Number of posts: 753 Age: 59 Location: southeastern north america ;) Registration date: 2008-09-02
Subject: Re: Why is theism popular among philosophers? Wed Aug 12, 2009 3:21 pm
CartesianTheist wrote:
That whole argument could be used of all atheists too to discredit their worldview. It's obtuse, it's unsubstantiated, it commits the genetic fallacy, it contains ad hominem. In fact this whole diatribe could be used to dismiss the scientific community too! They were born!! They were born in a culture!! They're human!!
Let me quote you from earlier yet again:
Quote:
Wow
As in wow, now he resorts to the "diatribe" word.
Nice dodge, yet again. You're very good at that. I did not say or imply that it couldn't/shouldn't be equally assessed against anyone else. You frame it as the dichotomy of theist or atheist (with of course, agnostic/deist slippable in as it's still not embracing The God/Theos of The Holy Text/Bible). Which reminds me, that actually all theos theorists should be under the label of agnostic --because they don't KNOW (gnosis) anything either. They say just so much: they believe. Well, that might not be precisely accurate; they do know that there are these physical writings. But they go by faith-based belief as a major premise of their theorical. The writings are factually nothing but hearsay.
So back to this particular post's point: sure, apply any and all of the 3 to any and all folks --no argument from me, as that's within my intent (and held valuable). And then what settles the dust? The water of requiring the application of empirical-based science. And I don't mean some Holy Water, allegorical or otherwise. Just as is done with another Theory: evolution, one finds/builds upon contemporary, as inherent in, empirical evidences to back up the theory. It takes superstition labeled as Faith to take historical hearsay evidence as scientific proof for a theory. Per the alleged "most philosophers" claim I'm betting, most degrees of (the"popular") theory of Theism (i.e. "God"="God Revealed to Chosen Ones") are built upon hearsay evidence (not to mention circularly reasoned) evidence. After all, like Einstein, if they don't, they're Deist (or Creatorist or IDist), not Theist theorizers.
Thus, what about "atheists" --as you keep slandering like an authority*-- to you, but more accurately, the empirical rationalists, passing the scientific muster in rejecting hearsay when dealing with seeking to address their childhood, cult(ural), and human fears/superstitions? *[again, I don't recall any one calling any one an asantaist, when they, unlike children, do not believe the story of Santa; so why should any accept your label of atheist, just because they choose the empirical default position aka not believing everything men can come up with/imagine/write/declare?]
Number of posts: 753 Age: 59 Location: southeastern north america ;) Registration date: 2008-09-02
Subject: Re: Why is theism popular among philosophers? Wed Aug 12, 2009 4:53 pm
While I had them at hand, thought I'd post a couple of Einstein's other quotes (FWIW --and duly noting, he's 20th century & not 21st):
Quote:
I received your letter of June 10th. I have never talked to a Jesuit priest in my life and I am astonished by the audacity to tell such lies about me. From the viewpoint of a Jesuit priest I am, of course, and have always been an atheist.
- Albert Einstein, letter to Guy H. Raner Jr, July 2, 1945, responding to a rumor that a Jesuit priest had caused Einstein to convert from atheism; quoted by Michael R. Gilmore in Skeptic, Vol. 5, No. 2
I have repeatedly said that in my opinion the idea of a personal God is a childlike one. You may call me an agnostic, but I do not share the crusading spirit of the professional atheist whose fervor is mostly due to a painful act of liberation from the fetters of religious indoctrination received in youth. I prefer an attitude of humility corresponding to the weakness of our intellectual understanding of nature and of our own being.
- Albert Einstein, letter to Guy H. Raner Jr., Sept. 28, 1949, quoted by Michael R. Gilmore in Skeptic, Vol. 5, No. 2
---About.com
Perhaps to connect this more to specific topic, or at least clarify my awareness, maybe it is significant that CT made it "philosophers" who (so he's claiming) are finding theism as valid, rather than it being popular amongst 21st century scientists? (noting, that it may very well could be that they will be his next thread's equal claim)
Number of posts: 640 Location: NOLA Registration date: 2007-10-24
Subject: Re: Why is theism popular among philosophers? Wed Aug 12, 2009 8:29 pm
CartesianTheist wrote:
Phlogiston wrote:
I haven't read 90% of this thread due to time constraints.
What do I get out of believing in an abstract undefined God? I mean I weighed myself for the first time in 2 years out of curiosity. I didn't believe any weight I might have had. Why should I care more about God? Or better yet, why should philosophers?
If theres no reason, I can forget about it. Thus not read the rest of this thread. I only care so far about God because others tell me I will burn in hell etc. and harrass me for not believing.
Hey there! Let me just say that the God being spoken of here has been defined but in parts of the thread not read I suspect. I'll let you judge who's doing the harrassing! If you don't care about God that is, of course, your choice. But IF you don't care then why be here on this thread? Slight paradox? Maybe not. I don't know.
Yep I found that God was defined. Still what do I get out of it that not believing gets? Like I said I only care so far about God because others tell me I will burn in hell etc. and harrass me for not believing. Your definition of God has none of that and is therefore not worth time. You said" I'll let you judge who's doing the harrassing!". Does this mean you think the athesists are doing the most harrassing? I have been harassed all my life for not believing. Enough reason to engage in this thread, not a paradox.
Guest Guest
Subject: Re: Why is theism popular among philosophers? Thu Aug 13, 2009 3:22 am
ReIgNoFrAdNeSs wrote:
CartesianTheist wrote:
There is no internal, analytic contradiction in the definition given for God thus far. I'm sorry that annoys you so!
Right. The contradiction is in how you are defining "God" here vs. the claims you have made about "God" on other threads. This is why you are trying so hard to NOT define "God"; you don't want to contradict the claims you've made ABOUT "God".
Specifically, you don't want to contradict the claim about "God" creating the universe, and so you're trying to avoid having to explain how a "being" (or anything else) can "exist" without a universe.
At some point, you're going to run up against this contradiction, because you will run out of words to use as tools of evasion.
The word we are at now (if I accept your definition of "person" ["Something which is conscious of its own existence"]), is "exist", ("existence").
That is the word you need to define now. So go ahead, try to define "exist" in such a way that it need not involve a universe.
You can't run forever. You will run into the contradiction you've so cleverly avoided by playing hard to get with your definitions.
Let's see what you got smarty pants:
Define: "exist" (and don't circle back on the main concepts you've already used). At some point, you're going to have to deal with the issue of what it means to "exist", when there is no universe to exist within.
Well, you have still not demonstrated any contradiction thus far. All you are saying is that I want to avoid a contradiction. Of course I do - duh!! And it can be done too even without resorting to via negativa. As has been demonstrated by so many theistic philosophers.
It's clear you want 'person' to be synonymous with 'human' since this would cause the definition of God problems. However, it is well agreed philosophically that they are NOT synonymous. Now, if I quote a theist philosopher making the point she will be shot down for bias [fallaciously of course] so let me avoid that non-debate by quoting you an atheist philosopher who agrees with me:
"The concepts of human and person, then, are different concepts: being a person is different from being a human. But there is no reason why an individual cannot be both: most humans are also persons. But it also seems clear that not all humans are persons, and quite possible that not all persons are humans." Nicholas Everitt 'The Non-existence of God' p.280
Now you're into predicting the future eh? At some point in the future I'm going to contradict myself. In other words you cannot pin anything down as a contradiction so far so you're going to charge me NOW for a crime I'm going to commit in the future? Sounds like an exciting scene out of 'Minority Report' doesn't it. Will I escape the future as known by you?! The suspense is killing me!! Hehe.
Define 'exist'! Okay, I'll let the dictionary do all the work for me:
1. To have actual being; be real. 2. To have life; live: one of the worst actors that ever existed. 3. To live at a minimal level; subsist: barely enough income on which to exist. 4. To continue to be; persist: old customs that still exist in rural areas. 5. To be present under certain circumstances or in a specified place; occur: "Wealth and poverty exist in every demographic category" (Thomas G. Exter).
I've put number 1 in bold since I think it's the usage most common in discussions about God. 'Brainy Quote', where most of us 'smarty pants' hang out also says:
"To be as a fact and not as a mode; to have an actual or real being, whether material or spiritual." Emphasis mine.
The ball's back in your court! I take it you're going to offer us a definition that is taken, not from the dictionary, but from some proponent of philosophical materialism. That will not be enough however. In order for you to define existence as only being possible within the universe you have to demonstrate [not merely assert!] that there can be no such thing as existence [in the way now defined] outside of the universe. If you manage that you will be the first atheist philosopher ever to do so and I'm quite sure you should send your thesis to Oxford University and not me. You'll be giving speeches around the world within weeks.
Guest Guest
Subject: Re: Why is theism popular among philosophers? Thu Aug 13, 2009 4:05 am
eye2i2,
Claiming that I would quote Ayer if he agreed with me is rather an odd and pointless way of imagining one's life away don't you think? It does not acheive anything. Would you even be reading Ayer if he had been a theist? I wonder if you have read any books by theistic philosophers. At least I can boast to having read more atheist philosophers than most atheist debaters I've ever met. Most of them don't even bother reading their own classics. At least I have done atheism that courtesy! Having done so I find it somewhat immature to be asked about what I might do had someone else thought differently. What might I have done if all books were blue cheese turkey burgers? I may well have turned out to be very fat! Who knows?
No I think the burden of proof is on the person who wants to insist that logical positivism can be revived. It's dead. If someone wants to resurrect it it is their job to make the intellectual case for such.
Theocher! Haha. That's good. I don't mind sarcasm. I'm use it too after all. Still, there comes a point where one has to get passed that.
You see by calling him a deist I'm only labelling in the proper way what he called himself. Please explain to me what is so gross and improper about this? I take it that if [since we're into using our imagination today] he'd called himself an atheist you'd also criticise people for calling him such???
Therefore, whatever we call him - he made it clear he did not want to be called an atheist. I say, let's respect his wishes.
Maybe you would like to explain what you want "empirical rationalist" to mean [my turn to ask for the definitions now!! horaaay].
By the way, you asked for this list so here it is. Support for the contention that there are a large number of theistic philosophers out there:
Marilyn McCord Adams Robert M. Adams William Alston Jennifer Ashworth Harriet E. Baber Deane Baker Michael Beaty W. David Beck Francis Beckwith Michael Bergmann Andrei Buckareff J. Budziszewski David K. Clark Stephen Clarke Matthew Clarke Paul Copan Winfried Corduan Jan A. Cover William Lane Craig Charles L. Creegan Thomas Crisp George Cronk Richard Davis Stephen T. Davis Scott A. Davison Keith DeRose Reinaldo Elugardo C. Stephen Evans Linda L. Farmer Alfred J. Freddoso R. Douglas Geivett Harry J. Gensler Jonathan Gold Douglas Groothuis Stuart C. Hackett Glenn A. Hartz William Hasker Kenneth Einar Himma Peter Horban John Hawthorne Hud Hudson Jim Kanaris Robert C. Koons Saul Kripke Jeffrey Koperski K.D. Kragen Peter Kreeft Norman Kretzmann Steve Kumar Jonathan Kvanvig Robert A. Larmer William F. Lawhead Brian Leftow Mark Linville Scott MacDonald Alasdair MacIntyre Ronald McCamy Hugh McCann Timothy J. McGrew Pat Manfredi William E. Mann Gary R. Mar Christopher Menzel Trenton Merricks Scott H. Moore J. P. Moreland Wes Morriston Paul K. Moser Michael Muth Mark Nelson Joseph Novak Timothy O’Connor Ric Otte Alan Padgett Alvin Plantinga Louis P. Pojman Alexander Pruss Hilary Putnam Del Ratzsh Michael C. Rea Bruce Reichenbach Victor Reppert Nicholas Rescher Greg Restall Phil Ruetz Thomas Senor Daniel Howard-Snyder Francis Howard-Snyder James S. Spiegel Eleonore Stump Michael Sudduth Frederick Suppe William Sweet Richard Swinburne Thomas Talbott Charles Taliaferro Gregg ten Elshof William Tolhurst Dale Tuggy Bas van Fraasen Peter van Inwagen Daniel von Wachter William F. Vallicella Donald Wacome William Wainwright Bernard Walker C. Robert Wetzel Barry Whitney Phillip Wiebe Edward Wierenga Peter S. Williams Nicholas Wolterstorff David Yandell Keith Yandell Dean Zimmerman charles taylor (oxford, mcgill, northwestern) keith ward (cambridge, oxford) terry eagleton (cambridge, oxford) denys turner (cambridge, oxford, yale) michael ignatieff (cambridge, oxford, harvard, berkeley) terence penelhum (cambridge, oxford, yale) janet soskice (cambridge, oxford, cornell) jonathan sacks (cambridge, oxford) john hick (cambridge, oxford, cornell) ravi zacharias (cambridge, oxford) john hedley brooke (cambridge, oxford) john lucas (cambridge, oxford) roger scruton (cambridge, princeton) john haldane (cambridge, oxford) vern poythress (cambridge, harvard) philip clayton (cambridge, harvard, yale) john rist (cambridge, toronto) elizabeth burns (cambridge) michael dummett (oxford) peter geach (oxford) brian davies (oxford) john leslie (oxford) basil mitchell (oxford, princeton) john hare (oxford, yale, princeton) diogenes allen (oxford, yale, princeton) john jenkins (oxford) leszek kolakowski (oxford, yale, berkeley) peter harrison (oxford, yale) paul griffiths (oxford, chicago) robert george (oxford, harvard, princeton) pamela anderson (oxford, yale) michael novak (harvard, stanford) elie wiesel (yale, columbia) ernan mcmullin (yale, princeton) holmes rolston (yale, colorado) robert cummings neville (yale)
Number of posts: 628 Registration date: 2009-02-09
Subject: Re: Why is theism popular among philosophers? Thu Aug 13, 2009 4:23 am
I appreciate this impressive list of scholars who have no doubt given careful thought to their positions.
Guest Guest
Subject: Re: Why is theism popular among philosophers? Thu Aug 13, 2009 4:37 am
eye2i2,
That is a good suggestion. I might just take up the gauntlet on that one. Some science and theism threads will appear don't you worry.
Still, empirical scientists are not authorities on politics, or ethical theories, or law, or musical theory, or philosophy of art - so why should they be considered authorities on epistemology, metaphysics, ontology and philosophical theology? Well, the short answer is - they shouldn't! Because they are not.
This was made all too clear by a brilliant biologist and zoologist who wrote a book on theology recently. Lovely satire but he got all the main arguments proposed by theists completely wrong! Several atheist philosophers groaned. In fact I don't know of a single philosopher who has rated this book worthy of reading. He should have enjoyed his retirement as a great biologist. Instead he's proving how ignorant a scientist can be of basic logic and philosophical rigor. It's a real shame.
Most empirical scientists are naive realists for a start. A view in philosophy which is heavily criticized - hence its labelling. Emp;irical scientists don't get paid to question the existence of the test tube before them - they just use it and get on. They assume the world to be real. They assume the world to be measurable. They assume the universe to be a rational, understandable place. Only in philosophy do those assumptions get analysed and justified.
A scientist has no more right wandering into philosophical matters than a new black pair of jeans has in a whites wash!! Was it not biologists who told philosophers to "sod off" with the whole intelligent design thing? Were they right to do so? Of course they were. ID is not science. You can't have it both ways though!! If they were right, they too, should keep their noses out of philosophical matters - or approach them as they are - laymen.
As for requiring a 'scientific approach' to philosophy - I have no idea what you're talking about here? What do you mean? That philosophers start wearing white overalls and buying test-tubes? If so that's just silliness. Science has its method but philosophy has another [viz. argumentation - both a posteriori AND a priori, debate, demonstrations, syllogisms, logic, inference, deduction etc. etc.].
For example. How would a 'scientific' approach to epistemology begin exactly?
"Well we have now doubted all that is physical around us, let us now use that physical world to demonstrate it is reliable without assuming the very thing we're setting out to prove..."
That lab experiment would be a hoot!!!
Guest Guest
Subject: Re: Why is theism popular among philosophers? Thu Aug 13, 2009 4:40 am
Phlogiston wrote:
You said" I'll let you judge who's doing the harrassing!". Does this mean you think the athesists are doing the most harrassing? I have been harassed all my life for not believing. Enough reason to engage in this thread, not a paradox.
Well there are a couple who are either doing that or they are infatuated. Either way it's not good?!
I'm sorry you have been harassed by theists but two wrongs don't make a right my mother always said!!
Number of posts: 753 Age: 59 Location: southeastern north america ;) Registration date: 2008-09-02
Subject: Re: Why is theism popular among philosophers? Thu Aug 13, 2009 7:16 am
CT, I appreciate the work of listing of names (and in the applicable cases their affiliations). It's a good start [I haven't yet gotten around to the vid linked]. Thus I have the one qualifier: I think its still a bit anecdotal, if not biased-- based on how I hear "theism is popular" per your OP title wording. If in hearing that akin to intending to convey it is some majority, I'm hearing incorrectly, I'm open to hearing why. Perhaps you merely meant it subjectively; or wrote it on the fly. It seems still, that a comparative list is necessary. Perhaps the key words mean different things, contextually. [and I still want to know how many who say they are Theists embrace that as entailing Divine Word(s)-- see Shahar's earlier post]
I do appreciate what I hear you saying regarding considering scientists' positions on the theories within theosophism. I don't quite get how Philosophers (equally "specialists") don't get the same disregard (as generally irrelevant/insignificant/can't "see")? In other words, why should one not disregard/discount philosophers' opinions on the theories of Theos/God using the same criteria used for disqualifying scientists? Consider how you note scientists and test tubes, being equal to philosophers/philosopher-theologists and their untested boobs (words)?
Which leads me to my next response to your OP query:
Q: Why is theism popular among philosophers?
R: Why does it matter? Why should most folk pay them any attention?
They aren't after all, contextually speaking, Theologiansproperly trained. [neat, how you slipped in "philosophical theology", like it's somehow "official" while "scientific atheology" would be/is bogus?!? even slicker, speaking of boobs, how it's "theology" rather than say "theosophism"; but wait, there is "astrology" so maybe "theology" is worthy of considering; study "theos" like you study "scorpio" and "leo"... 2 pisces feed a multitude...]
Btw, fwiw (and admittedly perhaps a bit of another threadjack), I don't embrace the concept of "Authorities" (an untest boob) as it's popularly accepted. Nothing is Authoratative for me, other than if it's meant simply that it has an author (and one key example is: voluntary-contracts have authors and I value honoring v-contracts). The points made by an author are either then valuable or not so much. One example being dictionaries. Dictionaries simply have authors; and as such, they're simply recording their perspective/values of historical usages. The central issue for me then being: does the person I'm seeking to communicate with, value the same author(s) that I do?
And which lends to another FWIW: I'm beginning to place those embracing the label of Philosopher* in the same category as those embracing Theologian. Their opinions just really don't matter much when it comes to practical, rational living. Who's to say when today's "popular" bunch is yesterday's Vienna Circle... (taking the historical view/track record, that's pretty well a given) *[balancing that with it's arguable that most, if not all folk are "philosophers" ie most folks at core "love having knowledge" because it simply is essentially living]
Such opinionating/theorizing I'll ignore, with the exception of if and when one starts espousing tenets that manipulatively prey upon fear, especially in the case of children; take up the likes of Holy Revelation Theosism and I very likely will speak out. Fortunately as far as my experience, those heralding themselves as Philosophers e.g. the popular ones haven't gone to that in my corner of the world, so for the most part I leave them to their Department apartments/Circles (ala Vienna Redux). There's also something to evaluate regarding liability by association.
Number of posts: 640 Location: NOLA Registration date: 2007-10-24
Subject: Re: Why is theism popular among philosophers? Thu Aug 13, 2009 1:17 pm
CartesianTheist wrote:
Phlogiston wrote:
You said" I'll let you judge who's doing the harrassing!". Does this mean you think the athesists are doing the most harrassing? I have been harassed all my life for not believing. Enough reason to engage in this thread, not a paradox.
Well there are a couple who are either doing that or they are infatuated. Either way it's not good?!
I'm sorry you have been harassed by theists but two wrongs don't make a right my mother always said!!
you didn't answer my question,"Still what do I get out of it that not believing gets? " so I will assume this is just like a debate about if sight is better than hearing. I have been in those and it can be fun but its moot just like if spiderman could beat up batman. Personally I belive there are currently an even number of stars in the universe, at this point that debate holds more novelty to me. To all their own tho. This is personal preference and not UPB hahaha.
Guest Guest
Subject: Re: Why is theism popular among philosophers? Thu Aug 13, 2009 2:26 pm
Well, DUH!
Any fool knows that SuperMan could beat up Spiderman.
Number of posts: 753 Age: 59 Location: southeastern north america ;) Registration date: 2008-09-02
Subject: Re: Why is theism popular among philosophers? Fri Aug 14, 2009 7:33 am
Phlogiston wrote:
I have been in those and it can be fun but its moot just like if spiderman could beat up batman. Personally I belive there are currently an even number of stars in the universe, at this point that debate holds more novelty to me. To all their own tho. This is personal preference and not UPB hahaha.
Guest Guest
Subject: Re: Why is theism popular among philosophers? Fri Aug 14, 2009 8:23 am
Phlogiston wrote:
Still what do I get out of it that not believing gets?
On one level - this appears to be a rather insignificant question to me and I don't mean that rudely it's just I don't understand where it's coming from.
What do we 'get' for our taxes paying for theoretical physicists to sit in labs, doing their experiments and then tell us that not even they understand their findings? Would you shut down their labs? Even if they discover a law regarding the behaviour of sub-atomic particles what do you 'get' out of that? What do we get out of knowing that what we think is solid really is not? Such findings probably won't 'get' you anything in your lifetime.
My first response to the question then is one of ambivalence.
My second response would be to suggest that there is something to get out of it however. What could be more important than the truth? If we can find our way towards the truth [even if it will always be a non-complete account] then surely that is worth something of great value.
Thirdly I will give you my view which will probably sound odd but I do think that what we think about God is important. A.W. Tozer said: "What you think of God is the most important thing about you." You may disagree but I think there's a lot at stake here. Not just to our accounting for reason and purpose [and I do not think a rational atheist can possible believe in either if they truly believe their creation myth] but also to how we behave. "Without God, everything is permissible." said Dostoevsky and I think he is right. Atheists can, of course, behave themselves. It's just they struggle to know why they behave and why anyone else should [as roundly proven by Mr Molyneux in UPB!! Once he'd written the title of the book he was too intellectually exhausted to defend it so he didn't bother!!].
Guest Guest
Subject: Re: Why is theism popular among philosophers? Fri Aug 14, 2009 8:27 am
IF the analogy about superheroes stands isn't it funny that all the greatest universities in the world have experts in the field teaching graduate and post-graduate courses in the warfare of superheroes??
Number of posts: 753 Age: 59 Location: southeastern north america ;) Registration date: 2008-09-02
Subject: Re: Why is theism popular among philosophers? Fri Aug 14, 2009 8:37 am
CartesianTheist wrote:
IF the analogy about superheroes stands isn't it funny that all the greatest universities in the world have experts in the field teaching graduate and post-graduate courses in the warfare of superheroes??
Funny isn't the "f" word I'd choose, no.
Any more than if I did think it was funny, I'd agree that such are the "greatest"; nor to a label of "experts" nor "teaching". Kings for a Day, just as arguable.
While I had them at hand, thought I'd post a couple of Einstein's other quotes (FWIW --and duly noting, he's 20th century & not 21st):
