What would it take to convince you to change your mind?

[phlegm]

Originally Posted by AlanChambers

I'm sorry but you cannot claim black is white and be taken seriously. I do not "claim" that atheism is non-belief. That is its definition. Atheism is not a faith position.

Well, I think you have faith in your ability to reason your own way to the truth, enough faith to second guess humanity's "god belief." Like I said in an earlier post, I believe knowledge is ultimately the result of whom you believe, not what you believe. There is always a human authority involved when making knowledge claims, even if you are that authority.

Regarding theodicy: once again you have used a specious argument. Scientists have no prior assumption that the Universe is designed, nor that it is somehow intended for our benefit. It is no great surprise that the Universe turns out to be not at all easy to understand.

I think you're mistaken. I believe some scientists did have a prior assumption that the Universe was created by God. That's why they looked for order in the Universe.

Perhaps I am stretching here, but it seems to me that God, if He wanted everyone to understand Him and live according to His plan, would have made it rather more comprehensible than the mind-hurting contradictions which apparently only "great" theologians can master. I guess this is another one of those Mysterious Ways (TM).

I don't understand how you're fine with science being complex, but you think that theology, a science of God, has to be simple. I wouldn't say that theologians necessarily "master" anything, no more than scienctists "master" anything. Questioning leads to more questioning. Knowledge is tenative.

Also, I never said that one has to accept the claims of "great" theologians to be a theist. It's the way *I* choose to understand theism. It's kind of impossible for me to learn as an illiterate farmer since I already know how to read.

It is a bit of a stretch to equate my position with a lack of faith in humanity, whatever that exactly means here. You seem to be using this to denote something other than the common phrase "restored my faith in humanity", used upon witnessing great acts of generosity or whatever, which (irrelevantly) may or may not be performed by religious people.

I probably should've been clearer with my phraseology of "faith in humanity." I have faith in humanity in that I subscribe to a "god belief" because it's a commonality I can share with most of humanity.

I observe that the "totality of humanity" has been wrong about almost everything it ever believed. You are presumably being selective in what you choose to accept as the accumulated wisdom of all humanity. What are your selection criteria?

A "god belief" can be found in most (all?) cultures--doesn't that make it even more common than the scienctific world view? If any belief approaches universality among all of humanity, isn't a "god belief" one possibility? What other beliefs have been so widespread and survived throughout history? Obviously, I believe in science, why shouldn't I subscribe to a belief that is/was even more ubiquitous?

FWIW I recognise that religious faith can be a positive influence in people's personal lives, and have no desire to do away with that. Though I have tried, I cannot understand how someone can look at the data and arrive a conclusion like yours. I recognise that you will say the same of me.

Oh, I can understand how you arrive at your position, but I think the assumptions you deny having (i.e., what constitutes the science-is-the-best world view) are unjustified. So I choose to reject them in favor of what I consider a more open view. Though, I understand that your beliefs (or non-beliefs) are quite reasonable to you (with your assumptions).

[AlanChambers]

Originally Posted by phlegm

I think you're mistaken. I believe some scientists did have a prior assumption that the Universe was created by God. That's why they looked for order in the Universe.

When I was a physicist, the desire for order seemed primarily motivated by a desire to devise models which gave reliable predictions. In any case, what may or may not motivate some scientists cannot be imputed for all.

From an evolutionary/survival perspective, order/predictability is a form of insurance, so it is unsurprising that we have evolved to look for it. My cat knows where I sleep, and knows that jumping on my bed in the morning and purring will result in a bowl of fresh food (he'd get it anyway). In noticing this beneficial order, was he motivated by a prior assumption of divine creation? Doubtful. We are a bit smarter than cats, but are basically social apes which have for millions of years been trying just as hard to survive.

There is also the (probably related) human attribute of finding ordered systems more aesthetically pleasing, though this is not a scientific view. The word 'elegant' is often used of simple but powerful theories.

Rather than your statement, the desire for order seems an inherent human trait based on no assumptions of divinity. But in a religious society, any order found is predictably (and boringly) attributed to God. I find it interesting that disorder is also attributed to God - He sent an earthquake, plague, conquering army, recession, whatever, to punish us.

Originally Posted by phlegm

I don't understand how you're fine with science being complex, but you think that theology, a science of God, has to be simple.

My reasoning is simple enough: I assume that God wants every one of us to understand Him. I do not make this assumption about the natural world. Perhaps my assumption about God is wrong, but it seems consistent with everything I have been told about Him.

Originally Posted by phlegm

A "god belief" can be found in most (all?) cultures--doesn't that make it even more common than the scienctific world view?

You believe that many voices equals truth? If five billion people agree with each other that the Sun will not come up tomorrow, will that make the proposition true? You continue to equate empirical knowledge about the natural world with literary interpretations of folk history. A universal "god belief" is as easily explained in terms of psychosocial factors as a universal desire for power or sex.

[phlegm]

Originally Posted by AlanChambers

Rather than your statement, the desire for order seems an inherent human trait based on no assumptions of divinity. But in a religious society, any order found is predictably (and boringly) attributed to God. I find it interesting that disorder is also attributed to God - He sent an earthquake, plague, conquering army, recession, whatever, to punish us.

I don't think you've provided any reason why the "god belief" did not motivate the scientific search of order, at least in some instances, even if many scientists presently discard the "god hypothesis" in life.

Does disorder really exist, or is it really just more complex order? Don't we try to apply science to understanding many of those "disorderly" phenomena?

My reasoning is simple enough: I assume that God wants every one of us to understand Him. I do not make this assumption about the natural world. Perhaps my assumption about God is wrong, but it seems consistent with everything I have been told about Him.

Aren't you a skeptic? Why would you believe everything you've been told about God?

You believe that many voices equals truth? If five billion people agree with each other that the Sun will not come up tomorrow, will that make the proposition true? You continue to equate empirical knowledge about the natural world with literary interpretations of folk history. A universal "god belief" is as easily explained in terms of psychosocial factors as a universal desire for power or sex.

Yes, many voices is a kind of truth. Since we can't be sure when we have The Absolute Truth, the more kinds of truth we have, the better.

Your proposition about the Sun not rising is meaningless to me because I don't genuinely believe that five billion people would ever genuinely agree about that without very strong evidence. So, I guess I could vacuously answer, "Yes."

"Easily explained"? You really think so? Only if one doesn't have enough "faith in humanity."

----

Part 1:

Today, while science was hurling me through the air for 3 hours in a big aluminum tube, I was daydreaming about atheism being "non-belief." The fact is I just don't accept that as a valid excuse for avoiding having to justify the atheist position. My reason is that it seems to ignore the atheist's relation to the rest of humanity and atheism's relation to the "god belief."

I thought of an analogy--it probably breaks down somewhere, but here goes. Suppose you go to a park, and there is a sign on one side prohibiting unicycling. You don't see any reason to not unicycle there, so you decide to unicycle on the other side of the park. You figure you can just claim ignorance if you do get caught and promise not to do it again.

Humanity is represented by "the sign," and it informs you of the "god belief." So, isn't it a bit dishonest to simply claim ignorance when you in fact are aware of "the sign?"

Part 2:

While unicycling tonight, I was thinking about how to model my view of human belief. I thought it would make sense to weight my beliefs with probabilities. So, my core beliefs could approach 1, and my non-core beliefs could approach 0.5 but be > 0.5. I thought, if I had a belief with weight of 1, then that belief would be identical with the classic understanding of knowledge, i.e., "justified true belief"--I don't think one can know with absolute certainty when one has it. OTOH, if I had a belief with weight of 0, I would have the opposite of knowledge, perhaps absolute ignorance.

So, you see, while belief could be (artificially) partitioned into "belief" and "non-belief," thereby creating a false dichotomy, I think the idea of an absolute non-belief is completely unrealistic. Once you name a belief, you are no longer absolutely ignorant about it, and justification is required if you want other people to believe it.

Ideas?

[AlanChambers]

Originally Posted by phlegm

Aren't you a skeptic? Why would you believe everything you've been told about God?

You are very good at not answering questions. Tentatively accepting the assumptions of others and then asking questions to see if the consequences make sense is a perfectly reasonable way for a skeptic to proceed. Most of the claims made about God's nature lead to logical problems.

Originally Posted by phlegm

Yes, many voices is a kind of truth. Since we can't be sure when we have The Absolute Truth, the more kinds of truth we have, the better.

Hmm. What "kind of" truth is it? Torture is as much a cultural universal as god-belief, and has been so throughout recorded history. Are we to accept torture as valid on this basis?

Originally Posted by phlegm

"Easily explained"? You really think so? Only if one doesn't have enough "faith in humanity."

I said *as* easily explained - doesn't mean it's a trivial problem. The universal phenomenon of god-belief is clearly a manifestation of inherent human traits. I think it is relevant that all the different cultures have had widely varying gods, mostly incompatible with each other. If they were reflections of a single divine creator, I would expect them to have more traits in common.

Originally Posted by phlegm

I was daydreaming about atheism being "non-belief." The fact is I just don't accept that as a valid excuse for avoiding having to justify the atheist position.

You continue to redefine words to suit your own purposes. Atheism's relationship to god belief is that atheists do not accept the existence of your god, just as you likely do not accept the existence of Odin, Zeus or Ra. This is not difficult to understand but theists often try to mudddy the waters in what amounts to an ad hominem attack on atheists for not thinking clearly or rejecting vital data - none of which is true. Atheists do not need an "excuse" like some kind of truant. Framing your views in these terms is petulant.

Originally Posted by phlegm

Ideas?

Smells of sophistry. There is a difference between saying "I believe their are no unicorns" and "I do not believe unicorns exist". A belief is claim about the truth of some proposition. It may or may not be true. It may or may not be justified. I understand that a belief must be both true and justified for it to be called knowledge (and even this has problems). The later statement makes no claim about the truth of any proposition. You also leapt from core belief to justified knowledge in what seemd to be a verbal sleight of hand. Believing more strongly enhances neither the truth nor the justification of a proposition.

I will accept that the reasons for my non-belief in gods is that they are not consistent with the knowledge I have: the justified true beliefs. Perhaps they do exist, but I do not believe it. There is no place for them in the world as I understand it. The world seems to operate exactly as if gods do not exist, so if they do, they aren't having much impact on it. You might be on to something to call this a kind of ignorance. If you want to turn a negative into a positive, go right ahead, but that does not make it true.

[phlegm]

Originally Posted by AlanChambers

You are very good at not answering questions. Tentatively accepting the assumptions of others and then asking questions to see if the consequences make sense is a perfectly reasonable way for a skeptic to proceed. Most of the claims made about God's nature lead to logical problems.

Not meaning to be rude, but maybe you should emphasize your questions--or maybe I missed them because I was pretty tired last night when I responded.

If "most of the claims ... lead to logical problems," then you could redefine God's nature or your methodology. Hasn't methodology changed many times throughout history? I've chosen to redefine methodology, not just for the sake of the "god belief," but also for the sake of the humanities and the arts. I guess you choose to redefine "God's nature" as nonexistence.

Hmm. What "kind of" truth is it? Torture is as much a cultural universal as god-belief, and has been so throughout recorded history. Are we to accept torture as valid on this basis?

Torture is an ethical issue--it's not valid or invalid, but good or evil. How many cultures genuinely believe(d) torture is the good?

I said *as* easily explained - doesn't mean it's a trivial problem. The universal phenomenon of god-belief is clearly a manifestation of inherent human traits. I think it is relevant that all the different cultures have had widely varying gods, mostly incompatible with each other. If they were reflections of a single divine creator, I would expect them to have more traits in common.

Cultures are incompatible too, so why must their beliefs about a god be fully compatible?

You continue to redefine words to suit your own purposes. Atheism's relationship to god belief is that atheists do not accept the existence of your god, just as you likely do not accept the existence of Odin, Zeus or Ra. This is not difficult to understand but theists often try to mudddy the waters in what amounts to an ad hominem attack on atheists for not thinking clearly or rejecting vital data - none of which is true. Atheists do not need an "excuse" like some kind of truant. Framing your views in these terms is petulant.

Words are just brush strokes to paint a picture, so to speak. Why can't I slightly redefine words? Isn't language dynamic?

Are you saying that atheism does not deny the existence of a god? I don't necessarily deny the existence of Odin, Zeus, or Ra, but I have chosen to understand God through Christianity. So, Odin, Zeus, and Ra are somewhat irrelevant to my theology.

I don't think atheists necessarily do not think clearly. I think that atheists arrive at their position in a clear thinking manner while accepting certain assumptions that cannot be absolutely justified (e.g., scientific reductionism broadly applied), and then they insist that their position is obviously better than a position that starts with assumptions contrary to those of atheism. Further, atheists use "non-belief" as a reason to not give any reasoning for their position.

You also leapt from core belief to justified knowledge in what seemd to be a verbal sleight of hand. Believing more strongly enhances neither the truth nor the justification of a proposition.

Good catch on that one. That's what I get for daydreaming and then posting about it while I'm still tired. Why is it that I most often realize my tiredness well after the fact?

I will accept that the reasons for my non-belief in gods is that they are not consistent with the knowledge I have: the justified true beliefs. Perhaps they do exist, but I do not believe it. There is no place for them in the world as I understand it. The world seems to operate exactly as if gods do not exist, so if they do, they aren't having much impact on it. You might be on to something to call this a kind of ignorance. If you want to turn a negative into a positive, go right ahead, but that does not make it true.

I'm not sure what you mean by the last sentence. What kind of ignorance is atheism when humanity overwhelmingly informs us otherwise?

I do understand, though, that a god has no place in your world view. You think your view is ultimately founded on logic. I think it's ultimately founded on your choice of assumptions. My choice of assumptions are different, and God fits in my world view, quite reasonably so, IMO. Unless one of us changes his mind, we're never going to agree about this.

[SqueakyOnion]

Originally Posted by phlegm

Like I said in an earlier post, I believe knowledge is ultimately the result of whom you believe, not what you believe.

This sums up exactly what I have been sporadically thinking about the past few days! Permission to quote?


I'm still working my way through this thread, which is up to 96 replies now...but am getting a lot from it. Maybe I'll throw an opinionated reply in, once I've read the whole thread.

[phlegm]

Originally Posted by SqueakyOnion

This sums up exactly what I have been sporadically thinking about the past few days! Permission to quote?

Well, I'm far from the original source of that idea--not sure if there's a single person credited with coming up with it. So, I don't know that quoting me is the right thing to do.

[BillyTheMountain]

Originally Posted by AlanChambers

When I was a physicist....

Wow! Alan Dahling!! You was a physicist!!!!

Originally Posted by AlanChambers

My reasoning is simple enough: I assume a universal desire for power or sex.

I guess it takes one to know one.

[phlegm]

Rescuing this thread from page 6!!

Originally Posted by AlanChambers

I'd have thought the evidence of your own eyes would be a major factor.

It's interesting to me that the "serious" responses in this thread seem to indicate that most rely solely on his/her personal experience to arrive at belief/non-belief about God. Where are all the other rationalistic types?

This idea of placing so much weight on personal experience seems slightly irrational to me because there are many things that I have learned through education that I have no personal experience with, and yet I have no reason to supplant them with other ideas. Why is my God belief different?

----

Also, in my Internet travels, I stumbled across this diagram with this explanation. I've thought along those lines before. If everyone could agree that practicality is the most important measure of beliefs (instead of some other kind of truth), then what one believes (or not) about God could become somewhat unimportant. Of course, we all want The Truth, right?

Finally, I learned that "my" anti-reductionistic view is called emergentism. I figured there had to be a name for it--I don't think I'm that original.

[Nimbusnut]

The answer is maybe or maybe not. We'll all find out eventually.