seebs

I think the claim has to do with the intended topic of the thread.

No, you're explaining that it seems absurd to you. Unless there's a God, there's no external arbitrary standard of absurdity to appeal to.

I would say it means "unwilling to commit without proof, unwilling to believe without evidence, and willing to discard or alter previously formed beliefs in light of new evidence".

You will notice that I carefully distinguish between things I'm certain of, and things I merely believe, and so on.

However, I will form opinions based on insufficient evidence, simply because, on many issues, a non-opinion has the effect of an opinion - and if I feel that even a slight weighting in evidence favors a different opinion, I'll move.

So, as an example, while I am well aware that evidence for God is questionable and subject to debates, I feel that, on the whole, it's a better explanation than the mass of alternative explanations I would otherwise need. I think it's *more likely* to be true. It doesn't matter much whether that's a 51/49 split or a 99/1 split; it's my best guess, at this time.

I regularly accept, as provisional results, abject guesses with no support whatsoever, simply because I also have no evidence for the alleged "default", and wish to start somewhere. If I don't know where I left something, I'll pick places that seem "likely" and start looking, even though I don't have any evidence of where the missing thing is.

IMHO, it's more rational to accept provisional hypotheses and move forwards, than to sit around denying everything that hasn't got "enough" evidence yet. I feel that, at any given time, I am more *likely* to hold true beliefs with this system. I may also be more likely to hold false beliefs, but as long as I'm willing to discard them when that becomes apparent, and I constantly test my beliefs against new data, it's not a big deal.

The trick is to get very good at identifying the cheapest possible test to further isolate possibilities; this cuts down on errors immensely.

I think it's pretty clear that the problem here isn't with my degree of skepticism, but with the fact that you consider one of my provisional hypotheses to be anathema, largely because most people who believe it believe it with a kind of weird fanatical devotion that strikes you as dangerous (perhaps rightly so). However, while the series of words "I believe in God" may be in common between me and those people, the details of the belief are, I think, substantially different. I admit to my uncertainties, although I frankly doubt I will ever see strong evidence either way. But that's fine; I have a working hypothesis, my world model is as consistent as any non-solipsist model, and I'm able to go about my business. Good Enough.

seebs

I admit to being pretty dubious about ESP. I've never seen anything that looked like it at anything better than chance probabilities. I doubt there will ever be anything along those lines, but if there is... well, no skin off my nose.

I cherish the notion that we will find that ESP and PK and all that really do exist - and are so utterly small and ineffectual as to be irrelevant in any practical sense, except perhaps as an alternative explanation for "prayer".

Rousseau_CHN

Wow the all-about Seebs Forum, wow, way to go, Seebs:notworthy

emur

Hi Seebs,

While I don't have an explanation to your illustrations (assuming that no knowledge of the issues involved was previously spoken about to others), my main problem with your view of an interventionist God is that he must be asked first or see openness in someone before he will communicate or act. At least this is what I am getting from you. If I am wrong, please correct me.

So that despicable Christian Fred Phelps will not hear God saying "stop the hate" because he has already made up his mind to hate? It seems to me that under your understanding the human has to have the right attitude before God will act.

Yet, this seems hardly loving, since God sees people filled with hate, harming others, and does nothing because they aren't open to him. If you say God absolutely cannot do anything without this openness, then such a God is limited by human choices. But if you say he simply chooses to implement the prime directive (non-interference) without the openness, then I have a big problem with that.

Even if I can be blessed by God by being open to him, I cannot fathom being satisfied with that, since that blessing comes from a being who watches suffering and does nothing because people aren't open to him. Especially suffering perpetrated on others by his socalled own people.

It would be like me having a big, powerful, friend. If I ask my big, powerful, friend for something that will bless me, he will provide it. But, if one of my big, powerful friend's loved ones mistreats me or others that I care about, he does nothing, because his mistreating loved ones aren't open to him.

It is this kind of thing that leads me to look for other answers when I hear illustrations like the ones you gave. I have also heard similar stories from astrologers by the way.

I do appreciate your willingness to not be dogmatic on these things. And I think you are honestly trying to come up with some kind of consistent belief system where God is concerned. I am too. It is the above issues that are a huge problem for me.

I wish I could write as well as I can speak. I'm not sure if I am making myself clear.

Mel

seebs

He has to at least be *open*. He has to have the idea that it is possible that he is mistaken.

I think it's possible, but creates greater problems than it solves.

Sure, but consider the alternative - no free will.

I think it makes a lot of sense, and I agree that it's a problem which merits a resolution. However, in the end, it's not an argument which strikes me as a deal-breaker; it leaves me wanting to solve it, but it doesn't suggest to me that the premises that lead to it are necessarily wrong.

It does suggest that the salvation of an individual soul is more important than the temporary suffering of many. I'm not sure I can condemn this; after all, if you look at it in terms of person-years of joy or suffering, it probably makes sense.

As a result, I tend to think that the point is not to make life easy, but to make salvation possible. This, I think, imposes substantial limits.

pz

That's an interesting, if rather ineffective, defense mechanism that you've got. If someone questions your beliefs, you just turn around and accuse them of intolerance and dogmatism, and adopt the pose of the poor gentleman oppressed for his open-mindedness and tolerance.

It doesn't fool me in the slightest.

Have you even considered the possibility that I'm actually using the definition of a skeptic you quoted above, and that the problem is not that I've closed my mind to your Good News, but that instead you've merely made an extraordinary claim and backed it up with 'evidence' that is, at best, pathetic? That all you've really done is contrived a series of shallow rationalizations that you use to justify your acceptance of the dogma of christianity with which you were indoctrinated?

seebs

The idea of an "extraordinary claim" is purely subjective.

If you don't believe, that's fine. If you call it nonsense, however, you're making an unsupported affirmative claim which, by its very nature, you don't even have *flimsy* evidence. Seems to me that's just as silly.

I'd guess that I'm more open to the idea of new evidence changing my opinion on the issue than you are; that, in my mind, suggests that I'm the less dogmatic one here.

Anyway, it seems you've got a preconceived notion about what I believe, and why I believe it, that you will hold despite posts in this very thread which contradict it. I don't see much point to that.

If people want to ask me what I think, instead of telling me, of course I'm always open to that.

Bree

<moderator hat>

It's really tough to have a thread opened that is directed at you. It kind of puts a person on the spot. It's even more difficult when people dip below the level of intelligent conversation and start sidetracking the conversation with unrelated commentary, Internet links, and ridicule.

</moderator hat>

seebs

1 Peter 3:15-17 (KJV)

15 But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts: and be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you with meekness and fear:
16 Having a good conscience; that, whereas they speak evil of you, as of evildoers, they may be ashamed that falsely accuse your good conversation in Christ.
17For it is better, if the will of God be so, that ye suffer for well doing, than for evil doing.

I have actually quite enjoyed the thread thus far. I don't entirely begrudge pz his sense that people are being entirely too accepting, but I would observe that I don't think anyone's said "gosh, your arguments are universal and compelling, where do I sign up". I never promised that everything I believed would be purest gold, suitable for teaching in high schools everywhere because of the wealth of physical evidence which supports it. I assume tdkeyser wanted to know what I believe, and why I believe it, and I am willing to admit that my reasons might not persuade other people. But what of it? Life is short, and I'm enjoying it. I won't have the time to prove my beliefs right on most issues; I'll settle for being convinced, for now, of some things, and leave open the possibility that I'll change my mind later.

BTW, that paragraph, word for word, is what I would have said when I was a non-Christian theist, or when I was a weak atheist/strong agnostic. Except that I've got 10 years of writing experience, so it's probably a bit better phrased than it would have been.

When I was about 17, I decided that a God who would damn me for my doubts was not one I would believe in, and I didn't care what anyone *else* thought of my standards of evidence. At the time, I was surrounded by Christians who presented me with painfully shoddy arguments (I mean, by comparison to which my vague testimonials were as the most reproducible of evidene). My position on evidence and personal belief was, IMHO, right then, and remains right now. It is not my problem what anyone else would believe, given my experiences. It is my choice.

My skill with words is not such that I can communicate my experiences well, and many of them feel to me to be personal, and not appropriate to share. It is no surprise at all that people would find the bits and pieces I can articulate at all unpersuasive. That's fine; my goal is not to convince you that, had you had my experiences, you would be a believer too. It's to tell you what kind of person I am, that my experiences should lead me to these conclusions. If, because you lack information about my experiences, this leads you to believe me less skeptical than I think I am, that's fine. I just think it might be reasonable to guess that I'm most likely depicting myself as fairly as I can.

BTW, out of idle curiousity, I'd like to know: When forming opinions on my skepticism, how many of you have paid attention to when I do and don't qualify my statements? I try to be good about this, and I generally aim for a policy of qualifying as uncertain any statement that is not inherently and unambiguously one of personal preference or desire. I know that, in at least one debate, someone spent hours searching Google groups, and was unable to find a single unqualified claim from me on a subject I'd been debating at length.

This is not a rhetorical trick; it is a reflection of my committment to try to always remember which of my beliefs are not things I can know with certainty. (And, I must admit, it is probably careless of me to express personal preferences as though I were certain of them, because current research suggests one can be mistaken in evaluating one's personal preferences.)

Corgan Sow

Especially when a moderator comes in and encourages the "fun".

I am disappointed that "fundyism" actually exists even in atheism.:boohoo: