Atheist Philosphers and logic of made up gods?

[john5746]

How do you do a logical definition of how faith in god works using the idea of cognitive dissonance?

Why would it be logical?

 

Many people feel that their spouse is the best person for them, above anyone else. Logically, they may admit that given so many in the world, that this isn't so, but yet they "feel" this way.

 

For many people I think, God works because people enjoy the feeling and see no alternative. Logic is actually a distraction.

[science4ever]

John I agree that is a good explanation.

 

The reason I wanted or felt a need for a logical reasonable definition

is that that is what atheists usually demand. The atheist say that

 

You either believer in a live real supernatural god or you do not.

No description other than the one above formulated by atheists satisfy them.

 

I can not know but I do find it likely that if you present your explanation above

to an atheist forum then they either say it is trivially true and thus irrelevant to them

or they say that it would make that believer an atheist because the believer are aware of

that if they followed the atheist logic then they most likely would have to admit they have

no good argument for God apart from that it feels good to have that relation with God.

 

So I would need to combine your insight with what Phi for All wrote and use that as the basis

for a logical reasoning expressed more formally. But I have no talent for doing such.

 

I think you say something important about logic being a distraction to the faith.

 

Expressed in my clumsy way.

 

1. A believer already have that faith in God and if they want to use logic for to defend

their faith in God then they start from that position. I believe that God exists how do I defend that faith?

 

2. Atheists have never had a belief in God or have lost the childhood faith and lack faith now

and they start from that position. I am without faith in God and I defend that position using logic.

 

3. Both believer and atheist would see logic that start from a psycological and social perspective

as a distraction? they either trust philosophy and thus are motivated to use formal logic on their views

or they don't trust philosophy and have no inner motivation for to use formal logical reasoning.

 

4. From an outsider perspective it seems both are locked into defending their positions.

None of them seems to be willing to see their position from an outsiders behavioral perspective.

Edited July 17, 2013 by science4ever

[EdEarl]

As an agnostic I accepted the possibility that a God exists. Using logic I cannot either prove or disprove that God exists. Also, AFAIK no expirement has ever demonstrated that God has done anything to let us know of God's existence. Thus, being either theistic or atheistic requires suspention of logic. In other words, belief is not logical.

 

The only logical position is to be skeptical, to accept we are too ignorant to know one way or another whether God exists.

 

If someone wants to believe, as the Heaven's Gate cult did, that a comet is a spaceship that will take you to heaven, so be it. But there is no logic that can prove it or disprove it.

Edited July 17, 2013 by EdEarl

[science4ever]

Ed I am very bad at logic and even if the atheists say that formally I am atheist

I don't feel like atheist I rather feel like being a self identified theist but the theist

would say that my God is a false one so neither atheist nor theist nor agnostic

seems to be good words for me.

 

My take is that the most logical way to relate to God is to realize that it is a human construct

a kind of psychological tool for both individual and social group norm setting. So I am a too user.

 

Would be wrong to say that I am a tool maker but user of a social psychological tool sounds right.

 

Philosophy does not seems to be able to handly social tools very well. To ask if the tool exist outside of

human culture is not get what a social psychological tool is. Compare with other social tools like sport

and music. Way back in time at least music had supernatural explanations. A gift from the gods.

 

Now we realize that music is a cultural tool for entertainment. My view is that religion is a social tool.

 

Why should it be so hard to make good logical reasoning for social tools?

 

You say that Agnosticism is the more or most logical position but theists would say that

they do the best logical reasoning and atheists most likely would say atheism is the default most reasonable way to see it.

 

If all of us comes to different conclusions how useful then are philosophy?

[EdEarl]

Agnosticism and ignosticism are different.

 

I agree God is a human construct. And, thinking about God can be logical from a psychological, sociological, or philosophical point of view.

 

Whether you choose theism, atheism or skepticism (ignosticism) is personal, and you may or may not share that point of view with others. There are often social consequences of telling friends and family your beliefs are different than theirs. And, a person may suffer if they do not tell, too.

 

IMO the important thing is to be kind to yourself, everyone and everything around you. It is not always an easy thing to do, because others may be unkind. And, occasionally you may be in a situation that prevents you from being kind to all, and you must choose.

 

These issues are universal. They have been studied by countless people, many who have written books to share their thoughts with humanity. And, countless others will follow similar paths as long as man exists. Yet, we alone decide on how to live our lives.