Ushering In An Age of Reason....Or Not.....?

In our discussions I have primarily been arguing for and god(s), deistic or theistic, but I do personally believe in a theistic god. I can't see any instance where my beliefs are indirectly incompatible with scientific evidence, and I'm not invoking any Last Thursdayism type of thought into it. No, that is not correct. I have zero problem with the scientific methods of knowing. It is just that I don't agree with the idea of negating any other method of subjectively understanding our world that wouldn't be in conflict with what we can objectively know. Sure, but like I keep saying, that has nothing to say about whether god(s) actually do exist or not. There are all sorts of versions of the life of Robin Hood. Historically I would assume that many of the stories could be objectively shown to be wrong. That does nothing to tell us about whether or not Robin Hood was an actual historical figure or if he was merely a fictional character. About all that it does say is that it opens up the possibility that he was historical. Not really. Either god(s) exist or they don’t, however I don’t see it as a 50/50 proposition, if for no other reason that in order to believe that there is no intelligent mover requires accepting the idea that intelligence can come from a non-intelligent source. That is not the only reason I believe what I do but it is a place to start. I’m sorry but I don’t accept that. The fact still remains that god(s) exists or he/she/it doesn’t. Maybe all of our concepts are wrong but it doesn’t mean that god(s) doesn’t exist. You listed a whole bunch of possibilities, but that still tells us nothing about whether or not god(s) exist.Actually one other thing to consider is this. There is considerable overlap in the major religions today. For Christianity to be true does not mean that everything or even most of what other religions believe is wrong. This is particularly true when it comes to issues concerning the moral code. Sure there are aberrations within individual faiths but the message of love can certainly be found within all of the faith communities that I am familiar with. (I agree that there is a lot of other stuff mixed in with that as well. ) I suggest that we are, over time, homing in on the true nature of God as our understanding of Him evolves.

Absolutely, but it tells us nothing about whether a god(s) actually do exist. I agree that we aren't going to be able to measure God in the way that we measure mass or energy. We aren't going to be dealing with absolutes. [qs=GDR]There is considerable overlap in the major religions today.My only point here was that in some ways our idea of God is drawing closer together which is what I would expect if I am correct that over time we are gradually getting a more focused view of God. Jesus was a man. (Sure I see Him as more than that but that is enough for this.) We know Israel existed in the first century. Jesus was a teacher/rabbi and we know they existed. Jesus preached a message of non-aggression and we know that there were rebellious forces in that part of the world at that time. I think that so far all of those things are indisputable facts, at least in comparison to your indisputable facts. We differ here in that I think that the Jesus of the NT is more than an approximation of an historical figure, but then the story of Robin Hood was not IMHO written to be historical whereas the NT was.I'm just suggesting that there it is reasonable, that as part of this New Age of Reason to consider the sayings of Jesus even if he is just considered to be a prophet which to one degree or another all of the abrahamic faiths believe. The last thursdayism thing is frustrating as it is essentially an attempt to prove something I don't believe. Tell you what: I'll drop any reference to Robin Hood, (it wasn't working out that well anyway ) if you'll drop "Last Thursdayism". (Which I don't think was getting you anywhere either. ) If for no other reason than a large percentage of the world believes it and thinks it has value. Why should this brave new world be based solely on what you believe and disregard beliefs that differ. Essentially you have shown that humans have for one reason or another come to god conclusions that are incompatible with others, showing objectively that many of the conclusions had to be wrong. What you haven't shown is that the generic idea of an undefined god(s), is incorrect, or for that matter that all ideas of god(s) are incorrect.You are of course correct in saying that it is unverifiable, but as the vast majority of the world is a member of some faith group it might be worthwhile getting a consensus about the things that they all agree on and incorporating that into the "Age of Reason". It would at least be more democratic than what you are suggesting IMHO.

You're right. There is no objective evidence for any religious belief. We all consider what we objectively know and come to subjective conclusions.The thing is, if this so-called "Age of Reason" is only based on what we know objectively, or can learn objectively, and thus relegating philosophical or religious subjective thinking to the dust bin, I contend that would be be very limiting, humanly speaking.As for your tag line I'm not sure what point you are trying to make. I agree with it completely and haven't suggested anything else.

It seems that there is no real basis for not believing in god beyond "It subjectively seems unreasonable to me". Surely you can see why in this "Age of Reason" this is not considered a valid basis upon which to draw conclusions?Not trying to be too clever here but the point is that we exist, intelligence exists, there seems to be a moral code or sense of fairness that deep down we all understand, and of course there is the appearance of design. I don't think it is a huge step to conclude that there is an intelligent mover, (insert whatever term you like), involved in our existence. Actually my point wasn't that it made it true. My point was that as a large percentage of the world is having its world view shaped by the idea, then the "AOR" should be informed by that voice unless the intent is to maintain the AOR by force. (When it has been attempted previously it hasn't worked out all that well.) You're right. Bad wording. I only meant a non-specific god(s). A deist would probably fall into the category of believing something like that. In order to say that my method, (whatever method that is), of understanding God can be demonstrated to be flawed requires you to use one of your demonstrably reliable methods to show that my conclusion is wrong. You can't just lump my method of determining truth in with anyone or everyone else. Everyone is an individual. In order to show that my method is demonstrably wrong you have to show that my conclusion is wrong. Belief in Last Thursdayism is also the same as belief in the Easter Bunny as well. This of course makes belief in the Easter Bunny the same as belief in god(s). Would you consider that belief in the Easter Bunny is as reasonable as belief in god(s)? I don't agree that Last Thursdayism is as reasonable a conclusion as it is to conclude that there is an intelligent first cause in the universe.

The objective evidence that you keep repeating tells us nothing at all about whether or not an actual intelligent first cause exists or not. It is completely and totally irrelevant. Sorry. My point, not well explained is that we are all individuals with individual minds, and as a result everyone has come to their general and specific conclusions in their own unique way.There is no point in criticizing my opinion because it is subjective when your belief is just as subjective as mine. You subjectively believe that your view is more solidly grounded than mine, but frankly I see it the other way around.Everyone is the same when it comes to what we believe about god(s). You can call it inductive reasoning if you like. I look at what I do know and then form opinions based on that - just like everyone else. The irrational ones would be the ones that don't share your views I suppose.

Absolutely No it doesn't. Each case is subjectively judged on its own individual merits. Whether the easter bunny, unicorns or the FSM are real or fictional tells us nothing about the existence or non-existence of a prime mover for the universe. It's absolutely necessary. It is unfalsifiable whether or not it is better to help feed the starving in the third world or not, but I sure wouldn't want to live in the Age of Reason where we do nothing. I wasn't denouncing inductive reasoning at all.What I said was:

quote:

---

There is no point in criticizing my opinion because it is subjective when your belief is just as subjective as mine. You subjectively believe that your view is more solidly grounded than mine, but frankly I see it the other way around.

​

Everyone is the same when it comes to what we believe about god(s). You can call it inductive reasoning if you like. I look at what I do know and then form opinions based on that - just like everyone else.

---

My point was to show how we have come to our different conclusions and I was fine with that method being called "inductive reasoning" or any other label you want to put on it.

Omphamistically eh? If you are trying to impress me let me tell you it’s working. When I googled this beauty the only reference that google could find for it was in your post on this forum. It appears that you are the first person on the planet to have employed this very impressive word. Now the trick is going to be how to fit this into my own conversations with the guys down at the pub. If you want to look at it that way then all conclusions are equally subjective in terms of process but not all conclusions are equally plausible. Also of course some people are objectively better informed than others and are more likely to come to a reliable conclusion. (Evolution is a good example.) There are lots of answers in life that are ambiguous - there are many things on which we won't have certainty and never will.The question of whether there is a prime mover or not isn't, at least directly, objectively evidenced so we are left with coming to a subjective conclusion based on things such as intuition etc. with neither conclusion being objectively superior. However, I am firmly convinced that subjectively my conclusion is superior to yours which of course you disagree with. So now you are incorporating unfalsifiable belief. How do you choose which unfalsifiable beliefs are going to be part of this Age of Reason. Some cultures believe in polygamy and some don't. As your view is that moralism has come from a totally natural evolutionary process the there are no absolutes, how are you going to objectively know what is moral and what isn’t?

Hi StragglerSorry to be slow getting back. There are health issues in my family. Sure My only point was that the process is the same. We take what we know objectively to form a subjective conclusion. Obviously some subjective conclusions are objectively better grounded than others. We know that mankind has invented numerous false gods. If we arbitrarily pick one of the gods that has been proposed the odds are that the one we pick will be false. But that isn't what we are talking about. We are talking about any one of them, or even one that hasn't been identified yet existing. We are only talking about an intelligent prime mover. The fact that mankind has invented numerous false gods tells us nothing about whether this prime mover actually exists or not, with the possible exception that the fact we look for one could be an indication that the real thing exists. For our purposes we are only really talking about an intelligent prime mover. The conversation about loving and moral would only arise once it has been conceded that an intelligent prime mover actually exists and at this point, (for some inexplicable reason ) you haven't concede that yet. You still insist on believing that intelligence and thought can come from non-thinking unintelligent origins. In this Age of Reason with no moral absolutes why would the golden rule, which comes from the Bible, be followed. That would be no more moral than just following the law of the survival of the fittest. Actually I would suggest that logically the survival of the fittest would make more sense as you would wind up with humans being smarter and stronger by eliminating those that are weaker and less intelligent from the gene pool.

Actually, how often do you really see it practiced by either nations or individuals? You say it is standard by all ethical traditions but what is your basis for recognizing an ethical tradition? What is the standard you base it on? We have examples of countries that essentially make a deity of the state. They don't have a great track record to put it mildly.It seems there are groups who consider pedophilia acceptable. Who are you in this Age of Reason to say that they are wrong. How about a child who is born deformed? It would seem reasonable to put him to death so that we don't use up resources that the healthy and wise could otherwise utilize. How about we just pass a law that says everyone at age 65 should be put to sleep so that they aren't an impediment to moving society ahead? They can be such a drain. Yes I understand the non-zero sum game theory that he talks about, and yes that often can apply. However often it doesn't and likely never will. Let's for example look at the relationship between Uganda and Britain. How do you make a zero-sum relationship out of that? What can Britain do to gain any meaningful benefit from that relationship? They could probably import some food and a minimum of other goods for their benefit so that they could put something back into the Ugandan economy but it isn't going to be equal. Any western country would be better off just taking over the country militarily, keeping the useful members of as slaves and slaughtering the rest. All of the produce would then benefit them and the countries that they have a zero-sum relationship with.Wright writes in The Evolution of God" the following.

quote:

---

But I don't think a "materialist" account of religion's origin, history and future - like the one I'm giving here - precludes the validity of a religious worldview. In fact, I contend that the history of religion presented in this book, materialist though it is, actually affirms the validity of a religious worldview, not a traditionally religious worldview, but a worldview that is in some sense religious.

​

It sounds paradoxical. On the one hand, I think gods arose as illusions, and that the subsequent history of the idea of god is, in some sense, the evolution of an illusion. On the other hand: (1) the story of this evolution itself points to the existence of something you can meaningfully call divinity; and (2) the "illusion" in the course of evolving, has gotten streamlined in a way that moved it closer to plausibility. In both of these senses, the illusion has gotten less and less illusory.

---

However often, but not always, the Golden Rule if employed will require overcoming the law of survival of the fittest. I have no justification where my survival is concerned in sending money to poor countries of the third world. In fact I'd be better off if they would just disappear so that I might have unhindered use of their resources. That is only true where both cultures are militarily equal. When there are no absolutes different cultures will establish different norms and if one of the cultures decide that kill thy neighbour is the norm then all of humanity will have to react to the reality that they have a neighbour who is keen to slaughter them. I'd suggest that there is only one circumstance where this would have any possibility of success. That circumstance would be the actual existence of a god(s) who has established a moral code that we at one level or another understand.If we are all just a result of particles coming together from completely mindless non-intelligent sources then there is no reason to believe that any moral standard is better than another, and do you honestly believe that everyone is going to come to the same love thy neighbour as you love yourself conclusion. I wish I could conjure up that much faith. Who sets the standard and how do you deal with those who disagree?

That's a given but it only takes one nation that wants to take over its neighbour to get the whole thing rolling. The next neighbour realizes it has to defend itself from this aggressive new neighbour they now have next door and it all escalates from there. I think it is pretty obvious. There are two countries side by side that are militarily equal. The better strategy is co-operation. If however one is stronger than the other, the stronger is nation is no longer better off if they co-operate. They are better off if they conquer their neighbour and control the resources and the manpower of both countries. Yes it is. The thing is though that most of the world is theistic. Most of the world, even if it is just a vague notion, believes that there actually is purpose of some kind and they have at some level a sense that what they are doing can have consequences beyond their life time.If the whole world was atheistic it means that we just exist without any over-arching purpose. It seems to me that we have instilled in all of us a sense that there is a broader meaning to everything than naked self-interest. This is the reason that I suggested that the only way that this "Age of Reason" could actually function is because there is a prime mover with a moral standard that has instilled in us at some level a moral code. Sure we all overcome that moral code on a daily basis but it is a matter of degree I suppose. Sure but what happens when my neighbour's moral code interferes with mine, such as when my neighbour covets my resources and decides they should be his? Are you saying then that those who retain a faith and try to convince others that they have the truth should be ostracized or in prison?

But I thought that the point of is that the Age of Reason was supposed to make things so much better, but now it seems like you're agreeing that it won't be any better. Sure, but doesn't a collective individual morality form the basis for a national morality? Again, I thought that this Age of Reason was going to bring about a better world. Frankly it is my belief that our problems are due to greed and a prideful desire for power. I just don't see where this Age of Reason will make things better, and as a matter of fact I contend that it would make things worse. Wasn't the USSR built on something like this?If you look at how mankind has evolved over the years, I suggest that things do keep improving. I contend that it is due to the fact that overtime God continues to work with us, so that we are gradually coming closer to the people that He wants us to be. It could also be argued of course that this is happening because of greater socialization, cultural memes or whatever you want to call it.The fact remains though that I do think that globally we are slowly becoming a more loving and caring species. Maybe we might consider that the model isn't broken, and that maybe we don't just evolve physically but maybe spiritually as well. Straggler asked this in the OP.

quote:

---

It seems to be the expectation (or at least hope) of the new atheists that an age of reason be ushered into existence. An age in which religious and other superstitious beliefs are sidelined into irrelevance by a near universal acceptance that rationality, reason and evidence based inquiry hold the key to human advancement and progress.

---

What happens when these beliefs aren't sidelined and there is a theistc movement that threatens to derail the whole Age of Reason and is thus deemed to be a threat to all mankind?

Absolutely, but I can't see us getting to that point unless there actually exists a moral code that is absolute. If we are just intelligent creatures that have evolved from material non-intelligent origins, I don't see how an absolute truth about morality can exist.If we are to have an actual Age of Reason I think we have to consider things that go beyond what we can know scientifically. The national morality will then in all likelihood reflect the morality of those in power. I just can't see this working that well. It is JMHO but I suggest that genital mutilation is rare because of the impact of religion over the centuries. I'm just wondering how without any absolute moral code you could be sure that wouldn't happen. What is to prevent a society from deciding that is what should be done? I think the key word there is fabled. How much diplomatic pressure is there for the nation with all the weaponry? Right now there is a check on what happens because people do believe that some things are absolutely immoral. I'm not sure we are becoming more secular. My country is considered secular but at the same time there is a strong belief in looking after those that can't help themselves. I don't believe that love and compassion just evolved from a non-intelligent non-compassionate source. I believe that the compassion in the heart of an atheist comes from God, as expressed in our two countries in our Judeo-Christian roots, no matter what he/she believes about God. I don't see any reason either but I'm afraid I don't have confidence that is how it would go.

Co-operation will sometimes bring about a mtually beneficial outcome. However, when it is zero-sum as Wright talks about then there is a winner and a loser and if there is no absolute moral code then it will inevitably boil down to "might is right". Like you say, that is what is happening now with all of the religious beliefs that we have. Sure some believe the things you are talking about but it isn't really having an impact. Why will the eradication of faiths change that? People will always find ways of banding together for some cause that puts them at odds with some other tribe. It isn't done because of religion. Religion can be used in the hope of justifying it, but the actual cause is to manipulate and control women. (Forced fidelity of you like.) I don't think that the general desires of a prime moral mover are unknowable, but I agree that in many specific situations it is ambiguous as to how to apply that code. Governments are more secular but in terms of being more distant from the church, at least in western cultures. IMHO that is a good thing.My point was that I believe that there is instilled in all mankind an under-girding of the concept that we are to love our neighbour. My perception is that we have taken that on board more than our fore-fathers did. If I am correct and and there is an absolute moral code then we are becoming less secular. Absolutely not, but I contend that the reason for that is there is an absolute moral code that under-girds our societies. But the OP suggested a world where religious, (superstitious) beliefs no longer exist.

That's all fine but it tells us nothing about how morality even became an issue. Sure it developed over time in different cultures but it is a totally different issue when it comes to deciding what the underlying cause is.Either morality developed for cultural reasons completely on its own or it developed because of an underlying absolute morality. It is like intelligence. To believe what you do you have to believe that morality evolved from completely amoral matter. I believe that morality evolved because of a moral, intelligent prime mover. We've gone over this before. I agree with all tha,t but it tells us nothing about whether or not there is an intelligent prime mover. I don't accept that at all. When religion tried to turn its holy texts into books of science there was a couple of problems. We live in a world that we experience naturally, and science does a great job of explaining the natural. The Bible for example is not written to give us answers to scientific questions.I would say that I agree with Wright in that our understanding of God continues to evolve although I realize that Wright sees it as being ambiguous as to whether God actually exists or not. Not in all ways. The fact that we keep assuming god(s) with different attributes is in my view more indicative that the real thing exists than the idea that no god(s) exist. At any rate if my position is circular it is no more so than yours. Again so what? If there is a group of people that believe aliens have taken over the planet then it is has more legitimacy than if no one believed it. It doesn't make it true or false. We all just come to our own subjective conclusions. Personally, if people really do believe that - I think they're wrong.