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.
Christians don't entirely make it up, they just mistake something else innate for "knowledge of god". We don't have an innate knowledge of some mythical One True God, but we have innate mental "tics" if you will, that make such notions superficially, subjectively, emotionally compelling.
We are always scanning our environment for threats to avoid. Evolution has instilled in us a "run now and ask questions later" abundance-of-caution "program" in us which prompts us to assume that rustling bushes, for example, is a predator, rather than that it's the wind or a harmless creature. That way, more survive than not, at the expense of some embarrassment perhaps. But the carry-over is something called agency inference, a strong tendency to assign agency where there isn't any. That supports belief that invisible beings are behind thunder, lightning, unexpected calamity of any sort, and need appeasing and pleasing.
Then there is just simple confirmation bias, another mental glitch that is "innate" unless we understand the mechanism and actually work against it. This is related to agency inference: we're constantly scanning for pattern mismatches, things out of the ordinary, because they represent potential threats. So we do two things -- we do agency inference as per above, but we also are always seeking confirmation of our assumptions so that we feel comfortable with them as abstractions to keep us safe. It is almost a form of paranoia ("see? I told you this place is dangerous, so many bushes are rustling!"). It's not much of a jump from that to "See? I told you god is with us, there are so many signs of his love and care for us!" or perhaps more accurately, "SEE? I TOLD you this place is full of evil spirits, we must make sure the good spirit is on our side to protect us!"
So I think it's a mistake to disacknowledge what theists are perceiving, the problem isn't that they are making stuff up (at base; of course as their theology becomes more complex and more at odds with empirical knowledge they have to make stuff up to try to hold it together), it's that they are misattributing their "real" perceptions. It's not true in my view that it's "natural" to not believe in unseen threats and their mirror image, gods. It's quite natural and understandable. This is why I do not think it's productive to disparage theists as "stupid sheep", or to be arrogant that we have managed in some limited ways to rise above the clouded minds we were born with. Epistemological humility is in order here.
When we look around the world we notice that people everywhere have some sort of a belief that the world was created and is run according to supernatural means of some sort. This is a perfectly natural response to what is being observed at first glance. It is however based on ignorance of what is actually occurring. Because what is actually occurring is far too complicated for anyone to understand at first glance.
This does give rise however to the notion that everyone right around the world has an innate knowledge of the existence of a higher power. Because to the uneducated mind existence only seems possible as the result of some supernatural intervention.
When we watch the sky it also seems undeniably obvious that the sun orbits around the earth. We can observe its passage from sun up to sundown during the course of the day. The actual fact that the sun and stars move through the sky is because the earth is rotating at about 1,000 miles an hour is not only NOT obvious, the very idea that the world is turning at such a great speed seems unrealistically ridiculous at first thought. But we today in the full knowledge of what is ACTUALLY occurring, accept the rotation of the earth without question. It's common knowledge.
The instinctual belief that there is a supernatural force at work which explains the things that are not immediately understood is like observing that the sun orbits the earth. It seems obvious to everyone, and yet it is not what is actually occurring. The bottom line is that this so called "perception" of a higher power is actually based on misunderstanding and ignorance. And a large measure of personal emotional desire.
I would never contend that religious belief is not genuinely held. I DO contend however that the reasons that people hold the supernatural beliefs that they do is based on an ignorance of how the universe actually operates.
Agreed, the analogy though creative, illustrative and appreciated, it needs fixing, perhaps as follows...
Assume that a theist, an atheist, and an agnostic are walking down the street after a heavy snowfall. They pass an empty lot. What does each conclude?
The theist says, “I believe once upon a time on this lot there was a car in a garage,” a great and powerful car, writes a book about it for others to read and believe as he does even though they may never see the garage or car, ever. Different theists disagree as to what kind of car was in the garage regardless.
The atheist asks where is the proof about any of this, such that I can or should believe in any of this?
The theist and the atheist have little in common in this regard. One has staked-out a position of belief, the other has not.
The agnostic says, “I don’t possess the sensory perception required to know what, if anything was in the garage or whether the garage even existed, but there is enough evidence as far as I'm concerned to consider both the great garage and great car a possibility.
That's progress, though the analogy still has a garage whoch was buit for the purpose of containing a car. The world and universe is still to be adequately shown to be the construct of a god, let alone a home for it.
But you appear to recognize that the theist is making a claim, though as I say a garage has a prona facie claim to have held a car. The universe does not support such a god -claim. You recognizr that Religion fails because they can't even agree on what kind of car it was, or ever what colour it is. Even though they have a close, personal, relationship with that car. The snowfall has become irrelevant There are no tyre tracks or any convincing sign of a car. Indeed the analoguy is good, because where there is no evidence of a car where one would expect to find some, would suggest that even if it is a garage, there is no car, and the folks use it as a playroom for the kids.
That is when the atheist expresses some doubts and you can probably see why logically they are valid.
The agnostic, rather obviously, says he can't see a car. Moreover the absence of any spoor or sign of a car doesn't lead him to draw even a tentative conclusion, and he ignores the belief -question altogether.
That is, do you believe there is a car in that garage,
"Well, I don't know, but I can't claim positively that there is."
The atheist - despite the common theist misrepresentation of the atheist position, does not say "I believe there is no car in that garage". But he does say that the evidence suggest there is no good reason to believe there is oine, or there should be some obvious sign. Again, I repeat that the universe being compared to a garage is prejudicing the argument a bit.
So the car -theist is making a definite claim he can't validate. Bit the "agnostic" iand car -atheist are withouding acceptance of that claim until there is convincing evidence. That is why atheism is based on agnosticism and theism is not. It disregards agnosticism and claims that it knows.
It only remains to say that agnosticism logically mandates disbelief, but many "agnostics" either shrink from the label, or misunderstand atheism or are really believers who admit they are not sure.
Our aim is to explain the situation and correct a lot of common misconceptions and logical errors regarding agnosticism, atheism and theism.
That's progress, though the analogy still has a garage whoch was buit for the purpose of containing a car. The world and universe is still to be adequately shown to be the construct of a god, let alone a home for it.
But you appear to recognize that the theist is making a claim, though as I say a garage has a prona facie claim to have held a car. The universe does not support such a god -claim. You recognizr that Religion fails because they can't even agree on what kind of car it was, or ever what colour it is. Even though they have a close, personal, relationship with that car. The snowfall has become irrelevant There are no tyre tracks or any convincing sign of a car. Indeed the analoguy is good, because where there is no evidence of a car where one would expect to find some, would suggest that even if it is a garage, there is no car, and the folks use it as a playroom for the kids.
That is when the atheist expresses some doubts and you can probably see why logically they are valid.
The agnostic, rather obviously, says he can't see a car. Moreover the absence of any spoor or sign of a car doesn't lead him to draw even a tentative conclusion, and he ignores the belief -question altogether.
That is, do you believe there is a car in that garage,
"Well, I don't know, but I can't claim positively that there is."
The atheist - despite the common theist misrepresentation of the atheist position, does not say "I believe there is no car in that garage". But he does say that the evidence suggest there is no good reason to believe there is oine, or there should be some obvious sign. Again, I repeat that the universe being compared to a garage is prejudicing the argument a bit.
So the car -theist is making a definite claim he can't validate. Bit the "agnostic" iand car -atheist are withouding acceptance of that claim until there is convincing evidence. That is why atheism is based on agnosticism and theism is not. It disregards agnosticism and claims that it knows.
It only remains to say that agnosticism logically mandates disbelief, but many "agnostics" either shrink from the label, or misunderstand atheism or are really believers who admit they are not sure.
Our aim is to explain the situation and correct a lot of common misconceptions and logical errors regarding agnosticism, atheism and theism.
As the creator of the analogy, I’ll take responsibility for not explaining it more thoroughly.
The garage simply represents the barrier between us, and that which is unknown to us. Thus, the garage itself is of little consequence. It is the contents of the garage that is at issue, more specifically, our tendency to speculate upon what, if anything is to be found within the garage--observations which are made in spite of the fact that, as human beings, we don’t possess the sentient ability to rationally make such observations.
The agnostic recognizes that the limitations of human perception make the very act of entertaining such speculations an exercise in futility.
As the creator of the analogy, I’ll take responsibility for not explaining it more thoroughly.
The garage simply represents the barrier between us, and that which is unknown to us. Thus, the garage itself is of little consequence. It is the contents of the garage that is at issue, more specifically, our tendency to speculate upon what, if anything is to be found within the garage--observations which are made in spite of the fact that, as human beings, we don’t possess the sentient ability to rationally make such observations.
The agnostic recognizes that the limitations of human perception make the very act of entertaining such speculations an exercise in futility.
Very well. That's goon enough for me not to look for niggles.
Essentially nobody knows whether there is something the other side of the barrier - let alone what.
So, given that we don't know, we can accept that. But we have this person who believes he knows what is on the other side, and gets very shirty with those who will not accept his claim.
Now I do not have a problem with agnostics. If they don't want to address the belief position, that's up to them. The only problem is with those who take issue with atheists because they do not accept the god -claim.
Very well. That's goon enough for me not to look for niggles.
Essentially nobody knows whether there is something the other side of the barrier - let alone what.
So, given that we don't know, we can accept that. But we have this person who believes he knows what is on the other side, and gets very shirty with those who will not accept his claim.
Now I do not have a problem with agnostics. If they don't want to address the belief position, that's up to them. The only problem is with those who take issue with atheists because they do not accept the god -claim.
So you tell me - which one is being unreasonable?
I don't think anyone is being especially unreasonable. We (agnostics and atheists) largely occupy the same position in regards to those who claim to know what's out there. Perhaps the best way to put it is to suggest that atheists approach the issue from the perspective of belief, while agnostics approach it from the perspective of knowability. In the end and in a more practical sense, I think most atheists and most agnostics can agree enthusiastically on the importance of fighting to keep personal theistic belief systems out of the public sphere.
Very well. That's goon enough for me not to look for niggles.
Essentially nobody knows whether there is something the other side of the barrier - let alone what.
So, given that we don't know, we can accept that. But we have this person who believes he knows what is on the other side, and gets very shirty with those who will not accept his claim.
Now I do not have a problem with agnostics. If they don't want to address the belief position, that's up to them. The only problem is with those who take issue with atheists because they do not accept the god -claim.
So you tell me - which one is being unreasonable?
Good post. As usual.
Here's what I see as the most basic problem with the debate between believers and atheists: we don't even know what we don't know.
Could there be a god? Maybe. If he exists, why do we assume we have any idea how he thinks and works?
Is there any evidence whatsoever for the God whom most of us "grew up with"? I don't see it even though I believed for 67 years. I think that god is a fallacy.
Do we know what comes "after"? Nope. We have no idea.
My years at the university were in two fields -- geology and education. And then I taught earth science for 13 years. Is there anything scientific about the belief in God? Not that I have seen. Any evidence? Not that I have seen except perhaps from a logical POV.
So a problem I have with most atheists (maybe I should say "many" instead of "most") is that they don't have all the answers, either, and that's where atheism kind of transgresses over into being a religion.
I don't think anyone is being especially unreasonable. We (agnostics and atheists) largely occupy the same position in regards to those who claim to know what's out there. Perhaps the best way to put it is to suggest that atheists approach the issue from the perspective of belief, while agnostics approach it from the perspective of knowability. In the end and in a more practical sense, I think most atheists and most agnostics can agree enthusiastically on the importance of fighting to keep personal theistic belief systems out of the public sphere.
Yes. while agnostics and atheists both approach the god -claim with a position of Un -knowability and theists often seem to approach it from a position of knowability (whether or not backed up with evidence), atheism and agnosticism only differs in that we (atheists) address the dependent question of, if one doesn't know that the god -claim is true, do we believe that it is? (1)
The obvious logical answer is "No - not until we know one way or the other". However if agnostics (for whatever reason) refuse to look at that question, it's ok by atheists. We are ok with 'Nones" - which includes irreligious theists - which is what I suspect many "agnostics" actually are.
While we don't as a matter of reason and evidence believe the god -claim, our campaign and agenda (and I think we now do have one) is against organized religion, and not even against people having one, but about its' influence on society.
In that campaign, agnostics and even ireligious theists are in our camp - or could be.
(1) which is the difference between not believing a claim is true and (as theists try to say is the same thing) believing that it is not -true. We dpn't know. I know this is hard for theists to understand because they have the God -idea big in their minds. To them, it is either accepting that or rejecting it. 'Don't know' translates into Theist - speak as "You have no good alternative explanation that you can prove, so God must be the answer." This is logically invalid and always has been. But I know why they have troiuble seeing it.
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 09-14-2017 at 12:13 AM..
Here's what I see as the most basic problem with the debate between believers and atheists: we don't even know what we don't know.
Could there be a god? Maybe. If he exists, why do we assume we have any idea how he thinks and works?
Is there any evidence whatsoever for the God whom most of us "grew up with"? I don't see it even though I believed for 67 years. I think that god is a fallacy.
Do we know what comes "after"? Nope. We have no idea.
My years at the university were in two fields -- geology and education. And then I taught earth science for 13 years. Is there anything scientific about the belief in God? Not that I have seen. Any evidence? Not that I have seen except perhaps from a logical POV.
So a problem I have with most atheists (maybe I should say "many" instead of "most") is that they don't have all the answers, either, and that's where atheism kind of transgresses over into being a religion.
Thanks for a quite positive post. I hiope you will see from the above that we don't claim to have the aswers. Neither do the Bleievers - though they claim they do. If neither of us have the answers, their claim that they do (on Faith or on evidence) fails. It is not ceredible. it is not believab;e.
Not believing that claim is all that atheism is.
We don't need the answers to be proved in order not to beleive their claim - they do.
Logic - the burden of proof falls on the person making the claim. Theists make the claim - we don't. They need to substantiate that claim. We need to substantiate nothing, other than whether those claims are valid or not.
Which is what all the debates here are about.
That is why Theiists walking away trumpetting "Well, you haven't convinced me!" have LOST. Because the whole purpose of the debate is to substantiate their case. Its not our job to convince them that we have the better case (which, as I said above, they will never admit on Faith, anyway).
This is why the Theist demands for us to explain how the universe began or how life started are futile. It is for them to prove that it started they way they claim.
Clearly, if we don't know, for sure, (though we have a few alternative hypotheses to "Goddunnit"), their case fails automatically.
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 09-14-2017 at 12:12 AM..
When we look around the world we notice that people everywhere have some sort of a belief that the world was created and is run according to supernatural means of some sort. This is a perfectly natural response to what is being observed at first glance. It is however based on ignorance of what is actually occurring. Because what is actually occurring is far too complicated for anyone to understand at first glance.
This does give rise however to the notion that everyone right around the world has an innate knowledge of the existence of a higher power. Because to the uneducated mind existence only seems possible as the result of some supernatural intervention.
When we watch the sky it also seems undeniably obvious that the sun orbits around the earth. We can observe its passage from sun up to sundown during the course of the day. The actual fact that the sun and stars move through the sky is because the earth is rotating at about 1,000 miles an hour is not only NOT obvious, the very idea that the world is turning at such a great speed seems unrealistically ridiculous at first thought. But we today in the full knowledge of what is ACTUALLY occurring, accept the rotation of the earth without question. It's common knowledge.
The instinctual belief that there is a supernatural force at work which explains the things that are not immediately understood is like observing that the sun orbits the earth. It seems obvious to everyone, and yet it is not what is actually occurring. The bottom line is that this so called "perception" of a higher power is actually based on misunderstanding and ignorance. And a large measure of personal emotional desire.
I would never contend that religious belief is not genuinely held. I DO contend however that the reasons that people hold the supernatural beliefs that they do is based on an ignorance of how the universe actually operates.
Agree, to a large extent and/or as may apply to a great many believers, but there are other reasons people have faith in the supernatural. One of them is the true belief they have encountered God, or experienced a miracle. Something that happens to them, some personal occurrence they cannot explain by any other means...
As right or wrong as they may be, this belief in a "higher power" is based on an experience they believe is as much proof as anyone needs to have faith in what otherwise can't be explained by what we know of our world. All the empirical evidence they need you might say...
Hardly any point in arguing the right or wrong either way when it comes to why people have faith. Another definition of faith is to choose to believe in that which can't be proven by any means today. Good luck with that...
It only remains to say that agnosticism logically mandates disbelief, but many "agnostics" either shrink from the label, or misunderstand atheism or are really believers who admit they are not sure.
Our aim is to explain the situation and correct a lot of common misconceptions and logical errors regarding agnosticism, atheism and theism.
Or...
The agnostic is like the member of the jury who can't render a verdict because they simply were not there to witness the crime first hand, and as such, they can't know for certain who committed the crime (or not).
The atheist who is a member of the same jury can render a verdict based on the preponderance of evidence (or lack thereof) to determine the truth "beyond a reasonable doubt."
Last edited by LearnMe; 09-14-2017 at 10:12 AM..
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.
There are no tyre tracks or any convincing sign of a car. Indeed the analoguy is good, because where there is no evidence of a car where one would expect to find some, would suggest that even if it is a garage, there is no car, and the folks use it as a playroom for the kids. 
