ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Religion and Philosophy
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Reply
Old 20th April 2018, 02:55 PM   #361
Thor 2
Illuminator
 
Thor 2's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2016
Location: Brisbane, Aust.
Posts: 3,801
Originally Posted by Squeegee Beckenheim View Post

To re-phrase my point, can you not see that positing God as a reason for the universe to exist just moves the question back one step? The question is still "why is there something, rather than nothing?", you're just substituting a different word for the word "something" in that sentence.

Do you have an answer for why you think God exists? If you don't, then why is that more satisfying than not having an answer for why the universe exists? Does it, again, come down to what you'd like to be true?

This point has been made so many times by so many it's almost becoming trite to say it. That to one side it is still a very valid point although it fails to strike home with the religious.

Generally I find they parry the thrust with stuff like "God has always been." and the ultimate backstop "We can't understand this stuff with our limited comprehension."
__________________
Thinking is a faith hazard.
Thor 2 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th April 2018, 03:03 PM   #362
Thor 2
Illuminator
 
Thor 2's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2016
Location: Brisbane, Aust.
Posts: 3,801
Originally Posted by LarryS View Post
Re the original question - I think we need to establish (if) we are in fact referencing two ideas here, 1) our raw experience of reality, and 2) our interpretation of our experiences.
The question then is, can we be reasoned out of our interpretation of our experiences, where religion and scientific realism are two possible interpretations.
Since there are multiple cases of people swapping interpretations, the answer seems to be Yes - even on a daily or moment to moment basis.
A back-door assumption in this thread is that religion is an add on, meaning if one gets reasoned out of religion, then one automatically falls back to scientific realism (or some variant). But scientific realism is just another interpretation.
Originally Posted by ynot View Post
Wrong.

I sense you are right that it is wrong, but damned if I can make enough sense of it to figure out what is wrong.
__________________
Thinking is a faith hazard.
Thor 2 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th April 2018, 03:10 PM   #363
ynot
Philosopher
 
ynot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 7,732
Originally Posted by Thor 2 View Post
I sense you are right that it is wrong, but damned if I can make enough sense of it to figure out what is wrong.
Some posts are so far out of the ballpark it’s hard enough just to find the ball, let alone return it.

ETA - But I will try anyway . . .
Originally Posted by LarryS View Post
Re the original question - I think we need to establish (if) we are in fact referencing two ideas here, 1) our raw experience of reality, and 2) our interpretation of our experiences.
We are not “in fact referencing two ideas here”.

Originally Posted by LarryS View Post
The question then is, can we be reasoned out of our interpretation of our experiences, where religion and scientific realism are two possible interpretations.
This is not the question being asked by this thread

Originally Posted by LarryS View Post
Since there are multiple cases of people swapping interpretations, the answer seems to be Yes - even on a daily or moment to moment basis.
Irrelevant.

Originally Posted by LarryS View Post
A back-door assumption in this thread is that religion is an add on, meaning if one gets reasoned out of religion, then one automatically falls back to scientific realism (or some variant).
That’s not a "back-door assumption".

Originally Posted by LarryS View Post
But scientific realism is just another interpretation.
No it isn’t.
__________________
Paranormal beliefs are knowledge placebos.
Rumours of a godís existence have been greatly exaggerated.

Last edited by ynot; 20th April 2018 at 03:36 PM.
ynot is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st April 2018, 01:33 AM   #364
Squeegee Beckenheim
Penultimate Amazing
 
Squeegee Beckenheim's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 20,572
Originally Posted by Thor 2 View Post
This point has been made so many times by so many it's almost becoming trite to say it. That to one side it is still a very valid point although it fails to strike home with the religious.

Generally I find they parry the thrust with stuff like "God has always been." and the ultimate backstop "We can't understand this stuff with our limited comprehension."
There's never anything new in these discussions. All the points have been made before, many times, by many people.

I was interested, specifically, in GDon's answer.
__________________
I don't trust atoms. They make up everything.
Squeegee Beckenheim is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st April 2018, 02:09 PM   #365
Thor 2
Illuminator
 
Thor 2's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2016
Location: Brisbane, Aust.
Posts: 3,801
Originally Posted by Squeegee Beckenheim View Post
There's never anything new in these discussions. All the points have been made before, many times, by many people.

I was interested, specifically, in GDon's answer.

Well as I said it is a valid point and yes it would be interesting to hear GDon's take on it. As distinct from the average indoctrinated theist, he seems to have thought or felt his way into where he is today.
__________________
Thinking is a faith hazard.
Thor 2 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st April 2018, 02:43 PM   #366
jimbob
Uncritical "thinker"
 
jimbob's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 18,203
Originally Posted by Thor 2 View Post
Well as I said it is a valid point and yes it would be interesting to hear GDon's take on it. As distinct from the average indoctrinated theist, he seems to have thought or felt his way into where he is today.
I did briefly as a teenager - the vicar said that the early Christians died for their beliefs and they'd have known if it was a lie. I was never particularly comfortable with the idea of miracles, but thought it a good argument at the time. Since then I have realised how people can convince themselves of many things - to say nothing about the possibility that the most effective disciples would have been self-selecting for cult-like behaviour.
__________________
OECD healthcare spending
Expenditure on healthcare
http://www.oecd.org/els/health-systems/health-data.htm
link is 2015 data (2013 Data below):
UK 8.5% of GDP of which 83.3% is public expenditure - 7.1% of GDP is public spending
US 16.4% of GDP of which 48.2% is public expenditure - 7.9% of GDP is public spending
jimbob is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st April 2018, 05:16 PM   #367
Squeegee Beckenheim
Penultimate Amazing
 
Squeegee Beckenheim's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 20,572
Originally Posted by Thor 2 View Post
Well as I said it is a valid point and yes it would be interesting to hear GDon's take on it.
We have his take on it - that he's happy to believe whatever makes him happy. It's an attitude I've seen a couple of times before, and it's impossible to argue against, even if I were inclined to try.

If someone values their own happiness more than whether what they believe is empirically true, then that's how they feel, and they're entitled to feel like that. There's no point trying to tell them that they ought to value empiricism more than they do what makes them happy.
__________________
I don't trust atoms. They make up everything.
Squeegee Beckenheim is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st April 2018, 05:45 PM   #368
Thor 2
Illuminator
 
Thor 2's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2016
Location: Brisbane, Aust.
Posts: 3,801
Originally Posted by Squeegee Beckenheim View Post
We have his take on it - that he's happy to believe whatever makes him happy. It's an attitude I've seen a couple of times before, and it's impossible to argue against, even if I were inclined to try.

If someone values their own happiness more than whether what they believe is empirically true, then that's how they feel, and they're entitled to feel like that. There's no point trying to tell them that they ought to value empiricism more than they do what makes them happy.

If you already know all this stuff why did you say:

"I was interested, specifically, in GDon's answer."
__________________
Thinking is a faith hazard.
Thor 2 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st April 2018, 05:47 PM   #369
GDon
Muse
 
GDon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 849
Originally Posted by Squeegee Beckenheim View Post
We have his take on it - that he's happy to believe whatever makes him happy. It's an attitude I've seen a couple of times before, and it's impossible to argue against, even if I were inclined to try.
I wouldn't say I believe it because it makes me happy. I'm happy to believe it because "there is a God" makes sense within a metaphysical framework that best describes a number of things I came to believe were important. I'd prefer to describe it as a "leap of faith", which is required for taking any such metaphysical position.

Originally Posted by Squeegee Beckenheim View Post
If someone values their own happiness more than whether what they believe is empirically true, then that's how they feel, and they're entitled to feel like that.
That's an interesting statement. What is the "empirically true" evidence that I am ignoring? Off-hand, I can't think of anything. What have I missed?

Last edited by GDon; 21st April 2018 at 06:01 PM.
GDon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st April 2018, 06:14 PM   #370
Thor 2
Illuminator
 
Thor 2's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2016
Location: Brisbane, Aust.
Posts: 3,801
Originally Posted by jimbob View Post
I did briefly as a teenager - the vicar said that the early Christians died for their beliefs and they'd have known if it was a lie. I was never particularly comfortable with the idea of miracles, but thought it a good argument at the time. Since then I have realised how people can convince themselves of many things - to say nothing about the possibility that the most effective disciples would have been self-selecting for cult-like behaviour.

The number of Christians dying for their beliefs are thin on the ground these days, but the number of others dying for the beliefs of Christians not so. Witness the ones in Africa dying of Aids because they are denied the use of condoms, the mothers in El Salvador dying because abortion is denied when needed, the gay guys dying because their rights to be gay are denied.

Mind you the Islamic extremists are well above par, in the dying for their beliefs stakes today.

Interesting how these arguments, (Can they even be called that?), seem so compelling to the indoctrinated mind, but so silly when reason is brought to bear.
__________________
Thinking is a faith hazard.
Thor 2 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st April 2018, 07:42 PM   #371
ynot
Philosopher
 
ynot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 7,732
Originally Posted by Thor 2 View Post
Well as I said it is a valid point and yes it would be interesting to hear GDon's take on it. As distinct from the average indoctrinated theist, he seems to have thought or felt his way into where he is today.
I'd say "emotionally thought", not "intellectually thought". Essentially no different from other theists. I'd be happy to hear details of any counter-argument.
__________________
Paranormal beliefs are knowledge placebos.
Rumours of a godís existence have been greatly exaggerated.
ynot is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st April 2018, 08:06 PM   #372
ynot
Philosopher
 
ynot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 7,732
Originally Posted by GDon View Post
That's an interesting statement. What is the "empirically true" evidence that I am ignoring? Off-hand, I can't think of anything. What have I missed?
There's no such thing as empirically true metaphysical evidence. To have a metaphysical belief therefore you have to "ignore" any empirically true evidence that contradicts it. Are you claiming that a metaphysical god belief doesn't contradict any empirically true evidence?
__________________
Paranormal beliefs are knowledge placebos.
Rumours of a godís existence have been greatly exaggerated.

Last edited by ynot; 21st April 2018 at 08:16 PM.
ynot is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st April 2018, 08:43 PM   #373
dann
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 5,200
Originally Posted by GDon View Post
I wouldn't say I believe it because it makes me happy. I'm happy to believe it because "there is a God" makes sense within a metaphysical framework that best describes a number of things I came to believe were important. I'd prefer to describe it as a "leap of faith", which is required for taking any such metaphysical position.

What is the "empirically true" evidence that I am ignoring? Off-hand, I can't think of anything. What have I missed?

When your own description is as hazy as this, you really can't ask anybody for evidence. You present no other reason for believing than 'having come to believe that it's important' to you, i.e. that you want to believe. Your "metaphysical framework" is mere pretentiousness, which enables you to maintain the delusion that you are a skeptic believer who reasoned his way into believing in something that there's actually no rational reason to believe. Sure, you'd "prefer (!) to describe it as a "leap of faith"".
You confuse reason with rationalization.
__________________
/dann
"Stupidity renders itself invisible by assuming very large proportions. Completely unreasonable claims are irrefutable. Ni-en-leh pointed out that a philosopher might get into trouble by claiming that two times two makes five, but he does not risk much by claiming that two times two makes shoe polish." B. Brecht
"The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is required for their real happiness. The demand to give up the illusion about its condition is the demand to give up a condition which needs illusions." K. Marx

Last edited by dann; 21st April 2018 at 08:44 PM.
dann is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st April 2018, 09:02 PM   #374
dann
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 5,200
Originally Posted by Squeegee Beckenheim View Post
We have his take on it - that he's happy to believe whatever makes him happy. It's an attitude I've seen a couple of times before, and it's impossible to argue against, even if I were inclined to try.

A couple of times?! It's the basic idea of religion!

Quote:
I am happy, I am happy
Happy Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday, Friday, Saturday, Sunday
I am happy, I am happy
'Cause Jesus is my best friend

That's what we used to sing at Sunday School at the local Baptist church when I was a few years old. Except that we did it in Danish, of course.
__________________
/dann
"Stupidity renders itself invisible by assuming very large proportions. Completely unreasonable claims are irrefutable. Ni-en-leh pointed out that a philosopher might get into trouble by claiming that two times two makes five, but he does not risk much by claiming that two times two makes shoe polish." B. Brecht
"The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is required for their real happiness. The demand to give up the illusion about its condition is the demand to give up a condition which needs illusions." K. Marx

Last edited by dann; 21st April 2018 at 09:04 PM.
dann is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st April 2018, 09:45 PM   #375
GDon
Muse
 
GDon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 849
Originally Posted by ynot View Post
There's no such thing as empirically true metaphysical evidence.
Exactly. It's a contradiction in terms.

Originally Posted by ynot View Post
To have a metaphysical belief therefore you have to "ignore" any empirically true evidence that contradicts it.
What am I ignoring, in your opinion?

Originally Posted by ynot View Post
Are you claiming that a metaphysical god belief doesn't contradict any empirically true evidence?
Your metaphysical beliefs in what the "real" god who doesn't exist might. But my metaphysical god belief doesn't, as far as I know. So I'd be interested if I've missed anything. There are some philosophical and metaphysical arguments ("suffering in this world contradicts an omni God") that need to be resolved, but no empirical ones that I know about.
GDon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st April 2018, 09:53 PM   #376
GDon
Muse
 
GDon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 849
Originally Posted by dann View Post
When your own description is as hazy as this, you really can't ask anybody for evidence.
Let me be clear: I'm not asking anyone to accept my reasons. I was asked for my own reasons, and that's what I've given.

As for my "hazy description": yes, I know my description doesn't satisfy many atheists, whom want an empirically clear reason to believe in a metaphysical being (which is impossible, as ynot demonstrates above), but that is on them, not me. I call it the atheists' "'real god' that doesn't exist".

Originally Posted by dann View Post
You present no other reason for believing than 'having come to believe that it's important' to you, i.e. that you want to believe. Your "metaphysical framework" is mere pretentiousness, which enables you to maintain the delusion that you are a skeptic believer who reasoned his way into believing in something that there's actually no rational reason to believe. Sure, you'd "prefer (!) to describe it as a "leap of faith"".
You confuse reason with rationalization.
Okay, thanks for your input.
GDon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st April 2018, 11:26 PM   #377
ynot
Philosopher
 
ynot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 7,732
Originally Posted by GDon View Post
Exactly. It's a contradiction in terms.
Do you also agree that there's no such thing as true (actual) metaphysical evidence?

Originally Posted by GDon View Post
What am I ignoring, in your opinion?
Empirically true evidence in favour of evidence devoid belief.

Originally Posted by GDon View Post
Your metaphysical beliefs in what the "real" god who doesn't exist might. But my metaphysical god belief doesn't, as far as I know. So I'd be interested if I've missed anything. There are some philosophical and metaphysical arguments ("suffering in this world contradicts an omni God") that need to be resolved, but no empirical ones that I know about.
I have neither metaphysical nor god beliefs. Are you claiming that your metaphysical god belief is compatible with empirically true evidence and there's no contradiction between the two?
__________________
Paranormal beliefs are knowledge placebos.
Rumours of a godís existence have been greatly exaggerated.

Last edited by ynot; 21st April 2018 at 11:31 PM.
ynot is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st April 2018, 11:58 PM   #378
ynot
Philosopher
 
ynot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 7,732
Originally Posted by GDon View Post
Let me be clear: I'm not asking anyone to accept my reasons. I was asked for my own reasons, and that's what I've given.
I’m happy to accept your reasons as being merely your reasons, but nothing else.

So far your reasons seem to be “I believe in a god because I want to, and it suits me to do so”. Please let me know if there’s anything I’ve missed.
__________________
Paranormal beliefs are knowledge placebos.
Rumours of a godís existence have been greatly exaggerated.

Last edited by ynot; 22nd April 2018 at 12:05 AM.
ynot is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd April 2018, 01:10 AM   #379
dann
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 5,200
Originally Posted by GDon View Post
Let me be clear: I'm not asking anyone to accept my reasons. I was asked for my own reasons, and that's what I've given.

As for my "hazy description": yes, I know my description doesn't satisfy many atheists, whom want an empirically clear reason to believe in a metaphysical being (which is impossible, as ynot demonstrates above), but that is on them, not me. I call it the atheists' "'real god' that doesn't exist".

Okay, thanks for your input.

You're the one who claimed to have reasoned your way into religion, yet, when you present us with the alleged reasons, you simply say: 'reasons', i.e. "a number (!) of things (!) I came to believe were important." You say that you don't believe "because it makes me happy." Yet, "I'm happy to believe it because ..."

There's a reason (actually there are a number of things) why cosmologists are pretty convinced that the Big Bang was an actual thing (or an actual event), and what's more, they are actually able to name those things. Same thing with evolution and Darwin. He might have said, 'Evolution is an idea I've reasoned my way into.' But he'd continue, 'Now let me show you some fossils.'

See the difference?!
__________________
/dann
"Stupidity renders itself invisible by assuming very large proportions. Completely unreasonable claims are irrefutable. Ni-en-leh pointed out that a philosopher might get into trouble by claiming that two times two makes five, but he does not risk much by claiming that two times two makes shoe polish." B. Brecht
"The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is required for their real happiness. The demand to give up the illusion about its condition is the demand to give up a condition which needs illusions." K. Marx
dann is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd April 2018, 01:25 AM   #380
Squeegee Beckenheim
Penultimate Amazing
 
Squeegee Beckenheim's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 20,572
Originally Posted by Thor 2 View Post
If you already know all this stuff why did you say:

"I was interested, specifically, in GDon's answer."
Because not everybody would have given the same answer. Once I'd heard GDon's answer I knew it was one I'd heard before from some people. Until I'd heard his answer I didn't know what his answer was going to be.
__________________
I don't trust atoms. They make up everything.
Squeegee Beckenheim is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd April 2018, 01:33 AM   #381
Tommy Jeppesen
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 2,769
Hi GDon

I don't know the exact nature of your beliefs, but I will go through one possible version of beliefs in God, which is not contradictory to epistemological evidence.
Now the joke in that is that some of my fellow atheists can't if their life depended on it separate metaphysics and epistemology.

Metaphysics and transcendent beliefs: The cornerstone in understanding that is to get behind the words in this version of objective: "having reality independent of the mind".
How does that work in practice? Well, I believe that I am not the first unmoved mover of reality, rather I am in causal terms the effect of being caused by something else; the rest of reality. The content of in my mind, my experiences, are not caused by me, they are caused by the part of reality, which is objective.
So in the formal sense: Objective reality causes subjective reality, my experiences; i.e. OR -> SR. So how do I know that there is computer screen in front of me independent of my mind? I don't, because it is a metaphysical/transcendent belief to claim that my experience of the computer means that the computer screen is there as the computer screen independent of my experience of it. I don't know that because I have no objective point of view. I only have my experiences.

So I don't know what OR is, other than it is there. So I believe the following: OR is as it appears to me and there is no supernatural OR. But from that doesn't follow what OR is! It only means that I believe in natural reality.
So then what about supernatural beliefs: You can believe in a Creator God, which has given you a soul and that you will go to Heaven. What you can't do, is to claim that you have for reality as it appears to both of us Objective Authority.
How is that? Because is unknown, what good/right and bad/wrong is for OR. So in practice it works this way; i.e. for a strong believer in Hell, she/he can claim that there are humans, who go to Hell and a strong believer in the Natural Reality can claim, that we all die when we die. But both are metaphysical/transcendent beliefs and there can be given no evidence for either.
In practice in means that we, you and I, can share the same ethical beliefs, though you are a theist and I am an atheist.
If you believe in a humanistic sense in humans, accept a secular society and democracy, don't judge humans in an OR sense and believe in universal human rights, we are the same. For everyday politics within this frame we might disagree, but we would hold the same core beliefs/opinions with it comes to morality/ethics.

With regards
__________________
I don't believe in God and all the rest outside of methodological naturalism But I am a cognitive and ethical relativist/subjectivist and skeptic.
#JeSuisAhmed
Tommy Jeppesen is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd April 2018, 01:33 AM   #382
Squeegee Beckenheim
Penultimate Amazing
 
Squeegee Beckenheim's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 20,572
Originally Posted by GDon View Post
I wouldn't say I believe it because it makes me happy. I'm happy to believe it because "there is a God" makes sense within a metaphysical framework that best describes a number of things I came to believe were important. I'd prefer to describe it as a "leap of faith", which is required for taking any such metaphysical position.
This seems like a tomayto/tomahto thing to me, although I'm happy to be corrected. You explicitly agreed that you choose to believe what you believe because you'd prefer reality to be that way.

Quote:
That's an interesting statement. What is the "empirically true" evidence that I am ignoring? Off-hand, I can't think of anything. What have I missed?
I didn't say you'd missed any evidence. I said that you were less concerned with whether the existence of God was empirically true than you were with whether you'd like God to exist. That's what you're saying when you say that you're choosing to hold the beliefs you do because you'd prefer reality to be the way it is if your beliefs are true, rather than because empirical evidence has led you to those conclusions.

To discuss the specifics of empirical evidence and the existence or non-existence of God I'd need to know a lot more about the specifics of your beliefs, and that seems like a long and involved conversation that should probably happen in another thread.
__________________
I don't trust atoms. They make up everything.
Squeegee Beckenheim is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd April 2018, 01:37 AM   #383
Squeegee Beckenheim
Penultimate Amazing
 
Squeegee Beckenheim's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 20,572
Originally Posted by dann View Post
A couple of times?! It's the basic idea of religion!
I think that most religious people care whether or not God actually exists. I think it's rarer for people to choose to believe because they'd like it to be true than it is for people to believe because they actually think it's true - or, at the very least, for this to be a conscious thought process that they are cognisant of.
__________________
I don't trust atoms. They make up everything.
Squeegee Beckenheim is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd April 2018, 01:52 AM   #384
GDon
Muse
 
GDon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 849
Originally Posted by Tommy Jeppesen View Post
In practice in means that we, you and I, can share the same ethical beliefs, though you are a theist and I am an atheist.
If you believe in a humanistic sense in humans, accept a secular society and democracy, don't judge humans in an OR sense and believe in universal human rights, we are the same. For everyday politics within this frame we might disagree, but we would hold the same core beliefs/opinions with it comes to morality/ethics.
Well said!
GDon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd April 2018, 02:02 AM   #385
GDon
Muse
 
GDon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 849
Originally Posted by Squeegee Beckenheim View Post
I didn't say you'd missed any evidence. I said that you were less concerned with whether the existence of God was empirically true than you were with whether you'd like God to exist.
I've very concerned whether God is empirically true or not. Much more so than whether I'd like God to exist. If I've given a different opinion, then my apologies.

Originally Posted by Squeegee Beckenheim View Post
That's what you're saying when you say that you're choosing to hold the beliefs you do because you'd prefer reality to be the way it is if your beliefs are true, rather than because empirical evidence has led you to those conclusions.
I'd say that reality is foremost consistent with my beliefs, at least from an empirical perspective. The rest is a leap of faith, which as you say is 'tomato/tomayto'. If I'm not missing any contrary empirical evidence, then I'm guessing that means I've already evaluated all the empirical evidence available for the existence of God. Is there any empirical evidence that I'm missing, in your opinion?

Last edited by GDon; 22nd April 2018 at 02:34 AM.
GDon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd April 2018, 02:21 AM   #386
GDon
Muse
 
GDon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 849
Originally Posted by ynot View Post
Do you also agree that there's no such thing as true (actual) metaphysical evidence?
No, I disagree. If you die and go to heaven and meet God, would that constitute true (actual) metaphysical evidence to you?

Originally Posted by ynot View Post
Originally Posted by GDon
What am I ignoring, in your opinion?
Empirically true evidence in favour of evidence devoid belief.
Okay. What empirically true evidence in favour of evidence devoid belief am I ignoring, in your opinion?

Originally Posted by ynot View Post
I have neither metaphysical nor god beliefs. Are you claiming that your metaphysical god belief is compatible with empirically true evidence and there's no contradiction between the two?
Yes. What's the empirically true evidence that contradicts my metaphysical god belief?
GDon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd April 2018, 02:22 AM   #387
Tommy Jeppesen
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 2,769
Originally Posted by GDon View Post
Well said!
Now religion as an atheist regarding faith in faith, leap of faith, fidelity, doing the work and so on.

First faith in faith and leap of faith: I could be a Boltzmann brain or live in a reality, where I go to Hell. But I have made a leap of faith, I believe in a natural reality and my faith in faith works for me, because it grounds me. I am at peace in my faith and belief in a natural reality. I show fidelity to that reality that I believe in by believing everyday in accordance with my belief/faith in a natural reality and living according to that belief.

Doing the work; i.e. in regards to good and evil, evil is a word for certain human beliefs/emotions/feelings and it connects to other bad/negative beliefs/emotions/feelings. I work every day to replace those with empathy, compassion, love and so on. I am not saved just because I believe in empathy, compassion, love and so on. I have to work for that every day.

With regard
__________________
I don't believe in God and all the rest outside of methodological naturalism But I am a cognitive and ethical relativist/subjectivist and skeptic.
#JeSuisAhmed
Tommy Jeppesen is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd April 2018, 02:32 AM   #388
Squeegee Beckenheim
Penultimate Amazing
 
Squeegee Beckenheim's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 20,572
Originally Posted by GDon View Post
I've very concerned whether God is empirically true or not. Much more so than whether I'd like God to exist. If I've given a different opinion, then my apologies.
So when you agreed that you believed because it's what you'd prefer to be true, what did you mean?

Quote:
If I'm not missing any contrary empirical evidence, then I'm guessing that means I've already evaluated all the empirical evidence available for the existence of God. Is there any empirical evidence that I'm missing, in your opinion?
Your first sentence is not what I said, and you snipped out of my post the answer to the question in your second sentence.
__________________
I don't trust atoms. They make up everything.
Squeegee Beckenheim is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd April 2018, 03:30 AM   #389
ynot
Philosopher
 
ynot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 7,732
Originally Posted by GDon View Post
No, I disagree. If you die and go to heaven and meet God, would that constitute true (actual) metaphysical evidence to you?
"There's" ("there IS") is current tense. Your "If" is a purely speculative future tense fantasy for which no current empirically evidence exists that it will ever be true, could ever be true, or even should ever be true. No more credible than believing flying, fire-breathing dragons will one day be found to exist.

Originally Posted by GDon View Post
Okay. What empirically true evidence in favour of evidence devoid belief am I ignoring, in your opinion?
All of it. What empirically true evidence doesn’t contradict your metaphysical god belief?

Originally Posted by GDon View Post
Yes.
Then you ignore/deny your own cognitive dissonance. Or you have some form of cognitive dissonance handicap.

Originally Posted by GDon View Post
What's the empirically true evidence that contradicts my metaphysical god belief?
All of it. What empirically true evidence tdoesn’t contradict your metaphysical god belief?

Try answering a question with an answer rather than a question. It’s a more honest and fair way of debating.
__________________
Paranormal beliefs are knowledge placebos.
Rumours of a godís existence have been greatly exaggerated.

Last edited by ynot; 22nd April 2018 at 03:42 AM.
ynot is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd April 2018, 03:44 AM   #390
GDon
Muse
 
GDon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 849
Originally Posted by Squeegee Beckenheim View Post
So when you agreed that you believed because it's what you'd prefer to be true, what did you mean?
The 'leap of faith' thing. You seem to be implying that (forgive me if I am wrong), though I know that the universe is one way, I want it to be another way which I prefer to be true. But my belief in a God is consistent with empirical truth as well as a metaphysical truth that I came to accept as a 'leap of faith'.

You say it is the same thing, and I don't disagree. But again, just to be clear: I'm not 'preferring it to be true', in the sense that 'I know it isn't true but I wish it was so I believe it.' I accept "there is a God" is true as an informal 'working hypothesis', in the absence of evidence to the contrary, and in its consistency with my metaphysical beliefs.

Last edited by GDon; 22nd April 2018 at 03:50 AM.
GDon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd April 2018, 03:48 AM   #391
GDon
Muse
 
GDon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 849
Originally Posted by ynot View Post
What empirically true evidence doesnít contradict your metaphysical god belief?
I'm not aware of any empirically true evidence that contradicts my metaphysical god belief. If you know any, I'd appreciate you letting me know.
GDon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd April 2018, 03:51 AM   #392
ynot
Philosopher
 
ynot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 7,732
Originally Posted by GDon View Post
But my belief in a God is consistent with empirical truth as well as a metaphysical truth that I came to accept as a 'leap of faith'.
Give an example of a single empirical evidence truth that's consistent with your "leap of faith" God belief.

Your claim, your onus to provide the proof. No one has the onus to disprove it.
__________________
Paranormal beliefs are knowledge placebos.
Rumours of a godís existence have been greatly exaggerated.

Last edited by ynot; 22nd April 2018 at 03:57 AM.
ynot is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd April 2018, 04:09 AM   #393
Tommy Jeppesen
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 2,769
Originally Posted by ynot View Post
Give an example of a single empirical evidence truth that's consistent with your "leap of faith" God belief.
That evidence used within empiricism rests on an axiom for which no truth is possible. It is possible to believe in at least one version of a god, which is compatible with empiricism.

Now I have done this for years, i.e. these debates about metaphysics/transcendent beliefs versus the axiom of empiricism and the challenge you face is this:
You believe that your experience of reading this, if you have eye sight, is that outside your experience of a computer screen, that there is an actual computer screen, which matches your experience, but is independent of your experience.
That is not possible to give evidence for that using reason and logic and to claim it as true rest on a dogmatic claim, circular reasoning or magical thinking.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...d.php?t=107037

One assumption: That the universe matches a set of rules.

However you phrase that, as an assumption, an axiom or what ever, you can't show truth for that using reason, logic and evidence. Rather reason, logic and evidence rest on that assumption/axiom.

With regards
__________________
I don't believe in God and all the rest outside of methodological naturalism But I am a cognitive and ethical relativist/subjectivist and skeptic.
#JeSuisAhmed
Tommy Jeppesen is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd April 2018, 04:11 AM   #394
GDon
Muse
 
GDon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 849
Originally Posted by ynot View Post
Give an example of a single empirical evidence truth that's consistent with your "leap of faith" God belief.

Your claim, your onus to provide the proof. No one has the onus to disprove it.
I agree. But as I said from the start, I was asked my reasons by Thor 2, and so I provided them. I'm not asking anyone to accept my "leap of faith", nor should you.

We seem to be arguing on something we agree about. Earlier you wrote:

"There's no such thing as empirically true metaphysical evidence."

I responded:

"Exactly. It's a contradiction in terms."

And now you are asking me for empirical evidence for a "leap of faith". Again, it is a contradiction in terms. I'm not claiming any empirical evidence for a "leap of faith". That comes from my metaphysical beliefs. So I don't know why you ask for empirical evidence for metaphysical beliefs when we both agree it doesn't exist. As for empirical evidence being consistent with the existence of God: there is nothing inconsistent with a creator God, so everything is consistent. You need to start making metaphysical statements to show inconsistency. Perhaps you are confusing 'consistency' with 'proof'?

Unless you can keep this clear, then I might make this my last response to you on this matter. Thanks.

Last edited by GDon; 22nd April 2018 at 04:24 AM.
GDon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd April 2018, 04:46 AM   #395
Squeegee Beckenheim
Penultimate Amazing
 
Squeegee Beckenheim's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 20,572
Originally Posted by GDon View Post
You seem to be implying that (forgive me if I am wrong), though I know that the universe is one way, I want it to be another way which I prefer to be true.
No, that's not what I'm saying. I don't think we're disagreeing on anything other than turns of phrase.
__________________
I don't trust atoms. They make up everything.
Squeegee Beckenheim is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd April 2018, 04:48 AM   #396
ynot
Philosopher
 
ynot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 7,732
Originally Posted by GDon View Post
I agree. But as I said from the start, I was asked my reasons by Thor 2, and so I provided them. I'm not asking anyone to accept my "leap of faith", nor should you.

We seem to be arguing on something we agree about. Earlier you wrote:

"There's no such thing as empirically true metaphysical evidence."

I responded:

"Exactly. It's a contradiction in terms."

And now you are asking me for empirical evidence for a "leap of faith". Again, it is a contradiction in terms. I'm not claiming any empirical evidence for a "leap of faith". That comes from my metaphysical beliefs. So I don't know why you ask for empirical evidence for metaphysical beliefs when we both agree it doesn't exist. As for empirical evidence being consistent with the existence of God: there is nothing inconsistent with a creator God, so everything is consistent. You need to start making metaphysical statements to show inconsistency.

Unless you can keep this clear, then I might make this my last response to you on this matter. Thanks.
I'm not arguing about something we have previously agreed on (There's no such thing as empirically true metaphysical evidence).

It's exactly that fact that makes your "my belief in a God is consistent with empirical truth" a complete nonsense. Empirical knowledge is inconsistent with metaphysical belief because the former is based on empirical evidence and the latter isn't. Knowledge is revealed by scientific investigation and analysis of empirical evidence, metaphysical belief is arbitrarily created purely from fantasy imagination. You're essentially claiming that fantasy is consistent with reality in a pathetic attempt to make your religious beliefs consistent with science.

This is definitely my last direct response to you on this matter. Thanks.
__________________
Paranormal beliefs are knowledge placebos.
Rumours of a godís existence have been greatly exaggerated.

Last edited by ynot; 22nd April 2018 at 04:57 AM.
ynot is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd April 2018, 04:53 AM   #397
Squeegee Beckenheim
Penultimate Amazing
 
Squeegee Beckenheim's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 20,572
Originally Posted by Tommy Jeppesen View Post
You believe that your experience of reading this, if you have eye sight, is that outside your experience of a computer screen, that there is an actual computer screen, which matches your experience, but is independent of your experience.
That is not possible to give evidence for that using reason and logic and to claim it as true rest on a dogmatic claim, circular reasoning or magical thinking.
Proof is not, ultimately, possible. Evidence, on the other hand, is. The first bit of evidence would be whether other people also seem to have experience of said computer screen. If I set my computer to hibernate, walk out of the room, and ask another person to boot the computer up and read out to me what's written on the screen, is what they are saying consistent with my memory? If so, then that's one datapoint that supports the case that the computer screen exists independent of my experience of it. If it's not, then that's either a datapoint against it, or an indicator of something else going on (that the person is lying about what they can read, that the text has changed through some natural process like a post being edited by a mod, etc.).

Yes, I'm aware how recursive this argument can get, and I think it's a debate for a different thread than this one, but I felt the need to comment on how your specific assertion was incorrect.
__________________
I don't trust atoms. They make up everything.
Squeegee Beckenheim is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd April 2018, 04:57 AM   #398
Tommy Jeppesen
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 2,769
Originally Posted by Squeegee Beckenheim View Post
Proof is not, ultimately, possible. Evidence, on the other hand, is. The first bit of evidence would be whether other people also seem to have experience of said computer screen. If I set my computer to hibernate, walk out of the room, and ask another person to boot the computer up and read out to me what's written on the screen, is what they are saying consistent with my memory? If so, then that's one datapoint that supports the case that the computer screen exists independent of my experience of it. If it's not, then that's either a datapoint against it, or an indicator of something else going on (that the person is lying about what they can read, that the text has changed through some natural process like a post being edited by a mod, etc.).

Yes, I'm aware how recursive this argument can get, and I think it's a debate for a different thread than this one, but I felt the need to comment on how your specific assertion was incorrect.
If you feel for it, make another thread.

With regard
__________________
I don't believe in God and all the rest outside of methodological naturalism But I am a cognitive and ethical relativist/subjectivist and skeptic.
#JeSuisAhmed
Tommy Jeppesen is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd April 2018, 04:59 AM   #399
Squeegee Beckenheim
Penultimate Amazing
 
Squeegee Beckenheim's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 20,572
Originally Posted by Tommy Jeppesen View Post
If you feel for it, make another thread.
No, I think I've had and read enough of those kinds of conversations to believe that the likelihood of anything new, interesting, or productive coming out of it is slim.
__________________
I don't trust atoms. They make up everything.
Squeegee Beckenheim is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd April 2018, 05:04 AM   #400
Tommy Jeppesen
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 2,769
Originally Posted by Squeegee Beckenheim View Post
No, I think I've had and read enough of those kinds of conversations to believe that the likelihood of anything new, interesting, or productive coming out of it is slim.
Yeah
__________________
I don't believe in God and all the rest outside of methodological naturalism But I am a cognitive and ethical relativist/subjectivist and skeptic.
#JeSuisAhmed
Tommy Jeppesen is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Religion and Philosophy

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 01:48 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.