Dear George,

You summed it up perfectly:

«It depends on how you look at this evolution. Think of it as a movement upwards along a vertical spiral positioned in an xyz coordinate space: The “optimist” projects the movement onto the z-axis and sees a steady progress upwards; the “pessimist” projects it onto the xy-plane and sees it as a futile circular movement without any progress.»

Your article seems to classify my views as pre-theistic... or does it? For as I believe it to be meaningless to speak of anything but God, even the atheist scientist, when researching the immanent, unknowingly researches God. Not only that, but once his/her mind concentrates so deeply on the research and eventually grows tired, they may flip and "accidentally" bump into God - that happened to me once when I was concentrating on the infinite infinities of the mathematical group-theory: at the time I described my experience as "I just proved that God exists, but I'm unable to remember that proof"... today I understand that it was not a logical/mathematical proof, but a direct experience of God that occurred at that split-second when my mind could no longer cope and gave up.

On a different matter, using, for example, "the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob" as a model for God is a commendable and useful religious practice which can, under the right guidance, help lead one to God.

Why, however, would anyone actually believe that God exists? What's the need for that?
Had God existed, then He/She/It would have been an object and according to my dictionary, worshipping an object is referred to as "idolatry".

Dear Yuyutsu,

Thanks for your kind words. I have to admit that my definitions of pre-theist and theist have a Western, i.e. Abrahamic, bias, as much as I tried to make it general, with philosophy of science (which, albeit is also rooted in Western tradition) as the “home ground”.

>> Your article seems to classify my views as pre-theistic... or does it? <<

From what you say I would conclude that you are a pre-theist, i.e. that you do not think God is just a figment of our imagination or that He could be the subject of a scientific investigation. Scientists who “believe in God” (in whatever sense) when doing their research might encounter God, but not as part of the physical universe they investigate. Fr. Georges Lemaître certainly thought about God while formulating his Big Bang theory, but God did not become part of his theory.

My understanding of Hinduism is very superficial, but I thought the distinction between Atman and Brahman indicates that Brahman/Krishna, unlike Atman, is outside your mind.

You are a theist (in my definition of the term) if you pray to God (like a child talks to his father or mother) and accept that He can talk to you through Revelation - whether or not you can hear Him. How would you evaluate Krishna's "whatever god a man worships, it is I who answers the prayer" in Bhagavad Gita?

>>Why, however, would anyone actually believe that God exists? What's the need for that?<<

It depends on what you understand by “exists”. If you restrict it to be only attributes of objects, then you are right, God cannot exist. However, what I and most people understand by existence is “objective existence” - horses exist, unicorns do not, (although both “exist” as ideas in our minds). So “God exists” means “God is not just an idea” as atheists maintain.

.

Dear George,

.

You wrote :

« … we, as laymen can chase quotes in support of this or that position concerning Kant and God … »

Not just "we as laymen", George, and not just concerning Kant. That was the point I was making in my two posts on page 5 of this thread when I wrote :

[First post] :

« Apparently, there is no consensus on the religious beliefs and personal convictions of such well-known figures as Einstein and Kant. We all have our opinions on the matter. Each category claims them as one of theirs – and they all point to authentic, published evidence (or, at least, their interpretation of it) to support their claims. »

[Second post] :

« I am very wary about labels – particularly when they apply to religious beliefs and personal convictions. We are all persuaded we know exactly where we stand so far as our own beliefs and convictions are concerned, but others often see us differently. Even the common definitions of labels evolve and change with time. Language itself is evolutive. So who is right and who is wrong ? »

We have just had a perfect illustration of professional philosophers (not just laymen) labelling Kant’s religious beliefs and personal convictions differently in “The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy” and in “Wikipedia”. In the former publication he is described as “clearly open to divine agency in the world”. In the latter, he is listed as an “ idealistic agnostic”.

I note, also, that you refer to the popular definition of the term “agnostic” which is, in fact, a derivative of the original meaning (c.f., OED definition).

The term agnosticism was coined by the English biologist, Thomas Huxley in 1869 “to frame the nature of claims in terms of what is knowable and what is not”. He created it from the Ancient Greek (a-), meaning 'without', and (gnosis), meaning "knowledge".

The Wikipedia article on agnosticism is worth a read :

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnosticism

As is the following collection of papers entitled "Christianity and agnosticism : a controversy" :

http://archive.org/stream/agnosticism00variuoft/agnosticism00variuoft_djvu.txt

.

Dear Banjo,

Thanks for the links about agnosticism. If you google "knowledge vs belief" you get over 75 million hits. I knew about the philosophical entanglements around this problem - many of them not applicable to the philosophy of physics, my home ground in philosophy - so in the article I considered only beliefs, avoiding the concepts of knowing and truth.

I do not think we should now open the can of these 75 million worms, so I better leave it at that, thanking you for a very insightful discussion and wishing you a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year 2019.

.

Dear George,

.

You wrote :

« If you google "knowledge vs belief" you get over 75 million hits »

For some of the regular participants on this forum, there is really only one “hit”, George.

I don’t know if you have noticed, but some of them are absolutely convinced there’s no difference whatsoever between knowledge and belief. It’s exactly the same thing – particularly when it has anything to do with God !

Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year to you and yours too, George.

Bye for now,

.

Dear George,

«I thought the distinction between Atman and Brahman indicates that Brahman/Krishna, unlike Atman, is outside your mind.»

Actually Krishna (like Jesus) was a human incarnation of God and new archaeological evidence indicates that he actually lived on earth:

http://www.indianweekender.co.nz/Pages/ArticleDetails/51/1421/Comment/How-science-discovered-the-historical-Krishna
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2CbTyxy1MWo

Now the distinction between Atman and Brahman is only apparent: one sets out to experience Atman (because it is more practical and relatively easier than trying to experience Brahman), but once they experience Atman they discover that it is Brahman as well, one and the same.

«You are a theist (in my definition of the term) if you pray to God»

Well I do, so presumably it makes me both pre-theist and theist?

«and accept that He can talk to you through Revelation»

The nature of Revelation is that the answer is already there, but is covered, then somehow revealed, so Revelation is not an active act such as "talking". Prayer opens the heart, thus removes some of the covering obstacles and we see/experience what was there all along.

«How would you evaluate Krishna's "whatever god a man worships, it is I who answers the prayer" in Bhagavad Gita?»

It is obviously not the man Krishna, who is now dead for 5000 years or so, but who Krishna knew Himself truly to be - God. When one purifies their heart through prayer, God is being revealed. It is said that God will be seen/experienced by each devotee as their most beloved deity: this is what happens in advanced stages when the experience of God is filtered through just a thin remaining film of mind.

«So “God exists” means “God is not just an idea”»

Yes, I certainly subscribe to this, but if we use the alternate meaning that you mentioned: «what I and most people understand by existence is “objective existence”», then we seem to agree that God has no such existence.

Confusing then, it seems that by Western concepts, my views are all three at once: pre-theist, theist and atheist...