At times like this...

[Ophiolite]

What do you think my views are on that?

Since I have no reason to doubt your words, then your views are reflected in the following:

The only thing standing between you and God is yourself. If you really want to get to know Him, He will be waiting there for you.

If you expected to get nothing, that means you were approaching the attempt with an inherent bias.

Based on the context of your responses (i.e. the posts you were replying to) there is a strong suggestion that you think atheists/agnostics have approached their search with an expectation of failure and have employed a strictly rational (+/- scientific) approach.
Please correct any errors in this perception.

 

[Strathos]

Not necessarily, but many have done that.

 

[Kylie]

No, you just have to approach it from a different angle than you are used to.

From the angle of choosing to believe and then deciding to be extra willing to take evidence that supports my beliefs because, hey, who doesn't want their beliefs to be confirmed?

I could just as easily say, hey, why don't you be an atheist. Once you do, I promise that you'll get all the evidence for atheism that you could ever want! You'd never go for that, so I have to wonder why you think I'd fall for it when you give me the same logic.

 

[Strathos]

From the angle of choosing to believe and then deciding to be extra willing to take evidence that supports my beliefs because, hey, who doesn't want their beliefs to be confirmed?

I could just as easily say, hey, why don't you be an atheist. Once you do, I promise that you'll get all the evidence for atheism that you could ever want! You'd never go for that, so I have to wonder why you think I'd fall for it when you give me the same logic.

Again, that is not what I am saying.

 

[AnotherAtheist]

Again, that is not what I am saying.

Then can you please write a clarification of what you are saying. It's certainly not clear to me when I read through your posts.

 

[Strathos]

Then can you please write a clarification of what you are saying. It's certainly not clear to me when I read through your posts.

I'm saying that you can't expect to find God through reason alone, by examining empirical evidence. You need a different type of epistemology.

 

[AnotherAtheist]

I'm saying that you can't expect to find God through reason alone, by examining empirical evidence. You need a different type of epistemology.

Why? How do you justify this claim?

And, what is this different type of epistemology that you are talking about. Your previous posts talk about doing things in a different way, but you don't say what that is. When people try to guess what you are meaning, you just say 'that's not what I am saying'. So, what are you saying?

 

[Strathos]

Why? How do you justify this claim?

And, what is this different type of epistemology that you are talking about. Your previous posts talk about doing things in a different way, but you don't say what that is. When people try to guess what you are meaning, you just say 'that's not what I am saying'. So, what are you saying?

The best way to explain it would be with Bible verses, but I believe that would classify as preaching, which is frowned upon in this section.

 

[Speedwell]

The best way to explain it would be with Bible verses, but I believe that would classify as preaching, which is frowned upon in this section.

That appears rather weak. Ways of knowing outside of scientific empiricism are well understood by more people than can quote Bible verses--in fact, the Bible does not seem a very useful place to seek information on the topic.

 

[Kylie]

Again, that is not what I am saying.

Then please tell me clearly what angle you mean.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

The best way to explain it would be with Bible verses, but I believe that would classify as preaching, which is frowned upon in this section.

You quoted the bible, but the verses didn't support your argument.

 

[Kylie]

I'm saying that you can't expect to find God through reason alone, by examining empirical evidence. You need a different type of epistemology.

And once again you are simply saying what we are allegedly doing wrong and not actually telling us the RIGHT way.

Until you tell us the correct method, we aren't going to get very far.

 

[AnotherAtheist]

The best way to explain it would be with Bible verses, but I believe that would classify as preaching, which is frowned upon in this section.

That looks like a dodge to me. You could PM me the Bible verses.

 

[Belk]

Why? How do you justify this claim?

And, what is this different type of epistemology that you are talking about. Your previous posts talk about doing things in a different way, but you don't say what that is. When people try to guess what you are meaning, you just say 'that's not what I am saying'. So, what are you saying?

As an atheist I would have to agree with his claim. Obviously there is no way to reason yourself to belief in something that has no evidence. Therefore you would have to use some other means to be convinced. From what I have hard many theists describe they approach this from a place of simply trusting that religion is correct and then feel this is confirmed by the results they get from said trust.

 

[AnotherAtheist]

As an atheist I would have to agree with his claim. Obviously there is no way to reason yourself to belief in something that has no evidence. Therefore you would have to use some other means to be convinced. From what I have hard many theists describe they approach this from a place of simply trusting that religion is correct and then feel this is confirmed by the results they get from said trust.

This would be a way of achieving belief. It is not a reliable, even vaguely reliable, method of finding truth.

 

[Belk]

This would be a way of achieving belief. It is not a reliable, even vaguely reliable, method of finding truth.

That is hard to say unless you claim to have a lock on 'truth'. I would say it is a poor way of finding knowledge. However, I am not sure they are seeking knowledge.

 

[Ophiolite]

That is hard to say unless you claim to have a lock on 'truth'. I would say it is a poor way of finding knowledge. However, I am not sure they are seeking knowledge.

Nailed it. For those of us who value knowledge, value the methods of gathering knowledge, and place validated knowledge at the heart of our morality and decision making, the thought that knowledge could be, not just undervalued, but largely ignored is difficult to contemplate. But, for some, a sense of assurance, or belonging, or connection, or rightness far outweighs, as they see it, the flimsy foundation of an incomplete and ever changing knowledge.

 

[AnotherAtheist]

That is hard to say unless you claim to have a lock on 'truth'. I would say it is a poor way of finding knowledge. However, I am not sure they are seeking knowledge.

If you separate knowledge and truth in this way, then I think we are using different definitions of these. I don't consider 'truth' to be 'truth' unless it corresponds to the real world.

Looking at a dictionary for the meaning of truth, the definitions are a bit ambiguous. E.g.

"a fact or belief that is accepted as true."

So, if a belief is accepted as true by someone, it's 'truth' even though it's false? But, not 'knowledge'?

If I look in the Cambridge dictionary, I find:

"the real facts about a situation, event, or person:"

That matches my understanding.

By this definition, belief based on insufficient and/or inaccurate evidence is a poor way to find truth. And that has been amply demonstrated through history. In which case, I think my point stands. But, I note the differing definitions of truth, which seem to include things that are wrong.

EDIT: But, even in the Cambridge dictionary, I find another definition:

"a fact or principle that is thought to be true by most people:"

And that definition allows something to be 'truth' even though it's wrong?

So, it appears that truth is something hard to discuss as the word doesn't really have a widely enough accepted meaning.

 

[Belk]

If you separate knowledge and truth in this way, then I think we are using different definitions of these. I don't consider 'truth' to be 'truth' unless it corresponds to the real world.

Looking at a dictionary for the meaning of truth, the definitions are a bit ambiguous. E.g.

"a fact or belief that is accepted as true."

So, if a belief is accepted as true by someone, it's 'truth' even though it's false? But, not 'knowledge'?

If I look in the Cambridge dictionary, I find:

"the real facts about a situation, event, or person:"

That matches my understanding.

By this definition, belief based on insufficient and/or inaccurate evidence is a poor way to find truth. And that has been amply demonstrated through history. In which case, I think my point stands. But, I note the differing definitions of truth, which seem to include things that are wrong.

EDIT: But, even in the Cambridge dictionary, I find another definition:

"a fact or principle that is thought to be true by most people:"

And that definition allows something to be 'truth' even though it's wrong?

So, it appears that truth is something hard to discuss as the word doesn't really have a widely enough accepted meaning.

You hit upon why I find it a difficult word to use in this setting. "Truth" carries far to much baggage and ambiguity to really be useful in a discussion like this. Most especially since it is something we can only approach asymptotically as the limited beings we are. Knowledge is a much more concrete and useful phrase I think. Especially since, as I stated, I am not sure that is what people are seeking in a religious context.

 

[AnotherAtheist]

You hit upon why I find it a difficult word to use in this setting. "Truth" carries far to much baggage and ambiguity to really be useful in a discussion like this. Most especially since it is something we can only approach asymptotically as the limited beings we are. Knowledge is a much more concrete and useful phrase I think. Especially since, as I stated, I am not sure that is what people are seeking in a religious context.

I think I need a better phrase for what I was describing. I'm not sure 'knowledge' works either, as knowledge of incorrect things is still knowledge. 'correct understanding of the world'?