Satan Oscillate My Metallic Sonatas

Forumers,

In the past few weeks much discussion in these forums has revolved around/pertained to issues of proof, evidence and what constitues it and faith. There have been a few rash remarks like '
faith is irrational belief' or even 'faith is simply irrational'. I'm sure most reasonable, level-headed atheists disregard these comments as inflammatory and frankly incorrect.


However, such statements raise good questions like 'What is good reason to believe?' I thought I'd post some thoughts on this topic.


It is important for both the theist and athiest alike to realize the position they are in. Learned, mature atheists are quick to admit there is no proof God does not exist. It is difficult to prove the assertion of a negative. In like manner, knowledgable theists will readily admit
there is no undeniable proof of that God exits. There is no smoking gun with God's name on it.


This mirrors the general consensus of both theists and atheists. Most, regardless of world view, acknowledge that there is no 'proof' of God's existence one way or another. There is no universal, non-subjective fact that can be referenced.


In this manner both theists and atheists alike are agnostic...they simply don't have fact. Even the Reverend Billy Graham is an agnostic in this sense since he cannot provide 'proof' of God.


Since we do not have proof of God's existence in either regard the position one takes on the issue will necessarily be faith-based. That is one has no fact that their position is correct...they simply 'believe'. You either 'believe' God exits or you 'believe' gods don't exist...you have no proof of either statement.


This is not necessarily a bad thing. In fact it is quite natural. We do not/cannot prove most of the 'facts' we use in everyday life. For example, when was the last time you A-proved the gas station will have gas next time you show up, B-The grocery store has bread, C-A chair will support you when you sit on it? When was the last time you went for gas, bread and/or sat on a chair? 99.999999% of the all the people on the planet can probably count the number of things they've logically/mathematically proven in their entire life on one or two hands.


In short, we believe what we have 'evidence' for.
However, this is where the issue at hand becomes extremely subjective. Because what we see as evidence for and against is almost entirely dependant upon our opinions, experiences and worldviews.

For example, if you hold the view that the purely physical universe can account for everything, that love, logic, conscienceness, and morality are perceptions but not real in and of themselves, and that if a god did exist then it would be responsible for all the bad in the world...then it is highly likely that when you look around the world you see no evidence to suggest that a god exists.

On the other hand, if you are of the opinion that the physical universe can't account for everything, that love, logic, conscienceness and morality are not perceptions but are real in and of themselves, and that if God existed He would not be directly responsible for all the bad in the world...then it is highly likely that you see much evidence that God exists.


These issues of contention: the origin of the universe, metaphysical entities such as logic and consciousness, and the issue of evil are all very subjective. And when it comes down to it your position of whether or not God exists is mostly based on your views and opinions of these things.


I hope this may afford some insight into the other sides reasoning.

Thoughts and comments welcomed,


Satan Oscillate My Metallic Sonatas

[ September 12, 2002: Message edited by: Satan Oscillate My Metallic Sonatas ]</p>

Blu

<a href="http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=50&t=000615" target="_blank">Lost in Definition</a>



[ September 12, 2002: Message edited by: Blu ]</p>

Devilnaut

Without evidence for (regardless of whether there is zero or an abundance of evidence against) a deity's existence, it is irrational to believe that one exists.


Does everyone on earth have "faith" that I am not God? Does everyone have "faith" that the moon is not made of cheese?


SOMMS, get real! This issue has been beaten to death!


With regard to the proposition "God exists", weak atheism is the default position, and the burden of proof is on the theist to provide evidence for this proposition.

[ September 12, 2002: Message edited by: Devilnaut ]</p>

Thomas Metcalf

Not really. Learned, mature atheists know that several versions of God can be disproven. The god who is weakly omnipotent and omniscient is impossible. The god Who is strongly omnipotent is impossible. In fact, all the versions of "omnipotent" I've seen are inadequate. Furthermore, others of God's attributes contradict each other. A self-contradictory being cannot exist. Therefore, it is possible to prove God nonexistent in several ways.

This is a very old and very well refuted position. There is no reason to call a belief faith-based unless it goes against the preponderance of evidence. The preponderance of evidence shows the God of the apologists to be probably nonexistent or definitely nonexistent, and the preponderance of evidence does not provide any good evidential reasons to believe in any god. This second fact is known to the majority of philosophers of religion, and I think the first is known to most skilled atheologians.

sir drinks-a-lot

Since we do not have proof of Invisible Sky Pixie's existence in either regard the position one takes on the issue will necessarily be faith-based. That is one has no fact that their position is correct...they simply 'believe'. You either 'believe' Invisible Sky Pixie exits or you 'believe' Invisible Sky Pixies don't exist...you have no proof of either statement.

K

SOMMS:

If you say that it belief in God is reasonable because you don't believe the physical world can account for everything, would you say that the gods of the ancient Greeks, Egyptians, or Aztecs were just as likely to be the real account as the Christian God? If not, maybe you'll begin to see why many of us find your belief irrational.

Jobar

SOMMS:
It is important for both the theist and athiest alike to realize the position they are in. Learned, mature atheists are quick to admit there is no proof God does not exist. It is difficult to prove the assertion of a negative. In like manner, knowledgable theists will readily admit
there is no undeniable proof of that God exits. There is no smoking gun with God's name on it.


This mirrors the general consensus of both theists and atheists. Most, regardless of world view, acknowledge that there is no 'proof' of God's existence one way or another. There is no universal, non-subjective fact that can be referenced.


In this manner both theists and atheists alike are agnostic...they simply don't have fact. Even the Reverend Billy Graham is an agnostic in this sense since he cannot provide 'proof' of God.

SOMMS, If you could actually get Billy Graham, or any well-known televangelist, to admit that in public, I would- in my dad's amusing phrase- kiss your ass at high noon in front of the courthouse, and give you an hour to draw a crowd.

When you are saying 'proof' here, what you mean is absolute proof. Most of us unbelievers claim no absolute proof of anything at all- there is always some (very very remote, IMO) possibility we are figments of some incomprehensible being's dream, or living in a 'Matrix' world. We can only be as sure of anything as we are sure of what our senses report, and we know our senses are imperfect.

However- we can approach certainty, to the limit of the dependability of our senses. So, if we are to trust the reality of the external world, we can say with great certainty that there are no manticores, or basilisks, or personal gods, outside the works of pure fiction we make up.

I think it was Carl Sagan who said- though he might have been quoting someone else- "It is wrong to deny what is *probably* true."

And this has indeed been discussed over and over and over...

[ September 12, 2002: Message edited by: Jobar ]</p>

Kantian

Of "level-headed atheists," you really mean to refer to those who are sympathetic to the feelings of theists (of your ilk), perhaps? Taken philosophically, faith has little to nothing to do with deductive logic, which is what the phrase "faith is irrational" implies. That faith is nowhere to be found in issuing the trivially true statement "all bachelors are unmarried men," is telling. We all share an animal faith, the belief in the uniform state of nature, which is a projection of belief that the future will resemble the past. Since this is a species of induction, it can never amount to logical certainty. But I am willing to wager that you are not arguing that specific type of faith, but of a different sort.

Not quite. In the book Being and Nothingness Sartre argues on the strength of his ontological analysis of existence that God is a paradoxical concept, a contradiction and offers several arguments. Whether it 'proves' that God does not exist is a whole another matter, and entirely contingent upon one's cognitive skills.

The assertion of a negative is produced in the context of the failure of another proponent's attempt to resolve the burden of proof he adopts in his original assertion of a positive. This assertion of a negative does not exist in itself.

You're only projecting your culturally-influenced standards upon the past. The smoking gun did exist as a cultural thing rather than a pure idea when the Church dominated intellectual resources and by necessity, it was socially mandatory to adopt apologist positions, and assume the existence of God in order to succeed. Once the monolithic Church slackened its demands for self-edification during its overgrowth, ancient texts were discovered and exploited, which produced a school of orthodoxy, scholasticism. By adopting various philosophical methods, those intellectuals generated rational discourse (Enlightenment, Science) that inadvertently led to the steady decline of the authority of the monolith.

That is quite a departure from fundamentalism, which consists the majority of the theist population- so you are merely tooting your liberal horn of Christianity in a disingenuous way, by pretending to speak for everyone else.

I am beginning to wonder if you are employing the term "proof" accurately, much less understand it.

False. facts are gained by empirical data, that you experience some form of tangible effects, whereas faith requires a leap of reasoning.

Irrelevant. These points you've raised have little to nothing to do with the ungainly bifurcation you have imposed upon faith and proof.

There is a step you are missing here- that everyone gains opinions and worldviews in the same manner- by empirical features- the eyes, the nose, the ears, the ability to touch, and the tongue. The brain processes the raw data into sensible concepts contingent upon the instincts of the body. Now the consciousness comes in play here, and makes inferences from what is readily apparent. Here lies the problem of subjectivity- the ability to make inferences from first order experiences. That one evaulates inferences by some adopted schema, and interprets it as 'evidence' is dependent upon his understanding of the terminology as well as reasoning. In most theists, this reasoning is deficient to the point of self-deception, or bad faith.

Strawman. That a universe must 'account' for all these human concepts is a distorted understanding of how a person constructs his world-view, and quite a backward one, at that.

False again. That is not how you theists think, that 'something' must account for everything. You adopt a culturally indoctrinated belief, and then do apologia when you encounter people who have deprogrammed themselves, or those who have not had the opportunity either way. And that apologia consists of bad arguments such as those in your post: a false identity (that absolute proof is not found in either theism or atheism does not mean both worldviews are equal) false dichotomy (either you are a materialist or you believe in god) strawman (distorting materialism to suit one's own convictions) and a host of other non-sequiturs, such as the demand that a worldview must 'account' for everything.

While choice remains subjective, nobody is capable of choosing his desires. One may choose among his desires, but not choose them.


[grammar]
~Transcendentalist~

[ September 12, 2002: Message edited by: Immanuel Kant ]</p>

Family Man

Actually, these things are evidence of what I expect. I am currently sitting on a chair at my computer. I have sat on this chair hundreds of times and it has alway held my weight. Someday, it may fail, but the fact that it held my weight before is evidence that it will hold my weight the next time I sit on it.

Before going home tonight, I filled up my car with gas. The gas station I patronize has always had gas when I needed it. Someday, they may disappoint me, but I have lots of evidence to expect that I'll have no trouble filling up the next time I need to.

As for the bread...well, you get the idea.

On the other hand, by your own admission, the theist has no real evidence that your god exists. Yet, you believe he exists. Thoughtful skeptics would consider that irrational. We could be wrong, but I suspect not.

[ September 12, 2002: Message edited by: Family Man ]</p>

Silent Dave

I agree with some of what you say, SOMMS, but I think you're reading a symmetry into it that isn't there. In the years that I've been an atheist, I have asked atheists if they would become theists if they were satisfied that there was sound evidence for theism. Most atheists said yes, although they would not then automatically worship such a god. I have also asked theists if they would become atheists if they were satisfied if their evidence for God was faulty. I have yet to receive a single yes answer. I'm sure you have an idea as to what accounts for this assymetry.


Dave