Is there evidence your god beliefs are true while other god beliefs are false?

[ImaginalDisc]

Maybe I should start a thread called: Is there evidence your best ice cream flavor beliefs are true while other best ice cream beliefs are false? If you don't believe there is such a thing as ice cream any answer I give will be meaningless.

You are not seriously comparing your conviction that there is an invisible man who lives in the sky who rules over the universe and casts down sinners and infidels into a fiery pit of endless torment forever to your favorite flavor of ice cream, are you? Do you not see that one is a belief in the fundamental structure of reality, while the other is a matter of taste?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Hmmm . . .I would have to start a completly new thread to answer this one in whole, but I will give you the general gist.

A valid belief, to me, is a belief that "works" for me. In other words, from a totally religious/spiritual point of view, I will only accept a belief in something that alows me to gain results for what I want, even if those results are only tangible and realitive to me.

A belief, again in regards to anything spiritual/religious, that would be considered more "true" than another one, for me, would be ludicrious. All of them in one sense or another or one perspective or another is true, false and meaningless.

To me, beliefs are tools.

Accept them or not based on whether I am going to get something out of it.

That would imply you are not a skeptic. Many in the forum are not skeptics and are here to support non-skeptical positions. My questions are not addressing non-skeptical philosophies. My questions are addressing skeptic's special treatment of some beliefs while applying critical thinking to everything else.

 

[V23]

It's the same thing. What I dont believe is STILL what I dont believe, regarless if its what I specifically dont believe, or what Christian Skeptic believes and I dont.

It's still the stuff that I dont

 

[V23]

That would imply you are not a skeptic. Many in the forum are not skeptics and are here to support non-skeptical positions. My questions are not addressing non-skeptical philosophies. My questions are addressing skeptic's special treatment of some beliefs while applying critical thinking to everything else.

I am still a skeptic . . .just not in the issue of religious/spiritual issues.

I am a true skeptic when it comes to consparicy theories, alternate medcine, and about a thousand other subjects. But there is a clear demarcation line in me when it comes to anything religious/spiritual.

Why? Simply put I have come to realize that reality may not be as static as I originally thought. And it may be a whole lot more realitive than anyone could possibly understand.

For me, Skeptisim, is a trait and a tool. It's not a way of life. I don't build my entire belief structure on science, because science has a tendency to change directions occasionally, which by the scientific method, its supposed to do. I have no problem saying to a person that something needs more research, or the results just arent in for that subject yet. I also have no problem, seeing that I am a trained crime scene investigator with more letters after my name then I care to mention, coming to the could hard facts of what I may hold my hands, free of any self bias.

But the relm of the supernatural, specifcally personal beliefs not the variety of con-artists and snake-oil salesmen out there, is an area that I seperate my skeptisim from and alow myself to plunge into the unknown. I do it because I have realized that science hasn't got all the answers yet, or at least not for me.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

So you believe gods control volcanoes and throw lightning bolts at people, V23? That would mean you'd have to discard natural explanations for those events. Is it turtles all the way down and did Coyote steal fire from heaven? Are Orion and Osiris up there in a constellation which we know now is just an arbitrary grouping a stars that when observed in 3D are nowhere close to each other as they were once thought to be?

 

[arthwollipot]

I think skeptigirl is trying to find out why (some) people apply skeptical thought to everything except their own religious belief.

Atheist skeptics do not have subjects that they consider beyond skepticism, whereas theist skeptics do. A Christian skeptic can be skeptical about homeopathy, acupuncture and animism, but not about the Resurrection. Why is that? Why do they not apply skepticism to their religion when they apply it to everything else?

Is this an accurate description, skeptigirl?

 

[athon]

It seems you want scientific evidence on why what I believe is true while what V23 believes is not true. All the while - you believe what each of us believes is not true. What's the point? If I meet V23 in person someday then maybe we can ponder nebulas and the significance of things and share any scientific evidence we have.

I think we're simply after a line of reasoning which demonstrates why you see one view as significant over another. There doesn't need to be an acceptance that either is valid in order for us to understand your reasoning.

None of my threads have been having you tell me someone elses beliefs were wrong except in regards to your general non-belief in anything supernatural. (So I suppose I'm asking why you think everyones beliefs are wrong.)

It's not exactly a tough task getting folk around here to explain why they feel theism is unreasonable. Inviting them to do so is like inviting ants to a picnic.

And, I might add, all my threads were built on posts in other threads. For example: The Athiests here kept saying there is no evidence for God - so I asked what do you consider as evidence. Scientific evidence was the fairly unanomous reply. Thus the subsequent threads that I posted about scientific evidence, etc.

Was anybody upset by that? I thought they led to good discussions.

Maybe I should start a thread called: Is there evidence your best ice cream flavor beliefs are true while other best ice cream beliefs are false? If you don't believe there is such a thing as ice cream any answer I give will be meaningless.

Not at all. If somebody feels one ice cream flavour is objectively better than another, my belief in ice creams is inconsequential to whether they can reason why they believe so. Explaining a line of logic does not require one to believe objectively in the topic.

I, for one, am always interested in why somebody embraces one belief over another of equal speculation.

My view on the matter:

There are primarily two ways of creating beliefs: social and personal (or empirical). Social beliefs are based on adopting a belief based on the social group you're within. Empirical beliefs are based solely on personal interpretation of observations and reason which extends from it.

Religion, as a dogma, tends to belong to the former group. One's belief is chosen as the result of empathising with the social group one affiliates with. Following this, faith is 'tested' with the belief held as true and observations are sought to reinforce it.

Science differs to this in that while often a belief will again be adopted initially due to the beliefs of an affiliated social group, the ideal says you consider diverse observations and apply critical reasoning to the inferences in each case, as well as seek out reasons to NOT believe in the claim. Faith in the belief (where it is considered a strength if the belief is maintained in the light of being challenged) is not a positive thing in an ideal scientific scenario.

Athon

 

[plumjam]

If you are just going to describe intangible inner feelings, there's no need. That isn't evidence.

Your WHOLE LIFE is intangible inner feelings.. including science, rationality, 'evidence', and the other gods of this forum.
If you aren't going to respect people's conscious experience then it is not possible to discuss anything at all.

 

[V23]

So you believe gods control volcanoes and throw lightning bolts at people, V23? That would mean you'd have to discard natural explanations for those events. Is it turtles all the way down and did Coyote steal fire from heaven? Are Orion and Osiris up there in a constellation which we know now is just an arbitrary grouping a stars that when observed in 3D are nowhere close to each other as they were once thought to be?

Who is being insulting now . . . ?

What I believe, is probally very simular, if not exactly, what you probally believe SkepticGirl. However, as a Panthiest, I see the universe as a living breathing enity, completly sentient, and living in all of us. I see God in the details. I know that the clouds and the earth's friction casue static discharges, thus lightning. And that magma backs up in a given area till it explodes causing the volcano to erupt.

But what started the chain of life moving back millions of years ago? Why did this dirty ball of crater lined rock move into the Goldilocks zone and get bombarded by comets filled with lifegiving water, and who knows what else?

In all things in the universe, I see order and reason for it, even super novas and neutron stars, sending the elements that are needed for life millions of light years away to us so that chain of life can start. And while I have no obvious proof for the belief that nature and god is the same thing, at the same time I get that belief reinforced everytime a snowflake touches my tounge or I perform a DNA test and wonder over the strands and building blocks of life.

To me, this chaotic universe that some people think they live in, is very ordered and profound in its scope.

Just my humble opinion.

 

[V23]

I think skeptigirl is trying to find out why (some) people apply skeptical thought to everything except their own religious belief.

Atheist skeptics do not have subjects that they consider beyond skepticism, whereas theist skeptics do. A Christian skeptic can be skeptical about homeopathy, acupuncture and animism, but not about the Resurrection. Why is that? Why do they not apply skepticism to their religion when they apply it to everything else?

Is this an accurate description, skeptigirl?

My beliefs are completly up for critisim and skeptisim . . .Just realize that I may not come to the same rational position that you do . .

But feel free . . . I dont mind.

 

[arthwollipot]

Your WHOLE LIFE is intangible inner feelings.. including science, rationality, 'evidence', and the other gods of this forum.
If you aren't going to respect people's conscious experience then it is not possible to discuss anything at all.

Not quite accurate as far as I can tell, plumjam. There's a difference between methodological naturalism and solipsism.

 

[SomeGuy]

Your WHOLE LIFE is intangible inner feelings.. including science, rationality, 'evidence', and the other gods of this forum.
If you aren't going to respect people's conscious experience then it is not possible to discuss anything at all.

I don't think SkeptiGrl would fully disagree with you here.

But I think her point was that if you have hindu and a christian, they both FEEL their religion is the right one.

What she was interested in, if I understood her correctly, was if there was something ON TOP of that conviction that convinced you either christianity or hinduism was more valid as a description of reality as the other.

Those inner feelings have been subject of discussion on more than one thread here, while I think that Skeptigrl probably considers them not evidence in general of religion it is particular irrelevant to the OP's original question because we can not differentiate between a hindu's inner feelings and a christian's inner feelings.

 

[plumjam]

Not quite accurate as far as I can tell, plumjam. There's a difference between methodological naturalism and solipsism.

7 syllables

In that case then, we can see that she seems to be assuming that methodological naturalism should be the preferred way of settling questions of a religious nature.
That would be a massive assumption, and in my opinion, an erroneous one.
It seems to me that people have been so indoctrinated in what you describe as methodological naturalism, that when a subject matter arises for which such an approach is inherently unsuited the default reaction seems to be that therefore the particular subject matter in question (e.g. spirtuality) can't have any basis in reality.
This kind of one-dimensional approach to everything seems to be the rule in this forum, though there are some exceptions.

Ho-hum.

 

[V23]

yea . . . what he said . . .

 

[arthwollipot]

In that case then, we can see that she seems to be assuming that methodological naturalism should be the preferred way of settling questions of a religious nature.
That would be a massive assumption, and in my opinion, an erroneous one.

So can you show me another method of settling questions - of any kind - which is equally verifiable?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I think skeptigirl is trying to find out why (some) people apply skeptical thought to everything except their own religious belief.

Atheist skeptics do not have subjects that they consider beyond skepticism, whereas theist skeptics do. A Christian skeptic can be skeptical about homeopathy, acupuncture and animism, but not about the Resurrection. Why is that? Why do they not apply skepticism to their religion when they apply it to everything else?

Is this an accurate description, skeptigirl?

It's a description of the problem underlying the OP question. I know why they don't apply skepticism to their god beliefs, however. What I'm asking theist skeptics to do is to address the fact they have 2 kinds of god beliefs. Can they justify that dichotomy?

Actually, rereading your post, yes, that is what I am pointing out.

 

[V23]

So can you show me another method of settling questions - of any kind - which is equally verifiable?

I don't see how you can dicuss whether one religious belief is more true than another one unless you move out "methodological naturalism".

(For us laymen types, they are basicly talking about material causality and proofs therof . . .threw me for a loop too . . .)

 

[V23]

It's a description of the problem underlying the OP question. I know why they don't apply skepticism to their god beliefs, however. What I'm asking theist skeptics to do is to address the fact they have 2 kinds of god beliefs. Can they justify that dichotomy?

um .. .choice?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Your WHOLE LIFE is intangible inner feelings.. including science, rationality, 'evidence', and the other gods of this forum.
If you aren't going to respect people's conscious experience then it is not possible to discuss anything at all.

That's stretching the definition of interpretation of evidence a bit further than it goes.

Evidence is empirical, repeatable, testable etc. Whether I choose to use that method of determining reality is my inner intangible feeling. But we are talking here about a group of people who have decided on using that empirical repeatable testable etc evidence already. So the question is about applying the tangible rules of the scientific process, not about the intangible decision to value that skeptical philosophy.

 

[athon]

7 syllables

In that case then, we can see that she seems to be assuming that methodological naturalism should be the preferred way of settling questions of a religious nature.
That would be a massive assumption, and in my opinion, an erroneous one.

Excellent point, but for the 'erroneous' part.

First it needs to be established what the grounds for 'preferred' are. Without defining what makes something preferred it can't be said why a given philosophy is erroneous.

For individuals making up a social group, sharing a belief system - regardless of any relationship it has to an objective reality - creates cohesion. When this is used to make an assessment on objective reality for other social groups that lack the same belief system, it creates conflict.

So, from a social front, 'benefit' varies depending on the context.

For individuals, personal comfort can be gained from adopting a belief system independently of employing an empirical philosophy. However, where this belief system is used to make predictions on objective reality, it can fall apart. Believing, for instance, that prayer will heal over, say, medical intervention, chances are against you that it will not be the better choice.

If the context is more global, concerning communities who value manipulating their environment in some way in order to benefit from it in terms of health and wellbeing, then working with a religious view is sure to be inferior to working together with a scientific one. Progress in the world has benefited more from science than religion.

And, to be honest, I'm yet to find any community that has not seen the value in manipulating some part of their environment in hope of getting some benefit from it.

It seems to me that people have been so indoctrinated in what you describe as methodological naturalism, that when a subject matter arises for which such an approach is inherently unsuited the default reaction seems to be that therefore the particular subject matter in question (e.g. spirtuality) can't have any basis in reality.

I guess this is where I have a huge philosophical problem. Metaphysics is akin to this same claim - it demands an equal place at the table for describing 'reality' as anything empirical, yet all metaphysical claims are equal. When all speculations are equal, how does it benefit anybody? We're left sharing our views, smiling...and have made no progress in identifying what objectively exists.

Now, as you indicated earlier, in a place where nobody values understanding objective reality, it might suit the community to invent a universe and, so long as they all agree, exist within it. Meanwhile, the rest of the world is providing advances in technology which you can be sure they'd be taking advantage of.

Athon