Atheists/Agnostics: How Much Sense Does God Make?

[bhsmte]

This is fraught with many difficulties. Let me ask for some clarifications.

By "the ability to accept empirical evidence" do you mean "the willingness to accept what our senses tell us?" But this, of course, is subjective. Empiricism is entirely subjective.

By "tightly held preconceived beliefs" would you include the belief "our sense organs produce reliable representations of the world"? This is a tightly held, preconceived belief that every scientist brings to the table. Does that compromise their objectivity?

I think what you're getting at is that if evidence that already fits within our ideological framework ever contradicts our ideology then we have to make some decisions. If enough evidence presents itself that's continually contradicting ideology then we need to be willing to change our ideology.

For instance, within my ideological framework might be the propositions:

1. Dinosaurs never existed.
2. What my eyes tell me is reliable.

All of the sudden some evidence of the existence of dinosaurs comes to me. Now some contradictions arise within my ideology. If enough of this arises I've got to be willing to change my ideology.

This, I think, is the closest we can come to making sense of "objectivity". But even here ideology is always present.

The ability to accept what the data tells us, especially when it is reproduced hundreds of times.

 

[Tree of Life]

The ability to accept what the data tells us, especially when it is reproduced hundreds of times.

What you're really saying then is that we should be empirical. This is very different from trying to be "objective".

 

[bhsmte]

What you're really saying then is that we should be empirical. This is very different from trying to be "objective".

No matter how hard you try, it is quite difficult to separate objectivity from being a core of science.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objectivity_(science)

 

[Tree of Life]

No matter how hard you try, it is quite difficult to separate objectivity from being a core of science.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objectivity_(science)

If scientists want to revel in the illusion of objectivity they can go right ahead. Here's a quote from the wikipedia article:

"[Objectivity] is the idea that scientists, in attempting to uncover truths about the natural world, must aspire to eliminate personal biases, a priori commitments, emotional involvement, etc."

This to me is ultimately impossible. If we can expand the conversation to speak of "relative objectivity" and "ultimate objectivity" then perhaps I can buy into the idea more.

It's reasonable to aspire to "relative objectivity". For instance, a judge should not preside over the case of someone who's accused of murdering his daughter. We can see how this judge's relative objectivity would be compromised.

But to imagine that we can be ultimately objective, eliminating all emotional commitments, all desires and values, all personal preferences and biases, all a priori commitments is just ridiculous. Scientists are emotionally committed to discovering truth. And this is a good thing! It's good to be biased toward truth. But we are whole human beings with values, worldviews, biases, and emotions. We approach all of life, including scientific work, as whole human beings. It's impossible to extricate ourselves from ourselves!

So is it possible to be relatively objective? Perhaps. Is it possible to be ultimately objective such that we eliminate all subjectivity? No. We are subjects. We can never not be subjects.

 

[bhsmte]

If scientists want to revel in the illusion of objectivity they can go right ahead. Here's a quote from the wikipedia article:

"[Objectivity] is the idea that scientists, in attempting to uncover truths about the natural world, must aspire to eliminate personal biases, a priori commitments, emotional involvement, etc."

This to me is ultimately impossible. If we can expand the conversation to speak of "relative objectivity" and "ultimate objectivity" then perhaps I can buy into the idea more.

It's reasonable to aspire to "relative objectivity". For instance, a judge should not preside over the case of someone who's accused of murdering his daughter. We can see how this judge's relative objectivity would be compromised.

But to imagine that we can be ultimately objective, eliminating all emotional commitments, all desires and values, all personal preferences and biases, all a priori commitments is just ridiculous. Scientists are emotionally committed to discovering truth. And this is a good thing! It's good to be biased toward truth. But we are whole human beings with values, worldviews, biases, and emotions. We approach all of life, including scientific work, as whole human beings. It's impossible to extricate ourselves from ourselves!

So is it possible to be relatively objective? Perhaps. Is it possible to be ultimately objective such that we eliminate all subjectivity? No. We are subjects. We can never not be subjects.

Which situation do you think is capable of being more objective and explain why:

-the scientist, using the scientific method
-the Christian, interpreting scripture

 

[Tree of Life]

Which situation do you think is capable of being more objective and explain why:

-the scientist, using the scientific method
-the Christian, interpreting scripture

If we can understand objective to mean "relatively objective" like I've described above then...

Each could approach their study in equally objective ways. The scientific method is a relatively objective way to interpret the data of the natural world.

But there are also proper methods of biblical interpretation. If a Christian uses the proper methods of biblical interpretation then they can arrive at a relatively objective conclusion.

But the two people are studying two different things. The conclusions that come from each study, should the studies be carried out legitimately, are both authoritative. God is the author of the Bible but he is equally the author of the natural world. Both people are studying the works of God. If the conclusions that come from studying the natural world are ever in conflict with the conclusions that come from studying the Bible then this means that we must've either misunderstood the natural world or misunderstood the Bible. The two cannot ultimately be in conflict in my view.

 

[Tree of Life]

Personally, I find it weird to start with a mere word and define it until it makes sense.
If I were hard-pressed to choose a reasonable definition, I´d probably define "God" as the projection surface of a person´s ideals.

So would this make you a theist?

 

[quatona]

So would this make you a theist?

Would what make me a theist? And in whose eyes?

 

[Tree of Life]

Would what make me a theist? And in whose eyes?

According to your understanding of God are you a theist in your own eyes?

 

[Received]

Fascinating results and discussion so far, guys. Thanks for responding!

 

[bhsmte]

If we can understand objective to mean "relatively objective" like I've described above then...

Each could approach their study in equally objective ways. The scientific method is a relatively objective way to interpret the data of the natural world.

But there are also proper methods of biblical interpretation. If a Christian uses the proper methods of biblical interpretation then they can arrive at a relatively objective conclusion.

But the two people are studying two different things. The conclusions that come from each study, should the studies be carried out legitimately, are both authoritative. God is the author of the Bible but he is equally the author of the natural world. Both people are studying the works of God. If the conclusions that come from studying the natural world are ever in conflict with the conclusions that come from studying the Bible then this means that we must've either misunderstood the natural world or misunderstood the Bible. The two cannot ultimately be in conflict in my view.

Well, the results of the two are quite different.

Not difficult to get a consensus in science as empirical evidence grows, but getting a consensus on biblical interpretations, is a different story. Could be why there are so many denominations of Christianity, because of all the subjectivity involved.

 

[Received]

And I'd really ask those who have contributed to the discussion but haven't voted to try a vote, and if you "can't" let me know why.

There's no minimizing of atheism here, just that there are sort of extra- or para-argumentative reasons for not believing in God, which I think reflects the general lack of the Christian church(es) to actually present a believable God.

 

[Received]

I consider myself both an agnostic and an atheist, but I'll assume that atheism is the "stronger" statement for the purpose of the poll.

I had voted for "Atheist: God makes no sense, and/or is absurd".

Let me be clear, here. I think that there are some clever apologetics, especially coming from Thomas Aquinas, that use the concept "God" as a kind of plug to fill in certain philosophical holes. For instance, you don't know how to explain the existence of motion? Then there is an unmoved mover ("and we call that God!" Ba dum bum.).

But God is unfortunately defined by what he is not -- he is not finite ("infinite"), is not a natural entity ("transcendent"), is not in time ("timeless"), etc. It is not clear at all that any of this makes any kind of rational sense ("just what is God, anyway?"). Any objections of this sort lead to the defense that God is simply above our understanding, in other words, absurd.

So, even though Thomas Aquinas, and perhaps a few other Apologists, are probably geniuses, their arguments ultimately fall flat for me, and degenerate into an absurd conception of God.


eudaimonia,

Mark

So you're saying that because there are only negative definitions of God (God is something by reflection of what we think he's not), that there is no real positive definition that encapsulates him left on the plate?

 

[bhsmte]

And I'd really ask those who have contributed to the discussion but haven't voted to try a vote, and if you "can't" let me know why.

There's no minimizing of atheism here, just that there are sort of extra- or para-argumentative reasons for not believing in God, which I think reflects the general lack of the Christian church(es) to actually present a believable God.

When you say God in the poll, are you referring to the Christian description of God, a personal God?

If you can clarify that, I can vote, because I have very different opinions on personal vs universal non personal Gods.

 

[Received]

God makes sense in that it seems like a projection of humanities sense of things onto the universe around them.

God as an objective or independent thing is nonsense, as I see no reason the universe should or does conform to our viewpoint.

As in, it's hubris to think the universe was created for us, therefore God is off the table?

 

[Received]

Personally, I find it weird to start with a mere word and define it until it makes sense.
If I were hard-pressed to choose a reasonable definition, I´d probably define "God" as the projection surface of a person´s ideals.

That's a psychological description, not an attempted definition of a concept or idea.

So some people would say the things Eudaimonist said: God is timeless, spaceless, transcendent, etc. Do those attempted qualities which constitute a partial definition fail because they're inconceivable or wrong, or because there aren't enough qualities to make up a good enough definition?

 

[Received]

When you say God in the poll, are you referring to the Christian description of God, a personal God?

If you can clarify that, I can vote, because I have very different opinions on personal vs universal non personal Gods.

I guess I'm referring to whatever definition would make the most sense to you if you were to believe, and probably in a personal definition (i.e., not a pantheistic sort of deity). If you can't think of any fitting definition if you were to believe, then you would answer "it's absurd/makes no sense."

 

[bhsmte]

I guess I'm referring to whatever definition would make the most sense to you if you were to believe, and probably in a personal definition (i.e., not a pantheistic sort of deity). If you can't think of any fitting definition if you were to believe, then you would answer "it's absurd/makes no sense."

To me, a non-personal God is much more feasible than a personal God, but I still would not say it makes moderate sense, but also couldn't say it was absurd. Some where in between that would be me for a universal God and I do think, the personal God idea is absurd.

 

[Received]

To me, a non-personal God is much more feasible than a personal God, but I still would not say it makes moderate sense, but also couldn't say it was absurd. Some where in between that would be me for a universal God and I do think, the personal God idea is absurd.

Then I would put "absurd" for the poll, and I'll clarify with an edit that I mean a personal God.

Thanks, broheim.

 

[Eudaimonist]

So you're saying that because there are only negative definitions of God (God is something by reflection of what we think he's not), that there is no real positive definition that encapsulates him left on the plate?

Pretty much, yeah.

Whatever positive qualities that are left aren't enough to save the concept from absurdity.


eudaimonia,

Mark