Are we done here?

[jjohnjil]

Rose,

Well, this atheist at least thinks that there are no arguments for a 'true for you too" god that aren't logically fallacious, and that that is the case for everyone - that is, there aren't logically sound arguments for a "true for you too" god that are available to theists, but that they've kept to themselves. 

I don't though claim any special privileges for my opinion, let alone that I'd be offended if people disagreed, that I'd like special schools to teach it, that atheists should by right have seats in the legislature etc. I'm also aware that "no logically sound arguments" should have a "so far" at then end of it. If ever one was produced, then I'd have to change my position. I'm not sure that many theists would take an equivalent position though. 

But yes, I do think that "there are no logically sound arguments for it, at least so far" is a truth for everyone.

Hi Blue

I don't really understand your argument re 'true for you too'.  Don't you think that if you believed in a God that created everything and everyone you couldn't also believe it was 'true for me only'?

I think it's almost impossible for an atheist to argue on equal terms with a believer.  We are not emotionally involved. If you and I were debating as to whether or not my mother was a good woman, you could look at it logically, I couldn't.

Your arguments ring true for every one of us who have no belief in any god but I don't think you should expect real believers to see your POV.

[wigginhall]

Agreed.

This applies to pagans and I would have thought most Buddhists.

Some Buddhists might question whether there is a reality, and whether there is everyone else.   Ha!

This is a bit like NS's comment; is my reality true for me?   Quite often it isn't, but then you have probabilistic leanings.

[Sebastian Toe]

I hope you don't mean that ST!

Pardon?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Hi jj,

I don't really understand your argument re 'true for you too'.  Don't you think that if you believed in a God that created everything and everyone you couldn't also believe it was 'true for me only'?

I think it's almost impossible for an atheist to argue on equal terms with a believer.  We are not emotionally involved. If you and I were debating as to whether or not my mother was a good woman, you could look at it logically, I couldn't.

Your arguments ring true for every one of us who have no belief in any god but I don't think you should expect real believers to see your POV.

Oh I'm sure that - if you believed in a universe-creating god - then you'd think too that that was a truth for everyone, as indeed presumably would be the characteristics and behaviours you ascribe to that god. My point though was to do with what you do with that belief. You might for example insist that it should be afforded the rights and privileges in the pubic square you think it deserves, but if you realise at least that you have no logically coherent argument for your opinion about a "true for you too" god then you just might be more inclined to accept that other people are right to treat your personal opinion only as that - a personal opinion – and so you'll be more circumspect about the public square bit.

Something like that anyway.

[Gonnagle]

Dear jj,

Same here, I don't understand the argument, I keep going back to, how can I make Blue walk the walk, I simply can't, but it's a two way street, I can't see the world/Universe through Blue's eyes, every time I look I see God, every time Blue looks he see's no need for God.

I understand the secular stuff, level playing field for everyone, no privileges, but for me that is not a black and white question, it needs work from both sides of the divide, in this country religion plays a large part in society, it is everywhere, Monarchy, House of Lords, charities, organisations and that's just the Christian part, here in Glasgow our skyline now has, Sikh, Hindu and Muslims towers, believers are not going away, we all have to sit down and look for a way forward for everyone.

So to answer Blue's question, no we are not done, we have a long way to go if we want to accommodate everyone.

Dear Septic toe,

Shaker means Stephen Taylor, the world does not revolve around Sebastian Toe

Gonnagle.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Hi Gonners,

Same here, I don't understand the argument, I keep going back to, how can I make Blue walk the walk, I simply can't, but it's a two way street, I can't see the world/Universe through Blue's eyes, every time I look I see God, every time Blue looks he see's no need for God.

I understand the secular stuff, level playing field for everyone, no privileges, but for me that is not a black and white question, it needs work from both sides of the divide, in this country religion plays a large part in society, it is everywhere, Monarchy, House of Lords, charities, organisations and that's just the Christian part, here in Glasgow our skyline now has, Sikh, Hindu and Muslims towers, believers are not going away, we all have to sit down and look for a way forward for everyone.

Try this: would you accept special privileges for personal beliefs I had and really, really, really thought were true for you too but that I couldn't muster a cogent argument to support? And if your answer is "no", why would you expect other people to accept special privileges for the personal beliefs you really, really, really think to be true but can't muster a cogent argument to support either?

That's all really. I merely suggest that theists who demand such privileges (not you personally by the way) should accept that others will apply the same standards to their demands that they apply when epistemically equivalent propositions are put to them that they're expected to treat seriously.       

So to answer Blue's question, no we are not done, we have a long way to go if we want to accommodate everyone.

But that wasn't the question. Quite happy to "accommodate" - ie, leave alone to practice whatever faiths they happen to have - anyone (well, pretty much anyone) but what I was asking was whether we're done seeking a logically sound argument to demonstrate "true for you too-ism" that elevates it above personal, subjective opinion.

[Owlswing]

Agreed.

This applies to pagans and I would have thought most Buddhists.

Most definitely it applies to this Pagan and to those that I have met personally or 'talked' to on the net. The rest I cannot speak for.

[Bramble]

Dear jj,

Same here, I don't understand the argument, I keep going back to, how can I make Blue walk the walk, I simply can't, but it's a two way street, I can't see the world/Universe through Blue's eyes, every time I look I see God, every time Blue looks he see's no need for God.

Dear Gonnagle, I think the problem is substantially in knowing what you actually mean when you use the word God. It's a Humpty-Dumpty word that tends to mean whatever the user wants it to mean. Often, it seems, users are none too sure themselves and commonly use it mean different things according to circumstance and context, apparently unaware that they are doing so. It's certainly been my experience that it's a waste of time trying to get believers (apart from the Biblical literalists, of course) to explain what they mean. Frequently, they come across as evasive and even disingenuous, though I don't think this is what they intend. To someone genuinely curious this can be extremely frustrating. Who knows whether Blue sees your God in the world or not? He may just not use the same word to describe it. Alternatively, it may be that your two brains simply function in quite different ways and neither of you will ever fathom the other. This is why this conversation will never stop.
 

[wigginhall]

Yes, I don't know what 'God' means to different people.   I know people in eastern religions who say that this moment is divine - but what do they mean?   Dunno.  They don't seem to mean a kind of Superman who causes earthquakes and plagues.   But then I don't think Christians mean that usually.   I suppose it has been useful for theists precisely because it has a floating meaning or no meaning, one size fits all, but therefore empty. 

[jjohnjil]

Dear jj,

Same here, I don't understand the argument, I keep going back to, how can I make Blue walk the walk, I simply can't, but it's a two way street, I can't see the world/Universe through Blue's eyes, every time I look I see God, every time Blue looks he see's no need for God.

I understand the secular stuff, level playing field for everyone, no privileges, but for me that is not a black and white question, it needs work from both sides of the divide, in this country religion plays a large part in society, it is everywhere, Monarchy, House of Lords, charities, organisations and that's just the Christian part, here in Glasgow our skyline now has, Sikh, Hindu and Muslims towers, believers are not going away, we all have to sit down and look for a way forward for everyone.

So to answer Blue's question, no we are not done, we have a long way to go if we want to accommodate everyone.

Dear Septic toe,

Shaker means Stephen Taylor, the world does not revolve around Sebastian Toe

Gonnagle.

Hi Gonners

My problem is I see both views as valid arguments.  Yes, religion has played a large part in our history (lesser as we go along though) and therefore in our culture,  Having a few religious leaders in the HofL isn't wholly bad - although I think that number should include a few other Faiths instead of all CofE.  The HofL is only a debating chamber and can only ask the HofC to think again about certain matters.

Atheist arguments have no emotional feel about them, we look on the whole business as a long dead idea that was needed long ago but had no real foundation outside of Man's imagination.  Believers, like yourself, have a very real emotional attachment and therefore can't see the logic in our arguments.  I don't see any way of resolving this and all we have done is go over and over the same arguments for years on end.

The only reason I think this forum has any worth is to counter such extremists as Sassy and TW, who if not challenged could influence the young and vulnerable.

I like a lot of the Christion posters here, even though I disagree with their arguments. I even like the way some believers come out with irrational replies that they must know are irrational (Hope, for instance) just because they feel they have to  defend their 'Lord' no matter what.

Like Susan, I hope this forum goes on, even though I rarely participate these days.

[Stranger]

...every time I look I see God...

But what does that mean?

Obviously, you don't mean it in the normal English sense of the words, like "every time I look out the window, I see the house across the road" sort of thing. Honestly, I can make no sense of the phrase without further elaboration. What is "god" and how are you "seeing" it?

[Andy]

...every time I look I see God...

But what does that mean?

Obviously, you don't mean it in the normal English sense of the words, like "every time I look out the window, I see the house across the road" sort of thing. Honestly, I can make no sense of the phrase without further elaboration. What is "god" and how are you "seeing" it?

I can't see how it can mean anything. Where's the contrast when god is seen everywhere? What isn't god?

[Bramble]

Yes, I don't know what 'God' means to different people.   I know people in eastern religions who say that this moment is divine - but what do they mean?   Dunno.  They don't seem to mean a kind of Superman who causes earthquakes and plagues.   But then I don't think Christians mean that usually.   I suppose it has been useful for theists precisely because it has a floating meaning or no meaning, one size fits all, but therefore empty.

Good points. Also, religions can't be too choosy what their followers hang on the God peg or they might find their numbers in free-fall. I often suspect that behind a lot of God talk is what Huston Smith called the 'more':

“…the finitude of mundane existence cannot satisfy the human heart completely. Built into the human makeup is a longing for a ‘more’ that the world of everyday experience cannot requite. This outreach strongly suggests the existence of the something that life reaches for in the way that the wings of birds point to the reality of air.”

This might explain why God can appear in so many guises! I once came across the blog of someone describing themselves as a Christian mystic - in her bio she explained that to her the proof of God lay in the existence of snowboarding and sailing, which she evidently enjoyed. In that case I'll go with Bruce Chatwin:

"I haven’t got any special religion this morning. My God is the God of Walkers. If you walk hard enough, you probably don’t need any other god."

Wow, I can do it too! Where do I sign up...


 

[wigginhall]

I have heard Sufis say that - I have never seen anything that was not God.    It's always puzzled me how you could have the reverse - there must be places or things which are not God in orthodox Christianity?  But God is everywhere, isn't he? 

One of the interesting things about the Orthodox view of hell is that is means being with God, well, some Orthodox views.  But many Protestants argue that hell means being without God!

[ekim]

There is also the Via Negativa of St Thomas Aquinas and  Meister Eckhart  "We cannot know what God is but rather what he is not."

[Gonnagle]

Dear Blue,

Been looking at your post for the past ten minutes trying to figure out the heart of it, it's that cogent argument bit, a convincing argument, but that just goes winging back to what I was saying, I can't see the Universe through your eyes and you can't see it through my eyes.

The special privilege bit, that kind of floors me, I would give special privilege to anyone who is in the business of making this world a better place, or maybe the word I am looking for is respect, but then we might disagree on who or what and by which method they are employing to make this world a better place, and that is why I say we should all, atheist and theist sit down and talk about a way forward.

Gonnagle.

[bluehillside Retd.]

jj,

My problem is I see both views as valid arguments.  Yes, religion has played a large part in our history (lesser as we go along though) and therefore in our culture,  Having a few religious leaders in the HofL isn't wholly bad - although I think that number should include a few other Faiths instead of all CofE.  The HofL is only a debating chamber and can only ask the HofC to think again about certain matters.

Yes, lots of religions have played large arts in lots of societies but that says nothing about whether there's any truth to their various claims of fact. As for religious leaders in the H of L, I disagree - it is bad inasmuch as it legitimises faith beliefs affecting the rest of us by right rather than by having those claims tested. That's not to say that a given bishop may not be admirably qualified for the job, but his (and it is a "his" by the way) personal opinions abut the existence of "God" are not themselves a qualification for it.   

Atheist arguments have no emotional feel about them, we look on the whole business as a long dead idea that was needed long ago but had no real foundation outside of Man's imagination.  Believers, like yourself, have a very real emotional attachment and therefore can't see the logic in our arguments.  I don't see any way of resolving this and all we have done is go over and over the same arguments for years on end.

The resolution is to take the emotion out of it and to consider dispassionately the logic an reason each "side" uses. Logic is logic - either those who believe in gods can rely on it or they can't, but it can't "not be seen" other that wilfully. 

The only reason I think this forum has any worth is to counter such extremists as Sassy and TW, who if not challenged could influence the young and vulnerable.

If only! 

I like a lot of the Christion posters here, even though I disagree with their arguments. I even like the way some believers come out with irrational replies that they must know are irrational (Hope, for instance) just because they feel they have to  defend their 'Lord' no matter what.

Like Susan, I hope this forum goes on, even though I rarely participate these days.

I like some of them too.

[Bramble]

I have heard Sufis say that - I have never seen anything that was not God.    It's always puzzled me how you could have the reverse - there must be places or things which are not God in orthodox Christianity?  But God is everywhere, isn't he? 

Yes, that's the problem with saying what God is. If he's good then we get the problem of evil, but if we don't want that problem what do we do about God? Some theologians seem to have been ground down by this. Towards the end of his life Aquinas famously admitted everything he'd written about God was just straw. Then there's Jung: '“Religion is a defense against the experience of God.”  It's often seemed to me that for the most part religions sell idols, not God, but I guess that's what sells. Selling that Sufi God would be like selling sand to the Arabs. Maybe that pretty much sums us up as a species. We don't want what we have, we just want different or more, and God will provide, at least if we believe so.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Gonners,

Been looking at your post for the past ten minutes trying to figure out the heart of it, it's that cogent argument bit, a convincing argument, but that just goes winging back to what I was saying, I can't see the Universe through your eyes and you can't see it through my eyes.

But you can - and do in fact. You wouldn't for example pay me lots of dosh because I offered to sell London Bridge to you. Why not? Because you'd apply certain tests of reason and logic to my claim to have it for sale, and you'd find my claim to be wanting. I apply the same kinds of tests to the claims of those who would arrogate to themselves special rights for their personal beliefs because they claimed them to be objective truths for me too, and I'd find them wanting too. 

The special privilege bit, that kind of floors me, I would give special privilege to anyone who is in the business of making this world a better place, or maybe the word I am looking for is respect, but then we might disagree on who or what and by which method they are employing to make this world a better place, and that is why I say we should all, atheist and theist sit down and talk about a way forward.

By and large, I think most people do think their actions will make the world a better place. The problem though is that "most people" includes for example the 9/11 hijackers. "I want to make the world a better place" as a goal is about as controversial as motherhood and apple pie, but if we don't apply various tests and checks to the methods some would use to get there then any manner of dangerous nonsense will get through.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Bramble,

I think the problem is substantially in knowing what you actually mean when you use the word God.

Quite so, which is why the appropriate response to theism I think is ignosticism - ie, "I have no idea what you mean by "God" (and nor do you) and so I respond to your claim as I would to any other white noise pending clarification".

The closest some here have come to answering that is to provide a CV - "God created the universe and cured Aunty Madge of her chilblains" for example, but nothing so far about what this god might actually be. At best this is a god about whom nothing could be said I guess - ie, deism - but why not instead then just say "the universe"?

[Gonnagle]

Dear Blue,

God is the Universe, what is the Universe?

Gonnagle.

[BeRational]

Dear Blue,

God is the Universe, what is the Universe?

Gonnagle.

That big thing you live in, and interact with to stay alive.

[Bramble]

Blue,

Indeed. I suppose the Christian God - if one can speak of such a thing - would minimally have to include the characteristic of having created the universe. But in what sense can someone then say that wherever they look they see God? At best they can say that every time they look they draw an inference about ultimate causes, but that's not quite the same thing.

[Andy]

Dear Blue,

God is the Universe, what is the Universe?

Gonnagle.

Is it? Do you really see them as synonymous, or is god the universe + X?

[SusanDoris]

On the subject of bishops: I'd really like to hear direct from, say, AofC, how he  tells children that the God he believes in is real and true and that it is so for them too.