Silmarien
Existentialist
- Feb 24, 2017
- 4,337
- 5,254
- 38
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Anglican
- Marital Status
- Single
- Politics
- US-Democrat
As I thought
You thought I was a Platonist? Or you thought you refused to admit that Platonic theism was a version of theism? Even if I tried to present an argument, you'd tell me I was off-topic, so I'm not sure what the point would be at all.
No, that's not the problem. The problem is that you make points that don't make sense and then try to rescue them. We are not interested in what "traditional Catholic and Orthodox" views on classical theism are; you said that "The whole underlying thesis of theism is that reality is in some sense ultimately subjective in nature (i.e., that it is personal)". Theism, you said. Not one particular flavour of it.
I'm a classical theist, so yes, I define "theism" from within the bounds of the theistic tradition that I think is correct. It is the only flavor of theism that I think ought to be taken seriously, so generally the only one I talk about. If you want to discuss theism with other people, you're welcome to use other definitions, but if you want to discuss it with me or any other classical theist, you are going to have to figure out what we're actually talking about. Otherwise we're going to end up discussing a God that neither of us actually believes in, which would be absurd.
Furthermore, your claim still doesn't make sense. You said:
"My claim that theism entails that reality is in some sense ultimately subjective in nature, i.e., that it is personal, is not something I made up. It's really just a paraphrase of saying that "the absolute is consciousness," since the mark of consciousness is subjectivity."
But that doesn't follow at all. Just because "the absolute" is conscious (if it is) it does not at all follow that reality is dependent on our own subjective views.
I never said that the absolute being consciousness meant that reality was dependent upon our own subjective views. Thank you for finally specifying what your concern was, though, since now I can clarify what the misunderstanding was. We are using the word "subjective" in different contexts.
What I meant by "reality is ultimately subjective (i.e., that it is personal)" was that the most fundamental aspect of reality is personhood and the sense of self. When I use the word "subjective," I'm usually referring to the quality of being an individual, self-conscious agent, not to having ones personal views. In the end, there are two major models of reality: naturalism and theism. According to naturalism, it is physical reality that is fundamental, and consciousness somehow emerges from it, whereas according to theism, agency and consciousness are fundamental, and physical reality is dependent thereupon. Our own agency and consciousness can perhaps best be described as participation in the fullness of God, though the exact approach depends on the tradition.
Hopefully that is clearer? I'm an atheistic existentialist turned Scholastic, and often mix and match concepts and terminology from the two traditions in a way that can be a bit confusing for just about anyone here. If you ever have no idea what I'm saying, you can just ask.
Silmarien, you may enjoy playing with words and entertaining notions such as physical reality not existing. But honestly, I'm starting to find it tedious. If you have a point, please make it.
My major point is that when it comes to mind and matter, there is no default view. You can believe that mind is emergent from matter (non-reductive materialism), that mind is illusory and only matter exists (eliminative materialism), that mind and matter are distinct substances (substance dualism), that matter is conscious (panpsychism), that matter is in some sense emergent from mind (idealism), and any number of additional variations. Each view would need to be supported through argumentation, because there is no default answer to the mind-body problem.
This issue can be extended to ontology as well, leading to a distinction between two major views: naturalism, whereby reality can be reduced to physical properties and interactions, and non-naturalism, whereby it cannot. Theism is, of course, the major form of non-naturalism, and again, there is no default view. If you use an unexamined premise from one position to attack a second one, you're just begging the question. So arguing that God cannot exist because he's a mind without a brain presupposes a materialist view of mind and sidesteps the entire question under review: whether reality can be reduced to the physical or if it is fundamentally more akin to the mental.
If reality is conscious - and that is a huge "if", not worth considering except as an amusing thought experiment, without some reason to consider it so - then your assertion that reality is subjective still does not follow. By your own arguments: God is reality, God is conscious, therefore reality is conscious - but that doesn't mean that my reality or your reality is subjective, any more than the fact that a person can think and a brick cannot means that the brick is real and the person is not.
Hopefully we have cleared up now that this wasn't what I meant by the word "subjective." As for whether the absolute being consciousness is the sort of question worth considering, as a non-naturalist, I would view the idea that reality is ultimately physical in nature as an odd thought experiment not truly worth taking seriously. There really is no default position here.
Proof? Who said anything about proof?
As you may have seen, we already had this discussion earlier in the thread, over a number of posts. Proof is for mathematics and alcohol. I said evidence.
Please don't strawman.
I didn't strawman anything. People can prove themselves to be trustworthy or intelligent or so forth and so on. "I don't have anything to prove to you" would be a legitimate use of the word "prove," and in this sense, it's perfectly correct to say that God doesn't need to prove anything to us.
In terms of what evidence you would accept, I specifically used the word "evidence." I repeat: What sort of evidence should there even be? How do you intend to distinguish between a genuine miracle and a naturalistic explanation?
Do you think it is a satisfactory answer, Silmarien, when it leaves me none the wiser about what you actually think?
What I think about what? I am slightly troubled by the Hiddenness Argument and the fact that God doesn't seem to be interested in making himself known to everyone, but only slightly. There are plenty of theists, myself included, who do not possess that supernatural sense of God's presence that's so popular around here, so I'm left wondering what precisely Christianity's promise of relationship with God entails. I've seen former Christians talk about repeatedly begging God for personal revelation and ultimately receiving nothing, and I'm sympathetic because I've been there as well, but I think the demand is a bit egotistical. Christianity has never really been about easy answers and an undemanding spiritual life.
I believe that some of the theistic arguments work, so I'm somewhat privileged in that I do not actually require personal experience. I couldn't be anything but a theist at this point, but I do find it pretty self-evident that God is not actually interested in spoon feeding us anything.
Right. So maybe, if it's never been about proof - or evidence - a thread of "Arguments for the existence of God" is a waste of time?
Yes and no. I'm a rationalist--I do not think we should believe things without examining our reasons why. I think this is largely a cultural issue, though, and see no reason why God would indulge our need for knowledge and control, and good reasons why he might not.
That said, I do think the arguments are important, though I also think this type of thread is basically a waste of time.
Uh-huh. In which case, maybe the humans who started this thread - mainly gradyll and Ed - should have taken a hint from God and not cared about demonstrating God's existence?
Maybe. I think apologetics and theology should largely be an internal affair. You ought to know what you believe and why, and should be able to engage in conversation if asked about it by someone who is genuinely curious. I have a number of issues with this type of thread, though--I think the motivation behind wandering around trying to convert random people to your way of thinking is usually egotistical rather than altruistic, and the result can be ugly.
Upvote
0