The modern God

[ManM]

Hence are we called atheists. And we confess that we are atheists, so far as gods of this sort are concerned, but not with respect to the most true God, the Father of righteousness and temperance and the other virtues, who is free from all impurity.

Back in the day, Christians were the atheists. These days I've seen many people confess they are atheists, and yet they hold all sorts of metaphysical beliefs about that intellectual space usually occupied by God. It isn't that they don't believe in God, they just seem to believe he/she/it has different traits. So, I'd like to explore the theology of the God of today's atheists: the naturalists.

I think it would be fairly noncontroversial to claim that the naturalist God is impersonal, indifferent, comprehensible, and eternal. As the fountainhead of existence, I think it can rightfully be said to be the creator of all things. Whether this God is understood to be the sum total of all natural laws or some other basic fact of existence, I think the previous laundry list provides an outline of it. Are there any other adjectives you all can think about adding?

Now, some people may object to me using the term “God”, so let me explain my reasoning. I am aware that “God” is usually understood as some sort of supernatural being that is similar to humankind. I'm approaching it from the perspective that “God” is the answer to certain foundational metaphysical questions that provide the cornerstone for a worldview. I think this approach to "God" better corresponds to the actual usage of the word "God" throughout history.

[viscousmemories]

I'm approaching it from the perspective that “God” is the answer to certain foundational metaphysical questions that provide the cornerstone for a worldview.
Which questions?

[ManM]

The standard stuff. Why is there something rather than nothing? Why does life sometimes suck? Those sorts of questions.

[viscousmemories]

So to be clear, you're assuming (at least for the sake of discussion) that all metaphysical questions can be answered by reference to a single monolithic entity called 'God', however defined?

[ManM]

Yes, I believe there is a cornerstone to each particular worldview. As far as I can tell, that cornerstone is an assumption about the cosmos which has an impact on the answers to all of the other metaphysical questions.

[Dingfod]

My metaphysical questions can only be answered by a plethora of invisible gnomes, elves and unicorns.

[viscousmemories]

Yes, I believe there is a cornerstone to each particular worldview. As far as I can tell, that cornerstone is an assumption about the cosmos which has an impact on the answers to all of the other metaphysical questions.
Okay, when you refer to it as an assumption then "comprehensible and eternal" still make sense to me, but "indifferent and impersonal" don't.

[livius drusus]

Yes, I believe there is a cornerstone to each particular worldview. As far as I can tell, that cornerstone is an assumption about the cosmos which has an impact on the answers to all of the other metaphysical questions.

Please pardon my slowness on these issues, but doesn't this mean that any foundational philosophical belief is belief in God? If so, doesn't it undefine God into near meaningless? Or is this a kind of pantheism?

[ManM]

My metaphysical questions can only be answered by a plethora of invisible gnomes, elves and unicorns.
Lies! I have a picture of the IPU right here: ---->

Okay, when you refer to it as an assumption then "comprehensible and eternal" still make sense to me, but "indifferent and impersonal" don't.
Those seem like assumptions to me. :eyebrow3: Why wouldn't they be?

Please pardon my slowness on these issues, but doesn't this mean that any foundational philosophical belief is belief in God? If so, doesn't it undefine God into near meaningless? Or is this a kind of pantheism?
Well, it doesn't undefine God any more than God is already undefined. If I told you that I believe in God, have I really told you much at all? I could believe in Moloch, Shiva, Yahweh, Ra, Zeus; or I could believe in one of the more philosophical concepts of God set forth by various schools of thought. I could be a pantheist, panentheist, etc... “God” by itself, is already near meaningless. However, it does always seem to point to the foundation of a person's worldview.

[godfry n. glad]

It's a pointless semantic game.

There is no purpose to attach the referential term at all, other than to imbue the concept with some metaphysical import, a sense of "sacred", and impose it upon someone else.

And, yes, I'd say that the attempt renders the term meaningless. But then, it's meaningless anyway, at least as far as I'm concerned. And, yeah, it sounds pantheist to me.

If it's ineffable, why the f are you attempting to describe it? The Tao which can be spoken is not the Tao.

[ManM]

It's a pointless semantic game.

There is no purpose to attach the referential term at all, other than to imbue the concept with some metaphysical import, a sense of "sacred", and impose it upon someone else.

And, yes, I'd say that the attempt renders the term meaningless. But then, it's meaningless anyway, at least as far as I'm concerned. And, yeah, it sounds pantheist to me.

If it's ineffable, why the f are you attempting to describe it? The Tao which can be spoken is not the Tao.
Not really. I'm trying to define the modern God, and preferably end up with a type of creed. Once that is established, the metaphysics will trickle down. Then it will be easier to compare and contrast with other belief systems.

I don't think the modern God is believed to be ineffable, which is why I specifically proposed “comprehensible” as one of the attributes.

Oh, and if something cannot be spoken about, why write about it? If you describe the indescribable as being indescribable, haven't you just described it? Therefore, Lao-Tzu couldn't have meant the Tao was really indescribable. He wrote a book about it! ;)

[Dingfod]

The modern god is television. People gather everywhere are pay homage to the imagery it gives. It has become all-consuming for many people, there is a huge infrastructure dedicated to nothing but television, there are many people that derive their existence from the television. Many people believe they would die if they didn't have their television, some even think that if they miss their favorite television program. People give considerable sums of money to vendors selling products featured on television. Television educates as well as entertains. Television soothes restless people. Television gives people something to look forward to. Many cannot imagine life without it. But television better look out, there's a new modern god in town, the internet. It is the biggest threat to television as people know it. Maybe television should call the internet out into the street for a showdown, best god wins.

[ManM]

The modern god is television. People gather everywhere are pay homage to the imagery it gives. It has become all-consuming for many people, there is a huge infrastructure dedicated to nothing but television, there are many people that derive their existence from the television. Many people believe they would die if they didn't have their television, some even think that if they miss their favorite television program. People give considerable sums of money to vendors selling products featured on television. Television educates as well as entertains. Television soothes restless people. Television gives people something to look forward to. Many cannot imagine life without it. But television better look out, there's a new modern god in town, the internet. It is the biggest threat to television as people know it. Maybe television should call the internet out into the street for a showdown, best god wins.
That sounds like a religion, not a God. :wink:

[viscousmemories]

Those seem like assumptions to me. :eyebrow3: Why wouldn't they be?
At first you seemed to be saying that the cornerstone is an entity, and then you said it was an assumption. If it's an entity then it makes sense to me how it can be indifferent and impersonal. If it's an assumption, I don't know how those terms can apply.

[godfry n. glad]

It's a pointless semantic game.

There is no purpose to attach the referential term at all, other than to imbue the concept with some metaphysical import, a sense of "sacred", and impose it upon someone else.

And, yes, I'd say that the attempt renders the term meaningless. But then, it's meaningless anyway, at least as far as I'm concerned. And, yeah, it sounds pantheist to me.

If it's ineffable, why the f are you attempting to describe it? The Tao which can be spoken is not the Tao.
Not really. I'm trying to define the modern God, and preferably end up with a type of creed. Once that is established, the metaphysics will trickle down. Then it will be easier to compare and contrast with other belief systems.

I don't think the modern God is believed to be ineffable, which is why I specifically proposed “comprehensible” as one of the attributes.

Oh, and if something cannot be spoken about, why write about it? If you describe the indescribable as being indescribable, haven't you just described it? Therefore, Lao-Tzu couldn't have meant the Tao was really indescribable. He wrote a book about it! ;)

Why erect something like that?

And there was no Lao-Tzu. The Tao Te Ching is a collection of teachings, some of them contradicting others. The Tao is no god. And yes, amongst the original teachers, there'd be those who would avow that his teachings were not the Tao. It was a direct challenge to another trend in Chinese society, that of rigid formalism and structure. Kungfu-Tzu claimed to teach the Tao, too.

Rather than erect a new structure with the old terminology, why not dispose of the old terminology entirely?

It seems to me you want to do this because you can "sell" it as the "new, improved, modern God". You'd need an agenda and an audience for that.

[ManM]

At first you seemed to be saying that the cornerstone is an entity, and then you said it was an assumption. If it's an entity then it makes sense to me how it can be indifferent and impersonal. If it's an assumption, I don't know how those terms can apply.
The assumption and entity (or entities) go hand in hand. Clear as mud yet? For example, you might assume that the prime mover is the set of natural laws (an entity). You might also assume the natural laws are indifferent, impersonal, comprehensible, and eternal. Invoke the transitive property, and you are left with the belief that the prime mover is indifferent, impersonal, comprehensible, and eternal.

Why erect something like that?

<snip theory about Lao-Tzu, which is debatable, but bears no impact on the contradiction in the first part of the Tao Te Ching> :D

Rather than erect a new structure with the old terminology, why not dispose of the old terminology entirely?

It seems to me you want to do this because you can "sell" it as the "new, improved, modern God". You'd need an agenda and an audience for that.
Well, if you want to compare towers, it makes a lot of sense to erect them side by side. It certainly doesn't make sense to knock down all of the previous towers before erecting your own, only to claim that yours is taller than the others ever were. Besides, I'm not the one erecting the tower and proclaiming its greatness. I just want to place it next to other towers to give it a fair evaluation. And my motive is certainly not to “sell” the “new, improved, modern God”, simply because I do not believe that particular God is really new or improved.

[ManM]

I guess the next step is to explore the implications of the theology surrounding the modern God. So, what do the traits of this “God” imply about the world? Can one derive a moral system from this modern God?

[Adora]

That sounds like a religion, not a God.
What's the difference?

[ManM]

Yay rhetorical questions! Anyway, it seems that this discussion isn't really generating much interest. :shrug:

[Fencesitter]

Anyway, it seems that this discussion isn't really generating much interest. :shrug:

Actually, I'm fascinated, because I agree with you except I'm not exactly sure what you mean by "metaphysical beliefs."

I've been trying to understand how atheists feel that they're different from theists because the differences I see are surface ones, IMO. I've tried broaching the subject in a couple different threads from different angles and got the same response you got.

So I hope you keep going and are able to generate some interest because this topic fascinates me.

Fence

[Sweetie]

I agree with you about alot of things too ManM, problem is, it's so terribly complex especially when you start double using terms.

[Fencesitter]

I agree with you about alot of things too ManM, problem is, it's so terribly complex especially when you start double using terms.

Elaborate please. I think that ManM is double using terms in that other thread because you're arguing theology.

But in this thread, I think he would only need to redefine secular terms into theological terms once, unless you both want to argue about which theological term the secular term should be redefined as.

Fence

[Sweetie]

I agree with you about alot of things too ManM, problem is, it's so terribly complex especially when you start double using terms.

Elaborate please. I think that ManM is double using terms in that other thread because you're arguing theology.

But in this thread, I think he would only need to redefine secular terms into theological terms once, unless you both want to argue about which theological term the secular term should be redefined as.

Fence

Oh, well, it's something in my belief system that I've never been able to articulate, why I agree with him. I agree with this:

"I am aware that “God” is usually understood as some sort of supernatural being that is similar to humankind. I'm approaching it from the perspective that “God” is the answer to certain foundational metaphysical questions that provide the cornerstone for a worldview. I think this approach to "God" better corresponds to the actual usage of the word "God" throughout history."

Though I think God is still a supernatural entity regardless. However, I think "God" is a necessity as an assumption for worldviews kindof in the sense that you always have to have a first something, and a nothing.

Blather, I've never been able to articulate it and I'm not sure I'll ever be able to.

[Crumb]

I have no idea how the word god has been used through out history, but I know that 99% of the time that it is used in this day and age it refers to a supernatural being with a personality and intelligence that conciously created the universe we live in. I don't believe that such a thing exists, that makes me an atheist.

If you want to play semantic games and say that "god" is just the universe itself, or is a jelly donut or something then sure you can say that we all believe in "god", but then (as some have pointed out) you render the word "god" meaningless.

[Sweetie]

I suppose it's like this, I believe as Voltaire said, that if God did not exist, it would be necessary that we create Him.

Not in the sense of emotional need, in the sense of philosophical need. He's a necessity.

[Crumb]

For you maybe Sweetie. I think most atheists would disagree.

[Sweetie]

For you maybe Sweetie. I think most atheists would disagree.

Which is negligible. I disagree with them. :dunno:

Perhaps one of us is right and one of us is wrong. Perhaps one of us has a better grasp of the case than the other. Perhaps we are both wrong. Either way, it's what I see once you sweep away so much of the smoke and mirrors of the thoughts involved.

[Sweetie]

It's kindof like the thought, "atheists believe more and on less evidence," or like the Pagans when St. Paul went and evangelized and said, look, here amongst all the other gods, here is God. Same thing I see in belief systems, he's there already assumed somewhere, some just don't see him.

To strip all thought of God away it is necessary to do as Nietzsche did I think, in order to declare God dead. Unfortunately, I can't accept his system either.

[Crumb]

I guess I am having trouble discerning your point Sweetie. I am just trying to combat the claim that people need god. If atheists exist then they don't need god. So there goes the "we need god" hypothesis. Unless you define need differently than I do.

[Sweetie]

I guess I am having trouble discerning your point Sweetie. I am just trying to combat the claim that people need god. If atheists exist then they don't need god. So there goes the "we need god" hypothesis. Unless you define need differently than I do.

It's not a question of emotional need, it's metaphyiscal necessity, a necessary presupposition. Even if you aren't presupposing it your are presupposing it.

It is, unfortunately, the exact thought I have said I have extreme difficulty articulating. Perhaps ManM can succeed since I think he is arguing along those lines.

It's like Chesterton said, we are more fundamental than fundamental (or Fundamentalists, doesn't matter).

[Crumb]

Yeah I certainly can't make sense of that.

[Sweetie]

Yeah I certainly can't make sense of that.

The point is, you can't escape the idea of God, it's always somewhere in your philosophy. You maybe don't know that, can't see that, or mabye I'm wrong but that's how things look to me.

Nietzsche recognized this I think, and he tried to kill God I think, but he only could by completely stripping man of his humanity.

I think his theory too has a few holes. The only theory that takes all of that into consideration internally consistent ---->Catholicism. It's why I'm Catholic.

[Crumb]

Nietzsche tried to kill God I think, but only by completely stripping man of his humanity.
Well unfortunately I know almost nothing about Nietzsche. But I don't think that atheism strips away humanity, in fact I think exactly the opposite. It allows humans to be trully human and not slaves to a nonhuman entity, whether it exists or not. It is human nature to seek freedom. ;)

[Fencesitter]

I have no idea how the word god has been used through out history, but I know that 99% of the time that it is used in this day and age it refers to a supernatural being with a personality and intelligence that conciously created the universe we live in. I don't believe that such a thing exists, that makes me an atheist.

Ah, just as I thought. This is a pretty narrow conception of God. My issue is that if you feel that not believing in the thing that you just described makes you an atheist, that eliminates a lot of theists as well.

Although I don't have any way of proving my statement above, some of the people that I've interacted with that call themselves Christians don't believe in the conception of God that you just described.

If you want to play semantic games and say that "god" is just the universe itself, or is a jelly donut or something then sure you can say that we all believe in "god", but then (as some have pointed out) you render the word "god" meaningless.

I don't believe this. I think that God can be a bigger concept than you've described but still have a meaningful foundation.

Fence

[Sweetie]

Well unfortunately I know almost nothing about Nietzsche. But I don't think that atheism strips away humanity, in fact I think exactly the opposite. It allows humans to be trully human and not slaves to a nonhuman entity, whether it exists or not. It is human nature to seek freedom. ;)

You know nothing of that which I speak. It's ok, and I already said I can't articulate it very well. In this case, you're making some interesting claims. Atheism gives man humanity? Atheism is emptiness and void in it's essence. That's ok, you can believe whatever you want and build whatever you want on top of it, but Nietzsche, methinks, was a highly intelligent man, who was extremely logical and very mad. I'm not an expert on him mind you, but the little I do know of him makes sense.

I value logic/reason over fancy or some abstract notion like "humanity". Human nature may seek freedom, but freedom is impossible, especially the kind humans seek. They'll always find themselves wrapped in binding, no matter which way they turn. It's the same sort of mind trap me speaks of on this issue of God as a necessity:

"But let us get back to the primary proposition: No thinker is an atheist. Herbert Spencer said atheism is “unthinkable.” True, he also said that theism is unthinkable. In particular he said God is unthinkable. But thereupon he proceeded to do a great deal of thinking about the Unthinkable. Before he finished thinking, he had enumerated the attributes of God as confidently and as completely as St. Thomas Aquinas."

http://catholiceducation.org/articles/apologetics/ap0023.html

[Crumb]

I don't believe this. I think that God can be a bigger concept than you've described but still have a meaningful foundation.
Well yes it could but since most people do not use the word that way, defining it to mean thirty million contradictory things does render it meaningless. It's fine if that's your thing and want to say you believe in god and be a pantheist or a deist or whatever. It's just not for me.
Atheism is emptiness and void in it's essence.
So do you have anything to support this? As far as I am concerned atheism is a very simple lack of a particular belief, that as an atheist is as important to my life as the fact that I don't believe that UFOs are visiting space aliens.

[Sweetie]

So do you have anything to support this? As far as I am concerned atheism is a very simple lack of a particular belief,

Well, to be honest, it's an annoying discussion so I'm not in the mood to have it. I suppose I'm suggesting that there is almost ultimately no such thing as atheism either way. :dunno:

Atheism, as far as I can tell, is not just the lack of belief in God, it's the belief that nature and the Universe and everything in it is determined and comes to be through natural, not supernatural means. Inherent in this idea methinks is naturalism, and materialism.

So atheism is not just a lack of belief that there needs be an ultimate Creator , it's the assumption that material is all there is.

that as an atheist is as important to my life as the fact that I don't believe that UFOs are visiting space aliens.

I have no idea the revelance of that argument. The thing is, God can exist and so can UFO's naturally, and so can they not, naturally. UFO's are creatures if they exist, so are tooth fairies and Unicorns. The difference which is so vastly important is that there is a Creator, or just creatures. Do you see why that makes a big difference?

The difference is between whether what caused the Universe and us is natural or supernatural, not just whether another creature occupies the same universe that we do.

[Crumb]

I suppose I'm suggesting that there is almost ultimately no such thing as atheism either way.
/me disappears in a puff of illogic.
The difference is between whether what caused the Universe and us is natural or supernatural, not just whether another creature occupies the same universe that we do.
I agree there is a difference, though I don't agree that it is significant.
Well, to be honest, it's an annoying discussion so I'm not in the mood to have it.
Heh. I'm with you there. :1thumbup:

[Sweetie]

* Crumb disappears in a puff of illogic.

I'm saying that whether you know it or not, you appeal to something God-like either way therefore you can be completely convinced that your atheism means that you just don't assume a God, unfortunately, IMHO, you already do assume God in some way.

I agree there is a difference, though I don't agree that it is significant.

We could discuss it.

[Sweetie]

Heh. I'm with you there. :1thumbup:

LOL, no kidding, hey? Atheists get their backs up, "why, how dare you assume we're rational so as to make some obvious connections between God=supernatural, I see natural (physical), God does not exist therefore all there is is the natural = naturalism/materialism."

We don't assume anything, we just assume no God, of course.

It's so obvious to me, of course, that there are no inherent assumptions in the concept of atheism. :doh:

[Crumb]

We could discuss it.

Perhaps but I think we have beaten this thread to death as well as that other one. :deadhorse:
* Crumb disappears in a puff of illogic.
This was an attempt at levity and a Douglas Adams reference. (Where is that lead balloon smiley?)

[Sweetie]

:shrug:

[Crumb]

It's so obvious to me, of course, that there are no inherent assumptions in the concept of atheism. I think I'm a dunce.
I'm not saying I'm not a materialist and an 'a-supernaturalist' I am. But the concept of 'atheism' in and of itself only rules out a single suprenatural entity, god.

Also, I object to your use of the word assumption. Yes atheism tends to imply materialism, but materialism is not an assumtion of atheists.

[ManM]

So I hope you keep going and are able to generate some interest because this topic fascinates me.
Well, thanks. Maybe I'll just do some of the leg work and see if people agree or disagree with my assessment of naturalism.

I have no idea how the word god has been used through out history, but I know that 99% of the time that it is used in this day and age it refers to a supernatural being with a personality and intelligence that conciously created the universe we live in. I don't believe that such a thing exists, that makes me an atheist.

If you want to play semantic games and say that "god" is just the universe itself, or is a jelly donut or something then sure you can say that we all believe in "god", but then (as some have pointed out) you render the word "god" meaningless.
Well, it really does require a bit of history to get a grasp on the many faces of God. In philosophy, God was quite honestly the God of the gaps. If there was a philosophical necessity, it was supplied by God. When Leibniz claimed that the world was made of independent monads, he needed something to glue them all together. Poof, God. When Plato wrote that the we had a remembrance of ideal forms, he needed a bridge. Poof, God. So, it's not really a semantic game to discover the naturalist God. It's just a matter of locating the assumptions.

I believe that at the heart of naturalism rests the assumption that God is an impersonal force of some sort. It is eternal and is everywhere present, filling all things. This is why the laws of nature are unbreakable and constant. Next, this God has produced an amazing amount of complexity, for no reason whatsoever. Finally, this God has created a being that has the ability to understand God itself. At the risk of flames, I'm going to dive right into what I think are the logical ramifications of this belief.

The first thing that pops into my mind is that there must exist absolute truth. The cosmos operates in a certain way, independent of our beliefs about it.

The next thing is that there is no absolute purpose or meaning. We are free to create our own meaning, as we see fit. However, due to the existence of absolute truth, our actions have unavoidable consequences. We are free to enjoy jumping out of a plane without a parachute, but we are not free to always land safely. The same would hold for morality. We are free to behave any way we choose, but we are not free of the consequences of our behavior. Therefore ethics are derived from the relationship between God and our desires.

Any thoughts so far, or should I keep rambling?

[Crumb]

The first thing that pops into my mind is that there must exist absolute truth. The cosmos operates in a certain way, independent of our beliefs about it.

The next thing is that there is no absolute purpose or meaning. We are free to create our own meaning, as we see fit. However, due to the existence of absolute truth, our actions have unavoidable consequences. We are free to enjoy jumping out of a plane without a parachute, but we are not free to always land safely. The same would hold for morality. We are free to behave any way we choose, but we are not free of the consequences of our behavior.
I agree with all of this, and it is very well put.
Therefore ethics are derived from the relationship between [physical reality] and our desires.
That bit just needed some cleaning up. :wink:

[ceptimus]

Some of us have learned to live without knowing. So for the great philosophical questions, our answer is just, "We don't know."

That may be unsatisfying to Theists, but that's the way it is. It's kind of insulting to tell us that you know what we believe better than we do ourselves.

Theists have come up with some answers to some or all of these great questions. The problem is that different groups of theists have come up with different contradictory answers. They can't all be right, and it's just as likely that they're all wrong. So the "We don't know" answer is likely the best one around at present.

[Sweetie]

I'm not saying I'm not a materialist and an 'a-supernaturalist' I am. But the concept of 'atheism' in and of itself only rules out a single suprenatural entity, god.

Also, I object to your use of the word assumption. Yes atheism tends to imply materialism, but materialism is not an assumtion of atheists.

If God doesn't exist therefore only matter exists isn't an assumption, what is it?

As to the first thought, in my usage of the term "atheist" it means primarily, rejection of all supernatural claims, does not believe in the spirit or spirit world regardless of whether God exists or not in such a realm.

Do you believe in spirits or spiritual non-physical things or being?

[Sweetie]

S

That may be unsatisfying to Theists, but that's the way it is. It's kind of insulting to tell us that you know what we believe better than we do ourselves.

I would be grateful if you would tell me what you believed.

Theists have come up with some answers to some or all of these great questions. The problem is that different groups of theists have come up with different contradictory answers. They can't all be right, and it's just as likely that they're all wrong. So the "We don't know" answer is likely the best one around at present.

:dunno:

I think there are necessary grounds in order to assume anything, including whether or not reason has any relation to reality at all and I think this in turn effects all of our philosophy therefore, I don't think it's a we don't know.

[Crumb]

If God doesn't exist therefore only matter exists isn't an assumption, what is it?
A belief. A reasoned conclusion. An idea. A worldview.
Do you believe in spirits or spiritual non-physical things or being?
I don't, but some atheists might.

[Sweetie]

A belief. A reasoned conclusion. An idea. A worldview.

It may be a reasoned conclusion just as my belief in God, but it's still an assumption. Worldviews are built on assumptions, and unfortunately God/not God tends to be a major one.

I don't, but some atheists might.

I don't call pagans atheists, nor New Agers particularily.

Do you?

Can you think of any examples of an atheistic system that believes in the existence of supernatural entities......rationally?

[Crumb]

It may be a reasoned conclusion just as my belief in God, but it's still an assumption. Worldviews are built on assumptions, and unfortunately God/not God tends to be a major one.
Meh. Semantics. :shrug:

Can you think of any examples of an atheistic system that believes in the existence of supernatural entities......rationally?
I don't know about rational, but one would still be an atheist and believe that humans have souls that live on in a supernatural state after they die: ghosts, spirits, that sort of thing.

Certainly an atheist could believe in psychic abilities or astrology or something like that. Atheism simply refers to the fact that they don't think a god exists.

:wave:

[Sweetie]

[
I don't know about rational, but one would still be an atheist and believe that humans have souls that live on in a supernatural state after they die: ghosts, spirits, that sort of thing.

Well, I don't see how. :shrug: If you allow for a spritual realm, then you allow for a God, spirit, something you can't test, verify or see which is something that average atheist normally depends on, no?

Certainly an atheist could believe in psychic abilities or astrology or something like that. Atheism simply refers to the fact that they don't think a god exists.

:wave:

Well, outside of New Agers who actually in some way can or do sometimes believe in god or gods as do pagans, I can't think of any atheists who think that.

[Crumb]

People believe weird things.

[Sweetie]

People believe weird things.

Yes, but definitionally we need to draw lines between things in order to identify them whether people believe or not, correct?

Like, some Christians think that some atheists should be considered Christians. It doesn't make any sense to me and just because they think it, doesn't mean it's rational.

[ceptimus]

The problem with saying that the existence of God explains the existence of other things is that it replaces a difficult question with an even more difficult one.

You now have to explain where the God came from.

The God, is (presumably) more complex than the universe he created.

If you say God has been around for ever, or use some other tricky means to answer the 'where did god come from' question, then you might just as well use the same answer to explain the (simpler) universe.

[ManM]

The problem with saying that the existence of God explains the existence of other things is that it replaces a difficult question with an even more difficult one.
That's not a problem, that's a challenge. However, adding an intelligent God into the equation has a powerful impact on various other questions. I'll give an example:

What is the meaning of life?
For the naturalist, the meaning of life is whatever one believes it to be. There is no absolute meaning, and the search for it is folly.

However, a person who believes in an intelligent God has a rational basis to advance a positive theory about the meaning of life. The theory can then be tested against human experience.

The same process works for morality. And so the placement of a difficult question at the beginning opens the doors to discussions about many of the other questions that are common human concerns. That's why I believe naturalism is an inferior worldview.

[Fencesitter]

I don't believe this. I think that God can be a bigger concept than you've described but still have a meaningful foundation.
Well yes it could but since most people do not use the word that way, defining it to mean thirty million contradictory things does render it meaningless. It's fine if that's your thing and want to say you believe in god and be a pantheist or a deist or whatever. It's just not for me.

Who is this "most people" that you speak of?

If you feel that defining a word to mean a number (thirty million is a stretch) of contradictory things is rendering the word meaningless, then for most purposes, Christian is also a meaningless term. Yet people use that label all the time.

So the pantheist and deist god is not god? I think you've already answered this, but if you believe in the pantheist and/or deist god, then you can still be an atheist, correct?

Fence

[slimshady2357]

So the pantheist and deist god is not god? I think you've already answered this, but if you believe in the pantheist and/or deist god, then you can still be an atheist, correct?

Fence

I suppose you could be pantheist and still be an atheist. But it wouldn't be like any pantheist I've ever heard of before. I would consider it strange for someone to call themselves one (of pantheist or atheist) and then also consider themselves the other as well.

I can't see how one could be a desit and an atheist at the same time, but that is assuming the definitions I am familiar with of course :)

Having many and varied definitions for a word doesn't render it meaningless, it merely makes it a dangerous word to throw around without being clear about what definition you are using.

In another thread somewhere it was discussed how making universal claims about such words, like "christians" for instance, is rather silly, since there are so many different definitions of the word. Can what you are asserting really be true of all the definitions? As an example, someone might claim "All Christians believe that the world is only 6000 years old", but of course this isn't true, some Christians don't believe this at all.

Similarily, the term "God" has so many possible definitions connected to it, it's only really useful to use the word when you are quite clear about what you mean by it or how you are using it.

So if someone wants to call the laws of physics "god", that's fine by me, as long as there are clear about it.

And as an aside, to go over groud already covered, I don't think that being an atheist entails materialism at all. There is no reason why someone cannot be an atheist and also be an idealist, for instance. An atheist could even believe in something like reincarnation.

I can't remember the OP right now or where it was going, so I might have to go back and read ManM's posts again, as I was enjoying them :)

Adam

[slimshady2357]

Well, it really does require a bit of history to get a grasp on the many faces of God. In philosophy, God was quite honestly the God of the gaps. If there was a philosophical necessity, it was supplied by God. When Leibniz claimed that the world was made of independent monads, he needed something to glue them all together. Poof, God. When Plato wrote that the we had a remembrance of ideal forms, he needed a bridge. Poof, God. So, it's not really a semantic game to discover the naturalist God. It's just a matter of locating the assumptions.

Sure, I'm fine with that. Just call whatever is "first" ontologically (not great wording, but I hope my meaning is clear, perhaps "whatever is at the deepest level" would be better?) "god". I haven't a problem so far.

I believe that at the heart of naturalism rests the assumption that God is an impersonal force of some sort. It is eternal and is everywhere present, filling all things. This is why the laws of nature are unbreakable and constant. Next, this God has produced an amazing amount of complexity, for no reason whatsoever. Finally, this God has created a being that has the ability to understand God itself.

I think I mostly agree with what you're saying, but I don't really like the way you worded it, some of the phrases have too much baggage associated with them for my liking. For instance instead of calling it an impersonal force, I might call it "a certain set of circumstances (or facts)". And thus "this God has created a being" isn't how I would phrase it. More like "from these circumstances has arose a being that has the ability to recognize and categorize these circumstances" or something like that. Saying that the 'god' "created" these beings has too much baggage, if you know what I mean, it tends to import a conscious decision.

At the risk of flames, I'm going to dive right into what I think are the logical ramifications of this belief.

The first thing that pops into my mind is that there must exist absolute truth. The cosmos operates in a certain way, independent of our beliefs about it.

The next thing is that there is no absolute purpose or meaning. We are free to create our own meaning, as we see fit. However, due to the existence of absolute truth, our actions have unavoidable consequences. We are free to enjoy jumping out of a plane without a parachute, but we are not free to always land safely. The same would hold for morality. We are free to behave any way we choose, but we are not free of the consequences of our behavior. Therefore ethics are derived from the relationship between God and our desires.

Any thoughts so far, or should I keep rambling?

I say keep on rambling, I think most of the last quote is ok with me. :)

Adam

[Fencesitter]

I suppose you could be pantheist and still be an atheist. But it wouldn't be like any pantheist I've ever heard of before. I would consider it strange for someone to call themselves one (of pantheist or atheist) and then also consider themselves the other as well.

Let me introduce you to Jobar from II: (http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showpost.php?p=2477186&postcount=2)

In the spirit of your opening here, I'll offer this fairly short post as an explanation and justification of why I call myself an atheist/pantheist. More precisely, I am a weak atheist/naturalistic pantheist. In the thread where this conversation started, I also linked to a number of other threads where I expressed my beliefs, and lack thereof.

And he has a whole slew of threads explaining why pantheism can be compatible with atheism if you're interested.

I can't see how one could be a desit and an atheist at the same time, but that is assuming the definitions I am familiar with of course :)

Oh, and many of us are strong atheists for some concepts of God, weak atheists concerning others, and agnostics for yet others (most of the longtimers here are agnostic for the deist concept of God, for instance.)

Here (http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showpost.php?p=2478889&postcount=9)
Despite the fact that he considers himself agnostic as regards the deistic concept of God, he still considers himself atheistic as a label.

There's another thread (and I saw at least a couple on this topic) about whether deism is compatible with atheism: Can you be a deist atheist (http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=130834&page=1)

Having many and varied definitions for a word doesn't render it meaningless, it merely makes it a dangerous word to throw around without being clear about what definition you are using.

In another thread somewhere it was discussed how making universal claims about such words, like "christians" for instance, is rather silly, since there are so many different definitions of the word. Can what you are asserting really be true of all the definitions? As an example, someone might claim "All Christians believe that the world is only 6000 years old", but of course this isn't true, some Christians don't believe this at all.

Similarily, the term "God" has so many possible definitions connected to it, it's only really useful to use the word when you are quite clear about what you mean by it or how you are using it.

So if someone wants to call the laws of physics "god", that's fine by me, as long as there are clear about it.

Completely agreed. But that also means that the word "atheist" can also be very unclear without further explanation just like the words "God" and "Christian."

And as an aside, to go over groud already covered, I don't think that being an atheist entails materialism at all. There is no reason why someone cannot be an atheist and also be an idealist, for instance. An atheist could even believe in something like reincarnation.

Indeed. And according to intrepidation/dipertni, you can be an atheist and have supernatural beliefs and an absolute purpose. (although I never could ascertain from anyone on II where the absolute purpose would come from)

Judging from your criticisms of the generalization strawman of atheism you set up, I think your beef is not with atheism but with materialistic naturalism instead. Atheism refers to lack of god-belief. It is not a term for lack of supernatural beliefs, lack of absolute purpose, or any of the other generalizations you would like to attach to it. While many atheists, at least on this board, tend to also have lack of supernatural beliefs or absolute purpose and more than half would probably identify with materialistic naturalism, to equivocate and generalize is foolish.

Here (http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showpost.php?p=2675217&postcount=11)

And this further illustrates how difficult it is to ascertain what people mean when they call themselves atheists.

Fence

[Crumb]

Who is this "most people" that you speak of?
Me and my friend Herman. Um, but nn seriously. The most people includes Christians, Muslems, Jews, and all other religious folks that believe in a personal god. If I were to tell a Christian I believed in god (say I was a pantheist) they would get the wrong idea.
Christian is also a meaningless term. Yet people use that label all the time.
Slightly less than god but yeah. The more contradictory things the word means the less useful it is. Someone telling me they are Christian doesn't tell me very much about what they believe.
So the pantheist and deist god is not god?
The deist god certainly sounds like one. The pantheist god sure doesn't.
I think you've already answered this, but if you believe in the pantheist and/or deist god, then you can still be an atheist, correct?
I wouldn't think a deist could be an atheist, but I am hard pressed to see much difference between a pantheist and an atheist. I guess pantheists would be more 'spiritual' and would entertain ideas of ultimate purpose and meaning of life stuff. I dunno, the whole label thing breaks down if one looks too closely.

[Fencesitter]

I think you've already answered this, but if you believe in the pantheist and/or deist god, then you can still be an atheist, correct?
I wouldn't think a deist could be an atheist, but I am hard pressed to see much difference between a pantheist and an atheist. I guess pantheists would be more 'spiritual' and would entertain ideas of ultimate purpose and meaning of life stuff. I dunno, the whole label thing breaks down if one looks too closely.

Exactly!

Fence