to is as it answers this well:
I am very curious indeed why you totally skipped that huge section of my response in your response here? Did you not understand it, since you seem to ask the same question again here? You didn't try to shoot it down as everything else that doesn't agree with your thinking, so are you considering it?
I know you didn't. I did. Because that's all of what we are talking about, is concepts about God, not God itself. I have the feeling you can't see these as mental objects we're talking about, and hence why you think we're arguing about object realities. That's not my frame of reference in this at all, and why we're speaking to different truths here in all of this.
True, but at the very best then, and the point I am and have been making, is that all that atheism is doing is saying that people ideas about God, their reasoning, is flawed. It cannot say God does not exist.
Please re-read that large section explaining this above that you skipped over previously.
As that understanding, yes.
I'm pulling the rug out from under it as being an absolute definition of what God is. Which is why it pulls the rug out from under atheism at the same time. It is partially true. I covered all this in that section above you skipped over.
I'll explain this through this quote from Sri Aurobindo which I feels says this well,
It is necessary, therefore, that advancing Knowledge should base herself on a clear, pure and disciplined intellect. It is necessary, too, that she should correct her errors sometimes by a return to the restraint of sensible fact, the concrete realities of the physical world. The touch of Earth is always reinvigorating to the son of Earth, even when he seeks a supraphysical Knowledge. It may even be said that the supraphysical can only be really mastered in its fullness to its heights we can always search when we keep our feet firmly on the physical. Earth is His footing, says the Upanishad whenever it imagines the Self that manifests in the universe. And it is certainly the fact the wider we extend and the surer we make our knowledge of the physical world, the wider and surer becomes our foundation for the higher knowledge, even for the highest, even for the Brahmavidya.
In emerging, therefore, out of the materialistic period of human Knowledge we must be careful that we do not rashly condemn what we are leaving or throw away even one tittle of its gains, before we can summon perceptions and powers that are well grasped and secure, to occupy their place. Rather we shall observe with respect and wonder the work that Atheism had done for the Divine and admire the services that Agnosticism has rendered in preparing the illimitable increase of knowledge. In our world error is continually the handmaid and pathfinder of Truth; for error is really a half-truth that stumbles because of its limitations; often it is Truth that wears a disguise in order to arrive unobserved near to its goal. Well, if it could always be, as it has been in the great period we are leaving, the faithful handmaid, severe, conscientious, clean-handed, luminous within its limits, a half-truth and not a reckless and presumptuous aberration.
~Sri Aurobindo, The Life Divine, pg 12,13
I am saying there is a valid experience of that which can be called "God" because it transcends and includes everything. It is nothing, in the sense of no-thing, at the same time is all-things. It is real in that it can be realized by us, in us, and in all things. It is known in emptiness and in form. It is apprehended, never comprehended.
But it can be spoken of meaningfully, but only as relative truths. Fingers pointing at the moon are not the moon itself. But "isms" tend to look at the fingers as the moon. Theism, and it's flip-side atheism, are arguing over a finger itself, not God.
The Christian mystic Meister Eckhart says this beautifully when he prays, "I pray God make me free of God, that I may know God in [his] unconditional being". Theism is a concept of God.
Is it?? Please elaborate? I would like to see your understanding of what this is you dismiss rationally? Let's focus on this together.
They eye of contemplation.
Atheism says no such thing. Theism is having the belief that at least one god exists, atheism is not having the belief that at least one god exists. A subset of atheists called "strong atheists" say they believe gods don't exist.
The direction you presume to push them.
For each shade of grey, for every individualized moment that is given, for all the myriad dharmas, for each one truth is binary.
Who says I'm pushing them any direction? I will negate when positive assertions are made. I will make positive assertions when negative ones are made. The point is that both perspectives are valid, and neither. Are you sure you're not presuming what I'm doing?
Yes. This is what I am saying.