Originally posted by NemesioI'll wager he's never even heard of the concept, although he might be able to find a cut and paste job. I'd also wager that he can't even spell "irresistible" (no copying from Nemesio, Darfius).
I'd wager his justification is that God has what is called, 'Irresistable Grace,'
which essentially means that, if God wants you to be good (even if you
don't believe in Him), you are going to be good.
Nemesio
1 edit
Originally posted by rwingettI'm not sure if this answered all your questions. If not, then try me again.
Your response seems to go quite a long way to ask very little. Your opening bit about proof seems to be merely a definition of the problem. For the most part I don't see what is required of me. When you finally get around to putting in yo ...[text shortened]... e if this answered all your questions. If not, then try me again.
Actually, it went a long way.
Your response seems to go quite a long way to ask very little. Your opening bit about proof seems to be merely a definition of the problem.
Yeah it sure did, didn’t it (go a long way to ask little)! Let me ask this: assuming a normal “Western” concept of God (since I agree with your comment about higher levels of specificity requiring higher levels of proof) is your position that such a concept of God—
1) is necessarily unprovable, say because the concept is in itself incoherent (so that it is also irrational),
2) is necessarily unprovable because it is not possible for anyone to provide sufficient evidence one way or the other (“strong agnosticism&rdquo😉, or
3) there is simply not sufficient evidence for any reasonable person to conclude that there is such a God?
If someone really wants to have god as their placebo effect for whatever ails them, then I really don't have any problem with that.
First, if someone “wants” something to be their placebo “effect,” I doubt that there would really be a placebo effect, just a placebo. Placebos normally have an effect because the person does not know that it’s a placebo. In my example, I implied that the individual understood a priori that her decision might constitute a kind of placebo, but that its apparent efficacy justified its continued use.
Second, the placebo effect apparently occurs because belief in the efficacy of the placebo triggers neurological responses that produce the (“psychosomatic&rdquo😉 effect—e.g., an immune system response that would not normally be triggered by the physiological symptoms alone.
My only point here, is that your statement seemed unnecessarily dismissive. I do think that it goes to your “truth versus utility” distinction, which is quite helpful—in fact, pivotal: if you are talking about truth-claims, and I am talking about utility-claims, we are not debating—we’re just talking past one another. Just to be clear: my understanding of “utility” has always been that it is a subjective concept because of my economics background, where utility just represents a cardinal-valuing of tastes and preferences, as opposed to a simple ordinal preference-ranking. Is this the sense in which “utility” is normally used in the philosophical literature; and is it the sense in which you’re using it?
There are many phenomena which will defy a rational analysis, such as love, music, beauty, etc. But we should be rational enough not to invent gods to attribute those things to, for that is just another attempt to pin them down and assign an explanation to them.
I was really including (for lack of a better phrase) “spiritual expression” among such things as music, love, beauty, etc., at least as a possibility, not as an explanation. I’m not sure that some of the symbolic, mythological stories that include gods, etc., were (are/ought to be) intended as explanations, but as song, celebration, expressions of beauty in themselves.
If you're keeping religion around for its "aesthetic richness" or to spice up daily living, then it really ceases to be a religion, doesn't it?
If you define religion as demand for truth-recognition and worship (if by “worship” you mean obeisance, and not just ritual celebration), then I have to agree. I would be happy to drop the word “religion” for anything that lies outside that definition; unfortunately, there seems to be no such agreement in either the theological or the philosophical literature.
You also seem to tie religion to the (believed) existence of a god or gods. What about, say, Buddhism or—better, perhaps—Vedanta, in which there is just the monistic “all-of-all-of it,” for which various gods are merely symbolic of varying aspects (something like Jungian archetypes, say) of that one reality, and “worship” rituals are ways of celebrating it—would you include them as religions? (I was once in a Hindu temple, and one of the priests was explaining “Here’s the shrine to Shiva, this one’s for Pavrati” etc., and then he just waved his hand and said: “it’s all the same.&rdquo😉
Just a comment on the “burden of proof” question. In general, I have always accepted that the burden was on the theist. Actually, though, I think the “practical” burden is on whichever party is trying to convince the other one of whatever position. That is, if I take the position that I want to convince you that it is irrational to conclude that there is a god (based on whatever evidence we admit), then I must assume a burden that, logically, I might not have to otherwise.
Thanks again.
Originally posted by OmnislashSean,
.......that while any sort of intelligent creation is debatable, not to mention a creator who has revealed himself, it is in fact DEBATABLE. In other words, regardless of how probable the existence of God may be, his/her existence is in fact possible. The concept, of and unto itself, is logical. Perhaps unproovable, but likewise can it not be disproven. Th ...[text shortened]... er you are, wherever you are, stand for something.
Best Regards,
Sean
You may set a record for most Recs in a single post. Way to go. I admire your standup attitude and think you are right on. I will defend you against Rob and other atheists when they say that it makes no sense to worship that which can't be proven.
Why do I say that? Because of Albert Schweitzer, Mother Theresa, Albert Einstein,John Steinbeck,Shakespeare and Oscar Wilde.
I worship all of them and I have never met a single one of them. I just observe what the world says that they did and stand in awe.
Warm regards and way to go.
Mike
Originally posted by StarValleyWyThank you SVW. I don't think I'll be setting any records, but I am happy if my post hit home with a few people. 🙂
Sean,
You may set a record for most Recs in a single post. Way to go. I admire your standup attitude and think you are right on. I will defend you against Rob and other atheists when they say that it makes no sense to worship that which can't be proven.
Why do I say that? Because of Albert Schweitzer, Mother Theresa, Albert Einstein,John Steinbec ...[text shortened]... erve what the world says that they did and stand in awe.
Warm regards and way to go.
Mike