Faith and Atheism

[Davian]

I'm going to repost in order to try and get us back on topic:

There is another implication of this. Evidence for God is often requested in a way that makes sense to our empirical or rational faculties. For instance -- show me God or give me an argument for God's existence.

But in the case of morality, the best arguments simply appeal to conscience. I believe this is because the conscience is the thing that sees morality. It sounds silly to say "prove that x is wrong". The best we can do is appeal to conscience or rationally demonstrate that "if you think x is wrong, you should also think y is wrong because x=y". That argument is an appeal to conscience.

If God is perceived by spiritual faculties then his existence can never be proven or disproven by empirical data or rational argument. Neither of these things can see God just like neither of these things can see morality or beauty.

Is this what your OP was going to be about?

There is empirical data as well as rational arguments for beauty and morality:

"However, studies from neuroscience and evolutionary biology challenge this separation of art from non-art. Human neuroimaging studies have convincingly shown that the brain areas involved in aesthetic responses to artworks overlap with those that mediate the appraisal of objects of evolutionary importance, such as the desirability of foods or the attractiveness of potential mates. Hence, it is unlikely that there are brain systems specific to the appreciation of artworks; instead there are general aesthetic systems that determine how appealing an object is, be that a piece of cake or a piece of music."

The Neuroscience of Beauty: Scientific American

Morality and Neuroscience - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

There are scientific explanations for why people beleive in gods. Did you watch that video in post #4?

 

[Davian]

What on earth does a ponzi scheme have to do with anything? Also, here. Non-fiction (or nonfiction) is the form of any narrative, account, or other communicative work whose assertions and descriptions are understood to be factual. This presentation may be accurate or not—that is, it can give either a true or a false account of the subject in question—however, it is generally assumed that authors of such accounts believe them to be truthful at the time of their composition or, at least, pose them to their audience as historically or empirically true. It's from Wikipedia.

It is an example of a situation where some of the participants in a scheme are aware that the potential for all to profit is zero, while most of the participants believe otherwise. We would refer to those individuals as "deceived".

I am not going to make that assumption. Whatever works you are referring to, if they do not line up with the scientific observations of the world around us, they are not understood to be factual.

That you believe that they have been presented as historically or empirically true does not preclude the works from being partially or entirely fabricated.

Again, the burden is on you to show how a book "written under the belief that it is true" could not be fiction. That the writers - in some cases transcribing oral traditions to paper - believed the the stories to be true, is insufficient.

Now I am calling you stupid, because I just demonstrated that that's completely untrue.

Let us look at the next lines from that wiki page you quoted:

"Note that reporting the beliefs of others in a non-fiction format is not necessarily an endorsement of the ultimate veracity of those beliefs, it is simply saying it is true that people believe them (for such topics as mythology, religion)."

To paraphrase: the classification of "non-fiction" is simply saying it is true that people believe the narrative/account/etc in question.

"Essays, journals, diaries, documentaries, histories, scientific papers, photographs, biographies, textbooks, travel books, blueprints, technical documentation, user manuals, diagrams and some journalism are all common examples of non-fiction works, and including information that the author knows to be untrue within any of these works is usually regarded as dishonest."

Dishonest, but still classified as non-fiction.

"Other works can legitimately be either fiction or non-fiction, such as journals of self-expression, letters, magazine articles, and other expressions of imagination. "

That certainly lowers the bar.

"Though they are mostly either one or the other, it is possible for there to be a blend of both. Some fiction may include non-fictional elements. Some non-fiction may include elements of unverified supposition, deduction, or imagination for the purpose of smoothing out a narrative, but the inclusion of open falsehoods would discredit it as a work of non-fiction."

That the writers of documents were not aware of our current knowledge does not exuse their inclusion of what we know now as open falsehoods.

Do you still find this 'non-fiction' classification of value?

 

[Hawisher]

Let us look at the next lines from that wiki page you quoted:

"Note that reporting the beliefs of others in a non-fiction format is not necessarily an endorsement of the ultimate veracity of those beliefs, it is simply saying it is true that people believe them (for such topics as mythology, religion)."

To paraphrase: the classification of "non-fiction" is simply saying it is true that people believe the narrative/account/etc in question.

"Essays, journals, diaries, documentaries, histories, scientific papers, photographs, biographies, textbooks, travel books, blueprints, technical documentation, user manuals, diagrams and some journalism are all common examples of non-fiction works, and including information that the author knows to be untrue within any of these works is usually regarded as dishonest."

Dishonest, but still classified as non-fiction.

"Other works can legitimately be either fiction or non-fiction, such as journals of self-expression, letters, magazine articles, and other expressions of imagination. "

That certainly lowers the bar.

"Though they are mostly either one or the other, it is possible for there to be a blend of both. Some fiction may include non-fictional elements. Some non-fiction may include elements of unverified supposition, deduction, or imagination for the purpose of smoothing out a narrative, but the inclusion of open falsehoods would discredit it as a work of non-fiction."

That the writers of documents were not aware of our current knowledge does not exuse their inclusion of what we know now as open falsehoods.

Do you still find this 'non-fiction' classification of value?

Of course. Referring to the Bible as "fiction" is demeaning and prejudicial, because of course only an idiot would believe a work of fiction to be true.

 

[Davian]

Of course. Referring to the Bible as "fiction" is demeaning and prejudicial, because of course only an idiot would believe a work of fiction to be true.

I disagree with that statement.

I was originally referring to the possibility of "God" being fictional. This could also be applied to your bible, now that you bring it up. Of what value is a 'non-fiction' label if it does not preclude the contents from being fiction?

But, your typical bookstore luckily has a 'religious' section, so you and your book are saved from that dilemma.

My other point was, if Elio's bible is fiction (the 'important' bits), then it would have explanatory power for why Elio is having trouble getting any traction in this forum.

And lastly, as in that video that I posted earlier, believing a fiction to be true has nothing to do with being an idiot; it is a normal thing for a healthy, normal brain to do.

Believing, in the light of evidence to the contrary, that might be a different conversation.

 

[Elioenai26]

Or, a more parsimonious explanation, particularly for when you cannot find something that cannot be defined or evidenced, may be that it does not exist.

You cannot find something that cannot be defined or evidenced?

Maybe you mean to say: "when you find something that cannot be defined or evidenced...."

For obviosuly in your case, you have indeed found something which you believe cannot be defined or evidenced which is God.

Am I right?

 

[quatona]

Of course. Referring to the Bible as "fiction" is demeaning and prejudicial, because of course only an idiot would believe a work of fiction to be true.

You are superimposing your own judgement upon the poster´s statement and conclude that it´s his judgement.
Personally, I think there can be a variety of reasons why someone believes a work of fiction to be true.

 

[Davian]

You cannot find something that cannot be defined or evidenced?

Maybe you mean to say: "when you find something that cannot be defined or evidenced...."

For obviosuly in your case, you have indeed found something which you believe cannot be defined or evidenced which is God.

Am I right?

No.

 

[Hawisher]

I disagree with that statement.

I was originally referring to the possibility of "God" being fictional. This could also be applied to your bible, now that you bring it up. Of what value is a 'non-fiction' label if it does not preclude the contents from being fiction?

But, your typical bookstore luckily has a 'religious' section, so you and your book are saved from that dilemma.

My other point was, if Elio's bible is fiction (the 'important' bits), then it would have explanatory power for why Elio is having trouble getting any traction in this forum.

And lastly, as in that video that I posted earlier, believing a fiction to be true has nothing to do with being an idiot; it is a normal thing for a healthy, normal brain to do.

Believing, in the light of evidence to the contrary, that might be a different conversation.

I don't think you actually have sufficient evidence to the contrary to justify moving the Bible to the fiction section.

 

[Davian]

I don't think you actually have sufficient evidence to the contrary to justify moving the Bible to the fiction section.

I never suggested such a thing.

Let's see you get it moved to the non-fiction section.

Are you going to apologize for calling me stupid?

 

[seeking Christ]

What Hawisher and seeking Christ are saying, and what I have been saying as well, is what the French Mathematician Blaise Pascal said more eloquently in his Pensees. I provide it below:

Pascal on God's Hiddenness

​

"God has willed to redeem men and to open salvation to those who seek it. But men render themselves so unworthy of it that it is right that God should refuse to some, because of their obduracy, what He grants others from a compassion which is not due to them. If He had willed to overcome the obstinacy of the most hardened, He could have done so by revealing Himself so manifestly to them that they could not have doubted of the truth of His essence; as it will appear at the last day, with such thunders and such a convulsion of nature that the dead will rise again, and the blindest will see Him.” It is not in this manner that He has willed to appear in His advent of mercy, because, as so many make themselves unworthy of His mercy, He has willed to leave them in the loss of the good which they do not want.

It was not, then, right that He should appear in a manner manifestly divine, and completely capable of convincing all men; but it was also not right that He should come in so hidden a manner that He could not be known by those who should sincerely seek Him.

He has willed to make himself quite recognizable by those; and thus, willing to appear openly to those who seek Him with all their heart, and to be hidden from those who flee from Him with all their heart. He so regulates the knowledge of Himself that He has given signs of Himself, visible to those who seek Him, and not to those who seek Him not. There is enough light for those who only desire to see, and enough obscurity for those who have a contrary disposition."

- Blaise Pascal, Pensées

(430)

I saw the name Pascal and immediately thought the worst, but this is worth reading and yes it is what I've been attempting to say. I never imagined it would look like that (I could do without the word "obduracy," but he was French)

 

[Hawisher]

I saw the name Pascal and immediately thought the worst, but this is worth reading and yes it is what I've been attempting to say. I never imagined it would look like that (I could do without the word "obduracy," but he was French)

I was expecting a Pascalian casino, but what I got was actually thought-provoking. Color me shocked.

 

[KCfromNC]

If God is perceived by spiritual faculties then his existence can never be proven or disproven by empirical data or rational argument. Neither of these things can see God just like neither of these things can see morality or beauty.

That's great - but what reason do you have to propose this spiritual facility in the first place?

 

[seeking Christ]

Can you perceive beauty? Morality? (This "facility" is not so esoteric as some make it out to be)

 

[KCfromNC]

Can you perceive beauty? Morality? (This "facility" is not so esoteric as some make it out to be)

Depends on what you mean by perceive. If you mean can I see things which I judge to be beautiful or not, yeah obviously. But I can't see beauty as a distinct object - it's just an opinion about an object. Is that all this god "perception" is, an opinion in people's heads? If so, you'd get a lot of approval from atheists, I think, but not a lot of buy in from people who think that god exists outside of people's imaginations.

And I'll also point out that my question remains unanswered.

 

[quatona]

Can you perceive beauty?

Do I "perceive" my thoughts and concepts, or am I thinking?

 

[Illuminaughty]

He has willed to make himself quite recognizable by those; and thus, willing to appear openly to those who seek Him with all their heart,

So you have to seek God with your whole heart to find convincing evidence of his existence? Yet if you have no evidence for his existence what would motivate you to seek him with your whole heart in the first place ? If you can't believe in him because of a lack of evidence it seems you would never get the evidence because your doubt would hamper your ability to seek him with your whole heart. Sounds like a catch 22.

Kind of like seeking the tooth fairy with my whole heart. I just couldn't do it because I lack evidence of his existence in the first place. Promising me evidence that will come after I believe in him and seek for him sounds rather fishy.

 

[Hawisher]

I never suggested such a thing.

Let's see you get it moved to the non-fiction section.

Are you going to apologize for calling me stupid?

You implied there would be a conflict if it were not in the religious section. I maintain that it fills all the requirements for being in the non-fiction section. I apologize.

 

[Davian]

You implied there would be a conflict if it were not in the religious section. I maintain that it fills all the requirements for being in the non-fiction section. I apologize.

Whatever I implied, or you inferred, was irrelevant, and not worth descending into name calling. Address the content of the post.

Your apology is accepted.

 

[Hawisher]

I did! It fits all the requirements for being labelled "non-fiction."

 

[seeking Christ]

Depends on what you mean by perceive. If you mean can I see things which I judge to be beautiful or not, yeah obviously. But I can't see beauty as a distinct object - it's just an opinion about an object. Is that all this god "perception" is, an opinion in people's heads? If so, you'd get a lot of approval from atheists, I think, but not a lot of buy in from people who think that god exists outside of people's imaginations.

And I'll also point out that my question remains unanswered.

I answered those questions. If you can perceive those things, that's your evidence that spiritual facility exists, even in you.