What actually do JREF religious believers believe?

[HansMustermann]

If you exist in the Universe, and you have value, then the universe is not value-free. Even if you are the only thing in the entire universe that matters.

You can of course act as if you (and others) have value, while considering that really you don't. That seems to be the basis of existentialism.

That's one of the silliest things in ages. By that kind of broken logic, I can't enjoy a beer unless the universe itself values beer, or two gays can't value their relationship without the universe itself and the very gods themselves valuing some homosexual intimacy.

WTH?

To see how absurd this is, far from their being just one true cosmic scale of value, different people value different things. Some people value their kids and family more, while some people would do anything to stay away from them. Most people value sex to at least some degree, while others have all sorts of hangups and disgust about it. (E.g., in the case of Lovecraft it even affected his work.) Some people value intelligence, while for others 'Einstein' is a pejorative. Some people value an evening spent with a good book, while for others it's only used in disparaging constructs, like 'if I wanted a story, I'd read a book'. Some people value having lots of friends and spending their time with them, while others are beyond introverted and feel sapped by too much time spent around people. Some people value their achievements and look for new challenges to overcome, while for others the most valuable thing in their life is some quality time on the couch with a six-pack and the TV remote control. Etc.

Who the heck are you to say they can't actually value something -- or in your words, they only pretend that it has any value -- unless they invoke your delusional imaginary friend as approving of it?

Do you genuinely think that, say, a relationship can have no value at all unless God and the whole universe approves of it? E.g., that a gay guy genuinely can't find value in his homosexual relationship with another guy, unless God himself has value for it? Or that someone can't find value in reading a blasphemous novel, unless your God himself gave it and finds value in it? That my reading the Quran for example can't have any value, because your imaginary friend doesn't approve of the Quran? Or what?

Because life is made of those moments. If you find value in what you do, congrats, that's the value of your life. FOR YOU.

But really, what kind of lack of a spine and of any self respect does one need, to actually only judge their life and value by how much it pleases some imaginary dictator in the sky?

It's like meeting some hypothetical North Korean who judges the value of his life only by how much it pleases dead president Kim Il Sung. (That is not dead which can eternal lie) I don't know about you, but I'd tell him to grow a spine and some sense of self-worth.

If there ever was a clear-cut display of what is wrong with religion, and what harm it does, such need to judge your life only through the glasses of what value it is to an imaginary guy in the sky, is up there with the best of them.

 

[westprog]

Tu quoque fallacy noted. I was commenting on your posts in this thread, and what I've observed many theists similarly doing when they attempt to criticize atheist thinking.

If you've observed atheists pretend they know what theists think or believe, while being incorrect, feel free to point that out.

In any case, I'm not trying to assign specific beliefs to individuals. I'm pointing out a conflict between two sets of beliefs.

 

[zooterkin]

It depends. If you think that somebody else's view that you have no value is of equal weight with your own opinion that you in fact do, then value is a purely subjective matter, and not intrinsic.

Ok, but what do you think? Do things have intrinsic value, or do they require someone to assign value?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

If you exist in the Universe, and you have value, then the universe is not value-free. Even if you are the only thing in the entire universe that matters.

You can of course act as if you (and others) have value, while considering that really you don't. That seems to be the basis of existentialism.

So now it's another semantics argument? I can say I'm content with my values and rather than purpose, I derive pleasure from having goals and accomplishing them. If that to you means the Universe has purpose, then it does, but most people would not agree with your twisting of my statement.

 

[kerikiwi]

In any case, I'm not trying to assign specific beliefs to individuals. I'm pointing out a conflict between two sets of beliefs.

A conflict between what two sets of belief?
Theism and atheism?
You think that needs to be pointed out?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

A conflict between what two sets of belief?
Theism and atheism?
You think that needs to be pointed out?

I think he's going for the fallacy that science is just someone else's religion.

This has been discussed ad nauseum in the forum. One has supporting observable evidence, one doesn't and they are qualitatively different despite what theists like to claim.

 

[HansMustermann]

Nah, he's still going on about the supposed contradiction between valuing your own life and, as an atheist, thinking that there is no God to give a screw about you. Of course, that contradiction exists only in his head, but oh well.

 

[westprog]

A conflict between what two sets of belief?
Theism and atheism?
You think that needs to be pointed out?

No, the professed belief that the universe is valueless, and the implied belief that people are worth something.

 

[westprog]

I think he's going for the fallacy that science is just someone else's religion.

How has anything I've said anything to do with that? I haven't even been discussing science.

This has been discussed ad nauseum in the forum. One has supporting observable evidence, one doesn't and they are qualitatively different despite what theists like to claim.

 

[westprog]

Ok, but what do you think? Do things have intrinsic value, or do they require someone to assign value?

I don't think that things have intrinsic value in the absence of people. Being a person implies value.

This is just my personal view, of course.

 

[I Ratant]

"In the absence of people" nothing exists, and therefore has no value.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

...Ginger

So, just to recap, S.J. Gould was an apologist for religious beliefs, the evidence bearing on the question of God enjoys similar weight with the evidence bearing on evolution, and your personal opinions about religion aren't opinions, but rather "We know...."

OK, then. Thank you for clearing all that up. Good luck with it.

Hans did a better job of answering than I could so I'll thank him and refer you to his posts.

I would only add one thing. I'm happy with the scientific concept one doesn't prove anything (except in math) and one should always leave the door open to the possibility new evidence will reveal new truths in the future.. My objection to applying this to the "you can't disprove gods exist" is threefold. One, that is not an argument for doubt about what the evidence overwhelmingly says that gods are human generated fiction. Yet it is often cited as evidence for gods existing, adding the caveat, "could or might exist".

Two, kind of overlapping the first objection is people apply this concept to gods while not applying it to invisible garage dragons or the Tooth Fairy or Hogwarts.

And three, a more practical matter is the concept science has with uncertainty. Yes science purposefully has uncertainty built into the process. But for all practical purposes we treat many things as scientific fact at the current time. It's OK people believed it was a fact the Earth's crust was fixed before plate tectonics was discovered. It's OK that we now believe it is a fact the Earth's crust is broken into plates that move.

It's a scientific fact pigs don't fly, fairies don't exist, the planet is not flat, Earth is not the center of the solar system, and gods are human generated fiction. On a technical level, the scientific process does not call these facts but rather conclusions supported with overwhelming evidence. On a practical level, so that we can function with a reasonable degree of certainty about the Universe when it is useful, they can be called scientific facts.

I believe I understand scientific uncertainty as well as the next skeptic. I have no problem with the concept. And as soon as people argue, one can't disprove invisible garage dragons exist as often as they say one can't disprove the existence of gods, I may stop bothering with my argument.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

No, the professed belief that the universe is valueless, and the implied belief that people are worth something.

Perhaps you could elaborate on why an individual cannot perceive self value unless a god is out there to agree with that individual?

 

[blobru]

Hiya, westprog. I have to say, like others, I am not quite getting what you're getting at. I guess it comes down to what is meant by "intrinsic". If I say, "the universe is capable of creating beings, one species of which is us, who "value" - derive pleasure from and seek to preserve - their own lives and the lives of others (assuming those others aren't threatening their own lives and the lives of the others whom they value)," does this imply, according to what you mean by "intrinsic", that the universe has intrinsic value, and I shouldn't, according to your definitions at least, say otherwise? Or are you getting at something else (and apologies for the convoluted question; just trying to cover all the bases)?

 

[westprog]

Perhaps you could elaborate on why an individual cannot perceive self value unless a god is out there to agree with that individual?

I'm not directly concerned with gods per se. I consider that any belief in intrinsic value is incompatible with materialism.

It may well be that there are non-materialistic atheist philosophies that can encompass a universe with intrinsic value. I don't see them publicly expressed, but I dare say they exist.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I'm not directly concerned with gods per se. I consider that any belief in intrinsic value is incompatible with materialism.

Well that's ridiculous. You'd have to have a universe sans living organisms to have no intrinsic value in anything. Food has intrinsic value, gold has value. All of these are dependent upon living organisms existing.

I think your definition of intrinsic value is actually 'absolute' value. The fact value is relative does not make it non-materialistic.

 

[westprog]

Hiya, westprog. I have to say, like others, I am not quite getting what you're getting at. I guess it comes down to what is meant by "intrinsic". If I say, "the universe is capable of creating beings, one species of which is us, who "value" - derive pleasure from and seek to preserve - their own lives and the lives of others (assuming those others aren't threatening their own lives and the lives of the others whom they value)," does this imply, according to what you mean by "intrinsic", that the universe has intrinsic value, and I shouldn't, according to your definitions at least, say otherwise? Or are you getting at something else (and apologies for the convoluted question; just trying to cover all the bases)?

No problem with the question. What often happens in these discussions is that people can just about understand their own position, but don't get what the other person is going on about at all. Sometime the best reason for participating in a discussion of this kind is to figure out what one thinks oneself.

Anyway - if you consider that all the points of view about value among the various people are equally valid - i.e. if you accept that while X thinks he is worth something, if Y thinks he is not, then both views are just as "correct" - then this would be purely subjective value, and entirely compatible with a valueless, materialist universe.

If you consider that what happens to those people actually does matter - even if some of them think it doesn't, and treat other people accordingly - then I don't see that as compatible with materialism.

 

[Irony]

I'm not directly concerned with gods per se. I consider that any belief in intrinsic value is incompatible with materialism.

It may well be that there are non-materialistic atheist philosophies that can encompass a universe with intrinsic value. I don't see them publicly expressed, but I dare say they exist.

I don't know what's more sad, the idea that you really can't recognize that something doesn't have to be valued by the entire universe to have value to a person, or the idea that you do recognize that but are so blinded by hate and prejudice that you mentally block out that recognition just so you can look down on atheists.

 

[Beth]

AT BEST, the domain of ethics belongs to philosophy. Religious figures may of course also be into ethics philosophy, but they don't have a monopoly. And it's not up to Gould to just roll back THOUSANDS OF YEARS of rational thought on the topic, and decree that the delusional nutcases WITHOUT any rational argument ("my imaginary friend says so in my fairy tale" isn't a rational argument) should be the ones giving morals.

Whether they 'should be' the ones giving morals, it's pretty well established that they have been the one's doing so for thousands of years. Priests existed long before ethical philosophers did. I think Gould had a valid point about ethics being in the domain of religion.

If he's not into the philosophy of morals, he should just stay out of it, not decree that the whole domain should be rolled back into the stone age.

A fair point, but not particularly related to his NOMA thesis IMO. I took it that he was suggesting that scientists should not claim defining morals to be part of the domain of science. That is NOT suggesting the domain of ethics should be rolled back into the stone age unless you think that the ethics that various religions promote today are unchanged from the ethics of the stone age. Also I don't think he was advocating that the domain of morality be excluded from philosophy, but it's been a few years since I read that essy.

But even then, is it outside the domain of science? No, we can at least test if certain actions produce the predicted (and desired) outcomes, and testing predictions IS science, not religion. Just because it doesn't use microscopes and test tubes, doesn't mean that for example social sciences aren't science.

IMO defining morals IS outside the domain of science. Science cannot establish whether something is 'moral' because that is a subjective value judgement that humans make. Once 'moral' has been defined, science is useful in helping humans live moral lives and create a moral society according to their definition.

Hans did a better job of answering than I could so I'll thank him and refer you to his posts.

I would only add one thing. I'm happy with the scientific concept one doesn't prove anything (except in math) and one should always leave the door open to the possibility new evidence will reveal new truths in the future.

While I agree with you on this...

My objection to applying this to the "you can't disprove gods exist" is threefold. One, that is not an argument for doubt about what the evidence overwhelmingly says that gods are human generated fiction.

I can't agree with this conclusion. It is, IMO, an legimate argument for doubt. To claim otherwise is contrary to the previous statement that I just agreed with. To you, the sliver of doubt introduce by that argument may be inconsequential, but that's a subjective value judgement on your part.

Yet it is often cited as evidence for gods existing, adding the caveat, "could or might exist".

I don't think anyone on this thread has been arguing that it's evidence for gods existing. Only that it is evidence for doubt regarding the certainty of the positive claim that no gods exist. What is your problem with that caveat?

Two, kind of overlapping the first objection is people apply this concept to gods while not applying it to invisible garage dragons or the Tooth Fairy or Hogwarts.

Yes. People are horribly inconsistent in their application of rational standards to the various beliefs they may hold about the way the universe actually is. It's a ubiquitous human failing and an annoying one to boot.

And three, a more practical matter is the concept science has with uncertainty. Yes science purposefully has uncertainty built into the process. But for all practical purposes we treat many things as scientific fact at the current time. It's OK people believed it was a fact the Earth's crust was fixed before plate tectonics was discovered. It's OK that we now believe it is a fact the Earth's crust is broken into plates that move.

I like that about science too!

It's a scientific fact pigs don't fly, fairies don't exist, the planet is not flat, Earth is not the center of the solar system, and gods are human generated fiction. On a technical level, the scientific process does not call these facts but rather conclusions supported with overwhelming evidence. On a practical level, so that we can function with a reasonable degree of certainty about the Universe when it is useful, they can be called scientific facts.

It all depends on how you are defining various terms. Pig can fly on airplanes, fairies exist in our imaginations and literature, and the surface of our planet is basically flat relative to the size of human beings. So none of these statements are incontrovertible facts, but depend on unspoken assumptions you are making about the meaning of those terms in the context of this thread.

While I have no doubts regarding the meaning you were assigning to those terms, my point is that your argument depends on those unspoken assumptions. The term 'god' has so many different meaning to so many different people, it is not reasonable to assume that you can depend on other people holding the same unspoken assumptions about what you mean when you make statements about the existance of gods.

I believe I understand scientific uncertainty as well as the next skeptic. I have no problem with the concept. And as soon as people argue, one can't disprove invisible garage dragons exist as often as they say one can't disprove the existence of gods, I may stop bothering with my argument.

But people do argue that you can't disprove invisible garage dragons. That's the point of the argument - it is equally applicable to both. The difference between the frequency of people arguing for one and not the other has to do with how many people in our culture believe in each of those things.

 

[blobru]

No problem with the question. What often happens in these discussions is that people can just about understand their own position, but don't get what the other person is going on about at all. Sometime the best reason for participating in a discussion of this kind is to figure out what one thinks oneself.

Yes (we agree that these discussions matter, as able to affect what we think [introduced definition of "matter": able to affect us]).

Anyway - if you consider that all the points of view about value among the various people are equally valid - i.e. if you accept that while X thinks he is worth something, if Y thinks he is not, then both views are just as "correct" - then this would be purely subjective value, and entirely compatible with a valueless, materialist universe.

I accept that people have different points of view and different values, but not that those different values are equally valid (I would need see the basis of Y's argument that X is worthless).

If you consider that what happens to those people actually does matter - even if some of them think it doesn't, and treat other people accordingly - then I don't see that as compatible with materialism.

Does "matter" in what sense? Every person is able to affect us and so matters by my introduced definition (and not only affect by actions; the bare fact of their existence affects me, leads me to reason that they are conscious and autonomous and have the right to be just as I would ask it for myself); are you thinking of a definition where people matter just as people, with no other moral reasoning required?