on discussing god and religion

Philosophy Forums Religion and Spirituality
721

Okay, so what would seem to count then is the extent to which we are able to examine our experiences; and then to communicate them to others.

In other words, in such a way that distinctions can be made between the variables that all reasonable folks would experience in the same set of circumstances, and our reaction to those experiences rooted instead in subjective/subjunctive frames of mind.

For example, John and his friend Jane can both attend a Catholic mass. And they can convey aspects of this experience that would overlap. Facts about the experience that coincide with the actual objective reality of it. But if John was a Catholic and Jane was an atheist, how would the philosopher – would anyone – grapple with their conflicting reactions to the mass in such a way that an understanding of God might be encompassed reasonably?

Again, in a philosophy venue, there has to be a line drawn between a belief that either is or is not demonstrable. Something that can be conveyed as true both epistemologically and empirically. Otherwise any and all beliefs become interchangeable. The criteria for something being true becomes merely that someone believes that it is true.

Or so it seems to me.

Logic exists only because the evolution of life on earth has [thus far] culminated in matter able to reflect on itself. And out in a particular world with others. And this communication – this language – has certain rules. Rules that are true objectively for all of us. Otherwise [for all practical purposes] how would we effectively communicate at all?

And, thus, when we communicate our thinking about God and religion what we say either is or is not logical, rational. But that is not the same thing [from my perspective] as then demonstrating that what we are in fact able to rationally and logically convey about those who discuss/experience God and religion is in sync empirically, materially, phenomenally with the world around us.

It is either just embedded in your head as a belief or it is sync what the sort of evidence that would compel all reasonable men and women to think and believe the same.

After all, a “leap of faith” to God can be rationalized. But that is not the same thing as demonstrating the existence of God.

Anymore than an argument rooted in the assumptions that one makes about the definition and the meaning of the words used in the argument brings this God into existence.

Ultimately, in my view, these existential contraptions – leaps of faith, presumptive arguments, personal experiences – seem more in sync with the manner in which psychologically they comfort and console certain people. Like you.

I only wish that somehow I could figure out a way that they might [once again] comfort and console me.

722

Admittedly, my own reaction to this reaction is invariably ambivialent.

I do call myself an atheist when the discussions revolve around particular denominational Gods. I simply do not believe in the existence of the Gods that are often speculated about in forums like this.

And then I ask those who do believe in their existence to make that crucial distinction between “belief” and “faith”. And then I probe the extent to which they either are or are not able to demonstrate that their alleged “knowledge” of these Gods is that which all reasonable men and women are in turn obligated to share.

But…

But then there is “God” as this is often equated with “nature” or the “universe”. In other words, with respect to “Reality” and “Existence” itself. And here the mystery is just so profound, so inherently problematic, that I can only imagine it as an agnostic.

In other words, here the gap between “I” and “all there is” is just too fucking staggering for the mind of any mere mortal. This is the sort of “God” that folks like Einstein and Spinoza grappled with.

And, come on, what the fuck do any of us really know about that?!!!

723

Stop writing about “reasonable men and women”. It’s obvious that you have no standard for ‘reasonable’ and ‘unreasonable’ when it comes to God and/or morality.
You claim to have a valid standard for reasonableness in areas like math and physics - “all reasonable men and women are supposed to believe what is written about these subjects in school textbooks and peer reviewed publications”. Right?
But when it comes to God and morality, it’s an entirely different matter for you. Who is unreasonable?

Your response to the ‘tequila’ discussion indicates that the only way to demonstrate the existence of tequila to you, is to give you a bottle of tequila.
Similarly, the only way to demonstrate the existence of God to you, is to pull God out of a hat.

A few paragraphs ago, language had certain objective rules which made communication possible. Remember :
“And this communication – this language – has certain rules. Rules that are true objectively for all of us. Otherwise [for all practical purposes] how would we effectively communicate at all?”

Now you seem to claim that when it comes to God, words can have lots of different meanings. So which is it?

Why does this problem of definitions and meaning only come up when discussing God and morality?

Or if it comes up in all areas of discussion, then how can people communicate at all?

724

Define the color blue in both its physical and aesthetic manifestations. Can the latter be described logically as the former can? Is the experience of blue beyond our ability to explain in such a way that the explanation would appear to be truth for all reasonable men and women? That there is something synonymous about qualia as experienced by different persons has to do with communication. In other words we can agree that you see the same blue that I see. So it is with spiritual experiences.

725

Ierrellus

Considering how we each individually see colors, according to our own brains and minds, can we actually describe the color blue "logically?

An “experience of blue” for me, aside from the physical aspect, would be a personal perception, a unique way of “seeing” and “experiencing” the color. I am deeply moved by indigo but others may not like the color at al.
Sure, there could be a group of people who might experience this “blue” in a similar way, based on brain/mind, their human experience, the way in which they translate that experience with words.
I’m not so sure though that I would use the word “truth” here. Ah, but you did say “appear to be”.
It’s all just according to our own subjective thinking and feeling which isn’t necessarily “truth” but “true for us”.

Communication? Don’t you think that it rather has to do with how each of us sensate things? Communication enters in when we’ve begun to share how we feel…for me at least.

.

No, not necessarily. For instance, there is a particular green which most if not all see as “green” but I always tend to see it as a kind of gray - not green at all, try as I might.

Here’s some interesting read. Religion doesn’t enter into it but it is about human perception.

quora.com/Visual-Perception … the-same-1

I will grant you that in sharing our religious/spiritual experiences with others, with some others, we might come to see that we share similar experiences.

726

As noted above, the distinction that I make revolves around this:

John and his friend Jane can both attend a Catholic mass. And they can convey aspects of this experience that would overlap. Facts about the experience that coincide with the actual objective reality of it. But if John was a Catholic and Jane was an atheist, how would the philosopher – would anyone – grapple with their conflicting reactions to the mass in such a way that an understanding of God might be encompassed reasonably?

My own “standard” revolves around that which either can or cannot be demonstrated to others as being in sync with what is in fact – empirically, materially, phenomenologically – true objectively.

Thus I would never argue that the points you or Ierrellus or other believers make are unreasonable. After all, they are based on personal experiences that you have had. Or they are based on the assumptions that you make regarding the definition and the meaning of the words that you use in your arguments. Instead, I would only argue that from my frame of mind none of you have succeeded in convincing me that your beliefs are in sync with what can be demonstrated empirically, materially, phenomenologically.

I still find it remarkable that you would actually make such a comparison. I can well imagine any number of demonstrable proofs that are available to folks trying to convince someone who has never seen a bottle of tequila that bottles of tequila do in fact exist.

How are the “demonstrations” that God does in fact exist on the same level? Existentially, in other words.

Note to others:

I must be entirely missing his point here. Can anyone reconfigure the argument so that it might be clearer to me.

As I have noted repeatedly, the distinction I make is between the definition and the meaning that we give to the words we use to argue that we are having this exchange about God and religion on this thread in the ILP philosophy forum, and the meaning and the definition that we give to the words we use in attempting to demonstrate which of our arguments is more [or wholly] in sync with whatever the objective reality might be pertaining to God and religion.

We would both use the same set of proofs to establish that the exchange is in fact unfolding. But what set of proofs could be advanced in order to demonstrate that your subjective perspective is more in sync with reality than mine.

I will admit that my frame of mind is just an existential contraption rooted in dasein. How do you then transcend that with respect to your own arguments?

727

Sure, if that’s the point you wish to make regarding the extent to which our thoughts and our feelings and our experiences regarding God may or may not overlap, I agree.

And just as biologically most of us come into the world with the capacity to perceive the color blue in particular contexts in particular ways, most of our brains seem hard-wired [by the fact of evolution itself] to connect dots between “in our head” and “out in the world”.

And, when you come into the world with the capacity to ask the question “why”, sooner or later you get around to asking the question “Why?”

And I surely don’t deny that the answer might be “God”.

But what does that really have to do with all of the objections that I raise regarding the gap between “God” in your head and “No God” in mine?

You are either able to offer arguments/demonstrations/evidence/proof that effectively close that gap or you are not.

728

It has been pointed out that even simple matters cannot be demonstrated to others. The taste of tequila can’t be demonstrated. In fact, none of the senses can be demonstrated - you can’t demonstrate sight, taste, smell, touch or hearing. All need to be experienced directly.

In other words, nothing I say about God or morality is unreasonable since I can always claim that I had a personal experience which justifies it. And since that personal experience is inaccessible to you, you can’t argue with it.

Sounds ridiculous. :open_mouth:

Let’s see those proofs and let’s see how quickly they fall apart.

I asked about the meaning and definitions of words in specific areas of discussion and you have avoided answering by shifting again to the concept of ‘demonstrating’ . In all discussions, you are using words. So there is going to be similar problems of meaning and definition. How do some areas of discussion manage to avoid these problems?

729

From my frame of mind, this sort of discussion quickly descends down into the rabbit hole that revolves around fundamental – ontological, teleological, metaphysical – understandings of human perception itself.

Solipsism, for example. Or the nature or Reality itself.

And I will concede that this far out on the limb, I may be entirely full of shit. How about you?

But there is still an important distinction to be made between demonstrating the existence of a bottle of tequila [and going back and forth regarding what teqila tastes like] and demonstrating either that a God, the God, my God eschews the consumption of tequila or that a God, the God, my God does in fact exist on the level of a bottle of tequila.

Perhaps we will just have to agree to disagree here.

There is nothing at all ridiculous about it. On the contrary, that sort of exchange – precipitating very, very real consequences – happens all the time out in, for example, the world that we live in.

All we can then do is to ask those who make certain claims about God and religion and morality [and who have the capacity to enforce those claims – in, say, a theocracy] to go beyond the “claim” itself. In other words, to actually demonstrate why all reasonable men and women are in fact obligated to believe the same.

But you know where that takes us, right?

Note to others:

What “on earth” am I missing here? Am I actually meant to take this seriously? That there are not companies that manufacture tequila, for example. That someone who has never seen a bottle of tequila cannot be take there and shown, say, hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of bottles of teqila?

There’s got to be some crucial inference of his that I am overlooking.

Sure, there is the “concept” of “demonstrating” something. And then there is the actual empirical evidence and proof that revolves around the fact of demonstrating something.

I don’t get why you don’t get that distinction.

730

Iambig is essentially anti-proselytisation and is fed up with people telling him stuff that he doesn’t experience.

731

It sounds like everyone around you is from another planet and has an entirely different culture and biology. If I found myself surrounded by hyper-intelligent slugs from another planet, then I would understand your point. Instead, I’m surrounded by men and women who are very much like me. Birth, food, drink, sex, sleep, pain, pleasure, disease, death. This is all understandable.

You are missing a couple of points.

  1. We are discussing the existence of tequila … not bottles that are marked ‘Tequila’. What’s in those bottles? You have taste it to make sure that it is tequila and not something else.

  2. We are discussing a context where tequila is not readily available in the local liquor store. We are in a place where it is not available. Someone who has tasted tequila is trying to convince someone who has not tasted tequila, that tequila exists.

Your focus on ‘demonstrating’ is a dead-end.

732

“When the wise man points at the Moon, the idiot looks at the finger.”

― Confucius

733

Yes, there is a lot of finger pointing going on.

734

I think that he is completely trapped by his intellectual contraptions. You can’t get him to drop the ideas that are holding him back. Even if you show him that, for example, demonstrability often fails even for routine matters, he still holds on to it.

He still keeps using the same approach that didn’t work years ago.

735

He doesn’t hold onto it but instead he is trying to force subjective vs. objective reality/morality cognitive dissonance within Ierrellus and yourself (he is failing to do so as he has not learnt to change his strategies).

736

I’d agree that Iamb appears trapped in his intellect and cannot give credence to experiential matters which he claims do not apply to his way of thinking. Experience is the bottom line; our definitions and distinctions rely on experience.

737

If you examine correctly, he does claim they apply to his own way of thinking.

738

I realize Iamb has acknowledged that a spiritual experience is available for others, just not for him. But his insistence that it’s all in the head degrades the actual experience. He wants objective proof of a subjective certainty. That could apply to our beliefs in science as being able to state objective reality. It can apply to our experiences with qualia. Changeaux argued that our ability to communicate exposes many experiences as common to “all reasonable men and women.” (“What Makes Us Think”.) It is from our common insights that we are able to communicate at all. In short, the fact that we can communicate shows that we have no radical subjective/objective divide such as would prevent you from understanding what I am saying to you. Reasonable men and women have and have had spiritual experiences.

739

On the contrary, what should be obvious is that assertions such as this can only be understood substantively in a particular context understood from a particular point of view.

And then the part where any disputes that occur either are or are not able to be examined, then described, then [possibly] resolved utilizing the tools of theologians or philosophers or scientists.

Evil? Where and when? Pertaining to what particular behaviors that precipitate what particular consequences?

Also, what is obvious to me is that we all come into this world with deeply rooted wants and needs. Some more or less amenable to “reason”, some more or less not. And that these wants and needs have ever and always come into conflict. And that those who come to desire one set of consequences are in fact prone to call those who want another “evil”.

740

So this couple kidnap an 8-year-old girl. He rapes her, while the woman stands by. Then the woman kills her by hitting in the head with a hammer which they had purchased prior to the assault.

To reduce that to “conflicting goods” or “we desire one set of consequences and they want another set of consequences” is disgusting. It is evil.