George,

Perhaps I should have mentioned theists there too.

<<When I spoke of “naive or unsophisticated” (re philosophy of science or religion) I made it explicit that I meant atheists AS WELL AS theists.>>

Either way, this is a strange way to reply unless you’ve missed my point entirely.

I’m not overly concerned with you scoffing at, or brushing-off their arguments as unsophisticated because they’re patently and demonstrably wrong anyway - sophisticated or not.

More to my point, though: given the ease with which one can show these claims to be false and the frequency with which it is done (by many), I personally don’t think you should have to explain your arguments to justify brushing them off. Supposedly unsophisticated atheistic arguments, on the other hand, (when not brushed-off) are often met with, ”Oh, that’s not MY theology!” Yet any attempts to gain an understanding of what their theology is, and why the unsophisticated arguments don’t negate it, are eventually just met with, “Yeah, it’s complicated”, along with pardons granted exclusively to the theology that are never justified.

Which I hope, by now, I have adequately shown to be merely a sidestep.

<<Exactly, this is what I gathered from your posts, and this is why I do not see any point in continuing with your interrogation since it is most unlikely that my “arguments” would suddenly stand up to your scrutiny.>>

No, no... I didn’t say “my” scrutiny. I said “any” scrutiny.

Actually, it probably doesn’t matter much anyway. I mean, if they don’t stand up to my scrutiny, then they’re certainly not going to stand up to the scrutiny of the more prominent atheistic thinkers.

I can’t help but think, though, that you’re subtly trying make this about me.

<<I already wrote explicitly, that I saw no way to decide ‘logically’ in favour of the Sagan or the other alternative. There are only arguments and predilections that can support one’s preconceived preference...>>

Yes, but as I pointed out earlier, there is actually a way to logically (and objectively, more importantly) decide in favour of one over the other.

Continued...

...Continued

Regardless of our preferences or personal life experiences, the one with the least assumptions is the default assumption, since the additional assumption carries with it a philosophical burden of proof until it can be demonstrated that it is necessary.

We apply this philosophy in our daily lives when dealing with the real world. Those who don’t, usually run into problems by either making bad decisions, forming incorrect beliefs or just wasting their time. Yet religious belief, again, is granted a pardon here. But why?

According to your philosophy, we can justify a belief in ANYTHING, so long as we presuppose it early enough in the piece.

AJ Philips,

>>According to your philosophy, we can justify a belief in ANYTHING, so long as we presuppose it early enough in the piece.<<

Well, I described explicitly the two fundamental worldview alternatives: materialism (naturalism; belief that science can principally access all reality) or its opposite, belief in the irreducibility of all reality to its material dimension accessible to science. So I don’t know where you get your ANYTHING from, but never mind.

>> as I pointed out earlier, there is actually a way to logically (and objectively, more importantly) decide in favour of one over the other. <<

So why don’t you just keep to your “way” without seeking a confirmation of it from me, who differently understands the terms “logically”, “objectively”, etc ?

As you know, some people think theists’ worldviews are based on delusions, some think this about atheists’, more precisely antithešists'. You cannot expect to have your worldview preferences confirmed, rid you of your insecurities, by those whom you think of as suffering from delusions, as not being “logical”, “rational” or what. Let me emphasize, that this goes both ways, for both worldview orientations.

So let me just repeat my plea to end this entanglement of misunderstandings by agreeing to disagree, by agreeing that we two are happy and at home with these two different worldview orientations.

Dear George,

<<Well, I described explicitly the two fundamental worldview alternatives: materialism (naturalism; belief that science can principally access all reality) or its opposite, belief in the irreducibility of all reality to its material dimension accessible to science.>>

These are certainly the key fundamental alternatives: one either goes with the world or one goes with God.

However, the motivation to take one path or the other is not belief, but is rooted in the soul's deepest yearning to return to its source.

Belief is merely a mental activity. The mind is fleeting and subject to change, one says this, then one says that. When we are born, we don't hold a belief either way whether or not reality is reducible to its material dimension accessible to science - that is acquired later, but we already come to the world with spiritual proclivities.

True, a spiritual aspirant is more likely to believe that reality extends beyond its material dimension while one who has not yet developed a significant interest in God is likely to believe the opposite, but that's all secondary, it's an effect, not the cause. We may perhaps learn from it about the likelihood of one's spirituality, but there are exceptions both ways.

Belief is not a requisite for religion - By their fruit you will recognise them!

Dear Yuyutsu,

As I wrote before, I think I can see what you mean, but in order to communicate we have to agree on a common language, that includes definitions of abstract terms used. (We already seem to agree that we mean different things by “exists”.) I am not conversant with the language that apparently Ramakrishna and Swami Vivekananda use so I can only keep to the more or less Christian meaning of the concepts as they are used in the West.

I used the term “belief” ONLY as the conscious act of choosing between the two fundamental worldview alternatives; intellectual consent is probably a better word, although it also has a meaning deeper than just to indicate a fundamental worldview option:

“Faith treated as belief alone is reduced to intellectual consent” expresses a rather standard Christian maxim. Perhaps it corresponds to your “belief is merely a mental activity”. In Western language one usually distinguishes between fides and fiducia, the former corresponding to belief, the latter perhaps to what you have in mind with “spirituality”.

John Cardinal Newman explicitly uses the term assent for belief, whereas the Lutheran Paul Tillich has assensus for belief or intellectual consent. The Jewish thinker Martin Buber distinguishes between the Greek word pistis and the Hebrew Emunah, corresponding more or less to fides and fiducia

So in Western language, it is the fiducia/Emunah component of faith that perhaps correspond to your “spiritual proclivity”.

The neuroscientist Andrew Newberg’s research, referred to in my posts above, seems to support your claim that “we already come to the world with spiritual proclivities”. In the same sense that we are born with mathematical and many other “proclivities”? After all, it depends on what you mean by”proclivities”, and - at least as far as spiritual proclivities are concerned - many will disagree.