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

[GeeMack]

Are you aware the special rules and changed definitions would not have been applied to atom beliefs 10,000 years ago? Yes, the definition of god has changed over the eons. So has the definition of an atom. Why do you consider this a problem? After all, we are supposed to change our definitions as we progress and gain more knowledge rather than being irrevocably wedded to dogmatic beliefs.

You claim the definition of god has changed over eons. Please provide the current definition.

I understand that the differences atom beliefs and god beliefs are vast. But there are some similarities pertinant to this discussion. Both have changed significantly over the past few thousand years in response to better empirical evidence that humankind has managed to obtain. And both can still be considered to represent the same core concept of a thing that cannot be experienced directly via our senses.

You've stated that empirical evidence acquired over the ages has brought about the changes in the definition of god. We all (almost all) understand that there are many phenomena which were once thought to be caused by the intervention of gods, which are now known, because of the accumulation of empirical evidence, to be caused by particular principles of physics. In other words, gods are less necessary to explain the unknown now than they were in the past. Don't you agree?

Also, do you have examples of any empirical evidence which might actually substantiate the existence of gods or demonstrate that any phenomena are caused by the power of gods? It would be interesting to contrast that list with the masses of empirical evidence showing that gods are not valid explanations for so many things we once misunderstood.

You see it that way, I see it as a way of adjusting the definition of god to the available empirical evidence, just as the definition of ‘atom’ has adjusted to the available empirical evidence. I think both are reasonable interpretations of the evidence currently available to us.

So, okay, gods are becoming less necessary all the time. The compilation of empirical evidence increasingly shows that the power of gods is not a rational explanation for any phenomena. Given a continued gathering of empirical evidence, it seems reasonable that some day the notion that gods are some sort of real entities, will simply cease to exist. When do you think the definition of god, because of the accumulation of empirical evidence, will become something like, "Mythical supernatural beings who were once believed to actually exist?" (Hint: There is already a substantial portion of the world's population who understand gods that way.)

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

Hm.. with your amply experience in life, you say you cannot imagine any single circumstance that justifies holding a certain unfalsifiable belief?

Not currently, no. Do you have a candidate belief in mind?

To whom? Apart from yourself.

Perhaps to a hypothetical rational person who does not currently share your specific God-beliefs.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I'm sorry I've been to busy to keep up with this thread. I doubt I'll be able to make a meaningful post before the new year. In case it dies before then, I'd like to thank Lithrael, Skeptigirl and others for taking the time to wade through the maelstorm and respond with thoughful challenges. I'm at least enough of a skeptic to enjoy a vigorous controversy, but it's infinitely more fun when the participants have the courtesy, listening skills, and other qualities necessary to actually communicate.


Skeptigirl, I see I missed some of your earlier replys. I'm doubly sorry because you raised some telling points and I would have liked to return the courtesy by addressing them directly. If this thread survives, and your still interested, I'll try to briefly respond to at least the following:

(1) What are these alleged gaps I'm so concerned about, and why do they matter?

(2) History of Christianity is a history of failed claims

(3) ETS re: what to do with contradictory beliefs that meet all my other requirements.


As an aside, I was shopping for presents today, and noticed four or five different books in prominient places advancing that zero room for religion position popularized by Hitchens and Dawkins. I spotted two directly responding, one of which looked interesting. It seems to be a pretty hot topic right now, well worth discussing.


Thanks again.

Happy holidays.

- E

No worries, epeos. Return when you have the time. Your post will bump the thread on my subscribed threads list. I await your responses and your synopsis of my points is about right.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

It is very important, Moby, when you want to convince yourself that you are superior to another, to first identify "they" and then define the inferior attribute in terms, and a pigeon hole, that you understand. Two dimensional, cardboard cut outs are a handy metaphor.

I think you can get some nice used sheets from Senator Byrd.

Moby, in this thread.

That foolishness some of your fellow howlers nommed for a TLA is rather inaccurate, since the trolling began with the OP, and the 17 responses to it. Standard baiting behavior.

When you hear that popping sound, Moby, the next thing you'll see is daylight.

DR

The problem here, DR, isn't that Moby feels he has a superior position, though he may very well feel that way. The problem is he and others here including myself, have been trying to explain a definition. We didn't make the definition up ourselves. And while I understand why people like Beth feel their interpretation of the term, "evidence", is a matter of opinion, she just isn't correct. 2+2 in base 10 = 4. You cannot argue it is your opinion that the answer is 5. You cannot say it is your opinion that a dog is a cat and be correct. Moby can't seem to get this point across. That is the basis of his shouting.

The strength of evidence is an opinion. The value applied to evidence is an opinion. The conclusion drawn from evidence is an opinion. But what is and is not evidence is easily defined and opinion does not come into it.

The fact a person has an 'inner experience' is evidence. But it is their conclusion, not evidence that the 'experience' = god. Such an 'inner experience' only becomes evidence the person is experiencing god if the existence of a god is established FIRST. And only then if the connection is made between the existence of a god and the 'inner feeling'.

Take the 'inner feelings' which accompany lust and love, we know that people bond and we know they can have a physical attraction toward each other which has been labeled, lust. We understand a lot of things about that bonding and lust. We identify an 'inner feeling' and conclude it is the emotion one feels under certain bonding and lust experiences. It isn't that we have an 'inner feeling' and magically claim that 'feeling' means love exists. The 'inner feeling' is indeed evidence. But what it is evidence of cannot be established if we didn't have the lust and bonding component in the equation. Without the rest of the components all we have in the way of evidence is an 'inner feeling'. We don't have evidence love exists. We draw a conclusion the 'inner feeling' is love. We happen to draw that conclusion because the 'inner feeling' is not the only evidence. But regardless if it were or weren't, the 'inner feeling' is the evidence. What that 'inner feeling' means is a conclusion, not evidence. It is not an opinion, it is a definition of the word, evidence. Conclusions you draw are not evidence. Cats are not dogs and 2+2 in base 10 = 4, not 5.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I guess we will have to see how Skeptigirl responds, but you and Articulett's response prove exactly what the Thiests have been saying throughout this entire thread. Skeptigirl claims she only wanted to know or try to understand the process believers use to determine among varying belief systems.

I just told you a very brief, general, broad method how I do this within my current belief system of Christianity.

It was instantly dismissed as being an invalid way and as as simply a pissing contest between gods. (Xenu isn't a god as I pointed out.)

Since that is how both you and Articulette responded I will not take part in any more discussions with you two in this thread since you are not concerned with the OP as Skeptigirl claims she intended it.

While I agree with you there are some atheists going a little different direction in the thread than I had intended, I don't agree you have actually clearly discussed the basis of your belief. You started to. But I asked you to follow through on your thoughts and you went back into avoidance mode.

There's a lot of pages with a lot of posts so I may have missed one but you have so far said,

[post #288] when I come across a new religion or even a new Christian idea or view I measure it against what I currently believe and use my reasons (which are largely not scientific but probably more philosphical or theological) and make a decision.

[# 492] Well - I'm sceptical about Faith Healers. Does that count as being sceptical?
Does that count as being sceptical about my own religion? I'm sceptical about the Shroud of Turin. Does that count too? I'm sceptical God has a white beard.

[# 660] scepticism has only changed my views within Christianity.

So you seem to have decided on one god to believe in at some point in your life, and applied the special rules of not applying the rules of skepticism you apply to everything else.

But you have not yet verbalized what made that god belief not need evidence that you have used to determine the validity of other god beliefs such as a belief in Zeus.

 

[qayak]

Yes, each definition of god makes god more nebulous and murky--more like an imaginary god... whereas all of our knowledge about atoms have lead towards great understanding and useful information that others can build upon, replicate, and refine.

I like the way Richard Feynman puts it. Something to the effect of: "If something becomes more murky, less clear, the closer you examine it, you know it isn't true. It is like looking at something through a dirty piece of glass. If you clean the glass, the image should get clearer. If it doesn't, it probably isn't real."

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

.....
Are you aware the special rules and changed definitions would not have been applied to atom beliefs 10,000 years ago? Yes, the definition of god has changed over the eons. So has the definition of an atom. Why do you consider this a problem? After all, we are supposed to change our definitions as we progress and gain more knowledge rather than being irrevocably wedded to dogmatic beliefs.

I understand that the differences atom beliefs and god beliefs are vast. But there are some similarities pertinant to this discussion. Both have changed significantly over the past few thousand years in response to better empirical evidence that humankind has managed to obtain. And both can still be considered to represent the same core concept of a thing that cannot be experienced directly via our senses.

You are confusing the special rules applied to god beliefs with changing paradigms about the natural world as new evidence emerges. There really is no comparison here even with the most stretching fathomable. In one case you suspend the rules just for your special god belief and in the other case you simply shift your paradigm but all the while the rules of determining the real world stay the same.

I don't have an issue with the constructed agnosticism of saying we might one day discover gods exist. We might also find invisible pink unicorns. What concerns me is when it comes to these two possibilities of future discovery, they are not really treated as equally agnostic positions. Many skeptics verbalize the agnosticism about invisible pink unicorns but give it no special consideration other than verbalization. With god beliefs, however, some skeptics change the practical definition of gods (that is, gods who do interact with the Universe) to a special definition of gods (gods who don't interact with the Universe) and give god beliefs special consideration despite the fact no god beliefs in human history started as beliefs in gods who don't interact with the Universe.

And it's unskeptical enough that skeptical god believers do this, but skeptical agnostics give a pass to the special rules as well. And they do so without actually considering the issues involved in making up the special rules. Where did the idea of the unfalsifiable god come from? It didn't come from actual god beliefs. It came as the result of failing to find evidence of any real gods, so the definition of gods were changed and the whole claim of 'faith' and 'inner feelings' or whatever it gets labeled as was literally invented as a way to side step the mounting lack of evidence real gods exist.

.....You see it that way, I see it as a way of adjusting the definition of god to the available empirical evidence, just as the definition of ‘atom’ has adjusted to the available empirical evidence. I think both are reasonable interpretations of the evidence currently available to us.

The definition of atom was changed based on new evidence. The definition of god was changed to side step the mounting evidence god beliefs were not supported by the evidence.

 

[Herzblut]

Not currently, no. Do you have a candidate belief in mind?

Hm.. Let's assume a mother whose son died in an accident. To overcome her enourmous suffering she gets used to the faith that she will finally see him again in heaven. And since she feels much better now, her belief is totally justified. But I know, you would start disputing with her, raise doubts in her, try to withdraw her hope and leave her in desperation.

Perhaps to a hypothetical rational person who does not currently share your specific God-beliefs.

Yeah, but that's probably difficult. You know, since last Sunday I adhere to my Poker God. In an headsup I flopped trips of 3 and went all in, he called with top pair and flush draw. And he hit the frikkin flush on the turn! I'm dead. Almost. But you know what? On the river came the one-and-only 3, the golden card which made my quads and saved my day. I think I'll build a shrine for my God.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I love it. I answer these posts usually before reading past them. I see that most people in this discussion made the same observations as I did. That tells you Beth, we are speaking from a valid point of view on this matter. Our observations and conclusions are consistent.

And before you point out how many people consistently believe in gods, one of the biggest glaring evidences against god beliefs being real is just how inconsistent the beliefs are from person to person, let alone from religion to religion.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

Hm.. Let's assume a mother whose son died in an accident. To overcome her enourmous suffering she gets used to the faith that she will finally see him again in heaven. And since she feels much better now, her belief is totally justified. But I know, you would start disputing with her, raise doubts in her, try to withdraw her hope and leave her in desperation.

We are using two different definitions of "justified" here, I believe. How a given conclusion would make me feel is not relevant to whether or not it is justified, as I am using the term. In my terms a justified belief is one I have reason to believe is true. Not one I have reason to believe will make me feel good.

That's the sense in which it is true that you cannot have rationally justified belief in an unfalsifiable claim.

If merely making you feel good counts as justification then yes, you can have a justified belief in an unfalsifiable claim. You still have to explain why you picked that belief out of the infinite number of available unfalsifiable claims that would make you feel good however. Why didn't this woman decide to believe that she will see him in Valhalla?

Yeah, but that's probably difficult. You know, since last Sunday I adhere to my Poker God. In an headsup I flopped trips of 3 and went all in, he called with top pair and flush draw. And he hit the frikkin flush on the turn! I'm dead. Almost. But you know what? On the river came the one-and-only 3, the golden card which made my quads and saved my day. I think I'll build a shrine for my God.

I fail to see the connection between this passage and the ongoing discussion, sorry. Could you clarify how this is a response to our earlier discussion of who you should or could justify your beliefs to?

 

[Herzblut]

We are using two different definitions of "justified" here, I believe. How a given conclusion would make me feel is not relevant to whether or not it is justified, as I am using the term. In my terms a justified belief is one I have reason to believe is true. Not one I have reason to believe will make me feel good.

Your brain makes up beliefs to resolve cognitive dissonances (a defense mechanism) and then rationalizes that belief to sound "reasonable" if you or your social environment insist to. That's exactly the same kind of defense mechanism, your belief that you have reason to belief.

That's the sense in which it is true that you cannot have rationally justified belief in an unfalsifiable claim.

Yeah, you simply defined words and this is then just an analytical statement which adds nothing to it. It is a definition.

You still have to explain why you picked that belief out of the infinite number of available unfalsifiable claims that would make you feel good however. Why didn't this woman decide to believe that she will see him in Valhalla?

Don't be silly. That's obviously strongly impacted by somebody's cultural coding.

I fail to see the connection between this passage and the ongoing discussion, sorry. Could you clarify how this is a response to our earlier discussion of who you should or could justify your beliefs to?

You claimed one's belief should be explanable to a "rational" person. So I tried to explain, did you understand?

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

Your brain makes up beliefs to resolve cognitive dissonances (a defense mechanism) and then rationalizes that belief to sound "reasonable" if you or your social environment insist to. That's exactly the same kind of defense mechanism, your belief that you have reason to belief.

I'm fairly sure that can't be all there is to it, because some beliefs seem to be much better at getting reliable outcomes than other beliefs. If it was just a matter of making up random stories to resolve cognitive dissonance then one story would be as good as another.

Yet somehow the beliefs of a bicycle repair person lead them to successfully fix bicycles.

Yeah, you simply defined words and this is then just an analytical statement which adds nothing to it. It is a definition.

Rather, the identification of unfalsifiable beliefs as being irrational falls directly out of how we describe rationality.

This thread is about how some theists use exactly that rationality to determine their beliefs about issues such as whether there are any carrots left in the fridge, or whether Harry Potter is fictional, but selectively abandon that rationality when it comes to determining their particular god-beliefs.

It's been repeatedly said that a atheist is a theist who believes in only one less god, but in fact it's an even closer relationship than that. An atheist is a theist with regard to absolutely everything apart from that one little pesky religious issue. We use the same rationality and same methods of belief-fixing to figure out where our mobile phone is, or what the capital of Peru is, or what the atomic weight of sodium is. We just differ in that we are consistent when it comes to that one tiny topic instead of suddenly applying new rules.

Don't be silly. That's obviously strongly impacted by somebody's cultural coding.

That's the problem then. You're trying to stretch "rational" to cover deciding that it is true that you will meet someone in Heaven, because it makes you happy, but if that's "rational" then so too is deciding that it is true that you are Napoleon if it makes you happy. After all if it's only cultural coding, what difference does it make if you believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster or the Virgin Mary?

You claimed one's belief should be explanable to a "rational" person. So I tried to explain, did you understand?

Ah, I think I've caught up now.

I think a rational person would respond that the evidence you have provided is insufficient to justify belief in a Poker God. What happens now?

 

[Herzblut]

Yet somehow the beliefs of a bicycle repair person lead them to successfully fix bicycles.

We were talking about a mother who lost her son and whose belief provided her consolation and relief from suffering.

You declared her belief as not justified, inspite of its huge benefit for her.

Because you happen to have a different definition of "justified".

Well, I wish you all the best in life with your definitions.

 

[articulett]

I like the way Richard Feynman puts it. Something to the effect of: "If something becomes more murky, less clear, the closer you examine it, you know it isn't true. It is like looking at something through a dirty piece of glass. If you clean the glass, the image should get clearer. If it doesn't, it probably isn't real."

Yep...just an image of "god" via pareidolia on the dirt on the class.

Jesus is everywhere you look if you are an indoctrinated person:

http://current.com/items/88798180_holy_doggie_door

 

[Beth]

I just have one small quibble with this analogy. In the case of the definition of an atom, it has been adjusted towards whatever model the new evidence uncovers. Each piece of evidence leads to a greater understanding of the atom. The definition of god always seems to be adjusted away from new evidence (e.g., "god of the gaps"). Each piece of evidence leads to knowing less about god.

I wouldn't agree about the evidence leading us to know less about god. I would say the opposite. We know that god, if one exists, does not intervene in this world in any way we are able to objectively measure. I think that tells us a lot. I just don't have the same certainly you do about concluding that no god exists based on that fact. It's a very reasonable conclusion, just not the only reasonable conclusion.

You are confusing the special rules applied to god beliefs with changing paradigms about the natural world as new evidence emerges.

Huh? I'm telling you I consider the changes in god beliefs to those espoused by most of the theists in their thread to be an example of a changing paradigm just as the changes in atom beliefs are. If it's a 'special rule' as you term it, it's not unique to god beliefs, but to many other beliefsm, such at atom beliefs and shape-of-the-earth beliefs.

There really is no comparison here even with the most stretching fathomable. In one case you suspend the rules just for your special god belief and in the other case you simply shift your paradigm but all the while the rules of determining the real world stay the same.

I just disagree with this. It seems to me that God beliefs are an instance of such a shift of paradigm. I guess we will just have to disagree on this as I know of no test for what is or isn't a 'shifting paradigm'

I don't have an issue with the constructed agnosticism of saying we might one day discover gods exist. We might also find invisible pink unicorns. What concerns me is when it comes to these two possibilities of future discovery, they are not really treated as equally agnostic positions. Many skeptics verbalize the agnosticism about invisible pink unicorns but give it no special consideration other than verbalization. With god beliefs, however, some skeptics change the practical definition of gods (that is, gods who do interact with the Universe) to a special definition of gods (gods who don't interact with the Universe) and give god beliefs special consideration despite the fact no god beliefs in human history started as beliefs in gods who don't interact with the Universe.

I seem to recall discussing this at length in another thread. I think you were participating there too. There simply is NOT the same evidence for IPU's as there is for some sort of god. There is an abudance of non-objective testimomial evidence for the existance of some sort of god. Evidence that is consistent in some respects across cultures and over time. There is no such evidence for IPU's.

Is the evidence for god objective or repeatable? No.

Does the IPU have similar subjective testimonial evidence? No.

Is the evidence for god and the IPU the same? No

Therefore, it is quite reasonable to treat the two propositions as different based on the differing amount of evidence for each.

And it's unskeptical enough that skeptical god believers do this, but skeptical agnostics give a pass to the special rules as well. And they do so without actually considering the issues involved in making up the special rules.

Whereas, I consider it unskeptical to entirely reject the testimonial evidence of so many people across so many cultures and over the entire history of the human race.

Is it reasonable to assume they are all mistaken and no gods exist? Yes. That's an entirely reasonable and rational conclusion.

Is it reasonable to assume that they are not all mistaken, that some real phenomena underlies all the different types of human experiences with god? Yes. That's an entirely reasonable and rational conclusion.

Yes, I realize that those are mutually exclusive conclusions. They can't both be true. But I consider myself an agnostic because I personally find both conclusions reasonable. I don't really find them equally likely, but as I sway from one side to other on a regular basis and can't seem to come to a firm conclusion one way or the other.

Where did the idea of the unfalsifiable god come from?

I think it came from falsifing so many other gods and still needing an explanation for the god experiences of so many people. But that's just my opinion.

It didn't come from actual god beliefs. It came as the result of failing to find evidence of any real gods, so the definition of gods were changed and the whole claim of 'faith' and 'inner feelings' or whatever it gets labeled as was literally invented as a way to side step the mounting lack of evidence real gods exist.

The definition of atom was changed based on new evidence. The definition of god was changed to side step the mounting evidence god beliefs were not supported by the evidence.

This is just a way of saying both were changed based on new evidence and throwing in some disparagement about god beliefs? I could say, for example "the definition of the atom was changeed to side step the mounting evidence that belief that atoms are non-divisible was not supported by the evidence". The definitions of both were changed based on new evidence. Why do you consider that a problem for god but not the atom?

 

[cyborg]

We know that god, if one exists, does not intervene in this world in any way we are able to objectively measure. I think that tells us a lot.

It tells us that people who pontificate about the nature of gods are full of themselves.

There is an abudance of non-objective testimomial evidence for the existance of some sort of god.

"Some sort of god," what a weasel phrase - that could be just about any damn thing!

Like an invisible pink unicorn for example...

Therefore, it is quite reasonable to treat the two propositions as different based on the differing amount of evidence for each.

Or, it is quite reasonable to treat the two propositions as the same based on the fact that the IPU is "some sort of god."

Whereas, I consider it unskeptical to entirely reject the testimonial evidence of so many people across so many cultures and over the entire history of the human race.

You're mistaking the forest for a tree.

Why do you consider that a problem for god but not the atom?

Because the "god" delusion is less and less useful whilst the "atom" delusion is more and more useful as time progresses.

 

[Skeptical Greg]

We know that god, if one exists, does not intervene in this world in any way we are able to objectively measure. I think that tells us a lot.

What it tells us, is that a god who does not manifest it's existence, is indistinguishable from no god at all.

.... The definitions of both were changed based on new evidence. Why do you consider that a problem for god but not the atom?

The problem is that there is no new evidence for god.
There is only new evidence, that the phenomena previously attributed to god, does not require god after all.

Do you really not get it ?

 

[Hokulele]

I wouldn't agree about the evidence leading us to know less about god. I would say the opposite. We know that god, if one exists, does not intervene in this world in any way we are able to objectively measure. I think that tells us a lot.

This is exactly what I mean about knowing less about god. In face, you have just put it into a category where it basically becomes impossible to conclude anything about it. If it does not interact in any way we can objectively measure, then all it really tells us is to stop wasting time looking for it.

On the other side of this coin, where there are avenues to explore, many fascinating things have been learned. Anthropology and neurology are exciting fields in their own rights, and have been shedding more light upon religions, how they are formed, and what they can tell us about human nature. Sadly, they haven't shown us anything that can be taken as evidence of god's existence.

I just don't have the same certainly you do about concluding that no god exists based on that fact. It's a very reasonable conclusion, just not the only reasonable conclusion.

I disagree and I will explain by changing your emphasis slightly. It is the only reasonable conclusion. Granted, there are other conclusions that can be drawn, but the ones I have heard have been reached using something other than reason. Although this does not necessarily make them incorrect, it does make them unreasonable.

 

[articulett]

There's lots of testimonials that Astrology works
Are you agnostic about astrology?

There's tons of testimonial evidence of demon possession and reincarnation... are you a agnostic about that?

Lots and lots of people truly believe they've had psychic experiences--are you agnostic about that, Beth? Christian Skeptic? Darth?

Or is the invisible undetectable god the only thing where you give testimonial evidence special consideration? How can so many people be fooled about the above--and not also be fooled about god? What's the difference? How can you realize that people were confused about things when they thought the earth was flat and that the sun went around the earth, but imagine they knew what they were talking about when they thought god was giving them signs? How can testimonial evidence be enough to be agnostic about gods but not about those other things? How can testimonial evidence be "evidence" of an undetectable god?

Admittedly this evidence is indistinguishable from someone having a delusion of a god, right? And we know for certain schizophrenics hear gods or believe they are gods or believe they are getting revelations from god, right? Isn't it likely that all god "evidence" is on par with all evidence for astrology and demon possession and the like? How have you managed to convince yourself that it's more than that and why would you?

It sounds to me that you are using other peoples' bad evidence to prop up your own bad evidence of whatever myth you've spun in your head.

 

[cyborg]

How can so many people be fooled about the above--and not also be fooled about god? What's the difference?

Convention.