Freethought & Rationalism Archive

REASONABLEST · 03-07-2003, 04:18 PM

Thanks to all the respondents, especially JEST2ASK with her warm welcome.

After reading all your views and thinking about the question, I have some tentative ideas, work in progress....

Here's the stated "problem":

We believe in love, honor, TRUTH, things that cannot be perceived or measured, things without "substance." We have FAITH that others share our commitment to such feelings, ethics, principles. When a theist asks how is that different from believing in a deity or supernatural forces, what is the best answer?

What love, honor, truth, etc. SHARE with deities and supernatural forces is that they are ALL generated or created by us. (Of course the theist isn't going to agree). And they are dependent on us for their existence. Feelings, ethics, principles don't live beyond or without human life. They are interpersonal.

The most telling point I can come up with at the moment is that love, honor, truth, etc., do not require a suspension of reason to accept. They do not violate physical laws. Though we can't touch them, we can define them, point to them, give examples, even prove truths (e.g., through logic or mathematics). We can see them in action and say yes, this is what I mean. So far as I'm aware, this is not true with deities and supernatural entities.

You comments appreciated. R

christ-on-a-stick · 03-07-2003, 07:31 PM

Hi REASONABLEST,

Quote:

The most telling point I can come up with at the moment is that love, honor, truth, etc., do not require a suspension of reason to accept. They do not violate physical laws. Though we can't touch them, we can define them, point to them, give examples, even prove truths (e.g., through logic or mathematics). We can see them in action and say yes, this is what I mean. So far as I'm aware, this is not true with deities and supernatural entities.

Good point.

In addition, (AFAIK) people don't believe that things such as love, honor and truth have *active* properties. Meaning, for instance, "love" does not, taking on a life of its own, "do" things (unless you believe in a literal Cupid!!!

) Concepts such as love, honor and truth are just that - concepts as opposed to entities and don't have the capability to intercede in human's lives (i.e. miracles) or cause events to happen.

REASONABLEST · 03-08-2003, 03:05 PM

hi coas --

thanks so much for your fine reply. I'm inexperienced at using these resources, so I hope this gets to you.

In any case, I liked your clear distinction between concept and entity and their natures and capabilities.

Also, I don't know what AFAIK means. Please enlighten.

cordially, r

sakrilege · 03-08-2003, 04:21 PM

AFAIK

As Far As I Know

Bumble Bee Tuna · 03-08-2003, 06:07 PM

The argument is "If concepts like love "exist" then why can't God?"

The problem is this is a non sequitor. (There is no reason to link the two. God is an entity, not a concept. Therefore arguing about accepting the existence of concepts has nothing to do with God. It's the equivalent of saying "If my desk is brown, why can't God exist?" It just doesn't make any sense.

-B

03-07-2003, 04:18 PM	#1
REASONABLEST Junior Member Join Date: May 2002 Location: hawaii Posts: 7	Belief And Evidence Thanks to all the respondents, especially JEST2ASK with her warm welcome. After reading all your views and thinking about the question, I have some tentative ideas, work in progress.... Here's the stated "problem": We believe in love, honor, TRUTH, things that cannot be perceived or measured, things without "substance." We have FAITH that others share our commitment to such feelings, ethics, principles. When a theist asks how is that different from believing in a deity or supernatural forces, what is the best answer? What love, honor, truth, etc. SHARE with deities and supernatural forces is that they are ALL generated or created by us. (Of course the theist isn't going to agree). And they are dependent on us for their existence. Feelings, ethics, principles don't live beyond or without human life. They are interpersonal. The most telling point I can come up with at the moment is that love, honor, truth, etc., do not require a suspension of reason to accept. They do not violate physical laws. Though we can't touch them, we can define them, point to them, give examples, even prove truths (e.g., through logic or mathematics). We can see them in action and say yes, this is what I mean. So far as I'm aware, this is not true with deities and supernatural entities. You comments appreciated. R

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

03-08-2003, 03:05 PM	#3
REASONABLEST Junior Member Join Date: May 2002 Location: hawaii Posts: 7	hi coas -- thanks so much for your fine reply. I'm inexperienced at using these resources, so I hope this gets to you. In any case, I liked your clear distinction between concept and entity and their natures and capabilities. Also, I don't know what AFAIK means. Please enlighten. cordially, r

03-08-2003, 04:21 PM	#4
sakrilege Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: Cleveland, OH, USA Folding@Home Godless Team Posts: 6,211	AFAIK As Far As I Know

03-08-2003, 06:07 PM	#5
Bumble Bee Tuna Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: Middletown, CT Posts: 7,333	The argument is "If concepts like love "exist" then why can't God?" The problem is this is a non sequitor. (There is no reason to link the two. God is an entity, not a concept. Therefore arguing about accepting the existence of concepts has nothing to do with God. It's the equivalent of saying "If my desk is brown, why can't God exist?" It just doesn't make any sense. -B

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.