Differences in Religion

[Resha Caner]

ALL evidence is personal experience: what we see, hear, touch, taste, smell, or feel emotionally. That was first demonstrated by an atheist, David Hume, and no one has successfully challenged it since. Theists have that type of evidence.

It is atheists who want to change the rules and decide to change what counts as evidence.

I never thought I'd be glad for the support of Hume.

 

[david_x]

Why? Especially when you say "anything". Don't lots of things come in boxes? So why would you be an idiot to believe that the box wasn't empty and contained something?

Perhaps you are not fully extending your analogy. You must admit that the religious person is doing a little more than saying there is a watch in the box. They are saying that reason says there must be a watch in the box, that they have talked with the watch in the box, and that the watch in the box loves them. You would have to think such a person completely insane at best, right?

 

[KCfromNC]

There are many things in this life for which we lack objective evidence. For instance, Sunday a friend told me she had been to the Paul McCartney concert in NYC and it was "great". There is no objective evidence for that. Never will be.

Do you have objective evidence of Paul McCartney, concerts, NYC, Paul McCartney giving concerts, NYC having concerts held in them, and Paul McCartney giving a concert in NYC? Or at least could you, if you cared enough? That makes the situation much different than claims about god.

And of course there's no objective evidence for the concert being great. That's a subjective opinion. Also different from most people's concept of god.

ALL evidence is personal experience: what we see, hear, touch, taste, smell, or feel emotionally. That was first demonstrated by an atheist, David Hume, and no one has successfully challenged it since. Theists have that type of evidence.

Evidence differs from personal experience in that it can be shared objectively with other people. Sure, the measurement that a piece of wood is a foot long is one person's subjective experience. Have a dozen unrelated people do the test and get the same answer and then you're on to something.

Religions don't seem to be able to get this level of consistency of experience, even from people who claim to believe in the same thing. That's one of many reasons to believe the experience isn't of something that exists in external reality.

It is atheists who want to change the rules and decide to change what counts as evidence.

Unless you accept that the goal of life is to escape the continual cycle of death and rebirth as evidenced to Buddhists, you're following the same rules atheists are. You and I both reject the subjective religious experiences of others as convincing evidence of the reality of their beliefs. I'm just being consistent and applying it to all subjective personal experiences.

 

[KCfromNC]

Ah, I see you are still using the refuted philosophy of Positivism. The second line is Positivism. Let's redo the conversation and see what you fill in for the last line:

Me: "Do you believe there is a watch in that box."
You:. "No, I haven't any reason to believe there's a watch."
Me: "Do you believe there is not a watch in that box?"
You: " No. I don't believe that, either."
Me: "So you don't know whether there is a watch or not."
You:

"Yes, that's correct. Why are you changing the subject from belief to knowledge?"

Here's the semantics. "not believing" in this context is "believing there is no watch in the box".

Nope, they mean totally different things. Someone who believed there was no watch would be genuinely surprised if there one when the box was opened. The person above wouldn't have an expectation either way, so any result would be treated with the same level of surprise.

No, it's not "correct". "not believing" in this circumstance has no more epistemological value than believing.

Not believing due to a lack of evidence has lots of utility compared to defaulting to belief despite the lack of evidence. For one thing, you don't end up believing mutually contradictory things in cases where there's no evidence for either option. I'm sure you can come up with lots of other reasons.

What do most atheists you know think about the idea that what is natural requires and presupposes a generic deity in order for what is natural to work?

Looks like an argument from ignorance to me - more god of the gaps. Hasn't worked so well in the past but that doesn't stop believers from trying to rationalize their belief using it.

 

[Resha Caner]

Evidence differs from personal experience in that it can be shared objectively with other people. Sure, the measurement that a piece of wood is a foot long is one person's subjective experience. Have a dozen unrelated people do the test and get the same answer and then you're on to something.

Ooh. Measurement theory. That's a fun topic.

 

[KCfromNC]

Ooh. Measurement theory. That's a fun topic.

But is it relevant to anything I said?

 

[Resha Caner]

But is it relevant to anything I said?

Sure. It's just that our views are so very far apart that I question the value of jumping into the middle of it.

Evidence differs from personal experience in that it can be shared objectively with other people. Sure, the measurement that a piece of wood is a foot long is one person's subjective experience. Have a dozen unrelated people do the test and get the same answer and then you're on to something.

(emphasis mine)

Since this is a somewhat trivial example, it might seem like nitpicking for me to focus on that one word. But, considering the more complex issues that separate us, that is where I would start - with the question: By "same" do you mean "identical"?

 

[KCfromNC]

Sure. It's just that our views are so very far apart that I question the value of jumping into the middle of it.

Why bother to bring it up if you don't want to discuss it? This seems to be a pattern - bring up something and vaguely allude to how it shows that someone's point is wrong but then be reluctant to discuss it when asked for details. It's an example of poisoning the well, which isn't a particularly straightforward way of discussing thing.

Since this is a somewhat trivial example, it might seem like nitpicking for me to focus on that one word. But, considering the more complex issues that separate us, that is where I would start - with the question: By "same" do you mean "identical"?

No.

 

[Resha Caner]

Why bother to bring it up if you don't want to discuss it? This seems to be a pattern - bring up something and vaguely allude to how it shows that someone's point is wrong but then be reluctant to discuss it when asked for details. It's an example of poisoning the well, which isn't a particularly straightforward way of discussing thing.

There could be circumstances where you were right. But things are not as simple as that. So, you probably don't want (or need) to hear all of this, but I'll be straight up.

First of all, life isn't perfect. I have some very nasty personal issues to wrestle with. Odd as it may seem, this forum is an escape for me - a way to release tension. I enjoy the intellectual challenge brought by those whose view differs from mine, and such discussions are just a way to get my mind off other things. I may try to "prove" my viewpoint just for the sake of the challenge of doing it, but I honestly have no agenda or any intention of stong-arming anyone to accept Christianity as I see it.

So, I find all your comments about how I'm trying to "sell" and so forth quite humorous. From time to time someone makes a good point that puts a hole in my position. When that happens, I'll say it straight up - and I have. When I don't say that, it means the opposing argument just isn't convincing. I'm sure I don't concede as often as people would like, and I know they think I'm in a ridiculous position sometimes (note my byline), but that's the way it is. Rather than getting frustrated and turning to ad hominem comments about it all, I prefer dicing up the issue and trying to understand where the differences lie.

So, on the personal side, there are, unfortunately, things that come up from time to time that pull me away. When that happens, I disappear for days or weeks or maybe my replies become a bit abrupt. After all, I don't like to leave a conversation hanging in the middle.

With respect to those I'm speaking to, yes, sometimes I make some exploratory comments to test their position. If someone is dogmatically dug in and starts into "just because" answers - not interested. No disrespect intended, that's just not why I'm here. Or, if someone launches into derogatory mode - not interested. I'm know there are other people here (on both sides) who enjoy the "dis" game, so have at it, but leave me out.

And what about you, KC? You'll say you don't care what my opinion is, but you're in the middle. There are some who do a better job of maintaining a calm, mature discussion about the issue. There are some who do worse. Given that I have that opinion of you, I may misinterpret your comments from time to time - maybe taking them as more of a jab than you meant it to be. But I will say that the whole "I'm just being honest" line too often spoken by insensitive people is nonsense. I know. I used to be one of those people.

So, as to my brief, rather vague comment a few posts ago. From what did it stem? A very complex combination of all my above comments. I'm sorry if you don't like that, but there it is.

[edit] I guess all of that was meant to say that some of my side comments are a somewhat nervous habit (a social nicety) of trying to apologize for some of my inconsistencies without going into a lengthy explanation of all my shortcomings. Maybe not necessary, but it happens nonetheless.

No.

I didn't think so, but just thought it best to be clear. Based on the first comment in your post I don't know if this answer means you think I'm unreasonable and you're hoping I'll just go away, or if you're playing close to the vest because you're not sure where I'm going with this.

I have several options, and honestly I'd like to do all of them. But if I mention them all simultaneously, this would get much too confusing. So, I'll pick just one.

My thoughts often jump to the issue of noise - the reason the measurements are not identical is because of noise. At least when I did my engineering degree it was common for students to do an exercise where everybody measured the same thing and then compared answers. It was a way to introduce some of the statistical concepts associated with noise. But one of the mentors at my company repeats that exercise for young engineers to make a point that too often is not made in school (as such, I think the "education" of those who only experience science in school is incomplete - a point Bauer hammers on in his book).

So, would you like an example of how "it's not all about the noise"? That might give us a reasonable basis for digging deeper into this thing about half a dozen people getting the "same" answer.

 

[KCfromNC]

So, would you like an example of how "it's not all about the noise"? That might give us a reasonable basis for digging deeper into this thing about half a dozen people getting the "same" answer.

Sure, feel free. I'm aware of lots of limitations of evidence - I just don't see how any of them relate to justifications for religious belief.