Support NeoGAF

[Mumbles]

Again, this is not to attempt to knock down the elaborate framework that science has constructed to explain the physical world, because like I said, it is a perfectly reasonable and valid worldview which coheres under even intense scrutiny. My point is that there is a much larger portion of our common existence which speaks to other conclusions (or at least is more amenable to these other conclusions than pure science is), which deserves to be given at least cursory consideration as well. In my personal estimation, all this other evidence is much more persuasive (not to mention greater in quantity).

Well, I'll say that I'm also not interested in digging into this discussion at great length (apart from having more interesting things to do, I'm also dyslexic, and so writing long dialogues is just far more trouble than it's worth). However, having also looked at history, comparative religion, philosophy, etc., I came to the exact opposite conclusion that you did. IOW, it's not that I think that science points against the existence of gods, and other fields towards it, but rather that I think that the evidence universally points against the existence of gods, or rather towards the concept of gods being entirely the creation of humans.

 

[XS+]

Ok, let's just get the fact that any notion of "wrong" or "right"-- that is, any moral schema, religious or secular-- is capable of being indicted by relativism....let's get that out of the way to start with. Any "standard" you can posit is arbitrary. Even the most persuasive moral arguments and ethical "systems" advanced by philosophers have been subject to relativistic critiques that have ultimately undermined the very "absolute terms" you here mention, whether it be a religious absolute (i.e., appeal to divine authority) or a secular absolute (i.e., logically derived morality, be it inductive or deductive).


The "process" that you here allude to (reasoning out right and wrong in the absence of religious dogma) is not exclusive to non-religious people. Personally, that's how I myself came to religion (more like faith- I don't go to church). I did a lot of thinking about life, and a lot of reading, from the ages of 16-21...in fact, that's pretty much all I did during those years, which probably explains why I'm still in college. Eventually, I reached certain conclusions that I felt to be firm enough to base my life on. I noted that many, if not most, of these conclusions (I hesitate to use the term "conclusions" because it implies finality, as if I don't still examine my beliefs when necessary, which is not the case; it'll have to do, however ) pointed towards, or comported with, a religious interpretation of the world; indeed, the world-- with all its disparate phenomena-- made more sense under a religious worldview. The "lines of evidence" that I drew upon to inform my beliefs were manifold: history, psychology, philosophy, human nature (intrapersonal and sociological; i.e., anthropology), art, personal observations, comparative religion, politics, even language (its structure and purpose), among others.


During those years, I also endeavored to determine, as far as possible, the authenticity of the Bible (whether it was textually uncorrupted, the veracity of the historical details contained therein etc.), as well as that of Jesus (his character, whether he existed etc.). If I sometimes seem reticent in speaking on these topics, it's because, quite honestly, everything that is ever mentioned I've thought about at length and either discarded as untrue (that is, that it "does not conform to the greater part of reality"; this is not necessarily a strictly "scientific" judgment, but rather is determined by the very "lines of evidence" mentioned previously), or "true" (this is always a "most likely" sort of proposition, as nothing really can be affirmed absolutely outside of scientific phenomena, and even then, only tentatively, as a single legitimate counterexample can disprove a theory; e.g., acceleration is proportional to the magnitude of the applied force and inversely proportional to mass, matter has physical extension etc.-- these can be "absolutely" affirmed, as far as it goes).



So, in a very real sense, I reasoned out "right and wrong" prior to adopting my religious beliefs; those beliefs were adopted because they conformed to my observations and (what I'd like to believe were) rational conclusions, and those conclusions, in turn, conformed to (and were informed by) the greater part of reality as I saw it. To be frank, I view my religious beliefs as an explanatory mechanism much like science; they serve to structure and order reality, and I've made predictions from them as well-- in each instance, those predictions have proven to be correct. Just as a scientist uses empirical data to confirm or disprove a hypothesis, so I've used data from every other sphere of life to confirm or disprove the "truth" of my beliefs. It is obvious to everyone that only science is testable in the causal sense-- even in psychology, apart from laboratory experiments, we're left with only correlation (the same correlative evidence that is available for so many of life's occurrences), which is a more tenuous and easily assailable relationship. Yet when the correlation coefficient (i.e., the degree of correlation) is high enough, or when there are multiple correlative inferences being made about the same phenomenon under study, the academic community generally accepts that as solid evidence. Does that constitute "proof"? No, it doesn't-- but neither does anything outside of science (that is, outside of reproducible, controlled experiments), then.


The point being that I feel that we often have an empirical "bias" in interpreting reality; this is not to imply that non-empirical reality can be touched or measured quantitatively (qualitatively, yes), though its "effects"-- that is, how these realities play themselves out in the world-- can be measured quantitatively (sociological/psychological phenomena, the historical implications of certain memes, the effect of art and emotion on people etc.-- the effects of all of these on people can be empirically measured, though never in a causal sense except in laboratory experiments; even there, confounding variables are much harder to identify and eliminate than in purely scientific studies, leading to less certainty). The point being, when all lines of evidence except for science point towards certain conclusions (at least in my personal estimation), why should I listen to science to the exclusion of the rest of reality? Though there are scientific phenomena which are anomalous and could possibly be construed as "counting towards" the existence of God--or, as the strict empiricist would say, counts "against" the currently proffered scientific theories, but will be explained in due time-- I am perfectly willing to concede the entire traditional empirical realm to scientists, that much of its reality can be adequately explained by their theories. As a religious person, I have absolutely no problems with admitting as much, and not just because of the commonly implied disconnect between faith and science (i.e., the notion that religion is to be taken on mere faith, not to be "proven" like science). I have no problems with admitting that because, unlike scientists (and much of our society), I feel that there are other equally valid, equally important aspects of our reality, and a great many of these support the conclusions I've reached.


There simply is no "science uber alles" sentiment on my part, as I feel that since much of our reality as human beings is based upon, and informed by, non-empirical phenomena, we would be remiss to not give all those other lines of evidence-- that "greater portion of reality" that I alluded to earlier-- any consideration. Even in attempting to explain non-empirical phenomena, materialism has made inroads, such as by attempting to explain emotion as electrical impulses or chemical signals-- never mind the question of direction of causality that I've yet to see answered; indeed, I don't believe such questions can be adequately answered, at least not with our current technology. In other words, does our ultimate, reflexive "I" register electrical impulses as emotion, or do our emotions immediately trigger a cascade of physiological reactions culminating in electrical/chemical signals? Until we can read pure thoughts, we'll be unable to answer that question, yet despite this-- despite the fact that the direction of causality cannot be satisfactorily ascertained for this and many other things-- it is often taken, mistakenly, as "evidence" for the orthodox scientific view of the world. These are encroachments by science into inherently non-scientific phenomena (that is, social or physical phenomena that either do not lend themselves to empirical measurement, or whose confounding variables are inherently inextricable-- as in the above example, which ultimately boils down to a question of mind-body dualism), yet nary a word of protest is raised, even when that protest is scientifically valid (e.g., the question of causality raised above, which cannot be resolved down to action-reaction, since the thought-- which is either the action or the reaction in this instance-- is, at least until otherwise demonstrated, inherently unmeasurable).


Again, this is not to attempt to knock down the elaborate framework that science has constructed to explain the physical world, because like I said, it is a perfectly reasonable and valid worldview which coheres under even intense scrutiny. My point is that there is a much larger portion of our common existence which speaks to other conclusions (or at least is more amenable to these other conclusions than pure science is), which deserves to be given at least cursory consideration as well. In my personal estimation, all this other evidence is much more persuasive (not to mention greater in quantity).


One legitimate objection that may be raised against what I've said is this: why should a mass of what are, at best, "correlative" or "inferential" lines of evidence (assuming one interprets them as "evidence for God's existence") take precedence over a single "causal" or "certain" line of evidence (i.e., science)? After all, if we were a jury deciding a murder case, and a wealth of circumstantial evidence pointed towards a suspect's guilt (this circumstantial evidence being analogous to the non-scientific lines of evidence discussed), and then we were shown a clear surveillance tape of the person's presence at a location far away from the crime scene at the time of the murder (this is analogous to empirical evidence; i.e., science), we would certainly be foolish to convict him. This is a very good question, and one which I've thought about at length. Unfortunately, to give a proper answer would require this post to be much longer than it already is. Suffice it to say that part of the answer lies in the fact that, by definition, the existence of God is not an empirically verifiable phenomenon (this is the "faith/science" dichotomy; if God could be knocked around in a test tube or slid under a microscope, of what value would our faith be? Note that this doesn't mean that we can't have a more or less informed faith, which is the case I've tried to make here-- there is never scientific certainty in religious matters, however, nor was I postulating as much; if anyone thought I was, they should reread this post. But neither does science give us "scientific certainty" in religious matters, as discussed below).


Another part of the answer concerns the very notion of "scientific certainty", and has to do with the fact that, as has been alluded to by -jinx- and iapetus (and most recently by Doug above), science cannot absolutely "prove" anything in the positive (i.e., affirmative) sense; this is not an indictment of science, but rather just a fact that results from its methodology and scope. Since Doug stated it much more eloquently than I would, allow me to quote the relevant portion of his post:




"Asymptotal" is as good a description of scientific reality as you're likely to hear. Science's ambit is-- like everything else in life-- circumscribed by a peculiar epistemology (as Doug mentioned, science is not in and of itself an epistemology), in the sense that the knowledge gleaned from scientific inquiry must be understood in its proper context, and not taken to state something it cannot state by its very nature (viz., "disproof" of deity).


It is for the aforementioned reasons that I can "overlook" (too strong a word imo, but my vocabulary is limited ) the implications of science in this instance; that's because science, along with the other "lines of evidence" I've alluded to, ultimately boils down to being merely inferential of these purported realities, either positively (e.g., God exists, as could reasonably be inferred from many things) or negatively (e.g., God doesn't exist, as could reasonably be inferred from science). This is why science-- as commonly applied to religious discussions-- is quite a different beast than the example cited earlier about the surveillance tape in the murder trial: in one case (the trial), the conclusions reached on the basis of the empirical evidence (the tape) are both inescapable (a man can't be in two places at once, which is a fact) and directly related to the phenomena being observed (viz. the location of the man on the tape); in the other (science being advanced as a disproof of God), they are neither inescapable (as science cannot offer absolute positive "proof" of a claim even within its purview; it takes but one legitimate counterexample to destroy a theory) nor related to the phenomena under discussion (i.e., the existence of God, which by definition cannot be empirically measured).


Yes, science, in its purest form, measures causal relationships, and is thus inherently more "certain" than correlative evidence is relative to the phenomena under investigation (this is an important distinction), and only regarding those phenomena being studied; where science becomes no more "certain", and no more of an "authority", than the correlative/inferential phenomena spoken of (which includes the sum total of human existence exclusive of "that which is science"; imo, this includes a hell of a lot) is when scientists try to venture outside the confines of the discipline and into the business of positively asserting "proof", irrespective of the fact that-- as has been mentioned-- they are bound by the same epistemological constraints as any other person is when making assertions OUTSIDE of those observed scientific facts (i.e., extrapolating).


And make no mistake, when people attempt to bludgeon religious folks with the findings of science, by pointing to this-or-that phenomenon (whether it be evolution, radiological dating, whatever), they are indeed trying to assert "proof" of the non-existence of deity by invoking science. Sure, if a religious person makes a specific claim (say, "the earth is 10,000 years old"), and a person of science attempts to refute them with another specific claim (say, radiological evidence), then that is not an example of them "trying to use science to "disprove" God-- that's merely a proper argument, as is their right to make. What I'm speaking of is when a person of faith merely states their belief in God, and then a person who puts a lot of stock in science comes in flailing, saying "yeah, well what about A, B, and C?"; in essence, they are attempting to use said scientific evidence as "proof" against the existence of God (and, as I've mentioned, it is "a" proof, just not the only one-- though you'd never know it by the vehemence of many such scientific proponents).

Obviously, like I said, the weight of evidence from science stands pretty convincingly against the existence of God (or at least against certain doctrinal points of faith)....I just don't see why science is seen as the be-all, end-all "evidence" when speaking of such matters when it has been shown to be beholden to the same limitations as other evidences are, as well as ultimately (when speaking about that which is outside its purview, such as God) being inferential rather than causal, just like everything else is. So why is one supposed to carry so much more weight than the other when discussing these matters? I'd use the word "bias", as in "a bias towards empiricism" (despite the fact that its adherents then venture outside science's methodological strictures in order to make claims to absolute truth), but "bias" carries such a negative connotation, and I don't want to give the wrong impression. I just don't know what else to call it really. All I'm trying to say is that the scientific evidence, from which one can reasonably infer the non-existence of a deity, is, when discussing things outside its scope, of equivalent worth to all the other evidentiary lines one can bring to bear on the issue. Not more, not less.



Is our current scientific understanding a strong line of evidence against the existence of God, inferentially? Sure. Like I said, I have no problem granting that-- and that's because I feel that there are many more lines of evidence that speak for God's existence than against it. The difference between myself and others, I would assume, is that I do not necessarily put more stock in one than the other (science versus these other evidentiary lines), and thus have arrived at different conclusions. I also have other, more striking, "evidence" of God's existence, though I hesitate to share it here, for obvious reasons (no, I don't hear voices or anything ). My post by itself should illustrate enough of my general thoughts on these matters (though it really barely touches on most of it-- like I said, these are things I've pondered for nearly a decade now, though less intensely during the past 4-5 years).



One final note about the common supposition that intelligence and faith do not mix, or that one is inversely correlated with the other (again we have only a correlative relationship; a third or fourth variable could very well be responsible for such observations, but I digress...). Assuming this is true (which I tend to believe would be the case due to my own experiences), allow me to attempt to give a different perspective on precisely why that is the case. A person possessed of a greater intelligence is inherently capable of taking in more of reality, of comprehending a greater portion of life, than his less endowed counterparts are; as such, they will of necessity be more inquisitive, and able to perceive relationships between seemingly disparate phenomena and to organize them into whatever framework they feel best brings order to their existence or best conforms to their observed reality. However, as big a benefit as intelligence can be, it can also be a hindrance in certain instances-- and not just as regards faith, but with many things. An overanalytical person (which many very intelligent people tend to be by disposition; it takes a lot of work to temper that proclivity ) might, for instance, be so concerned with the rationalization for their actions that they never truly live (that is, have fun). Or they may allow their inability to precisely philosophically define or quantify love to interfere with the normal course of their relationships.



Another such area of conflict could be faith, but not for the reasons many suppose. Rather than one being inherently opposed to the other (i.e., by definition), they instead often stand at figurative loggerheads with one another due to the general attendant features of each "state" (viz. the state of "being intelligent", and the state of "being a person of faith"). Intelligence often begets a skeptical mentality in general (towards all of life), due to the inquisitive nature and broader perceptual and critical faculties of the intelligent person. This is not a necessary relationship, but rather a probable one-- the presence of one (intelligence) makes the development of the other (skepticism/analyticity) more likely. In contrast, "faith" (i.e., being religious) is often accompanied by a settled mind which has arrived at firm conclusions, or at least is comfortable with the mental state of "being settled". This does not mean that a person who adopts a particular faith no longer questions things, but rather that they no longer allow their skepticism to unduly rule their life once they've become reasonably convinced of the veracity of certain propositions (this does not mean that they will not reexamine said propositions if confronted with new evidence, all of which is inferential as I've shown throughout this thread; rather, it means that they can control their natural skeptical disposition, not that they never again engage in critical examination).


To illustrate the distinction I'm trying to make, allow me to interject a personal anecdote: my entire life, I was naturally inquisitive/skeptical, always questioning every proposition or phenomenon. Incessantly questioning. Ultimately, this culminated in my examining the deeper issues of life from age 15-16 til about age 21 or so. During that time, I asked more questions-- of myself, of the world, of claims being made by various authorities-- than I can count. Eventually, however, after much deliberation, I arrived at what I feel to be reasonable and firm conclusions. Are they absolutely certain? No-- as humans, we cannot know anything with absolute certainty; if Descartes, and subsequently the solipsists, were able to call into question our very sensory perceptions, then it should be clear that, for the most rigorous and capable thinkers among us, the "standard of proof" for absolute truth is quite high indeed (this is not to imply that solipsism is a rigorous/valid philosophy, because it isn't; I hope people can see the point I'm getting at, though). But I feel that the conclusions I've reached are buttressed by an adequate amount of reason, which I hope this post is evidence of. This is all we can hope for, as humans. Consequently, though I still do a lot of thinking and examining (even of my beliefs), it's nothing like the amount I did during those years, which is what my natural inclination is as a person. I've learned to tame my mind. Some would argue that that's bondage, and a cruel fate-- again making the erroneous assumption that I somehow don't think anymore, which is preposterous, really. My feeling is that unless we're to spend our lives in rapt contemplation, it behooves us to attempt to arrive at firm bases for action and belief, lest we be effectively paralyzed. I feel that I've arrived at a happy medium; compared with the level of constant skepticism and inquisitiveness that I exhibited my entire life up until several years ago, though, it's really shocking to me at times how steady and settled I am now.


Note that I'm making no value judgment here on the utility/value of skepticism-- to be certain, many people view skepticism as something to be forever embraced to the exclusion of everything else, and indeed a healthy amount of it is a necessary and worthy trait; further, many people feel that there simply are no firm conclusions to be reached about a world that is in constant flux. Regardless of all this, my point stands: certain states of mind/being are not conducive to the realization of one another due to their attendant features and the states that they engender in people.




I'll address some of the comments I've read (Raoul, Prime Director) while I refreshed the topic as I constructed this post a bit later, or maybe tomorrow night. I did not post this in order to debate, merely to attempt to elucidate my personal reasoning on these matters, and to try to show how faith and reason (that is, "evidence") are not mutually exclusive propositions (though faith and science are; unless you only admit of science as "reason"/"logic", and live your life in accord with only scientific principles, however, I fail to see how someone cannot admit of other evidentiary lines-- people who perform experiments before they fall in love, contemplate life, or enter into friendships are no fun anyway ); so if anyone is going to try to pick this apart, it will be of little use-- I'm not up for a multi-day back-and-forth quote war over the details. I've been as candid and as clear as I can be, given my time constraints. This post was not made to attack or demean anyone's beliefs, or to assert that my beliefs are absolutely correct in any way. It was made in the interests of discussion among (presumably ) friends. Take it as such, because I'm not about to defend any part of this-- this is just how I see things. Normally I wouldn't be averse to engaging in debate on the content of this post (as people well know ), but as is quite obvious I'm sure, I wasted a hell of a lot of time writing this, and need to tend to some other obligations.



EDIT: Also, realize that the above is concerned with my personal beliefs regarding the existence of God in general, not the truth of Christianity in particular (which other evidence must be brought to bear upon, and other arguments advanced for). But for myself, arriving at the conclusion that "God exists" was the first (and most important) step of my personal spiritual journey. I suppose I made this post mostly to speak to what I feel to be an undercurrent of "if one uses reason, one must conclude that religion is bunk", or "if one is intelligent, then one must discard religious belief as outmoded/untenable", which sometimes pervades such threads. I resent it, really, though seldom are explicit statements made to that effect (though sometimes there are).

I read the above in its entirety. While nicely written, this comes across as a longwinded rationalization of a belief in something that simply is not grounded in reality. It's easy to point towards some abstract explanation for the absence of empirical substantiation of god's existence, but there are certain accepted truths that have stood the test of time -- the principal one being "god" does not exist. point blank, no matter how fervent your belief is, the idea that "god" exists is not immune to fundamental scientific scrutiny. Basic logic does not comport with the "facts" many zealots (not suggesting you're amongst them) have provided in a defense of their faith.

 

[Boogie]

I read the above in its entirety. While nicely written, this comes across as a longwinded rationalization of a belief in something that simply is not grounded in reality. It's easy to point towards some abstract explanation for the absence of empirical substantiation of god's existence, but there are certain accepted truths that have stood the test of time -- the principal one being "god" does not exist. point blank, no matter how fervent your belief is, the idea that "god" exists is not immune to fundamental scientific scrutiny. Basic logic does not comport with the "facts" many zealots (not suggesting you're amongst them) have provided in a defense of their faith.

CLOSE YOUR CHURCHES, IT'S ALL....okay, already made that joke once this thread.

I'll bite. How has the "truth" that God does not exist been arrived at? How did it become an "accepted truth that has stood the test of time"?

 

[XS+]

CLOSE YOUR CHURCHES, IT'S ALL....okay, already made that joke once this thread.

I'll bite. How has the "truth" that God does not exist been arrived at? How did it become an "accepted truth that has stood the test of time"?

I live a world of rules, where the observable holds greater weight than the believed. In the annals of mankind, you will not find a single verifiable instance of god making itself known to our world. Thus, in my world of rules, god doesn't exist. Look at Loki's post. Exhaustive as it was, he still made no headway in explaining god's existence. They can worship until they're blue in the face, going to church and praying at the dinner table, but god still won't make itself available. Why is that?

 

[ShadowRed]

I live a world of rules, where the observable holds greater weight than the believed. In the annals of mankind, you will not find a single verifiable instance of god making itself known to our world. Thus, in my world of rules, god doesn't exist. Look at Loki's post. Exhaustive as it was, he still made no headway in explaining god's existence. They can worship until they're blue in the face, going to church and praying at the dinner table, but god still won't make itself available. Why is that?

BINGO!!!! I love Loki and all but for all his long windedness, impecable grammer aand inexhaustable vocabulary he did nothing to farther the idea that God exists. For all his words all he said was that science hasn't explained everything so because of that God must exist.

 

[Socreges]

I live a world of rules, where the observable holds greater weight than the believed. In the annals of mankind, you will not find a single verifiable instance of god making itself known to our world. Thus, in my world of rules, god doesn't exist. Look at Loki's post. Exhaustive as it was, he still made no headway in explaining god's existence. They can worship until they're blue in the face, going to church and praying at the dinner table, but god still won't make itself available. Why is that?

I think all he's saying is that you can't prove that he doesn't exist.

Kind of like you can't prove that I don't have a ghost friend named Hank, who juggles potatoes for me when I'm bored.

 

[Jim Bowie]

Kind of like you can't prove that I don't have a ghost friend named Hank, who juggles potatoes for me when I'm bored.

But.. but... he said that I was his only friend. Damn you, Hank!

Seriously, though, can we stop posting Loki's entire post? Thank you.

 

[iapetus]

There are people who believe that God has been observable to them. Is their testimony immediately invalid because it doesn't coincide with your experience? If so, is a colour-blind person justified in claiming that the colour red does not exist because there has been no observable proof that it does?

 

[Boogie]

I live a world of rules, where the observable holds greater weight than the believed. In the annals of mankind, you will not find a single verifiable instance of god making itself known to our world. Thus, in my world of rules, god doesn't exist. Look at Loki's post. Exhaustive as it was, he still made no headway in explaining god's existence. They can worship until they're blue in the face, going to church and praying at the dinner table, but god still won't make itself available. Why is that?

Loki never said he was trying to prove that God existed, or why he believes God exists, as he said his thoughts on that matter would require a lot more explanation. But you want him to explain himself, don't you? Don't you care for Loki? Don't you care if he doesn't get any sleep, if he fails his courses because of you? You cruel bastard.

 

[karasu]

Besides, how are you suppossed to argue God's existence, or the existence of an afterlife? That's impossible. It's not like he poses for Polaroids.

 

[Socreges]

There are people who believe that God has been observable to them. Is their testimony immediately invalid because it doesn't coincide with your experience? If so, is a colour-blind person justified in claiming that the colour red does not exist because there has been no observable proof that it does?

I like my analogy better.

 

[radioheadrule83]

Bloody God-fanboys! G-tards! Allah-bots! Let's face it the creator rehashes the same old franchises! Yaweh? How many versions do they need? Krishna? Vishnu? Where does the madness end?

In serious answer to this question and in a blatent attempt to not contribute to this philosophical debate: I'm anti-religious. I'm born into Catholicism too. I am open to the possibility of God. Sometimes I find myself thanking whatever higher powers there may be, apologising or offering my hopes and prayers. My faith is not 100% cemented though.

I do think that many religious writings are outmoded, convoluted and have people following a set of laws they can never grow to change or set aside out of their own moral conviction. The world doesn't need more laws, it needs the propagation of more humane common sense morals. I think religion corrupts moral guidance in the wrong hands. And I think it's in an awful lot of wrong hands. I can't help but think, maybe the world would be better off without religion. I'm not extremist. I don't force my will onto others. But I think we can all be good people without religion. I beleive that if there is an afterlife, surely, living as good people and treating each other as good people will stand us in good stead when we get there. Something from within me, beyond my mental faculties (- perhaps from the things people often romanticise as the heart and soul -) just tells me that's the way it must work. This I do have 100% faith in. Being a good guy/gal can benefit the world. And it's such a simple idea that things from basic intolerance, to using scripture to meet your own vile agenda -- those things obviously go against that.

 

[iapetus]

I like my analogy better.

Yeah? Well Hank told me your analogy sucks, and he's not juggling for you until you retract it.

 

[ShadowRed]

There are people who believe that God has been observable to them. Is their testimony immediately invalid because it doesn't coincide with your experience? If so, is a colour-blind person justified in claiming that the colour red does not exist because there has been no observable proof that it does?

No not immediatly invalid but but one has to be suspect of only Christians seing God. Now if a shit load of Budist started claiming they saw God then that would make me think there is something to it.

 

[paul777]

There are people who believe that God has been observable to them. Is their testimony immediately invalid because it doesn't coincide with your experience? If so, is a colour-blind person justified in claiming that the colour red does not exist because there has been no observable proof that it does?

Of course he is justified. His position is logically sound. The real question is, is it a good thing to be logically sound?

 

[iapetus]

No not immediatly invalid but but one has to be suspect of only Christians seing God.

Some of them are people who claim to have become Christians because they observed God, and they were not at the time. Is this less suspect?

(We'll set aside for the moment that the sort of religious experience a lot of people describe is indistinguishable from the symptoms of schizophrenia...)

 

[Shouta]

Whoever said Loki's post was Kitsune-esque doesn't know how right he is =P.

 

[Boogie]

Whoever said Loki's post was Kitsune-esque doesn't know how right he is =P.

Actually, I don't think Loki's posts should be compared to any other long-winded posters. I think Loki is the standard against which other posters are judged. That is, Kitsune's posts are Loki-esque.

 

[maharg]

There are people who believe that God has been observable to them. Is their testimony immediately invalid because it doesn't coincide with your experience? If so, is a colour-blind person justified in claiming that the colour red does not exist because there has been no observable proof that it does?

Have the colour blind person use two paints or pens they see as the same colour such that they have embedded a message into the page in red, but once they fill in the gaps it looks like a big glob of blackspace. If someone not colour blind can read it, clearly there is a colour they are unable to differenciate.

Wasn't it you who was saying analogies suck?

 

[etiolate]

I once stopped dating a girl because she didn't believe she or anyone had a soul. She felt it was all eletrical impulses sent through the body. I didn't stop dating her because she was athiest, I stopped dating her because there was no way she could ever really love someone or understand love. That sort of goes with what Loki is saying. I think. Yeah, thats my analogy.

 

[maharg]

I don't understand how that conclusion is reached from the data given. Why does love require a soul?

 

[Boogie]

I don't understand how that conclusion is reached from the data given. Why does love require a soul?

Maybe he simply means that there's nothing much romantic about equating every human desire to mere electrical impulses. Just kinda kills the spirit of a relationship, I'd imagine.

 

[maharg]

Where's the romance in thinking god/spirit made you do it?

 

[geogaddi]

Of course he is justified. His position is logically sound. The real question is, is it a good thing to be logically sound?

"Real question"?

"good thing"?

I've contributed to probably one of the most weirdest threads ever.

 

[iapetus]

Have the colour blind person use two paints or pens they see as the same colour such that they have embedded a message into the page in red, but once they fill in the gaps it looks like a big glob of blackspace. If someone not colour blind can read it, clearly there is a colour they are unable to differenciate.

There are other (simpler) ways to do it as well. Scrawl with red on one piece of paper, green on the other and see if different people can distinguish between them reliably.

Wasn't it you who was saying analogies suck?

Yes, I'll hold my hand up to that one. And you've helped to prove that point. Damn my lazy thinking.

To put it in more general terms, then, without the weakness of an analogy:

Is a person who is unable to perceive something justified in saying that this thing definitively does not exist despite the fact that other people claim to have perceived it?

In some cases (such as the bad analogy above) it's easy enough to prove that the thing does exist, because we can control it. But in cases where we can't? It's fine to say that you'll remain unconvinced of the existince of the thing until/unless it can be proven to you. But to claim that your inability to perceive is definitive proof of its existence would be surprising.

Sure, someone's about to pull out the pink unicorns hiding round the corner argument. Thing is, though, I don't know as large a group of otherwise rational people who believe there are pink unicorns hiding round the corner as I do who believe that they have had personal experience of God.

Am I going to claim that's evidence that there is a God? No. No more than I think anyone has the right to claim that the fact He hasn't dropped round their place with a polaroid is proof that there isn't.

I'm happy to accept a range of positions on the existence or other of a deity of your choice, ranging from "I do not believe there is a God" to "I believe that there is a God". I'm not (thus far) willing to accept "There is a God, and I have proof" or "There is not a God, and I have proof" - particularly the latter, since I believe it to be harder to prove.

Besides, how are you suppossed to argue God's existence, or the existence of an afterlife? That's impossible. It's not like he poses for Polaroids.

Meh. He's just a bit stuck up, that's all. Hell, his mom poses for toasted sandwiches...

 

[Socreges]

Sure, someone's about to pull out the pink unicorns hiding round the corner argument. Thing is, though, I don't know as large a group of otherwise rational people who believe there are pink unicorns hiding round the corner as I do who believe that they have had personal experience of God.

So often such rational people have the existence of God engrained into their minds during their development. Before you (generally speaking) can even begin to consider the notion rationally, faith is as much a part of you as your taste in music (or whatever is experiential, vs being innate).

That's how I see it.

For the record, I used to believe in God, but He was introduced to me fairly late (I may have been 10 or 11 when my parents started taking me to church).

 

[Mumbles]

No not immediatly invalid but but one has to be suspect of only Christians seing God. Now if a shit load of Budist started claiming they saw God then that would make me think there is something to it.

The real problem is that Buddhists (as well as people from most belief systems) claim to have the same experiences that the christians do, but they don't interpret them as being caused by any god, much less the major christian one. To get back to the color-blind analogy, it would be like everyone saying that they could tell the difference between the two different colored stripes, but some say they're red and blue, some say they're yellow and green, and some say that there's no difference at all.

 

[paul777]

Have the colour blind person use two paints or pens they see as the same colour such that they have embedded a message into the page in red, but once they fill in the gaps it looks like a big glob of blackspace. If someone not colour blind can read it, clearly there is a colour they are unable to differenciate.

Wasn't it you who was saying analogies suck?

One can only be certain of one's own experiences. To trust the accounts of others is not sound.

 

[Hitokage]

There are people who believe that God has been observable to them. Is their testimony immediately invalid because it doesn't coincide with your experience? If so, is a colour-blind person justified in claiming that the colour red does not exist because there has been no observable proof that it does?

Poor analogy, given that colors themselves have specific frequencies even if you aren't personally able to perceive the difference and anecdotal evidence isn't acceptable anyway.

One can only be certain of one's own experiences. To trust the accounts of others is not sound.

You can't even be certain of your own experiences. How else would magicians make a living.

 

[maharg]

One can only be certain of one's own experiences. To trust the accounts of others is not sound.

Er, if this is intended to refute my breaking of the analogy it doesn't follow. The method I described does not rely entirely on any individual other than yourself, since it requires that your experience (the writing) match that of someone else's (the reading). It may not be the best proof ever, but if it's not proof of that colour's existence, it's could be proof of telepathy. I guess if the colour blind person would prefer to believe that, that's fine.

 

[Hitokage]

Here's a favorite article of mine:

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=000A011D-C17F-101E-B40D83414B7F0000

 

[Phoenix]

No not immediatly invalid but but one has to be suspect of only Christians seing God. Now if a shit load of Budist started claiming they saw God then that would make me think there is something to it.

Line of logic flawed in several ways.

1) Christians aren't the only people seeing God. Perhaps you're only familiar with the Christian faith, but there are indeed OTHER faiths that have claimed to see God

2) The people who are supposedly converted to a faith claim to have experienced God and are consequently a part of whatever faith...

 

[iapetus]

Poor analogy

The only sort, and you're too late, maharg already called me on that.

 

[etiolate]

I don't understand how that conclusion is reached from the data given. Why does love require a soul?

Love is eternal, you love someone regardless. You love your children even if they get in an accident and can't walk, or are brain damaged. You love them for something that is always there, unmeasurable and eternal. If I am just synapses firing, can you love me when those synapses stop firing?

 

[Socreges]

Nah, nah, there can be good analogies. They just need to qualify in many respects, but dumbies take one or two and think they've said something brilliant.

Love is eternal, you love someone regardless. You love your children even if they get in an accident and can't walk, or are brain damaged. You love them for something that is always there, unmeasurable and eternal. If I am just synapses firing, can you love me when those synapses stop firing?

Yes, if the feeling of love requires a million of them, and some practically permanent. Such as the association of family or the ever-present reminder that you created this human being.

And no, "love", whatever that might be, is not always eternal. Otherwise there wouldn't be divorce, of course.

 

[etiolate]

So you can still love a physical something thats no longer there?

And yes there is divorce, but what is the 'thing' you love about someone?

 

[ShadowRed]

Line of logic flawed in several ways.

1) Christians aren't the only people seeing God. Perhaps you're only familiar with the Christian faith, but there are indeed OTHER faiths that have claimed to see God

2) The people who are supposedly converted to a faith claim to have experienced God and are consequently a part of whatever faith...

Dude this is the second time you have responded in a smart ass way to my posts. I don't know if you have taken something I said in the past the wrong way or what.

Anyhow it's obviouse that by seeing God I ment the Christian God. If a shit load of Buddist suddenly start saying hey a white dude with a long beard came to me and told me to convert to Christianity then one would have at least look into this claim of a Christian God. Versus a bunch of people who are told and indictunated into believeing something and who so want to believe something that they imagine or out and out make up seeing God to justify and prove to other he exists.


As far as point 2. If the Indiginous Americans were worshipping a white guy in the sky with a son named Jesus then that would give me pause for thought that perhaps the Christain God exists. As it is everyone had their own God/Gods until the people interminggled and then suddenly you had Asians seeing God and White dudes believeing in Buddha. People coverting means nothing other than they found a better fairy tale to believe in, not that their old one was false and the new one is the truth.

 

[DonasaurusRex]

I think alot of the anti religious feelings these days comes from within the church. Too many of the members are unwilling to change. Im not saying people should compromise their faith but far too many forget that the church is a body of believers. The analogy used in the bible is that the head cant tell the foot its not needed. People are quick to forget that even Jesus said that people see "God" or whatever you wish to call it in many different ways. They are all too woried about who is right or wrong and forget that you should do YOUR part not make sure everyone is doing and seeing and experiencing what you experience . Then religion becomes like anything else mankind gets its hands on, a mess. This pushes people away, makes people think well why join the church or believe if we can just take the lessons and wisdom. And they are right because thats what Jesus said! People just need to have the right heart not the right routine. Its not a priest or pope that decides you are right for God its your heart that decides and only a person can work on who they are. God cares about your heart who you are not your affiliation. When people asked how to be saved they were told to "believe". That is the core, in the world we live in where nothing is truely certain there will always be a leap of faith, in love, religion, science , whatever. I cant speak for other religions but christianity boils down to one important verse in the bible, in the beginning God, all it is asking is for a person to fathom this passage and come to your own conclusion.

I really feel for some who have ill feelings toward the faith because that is in no way its intention. We all know how we get when its time to discuss "absolutes" though, its always a race to be the best , number ONE. Just look at the gaming forum when the console fanboi's start pushing for what systems best. We end up losing sight of what we are here to do, we end up losing sight of the fact that we are like a flash of light in the big scheme of things. Even if all the people of the world for a year conformed to one persons way of living it would be a drop in the bucket to all the rest who did not, so whats the point of getting everyone in your blink of an eye to think just as you do? Its like the "anti" religious extremists understand Jesus better than the church does at times. In the past the "church" has tried to dominate in the name of God while Jesus says we would be no better than those who dominate us if we did. Jesus says hey look everyones going to experience the faith in their own way but whats important is as a whole you are all united thru your belief in me and yet we have denominations because someone has to be right in understanding a God in which no one can measure, observe, or put in a box to understand. The church has shed blood in with the banner of religion as their justification, all the while our "God" has told us do not kill, for in every man is MY image you are all equal. The so called "sinners" of this world seem to have taken these lessons and moved on, while the "saved" quarrel over having the right routine. Thru my readings and research into what the bible says and what people do i can conclude alot of "believers" have forgotten the spirit of it all. However, that was the whole point, a change of heart not routine and doctrine. Its a reoccuring theme in the bible to the point where God said i dont want your sacrifices, you got the pattern down but you dont care WHY anymore.

The church is here so that believers could work together, not so they could tell everyone else THEY are the only way to God. The church in some ways has become corrupted and has become obssesed with conformity even when it simply says the greatest commandment for the church is love one another. The word of God was to offer peace of mind not authority to judge another man.

 

[luxsol]

What you said reminded me a lot of what my Old Testament/NT/Philosophy teacher from HS taught me.

 

[DonasaurusRex]

..uh is that good or bad?

 

[Zaptruder]

Love is eternal, you love someone regardless. You love your children even if they get in an accident and can't walk, or are brain damaged. You love them for something that is always there, unmeasurable and eternal. If I am just synapses firing, can you love me when those synapses stop firing?

What if your children cut off your nuts for fun.
Or if they take your other child and microwave them.

Will you be loving them then still?

Seriously though, love isn't as airy fairy as you make it out to be. It's just a confusing emotion for people to deal with. Just because it has strength and intensity doesn't mean that it will last forever nor is it unbreakable.

 

[etiolate]

:lol

I don't even want to think about that.

I think people are missing the point. Love is something that goes beyond science and instances of love go beyond physical condition and even death.

 

[Zaptruder]

Nah. I think you're missing the point

Love is nice and all, and for all the epic and powerful feelings it invokes, it's still something very much bound by real things.

On a very real scale, love doesn't exist between two people, like some kind of fairy magic bond.

It exists in two individuals; with feelings, attitudes and beliefs about the other person.

That other person may have a similar although not identical feeling, colored by their own personality and what not.

In this fashion it's all too easy to have one sided love.

And love... perishes quite readily when the person with those feelings and emotions die... or just the part of the brain of that person in which those feelings exist dies.

It can be recorded as foot notes in history and stir feelings in others that take the chance to recall it... but that is far from the original love that was felt.

 

[Loki]

Hah, you guys are gonna be the death of me. I'm stuffed with turkey, cake and wine (not in that order), but I'll still try to ignore my impending stomach-ache and speak to a few points...

However, having also looked at history, comparative religion, philosophy, etc., I came to the exact opposite conclusion that you did. IOW, it's not that I think that science points against the existence of gods, and other fields towards it, but rather that I think that the evidence universally points against the existence of gods

And that's fine. I never made the claim that, if one manages to bypass the so-called "empirical bias", one will necessarily arrive at the same conclusions I did. My entire original post was not concerned with "proving" the existence of God to others, or even delineating my personal reasons for believing so (as I said, this would take days, since it would basically require summarizing 5+ years of constant thought); rather, it was entirely concerned with the question of, "what lines of evidence shall we admit to the discussion?", and I then went on to discuss my personal reasons for admitting into the discussion the entirety of human existence (and drawing inferences from that), rather than merely focusing on science to the exclusion of the rest of reality. This was all my post was concerned with-- nothing more or less.


Nowhere did I state that, if one considers the totality of the "evidence" (i.e., science and non-science)-- much like I did-- that they will necessarily arrive at the same conclusions. In fact, I specifically stated that the sum total of the evidence is open to interpretation; allow me to quote my original post:

One legitimate objection that may be raised against what I've said is this: why should a mass of what are, at best, "correlative" or "inferential" lines of evidence (assuming one interprets them as "evidence for God's existence")...

It's pretty clear that I never meant to imply that, so long as one looks at other evidentiary lines besides science, that one will reach conclusions similar to the ones I've arrived at. Of course not-- and that's because drawing inferences is inherently subjective, in the sense that we all bring our own knowledge, discernment, and, yes, biases to bear on the examination of the issues. Some people perceive different relationships between things than others do, either because they are more perspicacious or because they begin at different "starting points" (i.e., different presuppositions, knowledge, perceptual/critical abilities, worldview etc.). It is the job of a person, when examining issues inferentially for their own purposes, to attempt to limit any subjectivity as far as possible, and to be as rigorous as possible in their analyses. However, to this end, we all meet with varying degrees of success. This also presupposes that there is a "truth of the matter" to be arrived at, which is itself an assumption.


So please don't take the fact that you likewise considered "all the evidence" and arrived at different conclusions than I did as an indictment or refutation of my post, because my post really wasn't concerned with trying to "prove" my beliefs, or with trying to say that if people "would just look at things as I do", that we'll all reach similar conclusions (in fact, as evidenced by the above quote, I specifically made statements the contrary). My post only attemped to explain my personal reasons for considering all the "evidence", and not just focusing on science to the exclusion of everything else. Nothing more or less.

I read the above in its entirety. While nicely written, this comes across as a longwinded rationalization of a belief in something that simply is not grounded in reality.

Well, I'd have to disagree. Whether or not my beliefs are "the fact of the matter" (i.e., "reality") is up for debate, obviously, due to the very inferential nature of all of our beliefs (outside of science). Further, your statement betrays your own "biases", if you will (the empirical "bias" that I've tried to speak to in this thread); you state that my beliefs, or the subject of my beliefs, are "not grounded in reality". I'm assuming that by "reality", you mean "that which is science" (i.e., directly, materially observable phenomena). For instance, how can you legitimately dismiss anthropology, art, language, philosophy, psychology, history etc. as "not reality"? Are they somehow fake? Am I imagining their existence? No-- they exist, and hence are as real as science is. If you point to the fact that science measures causal relationships and is reproducible whereas these other "lines of evidence" are merely correlative/inferential, realize that I spoke to that in my previous posts: to wit, science is causal and "absolute" only insofar as it describes the phenomena being studied. Once it starts postulating things outside its purview (such as God is, by definition), science-- like everything else in life-- becomes merely inferential of the existence/non-existence of God. Is science a strong inferential evidence against the existence of God? Yes. The point is that there's no reason, in this case, to look at the scientific "evidence" for God's (non)existence to the exclusion of the rest of life's "evidence".


If you need further clarification on these points, please refer back to my previous posts, because I don't think I can do a better job of explaining what I'm getting at than I did before.

It's easy to point towards some abstract explanation for the absence of empirical substantiation of god's existence

I'm not "pointing towards" anything, nor is what I'm saying "abstract"-- in fact, everything I've stated follows directly from the very definitions of science (i.e., empiricism) and God. So there's nothing abstract or outlandish about what I've said; in fact, regarding the limits of scientific inquiry and "proof", I've only restated what has been said by Doug and -jinx- in this very thread.


Further, I was in no way attempting to account for the lack of empirical substantiation for God's existence. In fact, on the basis of your statements, I think you're a bit confused as to what, precisely, I was trying to illustrate/explain by my posts. This is not an insult-- I realize I can be very long-winded, and it can be difficult to pick out the crucial details of what I'm saying from the window dressing. But it's there, and I won't be able to state it any better a second (or third) time, so I don't really know what else to say.

but there are certain accepted truths that have stood the test of time -- the principal one being "god" does not exist.

Actually, on a broad scale, atheism is a relatively recent development that (not coincidentally) came into full flower during the Renaissance and the subsequent explosion of modern science. Yes, there are medieval and ancient Greek philosophers/scientists that asserted with varying degrees of strength that "God does not exist", but as a broad social movement, atheism is a relatively new phenomenon. Further, define "accepted". If you mean "accepted by the academic community", well, I'd say that it's only in the late 19th and 20th centuries that we see the majority (key word) of academia holding atheistic beliefs. Don't know how you can rightly call that "having stood the test of time as an accepted truth", but not state the same for religion, which is a far older meme in its various formulations.

no matter how fervent your belief is, the idea that "god" exists is not immune to fundamental scientific scrutiny.

Do explain how God is amenable to scientific inquiry-- I'd love to hear it. If you can show as much, you should write a book, because that idea will set the academic and theological worlds ablaze.

Exhaustive as it was, he still made no headway in explaining god's existence.

Wasn't trying to. This is another example of a fundamental misperception of my aim, and the points I was making, on your part.


Again, think about what my post was trying to "show", or "explain". Hint: it's NOT that "God exists". It was a much more limited point, which was intended to show where I "started from" (i.e., what sort of evidence I admitted of when examining the question of God).

They can worship until they're blue in the face, going to church and praying at the dinner table, but god still won't make itself available. Why is that?

Because then it wouldn't be "faith", it would be autonomic piety. Same as if God made himself available for scientific analysis. Again, this does not mean that we can't have a more or less informed faith. Then again, "disbelief" of God is just as much of an inference as belief is-- the only difference between myself and an atheist is that one of us chooses to place tremendous stock in the empirical world, and one of us chooses to view it as equal (but not above) all the other lines of evidence alluded to. And that's because, as has been demonstrated, science, when speaking of things that are outside its scope, ends up being inferential just like everything else is (hence I view all evidence as equal in importance at base). Further, science cannot offer affirmative proof of anything (even a negative proposition such as "there is no God"), even for that which is within its scope (much less that which lies outside its confines).


What you allude to above is termed "the mystery of faith".

BINGO!!!! I love Loki and all but for all his long windedness, impecable grammer aand inexhaustable vocabulary he did nothing to farther the idea that God exists

Again, I wasn't trying to. Please reread my posts (when you have a spare week ). I still love you too, though.

Loki never said he was trying to prove that God existed, or why he believes God exists, as he said his thoughts on that matter would require a lot more explanation.

Thank you. At least someone gets it. The purpose of my post was very different than what people here are supposing it was. Much more specific and limited; as I said, I did not post what I did to assert that my beliefs are the "truth"-- both because I'm not dogmatic like that (usually ), and because nothing I said has anything to do with giving proof for God, or "advancing the case for God's existence". Hopefully people will see this.

Whoever said Loki's post was Kitsune-esque doesn't know how right he is =P.

Huh? What's that supposed to mean?



Anyway dudes, after this post, I'm not going to be posting to this thread anymore-- I have a ton of work to do this weekend, and a big physics exam this thursday. I just wanted to clarify a couple of points, and to let it be known that I feel that people are misreading my posts (which is understandable given their length ). But what I feel I wanted to get across is in there, and I'm not going to be able to state it any better than I did, so I'll leave it at that. I hope you all understand. Unless you guys wanna start a "help Loki post" fund, where I'll get paid to post here. If not, however, I'll have to tend to the rest of my life at some point.

 

[Hitokage]

Heh, I suppose the Loki Code isn't as catchy as the Bible Code. "FSS SENT ME" is a pretty funny find though, as FoxSpiritShadow was Kitsune.

 

[Loki]

Oh, one last thing, since I forgot to mention it earlier:

Dare I say that we should encourage people to be more inquisitive. A settled mind is one that's also closer to complacency and apathy. One that's easier to control and thus easier to take advantage of. It may not mean that the person won't still question what they hear, but it will make them less likely to do so. That's a bad thing IMO, and what I keep saying about religion essentially "dumbing down" its followers. We should question EVERYTHING. Not doing so is dangerous. But I don't see how religion could even hope to cast doubt over science. PEACE.

Again, all I was speaking about was the matter of "degree" of skepicism/analyticity. As you can see by this quote from my original post:

I've learned to tame my mind. Some would argue that that's bondage, and a cruel fate

...I am well-aware of how others will perceive what I'm saying, though I think they miss the point. I guess it ultimately boils down to a matter of degree, and I will admit that my own life experience may very well bias me in this regard. To be (characteristically ) brief about it, I was diagnosed with something of an "OCD of the mind" during my late teens. As a result of it, I just couldn't shut my mind off, not even for a moment-- I was constantly pondering things, turning things over in my head, asking questions etc. To be perfectly honest with you (and this is not something I like to admit in public), for about 3-4 years (from just before age 16 til about 20), I was "thinking" every single waking second of every day. You may think that's an exaggeration, but I can assure you it's not. It got to the point where it consumed me, and interfered with the normal functioning of my life. For instance, freshman year of college, I'd be sitting in a class, and some hot chick would be staring at me (since I was a dashing and handsome young man ), but some other, not-so-hot chick would be staring at me as well (oh believe me, they all stared ). Anyway, long story short, instead of doing what every other sane guy would have done, which is smile at/approach the hot chick, I created this convoluted reasoning in my head that I didn't want the homely chick to A) think that I was a superficial person, and B) think that they are somehow "worth less" than a more attractive girl is (because they aren't; this was more important than "A"). Even the times when attractive girls would ask me to lunch or to hang out, I'd decline for these reasons.


Now, my reasoning wasn't "out there"-- in fact, it was simply (un)common consideration (for the feelings of the other girl). But it was highly excessive and unnecessary consideration which was spawned as a result of the web of thinking that I used to get myself caught in about EVERY POSSIBLE ISSUE you can imagine. It took me until the end of my freshman year to realize that, hey, if a girl is going to have self-esteem issues just because she likes me and I happen to go after a more attractive chick (not that I'm shallow-- the girl also has to have a head on her shoulders), then that is her problem, not mine. Common sense, right? Not when you're trapped with your mind 24/7. There are dozens more examples I could cite (about how this tendency interfered with my life), but the most important thing to understand is that I was constantly mulling things over and looking at things from every possible angle, be it academic/intellectual or pertaining to real-life scenarios like the above. Do you know what it feels like to not have a moment's mental peace for nearly 4 years? To never be able to "shut it off" and just relax, mentally? It took me years to "tame my mind" as I said. Perhaps people read my posts, and they can tell that I'm a person who's done a lot of thinking in his life, even if they disagree with my conclusions (or maybe they just think I'm verbose )-- but really, they have no idea where I'm coming from in terms of this. Where I'm at now, I feel at peace with myself, and for me, that's more important than the value of incessant skepticism, because I've been to the extreme fringes of it, and it was not pleasant. So like I said, perhaps (in fact, most probably) my personal experiences bias me in this regard.



Still, you couldn't properly call what I am right now, or what I was "advocating" (I wasn't really advocating it, more like pointing out why two states of mind were sometimes irreconcilable with one another; to each his own ), "complacent", or "apathetic", nor am I "easy to control or take advantage of". So this is why I feel that we are getting our wires crossed on mere matters of degree, not the inherent value of skepticism itself (which is very valuable even now for me).


Please realize, however, that this was a tangential point made in a tangential "argument"; the whole "intellect vs. faith" thing was not part of my post proper, just an aside. I figured I'd throw out my thoughts on that matter, though, and that's why I included it in my original post.

 

[Fifty]

Loki....You said you wouldn't post in here and you just quoted yourself. You are peerless.

 

[fart]

for the record i am an anti-religious XXX-TREMIST

 

[etiolate]

I always down a Mountain Dew when I bash religioun.

 

[XS+]

Well, I'd have to disagree. Whether or not my beliefs are "the fact of the matter" (i.e., "reality") is up for debate, obviously, due to the very inferential nature of all of our beliefs (outside of science). Further, your statement betrays your own "biases", if you will (the empirical "bias" that I've tried to speak to in this thread); you state that my beliefs, or the subject of my beliefs, is "not grounded in reality". I'm assuming that by "reality", you mean "that which is science" (i.e., directly, materially observable phenomena). For instance, how can you legitimately dismiss anthropology, art, language, philosophy, psychology, history etc. as "not reality"?

Wherein my response did I dismiss anthropology, art, language, philosophy, psychology, and history? I fail to see the connection.

If you point to the fact that science measures causal relationships and is reproducible whereas these other "lines of evidence"

What "lines of evidence"? Evidence of god's existence? Where?

The point is that there's no reason, in this case, to look at the scientific "evidence" for God's (non)existence to the exclusion of the rest of life's "evidence".

The point being, there is no conflicting evidence to lead a rational and sane individual to believe that there is a god. I should add that I know of no evidence excluding the possibility of there being a god, however there is no evidence supporting said notion, thus I don't believe in god. Take an often pondered upon possibility (probability, I'd say): extraterrestrial life. One could posit that such life is probable because of the circumstances surrounding our existence. That we exist lends much weight to the possibility that there is something else out there. There exists no such evidence to buouy a belief in god.

Further, I was in no way attempting to account for the lack of empirical substantiation for God's existence. In fact, on the basis of your statements, I think you're a bit confused as to what, precisely, I was trying to illustrate/explain by my posts. This is not an insult-- I realize I can be very long-winded, and it can be difficult to pick out the crucial details of what I'm saying from the window dressing. But it's there, and I won't be able to state it any better a second (or third) time, so I don't really know what else to say.

Don't condescend to me. I read your entire post, and I'm fairly confident I received your intended premise.

Actually, on a broad scale, atheism is a relatively recent development that (not coincidentally) came into full flower during the Renaissance and the subsequent explosion of modern science. Yes, there are medieval and ancient Greek philosophers/scientists that asserted with varying degrees of strength that "God does not exist", but as a broad social movement, atheism is a relatively new phenomenon. Further, define "accepted". If you mean "accepted by the academic community", well, I'd say that it's only in the late 19th and 20th centuries that we see the majority (key word) of academia holding atheistic beliefs. Don't know how you can rightly call that "having stood the test of time as an accepted truth", but not state the same for religion, which is a far older meme in its various formulations.

No. The non-existence of god is as accepted a truth as the transparency of water, the blue hue of a clear sky, and so on and so on and so on. I'm neither an atheist nor an agnostic. Only when prompted by discussions in this vein do I even entertain the idea of god. I live in the real world, brother -- and there ain't no god here. Now, if I die and I find myself answering to something, I will stand corrected. Until then, though, I will regard the religious as nothing more than people who allow whimsical interpretations of physical phenomena to trump logic.