Freethought & Rationalism Archive

MrLoverLover · 12-19-2001, 12:18 PM

It may be an extraordinary claim if my friend claims he had sex with a woman, but I won't need extraordinary evidence to believe him.

Jobar · 12-19-2001, 12:19 PM

CowboyX says
"The rejection of god or the affirmation of god's nonexistance on the other hand is not just indefensible, but meaningless unless god is further defined..."

Quite right. However, we have centuries of attempts to define the concept 'God' in Christianity/Judaism/Islam (omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, etc.) to base our affirmation or rejection upon. So, a 'weak' atheist is one who says that there is no evidence for any god, therefore no belief should be held. A 'strong' atheist says that the definition of God as given by C/J/I is logically impossible, therefore Yahweh/Allah CAN NOT exist.

When we get down to cases, the definitions given for Yahweh/Allah break down, and become contradictory or meaningless. Therefore perhaps Paul Kurtz' notion of igtheism- ignorance of what 'god' means- is the more strictly correct position.

Who knows how many gigabytes have been spent on these definitions?- and of course it is still not clear. My own personal opinion is that there is no God, to an extremely large but imprecisely calculated probability.

[ December 19, 2001: Message edited by: Jobar ]

Earl · 12-19-2001, 01:36 PM

POLYCARP: Red herring alert! Do the majority of sane humans today believe in the existence of unicorns? You're comparing apples and Toyotas. I'm not saying that truth is determined by majority, BUT your analogy is flawed in that the overwhelming majority of people do believe there is evidence pointing to the existence of a god. Such is not the case with one-horned horse-like mammals.

EARL: Like I said in the rest of that post the appeal to popularity is fallacious in this case. Therefore the fact that many people believe that God exists whereas no one believes in unicorns by itself has no bearing here. You say you don't want to argue that truth is determined by majority, yet you also say that the popularity of theism is relevant in discrediting unpopular unicorns at the outset. Given the fallacy of the appeal to popularity, the difference between the popularity of theism and the unpopularity of unicorns is irrelevant in determining the burden of proof and therefore whether there is sufficient evidence to establish belief or disbelief. I would, therefore, defend the comparison between God and unicorns. I maintain that the popularity of theism is irrelevant in determining theism's truth, and that the burden of proof is on the theist just as it would be on the believer in unicorns. I therefore deny that this is a red herring.

POLYCARP: You seem to be of the belief that only empirically-verifiable beliefs should be held. This is certainly false. Otherwise, the existence of other galaxies would have been a false belief prior to the invention of certain telescopes. The fact that a belief is unable to be proven empirically does not render it false.

EARL: Your claim that I'm a verificationist is refuted by my use of mathematics as an example of a kind of truth justified by a priori argument. I am not a verificationist. The problem is that there are no sound rationalist proofs of God's existence just as there is no strong empirical evidence for theism.

POLYCARP: First, please tell me what is "logically contradictory" about the classic theistic definition of god. Second, there is nothing logically contradictory about the existence of unicorns. Neither is there anything logically contradictory about the existence of UFO's, tooth fairies, or the Loch Ness monster. I don't understand your point here.

EARL: Well, there are numerous arguments about the contradictoriness of certain divine attributes such as omnipotence and omniscience. For example, if God knows everything can his actions be free or personal and thus "actions" in the first place? Or does the concept of "personal action" presuppose finite knowledge and finite being? Is God so powerful that he can create a stone so heavy that even he can't lift it? Sartre, if I'm not mistaken, argued that being-in-itself and being-for-itself exclude each other. Many atheists argue as well that the notion of disembodied mind is not just empirically unsupported but contradictory. The very definition of a "person" seems to presuppose embodiment. (This may be why Christians paganized and incarnated the Jews' God. Unfortunately, there are plenty of contradictions involved in talking about a god-man, so Christians didn't escape the problem of a misuse of language in theism.) What is the difference between infinite, disembodied spiritual being and pure nothingness? The notions of "infinite" love, mercy, wrath, and so forth seem contradictory too. Love, mercy, and wrath have evolutionary but not unconditional merit. Any source capable of producing "infinite love" would not, in fact, be producing "love" at all as commonly defined. If you like, the definitions of our words are conditioned by our "fallen" state, which means that god talk is bound to be empty. This point about contradictoriness is close to the common atheistic objection about the incoherence or meaninglessness of god talk. See, for example, the atheist Kai Nielson.

I brought up the point about a contradictory definition of God simply to distinguish between two degrees of atheism. God might be impossible or improbable depending on whether there is a logical contradiction involved in the definition of God. If God were defined in a consistent way, then the atheist would have to say that God is improbable rather than impossible. The definition of a unicorn is coherent and consistent and therefore unicorns are logically possible creatures. At best we can say that they are highly improbable precisely because, as you said, we are not omniscient. The fact that we are not omniscient, however, does NOT mean that we must be agnostic about whether unicorns or God exist. You need to distinguish between impossibility and improbability. Given our finite knowledge we are still left with the concept of improbability. Unicorns are possible but highly improbable, and so too is God so long as God is defined in a logically possible way.

POLYCARP: Another red herring alert ! Who said anything about the resurrection? I'm not going to chase this one.

EARL: I brought up the resurrection because Bd and I have had a few debates with theists like Nomad and Rainbow Walking on this very question about the resurrection claim, extraordinary evidence and the burden of proof. Moreover, the resurrection is the central proposition of a major religion, Christianity, and therefore logically cannot be a red herring in a discussion about theism and the requirement for extraordinary evidence for miracle claims. You are free not to debate a particular point if you like, but make sure you understand the meaning of a phrase before you use it, like "red herring." Talk of the resurrection here is most certainly NOT a "red herring." On the contrary, the resurrection is a sterling example of a miracle claim which requires extraordinary evidence but which instead is often supported merely by an appeal to popularity. If you cannot see the relevance of the resurrection as an example here I can't help you.

POLYCARP [in his next post]: If a person claims to "know" that god does not exist, then they would be guilty of hypocrisy (IMO). If the shoe doesn't fit, then don't worry. Those of you who don't claim to know that god does not exist can rest assured that we're in agreement.

So, do any of you claim to "know" that god does not exist? This was what I was trying to address.

EARL: Again, there is a difference between certain and probable knowledge. I would call my belief that unicorns very probably don't exist a piece of probable knowledge. Likewise, the atheist would be free to say that she "knows" God does not exist were she to mean that God is very improbable. Alternatively, the atheist can indeed claim certain knowledge about the existence of a logically contradictory God. Your definition of "knowledge" as certitude is too restrictive.

[ December 19, 2001: Message edited by: Earl ]

Earl · 12-19-2001, 01:58 PM

Cowboy X,

You seem to be right about the meaning of the word "atheism," but you're close to making a merely semantic point here. Perhaps the term "strong atheism" is misleading and should be called instead "anti-theism." Your main point I agree with, which is that atheism itself is not a positive view and involves no faith or, therefore, burden of proof. But in an actual debate with a theist this position often very quickly slides into a positive one. For example, the theist might claim that God is the best explanation of the universe, and the atheist would need to show that there is a better, naturalist explanation.

I think you misstate the maxim about proving a negative. The point made is that a **universal** negative can't be proved because we are not omniscient. We can't say universally or necessarily (false in all possible worlds) that there are no unicorns because we simply haven't looked in each possible world. The maxim may, therefore, be practically but not logically true. On the other hand, you're right about the self-referential incoherence here. The principle "you can't prove a universal negative" is itself a universal negative. This problem pops up for the postmodern relativist too.

Polycarp · 12-19-2001, 02:51 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Earl:
POLYCARP [in his next post]: If a person claims to "know" that god does not exist, then they would be guilty of hypocrisy (IMO). If the shoe doesn't fit, then don't worry. Those of you who don't claim to know that god does not exist can rest assured that we're in agreement.

So, do any of you claim to "know" that god does not exist? This was what I was trying to address.

EARL: Again, there is a difference between certain and probable knowledge. I would call my belief that unicorns very probably don't exist a piece of probable knowledge. Likewise, the atheist is free to say that she "knows" God does not exist were she to mean that God is very improbable. Alternatively, the atheist can indeed claim certain knowledge about the existence of a logically contradictory God. Your definition of "knowledge" as certitude is too restrictive.

Earl and Cowboy X,

I will address Earl's last response because I think it brings up the heart of the issue at hand.

I agree with your distinction between certain and probable knowledge. My tendency is to think in terms of degrees of probability, with very few things falling into the category of absolute certitude. Hence, I would not classify my belief in a "god" as one of certitude. This is the comparison I was trying to draw between the so-called extraordinary claims of theism and those of atheism. Both make truth claims. If not, then the SecWeb would not exist. Either god exists or god does not exist. How one views the preponderance of the evidence determines where one falls on the spectrum.

Cowboy X tries to dance around the issue by saying that his view doesn't involve a truth claim because it is merely lack of belief. He says,

"The lack of a belief in god or gods is rationally justifiable since it makes no positive claims and only one negative one. Namely I have no particular belief positive or negative with regard to god."

This sounds like double talk: no positive claims, one negative claim, leading to no particular belief with regard to god. I'm not buying the semantic trickery. Most people would say this view falls closer to the category of agnosticism than to atheism. I'm not going to debate definitions, but many people on this board who identify themselves as "atheists" would strongly disagree with Cowboy X's definition. He tries to steer the topic by framing the question a certain way. Let me phrase it a different way to Cowboy X (and other skeptics who agree with him):

Do you believe the universe to be void of any and all gods?

If the answer is yes, then a positive claim is involved. This would refute Cowboy X's previous statement that his belief does not involve a positive claim.

If the answer is no, then a positive belief in the existence of god(s) is affirmed.

If the answer is "I don't know", then we're back to classic agnosticism.

Before crying foul, think of this another way...

If I say, "The Hart building is anthrax-free", I am making a positive claim. Likewise, saying that the universe is god-free is of an equivalent nature.

I think Cowboy X's view does involve a positive claim whether he sees it or not.

Peace,

Polycarp

thefugitivesaint · 12-19-2001, 03:54 PM

If i may chime in on this discussion quickly:

Polycarp asked:

Quote:

Do you believe the universe to be void of any and all gods?

This question assumes a working definition of the term "god". You are utilizing a word here that is just to vague to work with. Unless the concept itself is more readily defined it is essentially pointless to ask anyone on these pages (save for those who already accept the word as meaningful without clarification, i.e. theists and the like) if they believe or disbelieve in the referential you are employing. I certainly to not think the term "god" denotes anything but an incoherent idea you think claim as 'valid'.

Now, you could counter this by attempting to amend your use of the term "god" by adding particulars to its description. It is exactly here that positive claims against the term used, "god", gain their usefulness. If, as it has been stated, the resulting 'clarification' entails a logical contradiction involved in the definition then there would be no reason to accept it as valid.

Atheism is simply a 'lack of belief'. Unless you can provide a concrete reason to abandon this 'position' with evidence supporting your claim or the validity of the term "god" then i (and i assume other atheists) see no justification in your charges that Cowboy x was attempting "to steer the topic by framing the question a certain way". You have already done this by assuming the validity of the term "god".

Your assumptions are already inherent in your position. You can choose to believe anything you want to believe. What you hold as "true" is of no consequence to me. But, do not think that i (or other people for that matter) have to take your "belief" seriously if you cannot provide ample reason as to why you maintain the "belief" as 'true'.

So before we go throwing the term "god" around in these debates, let's have some *ahem* "concrete" parameters as to what this "god" *ahem* is or is not.

please attempt to remain within the lines when coloring. thank you.

-theSaint

calvaryson · 12-19-2001, 04:04 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by bd-from-kg:
jlowder:

Actually not only do many skeptics think so; all sane skeptics think so, as do all sane non-skeptics. This principle is so basic that discarding it constitutes insanity. For example, if I say that I had dinner, as I often do, with my old friend Smith last night, no sane person would demand extraordinarily strong evidence before believing me. But if I claimed to have had dinner with my old friend Jones, who was observed by dozens of people to have died of massive hemorrhaging after being shot in the chest, and was buried two days ago, any sane person is going to demand extraordinarily strong evidence before believing me.

What some Christians really say is that the Christian claims are not extraordinary. They say that, while the claim that Jones walked out of his own tomb would be extraordinary, the claim that Jesus walked out of His own tomb is not extraordinary. (See, for example, C.S. Lewis’s book Miracles: A Preliminary Study.) Or alternatively, they say that the evidence that He did so really is extraordinarily strong. (See any number of works by Christian apologists.) Often a combination of these arguments is used: the claims are “extraordinary”, but not nearly so extraordinary as miracle claims that seem similar at first sight; and the evidence for them, though not so strong that similar evidence would justify belief in “similar” miracle claims, is strong enough to justify belief in the Christian claims because of their “special” nature that makes them more a priori plausible.

Then there are the presuppositionalists, who seem to argue that no evidence at all is needed to justify believing the Christian claims. This position (if I am interpreting it correctly) really is insane. It’s very similar to the convictions of many paranoids that they are victims of a massive conspiracy, or that they really are Napoleon. They seem perfectly sane in many ways, and are quite capable of reasoning correctly in most respects and functioning adequately in most ways, but at the heart of their “belief system” is a conviction which is impervious to all contrary evidence.

Of course the standards you use to measure all this are human ones. If we observed Jones rising from the dead then it truely would be extraordinary, Jones being human and all. However, if Jesus is who He says He is(I believe He is), then is it really that extraordinary. Yes if you measure Him using human parameters, no if He is the Son.

thefugitivesaint · 12-19-2001, 04:29 PM

I am sorry calvaryson but i fail to see how anyone could possibly not utilize so-called "human parameters" since we are human.

If there is, in existance, other "parameters" we could employ to discern fiction from fact or truth from falshood that you are aware of then please, feel absolutely free to demonstrate them to us in any way you care to. Untl you do this i will stick to our merely human ways of knowing and understanding.

-theSaint

p.s.

Quote:

If Jesus is who He says He is...

You canot claim to know what jesus may or may not have stated as you were not present to 'hear' him speak. You merely have the so-called claims of those who constructed the gospels years after his death. This, in my opinion, is hardly firm ground on which to base ones claims upon or ones beliefs.

Polycarp · 12-19-2001, 05:33 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by thefugitivesaint:
This question assumes a working definition of the term "god". You are utilizing a word here that is just to vague to work with. Unless the concept itself is more readily defined it is essentially pointless to ask anyone on these pages (save for those who already accept the word as meaningful without clarification, i.e. theists and the like) if they believe or disbelieve in the referential you are employing. I certainly to not think the term "god" denotes anything but an incoherent idea you think claim as 'valid'.

I�m not the only one using the term �god�, so I�m a little perplexed as to why I�m being singled out as the only one guilty of your accusations. I think Cowboy X, Earl, and I all agree on the basic definition of god as it relates to this discussion. For the purposes of simplicity, I�ll limit my definition to �a being of supernatural powers.�

Quote:

Atheism is simply a 'lack of belief'. Unless you can provide a concrete reason to abandon this 'position' with evidence supporting your claim or the validity of the term "god" then i (and i assume other atheists) see no justification in your charges that Cowboy x was attempting "to steer the topic by framing the question a certain way". You have already done this by assuming the validity of the term "god".

While I appreciate your plea for clarification, I'm afraid you're guilty of the same thing of which you accuse me. Atheism does not mean "lack of belief". To what do you think the "theism" in "atheism" refers?

It refers to lack of belief IN A GOD.

Quote:

So before we go throwing the term "god" around in these debates, let's have some *ahem* "concrete" parameters as to what this "god" *ahem* is or is not.

Right� Because you nominated yourself as moderator you felt the need to address this issue solely with me, and not with any of the non-theists who have been using the term �god� throughout this discussion. A person would almost consider that to be the action of an unbiased observer� But not quite.

We were playing together just fine before you walked into the room. Leave us alone and I promise we won�t hurt each other. Can I see your coloring book?

I have some Robitussin to help you with that cough, too.

Peace,

Polycarp

[ December 19, 2001: Message edited by: Polycarp ]

CX · 12-19-2001, 06:52 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Polycarp:
[b]
Do you believe the universe to be void of any and all gods?

If the answer is yes, then a positive claim is involved. This would refute Cowboy X's previous statement that his belief does not involve a positive claim.

If the answer is no, then a positive belief in the existence of god(s) is affirmed.

If the answer is "I don't know", then we're back to classic agnosticism.

Incorrect. Agnosticism, as I have repeatedly said on this forum, is not embodied by the statement "I don't know," but rather by the statement, "such is unknowable." So then despite the false trilemma you create here another possible response is that the question you ask cannot be answered.

I submit that your question as framed is meaningless by virtue of the fact that "any and all gods" is not concretely defined. It is equivalent to saying the universe is free of any and all snarflats. If you don't know what a snarflat is you can't answer the question. I don't know what "any and all gods" are and I suggest that you can not define the phrase meaningfully without YOU being omniscient.

But let's not equivocate. I postively affirm the non-existence of the Jewish tribal god YHVH.

12-19-2001, 12:19 PM	#22
Jobar Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2001 Location: secularcafe.org Posts: 9,525	CowboyX says "The rejection of god or the affirmation of god's nonexistance on the other hand is not just indefensible, but meaningless unless god is further defined..." Quite right. However, we have centuries of attempts to define the concept 'God' in Christianity/Judaism/Islam (omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, etc.) to base our affirmation or rejection upon. So, a 'weak' atheist is one who says that there is no evidence for any god, therefore no belief should be held. A 'strong' atheist says that the definition of God as given by C/J/I is logically impossible, therefore Yahweh/Allah CAN NOT exist. When we get down to cases, the definitions given for Yahweh/Allah break down, and become contradictory or meaningless. Therefore perhaps Paul Kurtz' notion of igtheism- ignorance of what 'god' means- is the more strictly correct position. Who knows how many gigabytes have been spent on these definitions?- and of course it is still not clear. My own personal opinion is that there is no God, to an extremely large but imprecisely calculated probability. [ December 19, 2001: Message edited by: Jobar ]</p>

12-19-2001, 01:36 PM	#23
Earl Regular Member Join Date: Jul 2000 Location: Ontario, Canada Posts: 390	POLYCARP: Red herring alert! Do the majority of sane humans today believe in the existence of unicorns? You're comparing apples and Toyotas. I'm not saying that truth is determined by majority, BUT your analogy is flawed in that the overwhelming majority of people do believe there is evidence pointing to the existence of a god. Such is not the case with one-horned horse-like mammals. EARL: Like I said in the rest of that post the appeal to popularity is fallacious in this case. Therefore the fact that many people believe that God exists whereas no one believes in unicorns by itself has no bearing here. You say you don't want to argue that truth is determined by majority, yet you also say that the popularity of theism is relevant in discrediting unpopular unicorns at the outset. Given the fallacy of the appeal to popularity, the difference between the popularity of theism and the unpopularity of unicorns is irrelevant in determining the burden of proof and therefore whether there is sufficient evidence to establish belief or disbelief. I would, therefore, defend the comparison between God and unicorns. I maintain that the popularity of theism is irrelevant in determining theism's truth, and that the burden of proof is on the theist just as it would be on the believer in unicorns. I therefore deny that this is a red herring. POLYCARP: You seem to be of the belief that only empirically-verifiable beliefs should be held. This is certainly false. Otherwise, the existence of other galaxies would have been a false belief prior to the invention of certain telescopes. The fact that a belief is unable to be proven empirically does not render it false. EARL: Your claim that I'm a verificationist is refuted by my use of mathematics as an example of a kind of truth justified by a priori argument. I am not a verificationist. The problem is that there are no sound rationalist proofs of God's existence just as there is no strong empirical evidence for theism. POLYCARP: First, please tell me what is "logically contradictory" about the classic theistic definition of god. Second, there is nothing logically contradictory about the existence of unicorns. Neither is there anything logically contradictory about the existence of UFO's, tooth fairies, or the Loch Ness monster. I don't understand your point here. EARL: Well, there are numerous arguments about the contradictoriness of certain divine attributes such as omnipotence and omniscience. For example, if God knows everything can his actions be free or personal and thus "actions" in the first place? Or does the concept of "personal action" presuppose finite knowledge and finite being? Is God so powerful that he can create a stone so heavy that even he can't lift it? Sartre, if I'm not mistaken, argued that being-in-itself and being-for-itself exclude each other. Many atheists argue as well that the notion of disembodied mind is not just empirically unsupported but contradictory. The very definition of a "person" seems to presuppose embodiment. (This may be why Christians paganized and incarnated the Jews' God. Unfortunately, there are plenty of contradictions involved in talking about a god-man, so Christians didn't escape the problem of a misuse of language in theism.) What is the difference between infinite, disembodied spiritual being and pure nothingness? The notions of "infinite" love, mercy, wrath, and so forth seem contradictory too. Love, mercy, and wrath have evolutionary but not unconditional merit. Any source capable of producing "infinite love" would not, in fact, be producing "love" at all as commonly defined. If you like, the definitions of our words are conditioned by our "fallen" state, which means that god talk is bound to be empty. This point about contradictoriness is close to the common atheistic objection about the incoherence or meaninglessness of god talk. See, for example, the atheist Kai Nielson. I brought up the point about a contradictory definition of God simply to distinguish between two degrees of atheism. God might be impossible or improbable depending on whether there is a logical contradiction involved in the definition of God. If God were defined in a consistent way, then the atheist would have to say that God is improbable rather than impossible. The definition of a unicorn is coherent and consistent and therefore unicorns are logically possible creatures. At best we can say that they are highly improbable precisely because, as you said, we are not omniscient. The fact that we are not omniscient, however, does NOT mean that we must be agnostic about whether unicorns or God exist. You need to distinguish between impossibility and improbability. Given our finite knowledge we are still left with the concept of improbability. Unicorns are possible but highly improbable, and so too is God so long as God is defined in a logically possible way. POLYCARP: Another red herring alert ! Who said anything about the resurrection? I'm not going to chase this one. EARL: I brought up the resurrection because Bd and I have had a few debates with theists like Nomad and Rainbow Walking on this very question about the resurrection claim, extraordinary evidence and the burden of proof. Moreover, the resurrection is the central proposition of a major religion, Christianity, and therefore logically cannot be a red herring in a discussion about theism and the requirement for extraordinary evidence for miracle claims. You are free not to debate a particular point if you like, but make sure you understand the meaning of a phrase before you use it, like "red herring." Talk of the resurrection here is most certainly NOT a "red herring." On the contrary, the resurrection is a sterling example of a miracle claim which requires extraordinary evidence but which instead is often supported merely by an appeal to popularity. If you cannot see the relevance of the resurrection as an example here I can't help you. POLYCARP [in his next post]: If a person claims to "know" that god does not exist, then they would be guilty of hypocrisy (IMO). If the shoe doesn't fit, then don't worry. Those of you who don't claim to know that god does not exist can rest assured that we're in agreement. So, do any of you claim to "know" that god does not exist? This was what I was trying to address. EARL: Again, there is a difference between certain and probable knowledge. I would call my belief that unicorns very probably don't exist a piece of probable knowledge. Likewise, the atheist would be free to say that she "knows" God does not exist were she to mean that God is very improbable. Alternatively, the atheist can indeed claim certain knowledge about the existence of a logically contradictory God. Your definition of "knowledge" as certitude is too restrictive. [ December 19, 2001: Message edited by: Earl ]</p>

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

12-19-2001, 12:18 PM	#21
MrLoverLover Banned Join Date: Nov 2001 Location: United States Posts: 63	It may be an extraordinary claim if my friend claims he had sex with a woman, but I won't need extraordinary evidence to believe him.

12-19-2001, 01:58 PM	#24
Earl Regular Member Join Date: Jul 2000 Location: Ontario, Canada Posts: 390	Cowboy X, You seem to be right about the meaning of the word "atheism," but you're close to making a merely semantic point here. Perhaps the term "strong atheism" is misleading and should be called instead "anti-theism." Your main point I agree with, which is that atheism itself is not a positive view and involves no faith or, therefore, burden of proof. But in an actual debate with a theist this position often very quickly slides into a positive one. For example, the theist might claim that God is the best explanation of the universe, and the atheist would need to show that there is a better, naturalist explanation. I think you misstate the maxim about proving a negative. The point made is that a universal negative can't be proved because we are not omniscient. We can't say universally or necessarily (false in all possible worlds) that there are no unicorns because we simply haven't looked in each possible world. The maxim may, therefore, be practically but not logically true. On the other hand, you're right about the self-referential incoherence here. The principle "you can't prove a universal negative" is itself a universal negative. This problem pops up for the postmodern relativist too.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.