Would People Prefer Religion to Be Empirically Proven?

[Steve]

A god that does not interact with the universe is functionally indistinguishable from a god that does not exist. A god that does interact with the universe necessarily leaves evidence of that interaction.

I have recently been informed in this very thread that all a person needs for a "higher power' is whatever works for them. Existence optional.

But yes, you have summarized the rational position.

 

[TragicMonkey]

A god that does not interact with the universe is functionally indistinguishable from a god that does not exist. A god that does interact with the universe necessarily leaves evidence of that interaction.

You're leaving open the possibility of a god that does interact with the universe but the evidence is inaccessible to us. There might be a deity operating openly in another galaxy, for instance, we're simply too far away to know about it. Of course that means, again, that god is "functionally indistinguishable from a god that does not exist"...unless/until we make it to that galaxy. "Oh, hello! Yeah, I thought there might be people going on over there. Couldn't really be bothered to make the trip, sorry. So...how's it going? You, uh, like...stuff?"

 

[Steve]

You're leaving open the possibility of a god that does interact with the universe but the evidence is inaccessible to us. There might be a deity operating openly in another galaxy, for instance, we're simply too far away to know about it. Of course that means, again, that god is "functionally indistinguishable from a god that does not exist"...unless/until we make it to that galaxy. "Oh, hello! Yeah, I thought there might be people going on over there. Couldn't really be bothered to make the trip, sorry. So...how's it going? You, uh, like...stuff?"

Interesting concept. Gods have their own galaxies. And some galaxies are god deficient. Perhaps minion gods for each solar system. Could be the basis for a whole new religion - TragicMonkeyism. Flesh it out a bit and I may be interested in your newsletter.

 

[LSSBB]

Ok, so you have nothing useful to say on the existence, or otherwise, of gods. Yet you come here to wonder why a god would care about the existence of Arthwollipot. Seems to me that you have been trying to make a case for the existence of some kind of non-relevant, non-interacting thing and shoehorn it into some sort of singular understanding of a god. I may be wrong but I have no further interest in trying to understand.

You don't think seeing the flaws in another's argument is useful?

 

[JayUtah]

Interesting concept. Gods have their own galaxies. And some galaxies are god deficient. Perhaps minion gods for each solar system. Could be the basis for a whole new religion - TragicMonkeyism. Flesh it out a bit and I may be interested in your newsletter.

That's pretty much Mormon cosmology. And they have lots of litigious lawyers.

 

[Steve]

That's pretty much Mormon cosmology. And they have lots of litigious lawyers.

I didn't think of that, but yeah.

 

[Thermal]

A god that does not interact with the universe is functionally indistinguishable from a god that does not exist. A god that does interact with the universe necessarily leaves evidence of that interaction.

And if His puny creation simply cannot comprehend His interaction? Do you think an ant understands what the humans around her are doing? Does that stop Him from exterminating the ant colony, should He be annoyed by it? Where do you get the expectation that the Universal Creator is obligated to dumb everything down for us?

Again, so I was told.

 

[Steve]

And if His puny creation simply cannot comprehend His interaction? Do you think an ant understands what the humans around her are doing? Does that stop Him from exterminating the ant colony, should He be annoyed by it? Where do you get the expectation that the Universal Creator is obligated to dumb everything down for us?

Again, so I was told.

I have been told many things about gods. I continue to wait for one that is believable.

 

[Thermal]

I have been told many things about gods. I continue to wait for one that is believable.

My favorite is the all-powerful Universal Creator bumbling around the Garden of Eden saying "hey where'd you mother ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ go?"

 

[TragicMonkey]

That's pretty much Mormon cosmology. And they have lots of litigious lawyers.

Wouldn't they have to admit it's fiction if they tried to sue for copyright infringement?

 

[theprestige]

If religious claims concern objective reality, wouldn't it be preferable to have empirical evidence for them rather than relying on faith?

If the existence of God or an afterlife could be scientifically demonstrated, would believers welcome such evidence? And if they would, why is faith sufficient in the absence of it?

I'm interested in whether faith is seen as a substitute for evidence or as something valuable in its own right.

Do you understand what a rhetorical question is?

 

[The Great Zaganza]

I have played many Clerics, so I know exactly what kind of spells you should be able to cast if you follow a specific Deity.
Religion and Gods just have to follow the literal playbook

 

[Helen]

Weren’t you around for when I tested the trolley problem?

I pushade a trolley once. It didn't go ver very far. Ergo, and NB, and of course ceteris paribus, there is empirical evidence that the trolly problem isn't a problem. Just don't push the boat out trolley. Also QED.

 

[Roger Ramjets]

If religious claims concern objective reality, wouldn't it be preferable to have empirical evidence for them rather than relying on faith?

Religious claims don't concern objective reality - they concern the supernatural, which by definition isn't reality.

If the existence of God or an afterlife could be scientifically demonstrated, would believers welcome such evidence? And if they would, why is faith sufficient in the absence of it?

They can't, by definition. Nevertheless if they could then yes - believers would welcome it because it validates their faith.

Faith alone should be sufficient because faith means believing in things without evidence, making the supernatural a perfect fit. However many believers have doubts, and welcome any supporting evidence. We see this with eg. the Shroud of Turin, an obvious forgery that many believers consider to be evidence that their god (and therefore the afterlife) is real.

I'm interested in whether faith is seen as a substitute for evidence or as something valuable in its own right.

It's a substitute for evidence you don't have.

It's valuable 'in its own right' because when you have faith you don't need evidence.

 

[Roger Ramjets]

Demanding empirical evidence for the metaphysical is like trying to measure temperature with a ruler. The very premise that 'only what is empirical is valid' is a philosophical stance—scientism—not a scientifically proven fact.

Of course it's not 'proven', science doesn't deal in proofs.

BTW in case you didn't know, temperature often is measured with a ruler. It's how a mercury thermometer works.

The supernatural is fundamentally different because it cannot even theoretically be measured.

How do you empirically validate your own demand for evidence?

I validate it with the principle of 'put up or shut up'. People shouldn't make claims about things they have no evidence for, especially when they are by definition a fiction.

 

[P.J. Denyer]

Which religion?

The One True One obviously. Which definitively is.. Oh, hold on. There's someone at the door.........

 

[Pixel42]

It's valuable 'in its own right' because when you have faith you don't need evidence.

And vice versa, of course.

 

[JayUtah]

Wouldn't they have to admit it's fiction if they tried to sue for copyright infringement?

No. Legally speaking, you can publish an original claim of fact and obtain a copyright for it. Someone who publishes a substantially similar claim could be liable for infringement.

But in this case, the core text of all Mormon holy scripture is in the public domain. Its copyright expired long ago. Nothing prevents me from printing and selling my own Book of Mormon as long as I don't use any of the modern apparatus like chapter headings or the indexes or supplementary material that the present church has added and to which they hold the copyright. That said, most of the cosmology doctrines (and other weird Mormon stuff) comes from a non-canonical series called Journal of Discourses, also in the public domain.

That won't necessarily stop the church from coming after you in other ways. The famous skyscraper church office building in downtown Salt Lake City stands across the road from the multistory office building of Kirton McConkie, the church's law firm. There's a place in the shopping mall on that block where you can get both buildings in a single photograph, which people call "the Two Towers."

 

[Gubiosak]

Of course it's not 'proven', science doesn't deal in proofs.

BTW in case you didn't know, temperature often is measured with a ruler. It's how a mercury thermometer works.

The supernatural is fundamentally different because it cannot even theoretically be measured.


I validate it with the principle of 'put up or shut up'. People shouldn't make claims about things they have no evidence for, especially when they are by definition a fiction.

So, to validate your demand for empirical evidence, your method is... a non-empirical, socially constructed rule ('put up or shut up') based on a personal value judgment.
By your own standards, your foundational rule for what counts as valid knowledge is literally fiction—since it cannot be physically measured or tested in a lab. You just used a non-empirical belief to dismiss non-empirical beliefs.

 

[Gubiosak]

Do you understand what a rhetorical question is?

It’s not rhetorical it's a genuine question in the philosophy of religion. Does faith hold intrinsic value (like Kierkegaard argued), or is it merely a placeholder until evidence arrives? Dismissing the question doesn't resolve the paradox.