The reason why atheists and believers will never agree of God.

[epronovost]

And I would say this reasoning you have is why you are an atheist. Faith in these sages and their divine message is central to Hinduism; it is Hinduism. (Correct me if I’m wrong anybody!)
You disagree with the premise of religion in general. That’s how I’m interpreting your response. To be a Hindu is believing that these sages speak wisdom, and meditation is how they believe it is demonstrable.

Of course it requires faith in those divine messages to be a Hindu, but those sages and their divine messages do not represent an epistemological avenue based on testimony. They are divine revelations you have to believe on faith alone.

 

[AlexanderG]

Let’s use Christians as an example, now. I myself believe that the Bible is authentic because it says it is authentic. This is a valid way of verifying it, as I believe it to be directly from God. This isn’t just some cop out, trying to talk a way out of philosophically defending my position. That has been the assertion I’ve seen on this site. The notion that “word/testimony” is a valid means to attain true knowledge is a thoroughly developed epistemological concept. It is not a cop out.

Can you really not understand how "It says it's true so it must be true" is a completely flawed way to reach actually true conclusions? It is the textbook definition of circular reasoning, which is demonstrably fallacious. Appling this epistemology directly leads to logical contradictions and incoherent beliefs. No rational atheist, or any rational person for that matter, should get near this horribly deficient epistemology.

This notion I disagree with. The Christian can very easily point to apologetics as physical evidence of the authenticity of the Bible. As for the OP, I was hoping to demonstrate that there is a developed philosophy on the idea of testimony being valid.

Words about concepts are not physical evidence. Under no definition of "physical" could this be the case. Apologetics are baseless speculation at best, and unverified hypotheses at best. There can be an infinite number of hypotheses to explain any phenomenon, and the tool that distinguishes the real one from all the other imaginary ones is empirical evidence. You need to point to a verifiable part of reality that matches up with your idea. I don't see it for theism. I'm currently aware of no physical or empirical evidence that specifically confirms any god claims to the exclusion of all the other imaginary ideas.

You and I do agree that atheists and theists disagree because we have different epistemologies. We have reliable tools to distinguish between imaginary things and things that are likely real. Theists do not, and so belief in theistic claims is neither warranted nor rational according to atheists. I don't understand why you believe it, because all the reasons you give seem unreliable, fallacious, and imaginary.

 

[Jeremiah Ames]

I’ve made a couple of threads about “proving God”, and have read through similar threads. I would like to state an observation. There is a fundamental reason why there will always be disagreement.
First, definitions. Epistemology is the theory of knowledge. The theory of pramanas is ancient Hindu epistemology. Epistemology deals with discovering what are valid ways to attain true knowledge. Each pramana deals with a separate way true knowledge can be attained.
In total, the Hindus theorized six different pramanas, with the varying schools accepting different ones as valid. Three central pramanas which are almost universally accepted, which are perception (Sanskrit pratyakṣa), inference (anumāna), and "word", meaning the testimonyof past or present reliable experts (Śabda); and more contentious ones, which are comparison and analogy (upamāna), postulation, derivation from circumstances (arthāpatti), and non-perception, negative/cognitive proof (anupalabdhi).
For this thread, I will be focusing on the pramana of “word or testimony”.
The Hindus argued that receiving knowledge directly from God is a valid means to attain true knowledge. As God is the source of all knowledge, information gotten from God is reliable and true. For Hindus, this would apply to their Vedic literature. For a Christian, the Bible. Interestingly, Buddhism does not see this pramana as a valid means to attain knowledge.
Let’s use Christians as an example, now. I myself believe that the Bible is authentic because it says it is authentic. This is a valid way of verifying it, as I believe it to be directly from God. This isn’t just some cop out, trying to talk a way out of philosophically defending my position. That has been the assertion I’ve seen on this site. The notion that “word/testimony” is a valid means to attain true knowledge is a thoroughly developed epistemological concept. It is not a cop out.
So! The believer believes in this pramana. The atheist does not (I’m not atheist, but I assume). Because of this, no matter how much debating is done, no one will ever be moved, I think. It all depends on whether or not you believe testimony is a valid means to attain pure knowledge.
Well for my part, I’m done debating whether God is real. I suppose one could use Bible apologetics to try to prove the Bible in a “scientific” way, but will it ever be satisfactory? Like, the site of Jericho. The Christian will say, “It is archeologically dated to the Biblical date!” And the atheist will say “No, it’s a later date!” Each side can find evidence supporting their beliefs.

ideas:

believing the Bible is a history book, or a science book = ridiculously lame

God is spirit, trying to prove spirit in a material world = not possible? =. Why would you want to? =. what do you gain?

atheist beliefs are their choice and are perfectly fine, whether right or wrong = why do Christians feel they need to change them? = mind your own business?

christians beliefs are their choice and perfectly fine, whether right or wrong = do atheists try to change them? =. I don’t think so

 

[danieldemol]

The Hindus argued that receiving knowledge directly from God is a valid means to attain true knowledge. As God is the source of all knowledge, information gotten from God is reliable and true. For Hindus, this would apply to their Vedic literature. For a Christian, the Bible.

Why do you consider the Vedas and the Bible as being "directly from God" as opposed to having been recieved through the lens of a number of middlemen?

In my opinion.

 

[The Kilted Heathen]

Ah, monoliths...

Obviously some Atheists agree with Theists, as they convert to various religions and find faith. And obviously some Theists agree with Atheists, and lose their faith.

 

[Nimos]

So! The believer believes in this pramana. The atheist does not (I’m not atheist, but I assume). Because of this, no matter how much debating is done, no one will ever be moved, I think.

A quick question....

Have you ever heard of or think its possible for anyone being religious to become an atheist? similarly have you ever heard of an atheist that became religious?

If you have, do you think you assumption: "Because of this, no matter how much debating is done, no one will ever be moved, I think" is correct or not?

 

[an anarchist]

A quick question....

Have you ever heard of or think its possible for anyone being religious to become an atheist? similarly have you ever heard of an atheist that became religious?

If you have, do you think you assumption: "Because of this, no matter how much debating is done, no one will ever be moved, I think" is correct or not?

People could be moved through the means of debate, you’re right. I suppose the point that I would rather be making is that I think there is a better use of our energy. Atheists and believers should rather be debating how to better the common good, and working together to do so. To debate whether God is real or not seems like a moot point to me.
Whether someone believes or not is based entirely on their subjective experience. How is it any persons place to assume they’re right?

 

[an anarchist]

Why do you consider the Vedas and the Bible as being "directly from God" as opposed to having been recieved through the lens of a number of middlemen?

In my opinion.

Based on the feeling I have when I read them. Simply that

 

[danieldemol]

Based on the feeling I have when I read them. Simply that

Fair enough, but I would like to draw your attention to the fact that many believers do not share this feeling with you.

In my opinion.

 

[Nimos]

People could be moved through the means of debate, you’re right. I suppose the point that I would rather be making is that I think there is a better use of our energy. Atheists and believers should rather be debating how to better the common good, and working together to do so. To debate whether God is real or not seems like a moot point to me.
Whether someone believes or not is based entirely on their subjective experience. How is it any persons place to assume they’re right?

I think its depends, we all like to be right about the reality in which we exist, that in itself should not be an irrelevant question. Also a lot of peoples lives are affect by whether they believe one thing or the other. I agree that on a larger scale our discussions here on RF are not changing the world as such, but at least it makes people communicate across religious beliefs and those without.

We all have the right to believe in what we do as being correct and to be honest I don't think we have much of a choice, because if we didn't it would be difficult to hold such believe in the first place. I do however think the question is if such belief is sound or not.

 

[firedragon]

I’ve made a couple of threads about “proving God”, and have read through similar threads. I would like to state an observation. There is a fundamental reason why there will always be disagreement.
First, definitions. Epistemology is the theory of knowledge. The theory of pramanas is ancient Hindu epistemology. Epistemology deals with discovering what are valid ways to attain true knowledge. Each pramana deals with a separate way true knowledge can be attained.
In total, the Hindus theorized six different pramanas, with the varying schools accepting different ones as valid. Three central pramanas which are almost universally accepted, which are perception (Sanskrit pratyakṣa), inference (anumāna), and "word", meaning the testimonyof past or present reliable experts (Śabda); and more contentious ones, which are comparison and analogy (upamāna), postulation, derivation from circumstances (arthāpatti), and non-perception, negative/cognitive proof (anupalabdhi).
For this thread, I will be focusing on the pramana of “word or testimony”.
The Hindus argued that receiving knowledge directly from God is a valid means to attain true knowledge. As God is the source of all knowledge, information gotten from God is reliable and true. For Hindus, this would apply to their Vedic literature. For a Christian, the Bible. Interestingly, Buddhism does not see this pramana as a valid means to attain knowledge.
Let’s use Christians as an example, now. I myself believe that the Bible is authentic because it says it is authentic. This is a valid way of verifying it, as I believe it to be directly from God. This isn’t just some cop out, trying to talk a way out of philosophically defending my position. That has been the assertion I’ve seen on this site. The notion that “word/testimony” is a valid means to attain true knowledge is a thoroughly developed epistemological concept. It is not a cop out.
So! The believer believes in this pramana. The atheist does not (I’m not atheist, but I assume). Because of this, no matter how much debating is done, no one will ever be moved, I think. It all depends on whether or not you believe testimony is a valid means to attain pure knowledge.
Well for my part, I’m done debating whether God is real. I suppose one could use Bible apologetics to try to prove the Bible in a “scientific” way, but will it ever be satisfactory? Like, the site of Jericho. The Christian will say, “It is archeologically dated to the Biblical date!” And the atheist will say “No, it’s a later date!” Each side can find evidence supporting their beliefs.

By the way, there could be some atheists who believe in the Christian God himself. Almost 1 out of 5 atheists in the U.S believe in a higher power. It could be, that out of them, some percentage of atheists do believe in the Christian God. So this is not so clear cut.

Nevertheless I must say that you brought in Hindu Philosophy. I do not agree that an atheist cannot have similar epistemological principles as the Pramanas, because they can. I think the Pramana was not given a proper translation. The problem with translating these things is that many people look for single words to translate another language into English. That approach has many flaws.

For example, you had given a translation of pratyaksa as perception. Thats not entirely correct.

Lets say Pramana. One has to understand what it means. You know when some one tells you that they have a load of sugar and they want you to buy it, you ask "how much of sugar do you have"? That means you want to know the weight of it. Without it, every discussion is useless. You have to know how much there is. This extends to how many, how vast, how small, how long, depth, width, height, you name it. This is Pramana. But the thing is, some Hindus seem to have made it a spiritual, God worshiping matter. I believe that approach of making this something supernatural loses its meaning, especially to an atheist. I also think it is not something supernatural and is simple for any human being.

Pratyaksa is to have a certain level of definition. What I mean is your epistemology carries a definite state. A kind of certitude, not absolute certainty, but an approach of it. So you perceive things through things or means that have a quality of certitude. This has been spiritualised and as a concept most Hindus believe its the perceptive ability one could have to gain knowledge from the supernatural which is not exactly what the word means, thus the philosophical value is lost, especially to an atheist.

Ill give you another example. You said Anumana. Anumana means to make an approximate estimation. Or how do I say this. Lets say you are driving down the road, its a straight road, and there is a fog, so you can't really see the road, but there is a yellow line on the side of the road that indicates "its this way". So you kind of know where you are heading to so you keep driving slowly with an "Anumana". So basically you as an intellectual person use other signs, indications, knowledge, and things you can use to understand how to get that knowledge you require about something. Basically using your intellect, your reasoning prowess. Not blind faith.

Any atheist can follow this easily.

Your main issue was Sabda. I am not an expert in Hinduism because it is way too vast, but Sabda is not a universally accepted part of the Pramana principle of epistemology. Sabda in its essence means sound. An utterance. Conceptually this means the utterance of someone who has already attained this knowledge of whatever you are seeking. If you want you can turn this into word of God, some spiritual matter etc. But it is necessarily not so. An atheist can easily follow this for his epistemology. In fact I think that the Hindu philosophy is a very good framework for any human being. I will not say "even to an atheist" but I would say "especially to an atheist". Just take it as philosophy.

Peace.

 

[firedragon]

You misused your own epistemology. Testimonial is only a valid epistemology if the testimonial is derived from a credible source with access to said knowledge

IN Hindu philosophy that's exactly what that means. Exactly. Ironically I had addressed this in a post if you may. Probably the immediate post prior to this one.

 

[sayak83]

I’ve made a couple of threads about “proving God”, and have read through similar threads. I would like to state an observation. There is a fundamental reason why there will always be disagreement.
First, definitions. Epistemology is the theory of knowledge. The theory of pramanas is ancient Hindu epistemology. Epistemology deals with discovering what are valid ways to attain true knowledge. Each pramana deals with a separate way true knowledge can be attained.
In total, the Hindus theorized six different pramanas, with the varying schools accepting different ones as valid. Three central pramanas which are almost universally accepted, which are perception (Sanskrit pratyakṣa), inference (anumāna), and "word", meaning the testimonyof past or present reliable experts (Śabda); and more contentious ones, which are comparison and analogy (upamāna), postulation, derivation from circumstances (arthāpatti), and non-perception, negative/cognitive proof (anupalabdhi).
For this thread, I will be focusing on the pramana of “word or testimony”.
The Hindus argued that receiving knowledge directly from God is a valid means to attain true knowledge. As God is the source of all knowledge, information gotten from God is reliable and true. For Hindus, this would apply to their Vedic literature. For a Christian, the Bible. Interestingly, Buddhism does not see this pramana as a valid means to attain knowledge.
Let’s use Christians as an example, now. I myself believe that the Bible is authentic because it says it is authentic. This is a valid way of verifying it, as I believe it to be directly from God. This isn’t just some cop out, trying to talk a way out of philosophically defending my position. That has been the assertion I’ve seen on this site. The notion that “word/testimony” is a valid means to attain true knowledge is a thoroughly developed epistemological concept. It is not a cop out.
So! The believer believes in this pramana. The atheist does not (I’m not atheist, but I assume). Because of this, no matter how much debating is done, no one will ever be moved, I think. It all depends on whether or not you believe testimony is a valid means to attain pure knowledge.
Well for my part, I’m done debating whether God is real. I suppose one could use Bible apologetics to try to prove the Bible in a “scientific” way, but will it ever be satisfactory? Like, the site of Jericho. The Christian will say, “It is archeologically dated to the Biblical date!” And the atheist will say “No, it’s a later date!” Each side can find evidence supporting their beliefs.

Please note that in Nyaya, these are not axioms. These six ways have to be logically defended including whether a testimony is indeed from a reliable expert source. One cannot just decree by fiat that "this source is from God so its reliable". You have to show that this source is indeed from God before saying that its reliable because it comes from God. Presupposing reliability is not accepted as valid.

 

[an anarchist]

Please note that in Nyaya, these are not axioms. These six ways have to be logically defended including whether a testimony is indeed from a reliable expert source. One cannot just decree by fiat that "this source is from God so its reliable". You have to show that this source is indeed from God before saying that its reliable because it comes from God. Presupposing reliability is not accepted as valid.

Is a Christian belief that the Bible is a reliable expert source any different than a Hindu believing the Vedas to be so?

 

[sayak83]

Is a Christian belief that the Bible is a reliable expert source any different than a Hindu believing the Vedas to be so?

You are unlikely to find a single Hindu who believes all of the Vedas as literally true. The literalist school (Purva Mimansa) lost that debate and died out about 500-600 years ago. Most of Hinduism today focuses on the inner spiritual (adhyatmic) meanings and inspirations that lie behind the Vedic texts and rituals as initially proposed by the Upanisads and then the later Sutras. To quote the Gita here:-

The ignorant ones proclaim
This flowery discourse, Arjuna,
Delighting in the letter of the Veda
And saying, "There is nothing else."

The Vedas are such that their scope is
confined to the three qualities;
Be free from those three qualities,
Arjuna,
Indifferent toward the pairs of
opposites, eternally fixed in truth,
Free from thoughts of acquisition
and
comfort, and possessed of the Self.

As much value as there is in a well
When water is flooding on every side,
So much is the value in all the Vedas
For a brahman who knows.

Gita: 2:44-49

Please note. I do not believe these words of the Gita because its reliable by fiat. Reliability can only be judged by experience, analysis and practice.

 

[an anarchist]

You are unlikely to find a single Hindu who believes all of the Vedas as literally true. The literalist school (Purva Mimansa) lost that debate and died out about 500-600 years ago. Most of Hinduism today focuses on the inner spiritual (adhyatmic) meanings and inspirations that lie behind the Vedic texts and rituals as initially proposed by the Upanisads and then the later Sutras. To quote the Gita here:-

The ignorant ones proclaim
This flowery discourse, Arjuna,
Delighting in the letter of the Veda
And saying, "There is nothing else."

The Vedas are such that their scope is
confined to the three qualities;
Be free from those three qualities,
Arjuna,
Indifferent toward the pairs of
opposites, eternally fixed in truth,
Free from thoughts of acquisition
and
comfort, and possessed of the Self.

As much value as there is in a well
When water is flooding on every side,
So much is the value in all the Vedas
For a brahman who knows.

Gita: 2:44-49

Please note. I do not believe these words of the Gita because its reliable by fiat. Reliability can only be judged by experience, analysis and practice.

And it appears to me that belief in Biblical literalism is a dying belief too, I may be alone when it comes to that on this site
Still, even a Hindu who believes that a part of the Veda is testimonialy sound, let’s compare them to a Christian who believes in the Bible, but not so much as a Biblical literalist. Both can verify their preferred texts through their own experience, analysis, and practice. They’ll come to the separate conclusion that their sacred text is reliable testimony. There’s no difference, in this case for example, right?

 

[Deidre]

When we stop seeking ''agreement,'' things will be better. I think that theists and atheists often enter discussions feeling like it's a contest, or battle to be won. Maybe if we change our expectations, take in what the other person is saying, we will come away learning something. But, agreement doesn't need to be the goal, in my opinion.

 

[Mock Turtle]

I agree you can find evidence to dispute it. This is why I brought up Jericho. Upon personally reviewing the evidence and findings of Jericho, (through internet and books, nothing fancy) I believe that the archeological findings strongly support the Biblical narrative. Others believe that the findings discredit it. Hence me saying what’s the point debating the topic.
There is independent evidence of historical events recorded by the Bible. For example, the Jewish king Hezekiah has been verified as historical and the narrative of his struggles to be historical as well. The Bible says that when Hezekiah was king, all of Judah was taken over by Assyria, save Jerusalem. Hezekiah was trapped in Jerusalem for his reign. Recently, an Assyrian battle monument has been found, listing Hezekiah king of Judah on the list of defeated kings. It even describes his predicament, him being “caged in Jerusalem like a bird”

Even if some of the things in the Bible have historical evidence for such happening, that doesn't therefore mean that all is necessarily true, especially given that it is apparently not written by one individual but by many. I think you are letting your keenness to believe overtake your reasoning.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Let’s use Christians as an example, now. I myself believe that the Bible is authentic because it says it is authentic. This is a valid way of verifying it, as I believe it to be directly from God. This isn’t just some cop out, trying to talk a way out of philosophically defending my position. That has been the assertion I’ve seen on this site. The notion that “word/testimony” is a valid means to attain true knowledge is a thoroughly developed epistemological concept. It is not a cop out.

That's your choice, of course. But rather than imagining an atheist telling you that's not valid, this particular atheist would wonder how that means of determining validity doesn't just leave you with a bunch of 'valid' texts which don't all agree on the truth?

 

[sayak83]

And it appears to me that belief in Biblical literalism is a dying belief too, I may be alone when it comes to that on this site
Still, even a Hindu who believes that a part of the Veda is testimonialy sound, let’s compare them to a Christian who believes in the Bible, but not so much as a Biblical literalist. Both can verify their preferred texts through their own experience, analysis, and practice. They’ll come to the separate conclusion that their sacred text is reliable testimony. There’s no difference, in this case for example, right?

Yes. But a proper criteria of reliability of testimony has to be established first. I am not saying that testimonies from experts cannot be reliable or sources cannot be reliable. What I am saying there has to be a set of criteria which determines what is reliable and what is not. And we can discuss and debate on what this set of criteria should be. And this discussion or debate can include theists, atheists and other folks as well. There is no reason to believe that such a debate or a discussion will not be fruitful.