Biggest Reason Theism is Rejected

[Received]

Yeah, I'm not using theory scientifically. That would be a much more restrictive application of theory.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Technically, you are correct, but I believe received is using the term in a much looser fashion, more like a hypothesis.

A hypothesis still requires a clear scope of data to explain and testable predictability.

Without actually explaining anything, without supportive evidence, without testable predictions, without a means to falsify it... your idea/theory/hypothesis/explanation/... is pretty much meaningless and useless.

Such models of reality are infinite in number, as my undetectable 7-headed dragon that burped the universe into existence will confirm.

 

[bhsmte]

Theories are by definition without evidence, because they transcend evidence by putting bits of evidence and truth (which isn't equivalent to evidence) together into a framework.



Theories might not intrinsically have personal meaning (my point was theory is more *like* meaning, BTW), but they definitely have extrinsic meaning. Take my realization that taking fish oil makes me live longer and is better for my mood. Well, that opens up the meaning possibilities associated with feeling better (maybe I spend more time outside, running, reading).

I believe Dogma is referring to how science uses the term theory and that is when there is objective evidence to support it.

 

[Received]

I believe Dogma is referring to how science uses the term theory and that is when there is objective evidence to support it.

Even here, you're still not referring to evidence or facts, but the subjectivity-laden attempt at stringing these things together.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Theories are by definition without evidence, because they transcend evidence by putting bits of evidence and truth (which isn't equivalent to evidence) together into a framework.

This is simply not true.

You say you aren't using "theory" in the scientific sense...

In that case, i'm gonna need you to define how you are really using it and what the merrit thereof is.

 

[bhsmte]

A hypothesis still requires a clear scope of data to explain and testable predictability.

Without actually explaining anything, without supportive evidence, without testable predictions, without a means to falsify it... your idea/theory/hypothesis/explanation/... is pretty much meaningless and useless.

Such models of reality are infinite in number, as my undetectable 7-headed dragon that burped the universe into existence will confirm.

I know, from a scientific aspect, you are correct.

He is using it more loosely, like when someone says; I have a theory about something, which is likely just intuition, with no objective evidence to support it.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Even here, you're still not referring to evidence or facts, but the subjectivity-laden attempt at stringing these things together.

No. Theories explain facts and predict other facts in testable ways. When tested, you either confirm it or you discard it.

If that is not how you use "theory", then how do you use it and what is the merrit?

I'll stop posting here now till you clarify.

 

[Received]

This is simply not true.

You say you aren't using "theory" in the scientific sense...

In that case, i'm gonna need you to define how you are really using it and what the merrit thereof is.

I think I can prove how it is true a priori, and I just did (I think).

You have evidence, which we can for the sake of argument reduce to facts. So you have facts at your feet. What's the meaning behind these facts? Independently facts have no broad, pervasive meaning; they're like droplets of rain. The use of facts comes in their being tied together via theory. Well, if you have facts, you can't logically have the strung together products of theory to be facts as well, given that you're using facts as the material from which you make a meaning. Much like you can't have sunshine to be the same as the window through which it shines.

 

[Received]

No. Theories explain facts and predict other facts in testable ways. When tested, you either confirm it or you discard it.

If that is not how you use "theory", then how do you use it and what is the merrit?

I'll stop posting here now till you clarify.

"Testable" here is scientific theory. There's more in the world involved in that. Which is why you have things like "political theory". Even so, testable theories (scientifically or not) are not themselves facts, but the stringing-together of facts. Predictability might be a criterion for a theory, but it's not the case with facts. You can't predict facts as facts; you need a theory for predictability to be possible.

 

[FireDragon76]

And the Kingdom of God, being the sphere of life and behavior where God's will is yielded to, means changes in political systems and helping your neighbor down the street to get food, as well as changing yourself internally so you're a better person, which is valuable for you psychologically and by extension valuable for society and even economically, given the higher financial payoff coming from people with their stuff together.

There are Christian religious communities focused on that stuff... most of mainline Protestantism hits on the stuff you are talking about. There's probably an Episcopal church near where you live, in fact.

My only caveat is that you seem to be focused only on the material aspects of sin... I think both the spiritual and material are relevant to our human condition. Gaining the whole world and losing your own soul and that sort of thing.

 

[quatona]

What we need is not so much arguments for God as a really relevant theism. A theoretical theism that bridges the gap between secular and spiritual. Just like evolution is unavoidably useful because it connects everything biological together through a theory, the same would be the case if God were actually made relevant and aspects of religion connected theoretically to things like happiness, pathology, ethics, and ontology.

Looking forward to an attempt at doing this.

 

[Received]

Looking forward to an attempt at doing this.

Yeah, it's hard to find, and that's all the fault of the church for making it hard to find.

 

[Received]

There are Christian religious communities focused on that stuff... most of mainline Protestantism hits on the stuff you are talking about. There's probably an Episcopal church near where you live, in fact.

My only caveat is that you seem to be focused only on the material aspects of sin... I think both the spiritual and material are relevant to our human condition. Gaining the whole world and losing your own soul and that sort of thing.

Yeah, I agree that the spiritual is important. I guess what I'm trying to say is that there's no such thing as a spiritual defect that doesn't also have material consequences. A person sins by drinking too much; this isn't a sin that exists in a spiritual vacuum, but influences, e.g., his self-esteem, which influences his inclination to go to work, and how he treats other people in a small way, all of which and plenty of other facets have material consequences. The spirit (at least for humans) always (always) works in a mutually causal context of material.

 

[Ana the Ist]

I don't think you need evidence; you need theory. It's really a question, maybe, of which theory ties together the facts and truths you already do know, rather than what counts as the biggest fact or verifiable truth. And theory is probably more important to us, given that we're meaning-seeking creatures, and theory is much more meaningful than truths or facts. So perhaps at heart it isn't about objective truth at all, but subjective truth, or that which gives meaning. Hence Kierkegaard's splash that he must find a truth that's true for him, one for which he can live and die. Theory is a bit closer to this way of viewing things, a bit closer to subjective truth than objective truth (facts, representation of reality).

I had to reread your OP after this reply, I think I misunderstood you originally. I thought your were speaking of the methods of tying "theistic concepts" to reality (which IMO is more or less exactly what religion is) not simply the concepts themselves. To me at least...the concepts hold no real value on their own without some practicable methodology. The religious concepts that JRR Tolkien created in his Silmarillion hold the same value/connection to reality as anything in the bible, Koran, B. Gita, etc. Which is to say...not much value at all. They don't matter outside the realm of the conceptual.

What does matter (although, again, not much to me) is how these concepts are tied to reality...i.e. religion. The methodology (prayer, baptism, marriage ceremony) symbolism (the cross, Jesus fish, hands folded in prayer, the eucharist) and the instruction (the ten commandments, basically every passage that pertains to how a follower should live their life) is how a religion attempts to bridge that gap between the conceptual and reality. How successful a religion is at bridging that gap depends on many things...but without any correspondence between the religion and reality (i.e. evidence) eventually that religion becomes "outdated" and "esoteric" if you will.

 

[FireDragon76]

Yeah, I agree that the spiritual is important. I guess what I'm trying to say is that there's no such thing as a spiritual defect that doesn't also have material consequences.

I'm not so sure I'd go that far. For one thing, the vice of pride doesn't seem like it is linked strongly with matter. A person who lacks nothing can still be proud. In addition, the Christian tradition, especially the Protestant tradition, has tended to emphasize our sinful ability to do the right thing for all the wrong reasons, making our motivations all the more important.

 

[variant]

And I don't think people have different needs here. So that's theory. What drives truth? I think it's also connected to theory: we seek truths (and facts) because they're material through which we stitch together a bigger idea with theory. It's all the same need. What is this need? Well, it can't just be to know the truth or to put a narrative on things. It's probably closer to being happy.

Truth drives its self, it is unconnected with our psychological needs.

 

[Received]

Truth drives its self, it is unconnected with our psychological needs.

Disagree. Power drives itself, and uses truth only when convenient.

 

[Received]

I'm not so sure I'd go that far. For one thing, the vice of pride doesn't seem like it is linked strongly with matter. A person who lacks nothing can still be proud. In addition, the Christian tradition, especially the Protestant tradition, has tended to emphasize our sinful ability to do the right thing for all the wrong reasons, making our motivations all the more important.

Pride definitely has a material effect. If I'm more likely to be depressed when the thing I'm prideful in withers away, and this depression has clear physiological courses, which in turn affect behavior and therefore other people. Even the act of pride has a physiological component in terms of neurotransmitters and hormones.

 

[variant]

Disagree. Power drives itself, and uses truth only when convenient.

I don't think I understand what you are saying. Do you think that ideas like truth and power self determine like people?

 

[bhsmte]

Disagree. Power drives itself, and uses truth only when convenient.

I would agree with this and we see this in action on these boards quite often, especially with fundamentalists.

The truth or reality is always there, it doesn't go away, but it has to be acknowledged for it to take hold. Deeply held beliefs are more than powerful enough to deny certain realities, so the personal belief can be protected.