Atheism, A Grim Position?

[Alex K]

For most people an ultimate intentionality would probably be termed as "God". Theism posits an ultimate intentionality (God) that is somehow actively associated with our reality.

My point being that they simply define for themselves that that's a viable stopping point. It's no more valid than me simply declaring something else the stopping point. I don't see that the statement that something is ultimate has any content.

[robvalue]

Atheism itself makes no attempt to answer any questions at all. Every atheist has their own answers about value, morality and everything else.

Personally I think that no, nothing has any intrinsic value from a neutral standpoint. The universe is just stuff going on, and we're pointless little creatures on a speck of a planet. But to us, things do have meaning, that being the meaning we attribute ourselves. So it all depends on the viewpoint.

I see no use in thinking of what our value or morals are from a universal perspective, except as a philosophical exercise.

I don't think there's any reason to believe the universe was fashioned, has any purpose or intent. It just "is". But that doesn't mean that what we experience doesn't matter to us, because it does. And it's from this we derive morality and meaning. Some people like to involve imaginary characters in the scenario, some don't feel the need to.

[JuliaL]

Not quite the metaphor you are looking for

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ove..._decisions

Ummm.... I'm not sure you can use SCOTUS as the superior to SCOTUS without getting into recursion. Turtles all the way down.

[*steve*]

In my view there is an ultimate basis for value, grounded in God.

Defining God as the ultimate basis for value, the unmoved mover, the un-caused cause doesn't narrow the field to a personal god, particularly one who wants and deserves worship. There has to be more.

You mentioned ineffable.

For a reason. Ineffability potentially eliminates access to any attribute of God. If there is something unknown about him/her/it/them it may hide an unlimited number of alternative qualities. Not that without knowing everything, you know nothing, but when a primary characteristic of the subject of study is mystery....unknowns abound. Lack of evidence is not proof of absence. But the longer God goes without unambiguously showing him/her/it/them self(ves), the higher my intuitive suspicion that he just ain't there grows.

So now we get to religious experience. Another tough one. The great theologian Paul Tillich spoke of the "mystical a priori". Calvin spoke of "sensus divinitatis". Both reflect some sort of ontological and epistemic union with the divine.....I add to this dynamic with what I call an informed intuition.

Each of these, distilled and filtered through my worldview, reduce to "because it feels right," with more flowery language. I prefer to maintain my model of reality on those observations which have reliably been shown to be 'true' in the past. (note: my definition of truth is that a proposition contains truth in direct proportion to the degree to which that proposition correctly predicts the future.) This entails evidence shown to have been factual and a network of concepts (call it theory) which serves to bind the factual observations together. I cannot claim to know the future, only what appears to be the past. My faith lies in the belief that the future will closely resemble the past simply because it appears to have always done so (Hume acknowledged.)
In this context, I find the "because it feels right" rational to be highly suspect. What we observe about maladaptive minds, mental illness, psychedelic drugs, trans cranial magnetic stimulation of the sense of the transcendent etc. is more consistent with God (the more anthropomorphic, personal god of the major religions) being a mechanistic imaginary construct of brains which developed and served to keep us alive and reproducing (hence the concentration on sex.) Note, I am not claiming a teleology for this mechanism. Chemistry doesn't care if we have children, but we do. Those minds who didn't care one way or the other about getting through to the next generation were supplanted by those that did. And the ones that did are the ones that we see around us.

There does seem to be a need for something outside of our universe to have caused it. Big bang and all that. However it is not required to be a personal, intelligent entity. Every time we have looked where God should be, in the clouds, on the mountain tops, in the life essence of protoplasm, He wasn't there. I expect to find the same result if or when we are able to observe directly the factors reasonably able to be credited with kicking off the universe. It is possible we will never be able to look in that direction: flatlanders can't look up. But we may find evidences in our universe which at least hint at its cause: gravity as a bleed through from another dimension, whatever the hell dark matter & dark energy are. But at the bottom, I expect there will always be a limit to what we can observe, the directions we can see if you will. We have found ourselves to be very small in a very big universe. If God is still fixated on a very small patch of sand in the middle east, it doesn't show. It is rationally unwarranted to assume or claim that the places we can't look are the places which contain God though it may be socially advantageous to do so.

Thank you for your insightful and civil approach. I think that folks around here appreciate that though it is uncommon. Most theists we see dive in with hackneyed arguments about second law or un-caused cause. It becomes tiresomely repetitive. I think you're wrong if you believe in one of the internally contradictory gods, but at least you are examining carefully the reflex hammer before you hit yourself in the head with it.

Julia

I don't have any issue with your approach. Seems reasonable to me. As there is much uncertainty in our understanding of reality, my gold standard is reasonableness.

However, for many religious believers there is something strongly compelling. Religious experience. In that, what may have been thought to be ineffable, can become effable. It's a powerful force that is not easily dismissed. Some characterize religious experience as something dramatic. It can be, but, in my view, it doesn't have to be. Most people probably have deeply moving experiences that invoke awe, gratitude, enlightenment, etc. How those moments are interpreted is an individual thing. Now, religious experiences may be delusional or an artifact of evolutionary processes. Who knows. The important question I ask, is if those experience do, in fact, point to the divine, is there a way to extrapolate that religious sensibility into a reasonable religious framework.

[Alex K]

Not quite the metaphor you are looking for

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ove..._decisions

Ummm.... I'm not sure you can use SCOTUS as the superior to SCOTUS without getting into recursion. Turtles all the way down.

Didn't you know that the initial S in SCOTUS stands for "Superior to S"?

[*steve*]

Not quite the metaphor you are looking for

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ove..._decisions

Not a problem. Justices disagree from one bench to another. Even if a decision is reversed, SCOTUS is still the ultimate adjudicator.

But my last post still stands, why can't I just define something as ultimate? Is there a deeper criterion?

You can. Question is whether or not, that ultimate is truly a stopping point. Take for example, physics. The search for the "theory of everything" continues. If it is ever found, by definition, it stops there.

[Mudhammam]

Define "ultimate".

Good question. Perhaps something like, "that which all else is based on". Or "the final ontological stopping point."

You mean like... you?

[JuliaL]

I don't have any issue with your approach. Seems reasonable to me. As there is much uncertainty in our understanding of reality, my gold standard is reasonableness.

In your estimation, is the God you assert omnipotent? Omniscient? Cosmic Muffin, Hairy thunderer? It's hard to fight a vapor.
Reasonableness, like any other assessment can only be judged in light of currently available information.
Religious contentions of an omni-god raise this bar to an exceptionally high place which cannot be sustained. No amount of evidence short of omniscience could fully prove the character being demonstrated to be in fact omniscient. If God, where? If YHWH, why has he withdrawn from open contact with his people?

However, for many religious believers there is something strongly compelling. Religious experience. In that, what may have been thought to be ineffable, can become effable. It's a powerful force that is not easily dismissed.

Power is not truth. Knowledge of truth, though possibly an illusion, has been shown to be more useful in guiding people to a controllable, predicable future. I assert without proof, that a fully chosen and known, actively determined future would be more likely to make me happy than one in which I arbitrarily chose or had chosen for me a path purporting to be true without evidence. I believe this because my alternative includes the option of self deception as well as other results only one of which need be more optimal.

is there a way to extrapolate that religious sensibility into a reasonable religious framework.

The chief sales rep for Mexico at the company I worked for once told me a profound truth. He said, "The answer to any question is always,'It depends.'"

It depends.

[Whateverist]

Define "ultimate".

Good question. Perhaps something like, "that which all else is based on". Or "the final ontological stopping point."

Is there such a thing? Have you any reason to think there would be?

Personally I believe there are choices which are ultimately most satisfying for me but I don't always recognize them. I don't have any ultimate platitude to guide my action. I think living is like making art. You trust your process and recognize it more and more as it emerges. But I don't start off with a set of blue prints. Living isn't an exact science nor is there an ultimate to-do list which I must check off.

[Alex K]

You can. Question is whether or not, that ultimate is truly a stopping point.

What is the absolute criterion to determine when something is truly a stopping point, one that is better than simply defining it to be?

Take for example, physics. The search for the "theory of everything" continues. If it is ever found, by definition, it stops there.

Even if such a theory should exist, it is scientifically impossible out of principle to know whether we have found it. And I think that's not hair-splitting in this discussion, but illustrates the nature of the problem.