A question to "the believers"

[scathed]

Does it say theology in the title of this forum?

It says 'philosophy.' If you can come up with a consistent way to distinguish 'theology' from 'philosophy,' you are a better man than I.

How about "theory" that is also in the title of the forum. Allow me to remind you what that encapsulates:

theory (as taken from dictionary.com)
n. pl. theories

1. A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.
2. The branch of a science or art consisting of its explanatory statements, accepted principles, and methods of analysis, as opposed to practice: a fine musician who had never studied theory.
3. A set of theorems that constitute a systematic view of a branch of mathematics.
4. Abstract reasoning; speculation: a decision based on experience rather than theory.
5. A belief or principle that guides action or assists comprehension or judgment: staked out the house on the theory that criminals usually return to the scene of the crime.
6. An assumption based on limited information or knowledge; a conjecture.

I'm sure that theology must be a hybrid of theory/philosophy/history from more than one perspective.

 

[Nickster]

to miss the point once seems understandable. To miss it twice looks like stupidity.

If you don't believe in God, congratulations on having the mental agility to hold an optimistic worldview. - but all the same, forgive me for saying, you don't have any rational grounds for it.

I have a thoroughly optimistic worldview because I believe in God. (though I'm not particularly impressed with my life at the moment.)
But tell me, if you like,
which part of this argument do you disagree with.
No God therefore no purpose to humanity, therefore no reason for hope for humanity.

Actually that's a daft question, it's got to be that you disagree with the idea that if there's no purpose there's no reason for hope. But I'd love to hear what reason you find to hope for a glorious future for some accidentally over-intelligent primates, with a track record that isn't exactly inspiring.

Oh, and I never read the daily mail, can't help picking up on the headlines from time to time.

So if there's a god, what does that make the human race's "purpose"? To worship and sing praises to his name?

What is the purpose of having a job, having a house, having kids? IMO there is no "purpose" to life, we just live it and our DNA lives on through our descendents.

But that doesn't mean that those who don't believe in god think there's no point in doing anything to make the future a better place. Quite the opposite. Non-believers, knowing that there is no afterlife, also know that what happens to them happens here and now on the earth during their lives rather than expecting their dues in heaven.

Take for example a compassionate, humanistic approach to world poverty. I don't think that a god planned that (if he did he's a pretty sick dude) or can end that. It's mankind who can or can't solve problems like this. And it's entirely in our power to do that.

I think as over-intelligent primates the human race is an amazing species. In a matter of several hundred thousand years, humanity has spread across the entire globe, created fire, invented the wheel, charted the stars, visited the moon, and made the electric toothbrush! Sure, we've also had plenty of wars and killed a lot of ourselves along the way and are doing a lot of damage to the planet. But the fact that we know this means we're more likely to do something about it. The fact that we are still here despite all the war and destruction and famine and poverty can give us hope. The human race, like any species, is a selfish one in that respect and it will do all it can to survive.

 

[meurig]

No God therefore no purpose to humanity, therefore no reason for hope for humanity.

All of it. It's so thoroughly wrong headed as to be stupefying.

Back later, busy now.

PS Phil Dwyer, even Peter Sayer was a better man than you.

Right back now.

To my mind the quote above contains a category error; humanity is simply a word that describes a species of animal. Humans may give their own lives a purpose by ascribing one to it, for instance, the purpose of a miser's life is to refrain from spending money.

But that's me. I'll set aside my line of reasoning for a minute, and readdress you in your terms by introducing the thoughts of that well known "idiot", Aristotle.

Aristotle actually categorised soul as purpose. To Aristotle, everything had a soul, even hammers. The soul of a hammer was its function - ie its use. The soul of a plant was to grow and reproduce. And the soul of a human was to understand. That was its purpose. And going on that basis I'd say we had good grounds to be very optimistic.

http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/jod/texts/aristotle.soul.html

There's also an inherent weakness in your argument. Does god have a purpose? And if so who gave it to God? Don't you need another one, and another after that, ad infinitum? Or are you simply going to fall back on "it's God so we can never understand, our brains are too small"?

 

[meurig]

to miss the point once seems understandable. To miss it twice looks like stupidity.

BTW, if you wish to insult me, a word of advice. You might care to put down Timmy Mallet's inflatable hammer and ask someone to lend you a rapier. Stealing one's bons mots from Oscar Wilde lends one the appearance of someone who is very nearly illiterate.

 

[118118]

No rational ground for not beleiveing in God! What rubbish!

 

[meurig]

You'd better have a decent argument to back that up 118118.

 

[xenon]

ICB.
I'll have to look at that later, when I've subscribed. For now though I'm clinging on to Agnostasism as a way of saying. I can't prove or disprove the existence of a super natural creator being, but for my breif time on earth I won't let it bother me.

ZWord. On the contrary. I find the idea that humanity only has purpose with the existence of god thurroughly depressing. You really are taking a dim view of human life thus far. Despite the amount of destruction and harm people may do. it's not the default behaviour of human kind.

It's not like athiests and agnostics are going round slaying people as a result of there godlessness. Before you site Polpot or Starlin for doing tjust that. They were driven by dogmatic dehumanising philosophies, arguably similar systems of beliefs to religions.

I'm not trying to denounce all those who hold religious belief or persuade them otherwise. Except to say that an optimistic world view is not the sole property of the believer.

 

[Fruitloop]

It's only depressing if there's no God.

So it's not my worldview that's depressing. But all the same, I think that if you think clearly about the subject, rather than thinking things because of how soothing they are, you will realise that if there's no God, then there's no purpose to the universe or to humanity. And if there's no purpose to humanity, then we are basically an accident, an unfortunate accident at that, and perhaps the sooner we manage to put ourselves out of our misery, the better.

And I'm not sure that the point is to pray to God to save us from "climate destruction" ~The point is more - what sort of beings are we? Are we just uncommonly clever primates, who have successfully domesticated ourselves, - or are we spiritual beings who have a capacity to transcend our genetic inheritance and become what we have aspired to be.

This is complete, unadulterated bollocks. Even if it were definitively proven tomorrow that rape (for example) was an advantageous evolutionary adaptation, it still wouldn't follow that we should immediately legalise it, or stop trying to prevent it from occurring. Ethical systems are sets of moral preferences based on the kind of world that we would like to live in, not some codified excresence of useful survival and reproductive gambits in a society of hunter-gatherers.

Your genetic inheritance was what gave you the ability to reflect on these things and evaluate things in terms of both theory and praxis. Sure it's in a certain sense accidental (whatever the hell that actually means), but there's no sense in which we require some spiritual substance interfering in the world of observable facts in order to do what we clearly do anyway.

 

[118118]

You'd better have a decent argument to back that up 118118.

Common sense isn't it. Do you have an argument for the existnece of God, well reword it slightly and its a proof for her non-existence. The FACT that God has not been convincing proved (one way or the other, I suppose, but who am I to posit the existence of an almighty Lord in Heaven), is like, a fact. I thought it was fairly accepted to say that the burden of proof is on the believers anyway...

No rational ground for not beleiveing in God! What rubbish!

Are you sure you didn't misunderstand me?

Anway, not my fault this place has got so theistic!

This is complete, unadulterated bollocks. Even if it were definitively proven tomorrow that rape (for example) was an advantageous evolutionary adaptation, it still wouldn't follow that we should immediately legalise it, or stop trying to prevent it from occurring.

I completely agree with this. What is even your argument that if its natural then we, ought? to kill and maim?

 

[ICB]

ICB.
I'll have to look at that later, when I've subscribed. For now though I'm clinging on to Agnostasism as a way of saying. I can't prove or disprove the existence of a super natural creator being, but for my breif time on earth I won't let it bother me.

Very sensible, and I think you'll enjoy TPM, I know I do.

I think the question there is where the bruden of proof lies, and why. It's pretty-well impossible to prove a negative, i.e. disprove the existence of anything, no matter how bonkers it might seem. The really sussed theologians tend to take the line that the whole proof/disproof, reason and evidence thing works in a different way from belief and it's a category error to try to bring them together. I had a fantastically good tutor in the philosophy of religion who we all assumed was a classic atheist but turned out to have converted to Catholicism 6 years earlier. We were all completely but actually, looking back on it, he was a great example of his own teaching on fideism.

 

[meurig]

Ah good, ICB's back. ::waves::

 

[winterinmoscow]

Why do people practice religion in public?

apologies, posted on completely the wrong thread - just ignore me!

 

[Aldebaran]

Common sense isn't it. Do you have an argument for the existnece of God, well reword it slightly and its a proof for her non-existence.

Do you have an argument for the non existence of God, then please post it and add your proof.

The FACT that God has not been convincing proved (one way or the other, I suppose, but who am I to posit the existence of an almighty Lord in Heaven), is like, a fact.

The FACT that there is no single scientific proof that God does not exist is like, a fact.

I thought it was fairly accepted to say that the burden of proof is on the believers anyway...

Is it? Then I'm waiting for you to prove your belief that God does not exist.

salaam.

 

[Aldebaran]

No I don't think a theologian doesn't know the theory, philosophy and history of the religion he studied, it's simply with such a monolithic worldview I find them insufferably tedious.

You are not even aware of it that to study and practice theology you don't even need to believe in God?

salaam.

 

[meurig]

Yes, I'm completely aware of it thank you.

But to do so would be completely otiose.

 

[118118]

Is it? Then I'm waiting for you to prove your belief that God does not exist.

Erm, I CPOULD spend a few days finding the best argument against God, but it seems like it would be doing everyone else's job for them. I wasn't categorically denying that there could be no God, just that to say that it is a proven FACT that she exists = is clearly a misunderstanding.
Like I say, I read from trusted philosophical reviews that the burden of proof is on the belivers, I'll let someone else do my thinking for me. God doewsn't really fit into my set of values... so it'd do me no good to go with the less likely side.

 

[Aldebaran]

Yes, I'm completely aware of it thank you.

But to do so would be completely otiose.

In my idea you have an incomplete view on what "theology" as an academic discipline entails.
To give only one example of non-religious theologians I know personally: the professor of Catholic Church Law and head of the Faculty of Theology at a university where I did some part of my studies, is not religious.
Next time we get in contact, I shall tell him with your greetings that he is completely "otiose" and hence useless. I can hear his laugh already.

salaam.

 

[Aldebaran]

Like I say, I read from trusted philosophical reviews that the burden of proof is on the belivers,I'll let someone else do my thinking for me.

Not such a good (or safe) habit if you ask me.

God doewsn't really fit into my set of values... so it'd do me no good to go with the less likely side.

Why do you find "there is no God" to be the "less likely side"?

salaam.

 

[meurig]

In my idea you have an incomplete view on what "theology" as an academic discipline entails.
To give only one example of non-religious theologians I know personally: the professor of Catholic Church Law and head of the Faculty of Theology at a university where I did some part of my studies, is not religious.
Next time we get in contact, I shall tell him with your greetings that he is completely "otiose" and hence useless. I can hear his laugh already.

salaam.

Me too, it's probably because he's taking money off the state for doing an extended version of the cryptic crossword.

E2a; We'd probably actually rub along very well. I come from a family of theologians, and politicians, and I have no issue with any of them. But they don't half talk some crap

 

[Gmart]

An interesting question for me is, why do we characterise God in human terms? How arrogant of us! Surely by definition it is completely beyond our comprehension?

Thus more logically we should accept that we don't know, and maybe concentrate on things that we MIGHT be able to know.

 

[Aldebaran]

An interesting question for me is, why do we characterise God in human terms?

God has no human characteristics.

Thus more logically we should accept that we don't know, and maybe concentrate on things that we MIGHT be able to know.

Such as?

salaam.

 

[Aldebaran]

Does god have a purpose?

Since "purpose" is merely a construct of human reasoning God falls completely outside it.
The logic of this should be obvious, even to someone who does not believe in the existence of God but is informed about what those who do believe in God actually believe.

salaam.

 

[meurig]

Sorry alebaran, with regard to "purpose" we seem to be talking at cross-purposes.

I've actually implied what you've just said in an earlier post, rebutting another "believer".

 

[Aldebaran]

It also depends on what is meant by "purpose".

For example: many people seem to believe that the "purpose" of Creation was/is humanity. From there it is quite easy to come to a reasoning in which "God" would have a purpose otherwise humanity would not exist (disregarding/overlooking the fact that this is in opposition with what "God" actually stands for.)

salaam.

 

[Gmart]

Such as?

salaam.

Family, friends, doing something constructive in one's life, interests, food, drink, enjoyment, community, beauty, music, dancing.

There are lots of things to talk about which do not necessitate a step of faith in the unprovable. Life is a wonderful miracle but we don't know much more than that and to pretend that we do because we can't or won't say that we don't know is irrational arrogance.

 

[118118]

Why do you find "there is no God" to be the "less likely side"?

I don't think the world woud be like this if it had all good/powerful creator, I think its a better default position as it doesn't posit something outside normal experience, and I'm not sure that the properties that God is supposed to have really make sense. What proof, out of interest, do you ascribe your belief in God to. As I have been totally deluded before, I don't have much truck with "faith".

 

[Poi E]

God has no human characteristics.


.

The one I've read about does. Vengeance, demanding obedience to God (rampant ego), rewarding the faithful, punishing the sinners etc, sexism, gay-hate etc. It all sounds very human to me.

 

[Aldebaran]

Family, friends, doing something constructive in one's life, interests, food, drink, enjoyment, community, beauty, music, dancing.

What has yes or no believing in God to do with that? Do you think I don't do all this?

There are lots of things to talk about which do not necessitate a step of faith in the unprovable. Life is a wonderful miracle but we don't know much more than that and to pretend that we do because we can't or won't say that we don't know is irrational arrogance.

I would be God if I knew it. Since I'm not God that is impossible.

salaam.

 

[Aldebaran]

I don't think the world woud be like this if it had all good/powerful creator [/QUTOE]

Why not?

I think its a better default position as it doesn't posit something outside normal experience

It is of course always safer for one's sanity to stick to that

and I'm not sure that the properties that God is supposed to have really make sense.

What do you mean by "properties" ?

What proof, out of interest, do you ascribe your belief in God to.

I came to the conclusion by using my ability to rational logical reasoning.
If one day someone gives the absolute proof that my reasoning patterns are absolutely wrong I shall be forced to change that position, isn't it?

salaam.

 

[snorbury]

I don't think the world woud be like this if it had all good/powerful creator [/QUTOE]

Why not?



It is of course always safer for one's sanity to stick to that



What do you mean by "properties" ?



I came to the conclusion by using my ability to rational logical reasoning.
If one day someone gives the absolute proof that my reasoning patterns are absolutely wrong I shall be forced to change that position, isn't it?

salaam.

Alderbaran, oh eye of the bull, you are ggod only you can give yourself absolute proof. The absolute proof you are seeking will not, however, lead to a change in your position, it will only confirm your beliefs in god and in yourself. Fuck religion, that's for sceptics and nutters