Atheism is reasonable, and Christianity is not

[DogmaHunter]

Haha to state the obvious, it's obvious that we think about what 'faith' means very differently. Personally, I am simply curious about this. Take me, for example, over time I have developed an understanding of my faith that makes it both true & reasonable in my mind. This has involved a process of study, experience,talking to other people and so on, some of it is tangible, some of it isn't. Why I started with the belief that there was a God to look for I simply can't explain. I mean to me, it is just self-evident. So, yes, that is a positive claim that I would make, that God does exist.

That "why" you mention that you can't explain, is the "faith" part.

What I see as the positive faith claim of an atheist (if that isn't the right term to fit how you see this please correct) is that it is simply unnecessary for there to be a God.

I don't make such a claim in general.
I might make that claim when talking about specific processes and alike.

Take the origins of mankind for example... there is a perfectly adequate and valid scientific theory that explains the development of humans. Yes, gods are unecessary there.

Take the formation of planets and stars. There is a perfectly adequate and valid scientific theory that explains those things as well. Yes, gods are uncessary there.

These are not faith claims. These are empirical claims, based on evidence.
Also, there is also the fact that there are no detectable manifestations of any god entities. So to start with, there even is no valid rational reason to even consider their existance.

I really can't see how this can be seen as anything but a positive claim; a person who thinks either there is no God, or there can't be a God, or it can't be known that there is a God, is walking around all day, thinking, working, writing on forums etc with the positive belief that it is not necessary for God to exist for any of that to happen.

You just completely changed all the language in there.
You went from "god is unecessary" to "god does not exist".

Those are different claims.
The first claim, I can make in specific contexts.
The second claim, is a claim that I never make. On the count of it being a useless claim.

Whether that person actually thinks about this or not makes no difference to this being an underlying assumption.

I have no problem with saying that my default assumption is that things that aren't detectable and which don't manifest in reality in any detectable way, are indistinguishable from things that don't exist.

You make that assumption as well.
Or would you actually seriously consider that, for example, an undetectable 7-headed dragon is following you everywhere you go?

By rational, I am assuming you mean things that can be proved or disproved using scientific methods, things that rely on you using observation and testing in some form?

Or just supported by rational evidence.
To assume that an undetectable and unfalsifiable thing exists, is not rational for that reason.
It can't be supported, it can't be proved, it can't be demonstrated, it makes not a single testable prediction (not even only in principle) and it is by definition indistinguishable from things that do not exist.

To believe that that thing exists, is not a rational position.

Or things that can be fit into a logical argument that you find convincing, or some combination of the 2?

As for "arguments", absolutely not.
This is one of those things that I don't get about apologetics. As if mere words are ever enough to demonstrate the existance of anything....

A "logically sound argument" that has no actual data to back it up, isn't logical at all and it can be used to "conclude" the existance of just about any unfalsifiable thing.

They are no more then word games.

Full disclosure - as above this is just a matter of curiosity to me, i.e. why a person would believe the above and on what they are relying to support the belief that God is not necessary, so please do feel free to completely ignore any of this if you don't have the same curiosity. There are some assumptions I make. One assumption is that a person who thinks in that way believes the evidence of their senses.

I don't simply "believe" the evidence of my senses.
I fully realise that my brain is very very capable of making mistakes and being simply fooled, confused, delusional, etc.

My senses are pretty reliable most of the time, specifically for the more mundane things, but not always.

1) Provide conclusive proof to counter the proposition that you are not, in fact DogmaHunter (insert real name), but are, in fact, a disembodied brain suspended in a vat, and all sensory input of any kind is being supplied to you by an elaborate virtual reality program, capable of reproducing all sensation as if biologically real, a la matrix. This program has been consistent to date but the operators of the program reserve the right to change the fundamental rules of how it operates at any point.

I can not.
But consider the word "not" I emphasised in the quote....
You are asking me to prove a negative.

It seems to me that the burden of proof here, would fall on those people who DO claim that we are really brains in vats.

In the end, someone needs to FIRST claim that we ARE brains in vats, before I can disagree with that.............

Think about it... why would I wake up one morning and then completely out of the blue claim "you know... I think reality is real and we aren't brains in vats!". I don't know about you, but I'ld consider that to be quite meaningless and useless.

2) Explain what you think about this idea, identifying all of your reactions to it e.g. rational, emotional, assumption based and so on.

I think I just did.

It's an exercise in futility to make such negative claims and pretend that the burden of proof isn't on the positive claim instead.


I'll counter with the 3 basal assumptions I make and which I need to make to get out of bed every morning:
- Reality is actually real
- Reality is consistent enough so that we can learn about it
- Models of reality that make testable predictions are better then those that do not, because those that don't are infinite in number and indistinguishable from false models.

You make these assumptions too.
You assume that gravity won't stop working later today.
You assume that if you let go of your keys a million time, each time they will fall to the earth and not once will they go flying into space.

Don't you?

 

[Tom 1]

That "why" you mention that you can't explain, is the "faith" part.

Yes, that's correct. If it's not clear from my message then yes, I have faith. Being a Christian means living by faith. There are what I would consider to be reasonable proofs for Christianity, but these are proofs more along the lines of the sort an investigative journalist or possibly a trial lawyer might rely on, rather than the scientific method kind of proof you seem to be talking about.

I appreciate your response to my post, I am genuinely interested in this, i.e in the difference of worldview between a Christian and an atheist.

I'm not totally convinced, not yet anyway, that an atheist doesn't have a faith of a sort, or that there is any substantial difference between 'basal assumptions' and faith, or that if there is it isn't just a difference of degree.

I don't make such a claim in general.
I might make that claim when talking about specific processes and alike.

Take the origins of mankind for example... there is a perfectly adequate and valid scientific theory that explains the development of humans. Yes, gods are unecessary there.

Take the formation of planets and stars. There is a perfectly adequate and valid scientific theory that explains those things as well. Yes, gods are uncessary there.

These are not faith claims. These are empirical claims, based on evidence.
Also, there is also the fact that there are no detectable manifestations of any god entities. So to start with, there even is no valid rational reason to even consider their existance.

Do you mean here that if God does exist, it would only in relation to some area of empirical inquiry that his existence might somehow be linked to? As in he might have a (hypothetical) discrete kind of existence in relation to something in particular?

You just completely changed all the language in there.
You went from "god is unecessary" to "god does not exist".
Those are different claims.
The first claim, I can make in specific contexts.

I take 'belief that God is not necessary' and 'belief that it is not necessary for God to exist' to mean the same thing.

I have no problem with saying that my default assumption is that things that aren't detectable and which don't manifest in reality in any detectable way, are indistinguishable from things that don't exist.

You make that assumption as well.
Or would you actually seriously consider that, for example, an undetectable 7-headed dragon is following you everywhere you go?

Yes/agree - I'm not attempting to prove anything here, just trying to tease out the nature of your assumptions.

Or just supported by rational evidence.
To assume that an undetectable and unfalsifiable thing exists, is not rational for that reason.
It can't be supported, it can't be proved, it can't be demonstrated, it makes not a single testable prediction (not even only in principle) and it is by definition indistinguishable from things that do not exist.

To believe that that thing exists, is not a rational position.

This is an interesting one for me - what do you think of Scientists who believe in God? I'm not sure if the stats are totally reliable, but as far as I have been able to find out people working in the sciences - including medical sciences but not social sciences - are not that much less likely to have either a belief in the Christian God or be theists/deists than people working in other professions. My Grandad got a 1st in Physics and Chemistry from what is now UCL and worked in oil research, before going on to study Theology at Oxford and becoming a Baptist Minister. I have a book on my shelf - 'real scientists, real faith' - full of essays from people who are at or near the top of their respective fields in the physical sciences, who all believe in the God of the bible. What is your take on that? Would you say that they are all irrational? Could you expand a bit more on what you take to be a rational position?

I can not.
But consider the word "not" I emphasised in the quote....
You are asking me to prove a negative.

It seems to me that the burden of proof here, would fall on those people who DO claim that we are really brains in vats.

In the end, someone needs to FIRST claim that we ARE brains in vats, before I can disagree with that.............

This is just a thought exercise, I don't actually think we might all be brains in vats, it's just a way of structuring an argument about what we can actually know through our senses (I don't know what the original intention of this scenario was but that's how I take it). When it comes down to that, I mean what we can all say is definitely, absolutely, demonstrably true then I don't really see how you can get past Descarte's 'I think therefore I am' without having some level of faith. Taking a bit of a leap from there, God is not part of the physical universe. He is not of a nature that can be tested, demonstrated, proved etc in any kind of empirical fashion. He is outside of the purview of science. I would take that to mean that if someone, as I think you are saying you do, believes that all reality is physical reality in one testable form or another, then that person has faith that the physical world is all there is. I kind of get your argument that it's not necessary to believe in something you don't know is there, but, once you take it out of the lab, so to speak, it's a pretty big leap of faith simply to reject the idea out of hand, I think. Can you explain what it is that leads you to believe that the only reality is physical reality?

It's an exercise in futility to make such negative claims and pretend that the burden of proof isn't on the positive claim instead.

Maybe, but this is just an exercise, or a discussion. I'm not attempting to prove anything, I'm just interested in how you think about this.
Btw what is the actual problem with having a go at trying to prove a negative claim? It seems a bit dogmatic.

I'll counter with the 3 basal assumptions I make and which I need to make to get out of bed every morning:
- Reality is actually real
- Reality is consistent enough so that we can learn about it
- Models of reality that make testable predictions are better then those that do not, because those that don't are infinite in number and indistinguishable from false models.

You make these assumptions too.
You assume that gravity won't stop working later today.
You assume that if you let go of your keys a million time, each time they will fall to the earth and not once will they go flying into space.

Don't you?

Yes, I absolutely do share those basic assumptions. I would tend to call them rather very strong beliefs, reinforced by ongoing experience, though.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

"Proper basicality" has no utility in philosophy - it's nonsensical term. Surrounding yourself with like minded people does not the truth make. As I said earlier, you have to have a way to check your "properly basic" beliefs with reality.

Something being properly basic is not nonsensical. Like always, Christians are taking a legitimate idea and contorting it into absurdity.

"Properly basic" just means axiomatic. For example:

"It is a properly basic notion that a circle is characterized by a center and a radius."

"It is an axiom that a circle is characterized by a center and a radius."

These are saying the same thing.

But what is an axiom? It's just a thing that we declare to be true (within the logical framework we're making) with no justification. Axioms must exist because you cannot justify every statement - you would have circular reasoning if you did that.

Axioms aren't an ingenious way to solve circular reasoning; rather, we just think it's better to say, for example, X -> Y -> Z (with no justification for X) rather than to say X -> Y -> Z -> X.

And then someone like William Lane Craig comes along and says that belief in God is properly basic. He chooses that term because it sounds like he's actually justifying his belief, but in reality he's saying that his belief in God is axiomatic, which is to say that his belief in God is an assertion without justification. Craig, being dishonest to the core, would never accept this line of impervious reasoning.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Yes, that's correct. If it's not clear from my message then yes, I have faith. Being a Christian means living by faith.

Indeed. And I'll expand that thought: being a believer of any unfalsifiable claim (religious or otherwise), means living by faith.

It's not a virtue. On "faith", you can believe just about anything. Including things that are demonstrably false.

There are what I would consider to be reasonable proofs for Christianity, but these are proofs more along the lines of the sort an investigative journalist or possibly a trial lawyer might rely on, rather than the scientific method kind of proof you seem to be talking about.

And we know how likely it is that an "investigative journalist" or "trial lawyer" turns out to be completely wrong, when all they have to go on is anecdotal evidence (= mere words and claims from people, with not actual verifiable evidence).

Also, it's worth noting that when 100 people claim X and then a single piece of objective physical evidence says Y instead, that the "testimony" of those 100 people is instantly discarded.

Because we KNOW how unreliable testimony and anecdotes can be.

I appreciate your response to my post, I am genuinely interested in this, i.e in the difference of worldview between a Christian and an atheist.

Thanks and I agree. Contrasting worldviews is the primary reason why I post on forums such as this one.

I'm not totally convinced, not yet anyway, that an atheist doesn't have a faith of a sort

Well, surely "atheists" don't have a monopoly on rationality and obviously many atheists will believe many different crazy things for bad reasons...

But those are different beliefs not inherent to their atheism.
When it comes to just the label "atheist" and what that entails, it literally is the lack of belief in theistic claims. It literally means that they have no "faith" when it comes to theistic claims.

And yes, I (and from my experience, most atheists) don't consider "faith" a virtue or even a good idea.

Faith, as defined / used by theists, means simply "to believe without proper evidence".

, or that there is any substantial difference between 'basal assumptions' and faith, or that if there is it isn't just a difference of degree.

No, the basal assumptions are simply necessary to be able to function. All of us have them. I'ld even say that there is a case to be made that not just humans have these assumptions, but all animals kind of do...

Take the assumptions that "reality is actually real" and "reality is consistent enough to learn about it". Now consider a cat.

Your cat leaves your house and goes playing with a mouse a street or two away.
Your cat assumes that your house doesn't change location while she is away. She assumes that if she returns on her footsteps, she'll end up back at your place. She assumes that she'll be able to enter via the cat-hole in the door, like she always does.

These are assumptions that are required for just about every trivial thing.
When you cross the street, you assume that that car that is standing still, will not suddenly move in your direction at 50 miles an hour, going from 0 to 50 in 0.00001 seconds.


These are also not faith-based assumptions. These are experience based assumptions.
You assume these things, based on past experience that cars don't suddenly start moving in a split second at high speeds. Based on your knowledge of how cars operate. Based on your understanding of reality of how cars work the way they do and won't start working otherwise for no apparant reason.

Do you mean here that if God does exist, it would only in relation to some area of empirical inquiry that his existence might somehow be linked to? As in he might have a (hypothetical) discrete kind of existence in relation to something in particular?

No. Rather that, if a God exists, detecting manifestation thereof in empirical reality would be the only way for us to find out.

Because how else would you distinguish the undetectable from the non-existant?
If there is no detectable manifestation anywhere, why would we include it in the explanation of any process about anything?

I take 'belief that God is not necessary' and 'belief that it is not necessary for God to exist' to mean the same thing.

But it does not.

God could exist while being unnecessary for biological evolution to work, for example.

Let's leave God out of it and illustrate with an easier example:
I exist, and I am completely unnecessary in the creation process of the new iPhone.

To not be a necessary factor in some process, has no relevance to that thing being real or not. At best, it means that if there is debate about wheter or not the thing exists.... pointing to processes where that thing isn't necessary, will not support the case that the thing exists....

Yes/agree - I'm not attempting to prove anything here, just trying to tease out the nature of your assumptions.

Reading it back, I have to retract calling it an assumption.
It's not really an assumption that the undetectable is indistinguishable from the non-existant. It rather is a logical fact.

This is an interesting one for me - what do you think of Scientists who believe in God?

The same as what I think of non-scientists who believe the same.

I'm not sure if the stats are totally reliable, but as far as I have been able to find out people working in the sciences - including medical sciences but not social sciences - are not that much less likely to have either a belief in the Christian God or be theists/deists than people working in other professions.

That's just not true. There is a very clear and big correlation between atheism and higher education. Scientists and higher-educated people are a LOT more likely to be atheists.

My Grandad got a 1st in Physics and Chemistry from what is now UCL and worked in oil research, before going on to study Theology at Oxford and becoming a Baptist Minister. I have a book on my shelf - 'real scientists, real faith' - full of essays from people who are at or near the top of their respective fields in the physical sciences, who all believe in the God of the bible. What is your take on that? Would you say that they are all irrational?

They are irrational when it comes to those beliefs, yes.
I'm speaking in general off course, because there are various levels of religiosity, which go hand in hand with levels or irrationality.

For example, to believe in some kind of "prime mover" that triggered the big bang and then set back to watch reality unfold is obviously a lot less irrational then to be a YEC which flies in the face of reality. While the "prime mover" thingy would at least be compatible with observable reality (given that the origins of the universe are currently still unknown).

Could you expand a bit more on what you take to be a rational position?

Having valid justifcations for the things you accept as true.

This is just a thought exercise, I don't actually think we might all be brains in vats, it's just a way of structuring an argument about what we can actually know through our senses (I don't know what the original intention of this scenario was but that's how I take it). When it comes down to that, I mean what we can all say is definitely, absolutely, demonstrably true then I don't really see how you can get past Descarte's 'I think therefore I am' without having some level of faith.

It's the first basal assumption that everyone (including animals) has to make in order to be able to function: that reality is actually real.

And sure, it could be that observable reality is not "real", but some illusion created by some type of Matrix. It also could be that the universe and everything it contains was created just 5 seconds ago, with memories implanted in us that makes us believe that we have lived our entire lives.

You can make up any number of such ideas.
And they are all useless and meaningless unless you can actually support them with evidence.

And here's some food for thought: If we would appeal to "faith", we could easily believe that we indeed ARE in fact brains in vats and that reality is an illusion.

Because on "faith", you can believe anything.
Based on "faith", there is no particular reason to believe a specific religion over believing we are brains in vats in a world ruled by machines.

Taking a bit of a leap from there, God is not part of the physical universe. He is not of a nature that can be tested, demonstrated, proved etc in any kind of empirical fashion.

Then how could you, or anyone else, possibly know anything about this entity?

If can also say that the undetectable 7-headed dragon that follows you everywhere is not part of our physical universe, but instead "lives" in some alternate dimension that is not accessible to us. And by appealing to "faith", you have just as much "reason" to believe that as to believe in your "god not part of this physical universe".

He is outside of the purview of science. I would take that to mean that if someone, as I think you are saying you do, believes that all reality is physical reality in one testable form or another, then that person has faith that the physical world is all there is.

No. Again, that is not what I said.
I have no problems with the idea that there might be things that exist which are not accessible to / detectable by us.

What I AM saying however, is how could you possibly know?
It always comes down to the same thing: how do you distinguish the undetectable from the non-existant?

I kind of get your argument that it's not necessary to believe in something you don't know is there, but, once you take it out of the lab, so to speak, it's a pretty big leap of faith simply to reject the idea out of hand, I think.

Is it, really?
Consider the undetectable 7-headed dragon again.
Do you feel like you need to take a "pretty big leap of faith" to simply reject the claim that this monster exists at face value?

I certainly don't.
It takes "faith" to accept such claims.
Rejecting such claims, does not require faith.
In fact, rejecting such claims, is the result of not having faith.

Can you explain what it is that leads you to believe that the only reality is physical reality?

No need, since that's not what I'm claiming.

I'll turn that question around and throw it back at you:
Can you explain what it is that leads you to believe that there is more to reality that we can actually detect, demonstrate, have access to,...?

Btw what is the actual problem with having a go at trying to prove a negative claim? It seems a bit dogmatic.

It is logically impossible to prove those kinds of negative claims, because they are unfalsifiable in principle.

Yes, I absolutely do share those basic assumptions.

Then I have to ask why you are a theist....
What testable predictions does a god-model make?

 

[Silmarien]

Indeed. And I'll expand that thought: being a believer of any unfalsifiable claim (religious or otherwise), means living by faith.

Unfalsifiability is actually a weapon wielded against pseudoscience, so while it can certainly be applied to arguments for Intelligent Design, it's not a legitimate criticism of theology, metaphysics, or other related fields unless someone is trying to pass their theories off as scientific.

Even within science, the concept of knowledge is really not cut and dry--I'd take a look at something like Kuhn's historical theory of scientific knowledge and paradigm shift. Even science gets filtered through its practitioners' subjective worldviews, and progress involves full revolutions when an earlier way of looking at the world can no account for anomalous results.

For example, to believe in some kind of "prime mover" that triggered the big bang and then set back to watch reality unfold is obviously a lot less irrational then to be a YEC which flies in the face of reality. While the "prime mover" thingy would at least be compatible with observable reality (given that the origins of the universe are currently still unknown).

The Unmoved Mover actually has nothing to do with the origins of the universe. Aristotle believed the universe was eternal and Aquinas only took on faith that it was not, so none of his cosmological arguments involved origins in that sense. Scientifically inclined theists, particularly in the Thomist tradition, are more likely to be considering issues like the intelligibility of reality and the fact that there is order to creation at all. I'd take a look at someone like Mariano Artigas if you are interested in why a physicist might actually argue that modern science is more compatible with theism than atheism.

 

[anonymous person]

Something being properly basic is not nonsensical. Like always, Christians are taking a legitimate idea and contorting it into absurdity.

"Properly basic" just means axiomatic. For example:

"It is a properly basic notion that a circle is characterized by a center and a radius."

"It is an axiom that a circle is characterized by a center and a radius."

These are saying the same thing.

But what is an axiom? It's just a thing that we declare to be true (within the logical framework we're making) with no justification. Axioms must exist because you cannot justify every statement - you would have circular reasoning if you did that.

Axioms aren't an ingenious way to solve circular reasoning; rather, we just think it's better to say, for example, X -> Y -> Z (with no justification for X) rather than to say X -> Y -> Z -> X.

And then someone like William Lane Craig comes along and says that belief in God is properly basic. He chooses that term because it sounds like he's actually justifying his belief, but in reality he's saying that his belief in God is axiomatic, which is to say that his belief in God is an assertion without justification. Craig, being dishonest to the core, would never accept this line of impervious reasoning.

Some beliefs can be formed in us when certain conditions obtain and providing our cognitive faculties are functioning properly. In the absence of some defeater for the warrant we have for holding these beliefs, we are rational in holding them, despite their being assumed.

As far as I know, it would be a mischaracterization to say that Dr. Craig says that belief in God is properly basic, although he and I could make an argument for that. No, it seems to me he would argue that it is plausible to say that a person can be rational in believing God exists, if that belief arises as a result of the proper functioning of their cognitive faculties under the prerequisite specific conditions for the formation of that belief.

In addition, you are confusing knowing something with showing something. One can know something and not necessarily be able to show it. Dr. Craig and I never appeal to the idea that the belief in God can be properly basic when talking to people about why they should be Christians. Rather, we appeal to it when we ourselves are asked, "How do you know thus and so....?"

 

[HitchSlap]

Some beliefs can be formed in us when certain conditions obtain and providing our cognitive faculties are functioning . In the absence of some defeater for the warrant we have for holding these beliefs, we are rational in holding them, despite their being assumed.

As far as I know, it would be a mischaracterization to say that Dr. Craig says that belief in God is properly basic, although he and I could make an argument for that. No, it seems to me he would argue that it is plausible to say that a person can be rational in believing God exists, if that belief arises as a result of the proper functioning of their cognitive faculties under the prerequisite specific conditions for the formation of that belief.

In addition, you are confusing knowing something with showing something. One can know something and not necessarily be able to show it. Dr. Craig and I never appeal to the idea that the belief in God can be properly basic when talking to people about why they should be Christians. Rather, we appeal to it when we ourselves are asked, "How do you know thus and so....?"

So much equivocating and special pleading. Dr. Craig's arguments have been refuted so many times, it's embarrassing.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

 

[_-iconoclast-_]

Hello nv.

What branch of nihilism do you agree with?

Cheers

 

[Nihilist Virus]

Hello nv.

What branch of nihilism do you agree with?

Cheers

Thank you for extending the olive branch, but the last time you started a conversation with me you ended it abruptly for no reason.

 

[_-iconoclast-_]

Thank you for extending the olive branch, but the last time you started a conversation with me you ended it abruptly for no reason.

Hey hey.

Please excuse me. I come and go - work and outside activities.

Just looking through my history and found your response. Wow we both got lengthy. I guess we can only wait and see how things develop in australia re gay marriage and prosecution.

If you would be so kind. what branch of nihilism best suits you?

Cheers

 

[DogmaHunter]

Unfalsifiability is actually a weapon wielded against pseudoscience, so while it can certainly be applied to arguments for Intelligent Design, it's not a legitimate criticism of theology, metaphysics, or other related fields unless someone is trying to pass their theories off as scientific.

I completely disagree.
Falsifiability is a principle that is applicable to just about any claim, especially claims of existance, in terms of criteria of a claim being potentially acceptable in a rational way.

When you claim the existance of an entity, moreover, you are making a claim about reality. I don't see why that wouldn't be the domain of science.

How can you rationally accept X exists, if X is defined in such a way that it is completely indistinguishable from a thing that does not exist?

How do you determine that X actually exists, if not by some form of objective/independend detectability? If X can't logically be distinguished from a non-existant thing?

Even within science, the concept of knowledge is really not cut and dry--I'd take a look at something like Kuhn's historical theory of scientific knowledge and paradigm shift. Even science gets filtered through its practitioners' subjective worldviews, and progress involves full revolutions when an earlier way of looking at the world can no account for anomalous results.

Yeah, it's called progress based on new evidence.

The Unmoved Mover actually has nothing to do with the origins of the universe.

I explicitly clarified what I meant by it, so there is no need for semantic arguments about a word that was once used by some philosopher or whatever.

I think it was more then clear enough that I was contrasting fundamentalist religious beliefs (that fly in the face of science and observable reality) with more moderate religious beliefs which does NOT require ignoring or denying observable reality or science and how that reflects on the rationality of both.

I'd take a look at someone like Mariano Artigas if you are interested in why a physicist might actually argue that modern science is more compatible with theism than atheism.

I'm not interested in people's personal faith based beliefs when it comes to explaining reality, no. I think it's a waste of time. Because there is no particular reason to pick up one specific person arguing for one specific religious belief, over any other theist arguing for any other religious belief.

A lifetime isn't enough time to review all those (useless) claims.
So I just stick to those claims / hypothesis / theories / what-have-you, that are actually verifiable (at least on principle) and which are evidence based instead of faith based.

Faith based models are potentially infinite in number, only really limited by people's imagination.



In the end, it always comes down to the same question:
How can you rationally hold the position that X exists, if there is no objective / independend way to distinguish X from a non-existant thing?

 

[DogmaHunter]

Some beliefs can be formed in us when certain conditions obtain and providing our cognitive faculties are functioning properly. In the absence of some defeater for the warrant we have for holding these beliefs, we are rational in holding them, despite their being assumed.

That's really just an argument from ignorance.
Not being able to disprove an idea, does not give it more credibility.

I can give you an inumerable amount of nonsense ideas, none of which you will be able to disprove. That doesn't make these ideas true or likely.

In addition, you are confusing knowing something with showing something.

"you don't know it, if you can't show it".

One can know something and not necessarily be able to show it.

Not being able to show it, means that it would be just an assertion with no evidence.
You could be wrong and how could you know? You wouldn't.

And, perhaps more importantly, not being able to show it, means that other people will not have a rational reason to believe your claims.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

Hey hey.

Please excuse me. I come and go - work and outside activities.

I did not mean that you unintentionally abandoned a conversation. I mean that you openly refused to pursue an issue to its inevitable logical conclusion.

Just looking through my history and found your response. Wow we both got lengthy. I guess we can only wait and see how things develop in australia re gay marriage and prosecution.

I have no idea what you are talking about.

If you would be so kind. what branch of nihilism best suits you?

Why do you ask?

 

[_-iconoclast-_]

I did not mean that you unintentionally abandoned a conversation. I mean that you openly refused to pursue an issue to its inevitable logical conclusion.

Hey hey friend

Please excuse me. I do not remember this particular occasion - as evident from my reply and mix up hehe.

Would you like closure?

Why do you ask?

I like to know your position and where you are coming from. I like to ask questions, it leads to conversation

Cheers

 

[Silmarien]

I completely disagree.
Falsifiability is a principle that is applicable to just about any claim, especially claims of existance, in terms of criteria of a claim being potentially acceptable in a rational way.

Alright. Falsify the claim that falsifiability is applicable to any claim.

When you claim the existance of an entity, moreover, you are making a claim about reality. I don't see why that wouldn't be the domain of science.

Because it's not empirical.

I explicitly clarified what I meant by it, so there is no need for semantic arguments about a word that was once used by some philosopher or whatever.

It's not a semantics argument. Plenty of people, myself included, don't think the Kalam works. You're calling us irrational (if less irrational than inerrantists) based on something we also reject.

 

[Hawkins]

I literally do not understand that sentence.

That's because you are clueless about how this reality works. We don't believe whatever authority told us. That remains your twisting of my words. We examine the credibility of the human testimonies to get to a truth. You however brainwashed to think that humans rely on evidence to get to a truth while apparently they don't.
[/QUOTE]

If you think that you have the evidence of what you did and said today but a year ago, which is Dec 14, 2016, then show us. If you can't, it means that there a 7 billion cases where humans can't provide any evidence about what they did and said on a single day only. That's how scarce evidence is!

On the other hand, if a credible eye witnesses wrote about what you did and said that day, and for us to believe with faith then we know what you did and said on Dec 14, 2016. This is how this reality operates, which you completely failed to grasp with your brainwashed mind.

 

[HitchSlap]

That's because you are clueless about how this reality works. We don't believe whatever authority told us. That remains your twisting of my words. We examine the credibility of the human testimonies to get to a truth. You however brainwashed to think that humans rely on evidence to get to a truth while apparently they don't.

That’s fine and dandy, but the authors of the gospels are pseudonymous, and weren’t eye witnesses.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Alright. Falsify the claim that falsifiability is applicable to any claim.

How could I falsify that claim, if it is an accurate claim?
Your request also is very strangely worded. To the point that it makes no sense.

Falsifiability of claims is rather about the merrit of said claim and how to justify accepting it as accurate. How it can be verified.

If a claim is not falsifiable, then how can you find out if it is accurate or not?
Can you give me an example of an unfalsifiable claim, that CAN be verified?

Because it's not empirical.

No, sorry, claims like "x exists in objective reality" is an empirical claim.
How can you verify if X indeed actually exists in objective reality, if not empirically?

It's not a semantics argument.

Yes it is, because you focused on one word while completely ignoring the clarification of what exactly I meant by it.

Plenty of people, myself included, don't think the Kalam works.

Many others do.
But I'm not talking about Kalam. I'm talking about "moderate beliefs" vs "fundamentalist beliefs" and things like that.

As I clarified twice. And which you, apparantly, ignored both times.

You're calling us irrational (if less irrational than inerrantists) based on something we also reject.

Nope. If you would actually make the effort to read the clarification I wrote down, you'll see that that is not the reason why I call the beliefs (not the people that hold them) irrational.

As so many people demonstrate every day, including myself most likely, you can be overall a pretty rational person while holding a couple of irrational beliefs.

 

[DogmaHunter]

That's because you are clueless about how this reality works.

lol...

We don't believe whatever authority told us.

Plenty of theists do exactly that.

That remains your twisting of my words. We examine the credibility of the human testimonies to get to a truth.

if "testimony" is your foundation of belief then.... that is exactly "believing what people tell you".

If you think that you have the evidence of what you did and said today but a year ago, which is Dec 14, 2016, then show us.

I'm not claiming to remember what I said back then.
But it's funny that you should mention that.... just the other day I had an argument with a client who claimed that over a year ago, I said a certain thing that I would do which he claimed I didn't do.

I went digging in my inbox and found the email he was talking about, where it's clearly written what I actually DID say.

That certainly shut him up............

Evidence: it trumps "memory" and "anecdotes" every single time.

If you can't, it means that there a 7 billion cases where humans can't provide any evidence about what they did and said on a single day only. That's how scarce evidence is!

Sure. But those would be rather trivial claims.
Obviously, if some guy comes up to me saying that he saw a great movie last night....
I'm not gonna tell him "ow ya? PROVE IT"!

It's a trivial claim. People exists. Movies exist. People watch movies. Nothing particularly ordinary.

However, if the guy would proceed that the main actress crawled out of the TV and made love to him, then returned into the TV to finish the movie.... that's the point where I won't just accept what he says.

So the amount of evidence I require, is directly proportional to how out of the ordinary the claim is, and in some other case how impactfull the claim is. As in, when there are consequences attached to accepting or rejecting it.

On the other hand, if a credible eye witnesses wrote about what you did and said that day, and for us to believe with faith then we know what you did and said on Dec 14, 2016.

1. how would you determine credibility in this case?

2. you can have 100 of the most honest people known to mankind saying X... if then physical evidence pops up that says Y instead, the "testimony" of those 100 people will be instantly discarded. Because people can be wrong.

This is how this reality operates, which you completely failed to grasp with your brainwashed mind.

Nope.