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

[cyborg]

If it's someone you know and trust their anecdote is going to weigh more than a strangers anecdote and both are going to be considered more than someone you know who is untrustworthy. And all that trustworthy / untrustworthy assumptions you make come from your own personal experiences (or lack of) with those people.

Which is all worth **** as far as whether or not any of these people are actually saying anything about the fundamental essence of reality.

 

[articulett]

A person's anecdote that they felt god is NOT evidence that they felt god. It's evidence that they had a feeling and concluded that feeling fit into whatever it is they believe god feels like or does. People really do believe that they've seen ghosts or that aliens are probing them or that astrology really works... they can swear by it... pass lie detector tests... but THAT IS NOT evidence for those phenomena. It is only evidence that people can be fooled. If your dad has a NDE experience... you could trust that he's honest... but that sure doesn't mean that what he experienced as a near death experience giving him a glimpse into heaven is anything more than a mental illusion caused by culture and brain chemistry (namely hypoxia)... why would you assume that maybe he really is getting a true glimpse into some afterlife just because he's trustworthy? We can recreate those same feelings with a Persinger helmet... we can recreate OBEs with cameras.... what in the world makes you think that any of this kind of "evidence" can actually be evidence for some immaterial magical entity and world that is unknowable except by subjectivity??!!? And yet you pretend that it is. And how can you imagine subjectivity without a brain? You guys go out of the way to pretend that there's evidence for the nebulous something you want to be true.

Beth and CS--If you heard someone else using that kind of blather to support their belief in Scientology, reincarnation, or Astrology--you'd recognize it for exactly what it is. But when it comes to your magical god ideal, you are just blind... you do give your god special "anti skeptic" treatment, because it helps you keep the delusion alive.

Ah well... I'm sure you have me on ignore... it takes ignorance to keep the delusion alive. If you ever see the light... remember what it was that gave you a clue... maybe you can help others be deprogrammed from whatever cult they have faith in that might be a danger to others. I'm amazed that you cannot see that you are playing semantic games to make your belief seem more true to you in the exact same way that beliefs you don't find true encourage their members to do.

 

[A Christian Sceptic]

but THAT IS NOT evidence for those phenomena. It is only evidence that people can be fooled. If your dad has a NDE experience... you could trust that he's honest... but that sure doesn't mean that what he experienced as a near death experience giving him a glimpse into heaven is anything more than a mental illusion caused by culture and brain chemistry (namely hypoxia)... why would you assume that maybe he really is getting a true glimpse into some afterlife just because he's trustworthy?

But in this scenario you'd probably believe that Something happened to them even if you don't come to the same conclusion as the person experiencing it if you trusted that person. Whereas a total stranger you'd probably not even have reason to believe that Something even happened. That's all I'm pointing out. You'd still weigh the anecdote with all the rest of the information you've gathered throughout your life and still come to some sort of conclusion.

 

[Mobyseven]

I don't think anyone's arguing that the conclusion that a god exists is a scientific conclusion. It's fairly well-established that it's not. That something is not a scientific conclusion doesn't mean it is a wrong conclusion.

The implication here is that there is another way to process evidence (apart from science) that will allow us to reach the correct conclusion. So what is it?

If you are going to make a sweeping statement such as, "That something is not a scientific conclusion doesn't mean it is a wrong conclusion," then you need to justify that statement. What is a method or process by which we can reach correct conclusions about reality that is not science?

You can't just dismiss science without justification. Science examines reality, therefore an unscientific idea or conclusion is one that is probably not true in reality - unless you can prove otherwise.

 

[epeos76]

Sorry to have been gone. The new year is a particularly busy time at work on top of holiday obligations, and left me feelinig a little underweight to participate in this discussion.

Sadly, it looks like this thread has been replaced by one or several less well-articulated slugging matches. I'm going to try to read through it anyway, and then answer the apprx. three most taxing questions from Skeptigirl I left outstanding first time around.

If there are specific responses narrowly tailored to the OP, I'll stick around here to discuss 'em. Anyone who wants to debate whether religion is merely a tissue of capricious lies cloaking systematic abuse, or spend some quality posts swapping insults about the debilitating character traits required to hold one position over another will have to look for me in thread with more currency. It would be a shame to waste the rhetorical swaggering on the JREF equivalent of ESPN2.

 

[epeos76]

Industrial grade doubt and what to do with it.

I'm caught up now, and I retract the snarky bit at the end of the last post. I'm still impressed by the quality of most exchanges here and think many deserve full discussion in a separate thread.

I'm going to bullet issues in hopes of keeping this brief enough to be coherent.

Semantics:

A number of posters throw this around like a swear word. I'd like to remind you that the OP is closely related to the freaking philosophy of knowledge. I don't think it's unreasonable to expect careful distinctions. I agree that economy and other considerations (hidden equivalences etc.) require minimizing exotic definitions.


Gaps:

I think I introduced some confusion earlier by using this to refer to both (1) the acknowledged limits of science/naturalism, and (2) gaps in the knowledge we’ve actually accumulated to date.

(1) Limits

Godless Geeks and other advocates acknowledge that science/naturalism is based on a particular set of assumptions justified primarily by their usefulness. It’s powerful - it allows us to determine what is provably the best guess about the nature of particular facets of the world, but it’s also limited - ultimately, it’s only a model. That is why e.g. we are interested, but not concerned that quantum physics is currently irreconcilable with relativity.[FONT=&quot][1][/FONT]

(2) Terra Incognita

More importantly, we simply don’t yet know very much about issues of central importance to living here. I number consciousness, time, identity, community and economics among the critical issues. As far as we know, all these are subject to scientific investigation, we just don’t have answers yet.

Yes, we’ve made progress in a number of these areas. There is a little renaissance in both economics and neuroscience going on right now. Nonetheless, the results are far from complete.

SkG, I believe in one of you’re posts, you suggested that, with regard to behavior, our knowledge of the mechanics far outweighed our ignorance. I don’t think that’s true. I think it’s telling that cognitive behavioral therapy, as far as I know the only psych. treatment method with statistically significant results, was originally proposed as a dummy routine for testing purposes.

(3) Why it matters

A.Limits

One conclusion I draw is that an alternative set of assumptions about the real world could likewise be justified by utility, especially when the map provided by science is incomplete. The systems don’t have to be consistent – that’s an axiom of naturalism after all. You just need to know who wins in a dispute.

B.Terra Incognita

It isn’t just a subjective need to feel in control. We have to make decisions. I claim that science's silence on critical topics is something that must be explicitly address.

One common way to make decisions in areas where science provides no certain guidance is to extrapolate/project forward our current empirical knowledge forward.
I do this all the time myself . You may believe that this will always produce better results than banking on god beliefs you count as arbitrary. (I think there are verifiable reasons to believe they aren’t). Nothing in the theory guarantees this, however.

Projecting forward is a great way to come up with hypotheses for further investigation. I argue that it is a second best way to make decisions.[FONT=&quot][2][/FONT] It is truly an arbitrary guess in the fullest sense and you will often be wrong.



If you play straight naturalism, you then have to take responsibility for e.g. the movement to make all children right-handed, social darwinism, and, for real offensiveness, the modern, IQ based eugenics movement at least in the sense that these guesses were as reasonable as any other's based on the state of the art at the time.[FONT=&quot][3][/FONT]

I don’t think reasonable people really do this. I suspect that you and others here have an un-validated (though clearly not unexamined) catalogue of beliefs about how the world works that you check the projected conclusions against. From earlier posts, I hear evolutionary mechanics, and emergent properties as an alternative basis for moral beliefs. This warrants a separate thread. I can only argue here that both are plausible, but I don’t believe either is complete. In any event, not all the "gap" decisions are strictly moral, some involve resource allocation, guesses about the outcome of unknowable events, e.g. undertaking a foreign war.

To be as clear as possible, I’m not calling this hypocrisy or “faith”, I’m arguing for the existence of a class of mental objects other than “scientific truth” and “woo”. This special class includes all beliefs that appear to offer a net benefit and excludes conclusions that conflict with our better verified knowledge.

Distinguishing between these beliefs is a matter of judgment. Nothing guarantees you’ll get it right, but with time tested god beliefs, you at least have a little more observable data about the consequences to draw on.[FONT=&quot][4][/FONT] Moreover, in some cases, god beliefs provide a way of validating the process, when the end is ultimately unknowable.


This post is already far too long. Worse still, it is also only a piece of an argument related to the OP (there is a class of claims that rationally deserve special treatment, my religious beliefs are members of that class) I think before I go any further, it might make some sense to let people weigh in with objections. While theose pile up, I’ll try for question two. Hopefully I can manage to be briefer.







[FONT=&quot][1][/FONT] I’ve read Brian Greene’s String Theory books, at least in the sense of looking at each page in sequence and moving my lips. Epistemological point remains.

[FONT=&quot][2][/FONT] One area I deal with all the time is the ‘law & economics” movement shepherded by the University of Chicago law school. Basically, it takes the plausible-but-underdeveloped hypothesis that law at bottom is nothing more than a society wide attempt to maximize utilitarian value to be the single maxim for court decisions. Sounds charmingly rational, especially when delivered by its chief apostle, the marvelously memphistelian Judge Posner (I once heard him declare that lawyers should be forbidden to use the word “fair”.) In reality, very few specific balances and trade-offs can be validated in any way. (It works best in areas originally formulated along these lines, e.g. anti-trust law. I think it is outrageously abused in the context of intellectual property).


[FONT=&quot][3][/FONT] forum debate re: origins is interesting, but not relevant at this point. Goes to cost/benefits later.

[FONT=&quot][4][/FONT] It’s fair to ask what benefits I see in using my flavor of theism as a model. I can take a stab at this question, but it will have to be in another post.

 

[epeos76]

Less dense concerns (you choose how to read it)

In one earlier post, Hokule'le said something along the lines of, "I prefer to study only events we can know something about"

I agree. If you're looking for a claim to serve as the basis for further empirical inquiry, look no further than science. My objection is simply that we use our models of reality do do other things. For example, we use them to make decisions in uncharted territories.


Moby7 if the "real world" consists of things that would go away if humans did, perhaps you can identify an object that belongs to the real world and then explain how you know it's a member of that set. It's certainly not clear that time or distance belong.

I don't think it is at all surprising that the examples people provided of "real" things that likely would go away if people did mostly fall squarely into the areas we currently understand least well (I'd add the value of money to the list).

 

[Mobyseven]

Moby7 if the "real world" consists of things that would go away if humans did, perhaps you can identify an object that belongs to the real world and then explain how you know it's a member of that set. It's certainly not clear that time or distance belong.

...that's the opposite of a poorly worded paraphrasing of what I said, which in turn was a paraphrasing of another person - Philip K Dick - who said that, "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away."

 

[epeos76]

Moby7

Yes, I apoloize for the typo. It should indeed be real world = things that will not go away etc. I agree that PKD's version is subtler.

Given your more than passing use of the paraphrase in this thread, however, I think you owe the posters who have stuck it out to this point a little more than a bare retrenchment. It would be helpful to hear why you think the difference between PKD's magic words and your paraphrase is important.


To avoid hiding the ball, I'll tell you why I think it's different. First, the relationship between the observer and the claim is much narrower than in your version. For example, I assume you don't think the fact that I believe god exists despite your disbelief is relevant. Under PKD's version it's fine to say "your belief is real, but based on the results of my subjective mental exercise I can say the object of your beliefs is not"

Second, it allows you to avoid arguing about whether empirical models are ultimately also mental objects. PKD's statement is equivalent to an ex fiat claim that only the objects described by empirically validated models are real.

Seems to me it is a pithy summary of your position, but with no added logical value or persuasive purchase, i.e. there is no reason I should adopt it without some justification.

To add legs to the snake, I have no problem believing that some mental models have this special property, and that this property makes these models better than others for some purposes. I deny that the ideas that fall outside this group are mutually indistinguishable, unimportant, or unreal.

 

[epeos76]

Preview: The History of Christianity/Religion is a history of failed claims


SkG, Hokulele, Articullet, and others pointed out that the claims made by religions like christianity have changed over time. For instance, at varying times, Xtians have claimed that the bible was the literal word of god, the earth was made in a single act of creation lasting six days, and conquerors ruled by divine right. The modern, liberal christian tradition rejects all of these claims.

The atheists argue that for the most part churches didn't change these beliefs until science or social norms made each one untenable. Likewise, they argue that current beliefs are both too nebulous to entertain and appear to lack even internal justification because of their recent origin.

Goals

This is a serious challenge.

(1) Content. Theists must show that there is some justifiable content to their current beliefs. The evidence

(2) Change. Theists must also explain what it means that their predecessor's got things wrong.

I'd like to reserve an argument about the history described above. I disagree with the suggestion by Mashuna and others that christianity has at best been a neutral force with respect to social change. I think, at least in the US it has been the vocabulary and battleground for the conflict over most such changes. I hope there is a chance to address this topic in a latter thread.


Content

This is really the heart of the matter. If there is no value left in god beliefs, then there is no reason not to adopt the simplest explanation for (2).

I think there is tangible value to certain god beliefs that have escaped notice so far because they are in areas science hasn't yet reached. I will not attempt to give a comprehensive explanation, because I'm a a humble, rock throwing theist and not an iconoclastic genius of social science. Instead, I'm going to describe some benefits and suggest that to the best of my knowledge, the state of the art hasn't explained the mechanisms that create them.

Just to reiterate, the fact that there may be other as yet unexplained methods of attaining the same benefits is not relevant to this argument. I'll polish that one off in volume 3, after I finish counting the infinite tower of turtles.


Change.

Again, god beliefs, and religion fall into areas that we haven't analytically solved yet. I plan to argue that like other behaviors /i deas in this category, it is reasonable to assume that the original practioners acted with an imperfect or even completely wrong understanding of what they were doing.

As long as there is value in the behavior, a determination of whether (1) there is nothing there that requires a god belief, (2) all along we've been moving in the direction of a single, unifying goal, or (3) we are in for some hybrid suprise beyond the reach of my current speculations has to wait on the science to catch up.


That's the preview. I'll tackle arguments when I get home tonight.

 

[Mobyseven]

epeos76:

With all due respect, you're unlikely to get an answer to your questions here. The reason for this is that the questions you are asking have already been answered by the very people you are asking them of.

Discussions in another time and another thread is perfectly fine, but coming in late and bringing up issues that have been addressed ad nauseum already isn't likely to win you many answers.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Excuse my short reply, epeos, but I will make an effort at something more specific when I have time to re-read your ramblings. At a glance all I see is just that, rambling on, perhaps trying to convince yourself that god beliefs have some value and that the myriad of problems with those beliefs can be rationally explained.

You did not address (or if you did I cannot find it among the clutter) the gaps in scientific knowledge which are expected since scientific inquiry is an ongoing quest, and your claim that such gaps were evidence the "god of the gaps" was a necessary component of natural explanations.

In other words, the fact a scientist's work is never done is no reason to put god or magic in as an answer to anything science has not yet come up with as answer to.

 

[epeos76]

SkG, of course you are excused. You are likewise excused from engaging any further if you think we've communicated as much as we can on this topic. I concede that my last posts were too long. I think I it was a mistake to try for such a formal approach on my part.

You did not address (or if you did I cannot find it among the clutter) the gaps in scientific knowledge which are expected since scientific inquiry is an ongoing quest, and your claim that such gaps were evidence the "god of the gaps" was a necessary component of natural explanations.

This confuses me. I certainly did at least address the gaps in several sections that were clearly labeled if not clearly articulated. If you are saying I said nothing useful about them, fine. You'll likely need to clarify the question for me, before we can proceed. As I understood it, you wanted to know why I thought the expected gaps needed to be explicitly addressed even though they are currently outside the realm of science and why I think god belief helps with this.

 

[epeos76]

Moby7

Well, it will have to wait for another thread then. I don't think you, or anyone else has answered the questions I asked about PkD's slogan in this thread however.

As far as coming in late goes, that was all agreed on in earlier posts. I'm perfectly happy to let this thread die and move the discussion to another one, simply didn't want people to think I was stalking off over the holidays.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Which post has PkD's slogan question, who is PkD and while you said you would say more about the god of the gaps stuff, I don't think you did. I could be wrong.

My question to you, epeos, was, why do you need god as an answer to anything? You had said something about not having this or that answer in quantum physics or whatever. And I said so what? Why do you need the god answer as opposed to the 'we don't know yet' answer?

 

[Mobyseven]

Philip K Dick's slogan is just that - a slogan. There are plenty of explanations and arguments spread throughout this thread if you are genuinely interested, but unfortunately I think this particular thread has done it's dash. Feel free to start a new thread on any topic you want to discuss further, and I'll be glad to have a discussion.

 

[Henners]

If you play straight naturalism, you then have to take responsibility for e.g. the movement to make all children right-handed, social darwinism, and, for real offensiveness, the modern, IQ based eugenics movement at least in the sense that these guesses were as reasonable as any other's based on the state of the art at the time.

I'd love to see you play a game that uses actual logic.

 

[Henners]

you wanted to know why I thought the expected gaps needed to be explicitly addressed even though they are currently outside the realm of science and why I think god belief helps with this

I do not believe that you have at any point established that there is any part of reality that unavailable for investigation by scientific methods.

 

[Gord_in_Toronto]

Philip K Dick's slogan is just that - a slogan.

<< SNIP >>

.

Heresy!! It's a way of life!

 

[epeos76]

I do not believe that you have at any point established that there is any part of reality that unavailable for investigation by scientific methods.

I'm claiming two distinct things:

1. there are big gaps in critical areas were science hasn't yet provided answers. With any luck, one day it will.


2. The result you get when you do science is limited.

Example: we have a power description of how things work, building up from the smallest pieces we know about. We likewise have a powerful description of how things work on the macroscopic level. Unfortunately, there are some scenarios where these descriptions provide contradictory results.

This doesn't show a terribly flaw in the philosophy of science. It simply illustrates that neither model is a complete and accurate account of reality. This isn't surprising. The philosophy of science doesn't promise us complete and accurate Truth with a capitol T. It promises us a way of proving which of our guesses is closest to the truth for the particular subject being studied.


Try this question Henners. Is there any reason to believe that the fundamental, underlying nature of reality (to the extent it's out there etc. etc.) has to be self-consistent?