What would falsify your paradigm?

[mikkel_the_dane]

From page 2:

I think that God's existence or non-existence is, strictly speaking, neither verifiable nor falsifiable (it runs into the invisible gardener problem, and the epistemological problem of fallible beings being unable to test for omniscience). It is similar to solipsism, the existence of p-zombies, or the existence of the past in that regard.

This is why I think belief in God (as bare theism) is best considered from the point of view of reasonableness + balance of probability.

ie - to believe in God, as I do, I must be convinced that such a concept is reasonable (logically coherent, has some explanatory power) and is at least equal to, but preferably more likely (however slightly) than the alternative (God does not exist).

Psychologically, I also am aware that I favour beliefs with benefits and which are optimistic, so I will tend to more readily commit to a belief that is pragmatic and joyful than one that is difficult and depressing, given a roughly equal balance of probabilities or a choice between similar balanced/evidence paradigms.

To convince me to abandon belief in God, then, I would simply need to be shown evidence/arguments that either rendered theism incoherent or which pushed the probability of God obviously below half (or just less than half if it could also be shown it was non-pragmatic and/or depressing).

#28 Galateasdream, Tuesday at 1:58 PM

You can't assign a probability to the unknown. I.e. you can't solve solipsism in the epistemological sense and for what objective reality is, you can either reject it as unknowable or believe with faith. With faith in the end is all strong positve metaphysical claims

 

[blü 2]

From page 2:

I think that God's existence or non-existence is, strictly speaking, neither verifiable nor falsifiable (it runs into the invisible gardener problem, and the epistemological problem of fallible beings being unable to test for omniscience). It is similar to solipsism, the existence of p-zombies, or the existence of the past in that regard.

This is why I think belief in God (as bare theism) is best considered from the point of view of reasonableness + balance of probability.

ie - to believe in God, as I do, I must be convinced that such a concept is reasonable (logically coherent, has some explanatory power) and is at least equal to, but preferably more likely (however slightly) than the alternative (God does not exist).

Psychologically, I also am aware that I favour beliefs with benefits and which are optimistic, so I will tend to more readily commit to a belief that is pragmatic and joyful than one that is difficult and depressing, given a roughly equal balance of probabilities or a choice between similar balanced/evidence paradigms.

To convince me to abandon belief in God, then, I would simply need to be shown evidence/arguments that either rendered theism incoherent or which pushed the probability of God obviously below half (or just less than half if it could also be shown it was non-pragmatic and/or depressing).

#28 Galateasdream, Tuesday at 1:58 PM

If I'm right in thinking you say there are two levels to this, then I agree. On the one hand, belief in gods may be an evolved trait, good for tribal solidarity, or perhaps only an artifact of the question/solution nature of the human brain. On the other hand, philosophically there's no definition of a real god, such that if we found a suspect we could determine whether it was God or not, but instead a whole lot of definitions that only work for imaginary gods, consistent with what we see in the world and in history.

 

[blü 2]

I am capable of using my own mind to work out the logical definitions of these terms, and of explaining to others why and how I have done so. So I don't have to rely blindly on the propaganda posted by liars and fools on the internet.

Thank goodness there are no fools or liars at RF!

 

[Galateasdream]

If I'm right in thinking you say there are two levels to this, then I agree. On the one hand, belief in gods may be an evolved trait, good for tribal solidarity, or perhaps only an artifact of the question/solution nature of the human brain. On the other hand, philosophically there's no definition of a real god, such that if we found a suspect we could determine whether it was God or not, but instead a whole lot of definitions that only work for imaginary gods, consistent with what we see in the world and in history.

I don't think that's what I was saying.

I think philosophically one can define 'God' how one wishes - that's not an issue. Justifying belief in the then defined entities existence is the hard bit

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

From the American Atheist Association:

"Atheism is one thing: A lack of belief in gods.
Atheism is not an affirmative belief that there is no god nor does it answer any other question about what a person believes. It is simply a rejection of the assertion that there are gods. Atheism is too often defined incorrectly as a belief system. To be clear: Atheism is not a disbelief in gods or a denial of gods; it is a lack of belief in gods.

Older dictionaries define atheism as “a belief that there is no God.” Clearly, theistic influence taints these definitions. The fact that dictionaries define Atheism as “there is no God” betrays the (mono)theistic influence. Without the (mono)theistic influence, the definition would at least read “there are no gods.”

Atheism is not a belief system nor is it a religion.
While there are some religions that are atheistic (certain sects of Buddhism, for example), that does not mean that atheism is a religion. To put it in a more humorous way: If atheism is a religion, then not collecting stamps is a hobby."

What is Atheism? | American Atheists

I think these guys know what they are talking about more than you do.

Yeah, that is right. Now if an atheist speak about more that her/his actual lack of belief in gods as such, then that the person is an atheist is irrelevant because it is then not about atheism.

E.g. An atheist: I don't like religion
Me: That has nothing to do with you being an atheist as per the definition of atheism.

That is what always happens in practice. An atheist speak of more than the lack of belief and then point out that other atheists are not representative of atheism for other beliefs that the lack of beliefs in gods. No atheist can speak about anything other that the lack of belief, yet a lot of them seem to do that.

I can find threads for you, where an atheist does that and other atheists agree, yet atheists only share a lack of belief in gods

I am religious, but that tells you in effect nothing, other than I believe in something. It doesn't even tell you if it is supernatural.

Some atheists use the above definition as a defense mechanism.
I.e. I can justify my views of the world as an atheist beyond being an atheist, but that has not to do with me being an atheist.
Yeah, not all atheists do that, but some do with a straight face.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

If I'm right in thinking you say there are two levels to this, then I agree. On the one hand, belief in gods may be an evolved trait, good for tribal solidarity, or perhaps only an artifact of the question/solution nature of the human brain. On the other hand, philosophically there's no definition of a real god, such that if we found a suspect we could determine whether it was God or not, but instead a whole lot of definitions that only work for imaginary gods, consistent with what we see in the world and in history.

Yeah, philosophically "God" is a placeholder for "objective reality independent of the mind" or another similar version.

 

[blü 2]

I don't think that's what I was saying.

I think philosophically one can define 'God' how one wishes - that's not an issue. Justifying belief in the then defined entities existence is the hard bit

When the whole tribe's doin' it, and so's the tribe next door, and the one up the road too, and scientific method is a few millennia in the future, maybe it wouldn't be so hard ...

 

[Galateasdream]

When the whole tribe's doin' it, and so's the tribe next door, and the one up the road too, and scientific method is a few millennia in the future, maybe it wouldn't be so hard ...

Sure. But somewhat irrelevant for me and what would falsify my particular POV.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

When the whole tribe's doin' it, and so's the tribe next door, and the one up the road too, and scientific method is a few millennia in the future, maybe it wouldn't be so hard ...

The bit about a true justified belief is that in the end, it is all beliefs. No one has solved Agrippa's trilemma or epistemological solipsism with knowledge as a true justified belief. Knowledge is in practice what apparently seems to work.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Sure. But somewhat irrelevant for me and what would falsify my particular POV.

I can do that, falsify it for you. I am skeptic, so that is easy for me. In practice it doesn't matter because of cognitive relativism.

Does your POV work for you? If yes, then that is it in practice.

 

[Galateasdream]

I can do that, falsify it for you.

A different thread, perhaps. But help yourself

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

A different thread, perhaps. But help yourself

No, don't want to start a new thread about that or find another.

And no, unless you accept it here, I won't as it pertains to you. You are religious and I apply a double standard between traditional religion and new atheism. I know that and I will treat you differently than a "diehard" atheist.

 

[Galateasdream]

No, don't want to start a new thread about that or find another.

And no, unless you accept it here, I won't as it pertains to you. You are religious and I apply a double standard between traditional religion and new atheism. I know that and I will treat you differently than a "diehard" atheist.

OK

 

[PruePhillip]

Sure, but Job is an out and out morality tale, not a piece of history (giving us the problem that we're glad it's not history, but appalled by the morality).
Indeed, why not? An excellent point.

I am not sure what new information you have on Job.
But IF (that's a big word) some author made up the
story then what do you think he/she meant by this
reference to the Redeemer? Do you think it references
other Redeemer prophecies in the bible?

 

[PruePhillip]

Back to morality and hate versus truth of "objective" facts.
The truth of gravity is not the same truth as whether is wrong to kill another human? Yes or no?

Is it wrong to kill another human? Not sure about that.
A Muslim was released from prison in England. He was followed
by plain clothed policeman. they shot him within seconds of him
stabbing people in the street. I am okay with that.
And two weeks ago a man shot two security personnel in a church
in America and was gunned down within 30 seconds. Good shot
I say.
What do YOU think?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Is it wrong to kill another human? Not sure about that.
A Muslim was released from prison in England. He was followed
by plain clothed policeman. they shot him within seconds of him
stabbing people in the street. I am okay with that.
And two weeks ago a man shot two security personnel in a church
in America and was gunned down within 30 seconds. Good shot
I say.
What do YOU think?

It doesn't matter what I think or rather feel as long as you apparently understand that as the same truth as gravity as true. You are using in effect an appeal to emotion.
Emotions can be true, but not true as gravity is true.

There is no truth, because there is no single truth. We don't disagree about truth as such, we disagree if there is one truth or several versions of truth.

 

[PruePhillip]

It doesn't matter what I think or rather feel as long as you apparently understand that as the same truth as gravity as true. You are using in effect an appeal to emotion.
Emotions can be true, but not true as gravity is true.

There is no truth, because there is no single truth. We don't disagree about truth as such, we disagree if there is one truth or several versions of truth.

You are either right or wrong.
But with two truths you can be right and right?
My definition of truth is that it incorporates all the facts about
an issue, event or yourself. You can have many facts, but one
truth.

 

[PruePhillip]

, the author of that part of Isaiah was talking about the Suffering Servant, who stands for the nation of Israel as it was in that author's time, and has nothing to do with the future or with Jesus. I mean, that isn't even controversial.

There is no religious doctrine in the entirety of the Jewish people where
some Jews die for the sins of the rest of the Jews - and are then resurrected
and see the fruits of their suffering.
And yet a Medieval rabbi invoke this theory to explain away one of the many
suffering servant verses in the bible - and no-one asks the obvious question,
"where did this doctrine come from?" and "why is the doctrine here in Isaiah
and nowhere else?"

 

[blü 2]

The bit about a true justified belief is that in the end, it is all beliefs. No one has solved Agrippa's trilemma or epistemological solipsism with knowledge as a true justified belief. Knowledge is in practice what apparently seems to work.

I suspect we're in substantial agreement ─ if there are absolute truths, we have no access to them, and truth (by which I mean correspondence with objective reality) is, should it come to the test, a matter of the consensus of best opinions for the time being. In short, it was once true that the world was flat and the stars went round it, but now it isn't.

This is where pragmatics cuts in ─ what we're doing with reasoned enquiry, of which scientific method is a major subset, pays off. Our versions of truth in a great many areas are consequently more rewarding in our terms than they used to be, and nothing discourages us from keeping on keeping on.

 

[Peter Son]

There is no religious doctrine in the entirety of the Jewish people where
some Jews die for the sins of the rest of the Jews - and are then resurrected
and see the fruits of their suffering.
And yet a Medieval rabbi invoke this theory to explain away one of the many
suffering servant verses in the bible - and no-one asks the obvious question,
"where did this doctrine come from?" and "why is the doctrine here in Isaiah
and nowhere else?"

Exactly!