What would it take to change a theist's mind?

[AHunter3]

@Voyager

One thing atheism does is say there is nothing but humanly assigned meaning to the universe. I think it is clear that there is human assigned meaning whether or not a god exists.

Let us posit for the sake of argument the existence of a nonhuman intelligence. Sentient critters from the planet Xunga or some such thing.

One could say that it would always be a matter of interpretation on someone’s part to say that the Xungans and the humans are in agreement about the meaning of Aspect J of the universe, and that perhaps someone else would arrive at the conclusion that actually the Xungans and the humans are not so much in agreement there after all. (But then one could make the same kind of point about whether or not the humans are in agreement with each other or if in fact there is no consensus about Aspect J).

For now, let us say that you and I are convinced, at any rate, that the Xungans and the humans are indeed in agreement about Aspect J of the universe. In your terminology does that make the meaning of Aspect J “human assigned” and also, coincidentally, “xungan assigned”? Does it not elicit the philosophical possibility that Aspect J has characteristics or properties (meanings, if you will) that both the humans and the xungans perceive?

Then there is Aspect K, about which the humans and the xungans definitely seem (to us, to you and me) to have a different take on. We could speak here of the “human assigned” meaning and the different “xungan assigned” meaning. Is it reasonable to posit that there is, in some useful sense, a More Complete Meaning or More Accurate Meaning of Aspect K, such that if the humans and xungans studied each other’s “take” on Aspect K they might attain, incorporating and consolidating and mutually clarifying previous understandings, until the humans and xungals would reach an accord of understanding regarding Aspect K?

To be sure, it would also be my assumption that in order for the humans and xungans to see Aspect J or K the same way, they (the humans and xungans) have to have traits in common. Because (to reiterate ground we’ve agreed on already) meaning is meaning “to an audience”, and for the two species to be part of the same audience implies a commonality of perception.

Another immediate question then: Could it be that the mere fact of being an intelligent life form gives one sufficient commonality with any other intelligent life form to be able to attain perception in common?

As you can see, this can indeed converge towards the position that “there is indeed a correct and true meaning” as well as “people can perceive things to have a certain meaning, and people can also perceive things inaccurately or wrongly and thus attribute to them the wrong meanings”. Although I don’t think it so readily lends its support to anyone attempting to claim “and furthermore we know for sure what they are”.

[Voyager]

@AHunter3

Let us posit for the sake of argument the existence of a nonhuman intelligence. Sentient critters from the planet Xunga or some such thing.

One could say that it would always be a matter of interpretation on someone’s part to say that the Xungans and the humans are in agreement about the meaning of Aspect J of the universe, and that perhaps someone else would arrive at the conclusion that actually the Xungans and the humans are not so much in agreement there after all. (But then one could make the same kind of point about whether or not the humans are in agreement with each other or if in fact there is no consensus about Aspect J).

Good point. I think it is ok to assume that we can tell if they are in agreement for the moment.

For now, let us say that you and I are convinced, at any rate, that the Xungans and the humans are indeed in agreement about Aspect J of the universe. In your terminology does that make the meaning of Aspect J “human assigned” and also, coincidentally, “xungan assigned”? Does it not elicit the philosophical possibility that Aspect J has characteristics or properties (meanings, if you will) that both the humans and the xungans perceive?

No problem so far. I used human assigned to distinguish from god assigned, but you can restate the problem with respect to different people just as well.

My big problem is how to strictly define any type of meaning. I’m trying to think of a way to do it mathematically, which both would agree on, but I’m failing. You can describe an Aspect mathematically, but not the meaning of it.

Then there is Aspect K, about which the humans and the xungans definitely seem (to us, to you and me) to have a different take on. We could speak here of the “human assigned” meaning and the different “xungan assigned” meaning. Is it reasonable to posit that there is, in some useful sense, a More Complete Meaning or More Accurate Meaning of Aspect K, such that if the humans and xungans studied each other’s “take” on Aspect K they might attain, incorporating and consolidating and mutually clarifying previous understandings, until the humans and xungals would reach an accord of understanding regarding Aspect K?

To be sure, it would also be my assumption that in order for the humans and xungans to see Aspect J or K the same way, they (the humans and xungans) have to have traits in common. Because (to reiterate ground we’ve agreed on already) meaning is meaning “to an audience”, and for the two species to be part of the same audience implies a commonality of perception.

Exactly. The audience for the meaning might change its opinion, or might be coerced into an opinion of a meaning. Consider the meaning of a book, to be less cosmic. A class might take on the meaning assigned by the English professor teaching it (to get a good grade) and some of the class might internalize the meaning. Two professors who assign different meanings might meet and develop a joint, compromise meaning. None of this, however, says anything about the “true” meaning of the book, or even if that “true” meaning can be said to exist.

Science tries to converge on the true nature of the universe. The humanities can’t do this, because it is not clear there is a true nature to converge on. Meaning is more humanities-like than science-like.

Another immediate question then: Could it be that the mere fact of being an intelligent life form gives one sufficient commonality with any other intelligent life form to be able to attain perception in common?

As you can see, this can indeed converge towards the position that “there is indeed a correct and true meaning” as well as “people can perceive things to have a certain meaning, and people can also perceive things inaccurately or wrongly and thus attribute to them the wrong meanings”. Although I don’t think it so readily lends its support to anyone attempting to claim “and furthermore we know for sure what they are”.

The alien question is a very interesting one, kind of like Campbell’s challenge to write a story about a truly alien alien. As for your second point, you’ve demonstrated that different groups can agree on a meaning, but not that this agreed-to meaning is anything like a true one, or even what a true one is.

[Liberal]

@Voyager

The rest of your post doesn’t seem to go along with these words. My point was that an author, not having full understanding of his own thought processes, might subconsciously insert meaning into a book, meaning that is picked up by a critic. For instance, he randomly chooses a name for a character which turns out to have meaning. But how random was the choice actually?

In that case, I wouldn’t say that the author inserted an alternate meaning; the critic did. I am, for example, inserting into this text what I mean. I have no idea what it means to you.

Now God must have perfect insight into his thought processes, and cannot be surprised by people reading additional meanings and purposes into his creation. Surprised in the sense of having to admit that the human discovered meaning might be what he had in mind all along. The purpose of the universe is more or less unchanged by the actions of people.

But as I said, God does not do the metaphysically impossible. If He has given people free moral will, that implies necessarily that He has made that knowledge metaphysically impossible for Him to attain. Now, it might still be an epistemic possibility, but that’s quite different.

[cwthree]

@FriarTed

@Blake

Am I to understand from this that you believe that an entity that orders the slaughter of small children and the rape of teenage girls to be the ultimate good, and a better standard of goodness than anything a a human can come up with? :dubious:

Religious Jews do. And I agree with them.

Btw, you’re wrong about the rape.

FriarTed, perhaps you could clarify your comment, “Btw, you’re wrong about the rape.” I believe I know the passage(s) to which Blake is referring, and I don’t see how else they can be understood.

[AHunter3]

@Voyager

As for your second point, you’ve demonstrated that different groups can agree on a meaning, but not that this agreed-to meaning is anything like a true one, or even what a true one is.

I had written:

Another immediate question then: Could it be that the mere fact of being an intelligent life form gives one sufficient commonality with any other intelligent life form to be able to attain perception in common?

OK, another question, in light of your above comment: what’s the difference between a “true meaning” and a meaning that any intelligent life form, given sufficient information (including, perhaps, information obtained via communication with other intelligences), would end up attributing or ascribing to the thing in question? Or to put it the other way ("…or even what a true one is"), would defining “the true meaning of <anything>” as “the meaning that ends up being attributed to ascribed to that thing by intelligences given sufficient opportunity to obtain sufficient information about it”?

None of this directly answers one of my own questions, which is whether simply being an intelligent life form gives one sufficient perspective-in-common to be eventually able to reach a consensus about Aspect J of the universe. Or for that matter whether simply being human is sufficient. We tend to assume that it is. Our sciences assume it most directly but our arts and cultural studies also presume that there really does exist proficiency and quality and beauty, rendered differently by people from diverse & different backgrounds but capable of being mutually appreciated nonetheless.

I assume that it is, and that our failures to reach a meeting of the minds at times attests more to how things can look different from different perspectives than to a fundamental flaw in the premise itself.

[JohnnieEnigma]

I don’t think people should change anyone’s mind about anything. Let people be themselves - without judgement.

[Czarcasm]

@JohnnyEnigma

I don’t think people should change anyone’s mind about anything. Let people be themselves - without judgement.

Unfortunately, this falls apart when your belief is that your god commands you to convert others and/or control governments.

[JohnnieEnigma]

@Czarcasm

Unfortunately, this falls apart when your belief is that your god commands you to convert others and/or control governments.

uh, my God doesn’t command me to do any of that. He says, “pray for others”. And act as a christian by example… not by thumping a bible on someone’s head.

[JohnnieEnigma]

And actually, Christ said to obey the government, or something similar. I don’t know the exact quote… but it had something to do with “pay your taxes”.

so how is that “controlling the government”.

[Czarcasm]

@JohnnyEnigma

uh, my God doesn’t command me to do any of that. He says, “pray for others”. And act as a christian by example… not by thumping a bible on someone’s head.

Again, your idea works only if everyone else believes as you do-but they don’t.

[JohnnieEnigma]

@Czarcasm

Again, your idea works only if everyone else believes as you do-but they don’t.

thus, they can be considered “intolerant”.

[Czarcasm]

@JohnnyEnigma

thus, they can be considered “intolerant”.

Right.
“They”.

sigh

[JohnnieEnigma]

If I want “others” to be tolerant of my own beliefs… than it’s only right that I be tolerant of their beliefs or non beliefs.

That’s it in a nutshell…

[JohnnieEnigma]

@Czarcasm

Right.
“They”.

sigh

Right… “They” being anyone who is intolerant of others who do not hold their own beliefs and values.

[Liberal]

@JohnnyEnigma

And actually, Christ said to obey the government, or something similar. I don’t know the exact quote… but it had something to do with “pay your taxes”.

Ugh. No. What happened is this.

The Pharisees were the effective ruling body politic of Israelites in Jerusalem, despite the existence of a Jewish titular king (Herod). With one or two exceptions, the Pharisees didn’t care much for Jesus because they considered Him to be a threat to their station. So they conspired to send agents who would attempt to trick Jesus in front of the people by asking a loaded question about payment of taxes.

The idea was that if Jesus answered that people should pay their taxes, then the Zealots — Jewish freedom fighters or terrorists, depending on what side you were on — would probably assassinate Him, or at the very least stir up the crowd into denouncing Him. Alternatively, if He said that people should not pay their taxes, then the Romans would punish Him for sedition and inciting rebellion.

So a guy approached Jesus, showed Him a coin that belonged to him, and said, “We know you are a man of integrity. You aren’t swayed by men, because you pay no attention to who they are; but you teach the way of God in accordance with the truth. Is it right to pay taxes to Caesar or not?” (Mark 12:14)

Clearly, Jesus could answer neither yes nor no.

Instead, He quite cleverly asked the Pharisee whose image was on the coin, and before he could catch himself, the idiot answered, “Caesar’s”. He must have been horrified when he realized what he had done because, you see, it was forbidden for Jews to carry around graven images of false gods for which, to the Jews, Caesar more than qualified.

That’s when Jesus answered, “Then give to Caesar what is Caesar’s, and to God what is God’s” (Mark 12:17) — meaning, of course, devotion, allegience, and worship. And give Caesar’s coin back to him, not because it is a tax, but because it is a forbidden image for the Pharisee to be carrying around.

The passage ends by saying that the Pharisees were “amazed”. They would hardly have been amazed had he tripped up and fallen into their trap. They would instead have been delighted.

[JohnnieEnigma]

@Liberal

Ugh. No. What happened is this.

The Pharisees were the effective ruling body politic of Israelites in Jerusalem, despite the existence of a Jewish titular king (Herod). With one or two exceptions, the Pharisees didn’t care much for Jesus because they considered Him to be a threat to their station. So they conspired to send agents who would attempt to trick Jesus in front of the people by asking a loaded question about payment of taxes.

The idea was that if Jesus answered that people should pay their taxes, then the Zealots — Jewish freedom fighters or terrorists, depending on what side you were on — would probably assassinate Him, or at the very least stir up the crowd into denouncing Him. Alternatively, if He said that people should not pay their taxes, then the Romans would punish Him for sedition and inciting rebellion.

So a guy approached Jesus, showed Him a coin that belonged to him, and said, “We know you are a man of integrity. You aren’t swayed by men, because you pay no attention to who they are; but you teach the way of God in accordance with the truth. Is it right to pay taxes to Caesar or not?” (Mark 12:14)

Clearly, Jesus could answer neither yes nor no.

Instead, He quite cleverly asked the Pharisee whose image was on the coin, and before he could catch himself, the idiot answered, “Caesar’s”. He must have been horrified when he realized what he had done because, you see, it was forbidden for Jews to carry around graven images of false gods for which, to the Jews, Caesar more than qualified.

That’s when Jesus answered, “Then give to Caesar what is Caesar’s, and to God what is God’s” (Mark 12:17) — meaning, of course, devotion, allegience, and worship. And give Caesar’s coin back to him, not because it is a tax, but because it is a forbidden image for the Pharisee to be carrying around.

The passage ends by saying that the Pharisees were “amazed”. They would hardly have been amazed had he tripped up and fallen into their trap. They would instead have been delighted.

It did not have to be a yes or no response. He did indeed answer the question when he said, “Then give Caesar what is Caesar’s and to God what is God’s”. The questioner was using trickery to set him up… kind of like a “damned if you do/damned if you don’t” scenario. But it didn’t work… So really, you cannot use trickery with God (Christ), he’s too clever.

[Voyager]

@Liberal

In that case, I wouldn’t say that the author inserted an alternate meaning; the critic did. I am, for example, inserting into this text what I mean. I have no idea what it means to you.

The critic didn’t alter the author’s conscious meaning, but perhaps he revealed the meaning the author’s subconscious put into the work. The point here is that the critics reading of the meaning of the work is not necessarily less correct than that of the person who wrote it. Also, I don’t know what “true meaning” means in this context either.

But as I said, God does not do the metaphysically impossible. If He has given people free moral will, that implies necessarily that He has made that knowledge metaphysically impossible for Him to attain. Now, it might still be an epistemic possibility, but that’s quite different.

I don’t see how anything I said is affected by the free will argument. If purpose and meaning are deliberately inserted by god, no human argument, free or not, would surprise god. God might not know what (wrong) guesses people would make, but he would know they were wrong.

[Voyager]

@AHunter3

I had written:

OK, another question, in light of your above comment: what’s the difference between a “true meaning” and a meaning that any intelligent life form, given sufficient information (including, perhaps, information obtained via communication with other intelligences), would end up attributing or ascribing to the thing in question? Or to put it the other way ("…or even what a true one is"), would defining “the true meaning of <anything>” as “the meaning that ends up being attributed to ascribed to that thing by intelligences given sufficient opportunity to obtain sufficient information about it”?

Are you saying that true meaning is achieved by consensus? If we and alien race A agree, maybe alien race B will not. I’m also not sure what sufficient information would be, since the meaning of an event is often changed as things stemming from it occur in the future. I’m agnostic in the true sense of the word about this, since I don’t think we can ever determine a true meaning.

None of this directly answers one of my own questions, which is whether simply being an intelligent life form gives one sufficient perspective-in-common to be eventually able to reach a consensus about Aspect J of the universe. Or for that matter whether simply being human is sufficient. We tend to assume that it is. Our sciences assume it most directly but our arts and cultural studies also presume that there really does exist proficiency and quality and beauty, rendered differently by people from diverse & different backgrounds but capable of being mutually appreciated nonetheless.

I assume that it is, and that our failures to reach a meeting of the minds at times attests more to how things can look different from different perspectives than to a fundamental flaw in the premise itself.

I wonder if shared sensory inputs might affect it. Anyhow, that is an interesting topic, but seems too much of a hijack for this thread.

[elfkin477]

@Vinyl Turnip

Yeah, but where did that God come from? And how did He get here?

Where did the original matter that created the universe via the big bang come from? Genesis or the big bang, either way you eventually have to take it on faith that something arose out of nothing in order for us to be here today.

As for the OP… I think I have to go with kanicbird: if there’s nothing after death, I guess I’ll no longer believe in God. Most of the bad things that happen to people can be traced back, either directly or indirectly, to mankind having free will, so the fact that he allows those things to happen isn’t dissuasive.

[Voyager]

@elfkin477

Where did the original matter that created the universe via the big bang come from? Genesis or the big bang, either way you eventually have to take it on faith that something arose out of nothing in order for us to be here today.

Matter came from energy, being frozen energy in a sense. It is possible that the net energy of the universe is zero, so there is nothing impossible about it just popping up out of nowhere. In any case, any god responsible for creation can’t be a god who has supposedly talked to people on earth, since all those gods got the story totally wrong. We might not know what caused the Big Bang, or even if it had a cause, but we are pretty sure it happened, and when. Maybe the universe if the result of an experiment by some alien grad student.

As for the OP… I think I have to go with kanicbird: if there’s nothing after death, I guess I’ll no longer believe in God. Most of the bad things that happen to people can be traced back, either directly or indirectly, to mankind having free will, so the fact that he allows those things to happen isn’t dissuasive.

Less now than a few hundred years ago, but lots of bad things that happen are due to nature - floods, droughts, earthquakes. That stuff you can’t blame on free will.