Gnostic Atheism

[reggieM]

That’s the thing. I don’t believe the god described by Feser is logically possible. That is, it doesn’t matter how many worlds there are, Feser’s god can’t exist.

Ok, I don’t know about Feser’s God. I know he’s a Catholic, but I think he uses a philosophical approach to explain God and for me, I don’t understand how it works so I can’t comment.

But I think usually, those arguments start by looking at the cause of things and then reasoning that anything that exists has a cause to exist - so it was caused by something else. And that eventually, there would need to be a first cause of all things, something that was not caused by something else.

 

[JapaneseKappa]

Ok, I don’t know about Feser’s God. I know he’s a Catholic, but I think he uses a philosophical approach to explain God and for me, I don’t understand how it works so I can’t comment.

But I think usually, those arguments start by looking at the cause of things and then reasoning that anything that exists has a cause to exist - so it was caused by something else. And that eventually, there would need to be a first cause of all things, something that was not caused by something else.

I’m not talking about the “God of the philosophers,” I’m talking about Feser’s Catholic-thomistic conception of God.

 

[reggieM]

I’m not talking about the “God of the philosophers,” I’m talking about Feser’s Catholic-thomistic conception of God.

I am not challenging, I may agree with you – but what do you find illogical about it?

 

[PRmerger]

Thank you and you brought to mind something else. I note this tendency in myself- a desire to win or score points, or worse, humiliate the other person (you) in some way. I find that is not respectful to the other person and it’s part of my personality that I have to change.
I totally respect your point of view, I accept much of what you say and disagree elsewhere. I could continue to argue about it, but I think I have a good idea about how you approach the issues, so I can’t go any further.
For me, when it’s a question of trying to understand God and engaging in that kind of discussion, it’s a matter of learning and moving towards greater understanding.
You may feel that you’ve refuted all of the points I’ve raised. I don’t see it that way, but that’s why I think we disagree about things at a much deeper level than can be sorted out in this kind of conversation.
In any case, thank you again for your follow-up.

And this beautiful response is something only a Christian could do. Humility with grace.

:tiphat:

 

[Vera_Ljuba]

The question of a “married batchelor” is one of a time-line.
You have already proposed that there could be some other kind of time, somewhere else in another universe (and another kind of space).
So, yes, there could be a married batchelor.
A man was a batchelor and now he is married. Those are two discrete elements on a timeline. However, if the timeline is such that all events happen simultaneously, then both events can be present at the same time. Or, the man is married and can go back in time in some way and speak to himself as a batchelor. Same man appearing in two time periods. Which is the real one?
It might be said, that a person cannot be in one place and another at the same time.
But (many) Catholics (like myself) believe that bilocation is possible.
I am not trying to prove that but to indicate that there is a possibility.
In an infinite number of universes, there are an infinite number of factors, conditions, forces.

The phrase “married bachelor” is a usual short form for expressing a logical contradiction. It does NOT mean that someone was a bachelor at some time, and then married some other time. It means that the person has two contradictory attributes at the same time and in the same context (namely “bachelor” and “married”).

The proposition of “time travel” in the classical sense leads to a logical contradiction, so it is impossible. The classical sense means to step out from the space-time reality, and bypassing the flow of time, get back into the reality either in the past, or in the future. Both lead to logical problems. But that is not important at this time. My only point is that having infinitely many possible worlds is not a “magic wand” to solve all problems. But is a lot of fun to explore the different corollaries (like necessary vs. contingent existence).

If you prefer, use the “four-sided triangle” or “honest politician”. This latter is - of course - tongue in cheek.

True. If a discussion starts, for example, with “I propose that God, in the Catholic idea of who He is, actually exists” - then it’s necessary to know what that idea is.

That is something I agree 100%. So far I have seen several definitions of God, and all of them had some kind of problems.

 

[Vera_Ljuba]

And this beautiful response is something only a Christian could do. Humility with grace.

:tiphat:

Hah. Us non-Catholics are only able to respond with arrogance and disgrace. Sheesh.

 

[JapaneseKappa]

I am not challenging, I may agree with you – but what do you find illogical about it?

Consider for example: edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2010/02/trinity-and-mystery.html

In this article Feser lays out a plainly self-contradictory description of God, and then asserts that it is not self-contradictory (because religion says so) and defends this assertion by claiming that it is impossible for anyone (himself included) to really understand the description of God he previously laid out. He then tries to distract his readers from the whole issue by bashing naturalism.

Now, I don’t believe you can defend the idea that a circle is a square just by asserting that someone who understands circles and squares better might be able to find a circle that is a square. You can prove circles are not squares, with no higher understanding required. Indeed, all that Feser has done is refused to define his terms, and claimed that there exists some definition of his terms (that none of us can know) that would avoid the problem.

I can and have argued that given any reasonable reading of Feser’s description of God (i.e. any reading that doesn’t involve equivocation) results in a conception of God that is actually self-contradictory, in the squared-circle sense.

 

[reggieM]

I can and have argued that given any reasonable reading of Feser’s description of God (i.e. any reading that doesn’t involve equivocation) results in a conception of God that is actually self-contradictory, in the squared-circle sense.

Ok, thanks for that explanation.
I can see your concern. However, I think you will struggle to be consistent in your view, and that’s what Feser was talking about with his look at naturalism.
For example, when you encounter a quantum paradox, you would say that the observations give contradictory results.
But to be consistent, this would be enough for you also to say that they don’t exist.

 

[JapaneseKappa]

Ok, thanks for that explanation.
I can see your concern. However, I think you will struggle to be consistent in your view, and that’s what Feser was talking about with his look at naturalism.
For example, when you encounter a quantum paradox, you would say that the observations give contradictory results.
But to be consistent, this would be enough for you also to say that they don’t exist.

I don’t think that analogy holds water at all. Scientific results aren’t religious dogma; they don’t give the kind of absolute categorical certainty that Feser is asserting in his description of God. I wonder if you can describe in a little more detail exactly what you think “contradictory” results look like in science.

 

[minkymurph]

The question of a “married batchelor” is one of a time-line.

‘Married bachelor’ is a term used in my culture for a man who is legally married yet continues to lead the life of single man. The ‘married bachelor’ hangs out with his mates in the same way he did before he got married, expects his wife to be his mother, is pretty much an absent father, takes no responsibility, behaves as if he were a single man around other women, may not actually cheat on his wife initially but invariably will. Such a man is married at law, but in no other sense.

Consider the well known syllogism problem.

All 'a’s are 'b’s

All ‘b’s’ are ‘c’s’

All ‘c’s’ are ‘a’s’

Obviously the above is flawed reasoning and it cannot be said, ‘but this does not apply to what I’we are talking about.’ It does. The ‘married bachelor’ as defined by my culture demonstrates just because something is a contradiction does not mean it does not exist.

 

[reggieM]

I don’t think that analogy holds water at all. Scientific results aren’t religious dogma; they don’t give the kind of absolute categorical certainty that Feser is asserting in his description of God. I wonder if you can describe in a little more detail exactly what you think “contradictory” results look like in science.

Well, there is the double-slit experiment where one photon will appear as if it is two photons acting independently. There are other physical paradoxes (google “quantum paradox”).
But more importantly, I have to agree with your original contention in many ways. I don’t think Mr. Feser should have brought the topic of the Blessed Trinity into his site devoted to philosophy.
Philosophy is the study of the world using human reason alone. With logic, guys like Feser seek to establish the categorical certainty you mention.
Yes, I think he made a big mistake with this. Because the Trinity is the subject of religion. It is a supernatural phenomenon.
We only know of the Trinity through divine revelation given by Jesus.
Those kinds of truths are meant for Theology (and Feser is not a theologian anyway).
To try to analyze the Trinity using Philosophical tools ends up with the mess that you rightly pointed out.
The correct or more ordinary way to proceed is:

1. First, a person uses philosophy to understand the rational arguments for the existence of God.
2. Once those are accepted (including arguments for a personal God), then the study of Revelation can show Jesus as a unique, Divine incarnation giving teachings about God.
3. After this, we see Jesus established a Church with the divine authority to explain and codify the doctrrine of God in an infallible manner - given from heaven.
4. Only after all of this, can we talk about the Trinity (definitions defined in Council).

Some people can skip some of those steps. Perhaps they read the Gospel and discover that Jesus is divine - they don’t have to go step by step from atheism through the philosophical arguments.

But again, I would agree that Mr. Feser - in trying to say that the Trinity is compatible with human reason - makes it seem like we supposedly could use philosophy to understand the Trinity, which we can’t.

The only hope we had in the end is to do what he did – and say “well, people have no problem believing in other paradoxes or unexplained phenomenon, so why not the Trinity also?” Not a very good argument, true.

However - given all of that, I also would not say that Feser’s arguments, as confused as they may be, are grounds to conclude that the Christian God cannot exist.

As I said, simply saying that there is a paradox in understanding means that you would expect no paradoxes even in material reality, but they do exist.

 

[Bradski]

Consider for example: edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2010/02/trinity-and-mystery.html

In this article Feser lays out a plainly self-contradictory description of God, and then asserts that it is not self-contradictory (because religion says so) and defends this assertion by claiming that it is impossible for anyone (himself included) to really understand the description of God he previously laid out.

In the linked article, he actually says (in the same sentence) that the trinity is intelligible yet incomprehensible. Bending over backwards as far as I can, I will suggest that maybe he is saying is along the lines of: ‘I understand what you just said as it was in English and the sentence was coherently structured and grammatically correct, but I have no idea what you mean’.

So he admits we cannot understand it, yet it must be true because of…wait for it…testimony. And the testimony comes from…wait again…Jesus! And we can trust Jesus because He resurrected from the dead.

Now unless there was some guy with a notepad and a stylus following Jesus around like some kind of Bronze age papparrazzi, then what Fesser is actually saying is that someone a couple of thousand years ago wrote down what he thought Jesus might have said about the trinity. And even though what he wrote is incomprehensible (as Fesser readily admits), it must be true because that someone says that Jesus said it.

This highlights one of the most common problems we get when one uses scripture as the basis for an argument. ‘Jesus said X is true so X must be true’.

That should be written: ‘Someone whose identity we don’t know wrote something they possibly thought was true or perhaps wished to be true and implied that Jesus actually said it’.

 

[Bradski]

However - given all of that, I also would not say that Feser’s arguments, as confused as they may be, are grounds to conclude that the Christian God cannot exist.

As I said, simply saying that there is a paradox in understanding means that you would expect no paradoxes even in material reality, but they do exist.

I’m not sure that JK is trying to prove that God does not exist. And I think everyone would agree with you that a clumsily presented argument does not mean that the conclusion is wrong.

But what is being pointed out is that contradictions and assumptions and ‘leaps of faith’ abound, not just in Christianity, but in most religions. And to be honest with you, I would say that the vast amount of Christians, who do not spend time on forums such as these discussing the various matters, are totally unaware of them.

As has been said, if you want to turn a Christian into an atheist, then send him to a seminary.

 

[reggieM]

Now unless there was some guy with a notepad and a stylus following Jesus around like some kind of Bronze age papparrazzi, then what Fesser is actually saying is that someone a couple of thousand years ago wrote down what he thought Jesus might have said about the trinity.

It was a culture where memorization was widely practiced, most especially within Judaism - so no, they didn’t need to write it all down when spoken. Jesus taught them for 3 years and returned for 40 days after the resurrection to affirm the teachings. Beyond this, there is the historical evidence of Christian communities from the first era after Jesus’ death where baptism in the name of the Trinity (not to mention early Christian writings) was used. There are four Gospel accounts also - not just one.

And even though what he wrote is incomprehensible (as Fesser readily admits), it must be true because that someone says that Jesus said it.

Feser pointed out that we already accept many things even about our own lives that are incomprehensible. Do you disagree that there are aspects of your life that are incomprehensible and yet you accept them as real?

This highlights one of the most common problems we get when one uses scripture as the basis for an argument. ‘Jesus said X is true so X must be true’.

This is only a problem for people who do not believe that Jesus is divine. In those cases, Scripture should not be (and normally is not) used as a means of argument. Obviously, there’s no sense in making an assertion like you did if a person does not accept the authority of Jesus. Some may mistakenly do this, but I haven’t seen it as the norm. Mr. Feser did it and I fault him for that.

That should be written: ‘Someone whose identity we don’t know wrote something they possibly thought was true or perhaps wished to be true and implied that Jesus actually said it’.

Well you would have to apply the same hyper-skeptical view to all historical records from that era and previous – and actually for many centuries after. But I don’t think that would represent mainstream scholarship - especially with regards to the Gospels which are generally considered accurate about the life and teachings of Jesus. Again, as I said, Christian communities existed throughout that part of the world, founded by the apostles who knew Jesus personally. And their teachings on what He said were consistent with each other.
Was that a grand conspiracy of some kind? For what purpose? To be killed by the Roman state for proclaiming Jesus as the Messiah?
That doesn’t follow.

 

[reggieM]

But what is being pointed out is that contradictions and assumptions and ‘leaps of faith’ abound, not just in Christianity, but in most religions. And to be honest with you, I would say that the vast amount of Christians, who do not spend time on forums such as these discussing the various matters, are totally unaware of them.

Yes, I agree with both points. There are paradoxes and matters that must be accepted on faith in Christianity and most religions. The Christian faith cannot be reduced to philosophical arguments alone. Christ teaches actually, that His followers are expected to exercise faith and not have, or demand, all the answers about God and life and the world. “Walking by faith” is a means of trusting God. It is a way to show and build love for God. If everything was laid out in perfect detail, no faith would be required.
However, we all practice some level of faith in our normal lives.
As many say, atheism is an act of faith in itself. You don’t know what will happen to you after death. You can only believe in some final state, but you have to take it by a leap of faith.
Additionally, life has many paradoxes. Certainly, in the matter of even human love we see it. You couldn’t reduce your relationship with your wife (if so) to a logical syllogism. There are mysterious aspects to a love relationship and to life itself.
In the topic of God, or even the topic of the origin of the universe, there are mysteries that are incomprehensible. This is true in physics itself, as I explained.
So, expecting matters of Divine Revelation to necessarily be understandable by human beings with matematical precision is unrealistic.
None of us created the universe. We’re only here a number of decades. How much knowledge can we really have? How much are we capable of understanding?
I think we all have to stay humble in that regard - believers and atheists. Christians accept the revelations of Jesus as valid data by which we can understand God. But that doesn’t mean we understand everything, or even that we can fully explain key aspects of faith. We give an approximation. We have to use human terminology to explain God who transcends all human capacities.

As has been said, if you want to turn a Christian into an atheist, then send him to a seminary.

Well, given some seminaries that I know of (not all), I would have to agree with you there. But part of that is exactly what I complained about here with Ed Feser – attempting to put God into a scientific and philosophical categorization that is too limited to give a good explanation of who God is.
That’s one reason why the Catholic Church has moved away, somewhat, from Aristotle as the primary structure for theology. He is a help, yes, but far too limited to provide substantial knowledge.

 

[reggieM]

And this beautiful response is something only a Christian could do. Humility with grace.

:tiphat:

Thanks, PR!

 

[Bradski]

Belief in one God in Christianity is based on the Bible, and to my knowledge there is nowhere in the Bible where it categorically states other gods do not exist. Isaiah writes, ‘I am the Lord there are no other gods but me,’ and this has been interpreted as other gods do not exist at all. However, the Israelites do not appear to have believed these other gods not exist at all, but rather their God was more powerful, Supreme, and above all things the Creator. It was for these reason they believed only their God was God or god, and not due to the fact other entities believed to be gods did not exist.

And Exodus 20:3 has God saying that we shall have no others except Him. That is, whoever wrote it (only traditionally attributed to Moses), knew that people accepted that there were more than one God. Gods plural were part and parcel of daily life and had been since people started to try to make sense of the natural world.

Their arguments would have been just as convincing as yours might be now. It’s only if you define your God as a single creator above all others can you end up with monotheism. And who wouldn’t have tried that argument: My god is bigger than your god so our rules need to be followed (oh, and by the way, we’re His chosen people so please bear that in mind in all further matters).

Where the matter of is of extreme public importance - in the private you only have yourself to convince.

I think that it’s only a concern if your belief, made public and corresponding with a majority viewpoint allows you to feel comfortable in the belief, or corresponds to a minority viewpoint, in which case you might feel ostracised. But you mention this below.

Can it not be said an element of fear now exists in terms of stating a belief in God? (Christian God). Is seeking to generate this fear intentionally or unintentionally justifiable on the ground it’s more common and consequential? I personally think the consequences listed by KnowtheSilence could readily be addressed in the absence of discrediting the existence of God, and in fact more productively as where the very existence of God is not only called into question but vehemently opposed it has a radicalizing effect which is highly undesirable.

I don’t see a lot of examples whereby people are trying to discredit belief (the type of statement which would normally draw out the usual suspects on this forum with a few examples of it actually happening). And I live in a quite secular country. I do see a lot of push back when some Christians are seen to overstep the mark (see here for good examples: wwos.nine.com.au/2017/05/25/17/38/margaret-court-boycotts-qantas-over-gay-marriage-stance).

And matters such as those get a lot of airtime and letters-to-the-editor type of comments and you do see a circling of the wagons from some Christians in cases such as that. Some digging in of the theological heels. But I don’t see it as a radicalising effect. At least not in Christianity. But Islam…? A whole new ball game where the rules should be the same, but some on the other side are not abiding by normal moral standards.

My comprehension of supernatural would be different. To me God or gods and the supernatural need not necessarily be one and the same thing. We have little comprehension of what forces exist in the universe outside our immediate physical world, how they operate and their effects.Supernatural to me is an event attributed to an unknown force in that it is a force that cannot be identified, explained by scientific understanding or the laws of nature. The unknown force may be God or a god, but equally it may be a force not yet identified or understood.

But then we could say that about an iPhone just a few hundred years ago. It’s working but we can’t identify how it is working, we have no scientific understanding of it nor of the laws of nature under which it works. I’d say that you’d get 100% agreement on it being supernatural. And a lot of people would put it down to God.

But, hey…we know better now. We know that if there’s something that has no apparent explanation, we don’t assume the supernatural. We just say: ‘Nope, no idea how THAT happened. And we may never know. But we’re working on it…’.

I agree if any god exists the literally anything outside of nature is possible. That said, my philosophy is nothing is impossible. There are things that are highly improbable, but this does not render them impossible. In terms of nature using the term in the context of the physical world, it cannot be said we have discovered the physical world of the universe in it’s entirety.

If God exists, then so do devils and demons, ghosts, dead people making appearances, talking trees, resurrection from the dead, angels, magic…nothing is off the table. It would be as if CGI had crossed over into real life.

 

[minkymurph]

But what is being pointed out is that contradictions and assumptions and ‘leaps of faith’ abound, not just in Christianity, but in most religions. And to be honest with you, I would say that the vast amount of Christians, who do not spend time on forums such as these discussing the various matters, are totally unaware of them.

As has been said, if you want to turn a Christian into an atheist, then send him to a seminary.

Your comment prompts me to ask; is this why you engage in discussing various matters on CAF? In that where Catholics are prepared to spend time on CAF discussing various matters it affords you the opportunity to point out contradictions, assumptions and ‘leaps of faith,’ to subsequently may successfully turn them into atheists? Is that why you’re here?

If it is why you are here, that is your prerogative and I have no issue. I ask this question as I would like to satisfy my curiosity. I would like to satisfy my curiosity as it has always been a source of bemusement to me why and atheist would debate religion with Catholics on a Catholic forum.

Can I ask if you go on other religious forums - Anglican, Evangelical Protestants, Hindus, Muslim? I think it can safely be said at present radical/fundamentalist Muslims present a much greater threat than Catholicism.

The reason I am posing these questions to you is your comment opened the door, but also because I think you might give me an honest answer. There are other atheists on CAF who would not.

 

[minkymurph]

And Exodus 20:3 has God saying that we shall have no others except Him. That is, whoever wrote it (only traditionally attributed to Moses), knew that people accepted that there were more than one God. Gods plural were part and parcel of daily life and had been since people started to try to make sense of the natural world.

What you say is absolutely true. Multiple gods were part and parcel of the scene then and a way to make sense of the natural world.

Exodus is traditionally attributed to Moses but according to scholarship he didn’t write it. If my knowledge of biblical scholarship serves me correctly is was most likely written by Ezra whilst the Jews were in Babylon.

Their arguments would have been just as convincing as yours might be now. It’s only if you define your God as a single creator above all others can you end up with monotheism. And who wouldn’t have tried that argument: My god is bigger than your god so our rules need to be followed (oh, and by the way, we’re His chosen people so please bear that in mind in all further matters).

Well in mythology traditionally there is a god that is the creator. Creation is not attributed to all gods, and the creator is usually the top geezer. Obviously ancient tribes and peoples wanted their god to be the most formidable - particularly in battle - and who wouldn’t want to be the chosen people of the most formidable god?

I think that it’s only a concern if your belief, made public and corresponding with a majority viewpoint allows you to feel comfortable in the belief, or corresponds to a minority viewpoint, in which case you might feel ostracised. But you mention this below.

Yep - minorities do feel ostracized. They often are, but sometimes they bring it on themselves.

I don’t see a lot of examples whereby people are trying to discredit belief (the type of statement which would normally draw out the usual suspects on this forum with a few examples of it actually happening). And I live in a quite secular country. I do see a lot of push back when some Christians are seen to overstep the mark (see here for good examples: wwos.nine.com.au/2017/05/25/17/38/margaret-court-boycotts-qantas-over-gay-marriage-stance).

Yes, Christians do overstep the mark. My concern is anyone who believes in God (capital G as we are talking about the Christian God ) gets tarred with the one brush, in that they get labelled a radical fundamentalist. As one who believes in God, and Catholic, I feel more uneasy now than I did growing up in Belfast in the 70’s and 80’s. I am now apprehensive about wearing a crucifix or other religious jewelry in public. I take my cross - not even a crucifix, off when I go shopping in my home town as I don’t want dirty looks or offensive comments. I recently took my rosary beads to a jewelers - proper jewelers that mend watches and stuff as a link had broken. I hung around the shop until no one was in it before I asked it he could fix my beads as I was afraid of dirty looks or offensive comments, The guy fixed my beads, couldn’t have been nicer and didn’t charge me, but you have no idea the apprehension I feel if anyone knows I’m Catholic or even believe in God. I feel I am constantly walking on egg shells in terms of no mention of God in my everyday speech and no mention of anything religious or someone is going to start on you. Now if you were shoving it down peoples throats then yes, you should be told to shut up and wind your neck in, but feeling compelled to hide your identity is in my view unacceptable.

 

[minkymurph]

And matters such as those get a lot of airtime and letters-to-the-editor type of comments and you do see a circling of the wagons from some Christians in cases such as that. Some digging in of the theological heels. But I don’t see it as a radicalising effect. At least not in Christianity. But Islam…? A whole new ball game where the rules should be the same, but some on the other side are not abiding by normal moral standards.

The radicalizing effect in Christianity is the reluctance to meet others half way where it is perceived beliefs are being attacked. My comments are based on my observations of my immediate world. Yours are based on your observations of your immediate world, which is not the same. Perhaps there is no radicalizing effect in Australia. I can’t comment either way. I don’t live there and have never been there. That said, it is human nature when we feel threatened to either fight back or submit. I think Christians do feel threatened. Christianity has brought a threat on itself, but issues with Christianity should not be transferred to the individuals who had no control over crimes and does not endorse them, and I reject the argument that has been put to me I am equally as guilty in being affiliated with a religion that carried out crimes, that this serves as an endorsement of the crime. This hurts so much.