Comments on: choosing god is an absurdity that leads to a rational outcome

By: Drew Tatusko

Drew Tatusko — Thu, 09 Jul 2009 05:57:29 +0000

i agree that pragmatism does not always equate with rationality, or even good behavior given the social circumstances that define what works for people in a given situation. yet, nonetheless, my claim is that people on the whole do behave this way.

and i would hope i am to robertson as you are to dawkins. that's why we can gt along on opposite sides of the fence as it were! i just bought robert wright's book the evolution of god which argues that we need more religion, but better religion to mediate the good. this makes sense with the sociological observation that religion is never going to be less or more, just different over the long term.

By: ptet

ptet — Thu, 09 Jul 2009 02:49:42 +0000

"I think people make that decision on largely pragmatic grounds and do what works for them in a given situation."

That doesn't make their decisions rational, reasonable or valid. Especially when (as it most cases) their chosen religion tries to tel everyone else how to behave.

"I would just hope that everyone could at least practice the same love of neighbor that Jesus discussed even if you don't think Jesus ever existed."

I agree. I don't think, however, you need "Jesus" (real or imaginary) to do that.

I don't like how Dawkins tries to tell everyone else how to think either. I also don't think you've given a rational or reasonable ground to believe in "God" in anything other than the most ephemeral terms. Maybe you aren't trying to.

I also think that I'm close to you when it comes to philosophy than I am to Dawkins, and maybe that you're closer to me than you are to Pat Robertson.

I came across this great article about the Middle East yesterday. I can't help thinking that the world needs less religion, not more to solve its problems. I don't know if you'd agree with that. Finally, it seems to be that theological arguments are essentially useless. I don't know whether or not "god" or an "afterlife" exists, and frankly no-one else does either.

Peace and (as the Buddhist's say) loving kindness and compassion to all beings...

By: Drew Tatusko

Drew Tatusko — Thu, 09 Jul 2009 00:57:29 +0000

By: ptet

ptet — Wed, 08 Jul 2009 21:49:42 +0000

By: Drew Tatusko

Drew Tatusko — Tue, 07 Jul 2009 20:49:12 +0000

i think that what people call "god" has changed quite a bit since what Kant or Soren assumed. Take Tillich's definition of god as "ultimate concern" or "ground of being." In a post Heidegger world, existence takes ona very different meaning and so, some belief in ultimacy is going to happen with people.

So the question then is, which god must I believe in to be rational? I think people make that decision on largely pragmatic grounds and do what works for them in a given situation. I would just hope that everyone could at least practice the same love of neighbor that Jesus discussed even if you don't think Jesus ever existed.

But you know well enough that I despise Dawkins' pushing of his scientism rooted in logical positivist claims that looks and smell like 19th century stuff that has not a lot of use to most people as much as I despise Pat Robertson's equally logical positivist interpretation of sacred texts. They are of the same cloth, just with different objects that form their respective worlds. I frankly have little use for either of those worlds since I don't think people should live that way to get along and help others be better persons.

By: ptet

ptet — Sun, 05 Jul 2009 08:04:07 +0000

Hi Drew. It's been a while

"The one bit that perhaps they cannot accept is that for most believers in God or in some sort of deity, that belief is ultimately rooted in the experience one has with that deity, or with that sacred reality – not on the sole basis of a text."

The trouble is when religious people use their "text" to tell other people how to live their lives. Which happens a lot.

Kant and Kierkegaard both argued that belief in God was justified or even necessary. Maybe it is. I don't see it personally. Wittgenstein believed in God even after saying "Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent." I don't see how.

Given the impact Kierkegaard, Wittgenstein and other "beieving" philosophers have had on atheistic philosophers, the one thing was can surely say is that non-belief in God is reasonable, even is (and I remain to be convinced) that a belief in God is reasonable.

And if it is reasonable not to believe in God, then the truth-claims of most religions fall.

Best wishes – and a belated happy fourth of July

By: makarios

makarios — Wed, 01 Jul 2009 23:25:27 +0000

Hmmm, thank you. I'll be back to read more of you posts. thank you