It's both generous and completely mundane to assume that had plato had access to better empirical data he wouldn't have gotten so much wrong, and could have seen past the biases of his own time in a great many regards.

Specifically in regards to cases of right and wrong, of "bad people living bad lives"...empirical data would go a long way towards helping something age better..as it's generations of empirical data that have caused us to change the way we think about right and wrong in the first place.

(February 19, 2022 at 9:02 am)The Grand Nudger Wrote: It's both generous and completely mundane to assume that had plato had access to better empirical data he wouldn't have gotten so much wrong, and could have seen past the biases of his own time in a great many regards.

Specifically in regards to cases of right and wrong, of "bad people living bad lives"...empirical data would go a long way towards helping something age better..as it's generations of empirical data that have caused us to change the way we think about right and wrong in the first place.

Sociology, public health, economics and political science are, in my opinion, sometimes unjustly ignored.

(February 19, 2022 at 1:52 am)Neo-Scholastic Wrote:

(February 18, 2022 at 8:17 pm)Jehanne Wrote: Which makes God even more absurd, because, such an entity is not defined in terms of what it is but in terms of what it is not.

P.S.  If you reply to me is an affirmation that a concept of God is more absurd than the existence of a FSM, I concur.

Welcome to the negative Way, friend. There is a hole in the world where God ought to be.

So how do you apply this 'Negative Way' thinking to the God of the Bible? Ie it's one thing to think of God in this abstract 'God of the philosophers' type way... God is Good, God is Being etc... but how you get from that, or can discern that, from reading the Bible, especially the OT, has frankly always been a complete mystery to me. Ie how do you get from the dynamic and seemingly arbitrary, spiteful, jealous (as it is itself claimed to be in the Bible), insecure and indecisive god of the OT - one willing to repeatedly smite whole groups/populations for the sins of a few, just to make a point or advance a narrative - to this somewhat static-seeming abstract concept of a God of the Five Ways... God is capital G Good itself, God is capital B Being itself? Basically I'm asking, how does 'Negative Way' thinking apply in practical terms to reading the Bible?

(February 19, 2022 at 1:52 am)Neo-Scholastic Wrote:

(February 18, 2022 at 8:17 pm)Jehanne Wrote: Which makes God even more absurd, because, such an entity is not defined in terms of what it is but in terms of what it is not.

P.S.  If you reply to me is an affirmation that a concept of God is more absurd than the existence of a FSM, I concur.

Welcome to the negative Way, friend. There is a hole in the world where God ought to be.

As Anais Nin said, we don't see things as they are, but rather as we are. The postulation of an absence tells us about what a person values and hopes and what their ideals are; it says little about the world outside them. Those who say there is a God shaped whole in the world are describing themselves, not the world.

(February 19, 2022 at 1:52 am)Neo-Scholastic Wrote:

(February 18, 2022 at 8:17 pm)Jehanne Wrote: Which makes God even more absurd, because, such an entity is not defined in terms of what it is but in terms of what it is not.

P.S.  If you reply to me is an affirmation that a concept of God is more absurd than the existence of a FSM, I concur.

Welcome to the negative Way, friend. There is a hole in the world where God ought to be.

And naturalism continues to fill that hole. At one point in human history, it was an unimaginably vast pit of ignorance and fear. Today, it is a shallow depression into which the ignorant and fearful occasionally stumble.

Boru

(February 18, 2022 at 9:32 pm)Belacqua Wrote:

(February 18, 2022 at 2:03 pm)LadyForCamus Wrote: Saying “You haven’t provided sufficient evidence or sound reason to convince me your claim is true,” is a perfectly sufficient reason to withhold belief in that claim, at least tentatively. Though the person rejecting the reasoning used to support the claim is still responsible for explaining why the claimant’s reasoning is fallacious, because logic can be objectively assessed and critiqued. In other words, if someone puts forth a cosmological argument, and the respondent says, “nope. That argument is fallacious.” or “the premises are false.” then they haven’t yet done the work of supporting and justifying those counter-claims. And others of us enjoy a more in-depth discourse on the subject of metaphysics, beyond simply, “I’m not convinced, so I’m done thinking about it.” I don’t see anything wrong with that.

This is all very well said, I think! Thank you for posting it. 

(It's pretty much what I've been saying, but since you're much nicer than I am people are more likely to read it with an open mind.)

It allows dialogue. So “You haven’t provided sufficient evidence or sound reason" is perfectly fair, and allows the person making the claim to explore what "sufficient evidence" or a "sound reason" might look like to the respondent. 

We saw earlier someone making two claims: 1) there is no empirical evidence for God, and 2) we should not believe in things for which there is no empirical evidence. 

If people were inclined, this is a very reasonable way to begin a discussion of classical theism, which of course never claimed that God would be some sort of physical object accessible to the senses. Since Plato, God is much more like Justice, or Mercy. Or numbers. These are things we don't sense, but can know of in the mind since we extrapolate their existence from actions and objects in the world. 

I know that most people here won't accept this argument either, but it shows how, when someone presents his reasons, discussion is possible.

Well, I think you’re quite nice, intelligent, and very reasonable, but probably a bit misunderstood. Showing an interest in certain topics can get a person boxed, labeled, and summarily dismissed pretty quickly around here, and I’m guilty of it myself. It’s just the sheer amount of dishonest interlocutors that blow in and out of the forums on a regular basis starts to jade folks after a while, and you stop giving people the benefit of the doubt. 

At the end of the day,  some people enjoy digging into subjects like epistemic foundations, and others don’t. It really just boils down to personal preference and interest in the subject matter. Some atheists are more practically-minded; i.e. “no god seems to be impacting my life in a detectable way, therefore I’m not going to waste another second of my precious time considering it” (my husband), while others of us enjoy perseverating on metaphysical questions simply for the joy of it, (or because we can’t turn our brains off, as is the case for me), even if it doesn’t change the way we live our lives or lead to any definitive, tangible answers. But regardless of any personal inclinations, as you mentioned, intellectually honest discussions can’t happen if both parties aren’t willing to analyze their reasons for why they believe or don’t believe something. This gets crudely interpreted as, “you’re saying both participants share an equal burden of proof,” which isn’t necessarily correct depending on the nature of the discussion, but both sides certainly bear a responsibility to explain and justify their reasoning. Otherwise it’s not a productive discussion, or really a discussion at all.

(February 19, 2022 at 10:23 am)emjay Wrote:

(February 19, 2022 at 1:52 am)Neo-Scholastic Wrote: Welcome to the negative Way, friend. There is a hole in the world where God ought to be.

So how do you apply this 'Negative Way' thinking to the God of the Bible? Ie it's one thing to think of God in this abstract 'God of the philosophers' type way... God is Good, God is Being etc... but how you get from that, or can discern that, from reading the Bible, especially the OT, has frankly always been a complete mystery to me. Ie how do you get from the dynamic and seemingly arbitrary, spiteful, jealous (as it is itself claimed to be in the Bible), insecure and indecisive god of the OT - one willing to repeatedly smite whole groups/populations for the sins of a few, just to make a point or advance a narrative - to this somewhat static-seeming abstract concept of a God of the Five Ways... God is capital G Good itself, God is capital B Being itself? Basically I'm asking, how does 'Negative Way' thinking apply in practical terms to reading the Bible?

Those are complex questions well beyond the scope of this thread. That said, the path from Plotinus's One to the "I am" revelation to Moses is very short. Whereas it takes much contemplation to get to Christ cruxified.

What I will also say is that my personal approach to bible study is more esoteric and heavily influnced by Swedenborg.

The bible 

The "divinely inspired " choose your own adventure book 

(February 19, 2022 at 3:00 pm)Neo-Scholastic Wrote:

(February 19, 2022 at 10:23 am)emjay Wrote: So how do you apply this 'Negative Way' thinking to the God of the Bible? Ie it's one thing to think of God in this abstract 'God of the philosophers' type way... God is Good, God is Being etc... but how you get from that, or can discern that, from reading the Bible, especially the OT, has frankly always been a complete mystery to me. Ie how do you get from the dynamic and seemingly arbitrary, spiteful, jealous (as it is itself claimed to be in the Bible), insecure and indecisive god of the OT - one willing to repeatedly smite whole groups/populations for the sins of a few, just to make a point or advance a narrative - to this somewhat static-seeming abstract concept of a God of the Five Ways... God is capital G Good itself, God is capital B Being itself? Basically I'm asking, how does 'Negative Way' thinking apply in practical terms to reading the Bible?

Those are complex questions well beyond the scope of this thread. That said, the path from Plotinus's One to the "I am" revelation to Moses is very short. Whereas it takes much contemplation to get to Christ cruxified.

What I will also say is that my personal approach to bible study is more esoteric and heavily influnced by Swedenborg.

In my opinion, Moses did not exist as a historical individual, kind of akin to Prester John.

It doesn't take much whittling to get a square peg in a round hole either. I suspect that contemporary christians might be able to recognize that their contemporary pagan counterparts appear to be capable of doing the exact same thing...arriving at disparate conclusions about the divine and a host of other issues, and it doesn't indicate anything to those christians about the accuracy or historic provenance of those beliefs.

Comic book superfans and star wars nerds do it too.