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

[Skeptical Greg]

Why? So you can watch Christians argue about things you don't believe in or understand? I think there's plenty of other internet sources to observe that.

Added:

I'll also add, even if there were Christians who wanted to take part in such a thread - I would stay out of it. I have no desire to argue with them about Christian beliefs.

If you have no desire to argue about Christian beliefs, why are you participating in this thread ? ( `30 posts )

Devil make you do it ?

 

[volatile]

Study these and get back to me if you have any queries:

http://discoursesbymeherbaba.org/v1-13.php

Your belief system starts with an unsupportable axiom:

"The only Real Existence is that of the One and only God Who is the Self in every (finite) self."

I'm wondering exactly how you can calim such a bold statement as axiomatic?

 

[ImaginalDisc]

You're right - but it has nothing to do with being poor or pitiful. You're outside of it.

I won't understand the finer points of quantum mechanics being discussed between two quantum theorists because I'm not one. I'm might be able to grasp quantum menchanics as a whole - in a very broad way, but not the specifics.

Are you comparing a detailed, rigorous science to religion?

 

[plumjam]

Your belief system starts with an unsupportable axiom:

"The only Real Existence is that of the One and only God Who is the Self in every (finite) self."

I'm wondering exactly how you can calim such a bold statement as axiomatic?

All axioms are, by definition, unsupported.
But I won't split hairs.

It's nothing new.. it's in Christianity, Islam, Hinduism etc..
Reality is Unitarian in character. It is One, not admitting of another. That's how you and I are able to communicate.. cos we're the same One being, presenting itself to itself as myriad differentiation.

 

[A Christian Sceptic]

I don't hate to say it, because it needs to be said. Christian Sceptic, you have no interest in skepticism or in debate. You have done nothing in this thread but complain about inquiry into religious beliefs and assert that universal Christian dogma doesn't apply to you, while incomprehensibly maintaining that you are a Christian.

First - I never came here to debate Christianity and to prove to anyone it's right or wrong. I did come here and unexpectedly found a bunch of athiests so I wanted to see what you thought about things. I've never told anyone they were wrong. If I did - oops, sorry. But I don't recollect meaning to do that.

Has it ever occurred to you that many people on this forum used to be Christian, and are even Christian still?

Yes - I am very aware many people here were Christians.

This is a place for debate and discussion, why won't you participate? Did Jesus flutter down on a palanquin carried by eight thousand Seraphim to tell you never to talk about your religion?

I wish - that would be a sight to see.

 

[volatile]

First - I never came here to debate Christianity and to prove to anyone it's right or wrong. I did come here and unexpectedly found a bunch of athiests so I wanted to see what you thought about things. I've never told anyone they were wrong. If I did - oops, sorry. But I don't recollect meaning to do that.

Your username is "A Christian Sceptic". Every single post you make tells me you think I'm wrong. I just wish you'd be brave enough to admit it.

 

[A Christian Sceptic]

Your username is "A Christian Sceptic". Every single post you make tells me you think I'm wrong. I just wish you'd be brave enough to admit it.

Hmmm ... based on what you just said it explains alot. I'll have to ponder this for awhile.

 

[plumjam]

Hmmm ... based on what you just said it explains alot. I'll have to ponder this for awhile.

Don't bother pondering it too long, CS.
Volatile's subtitle is also "Scholar and a Gentleman" ;-)

 

[Belz...]

You know what I think the problem here is - the Athiests have just as small of an idea of God as many religious people. I scrutinize God all the time and all it does is make him bigger.

You don't scrutinize God because he is undetectable.

If he is detectable then there would be evidence of his existence.

You want to limit my view of God by your view of the God you don't believe in?

I don't give a flying squirrel about your view of god. I care about the evidence. That WAS the OP, wasn't it ?

Nothing. What are you wondering about?

I would think that the existence of OTHER gods besides the ONLY one would create a problem.

 

[Dunstan]

So every theist here considers religions to be equally valid, and engages in a fun pick and mix to see what flavor they will follow with identical results?

I don't know about that, necessarily. But there is a middle ground between the position you describe above and the one you described earlier (in which all other religions are wrong and their practicioners are going to hell).

It's not one that has any appeal to me personally, and I'm curious as to how people decide which "flavor" they like (or, if you prefer, which "path up the mountain").

All I was saying is that you're wasting your time hammering away at the "a follower of religion X must have decided that religions Y and Z are factually wrong while X is factually true." Those people exist, and I think they exist in greater numbers than people often like to acknowledge. I just don't think they exist in this thread, that's all.

once this train of thought is followed, than the pertinence of the OP starts to shine.
Is the verifiable evidence available?
What is it, if it is?

I'm not attacking the OP or its intent. I am interested in the decision-making process that leads someone to "choose" one religion over another. It's just that your previous post was asking people to explain how they reached a position that they've been telling you they've never taken, that's all.

 

[Belz...]

You're right - but it has nothing to do with being poor or pitiful. You're outside of it.

I won't understand the finer points of quantum mechanics being discussed between two quantum theorists because I'm not one.

Quantum physicists actually study and test their theories. Theists believe. It's not hard to figure out.

While you're at it, you can explain the trinity to me.

 

[A Christian Sceptic]

Are you comparing a detailed, rigorous science to religion?

OK - try this:

I won't understand two Hindus debating the finer points of Hinduism because I'm not Hindu. I'm definitely not going to quote Hindu Scriptures at a Hindu and say "See - you're not a Hindu because of this and that".

And you're not going to understand Hindus, Christians, or Quantum Physicists debating amongst themselves because your not any of them. (Unless you are, but then you'd understand. And That's My Point!)

 

[epeos76]

Belief in gods also depends on the proximity of the religions you are then exposed to because of where you were born or live or the culture surrounding you. That seems to me to be evidence the god belief components of that religious experience are arbitrary. Maybe the religion needs certain elements in order for you to fall in love with it and maintain the relationship, but the god beliefs themselves do not come from real gods existing in the Universe. If they did, then where you were born would not matter. When you had that inner experience, it shouldn't depend on the religion you are exposed to, yet it is.

The elements aren't arbitrary, just because they are not uniquely (or even well) defined. I remember a concept from linear algebra called the basis of a set. If I remember correctly, a basis is a subgroup of elements that can be combined to produce any other element in the set. A set can have more than one basis, usually an infinite number.

In one sense what can serve as a basis is arbitrary: lots of choices, no grounds for distinction. Nonetheless, you can't choose any elements you like to serve as the basis. To be as clear as possibly, I'm not claiming that all true religions share a kernel of ineffable truth, just that the word arbitrary is over inclusive.

Since we can't explicitly verify which elements are critical, it makes perfect sense to me that religion is linked to childhood experiences. You have to participate, or at least spend some time watching people who do, in order to judge the results. For christianity and I believe judaism and Islam, you generally need a group to practice with.

I don't think it's sound to conclude that god beliefs therefore have no existence in reality independent of human thought. As I've said before, rational inquiry has limits. You can't do science with the excluded part and many people here seem to respond to this conclusion with something like: "true, but those things don't matter/are boring/are not worth thinking about." *slap* "Felt that didn't ya!"

I don't think that's a fair response unless you're dealing with a true solipsist. The idea that reality or even "useful" reality is co-extensive with rational inquiry require justification. It certainly requires more support than was given in, for example, the post Athon made (though I liked the peerlessly noble sentiment about putting aside personally comfort for the greater good). I think people often go further and imply that reality must be co-extensive with our current empirical knowledge and testing abilities.

What we do know is certainly amazing. In my estimation science has revealed an impressive amount about the physical systems on this planet, and has an adequate account for the general outlines of the evolution of the observable universe. I don't think we know much about social dynamics or consciousness yet. Recognizing those limits is as important as acknowledging that we do know certain things and can dismiss some claims.

There certainly seems to be a shared human ability to feel like you're experiencing something profound, and I can respect (without actually agreeing with) those who take this to mean there's something to religion in general. What I don't understand is the common assertion that there's still more to religion than choosing the one that feels right for you/finding one that gives you this sort of feeling.

Thanks. I understand your caveat. I'm particularly interested in this, because I haven't read an account of the role of religion that convincingly discusses it functions. I'm going one step further than you suggest, though, because I'm arguing that there is something more here than subjective feelings of contentment.

I want to suggest an analogy to language. Languages may not map perfectly onto another. Presumably, that means it's possible to communicate some experiences more easily in one than in the other (e.g. the feeling of "ennui", a sense of "gemulichkiet", or the experience of "harving out"). Nonetheless, we're stuck speaking them one at a time. The choice to speak one over the other will only be a matter of taste or convience when every participant in a conversation is equally fluent in both.

It wouldn't be easy to make an informed choice to speak one in any event, because there are still unanswered questions about what language does. I would view a proposal to radically reform the english language based on the principles of, say Noam Chonsky, in much the same way I would view the reccomendations of a 19th century doctor. I might consider it if the situation was kill or cure.

I think there are similar unanswered questions about religion. I've tried to suggest one aspect that I don't think is generally well addressed: religion creates the potential for certain interactions and the potential to express certain meanings. I don't think these things can be achieved by universal golf club membership. Different religions/ different relationships/meanings. Discriminating between the results is a matter of moral philosophy and observation. I don't think this is the same as choosing between snowcone flavors.

I appreciate your earlier comments suggesting I might not be a raving denialist. I'm aware that, even setting aside epistimological rules about proof, god beliefs/religion are currently in a position that requires serious justification because of the costs associated with maintaining them. This is particularly true in the U.S. where we are having one of our periodic revivals, featuring a brand of religion that is apparently comfortable with *creating* truth a la 1984.

I abhor this approach, likely for the same reasons you do, but with the additional recognition that the behavior of the religious right makes it less reasonable to grant any value to religion, and discredits christianty in particular. Still, I'd like to suggest that demanding people stuggling with different burdens give up something whose function and value can't yet be adequately explained is neither reasonable nor fair. As a result, I don't think it's reasonable to treat religious beliefs like empirical claims, so long as believers respect the limits imposed by empirical knowledge.

My apologies for making this terribly long again.

 

[Ivor the Engineer]

Specific questions for believers:

What evidence do you have to support the belief in a soul?

When does the soul enter an individual's body?

When does the soul leave an individual's body?

Where does the soul reside in the body?

 

[Darth Rotor]

Yep, this concerns me. clearly not you

Wrong again. My concern has to do with intentions and actions, and the conundrum addressed in Minority Report: do you act preemptively if you think someone will do you wrong? How do you determine intentions? Belief systems form a part of what goes into that, but not all of it.

As i said, the detrimental result is more final and abrupt, but there is many ways to construe a false religious belief as being detrimental. This is another discussion altogether though. And i am sure they are not always detrimental.

I read that twice, and I think I see where I agree with you. An example: using a religious reason to reject a vaccination. Am I on the right track?

If i ever could find the full truth, I would use it to protect myself from being fooled by false beliefs. As i am sure most people would.

I'd use it to make a lot of money, then do as you suggest.

DR

 

[ImaginalDisc]

OK - try this:

I won't understand two Hindus debating the finer points of Hinduism because I'm not Hindu.

Oh, way to offhandedly invalidate the entire scholarly field of anthropology. You should write to your local university and tell them not to bother investigating the cultures other than their own, and explain your logic to them.

I'm definitely not going to quote Hindu Scriptures at a Hindu and say "See - you're not a Hindu because of this and that".

You are responsible for your own behavior. If, however, those two Hindus are debating the details of their religion on a forum dedicated to critical thinking, you are implicitly invited to criticize their statements.

And you're not going to understand Hindus, Christians, or Quantum Physicists debating amongst themselves because your not any of them. (Unless you are, but then you'd understand. And That's My Point!)

You don't actually have a point. You have an excuse not to tell us why you believe your religion to be true and all others to be false. You have no respect for truth, or you be willing to have your reasoning subjected to the same criticism that your nickname implies you give to others, CHRISTIAN SCEPTIC. Why are you beliefs so special?

 

[A Christian Sceptic]

Oh, way to offhandedly invalidate the entire scholarly field of anthropology. You should write to your local university and tell them not to bother investigating the cultures other than their own, and explain your logic to them.

You do understand that the hardest part of an anthropological study of a group you are not part of is understanding their beliefs and why the beliefs mean what mean, don't you?

You are responsible for your own behavior. If, however, those two Hindus are debating the details of their religion on a forum dedicated to critical thinking, you are implicitly invited to criticize their statements.

Maybe so, but I won't pretend to understand the meaning behind their Scriptures to make my points to them.

 

[ImaginalDisc]

You do understand that the hardest part of an anthropological study of a group you are not part of is understanding their beliefs and why the beliefs mean what mean, don't you?

Why do you persist in the idea that we who are atheists are alien to the Christian experience?

 

[epeos76]

And yet you dance around the question with the values and spirituality arguments as if that has any bearing on the specific god belief piece of religion being asked about here. There is no question in this thread about values or whose religion is better.

Unconcerned is not the adjective I would apply, I would describe it more like denial, or simple avoidance of thinking about it.

To paraphrase what I think addresses the OP here, the god you believe in serves a purpose, the gods you don't believe in serve a purpose better served by scientific explanations.

So then I have to ask, what is that purpose? Morality is not dependent on religion. There are evil believers and altruistic nonbelievers. Prayers are not effective as far as we can tell in the few studies that actually objectively measured the effects.

Life after death is a comforting thought. It doesn't really alleviate grief however, because grief comes from a terrible longing for the person. Thinking you'll see them years later might have a some benefit when some people are grieving, but with time the longing usually subsides regardless of afterlife beliefs.

Belonging to the church community has proven benefits in many cases. God beliefs are not required to belong to a community.

These are my assumptions about the purpose of god beliefs in general, and they aren't meant to second guess your own. From my point of view however, I still see someone creating special reasons to have special god beliefs. When I apply your "purpose" rationale for some god beliefs over other god beliefs, I can't make the case.

So I'll see what you reply to these thoughts.

You say the benefits I identified can all be arrived at without believing in any God. I actual want to arrive at some of those benefits, so proof that they can arise elsewhere is not particularly relevant. As far as I know, you didn't ask me to explain why belief in God is necessary, and I haven't argued that it is. It's reasonable to be an atheist.

How those benefits can be created is certainly relevant. If we can explain the mechanism for each one, we can get rid of the useless elements. So, if you could show that the social effects I'm concerned about are really just the benefits of belonging to any community, I'd have to concede that they are no longer a valid reason to entertain the underlying religious beliefs. As far as I know, though, the science is still in its infancy.

As far as special pleading goes I am specifically arguing that not all beliefs are required to meet the formal criteria of naturalism. In sum the argument is (1) there is a large swath of human experience where naturalism provides no help, and (2) there is observational evidence that religion can be useful in dealing with this.

I've also tried to explain why I think religion is useful blackbox in these situations - it collects and hones time-tested practices. Unfortunately, because it is useful in exactly those situations were there is no way to verify the mechanism, it's intially, necessarily a grab bag.

So you asked for a method independent of inner feelings to discriminate between religious beliefs. You want to be able to treat them claim -by- claim. You don't want evidence for any particular belief, but want a method for identifying when patricular religious claims are true and when they are false. I know.

I don't have a method to identify when particular claims are true or false under the requirements of naturalism. To the extent that you won't concede its not the only game in town, you've caught me out. I've tried to suggest above why I think we both (1) need another set of categories, and (2) need to understand how to evaluate beliefs in those categories.

So how do you evaluate religious claims, reasonably? Here's my reciepe:

(1) have a reason to believe a particular claim is useful i.e. serves some purpose that can't be achieved by a better verified method. You get to judge the purpose too, so you can throw our e.g. security blanket, avoiding cognitive dissonance, social control (where better methods are available).

(2) Toss everything that directly conflicts with rigorously verified knowledge.

(3) Ensure that its practices don't conflict with better verified "moral philosophy." You can't replace religion with moral philosophy for the same reason you can't replace it with science, it's silent on salient points.

If you want to be thorough add:

(4) devote an academic career to analysis each such benefit and looking for a scientific explanation.

I claim that's the proper way to treat religious beliefs. They're the money market account in humanity's knowledge portfolio. It's not unreasonable to wait for science to meet the burden of proof on each point because that is what gives science its merit. Religious beliefs not in conflict with our current best knowledge only need to provide some net benefit to be reasonable.



If you can only treat the phrase "Pe'le controls the volcanos of Hawaii" as naked proposition designed to model the behavior of volcanos its clearly false and useless. If you can understand it in context and practice as part of a way to model/make decisions about how to live on an active volcano, it needs to pass a different test. It may still fail.


If you want to argue that this means Pe'le doesn't "really" control the volcano I'm going to ask you if the nucleus of an atom is "really" surronded by whizzing electrons, as I once believed.

Is there a difference between the claim about the atoms and the claim about Pe'le? Yes. Is it the difference between a claim about something real and a meaningless claim? No.

 

[schlitt]

I don't know about that, necessarily. But there is a middle ground between the position you describe above and the one you described earlier (in which all other religions are wrong and their practicioners are going to hell).

It's not one that has any appeal to me personally, and I'm curious as to how people decide which "flavor" they like (or, if you prefer, which "path up the mountain").

All I was saying is that you're wasting your time hammering away at the "a follower of religion X must have decided that religions Y and Z are factually wrong while X is factually true." Those people exist, and I think they exist in greater numbers than people often like to acknowledge. I just don't think they exist in this thread, that's all.



I'm not attacking the OP or its intent. I am interested in the decision-making process that leads someone to "choose" one religion over another. It's just that your previous post was asking people to explain how they reached a position that they've been telling you they've never taken, that's all.

Fair enough. I see your point.

However, even with the people you are pointing out, at some stage justification must have been made which attempted to validate their belief. This justification could surely be transferable to why they chose the one they did, over the other possible truths.