Atheism is reasonable, and Christianity is not

[2PhiloVoid]

We can actually put the material world to rigorous study. "Spiritual qualia" give us no such opportunity.

When we are wrong in our understanding about the material world it can become apparent when our explanations fail.

When spiritual explanations fail there is no such means of error detection.



The only way we can approach truth is through experience.

How funny. "Experience" is the main way that the Jewish philosophy/Rabbis I read also say that Jewish people have traditionally approached God and His Truth. And the plot thickens.............................

 

[variant]

How funny. "Experience" is the main way that the Jewish philosophy/Rabbis I read also say that Jewish people have traditionally approached God and His Truth. And the plot thickens.............................

That would make sense if the experiences of "spiritual qualia" were a lot like the ones we have with the physical sciences...

 

[Silmarien]

That would make sense if the experiences of "spiritual qualia" were a lot like the ones we have with the physical sciences...

We have qualia with physical sciences?

Did you guys manage to solve the mind-body problem while I was off reading Parmenides instead?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

That would make sense if the experiences of "spiritual qualia" were a lot like the ones we have with the physical sciences...

According to these rabbis, the "spiritual qualia" can't be denied so much as that they can be interpreted and either accepted or rejected by those encountering them, even if those qualia are empirical in nature. And this is the overall epistemological implication we seem to find throughout the Bible.

Moreover, these Rabbis indicate that it is in 'acting upon' God's Law that a person is enabled to come to know God, rather than through mere observation and rationality alone. So, traditional Jewish thought is a bit different on how to approach the 'detecting' of God than that which our modern sciences would recommend and model for us. We see some of this reference to "knowing by action" also on the Christian side of things as it related to doing God's Will through Christ, just as Jesus is reported to have said:

...My doctrine is not Mine, but His who sent Me. If anyone wants to do His will, he shall know concerning the doctrine, whether it is from God or whether I speak on My own authority. (John 7:16-17)
​

So, here we see an epistemological context that is parallel to the pre-Christian, Jewish one; that we come to know God's existence and His will by 'doing' His will, not by observing and making rational tick marks of measurement.

On the other hand, these Rabbis are NOT saying that this kind of knowing by action is how science should be done. No, science is science, and faith is faith, and the experiential methods relevant to each of these spheres of human activity may have some slight overlap, but they aren't identical, and neither should be seen as a replacement for the other. Science has to do with matters of the physical world, and faith (and obedience) has to do with our spiritual knowing and relationship with God ... while we are yet in the world.

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

We can actually put the material world to rigorous study. "Spiritual qualia" give us no such opportunity.

When we are wrong in our understanding about the material world it can become apparent when our explanations fail.

When spiritual explanations fail there is no such means of error detection.

I disagree. That is where reason and theology becomes imperitive. Error creeps in, and ideas get developed or discarded - that was the whole point of Church councils after all. It is the same way we discard incorrect theories on the material world - by reasoning and from failure to accord with the data we received ourselves or accept on authority from others.

The only way we can approach truth is through experience.

Exactly. That is perhaps the idea behind much mysticism.

 

[Dirk1540]

@Dirk1540 I have a different take on Intelligent Design. I think there is a inconsistency at its heart. If God is the Creator, that is different from a Designer.

Design implies that something is planned and then unfolds in that way. A blueprint is drawn up, which is then followed.
To conceive God as an Ultimate Being, a fount of existence, an Unmoved Mover, entails all creation to flow from Him. This is not design, for if something is 'designed', then by nature something may go against the design, no? Even if it doesn't, it suggests an ongoing process of sorts.
The Universe exists by His will, and as an atemporal being, Time being a facet of existence or space in modern ideas, the entire temporality of the Universe exists in an eternal instant from His perspective. Whether this is perceived as a monistic unity or a linear phased existence of all Time, matters not. But Designed it was not, for all that exists or ever has or ever will, is one fluid act of Creation to our standard conception of God. It is one complete act, close to Calvinistic ideas of God as Author.

So to label it Intelligent Design, would be recognising a perceived flow of events from our perspective and then applying temporality to God to account for it. It is an act of Anthropomorphisation, as it were. Intelligent Design implies theological consequences, the most serious of which is perhaps the idea that God as a 'designer' is beholden to some form of time or process.

I kind of see it both ways because of entropy and the big bang. I not only agree with you but have also pointed out that every square inch of the universe that humans have been able to analyze is teeming with intelligence & impressive structure, so I argue that an eternal coherent reality makes more sense, because it makes less sense that once upon a time there was an existence of incoherence...then for no apparent reason it started swarming into coherence.

But the big bang & entropy throws me for a loop. Kind of like this universe was created finite on purpose, so that in that case I could see how it was like a designed science project of God's. Maybe God's pure default nature is totally void of entropy??

 

[Dirk1540]

Whenever I see videos of these life like robots the same thing usually enters my mind, waking up in the middle of the night with it standing over my bed staring at me while I sleep like the movie Paranormal Activity lol, horror movies rarely scare me but that part gave me chills!! If I ever own one in the future the arms & legs are getting removed every night before bed ha.

 

[variant]

We have qualia with physical sciences?

Did you guys manage to solve the mind-body problem while I was off reading Parmenides instead?

Subjective conscious experiences of physical sensation? Yes, we should all have some of those.

There was never a mind body problem with respect to us sensing the world, that's what minds do.

 

[variant]

According to these rabbis, the "spiritual qualia" can't be denied so much as that they can be interpreted and either accepted or rejected by those encountering them, even if those qualia are empirical in nature. And this is the overall epistemological implication we seem to find throughout the Bible.

Rabbis being the end all in what people are experiencing with respect to religious a bit narrow.

Moreover, these Rabbis indicate that it is in 'acting upon' God's Law that a person is enabled to come to know God, rather than through mere observation and rationality alone. So, traditional Jewish thought is a bit different on how to approach the 'detecting' of God than that which our modern sciences would recommend and model for us. We see some of this reference to "knowing by action" also on the Christian side of things as it related to doing God's Will through Christ, just as Jesus is reported to have said:

...My doctrine is not Mine, but His who sent Me. If anyone wants to do His will, he shall know concerning the doctrine, whether it is from God or whether I speak on My own authority. (John 7:16-17)
​

So, here we see an epistemological context that is parallel to the pre-Christian, Jewish one; that we come to know God's existence and His will by 'doing' His will, not by observing and making rational tick marks of measurement.

On the other hand, these Rabbis are NOT saying that this kind of knowing by action is how science should be done. No, science is science, and faith is faith, and the experiential methods relevant to each of these spheres of human activity may have some slight overlap, but they aren't identical, and neither should be seen as a replacement for the other. Science has to do with matters of the physical world, and faith (and obedience) has to do with our spiritual knowing and relationship with God ... while we are yet in the world.

Rabbi's tend to take God as a given so they aren't really good at either defining or demonstrating Gods.

Basically when comparing with our mastery of the physical world we're talking about philosophy developed around the time they were perfecting steel and not much progress past that in any actual understanding of God.

You guys might be yeoman steelworkers but you aren't comparable.

 

[variant]

I disagree. That is where reason and theology becomes imperitive. Error creeps in, and ideas get developed or discarded - that was the whole point of Church councils after all. It is the same way we discard incorrect theories on the material world - by reasoning and from failure to accord with the data we received ourselves or accept on authority from others.

Theology lacks any real means of determining error since it can't really interact with the object of study.

Without strict definitions or any sort of real test apparatus religions are free to interpret events in any way that suits them, and that is exactly what happens.

Exactly. That is perhaps the idea behind much mysticism.

The only way to learn from experience is to be able to tell when they support or falcifiy your ideas.

Religion simply defines most of it's ideas as separate from this kind of scrutiny, or interprets all events to lead to support the ideas that religion prescribes.

 

[Silmarien]

Subjective conscious experiences of physical sensation? Yes, we should all have some of those.

You said "physical sciences." Physical sensations have nothing to do with physical sciences unless you think that we can somehow empirically demonstrate that your experience of red is the same as mine.

Spiritual experiences are obviously exponentially more difficult to quantify, but the problem isn't entirely unique.

 

[variant]

You said "physical sciences." Physical sensations have nothing to do with physical sciences unless you think that we can somehow empirically demonstrate that your experience of red is the same as mine.

Physical sensations are the basis of physical sciences, unless you missed the lecture on empiricism.

Science is the practice of controlled testing and careful observation (with the senses).

Spiritual experiences are obviously exponentially more difficult to quantify, but the problem isn't entirely unique.

Theology has the problem right at the starting gate. God vs not God is the first problem of theology and it is a loser.

 

[Silmarien]

Physical sensations are the basis of physical sciences, unless you missed the lecture on empiricism.

And yet the existence of physical sensations can't be proved by physical sciences, unless you missed the entire class on philosophy of mind. The concept of "qualia" is not in any way related to the scientific method.

If you mispoke, you might as well admit it instead of running around the issue in circles.

Theology has the problem right at the starting gate. God vs not God is the first problem of theology and it is a loser.

The problem of not being empirically verifiable and thus not a science? I would agree, but I don't expect theology to be something it isn't. I have no problem with picking whichever seems to be the most coherent of competing metaphysical systems and then running with it Pascal style.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Rabbis being the end all in what people are experiencing with respect to religious a bit narrow.

I don't think I implied that Jewish Rabbis are the "end all." However, for many Christians, Rabbis don't even become a "beginning of," and I at least try to realize that when I read the Bible, I am reading what is essentially an ancient, but foreign, book.

Rabbi's tend to take God as a given so they aren't really good at either defining or demonstrating Gods.

This kind of missess the point; Jews and Christians, traditionally considered, are not advocating an understanding of God that is in all ways subject to the scrutiny of philosophers. Of course, now that modern American, Christian apologists have reoriented everyone's expectations, many are now assuming that God should be measurable. All I can say is.....NOT!!!!

Basically when comparing with our mastery of the physical world we're talking about philosophy developed around the time they were perfecting steel and not much progress past that in any actual understanding of God.

The implications of your statement here are, dare I say, somewhat reductionist.

You guys might be yeoman steelworkers but you aren't comparable.

And, as I stated earlier, Jewish religion wasn't meant to build any sky-scrapers but rather to reach out to the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.

 

[variant]

And yet the existence of physical sensations can't be proved by physical sciences, unless you missed the entire class on philosophy of mind. The concept of "qualia" is not in any way related to the scientific method.

I'm not a mind body duelist, so I don't have to play by your views on the "mind".

If qualia don't happen then we don't actually have subjective experiences of sensations, which would be a bit embarrassing as it leaves understanding reality completely impossible.

Qualia is a description of the subjective part of the sensation, and all things we understand about reality we understand from sensation.

That people subjectively experience their physical experiences is obvious.

It takes a philosopher to gum up such a simple concept.

If you mispoke, you might as well admit it instead of running around the issue in circles.

It's not that I misspoke, it's that you don't understand that I think your philosophy is nonsense.

The problem of not being empirically verifiable and thus not a science? I would agree, but I don't expect theology to be something it isn't. I have no problem with picking whichever seems to be the most coherent of competing metaphysical systems and then running with it Pascal style.

Not even approachable. You don't know the first thing about what observations you would have to make to determine if there was or wasn't a God.

"Running with it" is a good reason you end up believing in nonsense.

 

[variant]

This kind of missess the point; Jews and Christians, traditionally considered, are not advocating an understanding of God that is in all ways subject to the scrutiny of philosophers. Of course, now that modern American, Christian apologists have reoriented everyone's expectations, many are now assuming that God should be measurable. All I can say is.....NOT!!!!

Avoiding scrutiny is indeed among the top aims of traditional theologians.

It's about all they seem to do nowadays, so I don't see how that has changed.

The implications of your statement hear are, dare I say, somewhat reductionist.

I'm making a comparison. We can progress in our understandings of other things because of our experience with them.

I can't even say that we experience God at all, so the steel analogy is me being remarkably generous.

And, as I stated earlier, Jewish religion was meant to build any sky-scrapers but rather to reach out to the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.

And we can never say whether or not that was accomplished.

 

[Silmarien]

I'm not a mind body duelist, so I don't have to play by your views on the "mind".

I'm not sure where swords come into play, but I'm not a convinced dualist myself. This is the first time I've seen even a materialist (if that is what you are) think that qualia have something to do with science, though.

If qualia don't happen then we don't actually have subjective experiences of sensations, which would be a bit embarrassing as it leaves understanding reality completely impossible.

Qualia is a description of the subjective part of the sensation, and all things we understand about reality we understand from sensation.

That people subjectively experience their physical experiences is obvious.

And yet qualia still have nothing to do with physical sciences, unless you think the subjective nature of the senses is an important aspect of scientific inquiry.

It's not that I misspoke, it's that you don't understand that I think your philosophy is nonsense.

Oh, I understand perfectly well that you think everyone who disagrees with you is an idiot. My issue right now is that you're engaging in blatant sophistry. Or the most bizarre form of scientism ever.

Not even approachable. You don't know the first thing about what observations you would have to make to determine if there was or wasn't a God.

Did you miss the part where this isn't an empirical question?

"Running with it" is a good reason you end up believing in nonsense.

You know, once upon a time, back when atheists were still intellectually honest, they'd actually take the time to figure out what someone believed and then maybe even engage in debate before jumping straight to declaring it all nonsense, but hey, why not just skip straight past the tedious parts in the middle?

 

[variant]

I'm not sure where swords come into play, but I'm not a convinced dualist myself. This is the first time I've seen even a materialist (if that is what you are) think that qualia have something to do with science, though.

The spell checker reverts to real words when you hit the red one.

I was talking about the kinds of physical experiences we use to form the physical sciences and how those differ from how we experience "spirituality".

And yet qualia still have nothing to do with physical sciences, unless you think the subjective nature of the senses is an important aspect of scientific inquiry.

It's important that we subjectively experience our experiences yes. It would be entirely required.

Oh, I understand perfectly well that you think everyone who disagrees with you is an idiot. My issue right now is that you're engaging in blatant sophistry. Or the most bizarre form of scientism ever.

Accuse as you will. I don't think there is anything but air behind God concepts.

Did you miss the part where this isn't an empirical question?

If the question is A or ~A you have to be able to tell the difference.

If no observations from reality will do, then you don't have a concept at all.

You know, once upon a time, back when atheists were still intellectually honest, they'd actually take the time to figure out what someone believed and then maybe even engage in debate before jumping straight to declaring it all nonsense, but hey, why not just skip straight past the tedious parts in the middle?

You skipped all the steps where you clearly defined your ideas and set about practically demonstrating them to be viable, reasonable or evident and gave me:

I have no problem with picking whichever seems to be the most coherent of competing metaphysical systems and then running with it Pascal style.

Don't get mad that I think you're just coming up with excuses for believing in nonsense.

You are right though. How you got the conclusion that you could decide on a metaphysical system that "seemed to be the most coherent" and "ran with it" is not of that much interest to me.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Avoiding scrutiny is indeed among the top aims of traditional theologians.

It's about all they seem to do nowadays, so I don't see how that has changed.

Traditional theologians? Which of the ones I have been speaking about are the ones to which you refer? Funny, I didn't even name the ones of which I spoke.

I'm making a comparison. We can progress in our understandings of other things because of our experience with them.

I can't even say that we experience God at all, so the steel analogy is me being remarkably generous.

No, all it means is that you and I have made 'essential' conclusions by way of different perceptions of the world and different collective considerations extending from various lines of scholarship. So, if you don't 'see' the truth of Christianity, I'm not one to argue that you should.

And we can never say whether or not that was accomplished.

"Never" is a long time ...

 

[variant]

Traditional theologians? Which of the ones I have been speaking about are the ones to which you refer? Funny, I didn't even name the ones of which I spoke.

You spoke of theologians of a specific tradition if I remember correctly.

I chose to point out that they share the modern tradition of avoiding scrutiny.

No, all it means is that you and I have made 'essential' conclusions by way of different perceptions of the world and different collective considerations extending from various lines of scholarship. So, if you don't 'see' the truth of Christianity, I'm not one to argue that you should.

I have the more problematic point of view that I can't see how Christianity derives or arrives at it's "truth".

For all I can tell really, there dosen't seem to be enough of a distinction between whatever it is and "making stuff up and selling it to a community of believers".

"Never" is a long time ...

How long do you think I should give it? From my point of view I have only one life to waste.