Atheists: Why does theism still exist?

[Loudmouth]

Scientific evidence, or another kind?

The same kind of evidence that you would need for invisible fire breathing dragons that live in garages.

 

[Eight Foot Manchild]

It is obviously impossible to say exactly where theists went wrong in their search because everyone is different. However, it is usually a combination of different things, like some of the following:

-Socialization and social reinforcement. Having everyone around you believe the same thing and teaching it to you from childhood definitely has an impact upon people.

-Lack of questioning. Some people simply don't question, or, at least, don't dwell on the harder ones.

-Lack of information. I can't hear proactive questions and conflicting information if I don't really encounter it. Without the ability to see other things, my scope is limited and I may reach bad conclusions with limited information.

-Psychological bias and needs. People have psychological biases, such as the desire to implant agency onto things and the need for psychological closure in the form of clear definite answers. Some people's minds will go so far as to pretty much block out anything it doesn't like.

-Logical fallacy. Most Christian apologetics exists solely to reinforce already held beliefs. The arguments alone are very unconvincing when taken on their own from a less biased outlook. If one doesn't recognize the fallacies, the arguments appear much stronger than they actually are.

-Epistemological failures. Not understanding why subjective experiences attributed to gods are not evidence for the god without something more tangible than say-so. Problems in the approach to how we know information and why certain things, like objective evidence, are very much needed.

These are reasons I agree with.

However, I would point out that there is a MASSIVE category of theist - I believe, the largest category - which I would call 'nominally theist'.

Let's face it, there are comparatively very few people who have ever seriously considered the concept of belief or non-belief. Arguments in philosophy, theology, apologetics etc. take place in a minute fraction of the population.

Many people, especially in America, will identify as 'Catholic' (for example) if asked their religious affiliation, but they don't actively practice anything resembling the faith itself, aside from maybe going to Mass on Easter and Christmas out of habit or family tradition. They go through the motions of the faith out of having been raised in it, but give no serious thought to whether it is genuinely true.

Especially in the information age, there is no shortage of things to occupy one's mind with, so the phenomenon of the nominal theist does not surprise me. However, I think a great many of these people, if they ever stopped to seriously think about it, might come to realize they are actually atheist.

This was my own discovery, in fact. I attended Christian churches for my entire childhood and early adulthood, and identified as 'Christian', when it struck me quite suddenly at the age of eighteen that I could not remember a single point in my life when I actually believed any of it. I simply had never given it any real thought.

Something to chew on. We get caught up in our own categories of theist, because here we are, on a religious forum, which attracts a particular type of theist by its very nature. But there is a huge population of professing believers out there to whom the very concept of debating religion, on a forum or anywhere else, is nowhere on their radar.

 

[variant]

Scientific evidence, or another kind?

Do you have another kind of evidence that would move God into the realm of the plausible?

Let me be more clear. Equating God to something ridiculous assumes that God is ridiculous, which makes it impossible to imagine him being evidentialized. It quite simply takes out the motivational steam to even begin to think about giving God a serious thought. Who would want to when he's like a fairy tale that you know by definition is fictional?

To put it plainly, I don't have any problem envisioning Gods being evidenced as you seem to think, I just don't think any of them have...

Your beliefs don't merit better treatment than fiction because they are no better supported than fiction.

This is not me being unfair, it is me treating stories as stories.

 

[Received]

In the comparison of invisible fire breathing dragons that live in garages and the deities that people believe in.

Jesus, so people can be conditioned (i.e., circumventing reason) to believe in God, but they can't be conditioned against believing in him? Because it's exactly imagery like dragons that implies that you've been conditioned against believing him. See how pointless claims like these are? Except that it's probably psychologically true that you evil atheists are doing just this, which is why you're incredulous when someone points a flashlight in your direction and says, "see?"

Because nobody believes in dragons, to compare God to dragons means they have the same possibility of being true (none), which means they are comparable to God in terms of evidence only on the assumption that God doesn't exist. Which would mean that accepting this comparison implies accepting this assumption as well. That's the problem, that's the question begging. The moral of the story is to use comparisons that don't assume the thing you're comparing them to are absurd. Unless, of course, you're just conditioned on some pre-rational way otherwise.

The problem seems to lie with the standard for determining something as true, the self-negating Saganistic scientism which holds that anything that can't be tested or falsified is useless, which has applicability to this very standard, negating it. So either Sagan's standard of scientism negates itself because it can't fulfill its own criteria and we're left with, I don't know, nothing, or we realize there are other criteria at work for determining truth.

Sagan was exactly who Einstein would have had in mind when he said the man of science is a poor philosopher.

 

[Received]

Do you have another kind of evidence that would move God into the realm of the plausible?

Well, plausible is really relative, isn't it? You'll have to be more specific. If plausible means "a reasonable chance for existing," e.g., 50/50, then I'd say a good argument for God is, I don't know, the existence of the universe. Now notice the complicated philosophical arguments (e.g., all causes need a cause, which has a rebuttal) or assumptions (the universe is just eternal) that you're inclined immediately to use as a response. This in no way makes God a less plausible metaphysical explanation. It just means you're biased, that you prefer your own answers which are themselves based in unfalsifiable presuppositions. This is the land of metaphysics, which is totally fine. But all I'm being asked to do is make God "plausible".

To put it plainly, I don't have any problem envisioning Gods being evidenced as you seem to think, I just don't think any of them have...

Your beliefs don't merit better treatment than fiction because they are no better supported than fiction.

This is not me being unfair, it is me treating stories as stories.

They are better supported than fiction. The problem, again, is scientism is assumed to the standard, where only stuff you can see and falsify and test fits the bill, which negates itself given that science can't do precisely this. And the problem with fictional examples is that they involve things that fit the criteria for science (namely they're physical) but fail them. God is infinitely different, because nobody is claiming his existence is commensurate with the physical. He created the physical (so the assumption goes), which makes him by definition beyond it. He doesn't fail his criteria.

 

[leftrightleftrightleft]

I don't come on this forum enough. Can't respond to everyone, but I've read it all, and am picking out certain things that piqued my interest.

First, I'd like to point out that I wasn't one of those 'children-only' Christians. I was a committed follower, who had 'religious experiences', and thought reason could back up belief.

Interesting. At its heart, I don't think reason can back up a belief, by definition. Beliefs are often axiomatic and do not have reasons behind them.

Does that make them bad? Don't we all rely on certain axioms in our lives that do not have "reasons" behind them?

Well, it could be different for different people, but I'll give an opinion off the top of my head:

The difference could come from differing concerns about 'truth' (or curiosity), and how socially free you are.


1) I cared about things like science, theology and apologetics in my teen years because I was curious... I wanted to understand what reality was like. I also talked to non-believers, which forces you to think about issues.

There are obviously people who care less for this understanding, so such people will be less inclined to think deeply and oftenly about the nature of God (and related issues).

Of course most people will claim they care about the truth, but they don't think, talk, or read up on it much.


2) If there is social pressure on you to believe X, then there is a disincentive to doubting what your group thinks you should believe. Less social pressure, or a personality that cares less about that pressure, can give more freedom of thought.

So I think those probably explains why alot of people believe. But it's likely there are people who search for the truth, and aren't strongly socially pressured to stay believing. Some of those people could still be in early stages of searching, so might still become atheist. This wont account for everyone, but I don't want to make this post too long with more speculation.

Thanks for the thoughts

 

[leftrightleftrightleft]

As for experiences of god, I've never heard of one I could take seriously. They sound like imaginative flights of fancy or flat out everyday occurrences. They don't sound at all like a god interacting with a human. I know that's flat out dismissing many people's experiences... but that's the honest truth in how I see it. It's even more evidenced when I speak to a christian and ask them about their experience with god and they're so reluctant to share it...almost as if they know deep down it isn't true or it will sound silly.

I think one of the biggest challenges for a scientific/materialist viewpoint is the problem of consciousness and the problem of experience.

As an example, when I listen to music, I sometimes get very intense chills and a feeling of "peace", "calm" or (in a very new-age-y sense) "oneness with the universe". Sounds stupid, right?

I've met people that have had similar experiences and they "get it". But some people I've met have never had this sort of experience while listening to music. And it sounds remarkably stupid to them.

I've read lots of science articles and books on this (a great one is called "This Is Your Brain On Music" by Daniel Levitin). But, no matter how well someone can explain the how's and why's of the experience, the explanations and MRI images and acoustical wave equations will never make someone "understand" the experience.


A list of ingredients in a cake doesn't explain the experience of tasting the cake.

 

[variant]

Well, plausible is really relative, isn't it? You'll have to be more specific. If plausible means "a reasonable chance for existing," e.g., 50/50, then I'd say a good argument for God is, I don't know, the existence of the universe. Now notice the complicated philosophical arguments (e.g., all causes need a cause, which has a rebuttal) or assumptions (the universe is just eternal) that you're inclined immediately to use as a response. This in no way makes God a less plausible metaphysical explanation. It just means you're biased, that you prefer your own answers which are themselves based in unfalsifiable presuppositions. This is the land of metaphysics, which is totally fine. But all I'm being asked to do is make God "plausible".

The supposition that you need an intelligent supernatural being to have a universe is basically just speculation, so I don't see how you can call it evidence that Gods exist.

Speculation is not evidence, you need to have knowledge to call it evidence.

They are better supported than fiction. The problem, again, is scientism is assumed to the standard, where only stuff you can see and falsify and test fits the bill, which negates itself given that science can't do precisely this. And the problem with fictional examples is that they involve things that fit the criteria for science (namely they're physical) but fail them.

Fiction as in things that are made up. No, your suppositions are not better supported than the fictions that other people have made up to cover the gaps in our knowledge.

God is infinitely different, because nobody is claiming his existence is commensurate with the physical. He created the physical (so the assumption goes), which makes him by definition beyond it. He doesn't fail his criteria.

Yes God is entirely a case of special pleading for a favored supposition of a religious group defined so that no real evidence is or ever will be required.

Assumptions are not evidence.

You've failed to put any evidence forward here so you don't get to complain about why we apply the standards that we apply to other concepts, and why they don't (or shouldn't) apply to yours.

 

[Received]

The last two responses aren't getting my points, but maybe they're related to your original claim of "speculation", so let's focus on that.

"Speculation" is too freewheeling a word to use. God either created the universe or the universe exists (eternally) without a creator. There is no speculation in saying it must be one or the other. That's simple logic, and a logic that gently pushes to the side of a creator (i.e., more than 50%, but without testable evidence) when you consider more complicated metaphysical arguments, such as reductio ad absurdum against an infinite regress (eternal universe). Do you include your stance of "no deity" as speculation because you go for the opposite assumption? If not, what standard are you using here and by what authority?

Everything is "speculation" as you use the term when it comes to metaphysics ,hence we should use a better word. This includes your likely claim that until something is proven it just can't be true underlying your rejection of atheism as speculative given its own assumptions about the universe.

 

[Received]

And please understand me when I say this:

God has no evidence not because he doesn't have evidence but should, but because he is incommensurate with evidence. As you use the term (replication, testability applied to physical stuff). Again, the reasoning is easy: God is by definition a creator, and a creator of a universe by definition transcends it, making him beyond the physical and therefore testability, and also replication, given this assumes uniformity.

Appealing to dragons, etc., is fallacious because dragons are physical things. You know, you should be able to touch them and stuff. Which means that when they fail to be seen, they've failed their own criteria (physicality, replication, testability, etc.). God is not a physical thing, given that physical things are created things. Therefore...

Seriously, this is an extremely important crux for this discussion.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

And please understand me when I say this:

God has no evidence not because he doesn't have evidence but should, but because he is incommensurate with evidence. As you use the term (replication, testability applied to physical stuff). Again, the reasoning is easy: God is by definition a creator, and a creator of a universe by definition transcends it, making him beyond the physical and therefore testability, and also replication, given this assumes uniformity.

Appealing to dragons, etc., is fallacious because dragons are physical things. You know, you should be able to touch them and stuff. Which means that when they fail to be seen, they've failed their own criteria (physicality, replication, testability, etc.). God is not a physical thing, given that physical things are created things. Therefore...

Seriously, this is an extremely important crux for this discussion.

Have you read the story? The person who maintains that the dragon is real keeps making excuses for why the dragon cannot in any way be detected. He could make the following excuse: "You can't detect the dragon because the dragon isn't physical. But it's still there."

 

[Received]

Have you read the story? The person who maintains that the dragon is real keeps making excuses for why the dragon cannot in any way be detected. He could make the following excuse: "You can't detect the dragon because the dragon isn't physical. But it's still there."

See my post, #64. Sagan is committing the classic self-negating problem of scientism. That's what's wrong with the story.

Also, Sagan is treating God as if his existence and properties related to it are applicable to the criteria of science (testability, etc.). That's fallacy two.

 

[variant]

I rebut:

Modified post (underlined God -> Dragons):

The last two responses aren't getting my points, but maybe they're related to your original claim of "speculation", so let's focus on that.

"Speculation" is too freewheeling a word to use. Dragons either created the universe or the universe exists (eternally) without a creator. There is no speculation in saying it must be one or the other. That's simple logic, and a logic that gently pushes to the side of dragons(i.e., more than 50%, but without testable evidence) when you consider more complicated metaphysical arguments, such as reductio ad absurdum against an infinite regress (eternal universe). Do you include your stance of "no dragons" as speculation because you go for the opposite assumption? If not, what standard are you using here and by what authority?

Dragons exist. Dragons created the universe. The evidence of this is that the universe exists.

Speculation no? The arguments are identical, so Dragons must be plausible.

What I have bold here about "simple logic" has been addressed a thousand times on this forum and I don't feel the need to rebut here.

The last time I remember going round this bend with you was here:
http://www.christianforums.com/t7836100-2/

And you bowed out of that discussion.

Do you include your stance of "no deity" as speculation because you go for the opposite assumption? If not, what standard are you using here and by what authority?

Everything is "speculation" as you use the term when it comes to metaphysics ,hence we should use a better word. This includes your likely claim that until something is proven it just can't be true underlying your rejection of atheism as speculative given its own assumptions about the universe.

I am saying that your "evidence" is mere speculation that your conclusion is true (a circular argument). My lack of belief in God doesn't need to be asserted in this manner as I simply don't think God is in evidence.

 

[variant]

And please understand me when I say this:

God has no evidence not because he doesn't have evidence but should, but because he is incommensurate with evidence. As you use the term (replication, testability applied to physical stuff). Again, the reasoning is easy: God is by definition a creator, and a creator of a universe by definition transcends it, making him beyond the physical and therefore testability, and also replication, given this assumes uniformity.

You are not allowed to both be a Christian and say that direct evidence of God is impossible the ideas are antithetical.

The Christian God directly effects the world and even appeared in a physical form for direct communication.

Appealing to dragons, etc., is fallacious because dragons are physical things. You know, you should be able to touch them and stuff. Which means that when they fail to be seen, they've failed their own criteria (physicality, replication, testability, etc.). God is not a physical thing, given that physical things are created things. Therefore...

Seriously, this is an extremely important crux for this discussion.

My dragons are ethereal (made of non physical stuff), you can't see or detect them.

What you are saying here is specifically that things are more plausible the more impossible they are to examine!

The next logical step though, sadly, is that all impossible to examine/test ideas are then equally plausible.

 

[quatona]

And please understand me when I say this:

God has no evidence not because he doesn't have evidence but should, but because he is incommensurate with evidence. As you use the term (replication, testability applied to physical stuff). Again, the reasoning is easy: God is by definition a creator, and a creator of a universe by definition transcends it, making him beyond the physical and therefore testability, and also replication, given this assumes uniformity.

Appealing to dragons, etc., is fallacious because dragons are physical things.

Then let´s take a supernatural dragon, if it makes things easier.

You know, you should be able to touch them and stuff.

The example was an invisible fire-breathing dragon. So it´s already pretty close to what you are asking for as a comparison.

Seriously, this is an extremely important crux for this discussion.

The crucial question is: Does it lend more credibilty to a claim when we add "supernatural" (IOW: "unfalsifiable") to it? I don´t think so.

 

[KCfromNC]

Let me be more clear. Equating God to something ridiculous assumes that God is ridiculous

Not necessarily - it could also be a conclusion. The assumption would be something like "it is ridiculous to believe in stuff when there's no reason to believe in them".

 

[KCfromNC]

But, no matter how well someone can explain the how's and why's of the experience, the explanations and MRI images and acoustical wave equations will never make someone "understand" the experience.

What does it even mean to understand a feeling of experiencing something? While you can arrange the English words in the particular order, I'm not convinced that it actually means anything when you do. The fact you have to put it in quotes means you know it isn't a normal meaning of the word, but that doesn't tell us what it is supposed to mean.

 

[KCfromNC]

God either created the universe or the universe exists (eternally) without a creator. There is no speculation in saying it must be one or the other.

There was a natural cause to the universe
The universe is uncaused and existed for a finite time
The universe is the accidental side effect of a bunch of gods having a food fight

Anyone want to add more options to show that this is a false dichotomy?

 

[essentialsaltes]

God is by definition a creator, and a creator of a universe by definition transcends it, making him beyond the physical and therefore testability, and also replication, given this assumes uniformity.

Appealing to dragons, etc., is fallacious because dragons are physical things. You know, you should be able to touch them and stuff.

I understand that Thomas was allowed to touch Jesus. Does that mean Jesus was not god?

Speaking of dragons, how about Tiamat? She is a dragon (more or less) and also had a role in creating the universe. Maybe Sagan had Tiamat in his garage. Tiamat is by definition a creator, and a creator of a universe by definition transcends it, making her beyond the physical and therefore testability....

Anything you can say about the logical necessity of your creator god is equally applicable to the dragon creator goddess Tiamat.

 

[Loudmouth]

Also, Sagan is treating God as if his existence and properties related to it are applicable to the criteria of science (testability, etc.). That's fallacy two.

The only fallacy is assuming that testability does not apply.