Why care about finite theism as an atheist?
Вставка
- Опубліковано 15 вер 2023
- First Debate (Dry Apologist vs. LDS Philosophy): • Debate: Limited vs. Un...
Second Debate (John Buck vs. Alex Strasser): ua-cam.com/users/livemlMBzYTG...
Linktree: linktr.ee/emersongreen
It’s definitely interesting to think about how the debate might change if we took finite theism more seriously, but in order for that to make any difference some theists would presumably need to embrace finite theism or at least consider it as a serious possibility.
It’s kinda like plantinga floating the possibility that natural evils are caused by demons. Yeah if you believed that we’d have to have a different conversation, but since you don’t actually think that why spend my time debating it?
This is something I struggle with. The most visible worldviews are visible largely as a consequence of contingent historical circumstances. Should it really bother me that much if it's unpopular in the time and place I was born? I don't know a single person who takes Zoroastrianism seriously or embraces it as a real possibility, but maybe Zoroastrianism has some serious advantages over theism and naturalism that I've never had the chance to consider. I used to feel the same way about universalism, which I didn't realize had historical and theological roots in Christianity. As far as I know, the same isn't true of finite theism, but I'm just not sure how much I rationally should care about that.
Although finitism is not a popular belief at the moment, historically, how common has the belief in classical or omni-theism really been, anyway?
@@EmersonGreen I agree with pretty much everything you say here, right down to my suspicion that the cosmic dualism of zoroastrianism et al. has a LOT going for it (Problem of evil? What problem? There's literally an evil force at work out there equal in power to the good force).
That said, one insight that I've borrowed (with some modification) from you is that IF someone holds certain popular theological beliefs about God's ability and willingness to communicate, the popularity of certain theological views starts to look like a referendum on their plausibility/compatibility with tradition religious systems. If it turns out that omni-theism really has been historically dominant, at the very least I find it really puzzling that a religion where God's own spirit supposedly guides us into truth that everyone would unanimously miss out on the truth of a finite god.
I also find universalism MUCH more plausible than ECT, but I'm frequently bothered by otherwise traditional believers who want to slot that in for ECT to resolve the problem of hell, without really thinking about why, given their beliefs about God's communicative intents, such a terrible doctrine was mainstream for two millennia.
There where Always finite theists Like me, before Saint Augustinus they where propably the rule. I am Not Sure to how many theists you talked and in what country you are, but I find IT a quiet normal Position.
Emmerson Most ancient Religions where polytheist, and in this Religions Gods where at war with each other. And even killed each other. Before Greek philosophy/idealism the Idea that God(s) could be omnipotent would have hence sounded crazy. In Christianity the Idea became only popular with Saint Augustinus. There are numerous Jewish and Christian philosophers who have written against the Idea of omnipotence.
You could even argue the god of the Bible is presented as limited more often than not
William James argued for a finite god. His god was merely the most powerful being, not infinitely powerful. Ever wishing to stimulate the energies of men, James suggested that this god needed our help in the battle against evil and suffering.
This sounds like not only was this God concept not infinite, but also not a traditional 'omni' God?
@@lucofparis4819 Correct: not “omni” or perfect, but worthy of worship or at least allegiance. The god of Process Theology/Philosophy is also less than omni, depending crucially on the efforts of humans to achieve its ends.
Since you mentioned Josh Rasmussen, I remember him arguing that God is a necessary being (in modal terms) and his main reason seemed to be that God is perfect. From his perfection omnipotence, omniscience etc. follow. So if you remove God's absolute perfection his existence might no longer seem necessary. Some ontological proofs rely on similar conceptions.
I was a polytheist for a short time after leaving Christianity and i didn't have a problem with the problem of suffering like i did in Christianity. If you asked my answer was simply that i don't believe any of the Gods are all good or all powerful and they may also be in conflict.
Why care about finite theism as an atheist?
For me, it's just a matter of politics at that point. If the theist says something akin to God agrees with my political views and God is very powerful, then this technique is somewhat persuasive assuming a God exists.
For example, suppose I claimed that vanilla is better than chocolate. When questioned why, I claim God likes vanilla more than chocolate and God could overpower my skeptics who disagree. I view this as analogous to Christianity as a whole.
Welcome to modern Paganism
That's certainly an interesting avenue that theists would gain a lot from exploring more. As any other theodicy however, it in no way solves or escapes the Problem of Evil. Just like all of them, it picks one of its horns, in this case the one whence God isn't omnipotent to begin with.
I think that if more theists would consider giving up claims of the omnipotence of their God, it would solve so many discrepancies, tensions, problems, and paradoxes, making their theology so much more consistent! It would also help them realize how superfluous Omnipotence has been all along, since there's basically nothing that an omni-God allegedly did that a finite God could have done just as well.
Why care about bigfoot as a skeptic? People don't really vote a basis of belief in the existence of bigfoot - at leaat not a significant amount of people.
I must admit I haven't heard a theist ever take that stance. But even if someone does - it's just more make-believe of their own on top of older, Bronze Age make-believe. At least be consiste with the holey books.