Your thoughts on...

The difference is that you can test and falsify that Santa brings presents or that there are pots of gold at the end of rainbows. But I don't know of anyone that can test and falsify the existence of deity. When someone does, let me know.

Judy's retort (to the common canard that atheists are angry with God - with the presumptious idea that atheists do in fact believe in God) serves well to show the idiocy of that particular platitude.

However, by giving Santa and Leprechaun some pretty standard theological properties, your statement that they can be empirically tested (and shown false), fails. For instance:

Give Santa the ability to work in mysterious ways (such as through your parents' shopping trips) & you can never prove that Santa wasn't responsible for your goodies last year. Anyone who says there is no Santa is just angry with him because they didn't get the new bike they wanted.

Make the Leprauchan's Gold only visible to those with spiritual discernment (or with a personal relationship with the Leprauchans), and you cannot prove empirically that there was no pot of it at the end of the rainbow. Those who pretend to be non-believers in Leprauchans are merely expressing their anger that they have not received the gifts of the Leprauchans - probably because they were never really open to it to begin with.

Theology is, at least in part, the removal of God from the realm of empirical observation.
 
Upvote 0

lucaspa

Legend
Oct 22, 2002
14,569
416
New York
✟32,309.00
Faith
Methodist
Marital Status
Private
Originally posted by Jerry Smith However, by giving Santa and Leprechaun some pretty standard theological properties, your statement that they can be empirically tested (and shown false), fails. For instance:

Give Santa the ability to work in mysterious ways (such as through your parents' shopping trips) & you can never prove that Santa wasn't responsible for your goodies last year. Anyone who says there is no Santa is just angry with him because they didn't get the new bike they wanted
.

We seem to be discussing two separate topics.  You are concerned with Judy's statements that atheists are just angry and really do believe in deity.  That is separate from your statement equating knowledge of deity's existence or non-existence to knowledge of the existence or non-existence of Santa Claus and leprechauns.  I am discussing your claim but not supporting Judy's.  Judy's claim gets tested by surveying those claiming to be atheists and determining their reasons for believing deity does not exist. From the anecdotal evidence I have, I suspect Judy's claim is false.

So, let's get back to your claim that the epistemology of deity is equal to that about Santa and leprechauns.  As you noted, you had to change the original hypotheses about Santa Claus and leprechauns.  Your original claim was that Santa brought presents and leprechauns left pots of gold at the end of rainbows.    That gets falsified.  What you have so ably illustrated with your changes is that any scientific theory can be made unfalsifiable if you want to badly enough.  This has been known since 1905 when Pierre Duhem noted that hypotheses/theories are never tested singly, but in huge bundles. Don't like the falsification, then challenge one of the bundle. 

The original hypothesis, of course, was that Santa was independent of your parents, and that hypothesis can be, and has been, falsified.  So you change the hypothesis.  You do the same with leprechauns:  Make the Leprauchan's Gold only visible to those with spiritual discernment (or with a personal relationship with the Leprauchans), and you cannot prove empirically that there was no pot of it at the end of the rainbow. This, again, is falsifiable because the gold, albeit invisible, will take up space and that can be tested.  Of course, you can continue to avoid falsification and get to the point where the gold has no mass, occupies no space, and is effectively not there.

Just to let you know it is done in science, this paper is a good example that I have used in teaching the principle: Breinan HA, Minas T, Hsu HP, Nehrer S, Sledge CB, Spector M. Effect of cultured autologous chondrocytes on repair of chondral defects in a canine model.J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1997 Oct;79(10):1439-51.

Theology is, at least in part, the removal of God from the realm of empirical observation. 

Let's test that.  Over the centuries theists have decided that nearly all versions of deity are false.  I submit that one reason that versions of deity get rejected is that they do make statements that can be falsified. For instance, a major claim of the ancient Greek pantheon was that the gods lived in palaces atop Mt. Oympus. Well, climb the mountain and there are no palaces. Again, you can attempt to save the statement from falsification by making the whole thing invisible.  But theists didn't buy it.

The question becomes: why has the Judeo-Christian-Muslim version of deity lasted so long?  I submit one reason is that, from the conception, the characteristics of Yahweh were such that science has been unable to falsify it.  Now, was that due to foresight or was that because they got it right? I don't know.

What I do know is that Augustine of Hippo discarded a literal reading of Genesis 1 almost 1300 years before science made such a literal reading falsifiable.  I also know that Butler made his comment: "The only distinct meaning of the word 'natural' is stated, fixed, or settled; since what is natural as much requires and presupposes an intelligent agent to render it so, i.e., to effect it continually or at stated times, as what is supernatural or miraculous does to effect it for once."  Butler:  Analogy of Revealed Religion.  long before evolution or modern physics made it "necessary".  The bottom line is that Yahweh already had the characteristics to avoid falsification by science long before anyone had any notion of science.

I note that when scientific studies do seem to support predictions made by theism -- such as the effect of intercessory prayer or near death experiences -- atheists are just as quick to condemn and drop the science as young earth creationists.  So perhaps we can also say that atheism is, at least in part, the denial of empirical observations of deity.
 
Upvote 0
Originally posted by lucaspa

We seem to be discussing two separate topics.

Two topics, but not entirely separate. They are entagled. The second topic stems from the first. Judy's signature is a comedic way of pointing out how ridiculous the common canard that "atheists are just mad at God" really is. Specifically, it points out that it is just as ridiculous as "You (lucaspa) are just mad at Santa (or Leprauchans)." The second topic - that Santa and Leprauchans can be falsified seems to be a red herring of this sort: "No, it is less ridiculous because God is unfalsifiable and Santa and Leprauchans are falsified."

The idiocy of the platitude doesn't really rest on the falsifiability of the thing not believed in, merely on the ridiculousness of the idea that anyone who doesn't believe in the same thing you do has less than rational reasons for their lack of belief. Anyway, going on...

So, let's get back to your claim that the epistemology of deity is equal to that about Santa and leprechauns.  As you noted, you had to change the original hypotheses about Santa Claus and leprechauns.

Not entirely true, and not entirely relevant, as we will see.

Your original claim was that Santa brought presents and leprechauns left pots of gold at the end of rainbows.

But that hypothesis was never "Santa brings presents but does not work through your parents to accomplish it." It was only that Santa brought presents. You complain that you only see your parents bringing them: I respond by explaining that perhaps Santa is working through your parents ("there is no falsification, there is only an apparent inconsitency which vanishes when we take a more mature view of Santa").

The Leprauchan hypothesis never REQUIRED that the gold be detectable to the unfaithful. It didn't specify that it was not, but that doesn't mean that we must believe that it is detectable in order to accept the hypothesis. So in the same way, the hypothesis wasn't changed at all - just more information given to help explain the failure of the test to detect its truth.



Theology is, at least in part, the removal of God from the realm of empirical observation. 

Let's test that.  Over the centuries theists have decided that nearly all versions of deity are false.  I submit that one reason that versions of deity get rejected is that they do make statements that can be falsified. For instance, a major claim of the ancient Greek pantheon was that the gods lived in palaces atop Mt. Oympus. Well, climb the mountain and there are no palaces. Again, you can attempt to save the statement from falsification by making the whole thing invisible.  But theists didn't buy it.

Lets not get into the whole question of why the Olympian gods went away. Let's just say it was an unsuccessful theology in the end, and that it doesn't falsify the premise that theology, successfully performed, removes its Gods from the realm of the empirical. I didn't postulate that in order to debate it much --  it seem self evident. If you disagree and would like to challenge it, I will think it over and see if it is empirically supportable or just a hunch I have & will debate it if it seems to be the latter.

What I do know is that Augustine of Hippo discarded a literal reading of Genesis 1 almost 1300 years before science made such a literal reading falsifiable.  I also know that Butler made his comment: "The only distinct meaning of the word 'natural' is stated, fixed, or settled; since what is natural as much requires and presupposes an intelligent agent to render it so, i.e., to effect it continually or at stated times, as what is supernatural or miraculous does to effect it for once."  Butler:  Analogy of Revealed Religion.  long before evolution or modern physics made it "necessary".  The bottom line is that Yahweh already had the characteristics to avoid falsification by science long before anyone had any notion of science.

I would say that Yahweh had some unfalsifiable characteristics from the beginning. I think that He gathered more as time went on, and the rules changed. 

I note that when scientific studies do seem to support predictions made by theism -- such as the effect of intercessory prayer or near death experiences -- atheists are just as quick to condemn and drop the science as young earth creationists.  So perhaps we can also say that atheism is, at least in part, the denial of empirical observations of deity.

Funny. I am an atheist, and I acknowledge near death experiences, and am aware that there is some evidence for effectiveness of intercessory prayer (though it can hardly be called confirmed with certainty). I've not met any atheists who reject the phenomena. I think most, like me, expect that these phenomena may or do exist, but are not currently explained. They may well be explained in the future (as so many mystical phenomena of the past have been) by purely natural causes. I expect that the true explanation for them lies in nature.

So, no, I don't think atheism is in part the denial of empirical observations of deity. We acknowledge the empirical observations, but point out that they never empirically point to deity.
 
Upvote 0

stillsmallvoice

The Narn rule!
May 8, 2002
2,053
181
60
Maaleh Adumim, Israel
Visit site
✟10,967.00
Faith
Judaism
Marital Status
Married
Hi all!

Rana, nice! Well put!

Lambslove posted:

Science has nothing to say about anything spiritual.

Not so! The more a scientist delves into his/her field (microbiology, zoology, oceanology, geology, etc.) the more he/she becomes aware (or should become aware) of Psalms 104:24 -

How manifold are Your works, O Lord! In wisdom You have made them all; the earth is full of Your creatures.

A scientist ought to be humbled and in awe as he/she explores what God has made.

Science & religion are not as different as people think. My gut feeling is that people who claim that science & religion contradict each other don't understand either one properly. See http://www.aojs.org/ for the web site of the Association of Orthodox Jewish Scientists.

Be well!

ssv :wave:
 
Upvote 0

judy

Veteran
Nov 6, 2002
1,685
80
23
Augusta, Maine, USA
Visit site
✟9,736.00
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Married
Originally posted by stillsmallvoice


A scientist ought to be humbled and in awe as he/she explores what God has made.


 

I think there are scientists who worship the "god of the gaps."  Behe the famous ID guy is one of these.  He sees there are things that we can't explain yet and may never be able to explain, and "god did it" seems like a viable scientific explanation to him.

 

 :rolleyes:
 
Upvote 0

stillsmallvoice

The Narn rule!
May 8, 2002
2,053
181
60
Maaleh Adumim, Israel
Visit site
✟10,967.00
Faith
Judaism
Marital Status
Married
Hi judy!

He sees there are things that we can't explain yet and may never be able to explain, and "god did it" seems like a viable scientific explanation to him.

Sounds good. But I would add that "God did it" should be a viable explanation even for the things that we can explain. Hubris ill befits a scientist just as it ill befits a cleric/religious person. A little humility is good everywhere. My brother back in the USA is a meteorologist (he went to Penn State & was in the USAF for 5 years as a weather officer) & he tells me that the more & more he learns about weather, the more he is reminded of what he doesn't know.

Jeremiah counsels the wise man not to glory in his wisdom; I'd say that Jeremiah's dictum applies to secular as well as spiritual wisdom.

Be well!

ssv :wave:
 
Upvote 0

judy

Veteran
Nov 6, 2002
1,685
80
23
Augusta, Maine, USA
Visit site
✟9,736.00
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Married
Originally posted by stillsmallvoice
Hi judy!



Sounds good. But I would add that "God did it" should be a viable explanation even for the things that we can explain. Hubris ill befits a scientist just as it ill befits a cleric/religious person. A little humility is good everywhere. My brother back in the USA is a meteorologist (he went to Penn State & was in the USAF for 5 years as a weather officer) & he tells me that the more & more he learns about weather, the more he is reminded of what he doesn't know.

Jeremiah counsels the wise man not to glory in his wisdom; I'd say that Jeremiah's dictum applies to secular as well as spiritual wisdom.

Be well!

ssv :wave:

 

Hmm, it has always puzzled me why people who don't have "faith" in some invisible supernatural force are said to be prideful and lacking in humility.  The Bible itself, I know, is full of these types of verses, warning against trusting in your own knowledge and what your senses tell you (actully, pretty clever of those biblical authors to include plenty of such warnings, I must say!).  Just saying you don't understand everything should be enough.  Why is it then considered prideful to NOT add - "....so it must have been God that did it"???

To me, believers have always been a contradiction.  On the one hand you all believe you're such unworthy sinners.  On the other, you believe that the entire purpose of millions of years and billions of galaxies is so that some puny creatures here on this tiny planet can exist and worship their creator.

Seems sort of arrogant to me.
 
Upvote 0

kaotic

Learn physics
Sep 22, 2002
4,660
4
North Carolina, USA
Visit site
✟14,836.00
Faith
Agnostic
Politics
US-Democrat
My brother back in the USA is a meteorologist (he went to Penn State & was in the USAF for 5 years as a weather officer) & he tells me that the more & more he learns about weather, the more he is reminded of what he doesn't know.

I agree with you there the more we find out the more questions we have, but where does that mean "god did it" people always say well it's "god" or "god did it" for things we don't understand but just cause we don't understand now doesn't mean we can't find a expaination. God did it or it was god is just a way for people to forget the things we can't understand and put them aside. I don't I have to know the answer that's why I am in physics.
 
Upvote 0

Stormy

Senior Contributor
Jun 16, 2002
9,441
868
St. Louis, Mo
Visit site
✟51,954.00
Faith
Christian
Politics
US-Others
Seesaw: You think that Science has given you natural explanations that do not require a God. But that is not true. Even the answers that you know are only true with the added statement that God did it.

Just for the sake of argument I will list as truths some of the things that Science as explained for you.

Gravity.... but how did it become a part of this universe?.. God did it

Evolution... what started life to evolve?.... God did it.

Big Bang... what initiated it?... God did it

Etc. etc...

Your so called Scientific answers all end in a question...

That can only be answered if we accept the truth.

GOD.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

judy

Veteran
Nov 6, 2002
1,685
80
23
Augusta, Maine, USA
Visit site
✟9,736.00
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Married
Originally posted by Stormy
Seesaw: You think that Science has given you natural explanations that do not require a God. But that is not true. Even the answers that you know are only true with the added statement that God did it.

Just for the sake of argument I will list as truths some of the things that Science as explained for you.

Gravity.... but how did it become a part of this universe?.. God did it

Evolution... what started life to evolve?.... God did it.

Big Bang... what initiated it?... God did it

Etc. etc...

Your so called Scientific answers all end in a question...

That can only be answered if we accept the truth.

GOD.

Don't stop there, Stormy!

Earthquake....God did it

Volcano....God did it

Viruses and Bacteria and Tapeworms . . . made by God

So we really don't need science at all, do we?

 :(
 
Upvote 0

kaotic

Learn physics
Sep 22, 2002
4,660
4
North Carolina, USA
Visit site
✟14,836.00
Faith
Agnostic
Politics
US-Democrat
Seesaw: You think that Science has given you natural explanations that do not require a God. But that is not true. Even the answers that you know are only true with the added statement that God did it.

Just for the sake of argument I will list as truths some of the things that Science as explained for you.

Gravity.... but how did it become a part of this universe?.. God did it

Evolution... what started life to evolve?.... God did it.

Big Bang... what initiated it?... God did it

Etc. etc...

Your so called Scientific answers all end in a question...

That can only be answered if we accept the truth.

GOD.


Yeah I know stormy.

But to say god did it just because you don't know the real reason is crazy. It's like when people used to think that it was god that was the cause of lighting and lighting strikes. To me science is the end all we can't find out how the universe was really created by going to the bible it doesn't give us any evidence backing it up it just says that god made the universe. But how did he do it, and why, and who long did it take, and etc... You might not worry about this or think about this. But it's all I think about or well almost all I think about. I want to know why, when, and how. There is people that will never accept the reason that science gives cause it isn't part of there belief system.

Why should we only rely on what the bible or someone’s god says are the answers? I believe we have to find them for our self, maybe they will be the same, but I think we have to find the truth for our self as a human face and not look to something just because it feels or sound good.

P.s. sorry for the spelling errors I think I fixed them now.
 
Upvote 0

Stormy

Senior Contributor
Jun 16, 2002
9,441
868
St. Louis, Mo
Visit site
✟51,954.00
Faith
Christian
Politics
US-Others
So we really don't need science at all, do we?

Why is it an either- or- answer?

Of course Science is good. Science is man's quest to understand.

But whether you acknowledge it or not... we are merely trying to understand what God created.
 
Upvote 0

stillsmallvoice

The Narn rule!
May 8, 2002
2,053
181
60
Maaleh Adumim, Israel
Visit site
✟10,967.00
Faith
Judaism
Marital Status
Married
Hi all!

Judy posted:

Just saying you don't understand everything should be enough.

In my book it would be.

On the one hand you all believe you're such unworthy sinners.

You're referring to a Christian concept, not a Jewish one.

On the other, you believe that the entire purpose of millions of years and billions of galaxies is so that some puny creatures here on this tiny planet can exist and worship their creator.

Seems sort of arrogant to me.

I've always liked Stephen Crane's "A man said to the universe:

A man said to the universe:
"Sir I exist!"
"However," replied the universe,
"The fact has not created in me
A sense of obligation."

What's wrong with worshipping our Creator?

Seesaw posted:

God did it or it was god is just a way for people to forget the things we can't understand and put them aside.

It shouldn't have to be this way.

Be well!

ssv :wave:
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums