Skip to content

Theism - The feel in your head

1356711

Comments

  • FinneousPJFinneousPJ Member Posts: 6,455
    @Grond0 That is pretty much where I was going with my questions for @mashedtaters
  • mashedtatersmashedtaters Member Posts: 2,266
    edited August 2018

    @BelgarathMTH Quite. I was expecting @mashedtaters to offer a theistic argument for morality, or indeed the moral argument for god, but he kind of sidestepped it. Still an interesting conversation! Thanks for bringing that up, though. Obviously as a nonbeliever I find all the classical arguments weak. Do you (or other posters) disagree? Is there a good argument for theism?

    @FinneousPJ

    I agree that arguments for theism are very weak. As far as I'm concerned, religious people should stop trying to prove the existence of God, just as atheists should stop trying to disprove the existence of God. It is an unprovable concept by definition, in part because:

    Faith is believing without seeing.

    However, morality can be seen and proven, I believe, which is why I have come at this discussion from a secular view. (Also, this discussion had started in the politics thread when I argued that Christian morality has played a large role in the development of Western societies, cultures, and laws.)
  • FinneousPJFinneousPJ Member Posts: 6,455
    Why would you believe something for which you say there could never be any evidence? Do you also believe in unicorns and fairies? If not, you're not being intellectually honest.
    BelgarathMTH
  • mashedtatersmashedtaters Member Posts: 2,266

    Why would you believe something for which you say there could never be any evidence? Do you also believe in unicorns and fairies? If not, you're not being intellectually honest.

    Let's keep the insults out of the discussion, please. There are people here who have strong faith (though I'm not one of them at the moment, that is a discussion for a different time).
    The point is, the Bible says to have faith, to believe even though you can't prove it. Disbelieving in God is also an act of "faith." At best, the only thing that you can do scientifically is say, "I don't know." So then what is the point of deriding someone for believing something that no one knows?
  • FinneousPJFinneousPJ Member Posts: 6,455
    What insults?

    How is not believing a claim an act of faith? I don't know if there are unicorns. Until I see evidence I do not believe unicorns exist. Now swap in god for unicorns.
    mashedtatersBelgarathMTH
  • mashedtatersmashedtaters Member Posts: 2,266
    @Grond0 @FinneousPJ

    I believe it is required to come at this from a more basic start.

    If I were a scientist seeking to prove the existence of something as a fact or as true, I would develop an objective method to measure the something in question as consistent and repeatable (universal). If I come across something that doesn't fit within this framework, then I assume that there is some sort of external factor that I haven't accounted for or I would write an exception. (The double-slit experiment is a famous one for something like this that baffles both of these requirements.)

    For example, we observe that there is something that causes all people (and things) to move towards the ground (we eventually learned that this is gravity). We know that this something exists because it applies universally and objectively.
    This something causes me and you to move towards the ground. (Universal)
    This something causes me to move towards the ground there and over here. (Objective)
    Let's assume we don't know what this something is yet. (As we are in the very infancy of understanding morality/immorality, I think this is a good analogy.)
    We hypothesize that there is a magical energy that pushes down on us. This energy is from a giant turtle underneath us, the Great A'Tuin, which bears the world on a giant plate on the backs of four giant elephants. The we conjecture that the Great A'Tuin is an enemy of the birds, so they have a special power that for some reason ignores his magical energy. But the Great A'Tuin is all powerful, so the birds must take a break from the overwhelming magical power of the turtle oftentimes.
    Then forerunner science comes along. Some scientists make a journey to the end of the earth and discover that the world is not on the back of a turtle. They discover that it is actually round. They are obviously hated and derided when they return, but eventually the truth becomes known to everyone and the great myth of A'Tuin is ended.
    However, the mystery of gravity is not yet solved. We don't know why we are all pulled down towards the earth, we just know that we are.

    Humans from every culture of every time have developed a sense or code of morality. They don't always or often align, but this is factually observable. We don't know why this is, but it is.

    We can try to deny that morality exists, and we can make some very intelligent arguments against such. Such was done, in this hypothetical scenario, when it was discovered that the Great A'Tuin's magical energy wasn't pushing us against the ground. "There is no up or down, we are living on a sphere. The people on the bottom side of the earth see our down as their up, so there is no up or down." This is the core of the subjectivist argument in a nutshell. It denies that gravity exists because it is perceived and interpreted differently by different cultures based on where they are in time/place/live events. While it is true that there is no up or down in spacetime (this is taking the analogy too far, but bear with me), it ignores and then denies why all people still act as though there is an up and down because we don't have enough understanding of gravity.

    IF there is and actual thing as right and wrong (moral vs immoral) that can be observed scientifically, then before it is even defined it must meet the minimum criteria:
    It is universally applied.
    It is objectively measured.
    If it does not meet these minimum requirements, then it cannot be proven.

    I believe that there is such a thing, and I am prepared to argue the case (without God, as I know there are many athiests/agnostics here). But we must, as @Grond0 pointed out to me, develop the framework to work within. I did a poor job of that last time. Does this make sense? Do you understand this framework, that I am arguing for using the scientific method to make a case for "good" and "evil" (not the existence of God), which is an observable phenomenon across all cultures? Though I understand that this phenomenon is perceived differently by different cultures, I do not accept the argument that universal mis-perception=nonexistence.
    semiticgoddessBelgarathMTH
  • mashedtatersmashedtaters Member Posts: 2,266

    What insults?

    How is not believing a claim an act of faith? I don't know if there are unicorns. Until I see evidence I do not believe unicorns exist. Now swap in god for unicorns.

    Very well, I misread your post. Thanks for clarifying.

    ...however, disbelieving in unicorns is still an act of faith. :D
  • FinneousPJFinneousPJ Member Posts: 6,455

    What insults?

    How is not believing a claim an act of faith? I don't know if there are unicorns. Until I see evidence I do not believe unicorns exist. Now swap in god for unicorns.

    Very well, I misread your post. Thanks for clarifying.

    ...however, disbelieving in unicorns is still an act of faith. :D
    How is it an act of faith?
  • FinneousPJFinneousPJ Member Posts: 6,455



    I believe that there is such a thing, and I am prepared to argue the case (without God, as I know there are many athiests/agnostics here). But we must, as @Grond0 pointed out to me, develop the framework to work within. I did a poor job of that last time. Does this make sense? Do you understand this framework, that I am arguing for using the scientific method to make a case for "good" and "evil" (not the existence of God), which is an observable phenomenon across all cultures? Though I understand that this phenomenon is perceived differently by different cultures, I do not accept the argument that universal mis-perception=nonexistence.

    What you describe is the moral tendency in social species. It manifests in humans, apes, even dogs. Morality is how you apply the moral tendency, not the thing itself.
    BelgarathMTH
  • mashedtatersmashedtaters Member Posts: 2,266

    What insults?

    How is not believing a claim an act of faith? I don't know if there are unicorns. Until I see evidence I do not believe unicorns exist. Now swap in god for unicorns.

    Very well, I misread your post. Thanks for clarifying.

    ...however, disbelieving in unicorns is still an act of faith. :D
    How is it an act of faith?
    It was a joke. Joke explain sigh:
    I was referring to the idea that there is no evidence against the existence of unicorns, but there is evidence that unicorns don't exist.
    When you compared something for which there is insurmountable evidence against (unicorns) to something for which there is no evidence against (God), I thought you were being intentionally insulting because...

    There is no evidence for or against the existence of God as it is defined in most religions, but there is evidence against the existence of unicorns as magical beings of fairy power of the realm.

    Thus, I was saying that it is an act of faith to disbelieve in unicorns (though it's not) and trying (and failing, obviously) to imply that it is an act of faith to disbelieve in God.
  • mashedtatersmashedtaters Member Posts: 2,266



    I believe that there is such a thing, and I am prepared to argue the case (without God, as I know there are many athiests/agnostics here). But we must, as @Grond0 pointed out to me, develop the framework to work within. I did a poor job of that last time. Does this make sense? Do you understand this framework, that I am arguing for using the scientific method to make a case for "good" and "evil" (not the existence of God), which is an observable phenomenon across all cultures? Though I understand that this phenomenon is perceived differently by different cultures, I do not accept the argument that universal mis-perception=nonexistence.

    What you describe is the moral tendency in social species. It manifests in humans, apes, even dogs. Morality is how you apply the moral tendency, not the thing itself.
    The difference is the application of free will. Humans have free will, animals do not.
  • mashedtatersmashedtaters Member Posts: 2,266
    Wait, don't tell me I'm going to have to argue the case for free will here on these forums... we all agreed to the terms of forum behavior, right? I don't see any dogs or cats (though hamsters, yes) here.
  • FinneousPJFinneousPJ Member Posts: 6,455
    Now I don't follow at all. As far as I know there is equal evidence for unicorns and gods.
    BelgarathMTH
  • mashedtatersmashedtaters Member Posts: 2,266

    Now I don't follow at all. As far as I know there is equal evidence for unicorns and gods.

    There is no evidence for either, thus neither can be proven, but...

    There is evidence AGAINST the existence of unicorns, thus it can be disproven.

    There is no evidence AGAINST the existence of God, thus it can’t be disproven.
  • mashedtatersmashedtaters Member Posts: 2,266
    edited August 2018
    You must have faith to believe edit: or disbelieve in one, but must take an active effort of will to deny the senses or be crazy to believe in the other.
  • FinneousPJFinneousPJ Member Posts: 6,455
    What is the evidence against unicorns?
    BelgarathMTH
  • FinneousPJFinneousPJ Member Posts: 6,455
    Also I feel like you are not understanding correctly. I do not believe unicorns exists. That is not to say I believe they don't exist. Same with gods.
    BelgarathMTHArtona
  • Grond0Grond0 Member Posts: 7,305

    @Grond0 @FinneousPJ I believe that there is such a thing, and I am prepared to argue the case (without God, as I know there are many athiests/agnostics here). But we must, as @Grond0 pointed out to me, develop the framework to work within. I did a poor job of that last time. Does this make sense? Do you understand this framework, that I am arguing for using the scientific method to make a case for "good" and "evil" (not the existence of God), which is an observable phenomenon across all cultures? Though I understand that this phenomenon is perceived differently by different cultures, I do not accept the argument that universal mis-perception=nonexistence.

    Thanks for the clarification @mashedtaters. I don't think you will be able to develop the framework, but I'm willing to help you try :D. I think the greatest problem with this is avoiding making a starting assumption that morality exists as an objective idea (once you have that assumption you can use a circular argument to overcome objections later in the framework).

    I agree with @FinneousPJ that the idea of morality (or fairness) is something that you would expect to develop in a social species and hence it's no surprise that this is seen in different cultures. I also agree with him that this sense of fairness is not restricted to humans - there have been many experiments showing the same sense of fairness operating in other animals.

    Game theory predicts that the concept of fairness will develop as an excellent means of dealing with different individuals / groups. This occurs because there are greater rewards available for everyone by using co-operative behavior. In the short term it's possible for one individual / group to gain more by not co-operating (cheating), but those gains quickly evaporate if others stop co-operating with them (game strategies like 'tough love' model this) - which they will because the cheating is perceived as being unfair. This sense of fairness therefore helps keep people co-operating and thus maximizes the success of the culture / species as a whole.

    In that game theory model, it's not necessary for a sense of fairness to be identical across individuals / groups. However, you can argue that the success of a species will be maximized if there is universal agreement about what constitutes fairness and therefore it's possible to argue that a universal sense of morality could 'emerge' over a long period of time. In that sense existing differences could represent different levels of progress towards the emergent ideal.

    Even if you used that argument though, we still get into definitional problems. To my mind such an emergent ideal would not be strictly objective, i.e. it would not have any separate existence outside of people's perceptions. It would simply be that over the course of time people's subjective views about what is fair will converge.

    I would also say though that I don't think we could ever get to a totally shared perception anyway. Even though there are forces which push in that direction, as you get closer to the ideal, random / chaotic variations will become ever more relevant to prevent you achieving that. That's because humans do not live in a closed environment and can't escape random events. As an example, the sense of fairness of a young child is unlikely to develop in the same way if their mother is killed by lightning.
    FinneousPJBelgarathMTHmashedtaters
  • MathsorcererMathsorcerer Member Posts: 3,037
    Threads like this make me glad I am not here as often as I used to be.
    FinneousPJmashedtaters
  • FinneousPJFinneousPJ Member Posts: 6,455
    @Mathsorcerer Luckily every poster has the right to choose which threads they would like to participate in ;)
    ThacoBellMathsorcerermashedtaters
  • Dev6Dev6 Member Posts: 719
    There is only one true God.


    BelgarathMTHFinneousPJ
  • BelgarathMTHBelgarathMTH Member Posts: 5,653

    @BelgarathMTH Quite. I was expecting @mashedtaters to offer a theistic argument for morality, or indeed the moral argument for god, but he kind of sidestepped it. Still an interesting conversation! Thanks for bringing that up, though. Obviously as a nonbeliever I find all the classical arguments weak. Do you (or other posters) disagree? Is there a good argument for theism?

    Just to answer your question and for the record, I am an atheist.

    I was raised as an evangelical Southern Baptist Christian, and in youth I attained a divinity degree with the full intention of becoming a minister or professor. As I went through my 20's and 30's, several life events and experiences occurred, combined with continued study and reflection, that led me to become a non-believer.

    I agree strongly with you that we have close to the same evidence that god exists as we have that unicorns exist. I am always open to new evidence, and I'd love to have convincing evidence that I was wrong, there is a god, and human consciousness continues in a different form beyond physical death. However, my considered and studied opinion is that a strong preponderance of evidence suggests the opposite.
    FinneousPJmashedtaters
  • FinneousPJFinneousPJ Member Posts: 6,455
    Dev6 said:

    There is only one true God.


    There is no evidence AGAINST the Flying Spaghetti Monster!
    Dev6BelgarathMTH
  • ThacoBellThacoBell Member Posts: 12,235
    @Grond0 "if you don't accept people's views about right and wrong, then do you think democracy is a poor system given that depends on people's views?"
    It all depends on the people. In both cases. But again, if you truely believe that right and wrong are subjective, can you, or are you willing, to argue that Nazism is good? If you can't/won't that leads me to believe that you do view some things as objectively right or wrong.

    @FinneousPJ "If X isn't natural, then the supernatural exists. Well, obviously. Now all that's left is to show X isn't natural!" Thats the point of my argument. Rationality, because it is unobservable or measurable, cannot be proven to be natural. Therefore Naturalism falls apart. Let me try and clarify. *I'm new to the rationalism debate and stumbled over my point way too much. I pulled the general argument from online*

    1. No belief is rationally inferred if it can be fully explained in terms of nonrational causes.
    2. If naturalism is true, then all beliefs can be fully explained in terms of nonrational causes.
    3. We have good reason to accept naturalism only if it can be rationally inferred from good evidence.
    4. Therefore, there is not, and cannot be, good reason to accept naturalism.

    The Naturalism argument contradicts itself. Taking it further.

    1. Since everything in nature can be wholly explained in terms of nonrational causes, human reason (more precisely, the power of drawing conclusions based solely on the rational cause of logical insight) must have a source outside of nature.
    2. If human reason came from non-reason it would lose all rational credentials and would cease to be reason.
    3. So, human reason cannot come from non-reason (from 2).
    4. So human reason must come from a source outside nature that is itself rational (from 1 and 3).
    5. This supernatural source of reason may itself be dependent on some further source of reason, but a chain of such dependent sources cannot go on forever. Eventually, we must reason back to the existence of eternal, non-dependent source of human reason.
    6. Therefore, there exists an eternal, self-existent, rational Being who is the ultimate source of human reason. This Being we call God (from 4-5)

    I pulled the extended argument from C.S. Lewis' "Miracles"



    mashedtaters
  • FinneousPJFinneousPJ Member Posts: 6,455

    @BelgarathMTH Quite. I was expecting @mashedtaters to offer a theistic argument for morality, or indeed the moral argument for god, but he kind of sidestepped it. Still an interesting conversation! Thanks for bringing that up, though. Obviously as a nonbeliever I find all the classical arguments weak. Do you (or other posters) disagree? Is there a good argument for theism?

    Just to answer your question and for the record, I am an atheist.

    I was raised as an evangelical Southern Baptist Christian, and in youth I attained a divinity degree with the full intention of becoming a minister or professor. As I went through my 20's and 30's, several life events and experiences occurred, combined with continued study and reflection, that led me to become a non-believer.

    I agree strongly with you that we have close to the same evidence that god exists as we have that unicorns exist. I am always open to new evidence, and I'd love to have convincing evidence that I was wrong, there is a god, and human consciousness continues in a different form beyond physical death. However, my considered and studied opinion is that a strong preponderance of evidence suggests the opposite.
    Damn sir your journey out of that must have been rough. By our European standards your American churches are pretty hardcore. Do you still associate with those people? What about your family?
    ThacoBellmashedtaters
  • FinneousPJFinneousPJ Member Posts: 6,455
    ThacoBell said:

    @FinneousPJ "If X isn't natural, then the supernatural exists. Well, obviously. Now all that's left is to show X isn't natural!" Thats the point of my argument. Rationality, because it is unobservable or measurable, cannot be proven to be natural.

    Just for the sake of argument, let's say it cannot. So what? That doesn't mean it's not natural.
    ThacoBell said:

    Therefore Naturalism falls apart. Let me try and clarify. *I'm new to the rationalism debate and stumbled over my point way too much. I pulled the general argument from online*

    1. No belief is rationally inferred if it can be fully explained in terms of nonrational causes.
    2. If naturalism is true, then all beliefs can be fully explained in terms of nonrational causes.
    3. We have good reason to accept naturalism only if it can be rationally inferred from good evidence.
    4. Therefore, there is not, and cannot be, good reason to accept naturalism.

    The Naturalism argument contradicts itself. Taking it further.

    1. Since everything in nature can be wholly explained in terms of nonrational causes, human reason (more precisely, the power of drawing conclusions based solely on the rational cause of logical insight) must have a source outside of nature.
    2. If human reason came from non-reason it would lose all rational credentials and would cease to be reason.
    3. So, human reason cannot come from non-reason (from 2).
    4. So human reason must come from a source outside nature that is itself rational (from 1 and 3).
    5. This supernatural source of reason may itself be dependent on some further source of reason, but a chain of such dependent sources cannot go on forever. Eventually, we must reason back to the existence of eternal, non-dependent source of human reason.
    6. Therefore, there exists an eternal, self-existent, rational Being who is the ultimate source of human reason. This Being we call God (from 4-5)

    I pulled the extended argument from C.S. Lewis' "Miracles"

    I have no idea what that means. What do you mean that something "can be fully explained in terms of nonrational causes"?
  • ThacoBellThacoBell Member Posts: 12,235
    Rationality cannot come from nonrationality. So Naturalism cannot explain rationality. Since Naturalims cannot explain rationality, then its must not be natural. We can't rationalize rationality, so it must have come from a source outside nature, there for nonrational.
  • FinneousPJFinneousPJ Member Posts: 6,455
    ThacoBell said:

    Rationality cannot come from nonrationality.

    How do you know this?
    ThacoBell
  • ThacoBellThacoBell Member Posts: 12,235

    ThacoBell said:

    Rationality cannot come from nonrationality.

    How do you know this?
    According to Naturalism. The whole argument is framed in the context of Naturalism.
  • semiticgoddesssemiticgoddess Member Posts: 14,903
    I think we need definitions for "rational," "nonrational," "natural," and "non-natural."
    FinneousPJThacoBellmashedtaters
This discussion has been closed.