Ludwig Wittgenstein's "defense" of religion

[DBT]

Let's apply the same arguments (for and against) to the question of life - beings - existing elsewhere in the universe/multiverse.

Are you an atheist insofar as there being Higher Beings anywhere?

If 'Higher Beings' means some sort of Super Advanced Aliens, we have no evidence for their existence. As we do not have evidence to support a justified belief in their existence, it is not justified to hold a conviction in their existence....even if they do happen to exist. We can only speculate.

 

[Lion IRC]

I've read heaps of (secular scientific) literature proposing that;
a) it's arrogant hubris to presume humans are the highest life form in the uni/multiverse
b) extraterrestrial life is virtually a statistical certainty.

I agree. Angels are not wishful thinking.

 

[skepticalbip]

I've read heaps of (secular scientific) literature proposing that;
a) it's arrogant hubris to presume humans are the highest life form in the uni/multiverse
b) extraterrestrial life is virtually a statistical certainty.

I agree. Angels are not wishful thinking.

That is an interesting leap. Are you now claiming that angels are nothing more than mortal alien critters that evolved from primitive life forms to develop a much better understanding of the universe than current humans? That sounds like you are adopting Arthur Clarke's ideas of how humans would view advanced aliens if they meet, "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic", rather than a Biblical view of angels.

Or are you going with the Eric Von Daniken "Chariots of the Gods" explanation?

 

[Lion IRC]

I don't actually think that God, angels, Jesus, the afterlife... are 'super' natural.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

I've read heaps of (secular scientific) literature proposing that;
a) it's arrogant hubris to presume humans are the highest life form in the uni/multiverse
b) extraterrestrial life is virtually a statistical certainty.

I agree. Angels are not wishful thinking.

Lion, I enjoy your tongue-in-cheek responses.

How do your rank your beings? I mean I can be killed by a bacterium that is infinitesimally small and not sentient by human standards. Those lower life forms outnumber the cells in my own body yet we live in a symbiotic relationship. Where exactly does one end and the other begin?

Religion really doesn't have rational answers to anything. It's just emotionally satisfying for folks with a discognitive disposition.

 

[Copernicus]

I said..."The sort of being who can do stuff that atheists describe as "supernatural" because humans can't do likewise."

And I replied..."It should be noted that you never did give a definition of what you thought a 'Higher Being' was, even though it was you who first mentioned that expression in this thread. Instead, you deflected the question by making it all about what atheists don't believe in."

You have simply doubled down on your deflection. Your so-called definition puts it all on what you think atheists claim, and you even put scare quotes around "supernatural". Why? Does that mean that you do not know what atheists mean by that term? Or you disagree with what they mean? Why didn't you just ask whether any of us believed in the existence supernatural beings? It should be clear to you that most of us reject belief in the supernatural and have explained why, so it isn't clear why you bothered to ask it.

I have many times pointed to the Nicene Creed as a statement of theological distinctives re. God.

In this thread? I must have missed it. In any case, the question was what YOU believed a "higher being" to be. Do you think of all "higher beings" as having supernatural powers?

And it's not "deflecting" when I say I'm ok with using the atheist's definition of God(s)
Please don't pretend atheists have no idea what it is they don't believe exists.

It is a deflection, because you were asked what YOU meant by YOUR expression "higher being". You replied by making it about what you think atheists mean. Nobody here is pretending to have no idea what they reject belief in any more than you are pretending to have no idea what the expression "Santa Claus" refers to. There are atheists who take a so-called "non-cognitivist" position, and Wittgenstein actually made reference to them. However, nobody but lpetrich here seems really interested in discussing Wittgenstein's defense of religion.

Thee - "I'm a non-stamp collector"
Me - "What's a stamp"?
Thee - "I don't know, you tell me"

It would appear that such a person would be someone who collects anything that isn't a stamp, and I'm quite sure that a non-stamp collector would be able to tell you what a stamp is. Non-stamp collectors would probably have some very elaborate positions on the subject.

Besides, it's not like atheists are gonna sit back and say OK Lion IRC we accept your definition of God. My time on this forum has been frequently punctuated by episodes of atheists 'splaining to me how omnipotence/omniscience works and how atheists are better educated about God(s) and religion than everyone else.

So pardon my suspicion when those same people invite me to "define Higher Being"

Sorry, but I don't have the power to pardon you for that passive aggressive attack on people who merely ask you to clarify your own term. Only higher beings can grant you such a pardon.

 

[Lion IRC]

I've read heaps of (secular scientific) literature proposing that;
a) it's arrogant hubris to presume humans are the highest life form in the uni/multiverse
b) extraterrestrial life is virtually a statistical certainty.

I agree. Angels are not wishful thinking.

Lion, I enjoy your tongue-in-cheek responses.

I assure you that's not tongue in cheek.

How do your rank your beings? I mean I can be killed by a bacterium that is infinitesimally small and not sentient by human standards. Those lower life forms outnumber the cells in my own body yet we live in a symbiotic relationship.

Notwithstanding parasitic and symbiotic and altruistic cooperation relationships that can exist, I would say that it's not hard to discern which species has or has not got the ability to subjugate the other.
And if humans are made extinct by some pathogen, it won't be labelled genocide.
We humans, on the other hand, do have the (sentient) ability to deliberately cause or prevent the extinction of a 'lower' species - by means and devices which those lower beings may liken to 'supernatural' powers.

Where exactly does one end and the other begin?

I don't know - exactly.
Perhaps it's a smooth, impervious hierarchy.

Religion really doesn't have rational answers to anything. It's just emotionally satisfying for folks with a discognitive disposition.

That's what I think about atheism.

 

[Lion IRC]

And I replied..."It should be noted that you never did give a definition of what you thought a 'Higher Being' was, even though it was you who first mentioned that expression in this thread.

I have elaborated and answered that question several times.

Instead, you deflected the question by making it all about what atheists don't believe in."

Nope. I've said I share your definition of the type of biblical God you disbelieve. Are you totally ignorant of biblical theism? Of course not. Are you are asking me for MORE information than what you currently understand to be the Christian doctrines regarding the nature of God.

Your so-called definition puts it all on what you think atheists claim, and you even put scare quotes around "supernatural". Why?

Because I don't use supernatural the same way atheists (typically) do.
I don't find it 'miraculous' that a Higher Being (Jesus) can turn water into wine.

Does that mean that you do not know what atheists mean by that term? Or you disagree with what they mean?

I understand very well what atheists (typically) mean by the word supernatural. And I stated that meaning very plainly. Viz; stuff humans can't do and don't understand.

Why didn't you just ask whether any of us believed in the existence supernatural beings?

Why on earth would I ask a self-professed atheist THAT?

It should be clear to you that most of us reject belief in the supernatural and have explained why, so it isn't clear why you bothered to ask it.

WUT
You just now asked me why I didn't ask atheists if the believe in supernatural beings and now, in your very next question, you ask why I did?

In this thread? I must have missed it.

Have you or have you not ever read the Nicene Creed.
I recite it from memory every time I go to Mass.
I'm astonished to find myself accused of not being willing or able to define the very exgensive, publically available, Christian theology of God's nature.
Perhaps I've overestimated your familiarity with the worlds largest religion.

In any case, the question was what YOU believed a "higher being" to be. Do you think of all "higher beings" as having supernatural powers?

Yes, by your definition of supernatural, that is what I think.
See? I'm trying to be cooperative and harmonise yours and mine/our definition of Higher Being.
Why make this harder than it needs to be?

This latter day trope, whereby atheists all of a sudden start claiming they know nothing about the God they have been trying to debunk for centuries, is a lame way of trying to hit the reset button.
It's like your New Atheist counter-apologetics have stalled and you wanna go back and start from scratch.

And it's not "deflecting" when I say I'm ok with using the atheist's definition of God(s)
Please don't pretend atheists have no idea what it is they don't believe exists.

It is a deflection, because you were asked what YOU meant by YOUR expression "higher being".

*sigh*
I don't hold the copywrite on monotheistic theology. It's not my original idea.

You replied by making it about what you think atheists mean. Nobody here is pretending to have no idea what they reject belief in any more than you are pretending to have no idea what the expression "Santa Claus" refers to.

WUT?
I know exactly what is meant by the name Santa Clause. I'm not asking anyone to define Santa.
Go on!
I dare you you ask me what that name means.
Red coat. Long white beard. Says Ho Ho Ho. Loves giving presents. Real name Nicholas.

There are atheists who take a so-called "non-cognitivist" position, and Wittgenstein actually made reference to them. However, nobody but lpetrich here seems really interested in discussing Wittgenstein's defense of religion.

Thee - "I'm a non-stamp collector"
Me - "What's a stamp"?
Thee - "I don't know, you tell me"

It would appear that such a person would be someone who collects anything that isn't a stamp, and I'm quite sure that a non-stamp collector would be able to tell you what a stamp is. Non-stamp collectors would probably have some very elaborate positions on the subject.

Someone who doesn't know what a stamp is wouldn't call themselves a non-stamp collector.

Besides, it's not like atheists are gonna sit back and say OK Lion IRC we accept your definition of God. My time on this forum has been frequently punctuated by episodes of atheists 'splaining to me how omnipotence/omniscience works and how atheists are better educated about God(s) and religion than everyone else.

So pardon my suspicion when those same people invite me to "define Higher Being"

Sorry, but I don't have the power to pardon you for that passive aggressive attack on people who merely ask you to clarify your own term. Only higher beings can grant you such a pardon.

When folks start dropping accusations that they are under a "passive/aggressive" attack, I think it's best to call time on the couch trip. /therapy session

 

[DBT]

Religion really doesn't have rational answers to anything. It's just emotionally satisfying for folks with a discognitive disposition.

That's what I think about atheism.

Why would you think that? Can you explain the reasoning?

 

[Lion IRC]

Yes.
It's because atheism doesn't answer existential why questions.
Whether by wilful ignorance or wishful thinking, atheism entails too many unanswered questions.
Occams Razor holds that the simplest explanation (the one without God) is the best.
IOW - if you posit God you're introducing something new which requires (yet another) explanation.
But surely all those unanswered existential questions leave atheism as the more confusing, more baffling, more enigmatic idea?

Which theory is more complete? Which would Occam say has the least loose strings?
The one which only answers the how questions?
Or the one which answers both the how and the why questions?

 

[DBT]

Have you considered that 'atheism doesn't answer existential why questions' because currently there are no answers to these questions? Which makes atheism the rational position. Rational because, unlike faith, atheism does not give answers that have little or no foundation.

 

[skepticalbip]

Have you considered that 'atheism doesn't answer existential why questions' because currently there are no answers to these questions? Which makes atheism the rational position. Rational because, unlike faith, atheism does not give answers that have little or no foundation.

Well, to be fair, theists do give answers that have foundations to why questions. But they are cultural foundations reflecting the religious beliefs of that culture, not answers that inform us about physical reality. Ask a Hindu, Zen Buddhist, Shinto, and Christian why there is life and you will get four very different answers (and no way to verify any of them). All can tell us something about the belief systems of those four religions but nothing useful in understanding life's beginnings.

Why questions are useful in discovering someone's religious beliefs about some question, not so useful in discovering physical principles.

 

[abaddon]

Religion really doesn't have rational answers to anything. It's just emotionally satisfying for folks with a discognitive disposition.

That's what I think about atheism.

Yes.
It's because atheism doesn't answer existential why questions.
Whether by wilful ignorance or wishful thinking, atheism entails too many unanswered questions.
Occams Razor holds that the simplest explanation (the one without God) is the best.
IOW - if you posit God you're introducing something new which requires (yet another) explanation.
But surely all those unanswered existential questions leave atheism as the more confusing, more baffling, more enigmatic idea?

How is God a "rational answer" (in accord with reason or logic) to any "existential why question"? 'I want to have cosmic significance and an ancient book says I do so therefore I do' -- is that it?

Atheist's wishful thinking is the wish that the law of parsimony, "Occam's Razor", be applied? No, that's not wishful thinking. Wishful thinking fulfills wishes, not 'the law of parsimony' . Your method to criticize atheism is lame: 'If atheists say this about theism, then I need to figure out how to make it seem like it applies to atheism instead'. It doesn't matter if what you say is right so long as atheism is wrong... right?

It's methodological naturalism that has not found evidence of a cosmic purpose, and philosophical naturalism that accepts that as the most probable answer.

Which theory is more complete? Which would Occam say has the least loose strings?
The one which only answers the how questions?
Or the one which answers both the how and the why questions?

Naturalism. For the reason you give: "the least loose strings". The answers need to describe what is well-evidenced, not merely fulfill wishes.

The supernaturalist theist assumes a cosmic significance to his life. For him, it's all or nothing -- God exists and gives it, or there is no goal/purpose/meaning to life at all. But people can decide on their purpose and meaning individually or in groups. So there are meanings in life regardless whether there's a God. A mythology, like that in the Bible, is just humans giving themselves a collective meaning.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Have you considered that 'atheism doesn't answer existential why questions' because currently there are no answers to these questions? Which makes atheism the rational position. Rational because, unlike faith, atheism does not give answers that have little or no foundation.

Well, to be fair, theists do give answers that have foundations to why questions. But they are cultural foundations reflecting the religious beliefs of that culture, not answers that inform us about physical reality. Ask a Hindu, Zen Buddhist, Shinto, and Christian why there is life and you will get four very different answers (and no way to verify any of them). All can tell us something about the belief systems of those four religions but nothing useful in understanding life's beginnings.

Why questions are useful in discovering someone's religious beliefs about some question, not so useful in discovering physical principles.

Right. They're emotionally satisfying superstitious behaviors and beliefs. And I will be the first to agree that these cultural behaviors definitely have survival value. What's important to realize, however, is that they also can be destructive, and often are. It's one thing to think that red is a lucky color. No big deal. It's quite another thing to kill someone for not believing that red is a lucky color. This is religion at its simplest.

 

[Lion IRC]

If you want to draw an artificial line in the sand called "methodological naturalism" and jettison any existential why questions as irrelevant, that's your business. *shrug*

And if you think that "an ancient book" is the only means of knowing God, then that is tantamount to saying Noah, Job, Abraham, Jonah, Moses, etc didn't think God was real because they didn't have "an ancient book".

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

Yes.
It's because atheism doesn't answer existential why questions.
Whether by wilful ignorance or wishful thinking, atheism entails too many unanswered questions.
Occams Razor holds that the simplest explanation (the one without God) is the best.
IOW - if you posit God you're introducing something new which requires (yet another) explanation.
But surely all those unanswered existential questions leave atheism as the more confusing, more baffling, more enigmatic idea?

Which theory is more complete? Which would Occam say has the least loose strings?
The one which only answers the how questions?
Or the one which answers both the how and the why questions?

Why did God create earth and not create a sinless population in heaven from the beginning?
Why did God exist for eternity and all of a sudden decide to create a Universe?
Why doesn't God come down and visit us any more as god supposedly did in Old Testament times?
Why did God deny Adam and Eve knowledge of good and evil and then punish them for not knowing what was good and evil?
Why didn't God want Adam and Eve to eat of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil, and The Tree of Life to live forever?

And on and on in this vein, limited only by our imagination. This why business is pretty silly if you think about it carefully. There are so many whys that cannot make any sense when you start writing about an omni-everything God who does sometimes goofy things that make no sense at all. Why not eliminate original sin in the first minute it appeared? Since original sin creates so much evil and that causes God so much butthurt? Why did God not make appearances to the Canaanites or Egyptians to tell them he existed and how to behave in a manner that pleased God?

Us atheists ask why questions also! Just that we don't limit it to "Why does the Universe exist". Science is beginning to demonstrate the idea that there is an infinite multi-universe that has at bottom, always existed and has no creator and thus no why as to why it exists. Just as there is no why as to why there would be an infinite God who has always existed. All that concept does is push "Why!?" down to another level with no possible answer.

 

[Lion IRC]

Science is demonstrating that the universe has always existed ?

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

Alan Guth, in an interview, asked considering evidence, not just theory, how strong the evidence is for a multi-universe, answered 70% sure. Strong evidence if not yet conclusive. But work on the issue is continuing.



Now, how about evidence God, as described by Christianity, omni-everything, and personal, exists? How does any such evidence deal with the many, many problems that the claims about God's nature generates? All of which demonstrate God as described does not exist?

And again, why does God exist? That doesn't have an answer, does it?

 

[Lion IRC]

I'm much more certain than 70% that there are other space/time dimensions apart from this one.

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

Why does God exist?