True Skeptics Cannot be Religious

[Donn]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Fluffy The One Navel Of Goodness

Question? Yes.

Doubt? Certainly.

Dismiss? Only with strong evidence that indicates the claim is bogus. A "cool head and a long, hard think" are insufficient; any claim made on that basis is weak due to lack of evidence.

A lack of current manifestation; "no need for a God", "Why would God permit..." and all of the other arguments against God are not evidential. They're simply opinions and viewpoints, no different than the believer's opinions and viewpoints - except, of course, it's held by a minority.

So whenever I read a message from a fellow skeptic that dismisses God, I ask "Do you have evidence supporting your claim?"

It's the same question a skeptic would ask a believer who claimed God exists. Why, then, is it such a problem when the same exact rules are applied to some skeptics?

It seems, them, the evidence for and the evidence against are exactly balanced - whatever the numbers - so that we arrive at the point where the only sane and nitty-gritty position is Agnosticism.

An agnostic is not a believer and not a dismisser. It is a neutral point that cannot really move without evidence.

I suspect that most people who are agnostic, pass through it and move on to Atheism because they are practical, human and well browned-off by all the BS that keeps going on. Despite the lack of evidence to the contrary.

What is strange is an avowed Sceptic not maintaining as a minimum an agnostic outlook.
What is really strange is such a one participating in a religion.

I suppose you could say that no "True" Sceptic can be an Atheist.

So, it's illogical to be an Atheist (it seems) and all things "religious" should be merely amusing "cultural activities" on the fringes of a clinical and sane world-view.

Problem is, as we all know, that Religion is a capital "R" and it controls the world. To rebel against an obviously insane and incorrect Empire you cannot stand poised on your balanced agnostic platforms - you gotta get riled and that's my take on Atheism (capital "A" too!)

Perhaps one day we will have the strange situation where we have to cool down the vigour of a world full of Atheists and convert them to the really sane Agnostic pov. Hey, I sense a Sci-Fi novel!

I could be wrong. I learn more (and forget some ) with every post.

 

[sphenisc]

You don't have to go that far back in history to find religiopolitical leaders suggest policies which don't really accord with the teachings of their faith...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4178608.stm

I suppose it's only fair for me to point out that the said reliopolitical leader has given an apology...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4182294.stm

"I tell you that even so there will be more joy in heaven over one sinner who repents" (Luke 15:7).

 

[BillyJoe]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: A New Beginning

Beady,

You have been saying that religion and science are completely separate magisteria. From which you conclude that a sceptic can be religious. I have been trying to show you that, if that religion is the type that recognises miracles and revelation, then religion and science are not separate magisteria. Miracles have a physical effect, and any physical effect can be investigated by science. Therefore the is an overlap between religion (of this type) and science. This is all I am saying.
I don't know where you got this bit about me saying that you believe in miracles. Show me where. If you are religious but don't believe in miracle or revelation, then your religion probably would not overlap with science. For example, a Buddhist could claim this as I have indicated before.

About Fred:
If Fred gets his ideas from a hundred different sources, sifting out what makes sense to him and deriving from that a meaning to his life, I am all for Fred. If Fred merely takes as true the preachings of one particular religion, lock stock and barrel, I have very little time for Fred. But that's me. Sorry for my opinion.

Any baggage here is yours, not mine.

But you are the one losing his cool. And I said nothing to enrage you. To me, that means you bring to this discussion, emotional baggage from encounters with others. To me, this feels like I'm being dumped on. But nevermind.

You're the one who can't seem to understand the mechanism behind suspension of disbelief....

Where exactly did this come up? But, if you are asking, then I have this to say: I have no problem suspending my disbelief. I do it all the time, but with two things firmly in mind. I know that I am doing it (ie it is not a self delusion), and I do it purely for fun, recognising that I cannot obtain any useful insights from this activity.

I do, however, confess to getting annoyed when someone tells me what I meant to say and goes out of their way to force my words into a meaning that I didn't intend.

It is just a manner of speech. In shorthand, I am saying that I believe that what you are saying is incorrect and this is what I believe is the correct interpretation, and is this what you meant anyway. But I acknowledge that this could be seen as being condescending. In any case, I will cease using the expression, "I think you meant..." and I apologise for any offense.

My whole point, here, is that there does not necessarily have to be a conflict between science and religion, so long as people are content to leave each in its proper sphere. The conflict arises, as you are so superbly demonstrating for me, because there are people who absolutely insist on superimposing one upon the other.

The issue is forced, in my opinion, if the religion you are espousing includes a belief in miracles and revelation. These have physical effects and therefore, by definition, overlap the magisteria of science. As I have already said, there are religions that do not have this overlap. I mentioned Buddhism, and to that I could add Deism. (as an aside, I find both of these religions hard to swallow but for different reasons).

BillyJoe

 

[crimresearch]

Oh boy, we've got a live one here.



LMAO at the utter irony of these two sentences.

Pragmatist, sorry, but I have no more time for you.

Running away so soon? Your tap dancing was just starting to become amusing.

Let's see.... so far, we should just take your word that:

No true skeptic can meet any definition of religious, no matter what the reason...

Quakerism and Buddhism are no true religions.

Children are hard wired to use logic and reason from the moment they are born.


Riiiight...

 

[sphenisc]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: A New Beginning

1) I'd like to suggest that 'theologies' might be a better term than 'religions' to avoid some of the confusion caused by non-God based religions.

2)

You have been saying that religion and science are completely separate magisteria. From which you conclude that a sceptic can be religious. I have been trying to show you that, if that religion is the type that recognises miracles and revelation, then religion and science are not separate magisteria. Miracles have a physical effect, and any physical effect can be investigated by science. Therefore the is an overlap between religion (of this type) and science. This is all I am saying.

If God choses never to repeat a miracle, does this still lie within the magisterium of science, i.e. isn't repeatibility an essential part of the scientific process?

If God choses to intervene miraculously in ALL events in an entirely predictable way is this within the magisterium of science, i.e. isn't a control where it is known that God isn't involved essential for proper scientific study?

 

[c4ts]

I thought of science being more like math, where you can have all sorts of unknown variables without having to assume "x=God." That doesn't make it atheistic or anything, it's just "God" is something very different from the things you are working with.

 

[jmercer]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Fluffy The One Navel Of Goodness

It seems, them, the evidence for and the evidence against are exactly balanced - whatever the numbers - so that we arrive at the point where the only sane and nitty-gritty position is Agnosticism.

An agnostic is not a believer and not a dismisser. It is a neutral point that cannot really move without evidence.

I suspect that most people who are agnostic, pass through it and move on to Atheism because they are practical, human and well browned-off by all the BS that keeps going on. Despite the lack of evidence to the contrary.

What is strange is an avowed Sceptic not maintaining as a minimum an agnostic outlook.
What is really strange is such a one participating in a religion.

I suppose you could say that no "True" Sceptic can be an Atheist.

So, it's illogical to be an Atheist (it seems) and all things "religious" should be merely amusing "cultural activities" on the fringes of a clinical and sane world-view.

Problem is, as we all know, that Religion is a capital "R" and it controls the world. To rebel against an obviously insane and incorrect Empire you cannot stand poised on your balanced agnostic platforms - you gotta get riled and that's my take on Atheism (capital "A" too!)

Perhaps one day we will have the strange situation where we have to cool down the vigour of a world full of Atheists and convert them to the really sane Agnostic pov. Hey, I sense a Sci-Fi novel!

I could be wrong. I learn more (and forget some ) with every post.

This is a great post, and I mostly agree with what you've said here. Let me explain the one area where we differ.

If a skeptic has no other evidence, then agnosticism is where they should end up. I agree with that, totally.

However - what if a skeptic has first-hand subjective experiences that lead him or her to believe that there is a God? The experience isn't particularly useful for others - it would be, after all, anecdotal for them. However, to the individual experiencing it, it's not anecdotal at all - it's a direct, first-person experience. And some of these experiences can be extremely powerful ones for the individual having them.

I should also point out that those who ignore their experiences often end up contributing to the evolution of mankind, albeit in a way that may not particularly please them. So, one could say that humans tend to pay attention to their experience because it's a survival trait that's wired into us.

Sure, people can rationalize such experiences away and find alternative explanations for what appears to be a spiritual encounter. Of course, rationalization - just like Occam's Razor - doesn't ensure correctness. It's still a guess on the part of the individual making the call... and if you have a strong experience that might be God talking to you, but you rationalize it away because you don't like the idea... I think you see where I'm going with this.

So a skeptic with first-hand experiences of something that may have been personal contact with God might not be an agnostic. That certainly doesn't mean they become fundie, or even a strong theist.

It does, however, allow for someone to be a skeptic yet believe in God.

 

[Donn]

while (1) {print "Re: "};

This is a great post, and I mostly agree with what you've said here.

Thanks for the compliment - it's heartening to be sure! I think you know that I respect your opinions and posts too, even if we don't agree all the time !

However - what if a skeptic has first-hand subjective experiences that lead him or her to believe that there is a God? The experience isn't particularly useful for others - it would be, after all, anecdotal for them. However, to the individual experiencing it, it's not anecdotal at all - it's a direct, first-person experience. And some of these experiences can be extremely powerful ones for the individual having them.

My argument would be that one who calls themselves Sceptical and has applied the toolkit to other pursuits (like psychics) should then know about the powerful ways that we can fool ourselves. They should know about all the traps that grasp the minds of people all over the globe. They should recognize their experience as one on the edge of a bell-curve and they should know enough to be suspicious about it.

Now this is easy for me to say, not having had any such experience. To my mind, if a sceptic had such a powerful Damascus road experience that it forced them to take seriously a personal god (or theism) then they forfeit the Sceptic title.

If they gradually pick up the toolkit and chip away at their new Faith, then I say they are sceptics once again - to me "Scepticism" is a verb.

I should also point out that those who ignore their experiences often end up contributing to the evolution of mankind, albeit in a way that may not particularly please them. So, one could say that humans tend to pay attention to their experience because it's a survival trait that's wired into us.

You lost me a little on this one! That's not hard to do mind you, I have the attention-span of an amoeba!

On the humans-respecting-experience front - of course we do! This is why the whole Sceptical-Bag is so rare; it's unnatural (despite BSI's dodgy idea about what we are born equipped-with! Sorry BSI ), it's not built-into us. What is built-in is pareidolia and belief. (Open an entire book here - it's well covered and we could google forever on this topic alone)

Experience => survival => draw a conclusion => form a belief => pass it on => loop
Experience => death => stop

Now, and this is the unnatural bit, questioning that conclusion and testing it is Scepticism! Simply repeating it (and later, enforcing it) is religion. (Or theology)

Oddly, I don't even give religion (like christianity et al) that much credit. I reckon it's simply a cynical, calculated creation made by ancient power-mongers who wanted to stay on top. It's just as valid as ElRon's little toy that will be with us like a boil on the nose of humanity for the next billion years. HalleluRon!

Sure, people can rationalize such experiences away and find alternative explanations for what appears to be a spiritual encounter. Of course, rationalization - just like Occam's Razor - doesn't ensure correctness. It's still a guess on the part of the individual making the call... and if you have a strong experience that might be God talking to you, but you rationalize it away because you don't like the idea... I think you see where I'm going with this.

So a skeptic with first-hand experiences of something that may have been personal contact with God might not be an agnostic. That certainly doesn't mean they become fundie, or even a strong theist.

It does, however, allow for someone to be a skeptic yet believe in God.

Not to repeat myself, but if the Sceptic rationalizes the event away then they are using their toolkit and sense. If they cannot rationalize it and then stop trying to then they are not being sceptical anymore.

Please remember in all this my standpoint is that I am not a True Sceptic either. I am strongly opposed to religion and I am strongly confused by the religious, but I am weak enough to recognize that I can't be pointing fingers at my neighbours because my own resolve ain't exactly steadfast - half cracked, half baked and mostly out to lunch

 

[Bri]

According to often-cited articles here and here there is a difference between "knowing" and "believing." Atheism/theism are concerned with belief in the existance of a god, whereas agnosticism/gnosticism deal with the question of whether or not it is possible to know if a god exists.

To claim to know one way or the other (gnosticism) is illogical without proof. Therefore, agnosticism seems to be a more logical and "less rigid" perspective than gnosticism. However, unlike with "knowledge," it is not necessary to have proof in order to hold a belief. It is only necessary to have good reasons.

The three useful agnostic positions are then:

1. Agnostic theist: "It is currently impossible to know (for certain) if God exists (although we may know in the future), but I believe that God exists."

2. Agnostic: "It is currently impossible to know (for certain) if any god exists (although we may know in the future), therefore I lack a belief in (the existance of) any god."

3. Agnostic atheist: "It is impossible to ever know (for certain) if any god exists, therefore I believe that no god exists."

Only (1) and (3) actually state a positive belief one way or the other. A "pure" agnostic (2) (also known as a "weak atheist") would refrain from holding a belief on the subject, presumably because they feel that to hold a belief would not be logical. When pressed, a "pure" agnostic will sometimes give you an actual belief (usually that there are no gods, which would actually make them option (3), a "strong atheist"), but most will simply argue that specific gods (such as the "Christian God") do not exist.

There are some compelling arguments against (3) which is essentially the "strong atheist" position, namely that it assumes that there is no god when it states that it is impossible to ever know for certain if any god exists (presumably, if it is possible that there is a god, this god might be able to prove its existance). Still, this position has a logical basis, although it is my understanding that relatively few people consider themselves to hold this view.

In my opinion, a belief is valid if you have valid reasons to believe, and it seems that it is possible for a skeptic to have valid reasons for belief in a god, to lack a belief on the subject, or even for belief that there is no god.

-Bri

 

[Robin]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Fluffy The One Navel Of Goodness

However - what if a skeptic has first-hand subjective experiences that lead him or her to believe that there is a God? The experience isn't particularly useful for others - it would be, after all, anecdotal for them. However, to the individual experiencing it, it's not anecdotal at all - it's a direct, first-person experience. And some of these experiences can be extremely powerful ones for the individual having them.

It is hard to comment on thiese direct, first-hand religious experiences as they all tend to be kind of vague. You know - just a really great feeling during a church service, or a sudden conviction when walking out in the countryside that this must all be for a reason.

But that is where the skeptic part comes in. It is a bit hard to tell without actually having such an experience, but I tend to think if I had an experience that was entirely subjective then my skepticism would suddenly kick in.

So I would consider all possibilities, including that it was a genuine encounter with the numinous, but also that it was some trick of the mind. It is not rationalising when you introduce more than one hypothesis.

But I would then have to look at how I could test the hypotheses. I would have to consider the fact that the experience was strong, powerful or 'seemed real' are just not evidence of communication with a supernatural entity since many people have experiences that seem real but are not. I would have to consider how common it is for minds to be tricked - how a thin person might look in a mirror and see a fat person, how a person might detect communist mind control signals hidden in the FM radio band.

I would have to take into account lucid dreams where I had thought I was awake, but on reflection could not have been.

So no matter how open I was to the idea that I had a genuine religious experience I could certainly not believe it unless I had some confirming evidence from another source.

So, no, someone cannot believe in God and accurately describe oneself as a skeptic, unless there is more than just a subjective experience.

 

[rppa]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Fluffy The One Navel Of Goodness

It is hard to comment on thiese direct, first-hand religious experiences as they all tend to be kind of vague.

And, as you say later, purely subjective.

I'm coming very late to this discussion so I don't know what ground has been covered. But I was moved to respond by a couple of things in your post.

This for instance:

So no matter how open I was to the idea that I had a genuine religious experience I could certainly not believe it unless I had some confirming evidence from another source.

I've had a couple of what I would probably classify as religious experiences, but I think my definition of "religious experience" is a little broader than yours. As is my definition of "Christian". I label myself a Christian yet the category "agnostic theist" in the post above yours is pretty close to my view.

So my immediate reaction was "of course it was genuine. I had it, it really happened to me. It's like asking for outside proof that I was thinking of a certain Beatles song an hour ago. I know I was thinking of it, I know my thoughts were genuine and I have no idea what proof would look like."

But I also agree with you that:

So I would consider all possibilities, including that it was a genuine encounter with the numinous, but also that it was some trick of the mind. It is not rationalising when you introduce more than one hypothesis.

So I've had these experiences, they are entirely subjective, I have no idea whether it represented a minor mental illness, a genuine, sane and universally accessible but purely internal mental state, or "contact", whatever that may mean, with something outside myself. I give this experience the name "God". I have no idea whether it has any connection with what biblical writers experienced, I have no idea whether there's a real external thing that "God" represents, and I can't see any reason why I should care about the answers to these fundamentally unanswerable questions. At least one will be answered when I die. I can wait.

But then I disagree with you here:

So, no, someone cannot believe in God and accurately describe oneself as a skeptic, unless there is more than just a subjective experience.

Yet experience of "God", whatever that means, is almost by definition just a subjective experience, and so far as that goes perfectly real.

And furthermore, as you said a skeptic must consider multiple hypotheses. Your position seems to be that given several hypotheses for which there is no evidence on which to choose one over another, certain of them are nevertheless never allowed to the "true" skeptic.

I stumbled into this thread in the first place when I saw the title, which seems to me to be a textbook example of the True Scotsman Fallacy, and I'm afraid I find your closing remark another classic example.

If there's no evidence of hypothesis A over hypothesis B, then people may randomly fall into believers of A and believers of B. Neither is wrong. That's the way the scientific method works. The existence of an external God is fundamentally unverifiable and unfalsifiable. There will never be an experiment which can distinguish between these hypotheses.

 

[jmercer]

Re: while (1) {print "Re: "};

Thanks for the compliment - it's heartening to be sure! I think you know that I respect your opinions and posts too, even if we don't agree all the time !

Absolutely. I feel the same way about quite a number of people here on the forums.

My argument would be that one who calls themselves Sceptical and has applied the toolkit to other pursuits (like psychics) should then know about the powerful ways that we can fool ourselves. They should know about all the traps that grasp the minds of people all over the globe. They should recognize their experience as one on the edge of a bell-curve and they should know enough to be suspicious about it.

Now this is easy for me to say, not having had any such experience. To my mind, if a sceptic had such a powerful Damascus road experience that it forced them to take seriously a personal god (or theism) then they forfeit the Sceptic title.

If they gradually pick up the toolkit and chip away at their new Faith, then I say they are sceptics once again - to me "Scepticism" is a verb.

Being suspicious, is, as I said, no problem. I agree that skepticism is a verb... but I think the title of skeptic is a bit broader than the one you've painted. I believe it's perfectly possible to nominally believe in a God while still being skeptical about the veracity of one's beliefs. It's called doubt.

You lost me a little on this one! That's not hard to do mind you, I have the attention-span of an amoeba!

On the humans-respecting-experience front - of course we do! This is why the whole Sceptical-Bag is so rare; it's unnatural (despite BSI's dodgy idea about what we are born equipped-with! Sorry BSI ), it's not built-into us. What is built-in is pareidolia and belief. (Open an entire book here - it's well covered and we could google forever on this topic alone)

Experience => survival => draw a conclusion => form a belief => pass it on => loop
Experience => death => stop

Now, and this is the unnatural bit, questioning that conclusion and testing it is Scepticism! Simply repeating it (and later, enforcing it) is religion. (Or theology)

My bad for being unclear - sorry. I was dashing in and out working on a home project and I wrote that so fast I didn't take time to really think about how it could be read.

Basically, what I was trying to say was this:

"The process of evolution has resulted in the human trait of trusting one's experiences as a matter of survival. So it may be both difficult and inappropriate (for a number of reasons) to dismiss a direct 'spiritual experience' as well."

Oddly, I don't even give religion (like christianity et al) that much credit. I reckon it's simply a cynical, calculated creation made by ancient power-mongers who wanted to stay on top. It's just as valid as ElRon's little toy that will be with us like a boil on the nose of humanity for the next billion years. HalleluRon!

Nicely put.

I don't have too much use for religion myself; where I draw the line about dismissing it is at the core concept - "There is a God." I can't dismiss that simply because I want to, for reasons both logical and personal.

Not to repeat myself, but if the Sceptic rationalizes the event away then they are using their toolkit and sense. If they cannot rationalize it and then stop trying to then they are not being sceptical anymore.

I think you need to be very careful about this kind of thinking. Rationalizing something away is not the same thing as coming to a conclusion based on evidence. Rationalization is an excellent tool for theorizing on possible answers; but by itself, it's very risky to come to a conclusion just based on rationalization alone. As you said, the mind has powerful ways of fooling itself; chief among those methods is the desire to rationalize things away that don't fit in with our own preferences and prejudices - pro or con.

Please remember in all this my standpoint is that I am not a True Sceptic either. I am strongly opposed to religion and I am strongly confused by the religious, but I am weak enough to recognize that I can't be pointing fingers at my neighbours because my own resolve ain't exactly steadfast - half cracked, half baked and mostly out to lunch

I think that's a great attitude. I wouldn't get hung up on not being a "True Skeptic" - because as far as I'm concerned... there ain't no such animal.

 

[Robin]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Fluffy The One Navel Of Goodness

If there's no evidence of hypothesis A over hypothesis B, then people may randomly fall into believers of A and believers of B. Neither is wrong. That's the way the scientific method works.

On the other hand neither is right. If there's no evidence of hypothesis A over hypothesis B then you should believe neither A nor B. If you randomly fall into one over the other then that is not scientific, nor is it skepticism. A skeptic would surely say, there is no evidence to lead me to accept A or B and just leave it at that. Not the True Scotsman fallacy, just a definition, a skeptic should never go beyond the evidence.

The existence of an external God is fundamentally unverifiable and unfalsifiable. There will never be an experiment which can distinguish between these hypotheses.

God is defined as an entity that has all power in the universe, so it seems odd that such an entity could not provide evidence of it's existence.

I have actually proposed a number of experiments in this thread under which a God, if he were to participate, could provide evidence of his existence. Not proof certainly, but science does not require proof. A God with all power in the universe could certainly create some circumstance that would lead me to accept the numinous hypothesis.

 

[jmercer]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Fluffy The One Navel Of Goodness

So no matter how open I was to the idea that I had a genuine religious experience I could certainly not believe it unless I had some confirming evidence from another source.

Since this seems to be the conclusion of your (well-written) post, I'd like to focus on that rather than just quote the whole thing, ok? (If I cut something out that's important to the context of your post, please correct me.)

Unless you are willing to accept anecdotal information from other people who claim to have similar experiences, confirming evidence of your personal experience is impossible. Ultimately, then, what you're saying is that you would dismiss a first-person "spiritual experience" because you believe more prosaic explanations for the experience are probably correct.

That's perfectly fine as long as you realize that it's just an opinion - and not a confirmed conclusion.

The question of confirmed "spiritual experiences" brings us to an interesting, but hazy area. There are supposedly shared "spiritual experiences" that happen on occasion, some of which are fairly famous. There are groups of people who claimed to have shared the experiences of:

1) visions
2) raptures
3) witnessing transient (non-permanent) miracles

And so forth. So, there are people who claim to have shared "spiritual experiences"... granted, these things are subjective, anecdotal and unprovable. But unless all of these people are nuts or liars, one must assume that something is happening. Defining what that is without data would be... foolish.

 

[jmercer]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Fluffy The One Navel Of Goodness

God is defined as an entity that has all power in the universe, so it seems odd that such an entity could not provide evidence of it's existence.

Could not is fine, I agree. However, why would He? Just to please us? Dunno about you, but I seriously doubt that I'm so important to Him that he'd continue to generate miracles just for the benefit of satisfying my doubts.

 

[jmercer]

The three useful agnostic positions are then:

1. Agnostic theist: "It is currently impossible to know (for certain) if God exists (although we may know in the future), but I believe that God exists."

2. Agnostic: "It is currently impossible to know (for certain) if any god exists (although we may know in the future), therefore I lack a belief in (the existance of) any god."

3. Agnostic atheist: "It is impossible to ever know (for certain) if any god exists, therefore I believe that no god exists."


In my opinion, a belief is valid if you have valid reasons to believe, and it seems that it is possible for a skeptic to have valid reasons for belief in a god, to lack a belief on the subject, or even for belief that there is no god.

-Bri

Love the definitions, and I couldn't agree with your conclusion more.

Great post!

 

[drkitten]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Fluffy The One Navel Of Goodness

On the other hand neither is right. If there's no evidence of hypothesis A over hypothesis B then you should believe neither A nor B.

But personal experience is evidence, even if it's not particularly strong, transferrable, or satisfactory. In the absence of other, stronger, evidence, it can be sufficient to establish on a logical, skeptical basis, a legitimate preference for A over B.

God is defined as an entity that has all power in the universe, so it seems odd that such an entity could not provide evidence of it's existence.

God is also defined as an independent agent with its own will, and there is no reason to assume that God would cooperate in providing evidence, even if He could. Bill Gates has, for all practical purposes, an infinite amount of money -- but he's not giving any of it to me, nor is there any reason why I should assume that he will.

A God with all power in the universe could certainly create some circumstance that would lead me to accept the numinous hypothesis.

Yes, but why should He bother? If, for some reason, I didn't believe in Bill Gates, he could easily create some circumstance that would leave me to believe in him -- such as buying me a new house. But Mr. Gates would probably be just as happy leaving me in my state of disbelief. Why bother to spend the money?

 

[Robin]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Fluffy The One Navel Of Goodness

Could not is fine, I agree. However, why would He? Just to please us?

Well I have no problems that God might have very good reasons for not producing more convincing evidence of his existence, I was only pointing out that God was not 'unverifiable'. Just unverified.

Dunno about you, but I seriously doubt that I'm so important to Him that he'd continue to generate miracles just for the benefit of satisfying my doubts.

But if you listen to about 99% of Christian preachers you are extremely important to Him. But you have suggested that He might go part of the way and generate some inconclusive mental event, but will not go the extra couple of yards and create some external corroboration - such as a prophetic vision of sufficient detail as to rule out co-incidence.

 

[Robin]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Fluffy The One Navel Of Goodness

But personal experience is evidence, even if it's not particularly strong, transferrable, or satisfactory. In the absence of other, stronger, evidence, it can be sufficient to establish on a logical, skeptical basis, a legitimate preference for A over B.

Not in my book. A personal experience is evidence that you had a personal experience and nothing else.

God is also defined as an independent agent with its own will, and there is no reason to assume that God would cooperate in providing evidence, even if He could. Bill Gates has, for all practical purposes, an infinite amount of money -- but he's not giving any of it to me, nor is there any reason why I should assume that he will.

Nobody has proposed that the existence of Bill Gates is fundamentally unverifiable. It does not matter that Bill Gates would not verify his existence to you, all that matters is that he could and that makes him a verifiable concept.

The same with God - God could provide sufficient evidence so as to lead a reasonable atheist or agnostic to believe in him so that makes him verifiable. So whether he chooses to or not is irrelevant to the point in hand.

 

[drkitten]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Fluffy The One Navel Of Goodness

Not in my book. A personal experience is evidence that you had a personal experience and nothing else.

Then you need a new book.

Nobody has proposed that the existence of Bill Gates is fundamentally unverifiable. It does not matter that Bill Gates would not verify his existence to you, all that matters is that he could and that makes him a verifiable concept.

Utterly, utterly wrong. If you cannot reasonably expect the verification process to work, then it's not really a verification process in any meaningful sense of the word.

Let's take a somewhat less hypothetical and more scientific question -- does a magnetic monopole exist? (Some theories claim that it can't, some claim that it may or may not, some even claim that they must exist somewhere in the universe.) No one's found one by looking for it yet, but we cannot reasonably expect to. The universe is a very, very large place, and it's entirely unreasonable to believe that we have searched a large enough volume to count as a representative sample.

So if we can't even expect to be able to verify a statement like "a magnetic monopole exists," why should we expect to be able to verify a statement like "God exists"? God, after all, is (unlike a monopole) self-willed and intelligent, and completely capable of hiding from us if He so desires.

Heck, we can't even verify a statement like "Osama bin Laden exists today" -- and Osama isn't supposed to be infinitely capable of hiding if he so chooses.

So what you're really saying is that Osama bin Laden is capable of hiding from us -- but that God lacks this capacity. What an interesting theological theory you have.