.

Dear AJ Philips,

.

You wrote:

« So long as there is one person who believes in a god or gods, then atheism and theism exist and are logical absolutes »

This would appear to mean that you consider that for something to exist, somebody simply has to believe that it does.

That sounds easy but I doubt that it works.

As for the designation “logical absolutes”, I understand this to mean rational statements or expressions which obey the laws of logic.

It seems to me that a statement or expression which is a “logical absolute” is not necessarily true. I can only see it as being true if the premises on which it is based are true.

.

You also wrote:

« In fact, we are all an infinite number of a-something-or-others, and this is - ultimately - why theists bear the burden of proof »

While this sentence appears to indicate that “theists bear the burden of proof” that they are theists, I suspect that what you really mean is that “theists bear the burden of proof” that the god in which they believe exists.

Presuming my suspicion to be correct, your statement that “theists bear the burden of proof” seems to be in contradiction with the opinion you expressed previously: that “for something to exist, somebody simply has to believe that it does”.

As you can see, I am a little confused.

.

Whilst Bishop Berkeley held that 'esse is percipi', to be is to be perceived...

http://www.iep.utm.edu/berkeley/#H4

...the concept seems to me to fall apart since just because one person claims to perceive something does not endow that 'being' with existence outside their imagination.

Hence - for everyone else - the concept of delusion... regardless of its reality to the person concerned.

Ask any conspiracist.

For me an interesting question is how many people need to imagine they are sharing the same delusion for it to achieve a reality and for the problems to start.

Maybe the question is immaterial?

Dear Banjo Paterson,

<<This would appear to mean that you consider that for something to exist, somebody simply has to believe that it does.>>

Not at all. In fact, I later went on to say that one could argue that we don’t even need to be here to conceive of theism and atheism for them to exist as concepts, and that implicit atheism exists with or without humans around.

<<As for the designation “logical absolutes”, I understand this to mean rational statements or expressions which obey the laws of logic.>>

Logical absolutes are binary, true/false concepts that adhere to the Law of Identity, the Law of Noncontradiction and the Law of the Excluded Middle. Think of any object - that object cannot be both itself and something else at the same time, just as one cannot be both a theist and an atheist at the same time.

More relevant to our discussion, however, would be the Law of the Excluded Middle. Take theism and atheism for example - theism is the belief in a god or gods; atheism is everything else (e.g. lacking a god belief, rejecting a god belief, asserting that a god does not exist, not being sure of what one believes). With logical absolutes, something either is, or it is not; there is no in between; nor is there a third option, as you had implied in the post that I initially responded to.

<<I suspect that what you really mean is that “theists bear the burden of proof” that the god in which they believe exists.>>

Correct.

<<... your statement that “theists bear the burden of proof” seems to be in contradiction with the opinion you expressed previously: that “for something to exist, somebody simply has to believe that it does”.>>

I’m not sure how you interpreted what I had said to mean that. All I meant, in what you had quoted of me, was that so long as there is someone out there who believes in a god, then theism and atheism are intelligible concepts and exist as concepts.

Dear Foxy,

<<Theodicies can explain human problems in many ways.>>

Yes, but it would be like using a golden bucket and broom studded with diamonds to clean the floor.

<<Our discussion of theodicies implies that religion does
have some function in social life; and, in fact, the
functionalist perspective offers many insights into the
role of religion in society...

Religious rituals such as baptism, bar mitzvah, weddings,
Sabbath services, Christmas mass, and funerals - rituals
like these serve to bring people together. To remind them
of their common group membership; to reaffirm their
traditional values; to maintain prohibitions and taboos;
to offer comfort in times of crisis; and, in general, to help
transmit the cultural heritage from one generation to the
next.>>

All one can really conclude is that there are SOME religious practices that also have a beneficial role in society.

This is further complicated because not all of the above rituals produce a religious benefit for all who practice them. While for some these could be part of their religion, many others practice those exact rituals sheerly for the social effect.

There is however nothing wrong with an overlap, with the same action serving two purposes.

.

Dear AJ Philips,

.

You wrote :

« … we don’t even need to be here to conceive of theism and atheism for them to exist as concepts … atheism exists with or without humans around … »

My understanding is that theism and atheism are human concepts. If no humans are around to have such concepts I do not see how they can possibly exist.
.

You also wrote :

« With logical absolutes, something either is, or it is not; there is no in between; nor is there a third option, as you had implied in the post that I initially responded to »

You seem to be suggesting that the human concept of “logical absolutes” is eternal, with no beginning and no end. Whereas, I understand that it cannot and does not predate humanity, that it can be abandoned and allowed to fall into oblivion at any time, and will necessarily disappear with humanity. I consider that the concept of “logical absolutes”, like all things human, is purely temporal.

What you refer to as the “third option” corresponds, no doubt, to those periods during which I consider that there are no “logical absolutes” either because mankind has abandoned them and allowed them fall into oblivion, or because it is simply impossible for them to predate or postdate humanity.

Apart from those periods, however, when and where a particular “logical absolute” is able to exist and, in fact, does exist, I have no problem understanding and accepting the principle of the concept that it either is or it is not, with no in between.

As a final comment, allow me to suggest that whoever invented the term “logical absolute” was poorly inspired. We are lost in a universe in constant evolution, where nothing is absolute and everything is relative and where human logic has its limitations. It is misleading to say the least. I should even say it is illogical.

It is probably why we have so much difficulty understanding each other.

.

My partner, believes in many gods, not only the Christian God, but also her own gods about a dozen of them from Ranginui the Sky Father and I think his wife Papa who gave all life to the earth and lesser gods and goddess's, covering a variety of functions, from the sea to the forest etc etc. Unlike most religions Maori belief gives woman a fair amount of power, with a couple of very powerful female goddess's. Below the gods are some kinds of deities or ancestors. Not only do people have ancestors but animals also have ancestors. A lot of belief is based on respect, respect not only for other human beings but respect for things like animals and plants and the ancestors etc. Those who disrespect can be in for a whole lot of trouble. The positive side is those who live a good life with respect are rewarded in some way. She claims proof of her life's reward is having many good moko's (grandchildren), she also thinks I might also be a reward from the gods as well, but she is not too sure about that! Works for her.