Should god-claims be taken seriously?

9-10ths_Penguin · Jan 15, 2021

IndigoChild5559 said:
It is a good analogy because both cases involve an evolved biologically based intuition. That means that this intuition is for our survival (or at least was at some time in our evolutionary past). That's why you shouldn't discount it.

The "evolutionary advantage" is that type I errors (false positives) can have less risk than type II errors (false negatives), so if you're going to make judgements about the world with error-prone heuristics, it's better to be biased toward type I errors instead of type II errors.

... but they're both still errors.

... and again: the argument still applies equally to dragons.

9-10ths_Penguin · Jan 15, 2021

IndigoChild5559 said:
My argument is for the benefit of respecting an intuition.

My intuition tells me that god-belief is foolish nonsense.

The only hope you have of getting me to take your belief system seriously is by getting me to set my intuition aside and appeal to carefully thought-out reason.

... though this would only work if carefully thought-out reason supports your beliefs.

Heyo · Jan 16, 2021

IndigoChild5559 said:
It is a good analogy because both cases involve an evolved biologically based intuition. That means that this intuition is for our survival (or at least was at some time in our evolutionary past). That's why you shouldn't discount it.

That's exactly why I do discount it.
It was beneficial at some time in our evolutionary past. We have to get over it to progress.
(Or religion has to culturally evolve to a form that is compatible with our modern lifestyle.)

ratiocinator · Jan 16, 2021

ratiocinator said:
Why not?

As you've already pointed out, this 'agency intuition' is over-active (for good evolutionary reasons), so why believe it in this case unless you think there's a trickster, evil god, that "hides in the bushes" and then punishes us for not thinking it's there?

IndigoChild5559 said:
Why not? Because these intuitions have evolved for our survival. They are worth something. They should not be summarily dismissed.

You didn't actually address my points. They evolved for survival, rather than accuracy, so why take them seriously in this case (unless you think god might be an evil trickster)?

IndigoChild5559 · Jan 17, 2021

ratiocinator said:
You didn't actually address my points. They evolved for survival, rather than accuracy, so why take them seriously in this case (unless you think god might be an evil trickster)?

I did address your concern. Survival is a point that is worth something. Don't dismiss it so casually.

IndigoChild5559 · Jan 17, 2021

9-10ths_Penguin said:
My intuition tells me that god-belief is foolish nonsense.

I have no problem with you being an atheist, Penguin. I think some people through no fault of their own simply have a damaged God-radar. How can you be blamed for not having the intuition? You can't. I appreciate the fact that atheists live moral lives despite the lack of a deity.

ratiocinator · Jan 17, 2021

IndigoChild5559 said:
I did address your concern. Survival is a point that is worth something. Don't dismiss it so casually.

But how exactly do you think it applies here? We know this intuition is inaccurate (it's heavily biased towards false positives in order to avoid false negatives). Unless you think there might be an evil trickster god out there, why do you think we should go with a primitive, inaccurate, intuition, evolved for survival in a particular environment on earth, rather than reason and evidence, when it comes to questions like god?

We already know our intuitions fail spectacularly when we go out of their context: travelling very fast and very strong gravity (relativity) and even more so when dealing with the very small (quantum mechanics). In fact they fail us in the everyday modern world all the time, leading to endless cognitive biases and being terrible at dealing with randomness and statistics.

ppp · Jan 17, 2021

IndigoChild5559 said:
I did address your concern. Survival is a point that is worth something. Don't dismiss it so casually.

As you are talking about survival then you are not addressing his point. The world is full of peoples who have survived and flourished despite being wrong. Societies that kill the second twin on the basis that it's a demon survived. They were still wrong. Both incorrect, and immoral in that action.

You are adding false weight to survival.

9-10ths_Penguin · Jan 17, 2021

IndigoChild5559 said:
I have no problem with you being an atheist, Penguin. I think some people through no fault of their own simply have a damaged God-radar. How can you be blamed for not having the intuition? You can't. I appreciate the fact that atheists live moral lives despite the lack of a deity.

Exactly how would one tell the difference between "God-radar" and pareidolia?

In any case, I noticed that you chopped off the last part of my post. Nobody's intuition is that reliable. If we're interested in actually, reliably discerning fact from fiction, we have tools to do it.

When someone comes along and tells me that I should just trust my intuition instead of considering something carefully, I take this as a signal that the person is trying to con me.

And now you come along and suggest that I should disregard not only careful investigation but also my own intuition and instead trust your intuition...

You're trying to sell me a bill of goods. Not only is this is not the argument of someone who has good reasons for their beliefs; it's the argument of someone who knows they don't have good reasons for their beliefs.

The only reason I don't necessarily think that you're deliberately trying to scam me is that I recognize the possibility that you're just repeating the arguments of whoever scammed you.

IndigoChild5559 · Jan 17, 2021

9-10ths_Penguin said:
In any case, I noticed that you chopped off the last part of my post. Nobody's intuition is that reliable. If we're interested in actually, reliably discerning fact from fiction, we have tools to do it.

I keep only the part(s) of a post that I directly reply to. It helps to keep things simple.

Intuition is not as reliable a reasoning or scientific method. But there are times when these two do not reach conclusions. For example, in the case of the existence of God, they neither prove nor disprove, and one is left in a position of agnosticism--hardly a good place to be. In such a case, it is then perfectly reasonable to turn to intuition as a helpful determiner, despite the fact that it is sometimes unreliable, because intuition is good for survival (IOW it is helpful for us in other ways).

I am not asking you to trust MY intuition. LIke I said, I am fine with you being an atheist. I completely understand why you are one, and I don't expect anything different. There is no scam here, no con.

IndigoChild5559 · Jan 17, 2021

ratiocinator said:
But how exactly do you think it applies here? We know this intuition is inaccurate (it's heavily biased towards false positives in order to avoid false negatives).

1. They are not always inaccurate
2. They are HELPFUL

I'm simply saying that when reasoning and scientific method do not provide a solution, as with the existence of God, that it is okay to turn to intuition.

ratiocinator · Jan 18, 2021

IndigoChild5559 said:
I'm simply saying that when reasoning and scientific method do not provide a solution, as with the existence of God, that it is okay to turn to intuition.

But reasoning and science find no good reason at all to take any of the thousands of god-ideas seriously, we also know that intuitions are both often inaccurate and break down completely when applied out of context, so jumping to the conclusion that we can use it as a basis to believe in some god based on some vague intuition about 'design' (that only some people have anyway) is, as far as I can see, simply irrational.

ppp · Jan 18, 2021

IndigoChild5559 said:
I'm simply saying that when reasoning and scientific method do not provide a solution, as with the existence of God, that it is okay to turn to intuition.

Only if you don't care whether or not your beliefs are true.

IndigoChild5559 · Jan 18, 2021

ratiocinator said:
But reasoning and science find no good reason at all to take any of the thousands of god-ideas seriously, we also know that intuitions are both often inaccurate and break down completely when applied out of context, so jumping to the conclusion that we can use it as a basis to believe in some god based on some vague intuition about 'design' (that only some people have anyway) is, as far as I can see, simply irrational.

Reasoning and scientific method ALSO do not disprove the existence of God.

Therefore it is a good idea to lean on one's intuition, wherever that leads you.

ratiocinator · Jan 19, 2021

IndigoChild5559 said:
Reasoning and scientific method ALSO do not disprove the existence of God.

I know, they don't disprove a very large proportion of the thousands of gods people have and do believe in, nor do they disprove fairies, alien abductions, vampires, ghosts, or invisible elves called Eric that steal people's socks.

IndigoChild5559 said:
Therefore it is a good idea to lean on one's intuition, wherever that leads you.

No, it isn't - it's irrational. We know that intuition is inaccurate at best and totally breaks down out of its context - and that is way, way out of its context. Which god would you choose anyway? If you have an intuition that you're being haunted, might be abducted by aliens, that some agency must be behind your missing socks, then should you also just believe in ghosts aliens, and elves called Eric?

9-10ths_Penguin · Jan 19, 2021

IndigoChild5559 said:
Reasoning and scientific method ALSO do not disprove the existence of God.

Do you have any arguments for God that don't work just as well for dragons?

IndigoChild5559 · Jan 19, 2021

9-10ths_Penguin said:
Do you have any arguments for God that don't work just as well for dragons?

I've already answered this. a dragon is a material being, and as such we would expect to find material evidence. But there is none. This is not the case with God. You cannot compare God and dragons.

ppp · Jan 19, 2021

9-10ths_Penguin said:
Do you have any arguments for God that don't work just as well for dragons?

IndigoChild5559 said:
I've already answered this. a dragon is a material being, and as such we would expect to find material evidence. But there is none. This is not the case with God. You cannot compare God and dragons.

So remove "dragon" and substitute any sprite, geist, daemon, demon, kami, tulpa, or elemental, non-material god. His point stands.

IndigoChild5559 · Jan 19, 2021

Joe W said:
So remove "dragon" and substitute any sprite, geist, daemon, demon, kami, tulpa, or elemental, non-material god. His point stands.

Yes, in those cases it would. So?

ppp · Jan 19, 2021

IndigoChild5559 said:
God claims are a lot like intuiting a predator in the rustling bushes. Our intuition has developed a knack for seeing agency, sometimes when no agency is there. The thing is, though, that if you talk to yourself rationally (Oh those rustling bushes are just the wind) you are more likely to end up dead, which is why the intuition evolved in the first place. One of the things we intuit is seeing a designer behind design. It doesn't PROVE it. But like with the rustling bushes, its really not a good idea to discount it either.

IndigoChild5559 said:
Yes, in those cases it would. So?

So, it makes 'God' interchangeable with any non-existent non-corporeal that someone has made up.

Should god-claims be taken seriously?

1/10 Subway Stalinist

1/10 Subway Stalinist

Veteran Member

Lightly seared on the reality grill.

Loving God and my neighbor as myself.

Loving God and my neighbor as myself.

Lightly seared on the reality grill.

Well-Known Member

1/10 Subway Stalinist

Loving God and my neighbor as myself.

Loving God and my neighbor as myself.

Lightly seared on the reality grill.

Well-Known Member

Loving God and my neighbor as myself.

Lightly seared on the reality grill.

1/10 Subway Stalinist

Loving God and my neighbor as myself.

Well-Known Member

Loving God and my neighbor as myself.

Well-Known Member