The hiddenness of God

[SteveH]

To suggest that God is not one of the many cases, is special pleading.

It would be if anyone had but they haven't, so it isn't.

[jeremyp]

It would be if anyone had but they haven't, so it isn't.

Wrong. My statement was factually correct even if nobody has made the suggestion yet.

Anyway its is good to see that you, at least, acknowledge that not believing in God is the default position until somebody presents some credible evidence.

[SteveH]

Wrong. My statement was factually correct even if nobody has made the suggestion yet.

Anyway its is good to see that you, at least, acknowledge that not believing in God is the default position until somebody presents some credible evidence.

Any believer of moderate intelligence and education would.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Steve H,

Any believer of moderate intelligence and education would.

Would what?

[Nearly Sane]

Steve H,

Would what?

Seems fairly simple that SteveH is agreeing 'that not believing in God is the default position until somebody presents some credible evidence.'

[bluehillside Retd.]

NS,

Seems fairly simple that SteveH is agreeing 'that not believing in God is the default position until somebody presents some credible evidence.'

His comment, "Any believer of moderate intelligence and education would" was in response to, "Anyway its is good to see that you, at least, acknowledge that not believing in God is the default position until somebody presents some credible evidence". 

I presume that he's implying that he is one such "believer of moderate intelligence and education" and that his default position has therefore changed because he (apparently) has "some credible evidence". I just wanted to be sure that that is indeed what he meant though.

[Nearly Sane]

NS,

His comment, "Any believer of moderate intelligence and education would" was in response to, "Anyway its is good to see that you, at least, acknowledge that not believing in God is the default position until somebody presents some credible evidence". 

I presume that he's implying that he is one such "believer of moderate intelligence and education" and that his default position has therefore changed because he (apparently) has "some credible evidence". I just wanted to be sure that that is indeed what he meant though.

That seems to me an unjustified assumption. He merely commented on what the default position might be, nothing about his position. I think you are conflating a default with any person 's actual position. Further, one doesn't necessarily move from the position that is the default on purely rationalist grounds. I may be reading SteveH's posts wrongly, and please SteveH correct me if I get this wrong, but I done think he sees his belief in his god as an exclusively rationalist position.

[Dicky Underpants]

I presume that he's implying that he is one such "believer of moderate intelligence and education" and that his default position has therefore changed because he (apparently) has "some credible evidence". I just wanted to be sure that that is indeed what he meant though.

Steve reappeared on the forum as a believer in the 'non-realist God' (which to me is an oxymoron and tantamount to atheism). He recently quipped that he was thinking of changing to a belief in a God who is real, purely because he was put off by the obsessive and sometimes (to him) silly comments of some of the atheists here. Seems a rather weak reason for altering one's beliefs about something so significant.
Truth is, though, that Steve has always confessed to wavering between the non-realist and realist position, as long as I've known him posting anywhere.
If he has now moved over positively to the realist position, it would be nice to see an in-depth exposition of his credible evidence. As far as I can judge, the realist position he might have adopted would be something on the lines of process theology or the theistic evolutionism of Teilhard de Chardin, bolstered up with valid observations about the perplexing realities of human love, profound aesthetic response etc, which don't yield too easily to scientific reductionism. (Argumentum ad......incredibilem )
Maybe I'm putting too many words in his mouth, so I'll shut the fuck up and let him respond in his own way.

[bluehillside Retd.]

NS,

That seems to me an unjustified assumption. He merely commented on what the default position might be, nothing about his position. I think you are conflating a default with any person 's actual position. Further, one doesn't necessarily move from the position that is the default on purely rationalist grounds. I may be reading SteveH's posts wrongly, and please SteveH correct me if I get this wrong, but I done think he sees his belief in his god as an exclusively rationalist position.

As I said, his meaning isn't "fairly simple" to understand at all - or at least not to me - which is why I asked him to clarify. How for example would he align rationalism (if a rationalist he thinks himself to be) with his self-professed irrealism? No doubt he'll tell us in due course.

[Nearly Sane]

NS,

As I said, his meaning isn't "fairly simple" to understand at all - or at least not to me - which is why I asked him to clarify. How for example would he align rationalism (if a rationalist he be) with his self-professed irrealism?  No doubt he'll tell us in due course.

That's using the 'fairly simple' out of context. His original statement seems fairly simple I.e. that he was agreeing 'that not believing in God is the default position until somebody presents some credible evidence'. That given his belief in a god you can then ask questions about how he gets there is valid but it doesn't seem to me that it's worth making assumptions about whether he is a rationalist or not. Instead of asking about what he meant by a 'farly simple' statement, it would seem better how he combines belief in that and in a god.

[bluehillside Retd.]

NS,

That's using the 'fairly simple' out of context. His original statement seems fairly simple I.e. that he was agreeing 'that not believing in God is the default position until somebody presents some credible evidence'.

He said, “Any believer of moderate intelligence and education would” and I still don’t know what he meant by that – that such a person would only be a believer in the first place if he already had credible evidence? That the believer would provide the evidence? That he is just such a person? Dunno.

That given his belief in a god you can then ask questions about how he gets there is valid but it doesn't seem to me that it's worth making assumptions about whether he is a rationalist or not.

 

Seems a bit odd given that you yourself said in Reply 231, “I may be reading SteveH's posts wrongly, and please SteveH correct me if I get this wrong, but I done think he sees his belief in his god as an exclusively rationalist position” but fair enough. 

Instead of asking about what he meant by a 'farly simple' statement, it would seem better how he combines belief in that and in a god

I was hoping that his clarification might lead to such a discussion, but I didn’t want to base those questions on assumptions that could be wrong. Thanks for telling me how better to ask my questions though! 

[SteveH]

Steve H,

Would what?

Acknowledge that not believing in God (or anything) is the default position.

[SteveH]

Steve reappeared on the forum as a believer in the 'non-realist God' (which to me is an oxymoron and tantamount to atheism). He recently quipped that he was thinking of changing to a belief in a God who is real, purely because he was put off by the obsessive and sometimes (to him) silly comments of some of the atheists here. Seems a rather weak reason for altering one's beliefs about something so significant.
Truth is, though, that Steve has always confessed to wavering between the non-realist and realist position, as long as I've known him posting anywhere.
If he has now moved over positively to the realist position, it would be nice to see an in-depth exposition of his credible evidence. As far as I can judge, the realist position he might have adopted would be something on the lines of process theology or the theistic evolutionism of Teilhard de Chardin, bolstered up with valid observations about the perplexing realities of human love, profound aesthetic response etc, which don't yield too easily to scientific reductionism. (Argumentum ad......incredibilem )
Maybe I'm putting too many words in his mouth, so I'll shut the fuck up and let him respond in his own way.

I'm still a non-realist...I think.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Steve H,

Acknowledge that not believing in God (or anything) is the default position.

Fair enough. Thanks.

I'm still a non-realist...I think.

Non-realist (and “irrealist”) are terms I see quite often in a religious context, though there doesn’t seem to be much of an agreed view on what they mean.

If you feel like doing so, would you mind explaining what you mean by "non-realist", and what process took you from the default to non-realist belief?

Thanks again.

[SteveH]

Steve H,

Non-realist (and “irrealist”) are terms I see quite often in a religious context, though there doesn’t seem to be much of an agreed view on what they mean.

If you feel like doing so, would you mind explaining what you mean by "non-realist", and what process took you from the default to non-realist belief?

Thanks again.

What I mean by non-realist, in a Christian context, is admitting that there is, objectively speaking, no God, but that humans in general have a religious capacity and need, and consequently practising Christianity for its own sake. It's similar to the theology of Paul Tillich and John A.T.Robinson. There can also be non-realist jews, Muslims, Hindus, etc as well, of course. I think it is older and commoner than is often realised.
I remember arch-evangelical Nicky Gumgel, of 'Alpha', accidentally giving the game away in a videoed talk, when he said that many people who completed the Alpha course and made a commitment to Christianity were prone to saying things like "Christianity is true for me". He felt it necessary to correct them, and say that it is true full stop, but if he encounters that attitude frequently, there must be many other who, in a crude sort of way, are non-realists.

[torridon]

'Non Realist', therefore, is surely a euphemism, a phrase that hides the paradox of believing something that we don't really believe.

[SteveH]

http://www.doncupitt.com/non-realism

[wigginhall]

I thought that one sense of non-realism is a symbolic view.   This means taking Christian stories as psychological insights, not historical facts.   Jung did this quite a lot.

[SteveH]

I thought that one sense of non-realism is a symbolic view.   This means taking Christian stories as psychological insights, not historical facts.   Jung did this quite a lot.

Yes, it is.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Steve H,

What I mean by non-realist, in a Christian context, is admitting that there is, objectively speaking, no God, but that humans in general have a religious capacity and need, and consequently practising Christianity for its own sake. It's similar to the theology of Paul Tillich and John A.T.Robinson. There can also be non-realist jews, Muslims, Hindus, etc as well, of course. I think it is older and commoner than is often realised.

I remember arch-evangelical Nicky Gumgel, of 'Alpha', accidentally giving the game away in a videoed talk, when he said that many people who completed the Alpha course and made a commitment to Christianity were prone to saying things like "Christianity is true for me". He felt it necessary to correct them, and say that it is true full stop, but if he encounters that attitude frequently, there must be many other who, in a crude sort of way, are non-realists.

Thanks for this, and for the link to Cupitt. He’s so much more an interesting and nuanced thinker I find than the crude “God is really there if only you could see Him”, “the resurrection is as factually true a the battle of Waterloo is factually true” etc efforts we see here that always collapse into incoherence, contradiction of common-or-garden fallacy when the proponent is asked for a validating argument. I’ve asked several times here before now whether there are any arguments for religious belief worth considering, and Cupitt (and presumably the others you reference) seem to me to come closer to it than most. That said though…

…I’m at a loss to know what this “God” is (or perhaps “these gods are” given that any one that provides meaning to the individual seems to be as valid as any other) other than a useful placemarker for, “I find it functionally useful to live my life as if the god that suits me best is real”. As a teenager for example (ie a very long time ago) I came across the Greek system of ethics eudaemonsim – essentially that the way to a good life is to leave everyone you meet a little happier for the encounter (I’m paraphrasing here) – that has always seemed like a good idea to me. Elizabeth Anscombe revived the idea I think in the 1950s when she introduced the idea of virtue ethics – ie, as there’s no longer a “god the lawgiver” we need a different basis to establish morality.

Why then would I want to attach the label “God” to the way I prefer to live my life as it seems to work pretty well without it? That is, what does “god” bring to the story if I’ve just created him for myself as a re-branding exercise anyway rather than relied on theology or doctrine for his characteristics?

[ekim]

Why then would I want to attach the label “God” to the way I prefer to live my life as it seems to work pretty well without it? That is, what does “god” bring to the story if I’ve just created him for myself as a re-branding exercise anyway rather than relied on theology or doctrine for his characteristics?

I think within many religions there is a recognition that much of the conflict and lack of peace in the world derives from egocentric or self centred humans and that this can be overcome by submitting to a (non human) higher power.  The initiators of those religions lived at a time when probably very few people could say 'my life seems to work pretty well' and they discovered a way of fostering an inner well being without the desire for what promotes self righteousness, self seeking, self centred life styles.  Some advocate submitting to a God, as Abrahamic religions do and some have other views as the following quotes show.  One of the problems with organised religions is that there have been 'self' centred leaders creating 'self' centred theologies.

Socrates ......  Individual must experience life directly and not depend upon logic or borrowed learning.   Experience and achieve union with ultimate love by first knowing the beauty of the body, then the beauty of the soul and at last the impersonal beauty of the universe pulsating inside and outside the silent being.
Swami Ramdas [a Hindu Bhakta] The changing mind of man cannot be satisfied permanently with anything.  What he likes at one time, he does not like at another.  What he wants now, he does not want later.  The only way for a man to be always happy is to submit to God's will, and leaving everything to Him, be content with the condition in which He places him.  From changing circumstances we cannot get real happiness.  Happiness lies within .... Surrender means inner contentment and peace.
Sri Ramana Maharshi  [a Hindu sage]  It is enough that one surrenders one's self.  Surrender is to give oneself up to the original cause of one's being.  Do not delude yourself by imagining such source to be some God outside you.  One's source is within oneself.  Give your self up to it.  That means you should seek the source and merge in it.

[Dicky Underpants]

Steve H,


Why then would I want to attach the label “God” to the way I prefer to live my life as it seems to work pretty well without it? That is, what does “god” bring to the story if I’ve just created him for myself as a re-branding exercise anyway rather than relied on theology or doctrine for his characteristics?

Hi blue

To put it bluntly (as it seems to me), it's a way of making old skeletons dance. A great deal has been invested in the Christian belief system, personally and socially. It is still a source for good in many ways. But for those who no longer believe, but feel that they want to belong to some social group or other, and maybe do something good in the world via group activity, then attaching the label 'god' to the focus of their efforts is a way of prolonging the life of such religious systems.
However, the Christian God who, beyond space and time, brought the universe into being, and who became incarnate in Jesus and went on to die for our sins - this non-realist 'god' sure ain't that at all.

[Dicky Underpants]

An assertion, not a fact.

Do you think that the traditional Christian God is the same as the non-realist god that SteveH is talking about then?

Or did you just misread my post and think I've suddenly become a believer?

[Stranger]

A great deal has been invested in the Christian belief system, personally and socially. It is still a source for good in many ways. But for those who no longer believe, but feel that they want to belong to some social group or other, and maybe do something good in the world via group activity, then attaching the label 'god' to the focus of their efforts is a way of prolonging the life of such religious systems.

I guess I could sort of see that if the Christian god, as portrayed in the bible, was actually good and if the "Jesus died for me" stuff made coherent sense as a story about a good and loving god, but it isn't and it doesn't. Interpreting something as a sort of ideal, rather than a literal reality, is one thing, but pretending that a nonsensical, inconsistent story, actually makes sense, is quite another...

[floo]

Do you think that the traditional Christian God is the same as the non-realist god that SteveH is talking about then?

Or did you just misread my post and think I've suddenly become a believer?

I misread your post, SORRY! I will remove it immediately.