What relevance do the gods of theologians and philosophers have?

[Silent3]

Here's a pie chart of world religions:

Major Religions of the World Ranked by Number of Adherents




If you could supplement this pie chart to show the number of believers in some kind of deity or deities whose beliefs in those deities are deeply grounded in extensive reading of Aquinas, Hume, Nietzsche, Kant, Paul Tillich, Bertrand Russell, Reinhold Niebuhr, etc. and/or their equivalents in non-Western cultures and religions... could you even see that wedge of the pie chart? Wouldn't their numbers likely constitute no more than a thin line with some notation on the side of the chart to tell you what fraction of 1% fit that description?

Let's call these people the Theological Intelligentsia. Whatever their number, I'm sure it's quite small. Regardless of that, however, apparently atheists are tiresome bores with nothing worthwhile to say unless they address, in a properly entertaining and intellectually stimulating way, the elusive, refined, and apparently nearly inexpressible concerns of the this tiny group.

That this is a small number of people is not, in and of itself, the basis for much of an objection. There are only a small number of people on this planet, after all, who know much about the effects of oil spills on ocean and coastal ecology, yet anyone with a plan to deal with the current mess in the Gulf of Mexico should value what those few experts have to say. Those experts, however, have knowledge that can be put to the test. Those experts will make the effort to explain themselves and their proposals to a Congressional committee, as opposed to telling others to just trust their expertise unless they're prepared to spend a lifetime of study before they become worthy of the discussion.

The Theological Intelligentsia produce nothing I can see that can be appreciated very much unless you join them and become one of them. Unlike great musicians whose music can easily be enjoyed by people who can't sing or play a single note, the Intellectuals of Faith have little to show outsiders of the fruit of their deep thoughts.

This leaves me wondering: Do the Theological Intelligentsia believe in or worship the same gods that over 80% of the people in the world believe in and worship? Would those gods even be recognizable as gods to the majority of worshipers on this planet?

Are the beliefs of the common rabble as tedious and laughable to the Theological Intelligentsia as the apparently second-rate scribblings of untutored sophists like Richard Dawkins? Perhaps the vast majority of simple religious folk get some kind of special credit for intuiting something at least tangentially related to the immeasurably subtle thoughts of their far more learned comrades in Faith?

Do the gods of the Theological Intelligentsia even mean anything? Are they at all of consequence? Are they at all distinguishable from an impersonal and indifferent natural universe?

If these gods are supposed to have any qualities that in any way relate to how a human being should go about their lives, do these qualities naturally arise from the erudite arguments that support their existence, arguments crafted ever so carefully in ways that seem to have little to do with love and purpose and hope and morality and plenty do to with being so subtle and slippery and vague that no attacking atheist can get a good grip on them? Or do their more accessible qualities that the vast majority of believers would care about and devote themselves to merely go along for the ride, a bit of crowd-pleasing popular theological baggage that the Intelligentsia hope to slip past anyone's watchful attention, perhaps even their own?

[msongs]

1. if you dont believe in my religion you are going to hell all u theological intelligentsia lol nt

[ZombieHorde]

2. Poseidon makes a difference. nt

[Odin2005]

3. This is exactly why the concept of "God" is meaningless.

The "God" of 99% of Theists is that of a primitive Sky Daddy, and the "God" of the remaining 1% is either Bad Logic or a synonym for Nature.

[ironbark]

4. Martin Luther? C.S. Lewis? al-Ghazali?

“What relevance do the gods of theologians and philosophers have?”

Sometimes their view/understanding of god cuts through contemporary consciousness like a hot knife through butter…and some times it seeps like water through limestone…either way there have been influential/relevant theologians.

“This leaves me wondering: Do the Theological Intelligentsia believe in or worship the same gods that over 80% of the people in the world believe in and worship?”

Possibly, possibly not. What is clear is that over time many of these theologians have had a profound effect over how and what people worship and believe in and consequently a real impact on the world we live in. You don’t need to go much past Martin Luther to see that.

“Those experts will make the effort to explain themselves and their proposals to a Congressional committee,…”

Um…are these “experts” the same unholy trinity that just sat in front of a Congressional committee and blamed each other for the mess…and then got publicly balled out by the President for doing so?

“If these gods are supposed to have any qualities that in any way relate to how a human being should go about their lives, do these qualities naturally arise from the erudite arguments that support their existence,…..”

Yea, sometimes….Sometimes the god revealed by the theologian is the one who is >not< going to let you pay off your sins with ‘Indulgences’ from the church…and then the shit hits the fan.
But more often than not, your right, they contribute little or nothing…but that’s also true in many fields of human endeavour…seen any good ‘Performance Art’ lately? ;-)

[darkstar3]

11. Here's the dilemma:

Is the God "revealed by the theologian" actually revealed, or is it made up out of a composite of legend, myth, and the vivid imagination of the theologian?

[patrice]

35. How can anyone "reveal" a "god"? - unless s/he accepts specifically limited definitions of both of

those words?

[darkstar3]

37. Show me a non-limited definition of either of those words.

Show me a way to communicate that doesn't use the language you are so quick to put down as inadequate and limited.

[patrice]

38. It is conventional to define a god as omnipotent. How can the omnipotent be revealed, since by

virtue of its omnipotence, it is perpetually beyond any ability to reveal? Only that which is limited can be revealed.

A non-limited definition?

Perhaps something like: "Revealing that which is referred to as 'God' . . . " because, though in this case you are limiting the topic to what people are referring to, at least it is implied that the referent is not limited to that reference, but you still have a problem with "revealing" implying a totality.

All it really needs is some qualifiers of somesort: Revealing some aspect of "God" . . . something such as that.

[patrice]

39. Oh, and quotation marks, "God", are useful too, implying "That which is labeled 'God'".

P.S. There's a reason why Orthodox Jews and some others refrain from saying anything that is the equivalent of "God".

[darkstar3]

40. I think you are perfectly demonstrating problems referred to by the OP. n/t

[patrice]

58. I think I am too, just not by means of any names associated with recognized Intelligentia.

It has been my experience in becoming acquainted (but not intimate with) "the Intelligentia" that most of them say things I already know in my own terms, or at least COULD figure out from Life if I make the effort. Not that what they say has no value, but more just that I'm kind of hard-headed-do-it-yourselfer and they say what they say FOR the self-contained system(s) that they are saying it to/with and (by choice) I am not a (direct) part of that stuff.

[Silent3]

12. Martin Luther obviously had lots of impact...

...but the impact was more political and institutional than anything to do with common ideas about God. We are talking about influences on conceptions of God here, and for the common membership of both Protestants and Catholics churches the popular idea of God is still a lot closer to a "Sky Daddy" than the sterile abstractions philosophers and theologians resort to when attempting to reconcile theism with reason.

Um…are these “experts” the same unholy trinity that just sat in front of a Congressional committee and blamed each other for the mess…and then got publicly balled out by the President for doing so?

I'll leave that as an "exercise to the reader" if you really, really believe that I could even possibly have been trying to suggest that.

[ironbark]

41. You don’t think Luther influenced “common ideas about God”?

I believe the historical record will back me in suggesting that the combined effects of Luther and Guttenburg shook the whole Christian show up altogether and radically transformed “common ideas about God”.
Prior to these two figures Priests had complete control of the bible and dispensed the selective word
in mysterious/incomprehensible Latin…they painted and controlled the picture/conception of god.

With the printing press and Luther’s reform it was open slather…any and all could access the bible and the desire to do so drove literacy. The very nature of the conception of god was transformed.

“We are talking about influences on conceptions of God here”

It is difficult today to appreciate the transformation because the Catholic god today is far far more Protestant than it was prior to Luther. The effect of Luther on “conceptions of God” could only be described as profound.

“… for the common membership of both Protestants and Catholics churches the popular idea of God is still a lot closer to a "Sky Daddy"….”

No. I’m sorry. But that is simply not accurate. Since Guttenburg/Luther and widespread literacy we have a radical and profound shift in “common membership, Protestants/Catholic” conceptions of God.
For the first time since the birth of Christianity we have lay people, common Christians, reading and studying the bible and coming to their own conclusions and conceptions. As a result- There was once ‘The Church’…now there are 28- 30,000 churches and a myriad of conceptions well beyond "Sky Daddy".
William Miller is a prime example of such independent bible scholarship….perhaps his only fault was expecting Son of Sky Daddy literally in the sky ;-)


“…the sterile abstractions philosophers and theologians resort to when attempting to reconcile theism with reason.”

That theism and reason are reconciled is testified to by the number of influential theist scientists-
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=214&topic_id=246680&mesg_id=246766
List, bottom, 46#

Bottom line…As dry, dull, ineffectual and boring as most theology/philosophy can be…every now and then someone breaks through and has profound impact and effect on how folk generally think and perceive things. This is true of discourse in all fields- Art, music, politics, literature, economics…..
Religion, like everything else, is generally evolutionary and occasionally revolutionary.
;-)

[Silent3]

47. Theist scientist validate the rationality of belief in God...

...the same way doctors who smoke validate the health benefits of tobacco. You're not making an argument, you're making a pure appeal to authority.

There was once ‘The Church’…now there are 28- 30,000 churches and a myriad of conceptions well beyond "Sky Daddy".

Official teachings and dogmas of all of these varied churches don't stop the fact that the God believed in by most monotheists is someone to pray to for assistance of various sorts, from handling the loss of a loved one to winning a football game. This God is there to reward good behavior and punish bad behavior. This God is there to say "everything's gonna be alright" when we fear danger and death. This is "Sky Daddy". Sky Daddy is the God of rules, penalties, and intercessory prayer, the God who will protect us and make everything alright.

These "Sky Daddy" qualities of God, however, do not naturally follow from the abstractions of theologians and philosophers about first causes and non-contingency and transcendence. If you arrive at the existence of God via the methods of what I'm calling the "Theological Intelligentsia", you don't arrive at the common man's God -- those arguments provide no support for an entity or being with any necessary interest, concern, or automatic connection to human needs and desires.

[ironbark]

57. Was Jesus a theologian/philosopher? ;-)

Prior-
“…the sterile abstractions philosophers and theologians resort to when attempting to reconcile theism with reason.”

That theism and reason are reconciled is testified to by the number of influential theist scientists-
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...
List, bottom, 46#

“Theist scientist validate the rationality of belief in God
...the same way doctors who smoke validate the health benefits of tobacco.”

No, sorry, that’s an extremely false parallel. The science is long in on smoking and its dangers confirmed beyond doubt…there are no “health benefits of tobacco”…the shit will kill you…there is no rational reason to smoke. There is no such scientific determination on religion and many rational people (scientists included) find theism to be logical and demonstrably beneficial.

“You're not making an argument, you're making a pure appeal to authority.”

Not at all. I am pointing out that some of the most rational/scientific minds in history have had no trouble logically reconciling their religion and their science.

“…don't stop the fact that the God believed in by most monotheists is someone to pray to for assistance of various sorts, from handling the loss of a loved one to winning a football game.”

I see no grounds or evidence whatsoever to accept that sweeping shallow generalization as a “fact”. It may well be true of an unknown number of Christians, but it is certainly not true of all nor is it accurate regarding Jews, Moslems and other monotheists.

“This God is there to reward good behavior and punish bad behavior. This God is there to say "everything's gonna be alright" when we fear danger and death.”

To “reward good behavior and punish bad behaviour” in this realm or the next? "everything's gonna be alright"…Ultimately?...Yes, factoring in the “behaviour” caveat, that seems an accurate description of what monotheist scriptures say.

“This is "Sky Daddy". Sky Daddy is the God of rules, penalties, and intercessory prayer, the God who will protect us and make everything alright.”

If by “rules” you mean ‘law’ then the OT “intercessory” Sky Daddy you describe runs into the NT god of “The letter killeth but the spirit giveth life”…and earthly intercession is not emphasised. In the third of ‘The People of the Book’ revelations the emphasis changes again.
>IF< there is a god speaking to humanity through these millennia it would make sense that the message evolves, changes, deepens and matures in accord with our evolving, maturing human capacity to understand.
The ‘rules’ and ‘lessons’ we received in kindergarten differed greatly from those in primary, secondary and tertiary education…that does not render them less valuable at any stage.

The biggest problem as I see it with this "Sky Daddy" depiction is verifying how many Christians (alone) hold it...the vast majority of Christians that I know would laugh it off and reject it...Holding the kingdom and divine to be predominantly internal qualities to be discovered/devloped in self and seen in others.

“If you arrive at the existence of God via the methods of what I'm calling the "Theological Intelligentsia", you don't arrive at the common man's God -- those arguments provide no support for an entity or being with any necessary interest, concern, or automatic connection to human needs and desires.”

I can see what your getting at but it does not appear to me to be any different for "Theological Intelligentsia" than it does for the birth of new religious movements.
At the advent of each and every new major religion the common perception of and belief in god was radically challenged by the new revelation. If atheists/ agnostics reject altogether the notion of ‘Revelation’ then Buddha, Jesus and Mohammed must stand as some form of "Theological Intelligentsia".

Either the "Theological Intelligentsia" you are referring to are working in the context of divine revelation….or the founders of the major faiths are radical Theological Intelligentsia transforming the perceptions of “the common man's God”.

[Silent3]

60. Lots of people compartmentalize inconsistent...

...beliefs and behaviors. The trend is that the more education people have, the smarter they are, the more science they know, the less frequent belief in gods is, and those gods tend to be more abstract. Given the cultural pressures to accept religious faith of some sort is still doesn't mean much that "many rational people (scientists included)" are theistic. That's not the same thing as saying "find theism to be logical" when they might just be turning off logic for that part of their lives, and "demonstrably beneficial" is a tricky phrase that can confuse side-effect benefits of professing belief with the factual truth of those beliefs.

I can see what your getting at but it does not appear to me to be any different for "Theological Intelligentsia" than it does for the birth of new religious movements.
At the advent of each and every new major religion the common perception of and belief in god was radically challenged by the new revelation. If atheists/ agnostics reject altogether the notion of ‘Revelation’ then Buddha, Jesus and Mohammed must stand as some form of "Theological Intelligentsia".

I think you're confusing doctrinal novelty with theological abstraction. New religions are largely social, cultural and political movements. New religions don't gain popularity via complex intellectual arguments of the types theologians make, they catch on due to emotional appeal.

[Jim__]

5. A non-philosophical argument from an atheist on why the New Atheists arguments are wrong.

This lecturer was raised a Christian and is currently an atheist. He gives a lecture to a general audience (I believe it's at a college). He states that the points he's making do come from philosophers, but his points should be understandable to anyone with a familiarity with basic logic. The entire lecture takes about 30 minutes (the last 20 are a presentation of successful atheistic arguments - and then there is about another 30 minutes of Q & A). The first segment and about 30 seconds of the 2nd segment contain his arguments against the New Atheists arguments - specifically Dawkins and Hitchens. his lecture is here

My point being that if you want to argue against a particular position, you have to address the best argument there is. You don't have to address it using a detailed technical argument if you're speaking to a general audience. But if you fail to address the best argument, you are cheating your audience. If you are not expert enough to address the best arguments but want to raise some issues anyway, you owe it to your audience to clearly make the point that you are not an expert.

The best arguments are relevant. And anyone seriously trying to engage an idea, must address these arguments.

[Silent3]

8. I sat through watching all of that...

...and I think the Muehlhauser way overstates his case when he says the so-called new atheists "fail". That seems more like attention-getting hype than a valid criticism. One claim Muehlhauser makes without really backing it up is that Dawkins central argument is "logically invalid", but he never says how or why. This is what he claims before piling on to say that Dawkins is also missing the point by supposedly arguing against the wrong God that nobody believes in.

The thing is, I'm pretty sure that I've heard Dawkins argue the same explanatory value argument this guy makes, as well as acknowledging the popular idea of God being eternal (and the not so popular idea, even if Muehlhauser thinks it is, of God being noncontingent -- "noncontingent" is not even a word in most people's vocabularies). I've made that same arguments about explanatory value myself, I've acknowledged and dealt with that version of God, and I'm certain Dawkins is not unaware of these things. It's been a while since I read "The God Delusion", so I'm not absolutely sure that Dawkins clearly lays out what Muehlhauser is saying in the same exact terms of testability, consistency with background knowledge, simplicity, and explanatory scope Muehlhauser uses, but it seems more of a quibble than a reason for Muehlhauser to claim anyone's "failure".

The argument Dawkins makes about complexity, which is essentially the same thing as the "Who designed the designer?" Muehlhauser talks about Hitchens using, just stated in somewhat different terms, is I think a very important argument to make because when people argue for God using the complexity argument or the design argument, the are making an argument which is explicitly about the notion of contingency, that one thing requires another to precede it.

I think it's important to first point out how infinite regress makes the argument from design fail before you allow a God proponent the escape clause of getting to define their favorite God as noncontingent and eternal. That makes it all the clearer that defining God as noncontingent and eternal a pretty specious claim to make, because if a person is willing to call anything noncontingent and eternal they're in no position to be pushing the argument by design in the first place if they themselves are quite happy to claim that there can be anything at all, even if they call that thing God, that doesn't have to be designed or created.

What Muehlhauser has to say is important too, but for me it makes sense for Dawkins, who in his books is addressing a popular audience and not an council of theologians, to focus on the arguments of design and complexity first because I think those arguments are foremost in the minds of popular belief in God. Address those first, and people might realize themselves before you move on to talk about explanatory power that simply defining their God as noncontingent and eternal is more of a dishonest dodge than it is an important feature of godhood for atheists to be required to defeat (which they can do handily enough by moving on to the general concept of explanatory power).

[Jim__]

9. A few points of disagreement.

First, your claim that the arguments against Dawkins and Hitchens are the same argument stated in different terms does not at all ring true to me.

His argument against Dawkins is that Dawkins claims that one of the claims for god is that life is too complex to have evolved without an intelligence. But, then, the designer would have to be more complex than life in order to have designed life.

I take his response to be that Dawkins is making a category error. The evolution of life is accepted to be an accident. The metaphysical god is assumed by most religions to be both eternal and necessary. Therefore, there is no need for this god to have evolved.

The god that evolves is the god of deism, which is the god that Hume said this argument can be used against; but Hume stated specifically that this argument did not appeal to the metaphysical god of religion.

His argument against Hitchens is an argument by analogy. The thrust of his argument is that the infinitely repeated "Why" of a child can never be successfully answered. If you require that the argument for a designer must be carried all the way back to an ultimate beginning, than you are essentially invalidating all of science because no scientific argument can be carried all the way back to some solid beginning. If we accept partial explanations from science than we can't reject partial explanations from people who argue against science.

The argument about whether all of existence is contingent or whether there exists something non-contingent is not at all a specious argument. It is the central dilemma that you will run into when you try to understand how anything can exist. Either, all things are contingent, which leads to an infinite regress, but ultimately no explanation, or something is necessary. I don't know of anyone who claims to have a definitive answer to that. In the end, nobody knows.

As to the logical failure of Dawkins argument, he said that a philosopher, an atheist, named Eric Muehlenberg (sp), tried to straighten out Dawkins argument but he couldn't. He said Dawkins central argument in the book was a 6 step argument. I couldn't find Muehlenberg's argument, but I did find a couple of analyses of Dawkins central argument inn chapter 4 of his book.

First, the points taken from the first review which lists the steps:

Let me focus explicitly on the end of Chapter 4, since Dawkins presents in it what he calls "the central argument of book" (p. 157; all quotations and page numbers are from the 2006 edition). I have tried to take Dawkins' statements in context, but please correct me if you think I've been unfair. His argument is as follows:

• Life is too complex to have come about by pure, random chance
  
  
• It is therefore tempting to believe that it was created by an "intelligent designer"(p. 157) like other complex things
  
  
• However, this belief is false because a designer would be more complicated than the thing designed, and "the whole problem we started out with was the problem of explaining statistical improbability" (p. 158)
  
  
• Darwinian evolution shows how life "with spectacular statistical improbability" could have been produced (p. 158)
  
  
• There is no analogous argument for physics, but the anthropic principle allows us to take "more luck" into account than we normally would in most arguments (p. 158)
  Probably a better argument for physics does exist
  
  
• Therefore, "God almost certainly does not exist" (p. 158)
  
  I'd like to point out two central inconsistencies in this argument. In addition, I'd like to examine whether Dawkins' arguments are purely empirical and derived wholly from scientific evidence and reason, or whether they contain an element of "faith", which I'll take here to mean a belief consistent with, but not derived from, evidence.

And the second review from The Journal of Evolutionary Philosophy which is a detailed review of the first 4 chapters of the book:

Chapter four was a dismal failure

Much of what Dawkins had to say in the first three chapters, especially his argument against agnosticism, depended entirely on his promise to prove in chapter four that God was too improbable to exist. Dawkins based the entire credibility of his book on this chapter, and the only proof that he delivered was a rhetorical hypothesis.

To begin with, the chapter was poorly written. Most of its pages were wasted attacking Biblical creationists instead of explaining God's relative improbability. Dawkins' explanation of the multiverse was short and vague, and his case for cosmological evolution required the reader to see connections between a loose collection of fuzzy concepts.

Throughout the book, he throws the term ‘natural selection’ around like it means the same thing as evolution. But evolution requires ‘random mutation’ as well as natural selection, and Dawkins' failure to address the question of how universes might randomly mutate spells doom for his probability argument.

Biological evolution is only possible because of the laws of nature that govern the universe and give organic molecules their remarkable properties. With cosmological evolution, however, there must be no external laws governing how universes behave, otherwise we would be back to square one trying to explain where these higher laws came from.

...

These 2 reviews can probably give you a fair idea of the logical problems with Dawkins argument.

[skepticscott]

13. Here's what it all boils down to

Neither a naturalistic or a supernaturalistic explanation for why we see what we do right now can escape the problem of infinite regress. Any argument that can be made as to why it does not apply to a valid version of someone's "god" can equally be made to a valid version of someone's natural universe. So why would anyone find it intellectually necessary to insert "god" in there?

The true answer to the problem of infinite regress may never be discoverable by human reason or empirical inquiry, but those favoring a naturalistic explanation to the universe at least don't throw up their hands and say "I can't explain this now, so I'm going to insert some abstract concept that I have a deep-seeded psychological need to call 'god' to fill in the gaps in my current understanding"

[Jim__]

46. The issue is not between a 'naturalistic' or 'supernaturalistic' explanation.

The issue is between contingent being and non-contingent being. A non-contingent being resolves the problem of an infinite regress because when you travel all the way back to the non-contingent being, you have reached the end. The regress is complete and it is not infinite.

You can claim that the universe is non-contingent. But then you have to assign it properties that allow it to cause contingent events. You can ask questions about those properties. There is a valid dilemma about how existence came to be; if everything is contingent, then you have an infinite regress; if there is a non-contingent being, you have issues about what that means and what sort of properties non-contingent being must entail.

An infinite regress is not a slight problem that can just be waved off. Infinity is a paradoxical concept. While we work with infinity in mathematics, we have defined it so that infinity "works" according to what we see in the real world. For instance, Zeno's paradox is real. It's resolved mathematically by defining the limit as we approach infinty to behave according to how we see the world behave. But it is very possible that Zeno's paradox is actually telling us that our model of the world is wrong. For instance, time and space may not be continuous. The point being that we can't just accept an infinite regress. Neither can we just accept a necessary being. But, the concepts deserve investigation.

[skepticscott]

50. None of which addresses the important question

of why anyone needs to insert something called "god" into their thinking, when it cannot (despite claims to the contrary) resolve the problem of infinite regress any better than a universe without "god".

[Jim__]

51. You claim that god cannot address the issue of an infinite regress.

The assumption that god is a necessary being directly addresses the issue.

[skepticscott]

52. That assumption is nothing more

than special pleading and has no justification whatsoever beyond that. Especially if you're simply defining "god" as "whatever addresses the problem of infinite regress".

[Jim__]

55. The question of contingency and non-contingency is an essential question when dealing with existence

Calling a non-contingent being god is a choice. The essential question about a non-contingent being is what properties would it have to have.

[darkstar3]

53. All of this concept of infinity, infinite regress, and contingency circles around linear causality.

The problem with that is that time and space are part and parcel to each other. As I explained in another thread, space as we know it hasn't always existed, and therefore neither has time. If time as we know it hasn't always existed, then linear causality breaks down at some point as we travel backward along the universal timeline toward the big bang.

Lack of linear causality yields the total breakdown of the concept of contingency. We may all be living in an incredibly complex predestination paradox, or even a time loop, which in the end will lead to the collapse or destruction of this universe and its birth at the same time.

"All of this has happened before, and all of it will happen again." (WTF happened to BSG...)

[Jim__]

56. All you're saying is we don't know.

The multiverse is one current cosmological theory. So, if the multiverse is a correct theory, even though the time for this universe breaks down at the Big Bang, causality doesn't. Our universe could still be the spawn of a previous universe; or, the multiverse could all be the result of the Big Bang. But the Big Bang itself postulates that a dense condition led to the Big Bang. The existence of that condition still needs to be explained.

A time-loop of course is dependent on time (i.e linear causality), and is just one form of infinite regress.

People claim we can't know what happened bfore the Big Bang and even claim that any question of a "before" the Big Bang makes no sense. But, in light of current cosmological theories, a concept of "before" does make sense (it is possible); but in a time-frame that is outside of our universe.

To explain existence it is not enough to use a phrase, e.g. non-linear causality, you have to explain the ultimate "how".

[darkstar3]

59. OK

1. What's wrong with not knowing? I think it would be ever so boring to live in a universe where we had all the answers.
2. How can you claim that causality doesn't break down with time? Causality is dependent on time and exists only as a logical consequence of time. If you allow for the fact that time could have broken down, even for an instant, then in that instant linear causality is broken as well.
3. "A time frame that is outside of our universe" is pure postulation. The Big Bang Theory necessitates that space and time at some point in the distant past didn't exist as we know them now, and that theory is therefore the basis of the claims that "before the Big Bang" makes no sense and that linear causality breaks down. What theory is it that allows you postulate that there IS even a time frame outside of this known universe, or that said timeframe still conforms to the same laws of space-time that we know?

[Jim__]

61. 1. There is nothing wrong with saying we don't know.

However, once we've admitted we don't know, we have to be honest about the things we can claim that we do know; such as whether or not the probabilty of a god is high or low.

2, 3. Suppose the time for our universe breaks down sometime around the Big Bang. Then you can say all the things in our universe happened after time becomes extant. But, if (some) current cosmological theories are correct, it is quite possible that there is a timeframe outsid of our universe and in that outside timeframe, the conditions for the Big Bang were created in that other timeframe (e.g. a multiverse that spawns child universes).

[darkstar3]

62. OK.

1. First, before you can examine the probability of god, you must define what you mean BY god. Only then can you gather the relevant evidence necessary to determine probability.
2. You didn't answer the question. This is the second time you've referred to nebulous other cosmological theories. Please cite which one is giving you these ideas that a) time exists outside of our own universe and b) that "time" adheres to the same rules we see here in our universe.

[Jim__]

63. 1. I agree. See the first video referenced in post #5.

Listen to the analysis of Dawkins argument. Dawkins concludes that it's very unlikely (i.e. improbable) that god would come into existence.

2. I thought I already did by the reference to multiverse theories. But, if you want a more specific reference, M-theory, one of the multiverse theories, certainly has time that precedes the Big Bang, Whether or not it considers it to be a different time-frame, I'm not sure. But it definitely talks about time preceding the Big Bang, and p-branes that essentially caused what we know as the universe.

[darkstar3]

64. 1. Because he's working with a definition given to him by believers.

Working within that definition, he can then collect the necessary info to determine or attempt to determine the probability of God.
2. I'll look at that theory for more info. I would like to point out, however, that we have strayed somewhat from the original point of non-contingency, and introduced two separate theories that allow for the creation of this universe without the existence of a non-contingent first mover.

[Jim__]

65. 1. No. Hart's point is that Dawkins arguments do not apply to the god of most believers.

So far, I haven't seen anyone refute Hart's argument.

2. We've only strayed from the point of non-contingency because you claimed the point was moot. You also claimed that time ceases to exist before the Big Bang, rendering the point moot. Since none of your arguments have proven superior to the original dilemma between contingency and non-contingency, we remain, on the horns of the original dilemma. I haven't seen any theory that allows for existence outside of those options.

[darkstar3]

66. 1. Totally false.

Hart's point is that Dawkins isn't speaking about HIS specific version of God, the one that is so ephemeral as to be practically non-existent in the first place. As has been said elsewhere in this thread, Dawkins DOES speak to the God of most Western believers.
2. The point IS moot, simply because the need for a non-contingent being is non-existent. We have the theory you put forward in this thread about a multi-verse with p-branes that led to the Big Bang, and the theory I put forward that the lack of linear causality as you approach the Big Bang could lead to all kinds of possible Cyclic Universe ideas. Neither one of these theories remotely requires the presence of a first mover, so the need for a non-contingent being is gone.

[Jim__]

67. 1. I spoke with some CHristians at work yesterday. Everyone of them believed that god is eternal.

Dawkins god is not. So, neither Hart's god nor the god spoken of in the video appear to be specific to Hart or the ex-Christian in the video.

2. If they don't require the presence of a necessary being, then they require an infinite regress of contingent beings. We can claim that the p-branes are not necessary, but then we have to account for their existence. A cyclic universe also has to be explained. Either it has been cycling forever - an infinite regress - or something initially caused it - and that initial cause is either contingent or non-contingent. It's very nice to use phrases like non-linear causality, but you have to explain your idea not just use a particular phrase.

[trotsky]

68. Obviously you yourself have found a way out of needing a non-contingent being.

Because you claim to be an atheist. So therefore just use your own reasoning to dispute Hart and quit wasting everyone else's time.

[darkstar3]

70. Oh obviously,

but then just because it's unnecessary doesn't mean we can rule it out...:eyes:

[darkstar3]

69. 1. You obviously haven't listened to/read enough of Dawkins thoughts

if you believe the God he speaks of isn't eternal just like the God that Christians believe in. Having been raised in a fundamentalist household and schooled rather thoroughly regarding the Christian God, I can tell you that Dawkins does indeed speak directly of him, and any attempt to claim otherwise is a laughable dismissal rooted in an inability to actually answer Dawkins' points.

2. This all goes back to which is the simpler explanation. We KNOW that energy can neither be created nor destroyed. Whether in a cyclic universe or a multiverse with p-branes, the idea of formless and morphable eternal energy is certainly much simpler than the idea of a non-contingent first mover. Furthermore, an infinite regress backward along the timeline of this universe actually necessitates a simple answer, rather than a more complex one. And as for my explanation regarding the lack of linear causality, I think I've explained the phenomenon quite sufficiently for anyone who knows what causality means.

[Jim__]

71. I have read Dawkins "The God Delusion." He speaks of the need for god to become complex.

This is the point addressed by both Hart and the atheist speaker in the video cited in post #5. This point has also been addresssed by Hume, who specifically said this type of god is the god of deism, not the god of traditional religion.

2. There is no simple explanation for existence. Actually, your statement about energy is not exactly correct. We know that in our universe, under the laws of physics as we know them, the is a law of conservation of matter energy. But, that really doesn't tell us about existence itself. If there is not existence, the laws of our universe, presumably, don't exist either. If they do, if when nothing else exists, the laws of physics still have to exist, you have found your non-contingent existence. At this time, no one has an answer to this dilemma.

[darkstar3]

72. Just because no one has an answer to this dilemma

and never will, BTW, is no cause to claim that A BEING had to be there first. In fact, out of all the possible explanations, a single non-contingent first mover sentience seems to be one of the more fantastical, not to mention overly anthropomorphic. BTW, any first mover (which is still Hart's argument) MUST be complex. It does not become complex, it simply is. Dawkins and other atheists address the first mover argument quite sufficiently, and your cited sources do nothing but repackage that first mover argument hoping that the packaging will make the argument seem beyond atheist criticism. It doesn't.

[muriel_volestrangler]

73. I don't think Dawkins said 'God' needs to *become* complex

but he says an ID approach needs a God that *is* (or *was*) complex. He then says OK, that leaves you 2 choices, either a God that evolved from something simpler - but the ID proponent is trying to say that evolution from simpler states isn't how we got us, so the evolution of a more complex God is even more unlikely; *or* God was always complex. Now, Dawkins acknowledges that a complex, eternal God is the standard one of monotheistic religions; but he says that is a less likely hypothesis than a universe with time going back to the Big Bang. Which is basically what Muehlhauser goes on to argue himself. Dawkins may not use the word 'non-contingent', but I'm pretty sure (like you ,I think, I don't have a copy of 'The God Delusion' to hand) he argues that there's no problem is saying the universe has just existed since the Big Bang, and that is no more of a problem of 'what caused it?' than an eternal, complex God is. Especially when you then give other attributes to that God like desires to create other things.

Remember, Dawkins does not (nor, I think, do any of the other 'New Atheists') claim he has proved that God doesn't exist - that's why he says that on a scale of 0 to 7, with 0 being "I am absolutely certain God exists" and 7 "I am absolutely certain God does not exist", he's a 6.9 (or whatever the numbers are). But what he does say is that the 'proofs of God' offered, such as the Argument from Design, all have flaws. And, like Muehlhauser, he feels he shows good reasons for thinking the ideas of God put forward are more contrived, and therefore unlikely, than the theories of the Big Bang, the standard model of physics, and evolution by natural selection.

[Silent3]

17. Both Dawkins and Hitchens are talking about chains of causality

Hitchens asks "Who designed the designer?" to point out the problem of infinite recursion if you don't just admit that there's a point where you have to simply admit "I don't know". Dawkins points to the same problem, focusing specifically on the complexity a "designer" would have to have, then goes on to show how, rather than giving up and saying "I don't know" at the earliest known case of complexity, you can at least reason about how complexity can arise from simple physical laws. Then it's "only" the universe and its laws, a more parsimonious start point and an accepted-to-exist entity from our common background knowledge, where you have to throw up your hands and say "I don't know how it came to be".

Reading through that review of Dawkins (and yes, I'm simplifying a bit to cut to the chase and not spend endless paragraphs on this) the reviewer's chief objections seems to boil down to this: "Well, why does Dawkins' believe that there is a natural, probable explanation for life? I assert it is part of his faith in materialism."

Materialism, however, is exactly what you have to follow not as a matter of faith, but as a logical necessity, if you follow the same rules of explanatory power that that Muehlhauser recommends: testability, consistency with background knowledge, simplicity, and explanatory scope. Anything else is the "Poof! Magic!" Muehlhauser takes pains to discredit when he asserts his supposed best approach to defending atheism. The value of materialism is not a matter of faith, but a matter of a well-established track record.

[saltpoint]

6. I like some gods better than others.

Gods. Goddesses. Ect.

A pantheon is a lot more interesting -- and more fun -- than a lone god or goddess.

If we can't empirically see but only personally believe in a divine entity, it's tough to answer the excellent questions in your post.

Gods and goddesses are at play in the work of artists and musicians. LORD OF THE FLIES is a Judeo-Christian allegory. Peter Shaffer's EQUUS would be wholly defanged without the Judeo-Christian cultural context. There are hundreds and hundreds of paintings depicting St. Sebastian alone.

So the gods and goddesses are still hanging around here and there. I like some better than others, is all.

[rug]

7. You don't need to be a chemist to drink water.

If a god exists, it exists regardless of one's belief or understanding.

While it may be intellectually interesting to know how hydrogen and oxygen bond, it is not necessary to drink.

Those that ponder theology do a service in attempting to explain the unexplainable and to help create a common understanding of God.
But in the end, it is as Aquinas said: "Reginald, I cannot, because all that I have written seems like straw to me."

What matters is how one lives and shares one's experience with God, not how one explains it.

[darkstar3]

10. I disagree.

What matters is how one lives and shares one's experience with God, not how one explains it.

How one explains it is important, for several reasons:

1. What of "The Great Commission"?
2. What of the tenets of many Christian denominations that require their adherents to "save" others where possible?
3. Why engage in debate about religion if it doesn't matter how one explains it?

[rug]

19. You misundersttand.

I did not say explanation is unimportant. Rather, it is not the purpose of religion.

1. In Christianity, the so-called Great Commission is to spread the Good News. God saves, not Christians. You will not find that commission in Buddhism, for example.

2. See 1.

3. Because religion is not about debate. You can take it or leave it. Religion is not an academic exercise.

[darkstar3]

21. Then what IS the purpose of religion? n/t

[rug]

22. To realize and experience God.

I think that would fit just about any religion.

[darkstar3]

23. Good one.

Still, there's the problem of many religious people engaging in debate, discussion, and proselytizing. I would think that "how one explains it" would be important to those endeavors.

[Silent3]

43. But all chemists will tell you that water...

...is a combination of hydrogen and oxygen. With the possible exception of the occasional off-the-deep-end crackpot, they all agree what water is. The theologians and philosophers, however, don't agree with what God is, and, if you go beyond the particular theologians and philosophers I was speaking of in the OP, they don't even agree that anything meaningfully called "God" exists.

What matters is how one lives and shares one's experience with God, not how one explains it.

Which may or may not matter just as much as how well one bowls and shares one's cookies with unicorns.

[rug]

48. If you consider the history of religion and humanity equivalent to sharing cookies with unicorns,

I'm not surprised at the befuddlement of your OP.

[Silent3]

49. Not equivalent at all.

Sharing cookies with unicorns in much more fun.

[patrice]

14. Can we begin with the premise that Language is NOT equivalent to that to which it only refers?

All formulations HAVE to be incomplete hypotheses. That doesn't mean that they have no value in pointing to some phenomenological fact(s), but there is nothing inherently necessary in the relationship between the language and that to which it only refers and that fact is particularly true in consideration of whatever a "God" would be.

The only way the philosophy and theologians CAN say anything remotely meaningful is if you close the semantic system, making it circular, in effect, by assuming: this = this, because this = this.

So, aside from empirical phenomenology, the meanings of all theologians and scholars are useful to the extent to which you buy into their assumptions and, yes, there are theological and philosophical systems that do actually work better than others, but they are all the same in that there is no necessary equivalence between what they are saying and what they are referring to.

In short, there is "Nothing to be done" and we can't even actually talk about what theologians and philosophers do unless we do so relative to that fact.

[darkstar3]

15. Um, no.

but they are all the same in that there is no necessary equivalence between what they are saying and what they are referring to.
That would mean that words are useless, that communication of philosophical ideas is impossible, and attempting it is pointless.

[patrice]

16. No. Not "useless", but only "useful" relative to their limitations, just as scientific research

means little without its contextual assumptions and methodological limitations.

I suppose you can chop carrots just as well if you think the paring knife is a light-saber, but you are making an ERROR about what you are doing if you think you are chopping carrots with a light-saber.

[patrice]

18. P.S. Please give me one word that is exactly the same thing as what it represents, nothing more,

nothing less.

[darkstar3]

20. You're moving the goalposts now.

First you said there is no necessary equivalence between what they are saying and what they are referring to.
Now you're trying to make me come up with words that ARE what they refer to, ditching the entire idea of equivalence.

The word "nothing" for example, is something due to the fact that it must be written or spoken, and yet it represents nothing, and it is quite clear in its representation. It is an equivalence, used for communication. All words are equivalencies, and that's the way language works, but you must admit that words have meaning, and proper phraseology has the power to communicate ideas effectively

In other words, there is always a necessary equivalence between what we are saying and what we are referring to. Without that necessary equivalence, communication is nothing more than pissing in the wind.

[patrice]

25. For starters, there is no such thing as "nothing". There is abscence of this or that,

"No beer" (here), "He had nothing to do with it" (the absence of doing some specified action), but 0 is pure concept without SOMETHING. There is no "nothing" in the empirical world.

More later, I have to go for now.

edit: typo

[darkstar3]

26. By interjecting the usage of 0 you've obviously taken my point. n/t

[patrice]

27. Identify for me, please, something that is a nothing. Where is this 0, this nothingness, to which yo

u refer?

[darkstar3]

28. We could start with this subthread.

[patrice]

29. It is only nothing relative to your ASSUMPTIONS about what something is.

[patrice]

30. i.e. It is not NECESSARILY nothing, nor is it necessarily something.

It is either one or both, depending upon whatever the underlying assumptions are, not in and of itself

[patrice]

31. P.S. In a thread asking whether expert, or otherwise, discussion of god and wisdom are useful, how

do you imply that a sub-thread about the qualifications one MUST attach to any semantic system is off-topic?

[darkstar3]

32. Because you are playing language games.

It's an old and tired gambit to claim that there is no way to approach discussion about God or philosophy because language is inadequate. Language is what we have, and while in some ways it CAN be inadequate (define "love" for example), it is what we have, and it has been used for millennia for discussions on God and philosophy.

And BTW, I didn't say this was off-topic, just pointless and lacking in content for the reasons I stated above.

[patrice]

33. Why do you continue to mis-characterize what I said? I didn't say "no way to approach..." just that

all ways should be regarded in terms of their inherent limitations.

[patrice]

34. And it's not "games"; it has to do with the nature of Language. Or are you claiming some ability to

formulate somekind of absolute on this topic, in which case, the game is most definitely yours.

[ironbark]

42. Dear patrice.

Welcome to my nightmare.

Good luck and all the best.

;-)

[Jim__]

45. How about "word"?

That might fit the bill. I don't believe anything else would.

[skepticscott]

24. It's a very good question to ask

what exactly makes thought "deep" enough to be acceptable to the Theological Intellegentsia? One might think at first glance that the use of as many obscure words strung together in as many erudite-seeming combinations as possible (along with a few well-dropped names from the past) would satisfy them, since it seems to be a requirement for membership in the club. But one would hope they recognize the difference between words and knowledge or understanding. Perhaps the TI believe that their understanding is indeed greater and more accurate than the naturalists whom they so smugly dismiss. One would like to know then, what objective knowledge their superior "depth" of thought has led to. What consensus has been reached in their areas of inquiry by the members of the club, and how can its accuracy (as opposed to the verbosity of its defenders) be gauged? What do we understand now as a result of their "deep" thinking that we did not understand 50 or 100 years ago? Or is it all just Mutual Mental Masturbation?

[patrice]

36. There's nothing wrong with masturbation as long as one admits that that is what it is and doesn't

try to make others believe it is eternal love.

[trotsky]

44. Consensus is indeed a fantastic word here.

Scientists may not always agree, but consensus moves forward. With their limited tools of language, mathematics, and experiments, scientists have an impressive mountain of accomplishments behind them. What have the TI produced? Why, they can't even get the buy-in from the other 99% of the theists on this planet. They like to pat each other on the back for evading the toughest questions, but nothing they've produced has led to any greater understanding of the universe or the human condition.

[skepticscott]

54. I ask the same question

of philosophers and philosophy in general, and have yet to get a reasonable response, even from some of the most philosophically verbose persons on this site.