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

[articulett]

Ugh... confusing opinions for claims of fact again.

I think most skeptics are probably happier with "I don't know" than filling in the gap with a delusion.

I can't see what good religion does for people. I think it's like junk food--it's filling, but doesn't really add any knowledge.

 

[Mobyseven]

Also, I disagree that the default assumption is no god. My observation is that far more people have 'god exists' as their default assumption and most of those who don't have made a conscious decision to switch to 'no god' as the default rather than starting with it.

Two rather big mistakes here:

First, the assumption that people start with 'god exists' as the default - what belief in god does a baby have? Are we all born with a belief in god, or is it something that is learned as we develop? Even the hypothetical first human who believed in a god or gods - do you think he was born with that belief, or is it more likely that it developed as an explanatory tool?

Second, you have once again derived an 'ought' from an 'is'. Even granted that the default assumption for most people is that god exists (it isn't), it doesn't logically follow from that that the default assumption should be 'god exists'. Indeed, it can easily be shown that such an assumption should not be the default (as it logically then requires one to believe in nearly everything, including contradictory positions).

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I don't think anyone has given a good answer or reason for why they should think their god beliefs are more likely to be true than the stuff they don't believe in.

...

I don't think anyone has actually even answered the question.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Anecdotal evidence that can be countered with anecdotal evidence of people who were able to conquer addictions and/or give up a life of crime that they attribute to gaining a belief in god.

I had forgotten about that one. Given that we don't have evidence those same people would have beat their addiction without god beliefs, I have to concede here.

I think that humans ‘need’ god beliefs to be moral in the same way that they ‘need’ meat in their diet to be healthy. While it’s well established that people can stick to a vegan diet and stay healthy, it takes considerably more effort to construct and maintain a healthy vegan diet than to do so with diet that includes meat. Most people prefer to include meat in their diet when they have the option of doing so. Do humans 'need' meat in their diet?

Interesting hypothesis but I see no evidence supporting it except in the case of battling addiction afflictions. I think the whole 'religion provides a basis for morality' claim is all image, no substance. There are some charitable organizations centered in churches. I don't see that the god beliefs contribute there, rather the social organization does. There are humanist organizations springing up. If they end up fulfilling the same roles as theist organizations, I think you'll see the god belief part has little to do with the charity part. I say this because the distribution of altruistic people is not correlated to theists' beliefs.

What evidence are you basing that statement on? We don’t really understand what benefits god beliefs may provide either to more primitive societies or to our own. I think your hypothesis that humans don't need god beliefs is not well supported.

Sure it is. Atheists function just fine. The sample size is sufficiently large and diverse to support that claim.

1) While we have sufficient observational data to conclude that some god beliefs are false, others are not falsifiable so this is NOT a true statement.

I'm not going to continue arguing this crap with you. The only god which is not falsifiable is one which doesn't do anything. For all practical purposes, that is one which might as well not exist.

2) A false belief is not necessarily without worth. We Americans have based our society on at least one demonstrably false belief : “All men are created equal” Do you think that because this is a false belief, we should discard it? I think it has value as an ideal and cling to it despite an intellectual understanding that it is not an accurate statement about reality.

That's a reasonable point. So believing your dead loved one is waiting for you in heaven probably benefits grieving people.

 

[Beth]

I had forgotten about that one. Given that we don't have evidence those same people would have beat their addiction without god beliefs, I have to concede here.

Interesting hypothesis but I see no evidence supporting it except in the case of battling addiction afflictions. I think the whole 'religion provides a basis for morality' claim is all image, no substance. There are some charitable organizations centered in churches. I don't see that the god beliefs contribute there, rather the social organization does. There are humanist organizations springing up. If they end up fulfilling the same roles as theist organizations, I think you'll see the god belief part has little to do with the charity part. I say this because the distribution of altruistic people is not correlated to theists' beliefs.

Thanks for conceding that some people are able to behave better with the help of god beliefs. I'll concede that you have a very valid point that it may well be the acceptance into the religious community rather than the god belief that is beneficial.

Sure it is. Atheists function just fine. The sample size is sufficiently large and diverse to support that claim.

You misunderstand the argument I was making. Celibates function just fine too. But our species would not long survive if everyone was celibate. That individuals can function just fine without god/sex does not imply that it isn't a necessary component of life for most people.

I'm not going to continue arguing this crap with you. The only god which is not falsifiable is one which doesn't do anything. For all practical purposes, that is one which might as well not exist.

You don't have to argue it if you don't want to. You're making a value judgement about the worth of believing in such a god, not a logical conclusion based on evidence. You're entitled to make that value judgement for yourself, but I get tired of it being assumed by posters here (you certainly aren't the only one) that it's unreasonable to assign a different value to that belief.

That's a reasonable point. So believing your dead loved one is waiting for you in heaven probably benefits grieving people.

Thank you. You're quite magnanimous tonight.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

SkG, I don't think I've managed to convey my position to you. I think, in part, this is because the field is littered with the junk from earlier debates you've had here.

Actually, it was your own words about god beliefs filling in the answers to things science has yet to resolve. However, I'll take your clarification here as you meant to separate faith based things from evidence based things.

This is a distinction I think lots of theists make. It excludes any number of christian-types, including those who would kill an abortion doctor (better verified ethics at work). It includes some members of incompatible faiths.

This means I have to explain what to do about that over inclusive, incompatibility. I've already explained what to do with the dogmatic types. Dismiss them.

Gee, maybe you'd like to take a stab then at the actual OP question. What is it about other people's god beliefs which you dismiss that leads you to dismiss them?

If science, or ethics, or philosophy had even most of the answers in the areas I'm concerned about, we would have no use for god beliefs (or we would be able to explain exactly what they do, and why we should have them).

Science doesn't. So what? I took you at your word when you suggested that the gaps were simply not a problem, and required no further response than "we don't know".

Except you have not shown that god beliefs provide these answers either. If you "know in your heart" or however you wish to convey how it is you know your god beliefs are correct and you therefore derive answers from those beliefs, then tell me how that is different from me knowing in my heart what is right and wrong, sans god beliefs?

If that were true, it would likewise undermine my argument that god beliefs are valuable. I specifically tried to show why, independent of religion or god beliefs, "we don't know" is not a great answer. We still have to make decisions, and science isn't a good source for guesses. This doesn't advance my argument except by addressing the threshold criticism you raised.

The problem here is twofold. One is it depends on which answers it is you do not know, but more importantly, it also depends on those god beliefs actually providing some substitute for 'we don't know'. You were unable to provide an example of how god beliefs help in any way with scientific answers we don't yet know. I see now where you were going with your example, but it illustrates the fact you had no example in non-science knowledge either.

I don't need god beliefs to determine moral decisions and I propose to you that you are making moral decisions the same way as I do, only you have somehow added a facade of god beliefs on top of your explanation as to how you are making those moral decisions.

This is a common occurrence. Yet ask someone to describe how it is those god beliefs are actually contributing to the moral decision making, and you find a facade. For example, saying god guides you, as if by magic. Well biology guides me just the same. People also say things like, "the Bible tells us this." But you can find just about anything in the Bible you want to. The Bible condones and prohibits both homosexuality and adultery. The Bible says both an eye for an eye and to turn the other cheek. People gave up slavery in this country completely separate of any Biblical moral guidance. There is no real moral guidance in the Bible. There is only the person's morality and a Bible which has a passage to support just about any moral position one wants to hold.

..I have anecdotal, observation evidence that my god beliefs (and some other, incompatible god beliefs) are valuable moral tools.

And then can you explain how these work. Is it some gut feeling or actual Biblical guidance? Note of course what I just wrote above.

Their value doesn't lie in enforcing compliance with a particular moral check list. It lies in providing a model, training, and a framework of relationships for thinking about certain moral questions that can't yet be answered by other means as they arise.

It's a facade.

I think abortion is not a bad example. Empirical observation and/or analysis so far doesn't provide much insight into the potential value of a human life, or the relations among potential mom, potential baby, potential dad, and society.

Yet God supposedly told his people to slaughter every man, woman, child, and beast when it suited their needs. Abortion doctors are murdered in the name of revenge for zygote murders. Stem cell research which could save countless lives and decrease suffering is needlessly stopped while thousands of frozen embryos are going to be discarded anyway. Catholics forbid birth control in populations suffering horribly from over population. God (if you believe in God that is) made kangaroos and other marsupials which have the ability to abort their fetuses in times of stress.

My point is the Bible and god beliefs do not provide moral guidance. People have morals and they use the Bible to justify or support them. The evidence is clear, one cannot turn to the Bible for any kind of clarity on moral guidance.

This is evidence that morality, in part has a basis independent of belief. That's not a problem for me. It is not evidence that beliefs have no influence on morality. There is room for a theory in which certain baseline conditions arise from biology, then other factors become important.

Can you tell us how your god beliefs provide that influence?

... If so, do you think our intuition is entirely explained by biology? For my part, I don't think we do know the answers, in every situation. I don't think science or intuition is enough.

So your answers magically come to you from God? One certainly cannot open the Bible and find the moral decision algorithm in there anywhere. That decision is coming to you from your brain by the same mechanisms as the little girl who knows the difference between a moral behavior rule and an arbitrary behavior rule. At least that is what the evidence suggests.

...I've observed my god beliefs reliably teach otherwise ordinary, unreflective people something like compassion. I know other god beliefs do similar things. I know many atheists reach a similar result. In my view, each of those people had to learn, or invent that perspective. It doesn't come with the biological hardware, because it isn't reasonable, as a stand alone strategy. Mine work with at least the consistency of asprin, even for people who aren’t going to be reading Schopenhauer, or whoever.

You ignore the evidence that all the great apes exhibit moral behavior which is closely related to our own. Do you suppose they have god beliefs too?

...You say you will show me god beliefs that make people less moral. I will gladly list genetic imperatives that make people commit atrocities. What is important and relevant is discriminating between the different results.

I'll list one of the latter for you. Schizophrenics frequently have god beliefs in their delusions which they sometimes act upon and murder people believing god told them to, (though for the sake of not contributing to false stereotypes I must point out violently acting on those beliefs is infrequent).

There is a classic false assumption in your post here that needs addressing. Survival of the fittest includes highly cooperative group behavior as well as individual predatory behavior. Just look at the wide variety of animal societies. Bonobos are particularly peaceful relative to chimpanzees and actually, we behave more like the chimp societies. I do not believe bonobos murder and they certainly don't have wars. Chimps have cooperative behavior and Goodall documented individual murderers as well as an actual war between two rival groups.

...I disagree that they no longer have any value. I disagree that we have accumulated enough data to know they are false. I don't even think we've accumulated a complete description of what they are, or what they do.

Your disagreement is a given. That we'll not reach an agreement is also a given.

...In a number of threads, you and others have wondered why believers want to believe. The general consensus seems to be indoctrination, "memes", or fear of the unknown. I'd like to suggest an alternative that doesn't require condescending to a large swath of the human beings currently alive on the planet.

Maybe god beliefs serve some important roles that haven't been accounted for yet. They may even be different from their stated roles. The practioners have experienced the value, but lack the sophistication to separate the wheat from the chaff. This gap is partly because science has only just begun to address the relevant questions.

Relevant questions such as how the brain deals with moral issues? There is a tremendous amount of research in consciousness, morality, emotions including empathy, group behavior and so on. Perhaps you have not yet seen the volume that is actually there. There is a lot of research into why people have god beliefs, how god beliefs evolved, and so on. It's beyond the scope of this thread.

...Oh, and I stenously and vehemently object to your completely unjustified use of the word "merely" above.

Your objection is noted. That was an assessment of the argument you had put forth in your post. I understand you believe there are other benefits of god beliefs. I'm not sure you've made a very strong case of articulating those benefits. I think I understand what benefits you believe you have gotten from your god beliefs. I also understand they are significant benefits as far as you believe. But they are all still rooted simply in your 'gut feeling' or 'magically imparted by God', you choose the description you think fits. Those benefits are hard to prove as being any more than simply your biological mind.

 

[Mobyseven]

Pretending that your arguments haven't been destroyed does not mean that your arguments haven't been destroyed.

We all get it. I'm a horrible person who eats babies. Perhaps you could pretend that someone else wrote those responses to you, if it gets you to acknowledge criticism of your position. Ignoring the criticism won't make it go away.

 

[epeos76]

I was hardly expecting agreement. I think I've exhausted the subject though, given the amnesia demonstrated in the last few posts.

You think that because one component of morality almost certainly has a biological basis you have explained the full range of cause and effect in that area. I know that doesn't logically follow. Your reductionist view obscures part of what's interesting about the problem.

You say I've never given any evidence that god beliefs help in the gap. I've described my own observations that god beliefs helped otherwise unreflective midwesterns deal with several types of questions, and given a number of guesses about why it works.

Actually, it was your own words about god beliefs filling in the answers to things science has yet to resolve. However, I'll take your clarification here as you meant to separate faith based things from evidence based things.

Ridiculous. I was clear from my first posts that I don't view god as an intrinsically necessary concept. I've said at least twice that atheism is a reasonable position. I've gone to some trouble to leave out any discussion of faith at all. Why bother to make it sound like I'm being wishy-washy when you're so sure the evidence alone is enough to trounce me?

Gee, maybe you'd like to take a stab then at the actual OP question. What is it about other people's god beliefs which you dismiss that leads you to dismiss them?

Yeah. This is in about 5 posts of mine. What is it about the beliefs I dismiss? It's the part where they aren't willing to recognize the validity of extrinsic criticism. Instantly dismissable.

It's true that leaves me with a smaller bunch of incompatibles. I don't dismiss those. I simply choose one I (1) understand and (2) judge to be best, based on my current, limited knowledge. You don't get the same guarantee that its the "best guess" that you do in testable disciplines. You have to continue to do extrinsic criticism and use your best judgment about the results.

If you "know in your heart" or however you wish to convey how it is you know your god beliefs are correct and you therefore derive answers from those beliefs, then tell me how that is different from me knowing in my heart what is right and wrong, sans god beliefs?

And really, this is why my part in this discussion is probably winding to a close. I've developed the entire discussion without relying on inner feelings or referring to knowledge "in my heart." It's a strawman, and I'm not interested in defending it.

The problem here is twofold. One is it depends on which answers it is you do not know, but more importantly, it also depends on those god beliefs actually providing some substitute for 'we don't know'. You were unable to provide an example of how god beliefs help in any way with scientific answers we don't yet know. I see now where you were going with your example, but it illustrates the fact you had no example in non-science knowledge either.

Um, I may not have proven this point to your satisfaction, but I was certainly able to suggest some reasons it might help in certain circumstances. If you would like some more examples of the type of place I've seen it work, I'll give you two for free.

1. Innocently bigoted midwesterners pull together and give support to the (probably also innocently bigoted) victims of some post 911 vandalism and threats.

2. Tough as nails, republican judge gets involved with a prison tutoring program and becomes friends with two black kids with gang records. He amuses me no end telling stories about how smart, sharp, and honorable they are that nonetheless demonstrate he finds this deeply surprising

You understand, these aren't meant merely to be stories of people doing nice things. These people made a real connection with others whose existence as full human beings was completely outside their world view.

I doubt that these people would have been doing these things if not for their god beliefs. More, I think even if they had somehow been dragged along, they wouldn't have known how to let people so far outside the ambit of their universe really touch them.

I assume you will argue something like, "but atheists do this too!" That misses the point. Many, perhaps most atheists may also learn how to do this sort of thing but they don't get it for free with their genes. I'm a little distressed that after pages etc. of discourse you still believe this is some sort of thinking error on my part.

My own world view is somewhat roomier than the people I described above because I'm younger and better educated. I'm not so cocky that I think it isn't full of similar distortions, limits, inaccuracies. I'm betting that when I run up against them, my god beliefs will work for me in the same way I've seen them work for others.

I don't need god beliefs to determine moral decisions and I propose to you that you are making moral decisions the same way as I do, only you have somehow added a facade of god beliefs on top of your explanation as to how you are making those moral decisions.

It's an interesting proposal. I suspect at a general enough level we do make moral decisions in the same way. I wish you could get over the 'need' argument. I wish, too that I could convince you to consider the idea that morality isn't a closed set yet. There's more to do, inventing it.

This is a common occurrence. Yet ask someone to describe how it is those god beliefs are actually contributing to the moral decision making, and you find a facade. For example, saying god guides you, as if by magic. Well biology guides me just the same. People also say things like, "the Bible tells us this." But you can find just about anything in the Bible you want to. The Bible condones and prohibits both homosexuality and adultery. The Bible says both an eye for an eye and to turn the other cheek. People gave up slavery in this country completely separate of any Biblical moral guidance. There is no real moral guidance in the Bible. There is only the person's morality and a Bible which has a passage to support just about any moral position one wants to hold.

Wow. I haven't ever said, "as if by magic." I haven't given any indication of my thoughts on the bible. (interesting only in so far as it relates to god beliefs people are actually using).

At it's best, religion guides you by (1) giving some open ended priorities whose application, at least over the recent past, you can independently assess, (2) helping you practice and think about how to apply them, and (3) creating relationships that lower the barrier for certain kinds of charity and cooperation. None of it requires magic. Can it be done by other means? Demonstrably so. Will any means do? No.

One person's morality? SkG, I don't think one person is even the correct unit of analysis.


[quote-skeptigirl; 336894] Yet God supposedly told his people to slaughter every man, woman, child, and beast when it suited their needs. Abortion doctors are murdered in the name of revenge for zygote murders. Stem cell research which could save countless lives and decrease suffering is needlessly stopped while thousands of frozen embryos are going to be discarded anyway. Catholics forbid birth control in populations suffering horribly from over population. God (if you believe in God that is) made kangaroos and other marsupials which have the ability to abort their fetuses in times of stress. [/quote]

Wow again. Holding my beliefs responsible for the above is nonsense. It amounts to pretending you can't distinguish between the results of different types of beliefs by observing them. By their works, you know?
It also amounts to pretending that I'm suggesting we abandon ethics, and philosophy etc. and other grounds for judging actions outside of religion. I'm not.

I'll spare you the equal but opposite roster of religious virtue. I'm sure you're familiar with it. The fact the religious types show up on both sides of the debate doesn't prove religion is irrelevant. The religious types involved belong to competing traditions and the self-styled differences are significant.

My point is the Bible and god beliefs do not provide moral guidance. People have morals and they use the Bible to justify or support them. The evidence is clear, one cannot turn to the Bible for any kind of clarity on moral guidance.
Can you tell us how your god beliefs provide that influence?

Repetitive, but I understand your frustration. Lots of people have and do claim something like this. Lots don't and never have. I tell you candidly, as I said to Lithrael earlier that I think it is possible for the religious right to basically crash the 2000 year program here. It will be a great loss, in my view.

So your answers magically come to you from God? One certainly cannot open the Bible and find the moral decision algorithm in there anywhere. That decision is coming to you from your brain by the same mechanisms as the little girl who knows the difference between a moral behavior rule and an arbitrary behavior rule. At least that is what the evidence suggests.

There is no moral decision algorithm. It's far from certain there could be such a thing. My moral decisions? Some certainly come from the biology of my brain. Definitions, symbols, systems, etc, the content comes in large part from the intersection of brain and world, including language, culture, and god beliefs. That has an effect on how I make moral decisions with the existing hardware.

It's interesting that you do concede religion influences morality. You simply assume that influence is strictly negative.

You ignore the evidence that all the great apes exhibit moral behavior which is closely related to our own. Do you suppose they have god beliefs too?

I specifically addressed this in the preceding post. Apes are moral -> some portion of morality is independent of god beliefs. Correct. Not contested. Not a problem. There is much more to explain.

I'll list one of the latter for you. Schizophrenics frequently have god beliefs in their delusions which they sometimes act upon and murder people believing god told them to, (though for the sake of not contributing to false stereotypes I must point out violently acting on those beliefs is infrequent).

What an excellent example. Not really a biological imperative, but assume it doesn't matter. Wouldn't it be ridiculous to condemn all biological causes on the basis of this observation? Or to pretend we can't tell the difference between the results we get from different factors ?

There is a classic false assumption in your post here that needs addressing. Survival of the fittest includes highly cooperative group behavior as well as individual predatory behavior. Just look at the wide variety of animal societies. Bonobos are particularly peaceful relative to chimpanzees and actually, we behave more like the chimp societies. I do not believe bonobos murder and they certainly don't have wars. Chimps have cooperative behavior and Goodall documented individual murderers as well as an actual war between two rival groups.

I'm sorry, that's really not an assumption in my posts. Chimps and bonobos act differently. Quite compatible with my earlier observation that the logic break point for cooperation and competition is probably sensitive to lots and lots of variables. And yes, we know, we know, evolution only produces "good enough" solutions.

Your disagreement is a given. That we'll not reach an agreement is also a given.

Just matching declaration for declaration.

Relevant questions such as how the brain deals with moral issues? There is a tremendous amount of research in consciousness, morality, emotions including empathy, group behavior and so on. Perhaps you have not yet seen the volume that is actually there. There is a lot of research into why people have god beliefs, how god beliefs evolved, and so on. It's beyond the scope of this thread.

I can't claim to be an expert, but I've certainly read some of this stuff. It's exciting, and may one day answer some of the questions in play. It's also in its infancy.

I think you're preparing to fall into exactly the dilemma I tried to illustrate with the dreaded breast milk example: assuming powerful preliminary results explain the whole story. Since at this point we're exchanging opinions about offstage experts, perhaps you'd like to post a reading list somewhere? I can take a crack at any two or three books in the near future.

[quote = skeptigirl; 336894] Your objection is noted. That was an assessment of the argument you had put forth in your post. I understand you believe there are other benefits of god beliefs. I'm not sure you've made a very strong case of articulating those benefits. I think I understand what benefits you believe you have gotten from your god beliefs. I also understand they are significant benefits as far as you believe. But they are all still rooted simply in your 'gut feeling' or 'magically imparted by God', you choose the description you think fits. Those benefits are hard to prove as being any more than simply your biological mind.[/quote]


The objection was tongue in check of course. I know what your assessment signified, and how futile it would be to debate the write off.

In any event, my appreciation of the benefits is rooted in my independent observations, not my feelings. I'll look around for something a little more sociological and see what I can find.

Again, I appreciate your willingness to try to stay the course in this discussion without resorting to grosser calumny. I'm more than willing to try again, from another angle, in another thread, and I'll stick around here, for a bit to see if we move towards any new ground.

 

[lupus_in_fabula]

You are entitled to your opinion, but I disagree with your modification. Modern man has the ability to supplement poor diets with concentrated does of things like vitamins and minerals when necessary. Primitive man did not. He relied on eating meat when possible to sustain him.

Is it more analogous to say that modern man can supplement his moral judgement with god beliefs when necessary or to claim that primitive man would rely on such beliefs in forming moral judgements? I think the latter.

(Well, Mobyseven responded quite well on the default-position argument, so I just concentrate on what I find to be quite intriguing in your reasoning).

Are we not living in modernity now? Your use of the term “primitive man” is already somewhat strange I think; you are using beliefs derived from a primitive context in order to justify those same beliefs in a modern context. We know that “primitive man” used to mix mythology and explanation of the world together. However, we do not need to do that. In fact, whenever mythology and natural explanation is available, most of us tend to prefer the natural explanation anyway (unless you’re extremely indoctrinated). The pattern seems quite clear.

However, you say that you think people need god-beliefs in order to be moral, and you’re justifying that stance by appealing to “primitive man”, and recognizing he had the same propensity to ‘fill in the gaps’ as today, albeit by mythology rather than by exact observation and explanation. From that you derive a conclusion that this kind of mythological patchwork is somehow necessary for morality in general, today. I think that’s just strange. How/where does morality com into the picture here?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

....You think that because one component of morality almost certainly has a biological basis you have explained the full range of cause and effect in that area. I know that doesn't logically follow. Your reductionist view obscures part of what's interesting about the problem.

The problem here is magical thinking vs evidence. I realize you want there to magically be more to it than the evidence. But that's all you have after the evidence, magic. No, I don't buy it. Oh well.

....You say I've never given any evidence that god beliefs help in the gap. I've described my own observations that god beliefs helped otherwise unreflective midwesterns deal with several types of questions, and given a number of guesses about why it works.

See all the arguments against Beth's magical "people feel it" claims. I don't care if you feel it, believe it, whatever, but if you don't have any evidence don't get upset when people say, you have no evidence. You have no evidence. Your inner experience, no matter what you call it, is not evidence.

....Ridiculous. I was clear from my first posts that I don't view god as an intrinsically necessary concept. I've said at least twice that atheism is a reasonable position. I've gone to some trouble to leave out any discussion of faith at all. Why bother to make it sound like I'm being wishy-washy when you're so sure the evidence alone is enough to trounce me?

This is a silly argument. Just say you meant whatever. I take your word for it I missed your message. Such are the limits of communication via words.

...Yeah. This is in about 5 posts of mine. What is it about the beliefs I dismiss? It's the part where they aren't willing to recognize the validity of extrinsic criticism. Instantly dismissable.

Yet you don't recognize the validity of any criticisms of your own god beliefs.

...It's true that leaves me with a smaller bunch of incompatibles. I don't dismiss those. I simply choose one I (1) understand and (2) judge to be best, based on my current, limited knowledge. You don't get the same guarantee that its the "best guess" that you do in testable disciplines. You have to continue to do extrinsic criticism and use your best judgment about the results.

And really, this is why my part in this discussion is probably winding to a close. I've developed the entire discussion without relying on inner feelings or referring to knowledge "in my heart." It's a strawman, and I'm not interested in defending it.

I and the others here are waiting for your evidence that is not simply knowledge in your heart. What is it then? Is it the written Bible? Is it some collective consciousness? What do you mean it is a straw man that you believe because it is in your heart? I'm just trying to label whatever this nebulous thing is you are so clear in your mind exists. Where does it exist? If it is more than just something in your heart, by all means, tell us where to look.

...Um, I may not have proven this point to your satisfaction, but I was certainly able to suggest some reasons it might help in certain circumstances. If you would like some more examples of the type of place I've seen it work, I'll give you two for free.

1. Innocently bigoted midwesterners pull together and give support to the (probably also innocently bigoted) victims of some post 911 vandalism and threats.

2. Tough as nails, republican judge gets involved with a prison tutoring program and becomes friends with two black kids with gang records. He amuses me no end telling stories about how smart, sharp, and honorable they are that nonetheless demonstrate he finds this deeply surprising

You understand, these aren't meant merely to be stories of people doing nice things. These people made a real connection with others whose existence as full human beings was completely outside their world view.

I doubt that these people would have been doing these things if not for their god beliefs. More, I think even if they had somehow been dragged along, they wouldn't have known how to let people so far outside the ambit of their universe really touch them.

I assume you will argue something like, "but atheists do this too!" That misses the point. Many, perhaps most atheists may also learn how to do this sort of thing but they don't get it for free with their genes. I'm a little distressed that after pages etc. of discourse you still believe this is some sort of thinking error on my part.

So do the nonhuman primates have god beliefs as well guiding them to do nice things for their fellow primates? You talk about people dismissing external criticisms. I talk about all the evidence that those moral actions are not god belief based as you imagine. I discuss the evidence for that in the behavior of atheists and nonhuman primates. And on you go on your merry way dismissing all that evidence and sticking to your non-evidence supportable belief that god did it. There is no god, god didn't do it. I have evidence. You have what? Not an inner feeling, you call that a straw man accusation. What then do you have? Nothing.

...My own world view is somewhat roomier than the people I described above because I'm younger and better educated. I'm not so cocky that I think it isn't full of similar distortions, limits, inaccuracies. I'm betting that when I run up against them, my god beliefs will work for me in the same way I've seen them work for others.

Bring them on.

...Wow. I haven't ever said, "as if by magic." I haven't given any indication of my thoughts on the bible. (interesting only in so far as it relates to god beliefs people are actually using).

At it's best, religion guides you by (1) giving some open ended priorities whose application, at least over the recent past, you can independently assess, (2) helping you practice and think about how to apply them, and (3) creating relationships that lower the barrier for certain kinds of charity and cooperation. None of it requires magic. Can it be done by other means? Demonstrably so. Will any means do? No.

One person's morality? SkG, I don't think one person is even the correct unit of analysis.

On and on you deny it is magic, you deny it is simply an inner feeling. I'm not surprised you don't like those labels. Give me something else then. You can't. Because there isn't anything else. You may not like hearing you have nothing to go on except magical inner feelings, but that is indeed what you are going on. If not, then describe just what it is that you are going on. Is it the Bible? No. Is it evidence? No. What's left?

Yet God supposedly told his people to slaughter every man, woman, child, and beast when it suited their needs. Abortion doctors are murdered in the name of revenge for zygote murders. Stem cell research which could save countless lives and decrease suffering is needlessly stopped while thousands of frozen embryos are going to be discarded anyway. Catholics forbid birth control in populations suffering horribly from over population. God (if you believe in God that is) made kangaroos and other marsupials which have the ability to abort their fetuses in times of stress.

Wow again. Holding my beliefs responsible for the above is nonsense. It amounts to pretending you can't distinguish between the results of different types of beliefs by observing them. By their works, you know?
It also amounts to pretending that I'm suggesting we abandon ethics, and philosophy etc. and other grounds for judging actions outside of religion. I'm not.

I'll spare you the equal but opposite roster of religious virtue. I'm sure you're familiar with it. The fact the religious types show up on both sides of the debate doesn't prove religion is irrelevant. The religious types involved belong to competing traditions and the self-styled differences are significant.

I merely made those statements to say your god beliefs if based on the Bible are not supportable. I don't know where your god beliefs come from. So far you have denied they come from anywhere but insist you have told us where they do come from. Not the Bible, not magic, not an inner feeling, not evidence? OK, I must have missed something. Where do these god beliefs come from?

...Repetitive, but I understand your frustration. Lots of people have and do claim something like this. Lots don't and never have. I tell you candidly, as I said to Lithrael earlier that I think it is possible for the religious right to basically crash the 2000 year program here. It will be a great loss, in my view.

There is no moral decision algorithm. It's far from certain there could be such a thing. My moral decisions? Some certainly come from the biology of my brain. Definitions, symbols, systems, etc, the content comes in large part from the intersection of brain and world, including language, culture, and god beliefs. That has an effect on how I make moral decisions with the existing hardware.

But you cannot explain or at least have not explained where those god beliefs came from.

...It's interesting that you do concede religion influences morality. You simply assume that influence is strictly negative.

I used to argue that god beliefs didn't add or subtract from moral decisions. The evidence seemed to point to the fact that morality was a mixture of nature and nurture and god beliefs only added a facade over those beliefs. I believe I did concede in this thread god beliefs had some benefit in addiction treatment and perhaps grief alleviation if one believes a dead loved one is waiting in heaven. On the negative side, I don't think there would be riots against a cartoon image of Mohamed or all the anti-gay sentiment and many other very immoral things were it not for god beliefs.

...I specifically addressed this in the preceding post. Apes are moral -> some portion of morality is independent of god beliefs. Correct. Not contested. Not a problem. There is much more to explain.

OK, then why should anyone need more than nature and nurture to explain morality?

...What an excellent example. Not really a biological imperative, but assume it doesn't matter. Wouldn't it be ridiculous to condemn all biological causes on the basis of this observation? Or to pretend we can't tell the difference between the results we get from different factors ?

I'm sorry, that's really not an assumption in my posts. Chimps and bonobos act differently. Quite compatible with my earlier observation that the logic break point for cooperation and competition is probably sensitive to lots and lots of variables. And yes, we know, we know, evolution only produces "good enough" solutions.

Just matching declaration for declaration.

I can't claim to be an expert, but I've certainly read some of this stuff. It's exciting, and may one day answer some of the questions in play. It's also in its infancy.

So what is this? You have a secret source of information the rest of us don't?

...I think you're preparing to fall into exactly the dilemma I tried to illustrate with the dreaded breast milk example: assuming powerful preliminary results explain the whole story. Since at this point we're exchanging opinions about offstage experts, perhaps you'd like to post a reading list somewhere? I can take a crack at any two or three books in the near future.

No no, you make claims that are not supportable with any evidence. I go by the evidence. You add a layer on top of the evidence and deny it comes from the Bible, deny it comes from an inner feeling, deny it comes from magic, and yet you cannot articulate anything except to claim evidence is not enough for you. Yet you don't get it. If you have no Bible, no evidence, no magic, no inner feeling, what the heck do you have? YOU HAVE NOTHING!!!!!

...In any event, my appreciation of the benefits is rooted in my independent observations, not my feelings. I'll look around for something a little more sociological and see what I can find.

Again, I appreciate your willingness to try to stay the course in this discussion without resorting to grosser calumny. I'm more than willing to try again, from another angle, in another thread, and I'll stick around here, for a bit to see if we move towards any new ground.

What observations? Observations are evidence but you have to actually observe something. Your conclusions about what you observed are not evidence, by the way. What you claimed earlier, you saw something and decided it was religious morals that produced the effect....that is a conclusion. If you want to really see if your conclusion is correct, you need more than your guessing it was.

 

[articulett]

They don't realize how they are spinning semantics, using tangents, and implying things not said in order to justify the veracity of their beliefs while knowing that there is no more real evidence for their "feelings of truth" than all the others professing such feelings of things they do not believe.

When you hit the core of the belief or bias they want to protect, they move the goalposts, ignore the requests from clarification, or imply bad things about those positions that threaten their beliefs (and/or the people that proffer them.) And they can't see that they are doing it.

I think they think they are being honest and kind and logical and yet I know they'd recognize the logical errors if it was another believer making the same arguments so long as the believer believed in supernatural elements (such as demons or alien visitors) that they had already dismissed.

People cannot know what they do not know and faith and the ego keeps certain knowledge out. It reminds me of when the woo fail the MDC or when Uri Geller was caught on the tonight show... they get so used to propping up beliefs on nothing that they never realize that there is no foundation and the think you are trying to chop down the foundation though there is nothing there in the first place.

 

[Beth]

(Well, Mobyseven responded quite well on the default-position argument, so I just concentrate on what I find to be quite intriguing in your reasoning).

I currently have Mobyseven on ignore and haven't read his response. We've discussed the matter in the past and I am well aware that he, like most atheists here, think the default assumption is or ought to be 'no god'. I don't agree with that position; it contradicts with my observation that for most people, it is not the default assumption and the claim that it ought to be is a value judgement, not a logical imperative.

Are we not living in modernity now? Your use of the term “primitive man” is already somewhat strange I think; you are using beliefs derived from a primitive context in order to justify those same beliefs in a modern context.

We know that “primitive man” used to mix mythology and explanation of the world together. However, we do not need to do that. In fact, whenever mythology and natural explanation is available, most of us tend to prefer the natural explanation anyway (unless you’re extremely indoctrinated). The pattern seems quite clear.

However, you say that you think people need god-beliefs in order to be moral, and you’re justifying that stance by appealing to “primitive man”, and recognizing he had the same propensity to ‘fill in the gaps’ as today, albeit by mythology rather than by exact observation and explanation. From that you derive a conclusion that this kind of mythological patchwork is somehow necessary for morality in general, today. I think that’s just strange. How/where does morality com into the picture here?

Go back to the analagy of diet. Is eating meat necessary? One can answer that with no because some people are vegetarians and do just fine without any meat in their diet. Clearly it isn't an absolute necessity.

Likewise, people can be quite moral without any god beliefs. But I think in the broader sense, humanity is a meat-eating and god-believing species. Saying we don't 'need' god beliefs is similar to saying we don't need meat in our diets. Perhaps technically true, but most people, now and in the past, rely on meat in their diets to provide them with necessary nutrition and rely on god beliefs to provide them with the moral structure needed to function in their society. That's what I meant by 'need'. Not an absolute necessity for everyone, but relied upon by most of humanity to provide certain necessities. I hope that is clearer. My apologies if it is not.

 

[epeos76]

The problem here is magical thinking vs evidence. I realize you want there to magically be more to it than the evidence. But that's all you have after the evidence, magic. No, I don't buy it. Oh well.

Of course my observations are evidence, not feeling. My recounting of them is ancedotal evidence. If you don't like the summary format, I've given you two little examples I've personally observed.


It's true I don't have statistical of anthropological evidence to hand, but you specifically disclaimed this as the test earlier in this thread. In any event, I'll bet I can find some for the proposition that belief can change peoples' behavior in a consistent way.

If that's true, then wouldn't you concede it's likely some beliefs produce desirable changes and some produce undesirable ones? Isn't it possible too, that ourguesses about what is and isn't desirable are incomplete at this point?

You have evidence that morality in part has a biological basis. Acknowledged. Do you think you have evidence that biology tells the whole story? Most of the story? Seriously, post it in sticky. I will read it and it will improve the tone of the debate in this sub-forum.

I think very little reading or thought is required to see that genes don't tell the whole story. Language creates new social options, problems and challenges. More complex language equals more complex morality. What about the memes, for goodness sake? I think I can probably find some postable sources for this point, too.

I think it's silly to pretend these arguments are the same as claims based on inner feelings or magical thinking. They are clearly run-of-the-mill observations drawn from my education and experiences. Whether or not you find them persuasive is, of course, another matter. I hope to have some links to post, in support. But that will have to wait on the weekend.

My arguments amount to applying some epistemological reasoning to what I take to be rather uncontroversial premises: beliefs can and do affect the way people make moral choices, and we don't have a perfectly verified system for explaining how this works yet.

Your rebutal amounts to claims that my ordinary observations are the same as untestable inner convictions, and that an entire discipline explaining all anyone would need to know about moral decision making has developed without appearing in e.g. science news or any of the other periodicals I regularly read.

 

[lupus_in_fabula]

I currently have Mobyseven on ignore and haven't read his response. We've discussed the matter in the past and I am well aware that he, like most atheists here, think the default assumption is or ought to be 'no god'. I don't agree with that position; it contradicts with my observation that for most people, it is not the default assumption and the claim that it ought to be is a value judgement, not a logical imperative.

What I mean by default position is to have no beliefs in a particular issue; that beliefs have to be tough and learned. A newborn baby is no more a believer in god than Johnny Depp believes he’s Jack Sparrow off set; both have to be introduced to something they can believe in and act accordingly. What I think you consider default, is the situation when religious programming is already under way.

Go back to the analagy of diet. Is eating meat necessary? One can answer that with no because some people are vegetarians and do just fine without any meat in their diet. Clearly it isn't an absolute necessity.

Likewise, people can be quite moral without any god beliefs. But I think in the broader sense, humanity is a meat-eating and god-believing species. Saying we don't 'need' god beliefs is similar to saying we don't need meat in our diets. Perhaps technically true, but most people, now and in the past, rely on meat in their diets to provide them with necessary nutrition and rely on god beliefs to provide them with the moral structure needed to function in their society. That's what I meant by 'need'. Not an absolute necessity for everyone, but relied upon by most of humanity to provide certain necessities. I hope that is clearer. My apologies if it is not.

I understand that you think people need god-beliefs. I try to follow your reasoning but end up short; I don’t see a connection between a god-belief and morality. I mean, how/why should god-beliefs transfer into morality, unless, of course, people also pretend to know what their god wants them to think and do.

 

[Belz...]

I think there is some evidence that my god beliefs should be taken more seriously than the claims of Scientology. First, because I know mine defer to other types of evaluation, and second because I have observed mine do something valuable: practioner's have used it to pioneer a moral perspective, create relationships, and do other things even more difficult to articulate.

Things which scientology can ALSO do. The effect you observe comes from FAITH, not from the reality of the thing you have faith IN.

 

[articulett]

See, that was the thing that always bugged me as a kid... all these people who seemed to believe some nebulous something or other that didn't mesh with equally heartfelt beliefs and no method from sorting the wheat from the chaffe. All these people sure they have a piece of the invisible truth and NONE of it is based on anything real. I don't think people really know why they believe what they do, but none give any decent reasons for a skeptic to believe. To me, it all looks like equally deluded people believing assorted nebulous nothingness for murky reasons that they cannot convey. To me, all believers are Tom Cruise--just more or less certain of their "divine knowledge" and asserting different attributes to their invisible saviors.

 

[Beth]

What I mean by default position is to have no beliefs in a particular issue; that beliefs have to be tough and learned. A newborn baby is no more a believer in god than Johnny Depp believes he’s Jack Sparrow off set; both have to be introduced to something they can believe in and act accordingly. What I think you consider default, is the situation when religious programming is already under way.

You're right that I'm thinking of adults. Newborns don't eat meat and are not sexually active either. As far as 'programming' goes, my point is that I think god beliefs are due to 'programming' in much the same way eating meat or having sex is. Yes, the exact beliefs are primarily culturally driven just as exactly how meat is prepared to be eaten and what sexual practices are engaged in, but the underlying 'need' that is being satisfied is not - it's an innate human desire even if not all humans have those desires or act upon them.

I understand that you think people need god-beliefs. I try to follow your reasoning but end up short; I don’t see a connection between a god-belief and morality. I mean, how/why should god-beliefs transfer into morality, unless, of course, people also pretend to know what their god wants them to think and do.

I don't understand the connection between god-belief and morality either. It is my observation that they are highly correlated. I don't see any reason to assume that is just co-incidence. Instead, I surmise there is some connection between the two. Perhaps I am wrong and there is not, but I haven't found the argument that they are not connected to be convincing.

 

[Skeptical Greg]

It is my observation that they are highly correlated.

Do you mean that god beliefs = higher moral standard ?

It shouldn't be hard to show a correlation between morality and god beliefs, since a great majority of people profess them ..

That this morality is somehow superior to that of atheists, is something you can't show.

 

[Beth]

Do you mean that god beliefs = higher moral standard ?

No, I mean people who hold similar god beliefs typically hold similar moral values.

It shouldn't be hard to show a correlation between morality and god beliefs, since a great majority of people profess them ..

That this morality is somehow superior to that of atheists, is something you can't show.

No, I can't show that, nor would I claim it to be true. I don't know how you can show that any set of moral values is superior (or inferior) to any other set of moral values without establishing some sort of standard to measure them against. There is no agreed upon objective standard for morality.

eta: By my own personal standard of morality, I rank athiests very highly. The ones I'm familiar with, including many posters on this forum, have put a great deal of effort into considering what they consider moral and what is not; they set high standards and live up to them better than most religious believers I know.

 

[epeos76]

Things which scientology can ALSO do. The effect you observe comes from FAITH, not from the reality of the thing you have faith IN.

See, that was the thing that always bugged me as a kid...

Scientology famously denies the validity of calculus. It can't claim to be testing and changing its position in response to our better verified knowledge.

To summarize yet again I propose two ways of distinguishing between beliefs. One is epistemological. The degree of certainty? That is a critically important and reasonable grounds for distinction.

The other is based on observation and judgment about the actual effect on practioners. Anyone can make claims in this category. Not all judgments about the results will be equal.


Art. - Do you think personal observation is reasonable evidence for the observer to use in making decisions? I've offered that.