How is the idea of the Christian God better than the idea of a non-personal God?

[Sanoy]

I have said this because only the sacred books give such information and descriptions about such a God, but each has a unique character (Allah is different from Jehovah who is different than Shangdi who is different from Shiva, and that in fact this can not be more than fruit of the imagination of some ancient men, you said that 1 MGB is correctly identified by all, while "many others MGBS are mistaken", and how do you know that non-Christian religions have received many mistaken MGBS? You are assuming that only Christian revelation is general. A Muslim could say the same, and would accuse the many MGBS of the other religions as false. In fact I changed the OP, wrongly I got a misconception of preferences when I started the topic.

And what would be the explanation? Sorry but I do not see how this can prove that there is a personal God (specifically the Christian God), I do not want to be insulting here, but that would be the same as saying that it is better to have an invisible or imaginary friend that cannot fail to existing.

Scripture itself gives the idea of eternal torment, as in Matthew 25:41, 25:46, Mark 9:48, and so on.

Hindus, Buddhists and Muslims have similar experiences; and I ask those same questions.

If I were to respond to these it would be a significant, and very large, detraction from the thread topic. Is that what you want? At present there is nothing on topic that I can respond to.

 

[OBuscador]

Quid est Veritas? when you have time read the text of this link: https://infidels.org/library/modern/steven_conifer/ac.html

Well, unless you missed my point, we have no empirical evidence that something can exist without being consciously thought of. Everything we think exists, is only so thought because humans are aware of it. So there is no evidence that anything can exist outside of contemplation of a Consciousness. It is a catch-22, but means that the idea of matter existing outside of, or irrespective to, perception of said matter, is a a priori construction that goes against any attainable evidence. What exists must have been perceived, in a sense; so what has not been perceived, cannot be shown to exist. This is why the idea that we can 'discover' things that we assume already exist, implies that we are working in a metaphysical model under some form of Consciousness. This is in fact what Empiricism thus implies - which was no problem to the mediaeval clerics that invented Scientific Method, but is problematic to a modern materialist who would trumpet 'evidence', but willing to assume things like this in the teeth thereof- where no evidence is, nor can be, forthcoming.

So the best suggestion is that we should be agnostic about it! but we have no idea how a personal divinity of the "supernatural dimension" (whatever that actually means) "the first cause" could have done this or that, even though we understand all this is no reason to think it was a being supernatural who did this, even if science does not know everything, is no reason to say that it was "a supernatural God who did" in addition to the hypothesis of "mystery" or the hypothesis that it was the supernatural God who did that! If the universe was created by the Christian God because we do not see even a single evidence or vestige of who he was he created the universe? Almost no theory of the universe is explained with "God did it."
I do not think the Argument of Consciousness is proof of the existence of the "personal God." I know that in your points you not said something like "I believe it was God who did it", so that does not answer your points. But I also see no reason to think that it was an omnipotent, omniscient and personal deity that created the universe just because we did not have all the information on how our Universe works.

'Science of the Gaps' argument? Such a theory would have to part ways with the idea of Scientific Method to do so, as it would be thoroughly metaphysical. We cannot discover something without assuming it already exists, just unknown. We have no way of showing something can exist, if unknown to all consciousnesses. This is therefore no longer a 'scientist' doing so, but a philosopher.

But I think that the science of gaps argument can indeed bring an assumption that I say may be more coherent than many theistic arguments that are the arguments of the God of gaps! In the past it was like this too, many people had no way to prove phenomena and the other things we now know and we have scientific explanations for it.

A lot of what you are saying is jargonesque. Replace God with Energy, but you still need to determine what is meant by whichever term you use. How would you do so? This is akin to the assumption that the stars move in Aether, and then describing said Aether, but it is all conjectural. Or Phlogiston.
The idea is something must fundamentally exist. Everything we know of, is perceived, and we have no way to determine that something unperceived can exist. You could argue it could, certainly, but the argument is not built on much of a foundation. Assuming Consciousness is central to the Ground of Being, nicely solves many of our issues. It might not be true, but hey, that is where Faith comes in. If we deny it though, our anthropic problems remain fundamentally insoluble in any case. More so, as you have to assume existence without consciousness is possible, if not deny consciousness in entirety, to remain coherent.

It is the Sceptics problem - you have to draw a line in the sand somewhere.

You cornered me here, but I also do not see why Faith is the better position than agnosticism in relation to these things that we call "unperceived," but there are people who can also say that if we keep the faith it is there that never we will have solutions or explanations for these anthropic problems, because when we have solutions and answers to possible problems I think that is where faith ends!

CS Lewis has a good argument called the Argument from Reason which is also applicable here.

So you are confusing Pantheism and Panentheism. The latter has God as a sort of World Soul, and in a weak form like Palamism, isn't incompatible with Christianity. There matter and God aren't separate, but God isn't fundamentally the same as His Creation. Pantheism says the world, matter, everything, is God. This is the underlying idea of many non-dualistic mystics, where I and That are indistinguishable.

CS Lewis says that the very fact that we can differentiate an I, from the remaining whole, means that there is a greater and a lesser. With that practical Pantheism dies, for the lesser is dependant on the greater. In Pilgrim's Regress, John learns from Wisdom a form of pantheism, but when such a philosophy is applied in practice, it must become religion. For thinking the noumenal as a part of an I, must mean areas thereof are external to it for an I to exist.

I fear I am garbling my response a bit, but look up the later part of Pilgrim's regress - from Wisdom up till where John travels in the canyon. It is the end of Book VII and the beginning of Book VIII. It is in the public sphere, so you could just download it. It addresses much of this pantheist thing in an allegorical manner.

Would not this be polytheism instead of pantheism? The problem is that even the pantheists have difficulty "encoding" the term pantheism, but in my pantheistic view there is no supernatural element to be able to say who is the greater (when I say greater I mean a transcendent deity) being that I I only believe in what is natural, I do not believe there is a supernatural divinity, so I reject the idea of having a notion of something greater and more transcendent. But once I apologize for not being able to answer your point comprehensively.

 

[OBuscador]

but @OBuscador, you seem at times to be talking about pantheistic cosmic forces. Can you explain what these forces are and what reason we have to believe they exist while avoiding a more classical view? You would need to for your version of pantheism to be equally rational to other approaches.

Thinking well, I can not see a difference since some ancient religions like Hinduism say that Brahman is everything and everything is Brahman, it is not different to say that the universe and matter are everything, in fact these forces are the elements of the universe itself and is not beyond them, sorry if I'm being inconsistent or even irrational, but that's how I see it.

 

[Freodin]

I'm not sure I agree. Isolating a subset of the cosmos and identifying it with the pantheistic God over and against the remainder is clearly fallacious. I just wasn't sure what distinction you were speaking to above.

I'd make the small correction and assert that the fallacy lies in "isolation a subset of the cosmos and identifying it NOT with the pantheistic God...", but I think we basically came to an agreement.

It may be that my position as an outsider either makes it easier for me to identify this "mistake", or leads me to misunderstand the theists' criticisms in these cases... I don't know.
But from my perspective it sure seems that many theists have problems to no apply their own concept of a transcendent God when addressing a system where such a concept is non-existent.

I don't agree or else I don't follow. I'll just reiterate the simple argument already given in both of my posts to you:

1. If the pantheist believes that everything is contingent then they also believe that God is contingent.
   
2. Some pantheists believe that everything is contingent.
   
3. Therefore some pantheists believe that God is contingent.

Pick a premise if you disagree. (1) is tautological and (2) was directly supported with SEP. It may be that some pantheists believe that existence itself is necessary (whatever that precisely means) but I see no reason to believe that all pantheists believe this nor that this is even a widely-held pantheist proposition.

Again, I can only state that this is a point that would need to be taken up with real proponents of this position. Only they would be able to explain their real take on it.

This may be a case where my own position makes it difficult for me to understand the argumentation of others, and might lead to misrepresentation. I personally have a very different position on "existence", and thus might misunderstand what people mean when the talk about the contingency of existence itself.

But still... even if some pantheists believe that, would that be a major problem? Would it not simply add another point to the differences between theism, just like the transcendence point?

I don't think it's that complicated. Either you believe in necessary being or you don't. The question doesn't even require delving into what form that necessary being takes. Again, my point is that some pantheists don't believe in necessary being at all. SEP concurs. Modern forms of pantheism are often more concerned with creativity, development, and evolution than necessity.

Some forms of Christianity deny that Jesus is divine, and still accept all the other concepts.

And I do think it is very complicated. There is no coherent philosophical concept of non-existence, and thus it is always complicated when you try to talk about the absence of existence.

Again, I am not the one who can give a positive answer to this question... I don't adhere to this position.
But it does seem to me that this being "more concerned with creativity, development and evolution" is a question of focus, not philosophical basis. Just like some forms of Christianity are more concerned with loving their neighbors than with pondering the nature of Jesus.

We would need to find a pantheist of that variant to get a better answer.

 

[ViaCrucis]

I think at some point a lot of Western Christianity has gotten a bit too comfortable with the Philosopher's God. What I mean by that is that, here in the West, we've grown accustomed to describing God largely in philosophical categories. I don't say this to say that philosophy and philosophical categories are themselves wrong, but these aren't the chief way the Christian religion should be talking about God.

Back in the early 16th century Martin Luther offered a series of debate points at Heidelberg, while not one of the Confessional statements of Lutheranism, they are nonetheless considered important as they represent perhaps the earliest clear articulations of Lutheran theology. The 95 Theses are historically important, and it set off a chain reaction; but it is really the 28 Theses of the Heidelberg Disputation that we can start seeing anything that we might call "Lutheran". The Disputation offers one of the most important aspects of Lutheran theology, and that is the emphasis on the Theology of the Cross over and against the Theology (theologies, really) of Glory.

Thesis 19 is, in its own way, a jab at Scholastic Philosophy, or the general trend toward the emphasis of the philosophical in talking about God:

"That person does not deserve to be called a theologian who looks upon the invisible things of God as though they were clearly perceptible in those things which have actually happened.

This is apparent in the example of those who were theologians and still were called fools by the Apostle in Rom. 1:22. Furthermore, the invisible things of God are virtue, godliness, wisdom, justice, goodness, and so forth. The recognition of all these things does not make one worthy or wise."

Instead, and as contrast, there is Thesis 20:

"He deserves to be called a theologian, however, who comprehends the visible and manifest things of God seen through suffering and the cross.

The manifest and visible things of God are placed in opposition to the invisible, namely, his human nature, weakness, foolishness. The Apostle in 1 Cor. 1:25 calls them the weakness and folly of God. Because men misused the knowledge of god through works, God wished again to be recognized in suffering, and to condemn wisdom concerning invisible things by means of wisdom concerning visible things, so that those who did not honor God as manifested in his works should honor him as he is hidden in his suffering (absconditum in passionibus). As the Apostle says in 1 Cor. 1:21, 'For since, in the wisdom of GOd, the world did not know God through wisdom, it pleased God through the folly of what we preach to save those who believe.' Now it is not sufficient for anyone, and it does him no good to recognize God in his glory and majesty, unless he recognizes him in the humility and shame of the cross. Thus God destroys the wisdom of the wise, as Isa. 45:15 says, 'Truly, thou art a God who hidest thyself.'

So, also, in John 14:8, where Philip spoke according to the theology of glory: 'Show us the Father.' Christ forthwith set aside his flighty thought about seeing God elsewhere and led him to himself, saying, 'Philip, he who has seen me has seen the Father.' For this reason true theology and recognition of God are in the crucified Christ, as it is also stated in John 10 'No one comes to the Father, but by me.' 'I am the door.', and so forth." (emphasis in bold mine)

In essence, for Luther (and for Lutherans), "God" is not known chiefly because He is all powerful, or all wise, or any other philosophical category (not that these things aren't true). Because a God who is [merely] all powerful, all wise, all good, etc. would not be recognizably God. Because we understand God not through His invisible glory and power, but in the visible weakness and humility of the crucified Jesus.

If one were to ask me "What is God?" I would point to Jesus Christ nailed to the cross. What does God look like? God looks like Jesus.

An all-powerful force might indeed be something quite incredible, but from the vantage point of the Christian (at least if their theology is true theology), who sees God in His Revelation of Himself in Jesus, there is no God except what we have received and encountered in the visible and manifest reality of Jesus Christ.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[OBuscador]

But it does seem to me that this being "more concerned with creativity, development and evolution" is a question of focus, not philosophical basis. Just like some forms of Christianity are more concerned with loving their neighbors than with pondering the nature of Jesus.

We would need to find a pantheist of that variant to get a better answer.

It was as I said in my response to @Quid est Veritas? the problem is that pantheism itself is not encoded system (but even so I dont answer for all Pantheists) and I think many pantheists do not even care so much about this "origin and need question" (as well as this forms of Christianity that you mentioned), in my opinion I think the "creation" is auto-poiesis.
For me the universe is the "contingent".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autopoiesis

 

[OBuscador]

@ViaCrucis Thank you for sharing this answer.

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

Quid est Veritas? when you have time read the text of this link: https://infidels.org/library/modern/steven_conifer/ac.html

This link has little relevance to what I was saying. I am sorry to say, but also quite a poorly argued article - essentially it consists of a silly strawman fallacy, going so far as to give an exonym to it, followed by Petitio Principii.

So the best suggestion is that we should be agnostic about it! but we have no idea how a personal divinity of the "supernatural dimension" (whatever that actually means) "the first cause" could have done this or that, even though we understand all this is no reason to think it was a being supernatural who did this, even if science does not know everything, is no reason to say that it was "a supernatural God who did" in addition to the hypothesis of "mystery" or the hypothesis that it was the supernatural God who did that! If the universe was created by the Christian God because we do not see even a single evidence or vestige of who he was he created the universe? Almost no theory of the universe is explained with "God did it."
I do not think the Argument of Consciousness is proof of the existence of the "personal God." I know that in your points you not said something like "I believe it was God who did it", so that does not answer your points. But I also see no reason to think that it was an omnipotent, omniscient and personal deity that created the universe just because we did not have all the information on how our Universe works.

Again you are coming with a value judgement of 'best'. Where does this come from? You seem to be seriously misunderstanding me, as I am offering no proof of God nor using the existence of Consciousness to support thus. What I am saying, is that we have no evidence, of any sort, of existence outside of conscious experience, nor is it possible to have any. This is implicit in the traditional Empiricism of Science itself, even more so in relativity theory and quantum theory, where the nature of the observation, and of the observer, impacts the position or length or speed of the observed as well.

So why be agnostic about it, when all the Empiric evidence is in favour of something having to be perceived to be operative? The unperceived does not exist to human experience, and what is currently unknown, essentially only becomes existent in practice, when perceived.
So when speaking of metaphysical considerations, the philosophic onus of proof lies on those claiming that what is existent need not be perceived or brought in relation to consciousness. All of Scientific and Empiric Evidence is squarely in opposition, so if this is grounds for agnosticism on this idea, then should we be agnostic on homeopathy or crystal healing too?

But I think that the science of gaps argument can indeed bring an assumption that I say may be more coherent than many theistic arguments that are the arguments of the God of gaps! In the past it was like this too, many people had no way to prove phenomena and the other things we now know and we have scientific explanations for it.

How can an argument based on wishful thinking, with no factual basis, be more coherent? Religious arguments tend to be based on inductive reasoning or on revelation (which even if you reject said revelation, is at least data); but to think 'Future Science' which cannot be articulated nor can be based on any current available data, is somehow more coherent, is flagrantly baseless.

You cornered me here, but I also do not see why Faith is the better position than agnosticism in relation to these things that we call "unperceived," but there are people who can also say that if we keep the faith it is there that never we will have solutions or explanations for these anthropic problems, because when we have solutions and answers to possible problems I think that is where faith ends!

Again you are using a value judgement of 'better'. In what way? What do you mean? What is your frame of reference? My point was that from a radical sceptical viewpoint, nothing is certain. So everyone has to set up an axiom somewhere, so 'have faith in' something, in order to establish anything as being knoweable.

I do think anthropic problems unsolveable inherently, by their very nature, as we shall remain humans commenting on what humans perceive. There is a strong circular argument here. This is very true of the Sciences too, who use Empiric data to try and establish ideas, and thus point to that data to support the validity of their Empiric reasoning. We all keep going round in circles where human knowledge is concerned.

Would not this be polytheism instead of pantheism? The problem is that even the pantheists have difficulty "encoding" the term pantheism, but in my pantheistic view there is no supernatural element to be able to say who is the greater (when I say greater I mean a transcendent deity) being that I I only believe in what is natural, I do not believe there is a supernatural divinity, so I reject the idea of having a notion of something greater and more transcendent. But once I apologize for not being able to answer your point comprehensively.

How does your 'pantheism' then differ from ontological naturalism? I really do not understand the position you are trying to argue from. Could you elucidate it a bit more thoroughly?

 

[Silmarien]

Thinking well, I can not see a difference since some ancient religions like Hinduism say that Brahman is everything and everything is Brahman, it is not different to say that the universe and matter are everything, in fact these forces are the elements of the universe itself and is not beyond them, sorry if I'm being inconsistent or even irrational, but that's how I see it.

Hinduism is extremely different than the sort of pantheism you're proposing--we can talk about it when I get home, if you want, but it's too complicated to go into right now.

Your pantheism is starting to look more and more like atheism, which would obviously change the conversation considerably.

 

[OBuscador]

This link has little relevance to what I was saying. I am sorry to say, but also quite a poorly argued article - essentially it consists of a silly strawman fallacy, going so far as to give an exonym to it, followed by Petitio Principii.

Please excuse my ignorance, but what is a petitio principii?

Again you are coming with a value judgement of 'best'. Where does this come from? You seem to be seriously misunderstanding me, as I am offering no proof of God nor using the existence of Consciousness to support thus. What I am saying, is that we have no evidence, of any sort, of existence outside of conscious experience, nor is it possible to have any. This is implicit in the traditional Empiricism of Science itself, even more so in relativity theory and quantum theory, where the nature of the observation, and of the observer, impacts the position or length or speed of the observed as well.

So why be agnostic about it, when all the Empiric evidence is in favour of something having to be perceived to be operative? The unperceived does not exist to human experience, and what is currently unknown, essentially only becomes existent in practice, when perceived.
So when speaking of metaphysical considerations, the philosophic onus of proof lies on those claiming that something can exist when not perceived or brought in relation to consciousness. All of Scientific and Empiric Evidence is squarely in opposition, so if this is grounds for agnosticism on this idea

That's why I think it's better to be agnostic about "perceived" or "non perceived", since we do not know or have an "accurate" perception of what it is, and most likely we will never know by following its reasoning (I'm sorry if I'm misunderstanding you here, really I do not want to misrepresent your reasoning, but it's because I have a certain difficulty responding in a clear way).

then should we be agnostic on homeopathy or crystal healing too?

No, because they proved not to be effective against various diseases.

How does your 'pantheism' then differ from ontological naturalism? I really do not understand the position you are trying to argue from. Could you elucidate it a bit more thoroughly?

To be honest I dont see differences my form of pantheism with ontological materialism but if I say that somehow I do not admire the universe because of its complexity and beauty I would be lying, someone might even call me a "spiritual pantheist" but I do not use this word because I do not really know what "spiritual" or "supernatural" means (I do not mean the etymological meanings but what they actually represent).

 

[OBuscador]

Hinduism is extremely different than the sort of pantheism you're proposing--we can talk about it when I get home, if you want, but it's too complicated to go into right now.

All right, I'd be happy if you explained the differences to me when you got back from your trip.

Your pantheism is starting to look more and more like atheism, which would obviously change the conversation considerably.

The only difference of mine for an atheist is that I admire both the universe and all creation that I use the term god (which I also call an impersonal god) to define it, and the atheist does not!

 

[zippy2006]

I'd make the small correction and assert that the fallacy lies in "isolation a subset of the cosmos and identifying it NOT with the pantheistic God...", but I think we basically came to an agreement.

Yes, your formulation is a better definition; I was just trying to retain Sanoy's angle.

It may be that my position as an outsider either makes it easier for me to identify this "mistake", or leads me to misunderstand the theists' criticisms in these cases... I don't know.
But from my perspective it sure seems that many theists have problems to no apply their own concept of a transcendent God when addressing a system where such a concept is non-existent.

Probably, but "God" in a Western context usually implies agency and distinctness from the world, so low-level discussions of pantheism will inevitably make such assumptions.

Again, I can only state that this is a point that would need to be taken up with real proponents of this position. Only they would be able to explain their real take on it.

I find SEP to be a trustworthy source.

But still... even if some pantheists believe that, would that be a major problem? Would it not simply add another point to the differences between theism, just like the transcendence point?

No, of course it isn't a major problem. I just mentioned it because it is a real distinction and depending on the OP's definition of 'better' may supply some kind of touchstone for the conversation. I don't really want to enter into the fray here, but I think a necessary God is better than a contingent God.

And I do think it is very complicated. There is no coherent philosophical concept of non-existence, and thus it is always complicated when you try to talk about the absence of existence.

So long as there are coherent philosophical concepts of necessity and contingency of being I think it works.

We would need to find a pantheist of that variant to get a better answer.

Indeed.

 

[Freodin]

Probably, but "God" in a Western context usually implies agency and distinctness from the world, so low-level discussions of pantheism will inevitably make such assumptions.

I agree. That is my main objection to terms like "impersonal God".
But on the other hand, this is also my main objection to arguments like "whatever is the most important thing in your life is your 'God'".
Inconsistency seems to be inevitable when it comes to concepts of this complexity.

I find SEP to be a trustworthy source.

Oh, I didn't want to imply that they are wrong or untrustworthy. It's just that without a "live" clarification option, it is too easy to misinterprete those statements.

No, of course it isn't a major problem. I just mentioned it because it is a real distinction and depending on the OP's definition of 'better' may supply some kind of touchstone for the conversation. I don't really want to enter into the fray here, but I think a necessary God is better than a contingent God.

Too much thinking for me this early.
There would have to be an accepted definition for "better" to start with.

So long as there are coherent philosophical concepts of necessity and contingency of being I think it works.

Difficult. In both necessity or contingency you cannot escape the concept of "nothing", and if that isn't clear, the other two lack some of their basis.

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

Please excuse my ignorance, but what is a petitio principii?

A fallacious argument that assumes the validity of its conclusion, for its premise or subsequent propositions. "Begging the question" is derived from a loose translation of the term.

A good example of this type of fallacy, is the oft-stated idea that Empiric evidence confirms the veridicality of Science, the latter of course being based off Empiric data itself.

That's why I think it's better to be agnostic about "perceived" or "non perceived", since we do not know or have an "accurate" perception of what it is, and most likely we will never know by following its reasoning (I'm sorry if I'm misunderstanding you here, really I do not want to misrepresent your reasoning, but it's because I have a certain difficulty responding in a clear way).


No, because they proved not to be effective against various diseases.

I refer back to my original post. You are aware how Schrodinger's Cat works? So Science only comments on observed phenomena, or ideas derived or predicted by such phenomena. Usually this doesn't raise problems, but it did when quantum theory and the Copenhagen interpretation rolled around. For the state or position of particles only become apparent on observation, otherwise multiple states or superpositions of particles are operative. It isn't that one state was the operative one of many possibilities that was 'discovered', but those possibilities were all operative until the state 'collapses' into one on observation.

So you would assume the Cat is dead. Till the box is opened, it is both dead and alive. All human experience of what exists is either based on opening the hypothetical box and having a look, or hypothesising what may occur.

So all our evidence of what is existent has conscious-awareness thereof as a component part. This is of necessity there. Essentially what you propose would be akin to arguing that "all dogs are mammals" since all dogs ever seen were mammals, but maybe one is actually a reptilloid masquerading as a mammal though we have 0 evidence one ever was, so we should ignore our vast collection of data and be agnostic on the mammalhood of dogs. It is thoroughly unscientific and non-empiric to reason so. At best Science can say we can observe things exist, and the unobserved exists in potentia, in an alive/dead state if supportable by inductive or deductive reasoning, but you can't put what is observed and thought on, on the same footing as the unobserved pre-conscious universe. So on what basis could something never placed in relation to conscious awareness be said to exist? Certainly not in a Scientific, Empiric, Pragmatic or experiential manner.
To argue for this possibility in the teeth of human experience is daunting, though not impossible, but it certainly does not warrant 'agnosticism'. If this was on a concept like Aether or Phlogiston, no one would ignore mountains of positive evidence on the possibility that negative evidence might exist, and opt not to make a determination. You can debate the possibility, but to pretend it is on equal footing evidentiary or experientially is patently far-fetched.

This is the problem with Ontological Naturalism, as it undercuts Science itself. Not only through denial of veridicality (Argument from Reason), but has deep Anthropic principle problems as to determining the nature of what is termed Real or what Exists or has existed. Most old-school Scientists were churchman or religious, Science being an Aristotlean-derived construct that only flowered or almost flowered, in Abrahamic contexts. This has come to head in our modern times in the weird and wonderful world of Theoretical Physics, which is trying to grope its way through without invoking the numenous. Science arose in Western Christendom, and the latter's assumptions of an ordered cosmos belie it. To deny this philosophical background, is a two-edged sword. This is the deep peril of those that would substitute Science's methodological Naturalism for the Ontological variety.

To be honest I dont see differences my form of pantheism with ontological materialism but if I say that somehow I do not admire the universe because of its complexity and beauty I would be lying, someone might even call me a "spiritual pantheist" but I do not use this word because I do not really know what "spiritual" or "supernatural" means (I do not mean the etymological meanings but what they actually represent).

So is a 'sense of wonder' a property of the universe then, perhaps? This comes down to how you perceive your qualia. Is an Awe-inspiring thing creating awe in you, or is its ability to inspire Awe an inherent property? This is how the ancients understood some of their gods. A lion provoked Fear, but both its ability to do so, and our experience of said Fear, was coupled to an extraneous concept of Fear - articulated as a god. Fear entered us, as it were.

If this doesn't make sense to you, then I fail to see how this differs from Dawkinsian prolixity on how wonderful his 'atheistic universe' is. If that is the case, then a lot of effort on this thread has been wasted - for we would first need to argue the concept of the Divine, before arguing if it is personal or not.

 

[Uber Genius]

But I think that the science of gaps argument can indeed bring an assumption that I say may be more coherent than many theistic arguments that are the arguments of the God of gaps! In the past it was like this too, many people had no way to prove phenomena and the other things we now know and we have scientific explanations for it.

Not sure that I should weigh-in here but you have shown some penchant for investigation so here goes...

Your challenge to properly understanding the arguments for a creator stem from an epistemic position known as scientism.

It is incoherent and therefore false.

A simple examination of the damage scientism does to what we can call knowledge should suffice.

On scientism we can't gain knowledge about:
math
logic
historical sciences like evolution, archeology
legal truths can't be proven
history
art
music
that you exist is not a function of scientific knowledge
that an external world, other minds, reality of the past exists is not a function of scientific knowledge.

All we do if we adopt your epistemic method is delete the ability to say we know anything including chemistry and physics because who is doing the experiments? On what external inference? In what peer-reviewed journal would YOU publish?

So you actually use your intuition about the world and all the items I have mentioned above every day in a non-empirical way every day. You are just applying special pleading to eliminate things that can be known about God while being unaware at the actual impact of such an epistemic move.

This is why atheist philosophers haven't argued in this fashion since the 1950s.

Hope you might consider more philosophically sound arguments against theism. Graham Oppy, J.H. Sobel, Quinten Smith, Antony Flew, J.L. Mackey all cogent defeaters for theism without making this epistemic mistake.

Logical positivism
Verificationism
WVO Quine

 

[OBuscador]

@Quid est Veritas?, you actually wrote many things that I have to actually agree with most of your points, only I did not understand when you said: "Science arose in Western Christendom."

I think it is incorrect to say that without the presuppositions of Christianity modern science, morality or anything else of the sort would not exist, then it means that science works only because the "God of Christianity" proposed this laws? It is true when it says that science had a revival in Christian Europe, however, the Renaissance was a revitalization of the classical Greek and Roman principles, and a break with the theology of earlier centuries as you yourself suggested. Of course, even if it were true that modern science has its origin in Christianity, none of this advocates in favor of any religious doctrine, because with Christianity or without Christianity society would evolve into knowledge sooner or later. I hope I did not misunderstand.

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

@Quid est Veritas?, you actually wrote many things that I have to actually agree with most of your points, only I did not understand when you said: "Science arose in Western Christendom."

I think it is incorrect to say that without the presuppositions of Christianity modern science, morality or anything else of the sort would not exist, then it means that science works only because the "God of Christianity" proposed this laws? It is true when it says that science had a revival in Christian Europe, however, the Renaissance was a revitalization of the classical Greek and Roman principles, and a break with the theology of earlier centuries as you yourself suggested. Of course, even if it were true that modern science has its origin in Christianity, none of this advocates in favor of any religious doctrine, because with Christianity or without Christianity society would evolve into knowledge sooner or later. I hope I did not misunderstand.

Let us first get our terms straight. What is meant by Science? The term can be quite protean, with layered meaning, from broad popular usage meaning basically knowledge or 'fact', to more technical and correct usages. Generally, I mean a systematic body of empiric knowledge derived via Scientific Method, by the term. Science is grounded in Scepticism, that all discoveries have to be reproducible, have to be doubted.

So Chinese invention of gunpowder was not scientific, as this was done around alchemical practices looking for spiritual harmony and utilising concepts like Li. It was not systematic, nor empiric. Similarly it would not be falsifiable and the validity of the thinking leading up to the discovery, was never called into question.

So by this more proper definition of Science as it functions today, the only time it arose was in Western Europe - specifically in the 12th century from the work of Roger Bacon and Grosseteste.
Proto-Scientific systems which we can perhaps also grant the term, being Sceptical, Empiric and Systematic; though without the formal mechanisms; can be granted to the Transoxianian Islamic flowering and Hellenistic Natural Philosophy, the latter from which both of the former ultimately derive.

Now what do we need for Science? It requires a number of assumptions:
1. The belief that data is reproducible, that if something is done a hundred times, that 101 and on will yield the same result.
2.That Empiric evidence at least reflects something tangible (unlike Buddhist, Taoist or Eleatic schools that deny fundamental reality to the empiric, being Void or so, with some form of non-duality being 'real').
3. The belief in Intersubjective value, that two people would experience the same thing in similar ways.
4. Belief in causation, that everything can be explained in terms of Causes leading up to it. That events or such, don't occur spontaneously (as opposed to Taoism or Karma, that seek explanations outside actual physical events).
5. Ex nihilo nihil fit - that nothing just pops into existence, but has been transformations of what came before.
6. That the universe is ordered, and works by fixed laws that can be articulated and understood by humans.
ETC.

There are many others, some more or less important, or more or less relevant. For instance, denying creation from nothing is excused for Creation by traditional Scientists (being a Miracle, and thus per defitionem outside the realm of Science) or for certain interpretations of the Big Bang Theory, now that solid state universes have fallen from fashion. Or the 'popping into being' of quantum particles.

So it took 1800 odd years of Western Philosophy to articulate and argue all the positions for Science in its modern form to exist. This is based off Aristotle, who held to systematic classification and enquiry, and that all had a cause. However, a lot of the requirements are inherent theologic positions of Abrahamic religions - an ordered, intelligble universe with human spirits being separate in some sense from the matter, etc. Nominalism also played a part.

So historically, Science arose once - amongst mediaeval Franciscan monks and propogated through Christian Europe. Islam in Transoxiana came close, but it petered out. Both based off of the systematic, sceptical and empiric traditions of Greek Philosophy, which however never gained the upper hand in antiquity. This was likely cultural too, as there was no agreement that the world need be knowable, nor that knowledge can even be in some sense accrued.

The Renaissance quickened the pulse of Science through the rediscovery of the classic sources in their original Greek form; and from the New Philosophy of Francis Bacon onwards, Science cut a few of its Aristotlean roots (only often to make its way back again, the long way round). The underlying assumptions of the validity and nature of an Empiric world remain, grounded in a methodologic Naturalism that seeks causes and not assume the miraculous.

So Science could certainly have arisen without Christianity, even without an Abrahamic God. But it didn't, and the theology of Abrahamic Religions is well suited to support the necessary assumptions that need to be made to allow Science to be. No other society even came close, and based on the worldviews within said societies (Karma, Confucian Li, Shinto Musubi, etc.) this is no accident. So it would be exceedingly unlikely in my opinion, that it would have. The world stayed largely the same, punctuated by one or two important discoveries every couple of centuries, till Western Scientists sat down and began systematically trying to understand what is going on. Thereafter, change came thick and fast. It was helped by a 'sense of the past', that change and improvement was actually possible (as opposed to Chinese beliefs that yesterday will be the same as tomorrow under Heaven or cyclical Hindu concepts), built into the Christian idea that we are moving forward in a narrative, that there is an ending. For Progress to exist, there must be something to move towards, and not just be cycles and stasis.
Most Scientists in history were Christians, some highly devout like Newton, Mendell, Priestley, etc. who often hedged their ideas on their theology. Newton spent years investigating Revelation, and wrote how it impacted his understanding of Mechanics, as an example.

Today we learn Christian concepts as we grow up, from our culture and society; such as linear time, or an ordered knowable world. Don't assume these were universal, for they certainly weren't. They are assumed cultural baggage of our new crop of Atheist Scientists, but are by no means self-evident universal values. Empiricism is not a natural human state - it needs to be taught. There are fascinating experiments to this effect, called the Princess Anne experiments, that you could look up.

If you cut the silver thread that connects the Sciences to Abrahamic religious theology, then a lot of your philosophic foundation falls apart, and you are left having to make massive axiomatic leaps of faith to support the edifice of Science. The denigration of Philosophy on the altar of what is 'Practical' or 'Pragmatic' is the result, as Scientists don't want to address the fact that they are making assumptions themselves, when they pride themselves on being Empiric. Even here though, a lot of Theoretical physics has moved away from Scientific Method entirely, so we may be looking at the twilight years anyway.

I hope I managed to answer your question, but without Abrahamic Theology, the cultural groundwork for Science to come into existence simply is not there. 5000+ years of Civilisation never led to it, in multiple forms, and in quite advanced and sophisticated societies, without that background. Likewise, it is now established in our culture, and other cultures that adopt Science are in essence Westernising thereby, but with growing relativism in our society driven by its secularisation, Science itself is in trouble - look at Transgenderism and seeing Biologic Sex as merely a human construct, or the Antivaxxers, to see the type of problems that lie ahead for Science on account of this.

 

[Hazelelponi]

Nvm..

 

[OBuscador]

@Quid est Veritas? Thanks for this informations, this is a lot for me to keep in mind.