Philosophy Now Forum

henry quirk wrote:You may find it a good read, if nuthin' else.

I looked it up...it's a novel.

I used to read a ton of those...classics, primarily, almost never a modern novel. Lately, I read pretty much non-fiction all the time, both at work and for recreation. I'm not actually sure when the last time was I sat down for a novel, since there's so much other stuff to cover. But I'll take your recommendation seriously.

Immanuel Can wrote:...
We may still be talking about him, but what good does that do him? ...

Well if you think being alive is just the meat then bugger all but if you think of living as also your actions and interactions with others then he's still partly alive.

If he's dead and there's no God, he's now a random collocation of atoms, and in that state shall abide forever. Or else he's met his Maker... ...

Or his DNA has been saved and he's 'resurrected' down the line or he's running in an ancestor sim or it's Eternal Return and he'll be back to do it all again or he's been reincarnated or he's in Nivarna or he's in Valhalla or Helheim or he's in the Elysium Fields or Hades or he's taking a break in Svargam or Narakam or he's living on the back of a great big turtle or he's just dead and lives on in our memories. Guess which one I reckon is the most likely.

How much good will proud anthems (or proud emails) do any of us then?

You saying your 'God' doesn't like a good song? Figures.

Immanuel Can wrote:

thedoc wrote:Do you have anything that you can claim as proof of God's existence, other than your belief that it is true?

Yes. In fact, there would never be a reason to believe anything that did not have more than you're suggesting. One can never makes something true simply by believing in it. That's true for all of us.

I think we are in agreement on that point, and others, however I have been listening to several Atheists programs and one of the claims they make is that religious people, Christians in particular, believe without any proof whatsoever. This is one of their claims that I disagree with. Neil Degrasse Tyson uses the term "God of the gaps" implying that Christians believe in a God who is responsible for those things that science can't explain. Aaron Ra makes the claim that Christians believe without evidence, however I would point out that there is evidence, but many people see it and discount it as evidence, claiming that there is some other explanation.

thedoc wrote:

Immanuel Can wrote:

thedoc wrote:Do you have anything that you can claim as proof of God's existence, other than your belief that it is true?

Yes. In fact, there would never be a reason to believe anything that did not have more than you're suggesting. One can never makes something true simply by believing in it. That's true for all of us.

I think we are in agreement on that point, and others, however I have been listening to several Atheists programs and one of the claims they make is that religious people, Christians in particular, believe without any proof whatsoever. This is one of their claims that I disagree with. Neil Degrasse Tyson uses the term "God of the gaps" implying that Christians believe in a God who is responsible for those things that science can't explain. Aaron Ra makes the claim that Christians believe without evidence, however I would point out that there is evidence, but many people see it and discount it as evidence, claiming that there is some other explanation.

I've heard plenty of religios say they have evidence but I've never seen them produce any. They think the bible is evidence
Isn't a complete lack of evidence the whole point though? It's what they call 'faith'.

Immanuel Can wrote:

thedoc wrote: But on another point, you asked,

Do you have anything that you can claim as proof of God's existence, other than your belief that it is true?

However, you also asserted earlier that you regarded my argument as correct. You wrote,

IC is correct, s57 is wrong.

If so, you cannot possibly be in doubt as to the answer of your question. For one thing (if for no more), the probabilities would then be massively in favour of the Design Hypothesis. That would surely constitute independent evidence for the existence of design...and a Designer.

I was referring to your argument about the roll of the dice, however I do think you are correct about other things. My question was not intended to express doubt but to get information, I do know some Christians who believe on faith alone even though they see the evidence, they just don't recognize it.

vegetariantaxidermy wrote:

thedoc wrote:

Immanuel Can wrote:
Yes. In fact, there would never be a reason to believe anything that did not have more than you're suggesting. One can never makes something true simply by believing in it. That's true for all of us.

I think we are in agreement on that point, and others, however I have been listening to several Atheists programs and one of the claims they make is that religious people, Christians in particular, believe without any proof whatsoever. This is one of their claims that I disagree with. Neil Degrasse Tyson uses the term "God of the gaps" implying that Christians believe in a God who is responsible for those things that science can't explain. Aaron Ra makes the claim that Christians believe without evidence, however I would point out that there is evidence, but many people see it and discount it as evidence, claiming that there is some other explanation.

I've heard plenty of religios say they have evidence but I've never seen them produce any. They think the bible is evidence
Isn't a complete lack of evidence the whole point though? It's what they call 'faith'.

I believe a lot of people quibble about definitions and will claim that faith means believing without evidence, but I contend that you can also have faith when you know the evidence as a fact. In other words, facts and knowledge does not eliminate faith, it just changes the nature of faith.

Also different people have different standards of evidence, what will satisfy one person may be totally inadequate to the next.

One more thing, I have been accused of having a definition of God that was so broad that it could include invisible pink Unicorns, and I say "so what? I don't know that Invisible pink Unicorns don't exist."

thedoc wrote:I think we are in agreement on that point, and others, however I have been listening to several Atheists programs and one of the claims they make is that religious people, Christians in particular, believe without any proof whatsoever.

That claim has two aspects to it, one that is unworthy and one that is genuinely problematic. The unworthy part is when an Atheist is just demonizing his opposition, so as to avoid having to take them seriously. "Theists are all just lunatics who believe in stuff gratuitously," goes the line; "they're illogical, anti-scientific, superstitious..." and so on. It's an old but cheap tactic. Truth be told, that is not how most Theists understand belief or faith at all.

But to be fair, there's something to the old canard. And it's this. That there are subgroups of Theists who insist it's true. They aren't many, but they do exist. Influenced by Pietism generally, or more philosophically, under the influence of Kant, they have come to believe that there's something really right about irrational belief, and something really paltry about belief that squares with any evidence at all. And the existence of this mystical fringe of Theists makes life very difficult for the mainstream Theist: for it lends credence to the prejudices expressed in the first sort of Atheist claim, a sort of sloppily-considered evidence that aids their case.

This is one of their claims that I disagree with.

As do I. But I admit that there are Theists who sometimes disagree with me on that. When the Atheists insist that Theists cannot be genuine if they use any evidence, however, I think the Atheists are being disingenuous again, and using the extreme fringe to discredit the entire group. It makes no more sense to say "All Theists must be mystical Pietists" than it does to say "All real Atheists must be Republicans (or Democrats)": it just doesn't follow. Some may be, but surely some aren't. And in neither case is their core belief altered by their position on such a question.

Neil Degrasse Tyson uses the term "God of the gaps" implying that Christians believe in a God who is responsible for those things that science can't explain.

That's a product of the NOMA Hypothesis, the idea that religion and science are two "non-overlapping magisteria." But most thinking Theists will reject both anyway, so he's misfired there. It's a poor argument on his part, if indeed he makes it; it's more like the type-1 Atheist rebuke I listed above. A thinking person can do better.

Aaron Ra makes the claim that Christians believe without evidence, however I would point out that there is evidence, but many people see it and discount it as evidence, claiming that there is some other explanation

Yes, I'd agree. One thing that's as much a problem for Atheists as for anybody is "confirmation bias," in which they tend to see what they went looking for, whether or not it was there. That's something against which we all must guard, so I offer it as a neutral observation here.

thedoc wrote: I do know some Christians who believe on faith alone even though they see the evidence, they just don't recognize it.

I've met a few such. They're not common, but they're around. What do you make of them?

it's a novel

Take it as anthropology if that helps stomach it.

henry quirk wrote:it's a novel

Take it as anthropology if that helps stomach it.

No, no, it's fine...

Good deal.

thedoc wrote:I believe a lot of people quibble about definitions and will claim that faith means believing without evidence, but I contend that you can also have faith when you know the evidence as a fact. In other words, facts and knowledge does not eliminate faith, it just changes the nature of faith.

Quite so. In fact, given that all empirical knowledge is probabilistic, there isn't actually any way to "know" stuff without some kind of "faith." And that's true for the most ardent, Atheist or most dedicated physical scientist as it is for the most superstitious person.

The scientist who undertakes an experiment only does so because he is uncertain of the results. He guesses, and maybe he hopes, that his hypothesis will prove correct; but he doesn't KNOW, because if he did, he'd never bother doing the experiment at all!

After all, why prove what you absolutely know is true already? Why waste time and resources? Go on to the next experiment instead; that's what makes sense. But a "hypothesis" is, by definition, something you DON'T know for certain is true, so you need to perform experiments in order to increase your probability of being right. However, even if you do 100 trials, you still won't know for certain, because an anomalous trial could happen on trial 101, and you would have to alter your hypothesis. Nobody can ever perform the complete set of possible trials to infinity, so at some point you just have to stop and say, "Well, that's enough certainty -- not absolute, but pretty darn good." And then you believe that if you did trial 101, 102, and so on, you'd be likely to get the predicted result: but you don't know. You believe. Science is a belief system.

Now, on the religious side, I've found that nobody really believes things on absolutely no evidence at all...they may believe on weak evidence or strong evidence, but everybody believes something without knowing it for absolute certain. Take Hinduism, for example, which might seem like a totally myth-based. Largely, it is: but it has elements of realism in it, including the observation of human suffering (samsara), the existence of different levels of inborn advantage (caste), the value of a stoic attitude to life, and so on. These may be small "evidences," but they're certainly not "no evidence."

Also different people have different standards of evidence, what will satisfy one person may be totally inadequate to the next.

That's also true. Existential evidence is notoriously compelling to the person who has actually HAD the particular experience in question, but quite uncertain and rightly inconclusive for everyone else. Is that the sort of thing you meant?

Immanuel Can wrote:

thedoc wrote:

Also different people have different standards of evidence, what will satisfy one person may be totally inadequate to the next.

That's also true. Existential evidence is notoriously compelling to the person who has actually HAD the particular experience in question, but quite uncertain and rightly inconclusive for everyone else. Is that the sort of thing you meant?

Yes, many years ago my wife and I, along with many others, had an experience that we could only attribute to the presence of the Holy Spirit. Since then there have been other coincidences that could indicate the workings of God in our lives, but the previous incident was the most compelling.

Immanuel Can wrote:

Dubious wrote:BTW IC, when you're dead you're permanently retired from doing anything. That's what "retirement" is for.

Ummm...nobody told you? Sinatra's not "retired." Sorry, old sport...he's dead.

Hmmm...that's what I meant by "permanently retired" old sport; didn't think the inference would escape you.

Immanuel Can wrote:How much good will proud anthems (or proud emails) do any of us then?

...as much good as their doing now.

Regarding an almost total lack of significance, now & THEN intersect a lot.

thedoc wrote:

Immanuel Can wrote:

thedoc wrote:
That's also true. Existential evidence is notoriously compelling to the person who has actually HAD the particular experience in question, but quite uncertain and rightly inconclusive for everyone else. Is that the sort of thing you meant?

Yes, many years ago my wife and I, along with many others, had an experience that we could only attribute to the presence of the Holy Spirit. Since then there have been other coincidences that could indicate the workings of God in our lives, but the previous incident was the most compelling.

It's interesting, isn't it? There's hardly anything like first-hand experience to convince a person of the truth of something, but nothing so hard to communicate to someone who hasn't had that experience. It's good evidence for the experiencer, and poor evidence for everybody else. That is, unless they have some reason to believe both in your sincerity and the accuracy of your observations of the experience.

I have no conclusion from that...it's just an interesting note.