Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
pre ps. The 'evidence' such as it is, is that it is the stronger logical or presuppositioning position based on the lack of evidence - either way. Thus reserving belief until there is something to go on (evidence) is a logically more sound position. I hope that I don't need to draw you an exploded diagram of the reasoning.
I do not deal in 'possibilities'. I have convincing evidence (1) that reality is real, quite apart from what our perceptions are. And the effects of that reality repeat, predictably. Therefore, as I posted to some one on Christianity who asked(2) whether it was possible that I did not exist, I replied that it was possible, but as I could not imagine how, let alone think it probable or even a plausible suggestion, I did not worry about it.
Thus I do not worry or even care much about the myriad undisprovables, but take the verified results of science as the only facts worth believing. That is in fact what we all do - even those who profess to claim that they do not. We rely on reality and the work of science every day of our flippin' lives.
p.s If I have got you wrong and that image was merely an analogy, then you had better explain the verified fact that it is an analogy of as, if it is merely an analogy of an unverified claim, it was not worth posting.
(1) what I call the 'cheeze sandwich' test. Or you may call it it the 'absent chair' verication.
(2) it was a nice question and I recall it with pleasure.
That image was merely about '???' i.e. questions and gaps in any knowledge.
Btw, I am not discounting 'knowledge based on evidence.' Such knowledge is definitely useful for humanity and thus should be pursued.
You said 'evidence is stronger' than anything else.
I asked are you aware of the weaknesses and limitation associated knowledge on the basis of 'evidence' for example,
1. Hume's customs, habits and psychological grounds of such knowledge. The Problem of Induction.
2. Popper declared all scientific theories to be conjectures, albeit continually polished ones.
3. Kant et al assert all empirical knowledge are interdependent with human conditions.
4. Gettier's
5. etc.
As I said empirical knowledge is definitely useful but philosophically we have an onus to ground them more solidly rather than leave it to psychological grounds. As such if one dig deep into it there would be much more to discover which can be useful. Could it that this is not a philosophical forum that people are not interested to dig deeper?
My point is, if we dig deeper, then one may arrive at a common ground with what is at the bottom of metaphysical knowledge [theism] which is also psychologically driven.
This reconciliation is one of the element of the Critical Philosophical Framework and System [hypothesis] that I am proposing.
The bottom line is that we cannot be 100% certain of anything. The results of data evaluated scientifically and assessed logically gives us the most reliable, best and indeed the only worthwhile set of results.
All the chat about the nature of thought and reason is fine, but it doesn't alter the bottom line. Suposed abstracts and human conventions such as morality, mathematics, time -measurement, the principle of parsimony are all based on the reliably repeatable reality and demonstrably so with quite simple examples.
Thus the bottom line is what we know and how we know what we know and that is a firm basis to consider the claims of speculation, guesswork and hypothesis and see whether they can be tested.
If not, they can be left on the shelf until they can. And I am really not going to worry about them in the meantime. But I promised I'd look at your argument again. And that's about disproving God 100%
I don't think it can be done, unless one fiddles the parameters - and that is asking for a theist counterblast..and you cannot allow those blighters to make a single point or they think they won the whole debate.
That image was merely about '???' i.e. questions and gaps in any knowledge.
Btw, I am not discounting 'knowledge based on evidence.' Such knowledge is definitely useful for humanity and thus should be pursued.
You said 'evidence is stronger' than anything else. ...
etc.
I had a reprise of your OP and the prior thread and I do get the desirability of not having a 1% gap for God to hide in. But I don't think it can be done. There is no argument that can be made that a theist cannot wriggle out of using the following steps in ..say an argument on Genesis, the Prophecies, the Gospel story:
1. Argue using the evidence
2 Argue misusing the evidence
3 argue denying the evidence
4 argue against the use of evidence.
The inability to pin the theist down in't really the point. getting an opponent to admit they are wrong is no longer the objective, but to show the peanut gallery who has the better case.
1. we show the evidence really argues against the theist argument (e.g evolution - an obvious example)
2. we show how the evidence is being misrepresented. (evolution argues that dogs come from cats)
3. the rejection of the whole body of scientific evidence as some atheist conspiracy can be shown to be putting the argument in the non -science category.
4. rejecting scientifically -validated evidence and logical reasoning and appealing to faith as better than 'man -made' knowledge and wisdom - and that is the whole point of the 'how do we know what we know?' argument - can be shown up as an abandonment of all claim of their argument to be based on reason or evidence. They cannot now use 'man made' logic or 'biased science' evidence to support their position. They have given it up for Faith.
Of course Faith can be shown to be very unreliable and they will just end up in the 'I don't care what you say' category of response. And I think showing that the supposed divine inspiration coincides exactly with their own beliefs, preferences and views - even when they change their views.."God" changes his views too, it becomes clear to everyone..probably even themselves, that their god is their self inflated to cosmic level. They may deny it but can be left to their denial. Deep down inside, they know it is true.
This still doesn't prove there isn't a god and (like evolution) never could and isn't intended to. It does show who has the best case and inded the only valid case.
And that is really all anyone should need.
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 09-11-2015 at 06:41 AM..
I had a reprise of your OP and the prior thread and I do get the desirability of not having a 1% gap for God to hide in. But I don't think it can be done. There is no argument that can be made that a theist cannot wriggle out of using the following steps in ..say an argument on Genesis, the Prophecies, the Gospel story:
1. Argue using the evidence
2 Argue misusing the evidence
3 argue denying the evidence
4 argue against the use of evidence.
The inability to pin the theist down in't really the point. getting an opponent to admit they are wrong is no longer the objective, but to show the peanut gallery who has the better case.
1. we show the evidence really argues against the theist argument (e.g evolution - an obvious example)
2. we show how the evidence is being misrepresented. (evolution argues that dogs come from cats)
3. the rejection of the whole body of scientific evidence as some atheist conspiracy can be shown to be putting the argument in the non -science category.
4. rejecting scientifically -validated evidence and logical reasoning and appealing to faith as better than 'man -made' knowledge and wisdom - and that is the whole point of the 'how do we know what we know?' argument - can be shown up as an abandonment of all claim of their argument to be based on reason or evidence. They cannot now use 'man made' logic or 'biased science' evidence to support their position. They have given it up for Faith.
Of course Faith can be shown to be very unreliable and they will just end up in the 'I don't care what you say' category of response. And I think showing that the supposed divine inspiration coincides exactly with their own beliefs, preferences and views - even when they change their views.."God" changes his views too, it becomes clear to everyone..probably even themselves, that their god is their self inflated to cosmic level. They may deny it but can be left to their denial. Deep down inside, they know it is true.
This still doesn't prove there isn't a god and (like evolution) never could and isn't intended to. It does show who has the best case and inded the only valid case.
And that is really all anyone should need.
A General Note:
I believe theism and religions are critical necessities for the majority in the current phase of evolution. Thus I am not proposing to stop theists from believing in a God if they need to. The ONLY provision is theists must recognize the limitations [it is impossible for God to exist as real] of the God they relied as a belief that is based on faith.
................................
I do not have a serious issue with theists believing in a God except the above proviso that theists need to recognize the limitations [it is impossible for God to exist as real].
I am not relying on the matter of 'evidence' but rather based on a fact along the principle, proposing the idea [transcendental] of God is like proposing the existence of a squared-circle, i.e. a contradiction.
Because a contradiction is an impossibility, the existence of a real God for a real person is an impossibility.
The constraints are, to demonstrate such a claim is not a matter of one syllogism but it need a spider-web of interconnected and interdependent 'syllogisms' and narratives to support the argument.
To deal with that 1% gap we need very fine and delicate philosophical structures, principles, etc.
On the question of 'faith' not significantly related to theism, note Kant's famous saying
'I have to deny knowledge to make room for faith.'
This will be one element [out of many hundreds or could be 1000++] that I will rely upon in the construction of my proposed Critical Philosophical Framework and System.
Note we need to be of mindful the trade-off for the above [theists to loosen their belief] is to prevent a great chunk of evil within humanity, i.e. religion-inspired evils and violence in the future [not immediately].
I agree your post. In fact the beef is not with religion as such (indeed discussion with Gldrule pointed up that it may add some cultural value to our society that would be missed if it vanished (1) but with its authority to interfere with our society on the basis of claims that are without validity.
I certainly agree that religion has to be removed as a socially influential force because it can be anything from an inconvenience to a serious problem.
I agree that there are some god -defs that are contradictory. For example 'can God make a chilli so hot he can't eat it?' God - believers can easily evade this with 'God can do anything that isn't in itself logically contradictory'. Indeed I was toying with the definite definition of God - "an entity that is outside and beyond any objections that unbelievers can come up with'.
I accept your point about the 1% or whatever logical possibility -gap for god. If you can find a way of eliminating it, good for you, but I think it it was possible it would have been found by now. For me just 95% confidence that any explanation is more probable that goddunnit is more than enough for me to be an unbeliever.
(1) just think - without witches and warlocks - no Harry Potter. And I thought the books were ok and the films even better. And the obscene spoofs best of all.
A General Note:
I believe theism and religions are critical necessities for the majority in the current phase of evolution.
I wonder if that is actually true or merely seems true as a product of familiarity.
We lack a model of a world devoid of religious superstition. If we attempted to remove that which is so treasured and familiar to so many, the result would probably be resistance and chaos.
But if we jump forward to a speculative time, several generations after religion had been removed, we would have people being born into a world where the absence of religious belief was the norm and that was their new familiarity. In such a case there would then be resistance and chaos if someone attempted to restore or impose religious belief.
I see it as a matter of familiarity uber alles. Most people see their world as the right world, and see change as a threat. It explains why religious faiths are regional, it explains why most children wind up following the same faith as their parents. It is because most people never really chose their religion, not in a manner congruent with examining all of the candidates and making a selection based on apparent merit. They accept the religion of familiarity....and why wouldn't they? Cultures are heavily soaked in religious aspects. Shutting down the religion would also involve shutting down the peripheral aspects, the holidays, the assumption of shared beliefs when meeting a stranger, the status some people achieve as a consequence of their religious activities. It really isn't about belief, it is about comfort.
In short, if we were somehow able to erase all human memory of the existing religions, would there really be a vacuum which needed filling? Or would everyone embrace the apparent new norm and embrace the new peripheral aspects?
I wonder if that is actually true or merely seems true as a product of familiarity.
Sometimes society lurches forward in its development surprisingly fast. Who knows. But I have no doubt that some people would be very traumatized / destabilized and would not recover, if religion were simply ripped from them. I also have no doubt that religion is deeply entrenched in most societies.
The most I dare hope for is for religion to be largely marginalized in the next generation or two but I can easily envision scenarios where it will take up to another millennium for it to be truly on the fringes. I base this on the fact that the human perceptual quirks that support and enable religion (confirmation bias, agency inference, etc) will not change that fast. We not only have to demonstrate that religion is BS, but motivate people to work against their propensity to credit the BS. All in exchange for a great big beautiful universe that's completely indifferent to your hopes, dreams and aspirations. A pretty tall order, and one we should not underestimate.
All in exchange for a great big beautiful universe that's completely indifferent to your hopes, dreams and aspirations. A pretty tall order, and one we should not underestimate.
I found unshackling myself from all the booga-booga nonsense to be quite liberating. I was never an adult believer so there has never been any sense of loss for me, I was happily rid of what I came to regard as childish beliefs.
But my experience isn't universal and you are correct in saying that atheism would represent a hard sell to someone for whom the loss of their faith would represent a traumatic transition, especially when the replacement reality offers no equivalent benefits.
Christianity first caught on with the lower classes in the Roman Empire. People with little or no hope of advancement, slaves and plebeian women, were dazzled by the promise that the tables would be turned in the afterlife with the lowly exalted and master class sentenced to eternal punishment. Here was a hope where no hope had existed.
A triumph of atheism would require reverse engineering of that process and we lack that big pie in the sky promise of reward. We may have to rethink the whole thing and come up with some door prizes
A triumph of atheism would require reverse engineering of that process and we lack that big pie in the sky promise of reward. We may have to rethink the whole thing and come up with some door prizes.
Lol ... free silverware?
I eventually came to the unflattering realization that letting go of fundamentalism was basically the same as getting over myself. I just dispensed this very advice in another thread here today, to a recent deconvert. Yes, you lose the belief that god has you in his back pocket (and hopefully won't forget you're there and sit on you!) but you gain the maturity of not thinking your life is all about you and the heroic narrative of your sin and redemption and regeneration and eventual glorification.
Besides, most of the inducements to Christianity are no better than free silverware. They trot out and tout the many "promises of god" when they want a convert, then they switch to "god never promised us a rose garden" narratives afterwards. Bait and switch at its finest, and then some: combined with the promise of heaven it's actually bait and switch and bait. I would rather be up front about atheism from the get-go and then people will trust that it is a position of integrity. Atheism is not about resolving existential angst with comforting lies, it is about dealing in reality.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
"I don't know" is a much underrated response. Just as "I don't care what you say, I still think...." is a much overrated one.
I have convincing evidence (1) that reality is real, quite apart from what our perceptions are. And the effects of that reality repeat, predictably. Therefore, as I posted to some one on Christianity who asked(2) whether it was possible that I did not exist, I replied that it was possible, but as I could not imagine how, let alone think it probable or even a plausible suggestion, I did not worry about it. 
Say what don't you get, and we'll explain.
