Religion
Related: About this forumCan You Prove It Didn't Happen?
Progressive Religion and the Standards of EvidenceThere is, in fact, a very serious problem with holding a belief that isn't supported by any good evidence, even if it isn't contradicted by any. If your belief isn't supported by any evidence, how do you choose among the millions and millions of possible beliefs you could come up with that also aren't supported by evidence but aren't contradicted by it? How do you even choose between the hundreds and hundreds of commonly- held religious beliefs that actually exist?
And if you don't have any basis for making that choice -- other than the demonstrably biased, easily fooled, heavily- weighted- in- favor- of- believing- what- you're- predisposed- to- believe form of guesswork known as "intuition" or "faith" -- then why on earth would you base your entire life philosophy around that choice?
Would you base your choices, your ethics, the meaning of your life, your assumptions about what happens when we die, on a belief in any other hypothesis for which you had absolutely no evidence, simply because you didn't think there was any evidence contradicting it? Would you base your life on a belief in the cosmic graffiti artist or the invisible pink unicorn, simply because they haven't yet been conclusively disproven?
And if not, then why is God an exception?
If your default theory has to keep shifting and slipping and mutating to accommodate new evidence contradicting it... AND if the consistent historical pattern of your default theory has been a long, relentless process of it being chipped away... AND if you don't have any solid evidence to support even the most core part of your default theory... then perhaps you should look at discarding your theory.
It is not the case that your default theory can be anything, as long as you are willing to hear contrary evidence. That's not a logical, rational, or evidence- based way of thinking. In the absence of any good evidence supporting any particular hypothesis, the rational hypothesis is the null hypothesis. And in the case of religion, the null hypothesis is atheism.
You can't just say, like Criswell at the end of Plan 9 from Outer Space, "Can you prove it didn't happen?" That's not an argument -- and it's not a foundation for a life philosophy.
http://gretachristina.typepad.com/greta_christinas_weblog/2008/06/can-you-prove-it-didnt-happen-progressive-religion-and-the-standards-of-evidence.html
Old but good essay on the intellectual dishonesty of the "can you prove it didn't happen" canard.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
JDDavis
(725 posts)I also found some of the comments responding to it very interesting to read, as well.
rug
(82,333 posts)Do you think it's reasonable to hold a religious belief that isn't supported by evidence... as long as it's not actually contradicted by evidence?
It's also misleading.
It's absurd because:
If the claim is there is no evidence of a god, then it is incumbent upon that claimant to design the experiment that will test the claim that there is an infinite, ominicient, omnipotent, etc., entity. Good luck with that.
It's misleading because:
Disproving a particular claim, such as bleeding statues, is not difficult. To then extrapolate from that there is no evidence of a god is misleading, if not flat out dishonest.
Atheism is a rejection of a claim, not a positive claim that there are no gods. You don't ask for evidence or experiments to show lack of belief. Is lack of belief in Santa a positive claim? Incidentally, do you think it makes sense to believe something simply because it can't be disproven?
There are far batter rationales for atheism than those based on evidentiary standards but, since you're wedded to it, you are positing a claim that material evidence is the standard by which supernatural statements not only can be measured, but should be measured.
Those are claims. And those are absurd claims.
Silent3
(15,210 posts)...for Bigfoot, the "claim" that bears the brunt of the burden of proof is the claim that the evidence isn't there, not the claim that Bigfoot exists?
Or we attribute the burden of proof the ordinary sensible way when Bigfoot is treated as a natural creature, but flip the burden of proof if Person A additionally claims that Bigfoot is a supernatural being?
rug
(82,333 posts)Last edited Thu Jan 1, 2015, 04:35 PM - Edit history (1)
Bigfoot sightings are described in terms of physical attributes - starting with, well, a big foot.
The claim there is that an unusual, yet still material, thing exists. Those claims are indeed subject to physical evidence, physical scrutiny and physical evidence.
The claims, or beliefs, about a super-natural, infinite, ineffable god who can neither be described nor understood are sui generis.
I would like to have evidence of a god but I wouldn't even know where to begin to either identify what it is I intend to test or, if past that, how to do the test.
Can you?
Silent3
(15,210 posts)...as being exempt from any normal physical manifestations (oh, other than creating the whole physical universe itself, perhaps, or the occasional of-course-irreproducible miracle) seems more than good reason enough to treat such a belief as a matter of imagination and fantasy.
Add to that that people who make such claims can't provide a separate robust non-physical framework for proving or disproving supernatural claims, or for reconciling incompatible supernatural claims, other than maybe pulling out the "personal truth" hand wave or suggesting that we all sing Kumbaya, try to get along, and politely ignore such matters, that entire realm of beliefs even more greatly resembles imagination and fantasy.
rug
(82,333 posts)The better discipline to examine the subject is philosophy or - gasp - theology rather than particle physics.
Silent3
(15,210 posts)...it is inadequate for making such claims in the first place.
Further...
http://www.salon.com/2014/12/21/religions_smart_people_problem_the_shaky_intellectual_foundations_of_absolute_faith/
http://www.preposterousuniverse.com/blog/2013/04/29/what-do-philosophers-believe/
...so it wouldn't seem that philosophy looks very promising for vindicating supernatural claims, specifically belief in gods.
As for theology... well, yes, when you get into a field of study that most people wouldn't get into, and put so much effort into, without an a priori belief that they're very motivated to sustain, then surprise, surprise! Support for belief in gods goes up. Imagine that.
If that were true humans would be unable to ask questions in the first place or imagine the unimaginable.
Hate to tell you this but human intelligence is far from the most comprehensive thing in the universe. But what we do have is the ability to know that.
For example, your use of a twenty-first century poll of current philosophers proves nothing about philosophy's utility over three thousand years to ask the questions and attempt formulations. As a further example, it will be doing so three thousand years from now after the chortling subsides.
As for theology . . . . surprise, surprise, a nonbeliever thinks it's bunk. Theology will survive.
Silent3
(15,210 posts)"Survival", as in tired old memes refusing to die, isn't much of a recommendation in and of itself.
As for "ask(ing) questions", a claim that god or gods exist isn't asking a question. I have made no arguments against any particular questions being asked. It's when people claim to have answers to some of those questions, answers that would have very deep and sweeping implications if true, yet exercise a whole lot of special pleading to exempt their answers from reasonable standards of evidence that I have a problem.
rug
(82,333 posts)That's been covered already.
The problem you're having is the one you started out with.
You don't like the answers because they don't comport with the evidence you believe is necessary to prove them.
Which returns us to where we started. Circular reasoning is not a renedy for special pleading.
Silent3
(15,210 posts)...claims is a good remedy.
I don't accept "the answers" you refer to because those answers, in and of themselves, are special pleading. Calling special pleading what it is, special pleading, is no more circular reasoning than calling a dog a dog. If you want to call rejection of special pleading a form of special pleading itself, knock yourself out, but don't expect anyone else to buy it.
I could possibly more open the alleged "answers" (which have supposedly "been covered already"
provided some alternate robust system of evidence to supplant physical evidence, something that showed real progress and development over time like science does, when at least some ideas and claims occasionally met definitive deaths (as phlogiston theory and Lamarckian inheritance and many, many others have in science) instead of ideas and claims just going in and out of fashion, and if there were any way (beyond more special pleading from theologians) to distinguish supernatural claims from fantasy and imagination.
rug
(82,333 posts)And you're misusing it.
A special pleading attempts to exclude something from commonly accepted requirements for other things, without justification.
Now tell me: what do you consider to be remotely like God?
If you ask me to define God, this will be a long, tedious discussion.
Silent3
(15,210 posts)...from commonly accepted standards of evidence. Slapping the label "supernatural" on the matter, then additionally claiming by fiat that this supernatural category deserves special treatment doesn't strike me any sort of acceptable justification.
Why bother to ask you to define God, when I already know that the game is not only to escape normal standards of evidence, but to create a slippery non-definition definition, a God that deliberately can't be nailed down, that is automatically not the anything that anyone else has ever logically ruled out, yet everything the believer needs the God to be.
And that slipperiness isn't a flaw, oh no! It's a feature! It's what make God worthy of the title!
Edit: Indeed, let's give this special slipperiness a name. We'll call it "transcendence"!
rug
(82,333 posts)And your commonly accepted standards of evidence are entirely material.
Now you may be interested in using this Group to play games, but I'm not.
The concept of God as a nonmaterial being has been around for thousands of years and will be around thousands of years after the ball you're swatting rolls into a dusty corner.
There's a name for that game as well.
Silent3
(15,210 posts)...non-material being? How does it have any impact on your material existence? How does it perform miracles and other interventions in the material world?
Who cares if this non-material hand-waving has been around for thousands of years? All that means is that the excuses for lack of evidence are thousands of years old.
What are the standards that make one non-material god more real than another?
What's the difference between non-material and imaginary?
Why can't I claim that Bigfoot is also non-material with occasional material manifestations only visible to Bigfoot believers?
rug
(82,333 posts)The short answer is revelation.
Beyond vague intimations which may be simple indigestion, no one can reason his or her way to this. The history of religions almost all have their seeds in people who have had profound religious experiences in which it is said God has revealed himself or herself (depending on the tradition). Start with the burning bush, the Pentecost, Paul's blindness, the banyan tree or hundreds of other examples.
Scoff or not, these messages have resonated with billions of humans over thousands of years and there is a coherence and commonality to most of these religions. And the basic message is not bad. Quite the contrary.
Is this all bullshit? Who knows? But to overlook this ancient human activity and dismiss it on the ground it can not be found in a high school lab book is ignoring something vast for the most trivial of reasons.
FWIW, the more specific physical claims that are made about any given deity, the more skeptical I become.
To once again quote Kirk,
Silent3
(15,210 posts)Which brings up exactly what I've been asking: What distinguishes religious belief from imagination and fantasy?
Appeal to authority.
Why should anyone believe in these revelations that other people claim? Especially when many of these accounts are very far from first-hand and have been exposed to many generations of opportunity for distortion and deliberate tampering? Especially when, despite claims of commonality, there's also plenty of disagreement and contradiction?
I'm not seeing any good reason to go with the "not" option yet.
Argmentum ad populum.
Shared culture and shared biology easily explain those commonalities, in much the same way commonalities arise in alien abduction stories, with many people tapping into the same shared culture. That the revelations people either have themselves, or choose to believe other people have had, are best predicted by where a person grows up and what his or her parents believe further discredits any need to reach for a supernatural agency to explain the supposed "coherence and commonality" -- not to mention all of the incoherence and lack of commonality that's also being conveniently ignored.
Appeal to consequences.
Not that there aren't a whole lot of bad messages and bad consequences mixed in too -- once again conveniently ignored.
I don't overlook it at all. I look at it quite closely, and find it lacking for reasons that go well beyond any "high school lab book". The scientific method is hardly restricted to test tubes and microscopes. Above all else, the scientific method is about systematically making sure we aren't fooling ourselves. It's about setting up guidelines to root out personal bias and self-delusion.
I do not consider the lack of such a system in religion to be "the most trivial of reasons".
rug
(82,333 posts)imagination and fantasy are procreated by the individual. It usually remains with that individual.
Revelation comes from outside the individual. And historically has spread quite rapidly from that individual. Why do you think this is? Mass delusion?
Again, put down your list of fallacies. You're using them awkwardly. What you call an appeal to authority is instead a recounting of religious experiences. They have no inherent authority to appeal to.
An objective look at human religious experiences over millennia is hardly an appeal to a mob. Like it or not, the phenomena is widespread, ancient and real. You are of course free to chalk it up as a rhetorical device. I don't.
As to appeal to consequences, well that's just silly.
Which brings us back to the starting point. Your measure of God is the scientific method.
Very well. Design the experiment.
edhopper
(33,576 posts)That are false?
Or do we believe all of them? Even when they contradict each other?
How do we differentiate a revelation from a fantasy?
Silent3
(15,210 posts)Last edited Sat Jan 3, 2015, 12:15 AM - Edit history (1)
Because J.R.R Tolkien only imagined the story, and because it wasn't revelation, he had to keep it to himself!
You really want to make a big deal about whether someone keeps something to themselves or they spread it around as some sort of key difference between imagination, fantasy, and revelation?
Maybe by definition "Revelation comes from outside the individual", but by definition invisible pink unicorns are pink. Claiming revelation comes from outside the individual doesn't make actual revelation exist. Reality is not obligated to provide us with real incidents of all of the imagined phenomena we can define.
It takes no more than misplaced trust and a desire to believe, not mass delusion, for something one person imagines (or lies about) to be spread around as fact. Fox News works like that. The reason bullshit can spread is the same in both cases -- it spreads because the target audience wants to believe what is being said is true.
As for making anything out of the speed at which information spreads, to quote Churchill, "A lie gets halfway around the world before the truth has a chance to get its pants on."
When one person takes someone else's "recounting" as real information about an external influence like a god, and doesn't take it as merely the other's vivid imagination, that person is treating the other as an authoritative source of information. In fact, I can't think of a more pure form of appeal to authority -- the supposed authority doesn't need to document a reproducible methodology, doesn't need to provide references, doesn't need to provide credentials, etc.
When you earlier said "And the basic message is not bad. Quite the contrary." that hinted at the idea that people should be more generous in their criticism of religion because a supposedly good message comes along for the ride. I'd call that an appeal to consequences, if I read the intent correctly. It's a minor point I'm willing to conceded if I missed the mark.
Very well. Design the experiment.
Which brings you back to trying to foist the burden of proof on others to whom it does not belong.
Besides, I take that challenge, though not formed as a question, in much the same way I would take a rhetorical question. You only offer the challenge because you've ruled experiment impossible. You would only counter each offered experiment with reasons why that experiment was inadequate or misdirected. You expect others to treat it as a crowning feature, not a flaw, not a reason for doubt, that God and other religious concepts are founded on vague, fluid definitions and slippery accountability.
rug
(82,333 posts)It sounds like you've already determined that.
thucythucy
(8,050 posts)I keep suggesting to some of those pushing atheism in the religious forum that they at least read some of the more basic texts about the nature of what it is they're so busy trying to debunk. For instance, William James's "The Varieties of Religious Experience," which I know is dated, but is still I think a very good basic primer on the why and what of religious revelation.
I especially like his nutshell description of "religion" in his essay "The Reality of the Unseen."
"Were one asked to characterize the life of religion in the broadest and most general terms possible, one might say that it consists of the belief that there is an unseen order, and that our supreme good lies in harmoniously adjusting ourselves thereto."
To me this is a sort of foreshadowing of Rev. King's comment that there is a "moral arc to the universe, and it bends toward justice." That might not be the exact quote, but you'll know the one I mean. Which assertion, BTW, was met with a hoot of derision from one of our resident atheists. Dr. King being one of those "smart people" that religion, according to this particular OP, has so much trouble dealing with. My response was that I didn't see religion having a problem with smart people so much as certain atheists having difficulty with smart people of faith. Their explanation, according to this OP, was that smart people of faith are either emotionally stunted, or lying to themselves and the rest of the world. Dr. King, Mahatma Gandhi, Reinhold Niebuhr, Christopher Durisingh, William Sloan Coffin, all of them evidently just not up to the intellectual snuff you need to be a devout atheist.
Someday I'd love to start a discussion here of "Moral Man and Immoral Society"--and the effect it had as a catalyst for Dr. King's political work. Also, have you ever read Carl Jung's introduction to "The Tibetan Book of the Dead"? I can't lay my hands on it just this moment, and it's been a while since I read it, but judging from your comments here I think you'd really enjoy it.
Best wishes and happy new year, and please forgive my late night ramblings.
rug
(82,333 posts)James was one of the books we read in high school. The book still holds up, along with its psychology.
Happy New Year to you as well!
Orrex
(63,209 posts)Meh.
For everyone who didn't receive the revelation, revelation is hearsay and shouldn't be considered persuasive.
Least of all when that revelation purports to convey something about the intent or meaning of a universe-spanning immaterial entity for which there is no other evidence.
It would seem that a reasonable response to such an experience would be to question one's own perceptions, rather than to assume that one had been the beneficiary of special transcendent wisdom that can't be convincingly demonstrated to anyone else.
Given the amount of believers globally, I'd say it has in fact been convincingly demonstrated to anyone else. Literally.
Orrex
(63,209 posts)If we were talking about the most popular song or TV show, then you'd be all set. But when we're talking about the existence of an immaterial entity that no one can demonstrate, than the majority opinion is no more persuasive than one crackpot wearing a hair shirt in a cave somewhere. Sorry, but that's the truth of it.
A god that gives no evidence of its existence is unworthy of my worship. He's not even worthy of my acknowlegment, to be honest.
Considering your fondness for majority opinion, answer me this: on what basis can you assess the validity of any supernatural claim, since you're content to throw up your hands and say "lots of people beleve it?"
On edit, let me ask the question more directly: If I told you that God had informed me through revelation that I am now God, would you believe it? Why or why not? How could you possibly refute my claim?
Don't feel bad when you can't answer. I've asked this question dozens and dozens of times and never gotten a more convincing reply than "I know what I believe."
rug
(82,333 posts)You stated that no one is convinced of revelation. That is demonstrably wrong.
Frankly, the issue is not whether anything is "unworthy" of your worship but rather the utility of, presumably material, evidence in assessing spiritual claims.
Now, having incorrectly used argumentum ad populum, you now go on, gratuitously, to assume I have a "fondness for majority opinion". That's your third error.
Validity is simply a synonym for evidence. And is equally inapt. Maybe that's why no one is answering your question.
The question is why does someone accept it. One answer is that it's coherent. Accepting the underpinning premise is super-natural, what follows is internal consistency and comportment with what are generally considered good human values.
If you want to keep this going, keep your personal remarks to yourself.
Orrex
(63,209 posts)No, what I stated is this:
Since you immediately mischaracterize my opinion, you are in no position to lecture anyone about the nature of logical fallacies, even if you know how to Google the Latin terminology.
rug
(82,333 posts)Orrex
(63,209 posts)Tell me how exactly a revelation can be convincingingly demonstrated to someone else, and tell me specifically how & when this has occurred. If you can't, then you're simply witnessing, and that's simply hearsay.
I accept that people will believe the tale of a revelation despite a lack of evidence, but that hardly counts as "convincingly demonstrating" the revelation. It means that people have thrown up their collective hands and said "we believe you."
And it still doesn't answer the question of how you assess the reality of any supernatural claim.
What are we to conclude from your failure or unwillingness to answer straightforward questions about the nature of belief?
rug
(82,333 posts)The first fact is that billions of people for thousands of years have been demonstrably convinced by religious revelations sufficient to spend their lives in the religions.
I note how you have twice now ignored that fact to say "how". The how of it is your problem. And your problem doesn't change the reality of that fact.
I will give you a clue: it's not, "It means that people have thrown up their collective hands and said 'we believe you.'"
If you understood either revelation - or hearsay - you'd realize any report of a spiritual revelation is perforce a second-hand account. And? Whether you realize it or not, people are sent to prison daily on hearsay. It almost sounds like you dismiss revelations because you personally haven't had one. If you want to make the argument that nothing exists, excuse me, is demonstrated, because you haven't sensed it, be my guest.
Now, rejecting an answer, or diverting it, or reframing it, does not mean you have not received an answer. It means you either don't get it or you don't like it.
Now here's a straightforward question for you: who are the "we" you're invoking?
Orrex
(63,209 posts)Millions of people believe in ghosts and UFOs and psychic healings and astral projection. Their belief and their testimony are unpersuasive.
Even the majority to which you are appealing is a lot smaller than you want to pretend it is, because those billions sure as shit don't all believe the same thing.
The only reason to accept as conclusive the beliefs of "billions of people for thousands of years" is because those beliefs coincide with one's own sufficiently to provide an aesthetically satisfying explanation.
Your continued assertion that you or (or the many before you) have answered the question is delightful but meaningless. You don't simply get to declare the question answered by fiat.
And although I know you don't like it, it is nevertheless true that the only way to accept someone else's alleged revelation as truth is to throw up your hands and say "I believe you."
rug
(82,333 posts)Why is that? Do you think billions of people have been and are deluded? Irrational?
Do you have an alternate explanation for this phenomenon? One that is not the of the trite "psychological crutch" variety (which is no more than a species of the deluded argument)? Or maybe it actually is your belief that it's the result of aesthetic satisfaction, whatever the hell that is.
No, I guess you're content to believe that human history is made up of people wandering around aimlessly waving their arms in the air.
And yes, when you ask a question I get to declare the answer. Can't handle it? Boo hoo.
And, by far, convictions based on hearsay are sustained on appeal. Hey, hearsay was your term. Don't blame me if you don't quite see how it's irrelevant.
I will say this. You have reeled and stumbled into an intriguing question. What material evidence do you expect to see of "transcendent reality"?
I'll wait. While I'm waiting you can answer the simpler, straightforward question you've not answered. Who are the "we" you invoked? Are you now alone?
Orrex
(63,209 posts)Some are probably deluded (especially if they've fallen prey to a charismatic witness). Some are probably irrational (especially if they insist that someone else's revelation obviates the need for independently verifiable evidence).
Some are probably ignorant, in the literal sense. They lack the tools to assess evidence (i.e., young children) or the technical experience to understand tough concepts (i.e., young Earth creationists).
I would however suggest that most are mistaken. They have accepted the claims of the witnesses and have overstated the value of revelation.
Lots of people in ancient Egypt believed that pharoahs would rise after death if properly mummified. Would you assert that these people were deluded or irrational?
Lots of people believe in Big Foot. Are these people deluded or irrational?
On what basis can you assess the correctness of these other belief systems?
My view that people have been mistaken in interpreting the value of revelation hardly translates to imagining them "aimlessly waving their arms in the air."
Moreover, I'm sorry to break it to you, but using "we" in that context is a rhetorical device to refer to the readership in general. If it upsets you, you are welcome to rephrase it as "What is one to conclude from your failure or unwillingness to answer straightforward questions about the nature of belief?" Regardless, it's hardly central to my argument, though I would indeed find it interesting to read why you ignore questions that you don't like.
And by "why you ignore questions" I also mean "why you pretend that you have answered questions that you haven't answered."
Hearsay is easily and often overturned by contradictory material evidence, and in fact hearsay is often inadmissible as evidence in the first place because it's, you know, hearsay. The failings of human perception are well documented when it comes to identifying subjects in a line-up, for instance.
Further, even if hearsay were accepted as evidence in a trial, it is never acceptable as a substitute for empirical evidence in a scientific experiment.
When we're (and by using "we" in this sentence, I mean "rug and I." Understand?) talking about demonstrating the existence of a supernatural being, hearsay is simply insufficient to serve as evidence, unless we are willing to throw up our hands and say "I believe you." You are clearly willing to do so. I am not.
First, such evidence would need to withstand scrutiny under the scientific method. That is, it would need to be reproducible and independently verifiable by objective, disinterested parties.
Second, the evidence would need to be specific, such that it can be correlated exclusively to "transcendent reality" and not to some lesser phenomenon. If it can't be so correlated, the advocate would need to explain how the evidence serves as evidence for "transcendent reality" instead of the lesser phenomenon.
Third, it's frankly not up to me to disprove it. The burden is on the advocate to make his or her case in support of this "transcendent reality." Let him or her put it forth the purported evidence and subject it to independent review. If it can be shown that the evidence supports "transcendent reality" then I will be satisfied.
Failing that, I have a bridge to sell you.
rug
(82,333 posts)And where is the experiment for this?
Second, the evidence would need to be specific, such that it can be correlated exclusively to "transcendent reality" and not to some lesser phenomenon. If it can't be so correlated, the advocate would need to explain how the evidence serves as evidence for "transcendent reality" instead of the lesser phenomenon.
(Yes, I'm ignoring the rest of your post. I'm trying to extract from substance.)
Orrex
(63,209 posts)You might be tempted to retort that I am the skeptic for whom no evidence would be sufficient, but of course that would be a lie, and I'm sure that a devout soul like yourself would never resort to deliberate dishonesty to score a rhetorical point.
If you dispute this, I invite you to make your case at this time, because you haven't yet done so. Further, it is meaningless to say "it's sufficient for them," because muddy footprints in the forest are sufficient for believers in Bigfoot, but that doesn't mean that these are in fact sufficient.
Look, I'm about done with you. You don't understand how logic works, you don't understand what qualifies as evidence, and you don't answer specific questions when asked. You have indeed thrown up your hands and said "I believe," and it's pretty clear that nothing will turn you from that course.
Please don't ask me if I think that you're deluded or irrational. because I don't think that you'd care for the answer.
cleanhippie
(19,705 posts)Of course, that is common knowledge already, but I applaud your patience and willingness to try.
rug
(82,333 posts)Now I need your help here. I asked you this:
You replied with this:
Is there an answer somewhere in there or are you just ducking the question. Note: the use of "therefore" does not mean you concluded anything at all.
And, yes, now that you mention it, I will ask you: do you think I'm deluded or irrational?
Don't be shy.
tradewinds
(260 posts)are in fact, either deluded, irrational, or both. But that is just my opinion.
I'm not shy.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)
tradewinds
(260 posts)hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)tradewinds
(260 posts)Seems you have said nothing.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)tradewinds
(260 posts)My opinion is, in order to maintain that opinion one must be double deluded, or twice as irrational.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)tradewinds
(260 posts)
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)tradewinds
(260 posts)You aught talk to him.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)I would hate for you to get a jury hide on my account.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)tradewinds
(260 posts)
rug
(82,333 posts)He's Christian.
You posted the picture.
Are you calling him a moron?
Don't be afraid to answer,. You said you're not shy.
tradewinds
(260 posts)rug
(82,333 posts)That picture must have miraculously appeared in a post of yours.
rug
(82,333 posts)Orrex
(63,209 posts)If you're not delusional or irrational, the answer should be simple.
Orrex
(63,209 posts)then how would a believer determine the reality of one supernatural phenomenon versus another, since neither requires empirical evidence, and (if we're to believe the arc of half of this thread) such phenomena are demonstrated exactly by their lack of empirical evidence.
How can one supernatural claim be identified as true while another is identified as false?
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)Orrex
(63,209 posts)Faith is magically declared not to be subject to the surest method of negating it.
You're doing exactly what our esteemed associate rug has insisted that no one does: you're choosing to throw up your hands and say "I believe."
You're welcome to do so. But what our esteemed associate rug fails to understand is that your choice to do so (or the choice of billions to do so) is not evidence of the reality of the believed-in thing.
It may be a fact that billions have believed over thousands of years (of course, they've believed in very different things, so that's a problem as well), but that doesn't mean that the believed-in thing is a fact.
Orrex
(63,209 posts)hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)desire to participate.
Orrex
(63,209 posts)Last edited Mon Jan 12, 2015, 08:53 AM - Edit history (1)
I gave you the benefit of the doubt and asked you--since you're neither delusional nor irrational--how you would distinguish the professed reality of one supernatural phenomenon from the professed reality of another supernatural phenomenon.
You haven't answered, which, as I've noted, is exactly the same result as the many dozens of times I've asked this question over the years. Instead, you responded indirectly with a weak "faith is not scientific nor is it meant to be," which is both special pleading and a perfect example of throwing up your hands and declaring "I believe."
Again, you're welcome to do so, but doing so isn't going to convince anyone who doesn't already believe or who actually examines the claim rationally.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)Orrex
(63,209 posts)Good luck to you.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)Have a pleasant evening.
Orrex
(63,209 posts)At least not seriously.
Do you sit around with like-minded individuals and share stories of faith, or do you engage with people who don't believe as you do?
You ignored a simple, straightforward question about the nature of faith, so forgive me if I don't believe that you examine your faith all the time.
I know that you don't care whether I believe you or not, and that makes two of us.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)I live in NYC and I am exposed to many different viewpoints.
I post in this room and that is an exercise in itself.
As to your question I answered it.
Orrex
(63,209 posts)Last edited Mon Jan 12, 2015, 08:47 AM - Edit history (1)
As I wrote, nothing in this thread indicates that you are willing to examine your faith. What other evidence would you have me consider? Your testimony? Why should that overrule my perception of your posts here?
You're requiring me to make a leap of faith and believe that you robustly examine your faith all the time, when the only evidence available to me suggests very strongly that you don't. Again, I don't care whether you really do, because as far as our interaction goes, you haven't done so. Demonstrate otherwise, and I will believe you (even though I suspect you don't care whether I do or don't).
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)Orrex
(63,209 posts)The question was "on what basis do you accept the reality of one supernatural phenomenon while dismissing the reality of another?"
The closest you've come to a response is something along the lines of "faith is not scientific nor is it meant to be." That's not an answer, even if you want it to be. It would be like me asking you "what is two plus two?" and you answering "the man at the library wore a green shirt." Your response has nothing to do with the question.
I invite you once again to answer it, and it should be easy, given your long history of intense examination of your faith.
Or don't answer it, and instead number yourself among the many dozens who've likewise claimed to have answered it while likewise utterly failing to do so.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)Orrex
(63,209 posts)We're done here.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)Response to hrmjustin (Reply #167)
Post removed
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)
randys1
(16,286 posts)This is the definition of deluded...
Many hold this belief in sincere terms, and I understand that...
rug
(82,333 posts)tradewinds
(260 posts)
Orrex
(63,209 posts)And then I will propose a test for it. Absent that definition, you are simply making shit up. You are throwing up your hands and declaring "I choose to believe."
You're trying to steer me into some sort of pseudo-gotcha moment wherein I say "no empirical experiment can verify transcendent reality," and you say "ah-ha!"
Well, your whole argument requires you to pretend that revelation is sufficient to verify transcendent reality, but you've offered nothing to support this fantasy. Sauce for the goose; if no empirical test is possible because the subject exceeds the bounds of empiricism, then one's own introspection and belief absolutely aren't adequate to verify the revelation.
rug
(82,333 posts)"I am the First, and I am the Last, and besides me there is no God." (Isaiah 44:6)
Now test it.
And no, you can choose either, both or none.
Now choose.
tradewinds
(260 posts)Nothing in that post makes any sense at all. It is almost as if it is a "Mad Lib", or some such shit.
rug
(82,333 posts)tradewinds
(260 posts)But I must concede that I can not make heads nor tails of it.
I'm sticking with:
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)Let's do this.
rug
(82,333 posts)Then point out what bearing that has.
This should be good.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)Once we establish the requirement, we can go on to how it can exist without a creator, even if the universe can't.
rug
(82,333 posts)What type of evidence do you propose works to test the existence of an infinite god?
I will leave out the lack of evidence for an eternal universe, Krauss notwithstanding.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)I asked for evidence that one is required, that doesn't require actually testing the proposed god itself.
Nor does showing a god isn't required (or failing to show one IS required, rather), show or even imply that the universe is eternal.
rug
(82,333 posts)Urinalysis is the test. Blue piss is evidence.
I already told you: the notion that a god is required, or not required, is a philosophical premise or, if you prefer, a hypothesis. That's not evidence.
But the question of an eternal, or finite, universe is pertinent. If it is not eternal, it required an origin. To date, that is what the evidence points to.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)Urinalysis is the test. Blue piss is evidence.
That your piss might be optically blue, is indeed evidence. Urinalysis is to test whether something is wrong/what the composition of the piss is. (The hypothesis you would be testing; 'is something wrong'.) You've begged the question of 'is blue piss abnormal/require testing for something?'.
The question was, 'can you show evidence the universe required a creator?'.
Whether the universe is eternal or finite and whether it had an origin, is not evidence for or against whether it required a Creator(TM).
The universe could have had an origin, but will be eternal going forward. (Evidence currently points to this, and that body of evidence is growing.) (Open or Flat Universe)
The universe could have an origin, and an eventual end. (Some evidence points to this, but it has become increasingly unlikely since the 80's per an increasing body of evidence against it.) (Closed Universe)
The universe could have been eternal all along, and forever going forward. (Un-bloody-likely given the enormous body of evidence against it.) (Flat 'origin' and future)
Tons of evidence to consider for these three possibilities*. None of it is recognizable to me as evidence requiring a Creator(TM).
Where is your evidence that a Creator(TM) is required? Then we can get to what evidence you have that such a hypothetical creator is exempt from any rules you surmise that prevent the universe itself from spontaneously existing.
*There are more possibilities such as Multiverse theory, and some evidence that might support that, but those three above should suffice as the main categories of possible scenarios.
rug
(82,333 posts)You do recall the original claim is that there is no (material) evidence for the existence of a god, don't you?
The objection is to the use of material evidence.
You countered that, inaptly, with a demand for evidence that the universe required a creator at all.
You were corrected and told that is not a demand for evidence at all but a demand for for a premise.
Which leads us to this, a more verbose repetition of what you already said.
When you return to the topic, come get me. I'll be over there.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)Post 11: Asked you to point out evidence for your imaginary friend.
Post 12: You responded "Point out what type of evidence you think fits."
Post 18: I accept your response, and suggest a starting place; evidence that a creator is required at all.
Post 19: You jump the shark located most conveniently near you, and respond with a bunch of shit that doesn't have anything to do with evidence that a god is required to create the universe.
Post 25: I try to haul you back to the request; is there evidence that a creator is required to create the universe.
Post 27: You find a couple more sharks to leap about.
Post 37: I explain the purpose of my starting point.
Post 41: You accuse me of moving goalposts, which is total horseshit. Typical bullshit deflection from you.
I asked you to provide evidence that a creator is required for the universe to exist. You've claimed variously that
"What type of evidence do you propose works to test the existence of an infinite god?"
Correct. That is why I asked the revised question about evidence that shows a creator is required. We may not be able to test the existence of a god directly, due to the "The claims, or beliefs, about a super-natural, infinite, ineffable god who can neither be described nor understood are sui generis." assertion, which I tentatively accept as possible limitation in examining the existence of an alleged god.
God, if it exists, may be 'infinite, ineffable, incomprehensible, indescribable', but the universe is material, and is not infinite, ineffable, incomprehensible, or indescribable. Everything about the material universe is discoverable to us. We've already demonstrated considerable capability in discovering even the origins of the universe, which we did not yet exist to observe.
Therefore, it should be possible to examine the universe and it's origin to identify evidence that requires a supernatural creator, to create the universe. Indirectly showing that A creator of some sort exists, without delving into whether it's got XYZ powers, XYZ doctrines, whether it's a semi-transparent old man in a beard, or a recursive pile of turtles. None of that needs to be examined, we can infer whether a creator exists from examining the natural universe to see if it needs a creator at all.
That doesn't rule out a creator, if one doesn't find any evidence that the universe requires a creator, but if one DOES find evidence that it DOES require a creator, then bob's your uncle, you've proven the existence of SOME sort of god-thingy.
So hop to it, or pick some other thing we CAN test that we both agree upon. Because you sure seemed to agree to the request in 19 (or rather, made up some straw aspect of the question to disregard.)
Asking you for evidence that the universe requires a creator is not a premise. It's a request. Whether the evidence can be supplied provides a foundation to form a premise.
Quit fucking with me.
cleanhippie
(19,705 posts)with him.
I applaud you both in your patience and willingness to attempt honest and rational conversation with him, but alas, it is an exercise in futility.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)me on his ignore list.
Think I might return the favor.
cleanhippie
(19,705 posts)there's a reason people hate lawyers.
Orrex
(63,209 posts)cleanhippie
(19,705 posts)
Orrex
(63,209 posts)
Response to Orrex (Reply #89)
Post removed
Orrex
(63,209 posts)
cleanhippie
(19,705 posts) rug
(82,333 posts)Your ignorance of the 23 exceptions to the hearsay rule is but one demonstration.
Orrex
(63,209 posts)I note that you didn't actually claim to be a lawyer, so I will follow the evidence and conclude that you are not.
The vapidity of your argument is strong evidence that you're not really a lawyer, or that you're not a good one.
I know that this answer won't trouble you in the slightest, because you believe what you want to believe regardless of reality or evidence. And you're not shy, apparently.
rug
(82,333 posts)Leaping to conclusions fueled only by animus , bias and, likely, frustration.
Welcome to the Religion Group.
Orrex
(63,209 posts)I'm leaping to no conclusions, and incidentally you clearly don't know what that means either.
Leaping to conclusions entails making a decision based on a lack of logically supporting information. Accepting a revelation as true is just about the ultimate example of leaping to a conclusion, and your clearly demonstrated inability to grasp this is hardly my problem.
And your snarky offer of welcome is both petty and meaningless.
rug
(82,333 posts)Now explain the palpable animus. I'm sure that's the result of cool logic and reason.
Orrex
(63,209 posts)So in this regard I must accept that your manner is greatly off-putting.
Your rhetorical foot-stomping, your repeated fallacies, your misunderstanding of evidence, and your outright refusal to answer direct questions (while insisting that you've answered them), leads me to conclude logically that nothing further is to be gained from interaction with you.
I will now reasonably place you on Ignore because I have no interest in discussing a point with a person who seems fundamentally unable to grasp it.
Since I've dealt with your ilk before, I am confident that you will deduce that my choice to Ignore you is an admission of defeat. Since you are happy to believe things without evidence, your powers of deduction are unimpressive.
rug
(82,333 posts)I prefer standing to covering my head.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)rug
(82,333 posts)AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)a bunch of rhetorical bullshit you rely upon.
I threw you a huge bone (let's not waste time talking about proving god directly, because I agree, it may not be possible to show any evidence thereof.) and a huge opportunity (show evidence that a god is *required* to explain the material state of the universe.).
You aren't taking it, and that speaks volumes about the 'evidence' for your god.
rug
(82,333 posts)A god indeed is not required to explain the material universe. By the same token, material explanations do not vitiate the notion of a god. In any event, this universe is far from adequately described, let alone explained.
But that is not the subject at hand.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)needs be a god. If you can show evidence of tool marks, we can infer the tool exists. The universe is material and discoverable. If the idea of a supernatural creator can hold any merit at all, a person like me assumes there must be evidence in said material world requiring those tools/tool-holder, to explain the tool marks.
rug
(82,333 posts)Does a god need to leave a loose string to unravel?
Assuming the universe was created by a god, why could it not be complete, intact and internally consistent without a tell-tale wormhole through which we crawl and find god?
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)"Why should there be material evidence of a nonmaterial entity?"
Not what I said. You're fixated on proving/disproving god directly. I'm not. I'm talking about inference by way of evidence in/of the material universe that suggests it was fabricated, rather than natural.
Evidence of fabrication infers a fabricator. It does not require understanding or knowing the fabricator or it's nature.
"without a tell-tale wormhole through which we crawl and find god?"
I didn't say anything about intending to find your god at all.
rug
(82,333 posts)And not necessarily a religious topic at all.
The theories are all over the place about whether the univierse had a beginning or did not. I believe the consensus remains with an unknow and unexplained starting point.
That alone does not mean it was made, simply that it began. But it is not unreasonable to ask by whom or by what.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)I think it's been clearly established it has a beginning. Again, that is not what I am talking about. More along the lines of evidence of force, tampering, outside alteration to produce effects that cannot arise spontaneously and unguided.
It is unreasonable to ask who/what made the universe, until it has been established that it was made at all. Certainly unreasonable to come up with all this doctrine and pomp and promulgations by random mammals that claim to have a dialogue with some hypothetical creator thing, when we haven't even established that anything was 'created' at all.
rug
(82,333 posts)I disagree with your last point. If it has been clearly established that the universe has a beginning, it is eminently reasonable to ask "who/what made the universe". It is a downright natural, if not logically compelled, question to ask. No one is bound by the answer. Beyond that, I agree with you about the unwarranted pomp and doctrine that comes with various religious manifestations. But that doesn't negate the core question at all.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)I have no concept of, and no appreciation of the concept of a being so exceptional and powerful that it could be eternal, and omnipotent, to have created the universe. I don't know where people get that idea, beyond, an idea that is passed from generation to generation, and takes different source forms depending on the culture that person is exposed to it in.
Without an evidenced reason to have that hypothesis, (a supernatural super-powered creator) I see no reason to ask the question.
I take the universe as it appears to be, and one thing it does not appear to me; is manufactured. Leaving the idea of an author to the universe the stuff of sci-fi more or less. Fun fantasy thoughts, not credible 'how the universe works' stuff.
To me, anyway.
Then humanity bolts on so much baggage to that idea; doctrines, precepts, dogmas, commandments, and all the sectarian conflict that comes along with two sets of people with diametrically opposed rigid doctrines... salt that with 'commandments' to propagate the faith all that baggage is bound up in...
Hard for me not to be pretty negative about it.
rug
(82,333 posts)Not to mention rational and unbiased.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)Cat got your tongue?
rug
(82,333 posts)The converse is also true.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)If the claim is a God that has never interacted with the physical Universe, than any type of evidence for or against would be difficult.
But I don't run into many people who believe in a God that has zero impact on the physical world.
And when we turn to belief in any divine event in the Bible, then evidence for it is a reasonable request.
So not really absurd at all.
rug
(82,333 posts)That's a given.
But it doesn't flow into the existence of a god or a creator. The evidentiary test for that belief is not the same as for a specific material claim.
Of course, a common belief is that everything was created by God. That is more than zero impact on the physical world. How would you test that?
edhopper
(33,576 posts)the the origin of the Universe requires or shows a divine creator. One of the problems with God the creator is it is a superfluous explanation.
You can't test for the Big Bang, but you can find verifiable evidence to support the theory.
rug
(82,333 posts)But what evidence we do have to date is that everything has an origin. Do you have anything to the contrary? Remember, theory is not evidence.
edhopper
(33,576 posts)There is evidence that supports theory, as in the Big Bang.
Everything has an origin is meaningless in the context of a God.
I think we are talking about several different things here.
I also think I showed that while the discussion of evidence of God is not your preference. It is not absurd.
rug
(82,333 posts)I'm not quarelling with the Big Bang theory (first posited as you know by a priest), particularly since it supports the point.
An origin or creation, is absolutely pertinent to the notion of a god. It is the foundation of more than two-thirds of the world's religions.
My objection to the essay is its use of "evidence', material evidence, as a test for the existence of God. It is absurd. OTOH, the arguments as to the existence of God are far from absurd.
edhopper
(33,576 posts)a God of the gaps argument.
Since there is no evidence for a guided or intelligence behing the origin, and then the question of the origin of God must be asked and so on.
I find I need a more specific description of what God is before I ask for evidence either way. Most of those religions you cite do have a more precise idea of God or gods.
Maybe the answer to "Does God exist?" is "Which God?"
rug
(82,333 posts)But it's not a never-ending hall of mirrors either. If there is a God who created all, it is an entity unlike anything in natural experience or phenomena. The question is not who created God but what the hell is God. Hence, much-maligned theology.
edhopper
(33,576 posts)and searches for answers to fit it.
And always has the premise that God exists, so it really isn't any good in that debate.
God of the gaps is a very good rebuttal for certain assertions.
Like we don't know how the Universe began, so God.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)Where is your evidence that 'all' required a creator at all?
If you can show that it *required* a creator, that would significantly narrow the field of following questions without delving into what, exactly, your alleged god is.
rug
(82,333 posts)That's fact not allegation.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)Post 12 is yours, not mine, and I'm not going to sit here and guess what time zone you are in, and do the math on each post timestamp.
And you are begging a lot of questions to assume that is fact.
rug
(82,333 posts)AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)"If there is a God who created all, it is an entity unlike anything in natural experience or phenomena. The question is not who created God but what the hell is God."
One doesn't need to know what the hell is god to show whether or not god exists.
One can actually prove it, by proving that the universe requires a god to exist. The universe itself is something we can examine and test. No need to test god, whatever such an alleged thing might be. I accept your (paraphrased) claim that god is untestable. But that doesn't mean we can't establish it does exist. We can establish it exists by testing it's (alleged) works. If they cannot occur by any other means, then god.
Otherwise.. *shrug*
DetlefK
(16,423 posts)If a theist challenges an atheist that "You can't disprove God" then the theist makes the same mistake as Pascal's wager: The theist claims that there is only one kind of possible God, even though there are several religions and several concepts of divinity.
So, the sword "You can't disprove God" cuts both ways for the theist, because this is not a dilemma but a multi-lemma.
For example: A multiple-choice test, with the answers A, B, C and D. If you cannot disprove that A is the correct answer, does that mean that B is automatically a wrong answer? And what about C and D?
rug
(82,333 posts)Your example demonstrates that.
The essay is about evidence and lack of evidence as atool for determining the existence of a god.
Iggo
(47,552 posts)Either you believe it or you don't, right?
but in context, some believers, when confronted with evidence counter to their beliefs will say, I don't care about those facts, I still choose to believe.
edhopper
(33,576 posts)thoughtful essay.
Thanks.
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)edhopper
(33,576 posts)When you ignore.
trotsky
(49,533 posts)
rug
(82,333 posts)
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)rug
(82,333 posts)I'm sure you will read each and every one. Can't help it.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)rug
(82,333 posts)hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)
Heddi
(18,312 posts)So it's okay when you can't stand it when someone challenges you, and it's okay when your friends put people on ignore because they can't stand when people challenge them, but TOTALLY NOT OKAY WHEN WARREN PUTS PEOPLE ON IGNORE because that's somehow...different?
how is it different, justin? How are you more justified in using ignore than anyone else, for any other reason?
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)My problem is when I am asked the same question again and again by the same people.
At this point I have no one on ignore. I amm just not responding to some member due to their behavior.
And where exactly did I say "TOTALLY NOT OKAY WHEN WARREN PUTS PEOPLE ON IGNORE"?
Heddi
(18,312 posts)Said that he didnt like it when he was challenged so he puts people on ignore. Just like you do. Just like your friends do. Why not call them out like you do Warren and trotsky and others for their use of Ignore? There's a word for criticizing people for doing the same things you do....
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)Seems you are the one looking to make an issue here.
mr blur
(7,753 posts)Promethean
(468 posts)and I know the people who say it have had it explained to them that it is faulty: absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Strictly speaking they are correct, if you cannot find evidence that does not mean there is none. However they never seem to realize that absence of evidence is grounds not to believe something until evidence is presented. Add in that people have been actively looking for evidence for an extended period of time and all we have found is contradictory evidence the grounds for disbelief just keep growing.
Then of course there are the "but science can't measure the supernatural" arguments. As if picking a word with a fuzzy definition solves the problem. All it does is show they are willing to hide behind poorly defined words and outright dishonesty.
rug
(82,333 posts)
rogerashton
(3,920 posts)With 127 replies no-one seems to have addressed the question.
Just how does a believer choose between the conflicting revelations reported, for example, by Baha'u'llah and Joseph Smith?
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)tradewinds
(260 posts)
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)And that was enough for another year.