Change in religious views

[Prince EWS]

Going back to the actual thread title, I think I might be a deist now, or at least think there's a non-zero chance of deism being 'true'. I still have a lot more research to do on it and the scientific arguments against it are basically just over my head as someone who didn't study any sciences after 10th grade, but the more I look into it the more it interests me. Certainly all the arguments I use against religion don't actually apply to it, leaving me with no other option but to seriously consider it.

 

[hendrix]

Going back to the actual thread title, I think I might be a deist now, or at least think there's a non-zero chance of deism being 'true'. I still have a lot more research to do on it and the scientific arguments against it are basically just over my head as someone who didn't study any sciences after 10th grade, but the more I look into it the more it interests me. Certainly all the arguments I use against religion don't actually apply to it, leaving me with no other option but to seriously consider it.

But you also can't prove that Karl Popper never existed so...

 

[Prince EWS]

But you also can't prove that Karl Popper never existed so...

Right, I haven't read much Popper, certainly not on this topic, hence:

I still have a lot more research to do on it

I'm just musing really. Every chance I come back in two weeks and tell you all that deism is bunk, but as it stands I'm open to it and intend to look into it more.

 

[hendrix]

Right, I haven't read much Popper, certainly not on this topic, hence:



I'm just musing really. Every chance I come back in two weeks and tell you all that deism is bunk, but as it stands I'm open to it and intend to look into it more.

Haha it was a joke.

The point being for something to be empirically "true", it has to be falsifiable. FTR, that is the only advancement in rationalism in more than 2000 years.

My suggestion is not to waste your time on something that is not falsifiable.

 

[Prince EWS]

Haha it was a joke.

The point being for something to be empirically "true", it has to be falsifiable. FTR, that is the only advancement in rationalism in more than 2000 years.

My suggestion is not to waste your time on something that is not falsifiable.

Haha oh right, I should have got that, even I know that much about Popper; I just assumed he'd actually written something about deism when you said that.

I basically disagree though; falsifiable things tend not to be controversial in the first place -- you can just learn about them in ten seconds. It's the messy middle of things that are just probably or probably not true and will forever remain so on the balance of probabilities that we all debate about.

 

[hendrix]

Yeah, instead just read out all the hate and prejudice in religious texts. Then there is no getting away from responsibility of religious ideology. I hope. This forum has collectively taken a religion-apologist turn strangely.

When I first came to this sub-forum I remember being labeled as an apologist for criticising legitimately xenophobic arguments.

It's really weird for me to have to be one of the few to point out that there's a difference between holding a belief, and rejecting a belief.

 

[hendrix]

Haha oh right, I should have got that, even I know that much about Popper; I just assumed he'd actually written something about deism when you said that.

I basically disagree though; falsifiable things tend not to be controversial in the first place -- you can just learn about them in ten seconds. It's the messy middle of things that are just probably or probably not true and will forever remain so on the balance of probabilities that we all debate about.

PEWS the post-modernist.

Haha nah, just because we probably won't or even can't know something in its entirety doesn't mean that it's unfalsifiable. There's a big difference between something that's practically unfalsifiable and something that is actually unfalsifiable - deism being the latter.

 

[Spark]

In fairness, Popper's ideas about falsifiability strictly speaking only apply to science (which is a point I've made here a lot wrt religion). But it's not surprising that many people take that to mean it applies to all fields of inquiry about the world. There's a difference between "this claim is unfalsifiable and therefore outside the realms of scientific inquiry" and "this claim is unfalsifiable and therefore meaningless". I'd put most theological questions in the former category, and most of the claims of modern string theory in the latter.

Speaking of Popper, not related to this thread, but this famous passage from The Open Society should be of interest to people:

Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them. In this formulation, I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be most unwise. But we should claim the right to suppress them if necessary even by force; for it may easily turn out that they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, but begin by denouncing all argument; they may forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is deceptive, and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols. We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant. We should claim that any movement preaching intolerance places itself outside the law, and we should consider incitement to intolerance and persecution as criminal, in the same way as we should consider incitement to murder, or to kidnapping, or to the revival of the slave trade, as criminal.

 

[Prince EWS]

PEWS the post-modernist.

Yeah this is much more true than you probably realise. My entire philosophy is built on subjective value -- it's really just a stone's throw away. That's why I got the shits about the Peterson video.

Fair enough about the rest of the post though.

 

[Ausage]

We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant. We should claim that any movement preaching intolerance places itself outside the law, and we should consider incitement to intolerance and persecution as criminal, in the same way as we should consider incitement to murder, or to kidnapping, or to the revival of the slave trade, as criminal.

That strikes me as too circular to be useful. What type and level of intolerance gives us the green light to be intolerant? Racial? Political? Moral? Intellectual?

I get the sentiment, but a rule like that just serves to justify control while providing nothing substantial to help with navigating the grey areas in which the world exists.

 

[hendrix]

In fairness, Popper's ideas about falsifiability strictly speaking only apply to science (which is a point I've made here a lot wrt religion). But it's not surprising that many people take that to mean it applies to all fields of inquiry about the world. There's a difference between "this claim is unfalsifiable and therefore outside the realms of scientific inquiry" and "this claim is unfalsifiable and therefore meaningless". I'd put most theological questions in the former category, and most of the claims of modern string theory in the latter.

Sure but in this specific case PEWS said:
"or at least think there's a non-zero chance of deism being 'true'"
and
"scientific arguments against it are basically just over my head as someone who didn't study any sciences after 10th grade"
and
"Certainly all the arguments I use against religion don't actually apply to it, leaving me with no other option but to seriously consider it."

In other words, his inquiry is from an epistemological perspective.

 

[hendrix]

That strikes me as too circular to be useful. What type and level of intolerance gives us the green light to be intolerant? Racial? Political? Moral? Intellectual?

I get the sentiment, but a rule like that just serves to justify control while providing nothing substantial to help with navigating the grey areas in which the world exists.

It's not a rule, though.

 

[ankitj]

In fairness, Popper's ideas about falsifiability strictly speaking only apply to science (which is a point I've made here a lot wrt religion). But it's not surprising that many people take that to mean it applies to all fields of inquiry about the world. There's a difference between "this claim is unfalsifiable and therefore outside the realms of scientific inquiry" and "this claim is unfalsifiable and therefore meaningless". I'd put most theological questions in the former category, and most of the claims of modern string theory in the latter.

Completely agree. I try to make this point to lot of fans of Indian/Hindu philosophy who are over eager to claim scientific approval for the philosophy. I keep telling them Indian/Hindu philosophy is not scientific at all but still there is lot of beauty in it. It's great not because it's scientific but because it's an alternative to Science for inquiring into nature of reality. Wish they got my point!!

 

[ankitj]

Going back to the actual thread title, I think I might be a deist now, or at least think there's a non-zero chance of deism being 'true'. I still have a lot more research to do on it and the scientific arguments against it are basically just over my head as someone who didn't study any sciences after 10th grade, but the more I look into it the more it interests me. Certainly all the arguments I use against religion don't actually apply to it, leaving me with no other option but to seriously consider it.

I think the theological position that will suit you is Theological non-cognitivism: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theological_noncognitivism

Theological noncognitivism is the position that religious language – specifically, words such as "God" – are not cognitively meaningful. It is sometimes considered as synonymous with ignosticism.

Theological noncognitivists argue in different ways, depending on what one considers the "theory of meaning" to be.

One argument holds to the claim that definitions of God are irreducible, self-instituting relational, circular. For example, a sentence stating that "God is He who created everything, apart from Himself", is seen as circular rather than an irreducible truth.

Michael Martin writing from a verificationist perspective concludes that religious language is meaningless because it is not verifiable.[SUP][1][/SUP][SUP][2][/SUP]
George H. Smith uses an attribute-based approach in an attempt to prove that there is no concept for God: he argues that there are no meaningful attributes, only negatively defined or relational attributes, making the term meaningless.

An example: Consider the proposition of the existence of a "pink unicorn". When asserting the proposition, one can use attributes to at least describe the concept such a cohesive idea is transferred in language. With no knowledge of "pink unicorn", it can be described minimally with the attributes "pink", "horse", and "horn". Only then can the proposition be accepted or rejected. The acceptance or rejection of the proposition is distinct from the concept.

It is asserted by Steven J. Conifer that to be a positive atheist, one who not only lacks a belief in gods but who furthermore denies that gods exist, is to give credence to the existence of a concept of something for God to refer to, because it assumes that there is something understandable to not believe in.[SUP][3][/SUP]

What I take from it is that amount of time, energy and thought given to the question of existence of God isn't justified. People may have spent inordinate amount of time in past centuries pondering over this question but that alone should not make it incumbent on us to take this question equally seriously. Let's talk about something else.

 

[Spark]

I'll be honest - and take this with a grain of salt because this is the first I've heard of it - but I have a lot of difficulty taking that even remotely seriously or as intellectually respectable at face value. In fact it might be one of the silliest propositions I've ever seen.

I might be just completely missing the boat but the idea that God is a cognitively meaningless word, that God even as an abstract idea is a meaningless one, is frankly the sort of thing which suggests to me that the people who propose such ideas need to get out more.

 

[ankitj]

Rest assured, people who propose such ideas have given enough thought to various concepts of Gods and have even been brought up in religious households. There is no reason to assume complete ignorance just because an opinion is presented to you that is unfamiliar and unacceptable to you.

 

[vcs]

I think the theological position that will suit you is Theological non-cognitivism: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theological_noncognitivism



What I take from it is that amount of time, energy and thought given to the question of existence of God isn't justified. People may have spent inordinate amount of time in past centuries pondering over this question but that alone should not make it incumbent on us to take this question equally seriously. Let's talk about something else.

Interesting.

 

[Ausage]

It's not a rule, though.

Ok. Claim. The criticism stands.

 

[Ikki]

Going back to the actual thread title, I think I might be a deist now, or at least think there's a non-zero chance of deism being 'true'. I still have a lot more research to do on it and the scientific arguments against it are basically just over my head as someone who didn't study any sciences after 10th grade, but the more I look into it the more it interests me. Certainly all the arguments I use against religion don't actually apply to it, leaving me with no other option but to seriously consider it.

This is the stage I was at about 2 years ago. I had been basically an atheist since I was 12. But I've gotten to the realisation that atheism simply doesn't reflect reality or the natural world - much like nihilism, which makes the overlap of those people pretty predictable and when you go down that rabbit hole it's clear to see why.

The 'truth' argument atheists use relies on science and science does not inform you how to act, it just informs you what is and it will never bridge that gap. Ultimately, you need both kinds of truths, but atheism will do little, if not nothing, for you on a personal level in terms of figuring out life. I feel far more directed and in tune with my consciousness once I pieced together what religion is really about. That's not to say I follow any one doctrine of religion but the term 'God' now is simply far more nuanced than to debate it as a spirit in the sky. And those atheists like Krauss and Dawkins that I adored seem like little kids now. Funny turnaround.

 

[StephenZA]

What I can never understand is why we need the idea of a god, a greater being to have created us (and/or the universe).... it seems a very insular thought process of the possibilities regarding our 'spirituality' and place within the universe.