|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Dec 23, 2020 1:02:47 GMT
I can't speak for other atheists but the only issue I have is with the ideas of those who assert, as a matter of faith, that the First Cause must be a magical one, one which is usually seen as deliberate and which is moreover a moral force, sometimes associated with a preference for the human. This seems to be loading a lot into reality for which there is no evidence. 'That which we call God', just as you say, can mean a host of things to different people. Traditionally though the word is imbued with cultural and philosophical assumptions and preconceptions which are based on psychology and emotion more than anything else. You say that as if it's a bad thing. Well psychology and emotion are fine for some things, just not everything.
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Dec 23, 2020 1:08:56 GMT
You say that as if it's a bad thing. Well psychology and emotion are fine for some things, just not everything. Nothing is good for everything.
|
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Dec 23, 2020 1:13:17 GMT
Well psychology and emotion are fine for some things, just not everything. Nothing is good for everything. Indeed. But when something is pressed upon people for millennia, often with pain of death for disagreement, fought over to the present day between competing versions, or is often offered instead of modern advances in knowledge and understanding, that good grows difficult to discern.
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Dec 23, 2020 1:14:47 GMT
Nothing is good for everything. Indeed. But when something is pressed upon people for millennia, often with pain of death for disagreement, or fought over to the present day between competing versions, or is often offered instead of modern advances in knowledge and understanding, that good seems harder and harder to see. Then what are psychology and emotion good for if not religious matters? Surely not science...
|
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Dec 23, 2020 1:17:05 GMT
Indeed. But when something is pressed upon people for millennia, often with pain of death for disagreement, or fought over to the present day between competing versions, or is often offered instead of modern advances in knowledge and understanding, that good seems harder and harder to see. Then what are psychology and emotion good for if not religious matters? Surely not science... That's the point, that a notion of 'God' is often the product of these two factors, making of any non-contingent Cause something magical rather than rational - although the credulous have inevitably found their own logic to justify it.
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Dec 23, 2020 1:23:37 GMT
Then what are psychology and emotion good for if not religious matters? Surely not science... That's the point, that a notion of 'God' is often the product of these two factors, making of any non-contingent Cause something magical rather than rational - although the credulous have found their own logic to justify it. I disagree with the notion that people who believe in God do so only because of those two factors, but I fail to see how that answers the question.
|
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Dec 23, 2020 1:30:04 GMT
That's the point, that a notion of 'God' is often the product of these two factors, making of any non-contingent Cause something magical rather than rational - although the credulous have found their own logic to justify it. I disagree with the notion that people who believe in God do so only because of those two factors, but I fail to see how that answers the question. I didn't say only because of those two factors, although it can't be denied that they usually play a good part in mankind's continuing belief or faith in the magical. I am not sure what the question was you mention; if it was what psychology and emotion are good for apart from religion, then other things are not hard to find. Just probably not a objective and empirical assessment of what most likely makes up how reality works.
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Dec 23, 2020 1:33:53 GMT
I disagree with the notion that people who believe in God do so only because of those two factors, but I fail to see how that answers the question. I didn't say only because of those two factors, although it can't be denied that they usually play a good part in mankind's continuing belief or faith in the magical. I am not sure what the question was you mention; if it was what psychology and emotion are good for apart from religion, then other things are not hard to find. Just probably not a objective and empirical assessment of what most likely makes up how reality works. Who was it who said religion without science is blind and science without religion is lame? I believe it was a scientist.
|
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Dec 23, 2020 1:39:24 GMT
I didn't say only because of those two factors, although it can't be denied that they usually play a good part in mankind's continuing belief or faith in the magical. I am not sure what the question was you mention; if it was what psychology and emotion are good for apart from religion, then other things are not hard to find. Just probably not a objective and empirical assessment of what most likely makes up how reality works. Who was it who said religion without science is blind and science without religion is lame? I believe it was a scientist. It was Einstein, and we all like a good platitude. He also said "For science can only ascertain what is, but not what should be, and outside of its domain value judgments of all kinds remain necessary. Religion, on the other hand, deals only with evaluations of human thought and action: it cannot justifiably speak of facts and relationships between facts."
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Dec 23, 2020 1:43:44 GMT
Who was it who said religion without science is blind and science without religion is lame? I believe it was a scientist. It was Einstein, and we all like a good platitude. He also said "For science can only ascertain what is, but not what should be, and outside of its domain value judgments of all kinds remain necessary. Religion, on the other hand, deals only with evaluations of human thought and action: it cannot justifiably speak of facts and relationships between facts." Where would be without human thought and action, psychology, and emotion? Are these not crucial elements for the advancement of what we call science?
|
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Dec 23, 2020 1:51:23 GMT
It was Einstein, and we all like a good platitude. He also said "For science can only ascertain what is, but not what should be, and outside of its domain value judgments of all kinds remain necessary. Religion, on the other hand, deals only with evaluations of human thought and action: it cannot justifiably speak of facts and relationships between facts." Where would be without human thought and action, psychology, and emotion? Are these not crucial elements for the advancement of what we call science? I'd say that thought and action are certainly crucial elements for the working of science, if not (at least in the 'hard' sciences) 'evaluations' of same, by which the great scientist most likely meant considerations of morality. Emotion would also seem to be less useful in judging empirical results. I think Einstein better expressed with his words what I have been trying to say.
|
|
|
|
Post by SciFive on Dec 23, 2020 1:51:35 GMT
It’s quite rational that any being who could create a universe would exist in some other form (other than what we see in the universe).
The universe includes time, so the being who could invent time wouldn’t be contained within it.
This doesn’t prove God’s existence but it is a rational approach to what a universe-creating being would be, if such a being exists.
|
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Dec 23, 2020 1:59:58 GMT
It’s quite rational that any being who could create a universe would exist in some other form (other than what we see in the universe). The universe includes time, so the being who could invent time wouldn’t be contained within it. This doesn’t prove God’s existence but it is a rational approach to what a universe-creating being would be, if such a being exists. Alas, not all things are equally rational. How does a being outside of time proceed from thought to action? Come to that how can something exist which occupies nothing? Have you ever heard of a non-spatial mountain?
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Dec 23, 2020 2:01:25 GMT
Where would be without human thought and action, psychology, and emotion? Are these not crucial elements for the advancement of what we call science? I'd say that thought and action were certainly crucial elements for the working of science if not (at least in the 'hard' sciences) 'evaluations' of same, by which the great scientist most likely meant considerations of morality. Emotion would also seem to be less useful in judging empirical results. I think Einstein better expressed with his words what I have been trying to say. I think keeping the heart and mind mutually exclusive of each other does no good in either department. I'm reminded of an epic saga of a track by Rush called Hemispheres, which essentially says that the mind builds the shelter but the heart drives you to do it. What do you think of the phrase: "The science of psychology and emotion."
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Dec 23, 2020 2:03:25 GMT
It’s quite rational that any being who could create a universe would exist in some other form (other than what we see in the universe). The universe includes time, so the being who could invent time wouldn’t be contained within it. This doesn’t prove God’s existence but it is a rational approach to what a universe-creating being would be, if such a being exists. Alas, not all things are equally rational. How does a being outside of time proceed from thought to action? Presuming omnipotence in the sense of being able to do anything - even impossible things - those little "snags" just don't apply.
|
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Dec 23, 2020 2:05:04 GMT
I'd say that thought and action were certainly crucial elements for the working of science if not (at least in the 'hard' sciences) 'evaluations' of same, by which the great scientist most likely meant considerations of morality. Emotion would also seem to be less useful in judging empirical results. I think Einstein better expressed with his words what I have been trying to say. I think keeping the heart and mind mutually exclusive of each other does no good in either department. I'm reminded of an epic saga of a track by Rush called Hemispheres, which essentially says that the mind builds the shelter but the heart drives you to do it. What do you think of the phrase: "The science of psychology and emotion." I quite agree that science done without a conscience (say) or empathy for subjects has led to some reprehensible experiments and results. But at the end of the day psychology and emotion are just not essential to it.
|
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Dec 23, 2020 2:08:31 GMT
Alas, not all things are equally rational. How does a being outside of time proceed from thought to action? Presuming omnipotence in the sense of being able to do anything - even impossible things - those little "snags" just don't apply. ... Which is an appeal to psychology and emotion more than anything else. It is more reassuring to have a deity unfettered by logic, so 'special' we can't and really don't need to understand the sense of it to believe.. The qualification like this of God into existence, though, is never a satisfactory argument. Using the same technique I can just as easily qualify my dog into Master of All Things.
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Dec 23, 2020 2:12:47 GMT
I think keeping the heart and mind mutually exclusive of each other does no good in either department. I'm reminded of an epic saga of a track by Rush called Hemispheres, which essentially says that the mind builds the shelter but the heart drives you to do it. What do you think of the phrase: "The science of psychology and emotion." I quite agree that science done without a conscience (say) or empathy for subjects has led to some reprehensible experiments and results. But at the end of the day psychology and emotion are just not essential to it. I continue to disagree. Presuming omnipotence in the sense of being able to do anything - even impossible things - those little "snags" just don't apply. ... Which is an appeal to psychology and emotion more than anything else. It is more reassuring to have a deity unfettered by logic. The qualification of God into existence though is never a satisfactory argument. No, it's an appeal to omnipotence. If something can do literally anything, it would be able to put thought into action without time. Call it magic. 
|
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Dec 23, 2020 2:17:25 GMT
I quite agree that science done without a conscience (say) or empathy for subjects has led to some reprehensible experiments and results. But at the end of the day psychology and emotion are just not essential to it. I continue to disagree. That is your perfect right, even though you might be wrong. Which magical thinking, qualifying this deity into existence, just shows what psychology and emotion can provide in lieu of reason and rationality. (You may also wish to know that religious thinkers do not commonly hold that God can do 'literally anything'; He cannot change His nature for instance and can only lift a rock that can be lifted & etc)
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Dec 23, 2020 2:19:55 GMT
That is your perfect right, even though you might be wrong. Which magical thinking, qualifying this deity into existence, just shows what psychology and emotion can provide in lieu of reason and rationality. It's neither reasonable nor rational to impose limits on a being that is presumed to have none.
|
|
