Atheists Only: Would this be proof?

[LuisDantas]

I think that attitude is a fair re-phrasing of the position that you and Katzpur have both argued.

So do I. Do you think it changes its meaning?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Fair enough, Penguin. But your line of work is very much targeted towards consensual reality, while god beliefs are far, far more personal.

If God literally exists, then he inhabits a "consensual reality" (or shared, rather, since IMO, reality is what it is regardless of whether you consent to it). Making God a personal matter assumes that an atheist position is correct.

The trouble is that there are so many people who insist that it is a Big Deal that others share their beliefs in what is, from a communal standpoint, indeed irrelevant.

You're moving the goalposts. The question of whether we should *care* whose position is right or wrong is separate from the question of whether a position is right or wrong.

Personally, I don't care if someone else is wrong in and of itself. If this doesn't hurt anyone, fine - I'll leave them to believe what they want.

... but I do care about my own beliefs. I want them to be as correct as possible. Because of this, if someone who disagrees with me has found a rational justification for their position or found a mistake in the logic I used for my own position, I want to know.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

So do I. Do you think it changes its meaning?

It means that the "respect and compassion" you talked about is hollow and is more like "avoiding presumed fights".

I think a better - and more respectful - approach is to give people the benefit of the doubt that they've thought their positions through and that they're mature enough to talk about big issues like adults.

 

[LuisDantas]

If God literally exists, then he inhabits a "consensual reality" (or shared, rather, since IMO, reality is what it is regardless of whether you consent to it). Making God a personal matter assumes that an atheist position is correct.

Indeed. The way I see it, must be correct for those very reasons you just mentioned.

It does not necessarily follow that it is correct for non-atheists, though, because they do not have to ground themselves in a shared reality alone. For some people, god is real and that is that. And I am fine with that as long as they don't expect me to pay tribute to their beliefs (as opposed to just attempting to be aware and respectful of them, which is something else entirely).

You're moving the goalposts. The question of whether we should *care* whose position is right or wrong is separate from the question of whether a position is right or wrong.

I don't think so. I would probably agree with you if God had necessarily an objective existence instead of of being a subjective, personal and probably involuntary call.

But such is clearly not the case.

Personally, I don't care if someone else is wrong in and of itself. If this doesn't hurt anyone, fine - I'll leave them to believe what they want.

... but I do care about my own beliefs. I want them to be as correct as possible. Because of this, if someone who disagrees with me has found a rational justification for my position or found a mistake in the logic I used for my own position, I want to know.

That is very sensible. But reasonable theists will not have anything along those lines to give you, if my own experience is anything to go by.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I don't think so. I would probably agree with you if God had necessarily an objective existence instead of of being a subjective, personal and probably involuntary call.

But such is clearly not the case.

I disagree. If gods exist, then they do so objectively. A "god" that is personal and subjective is a concept of god or a belief about a god, not an actual god.

"God exists" is a claim about objective reality.

 

[LuisDantas]

It means that the "respect and compassion" you talked about is hollow and is more like "avoiding presumed fights".

I'm not sure what you would find appropriate then. Katzpur admits that people are often simply unable to change their stances from theism to atheism or vice-versa. I agree and say that it is a matter of minor, strictly personal significance.

I just don't see how those understandings could lead to the conclusion that we should see our disagreement on the matter as important, much less worth fighting over.

It is not like she expects me to submit to her beliefs for anything that is of relevance to me. Or at least, I am not seeing it so far. Maybe I am thick-skinned against proselitism and have become somewhat oblivious to it? I have sure seen enough.

I think a better - and more respectful - approach is to give people the benefit of the doubt that they've thought their positions through and that they're mature enough to talk about big issues like adults.

That is certainly a proper approach. And I suppose the OP's question is bit disingenuous or may be taken as such. Still, I don't see any reason not to take it at face value and answer accordingly. Maybe my previous experience with Katzpur informs my attitude a bit too much. I suppose I would not know.

 

[LuisDantas]

I disagree. If gods exist, then they do so objectively. A "god" that is personal and subjective is a concept of god or a belief about a god, not an actual god.

"God exists" is a claim about objective reality.

By those parameters, then of course God does not exist, at least not in any way that justifies theism.

I don't think those are reasonable parameters for anyone to use, though. Such a god conception is simply not healthy, nor useful.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I'm not sure what you would find appropriate then. Katzpur admits that people are often simply unable to change their stances from theism to atheism or vice-versa. I agree and say that it is a matter of minor, strictly personal significance.

I just don't see how those understandings could lead to the conclusion that we should see our disagreement on the matter as important, much less worth fighting over.

I think it's a reasonable course of action a lot of the time. I think it's important to recognize that it's rooted in disrespect.

Even if it's true that I'm convinced that my position is the only logical choice and it's true that I'll never convince someone who disagrees with me to change his mind, acting on that basis feels like a defeat for me. Presuming that reasonable dialogue is impossible seems to me almost like a failure of humanity.

And maybe this speaks to Katzpur being a better person than me, but if I really did think that my position was entirely supported by logic and that someone I was talking to would never, ever be convinced to adopt it, it would be very hard for me to respect that other position.

It is not like she expects me to submit to her beliefs for anything that is of relevance to me. Or at least, I am not seeing it so far. Maybe I am thick-skinned against proselitism and have become somewhat oblivious to it? I have sure seen enough.

I don't think she's trying to do that, and that's the problem, IMO. If her position is based in logic and she's not willing to share it, this says to me that she thinks that we're beyond reason.

... at least, that's the way I take it. Maybe she can give a different perspective.

 

[LuisDantas]

I think it's a reasonable course of action a lot of the time. I think it's important to recognize that it's rooted in disrespect.

Is it? I have considerable respect for Katzpur, believe me. And I feel safe to say that the feeling is mutual. Nor is she the only theist I feel that way about. Granted, I wish there were more.

Even if it's true that I'm convinced that my position is the only logical choice and it's true that I'll never convince someone who disagrees with me to change his mind, acting on that basis feels like a defeat for me. Presuming that reasonable dialogue is impossible seems to me almost like a failure of humanity.

I used to feel that way for a considerable length of time. It was rather frustrating.

However, my atheism is not the only logical choice, unless I take it as a premise that theism must be demonstrable. Which, as I am sure you realize, is not at all the case.

Theism is not convincing, at least for me. But that does not mean it needs to be.

And maybe this speaks to Katzpur being a better person than me, but if I really did think that my position was entirely supported by logic and that someone I was talking to would never, ever be convinced to adopt it, it would be very hard for me to respect that other position.

It has been so, for me, for a considerably long period of time. But I am not sure theism is entirely logical, exactly.

I don't think she's trying to do that, and that's the problem, IMO. If her position is based in logic and she's not willing to share it, this says to me that she thinks that we're beyond reason.

... at least, that's the way I take it. Maybe she can give a different perspective.

I understood her stance to be based on esthetics rather than logic, which is fair enough for me.

 

[Muffled]

Sufficient, no. It is more likely that the prayers themselves, and not an absent third-party entity, are responsible for healing. Looking to observations for solutions returns a more believable answer than looking to the unobservable for solutions.

I believe one is not able to observe what prayers are able to do, so it does not work any better than trying to observe what God is doing. The only time prayer can be observed is when feed back is offered so that one can see how prayer is affecting ones recovery. However feedback only tells what the effect is and not who is actually doing the work. It is feasible to order the immune system to work but how it obeys is a question in my mind.

 

[Katzpur]

I didn't mean to offend you. I just find it strange how these sorts of debates end up with something like "let's just agree to disagree" as if accepting God's existence is just an aesthetic preference like wanting chocolate ice cream.

I think debates on the existence of God are destined to end with "let's just agree to disagree." In all the years I've been participating on this and other forums, I've yet to see one end any other way. I'm not comfortable with the phrase describing my belief in God as an "aesthetic preference," although I can see where you're coming from with that phrase. If I like chocolate ice cream, I can't just stop liking it because someone else points out to me that it's nasty tasting. And I probably can't even explain to you why you're wrong. Chocolate ice cream is not nasty to me; it's delicious. End of story.

The question of God's existence is a factual matter. One conclusion is right and one is wrong. When we come to different conclusions, there are only a few possibilities:

- one side has access to different evidence from the other.
- one side (at least) has made a mistake in their reasoning.
- both sides really are equally supported by the evidence (which would mean that neither side has enough information to accept it conclusively).

I'll go with door #3.

I agree that the question of God's existence is a factual matter, but it's not one that can be settled by debate any more than my like of chocolate ice cream can. If God exists, there will come a time when you have all of the facts you need to acknowledge Him. Meanwhile, you don't need to. My belief is just something that's so much a part of who I am that I can't deny it. But I can't prove that what I believe is true, either. That's why I don't try to. It's certainly not that I think I've found something illogical in your position and am simply refusing to share it.

As Hugh Nibley (widely thought of as the greatest LDS scholar who has ever lived) once noted: The first rule of scholarship [is]: You are never playing with a full deck. You never know how much evidence you may be missing, what it is, or where it is hiding. What counters that and saves the day for scholarship is what I have called the "Gas Law of Learning," namely, that any amount of knowledge, no matter how small, will fill any vacuum of ignorance, no matter how large. He who knows one or two facts can honestly claim to know at least something about a subject, and nobody knows everything."

Nibley wasn't saying that it's just scientists who don't know everything. Religionists don't either. None of us do. None of us are playing with a full deck.

 

[Jumi]

Some of us don't try to hide any cards from themselves or others either. There must be a desire have the "full deck" or at least as much of it as possible if there is any interest in truth. Anything less is almost no good. I assume many people gathered on forums like this want to have that, I'm always disappointed when someone wants less.

 

[Kuzcotopia]

I think debates on the existence of God are destined to end with "let's just agree to disagree." In all the years I've been participating on this and other forums, I've yet to see one end any other way. I'm not comfortable with the phrase describing my belief in God as an "aesthetic preference," although I can see where you're coming from with that phrase. If I like chocolate ice cream, I can't just stop liking it because someone else points out to me that it's nasty tasting. And I probably can't even explain to you why you're wrong. Chocolate ice cream is not nasty to me; it's delicious. End of story.

I'll go with door #3.

I agree that the question of God's existence is a factual matter, but it's not one that can be settled by debate any more than my like of chocolate ice cream can. If God exists, there will come a time when you have all of the facts you need to acknowledge Him. Meanwhile, you don't need to. My belief is just something that's so much a part of who I am that I can't deny it. But I can't prove that what I believe is true, either. That's why I don't try to. It's certainly not that I think I've found something illogical in your position and am simply refusing to share it.

As Hugh Nibley (widely thought of as the greatest LDS scholar who has ever lived) once noted: The first rule of scholarship [is]: You are never playing with a full deck. You never know how much evidence you may be missing, what it is, or where it is hiding. What counters that and saves the day for scholarship is what I have called the "Gas Law of Learning," namely, that any amount of knowledge, no matter how small, will fill any vacuum of ignorance, no matter how large. He who knows one or two facts can honestly claim to know at least something about a subject, and nobody knows everything."

Nibley wasn't saying that it's just scientists who don't know everything. Religionists don't either. None of us do. None of us are playing with a full deck.

Nice analogy! I think that's very true. Most of the information in the universe is beyond our grasp.

What I would hesitate to do with my incomplete, paltry deck of knowledge is try to create a new imaginary card who's existence changes the value
and substance of the cards I already have.

I think the goal of scientific inquiry is to try and provide agreements over what card we do have. Of course it doesn't have them all. But it doesn't suggest that there aren't other cards out there, nor does it assume that all the cards are knowable. But it doesn't create new ones out of thin air to resolve cognative dissonances in the game that we have. That said, if all theists agreed on the nature of that additional card, it might make more sense. But the interpretive variations of that specific card is remarkably diverse if this forum is any indication, where the rest of them that we can all accept are not interpretive in and of themselves.

What I like about your experiment is that is creates a new hypothetical card and allows us atheists to suppose how it changes the game. I take the experiment at face value without adding qualifications, and it would lead me to God's existence (the nature of the prayers themselves suggest a
specific abrahamic God). It is a reasonable conclusion.

What I find most interesting is how this thought experiment might affect theists. Here is specific evidence, and it is technically very selective and cruel, as many have pointed out. It's the worst aspects of the Old Testament, IMO, and probably doesn't jive well with how many theists see God. That new card may not look the same as the ideal one you already accepted.

Would that produce any cognitive dissonance in current belief systems of those faiths? Would LDS acknowledge the event and it's implications into the nature of God? Evangelicals? RCC? What about ISIS? What's their interpretation?

I might consider the possibility that many current churches might discount it even more than atheists, because the nature of the experiment creates more dissonance in believers than it would in non believers.

Add a card, change the game.

 

[Katzpur]

Some of us don't try to hide any cards from themselves or others either. There must be a desire have the "full deck" or at least as much of it as possible if there is any interest in truth. Anything less is almost no good. I assume many people gathered on forums like this want to have that, I'm always disappointed when someone wants less.

I couldn't agree more.

 

[Katzpur]

What I find most interesting is how this thought experiment might affect theists. Here is specific evidence, and it is technically very selective and cruel, as many have pointed out. It's the worst aspects of the Old Testament, IMO, and probably doesn't jive well with how many theists see God. That new card may not look the same as the ideal one you already accepted.

Would that produce any cognitive dissonance in current belief systems of those faiths? Would LDS acknowledge the event and it's implications into the nature of God? Evangelicals? RCC? What about ISIS? What's their interpretation?

To me, whether God exists and is powerful enough to do what I described in the OP is an entirely different topic than whether God is good or evil. The LDS already have a belief on why God allows evil in the world, but I don't want to get into it on this thread.

Add a card, change the game.

That's how it works.

 

[Kuzcotopia]

To me, whether God exists and is powerful enough to do what I described in the OP is an entirely different topic than whether God is good or evil. The LDS already have a belief on why God allows evil in the world, but I don't want to get into it on this thread.

I agree. The thought experiment is only establishing the existence of god to an atheist, and the goal is not to determine God's nature.

I'm just saying that theists might also disbelieve the evidence as well, if not more so, than atheists. They have specific beliefs about a god to compare it to, and if they don't match, they could be more inclined to be atheistic about that god, as opposed to their own.

For an atheist like me, with nothing already accepted as God, believing the event for what it seems to be is credible as is.

Does that seem reasonable? Do you think theists would reject the evidence of this thought experiment as well?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I think debates on the existence of God are destined to end with "let's just agree to disagree." In all the years I've been participating on this and other forums, I've yet to see one end any other way.

Me neither, and I see this as a strike against theism.

It's reasonable not to expect the atheist side to make much headway. It has all the problems with proving a negative, plus it has to wrestle with the fact that most gods are defined in a way that makes them very hard to pin down.

OTOH, theists generally don't just argue that God exists as one claim in isolation; they tend to argue for whole belief systems involving things like holy books, prophets, miracles, etc., etc. Even if God isn't out-and-out disproven, I think something more than "you can't prove he DOESN'T exist" is needed if he's going to serve as the lynchpin of an entire religion.

We're also not talking about some irrelevant thing either. If God is as important to the universe as most theists claim, then not being able to show that he exists would be as strange as not being able to find a country's staple food: even if you find some crop that seems like it's the thing you're looking for, if it isn't everywhere, then it isn't a staple.

I'm not comfortable with the phrase describing my belief in God as an "aesthetic preference," although I can see where you're coming from with that phrase. If I like chocolate ice cream, I can't just stop liking it because someone else points out to me that it's nasty tasting. And I probably can't even explain to you why you're wrong. Chocolate ice cream is not nasty to me; it's delicious. End of story.

"Nasty" and "delicious" describe aesthetic preferences. If you don't want me to think of your belief as an aesthetic preference, why are you using this analogy?

I'll go with door #3.

I agree that the question of God's existence is a factual matter, but it's not one that can be settled by debate any more than my like of chocolate ice cream can.

So you agree that there is one right answer, but you think we don't have the evidence to settle it conclusively?

If God exists, there will come a time when you have all of the facts you need to acknowledge Him. Meanwhile, you don't need to.

IMO, making claims about God's nature or his plans while his mere existence is still an open question is putting the cart before the horse.

My belief is just something that's so much a part of who I am that I can't deny it. But I can't prove that what I believe is true, either. That's why I don't try to. It's certainly not that I think I've found something illogical in your position and am simply refusing to share it.

What you said before implies that you've found illogic in every position on God's existence but the one you have, no?

As Hugh Nibley (widely thought of as the greatest LDS scholar who has ever lived) once noted: The first rule of scholarship [is]: You are never playing with a full deck. You never know how much evidence you may be missing, what it is, or where it is hiding. What counters that and saves the day for scholarship is what I have called the "Gas Law of Learning," namely, that any amount of knowledge, no matter how small, will fill any vacuum of ignorance, no matter how large. He who knows one or two facts can honestly claim to know at least something about a subject, and nobody knows everything."

Nibley wasn't saying that it's just scientists who don't know everything. Religionists don't either. None of us do. None of us are playing with a full deck.

I'm guessing that Nibley wasn't a statistician.

Most disciplines of scholarship have ways to examine the facts and ask "based on what we know, how confident should we be in our conclusion?" If they're being honest and ethical, the answer will often be "not very" or sometimes "we don't have the first clue".

I agree that our knowledge is very limited, but again, this is something that speaks against theism... or at least religion. Remember: religion normally isn't just tentatively accepting God as the leading option that's subject to change; it's normally a matter of devoting one's life to the truth of the claim. "Gas law of learning" or not, that's an unreasonable thing to do when someone recognizes that their conclusion is uncertain.

 

[Katzpur]

I agree. The thought experiment is only establishing the existence of god to an atheist, and the goal is not to determine God's nature.

I'm just saying that theists might also disbelieve the evidence as well, if not more so, than atheists. They have specific beliefs about a god to compare it to, and if they don't match, they could be more inclined to be atheistic about that god, as opposed to their own.

For an atheist like me, with nothing already accepted as God, believing the event for what it seems to be is credible as is.

Does that seem reasonable? Do you think theists would reject the evidence of this thought experiment as well?

I'm actually not absolutely sure I'm understanding you. I probably should not have been using the word "theists." I was thinking specifically of the Abrahamic God, and perhaps even more specifically, of Christianity's understanding of Him. I can't imagine Christians disbelieving the evidence, but maybe I don't understand what you're getting at. I'd say that most Christians believe in a personal God who answers prayers. As exaggerated as my example was, I think that most Christians would be inclined to see the results as very strong evidence that they were right.

 

[Kuzcotopia]

I'm actually not absolutely sure I'm understanding you. I probably should not have been using the word "theists." I was thinking specifically of the Abrahamic God, and perhaps even more specifically, of Christianity's understanding of Him. I can't imagine Christians disbelieving the evidence, but maybe I don't understand what you're getting at. I'd say that most Christians believe in a personal God who answers prayers. As exaggerated as my example was, I think that most Christians would be inclined to see the results as very strong evidence that they were right.

Yes, right that they are proven right that there is a god and that he is the abrahamic god. But not necessarily the god that they are familiar with.

I know you don 't want to talk about the nature of god in your hypothetical, and I don't either. That said:

An atheist who accepts the evidence still must spend a great deal of time
trying to understand the nature of that god without preconceptions.

A theist may already understand the nature of their god, but the evidence they see may contradict their understanding of his nature.

I just think the theist might have a harder time.

 

[Katzpur]

Me neither, and I see this as a strike against theism.

Of course you do and that's because it's important to you to be right. If it's a strike against theism, so be it. It's not a strike against my theism because it doesn't challenge it in the slightest and because I'm not looking for any kind of a "victory."

"Nasty" and "delicious" describe aesthetic preferences. If you don't want me to think of your belief as an aesthetic preference, why are you using this analogy?

Okay, so let's go with this analogy. Why do some people like chocolate and some don't? (Chocolate may not be the best example. Do some people really not like chocolate?) I'm looking for an actual explanation.

IMO, making claims about God's nature or his plans while his mere existence is still an open question is putting the cart before the horse.

And this is why I don't like to get into discussions of this sort with atheists. When I debate someone, it's important to me that we at least have some common ground. If I'm debating other Christians, for example, we can start by what we agree on and then move to what we disagree on. If we're talking about the Trinity (or the supposed three-in-one nature of God believed by most Christians), we can both draw from the same sources of information to make our arguments.

I agree that our knowledge is very limited, but again, this is something that speaks against theism... or at least religion. Remember: religion normally isn't just tentatively accepting God as the leading option that's subject to change; it's normally a matter of devoting one's life to the truth of the claim. "Gas law of learning" or not, that's an unreasonable thing to do when someone recognizes that their conclusion is uncertain.

And how would my life be any better if I were not to devote it to a claim I very strongly believe in?