Faith and credulity: lets assume God does not exist

[GrowingSmaller]

Skeptics often accuse the "faithful" of believing of little or insufficint evidence. Credulity. They add that thats pretty much the definition of faith itself, i.e. believing on no evidence.

So, lets assume that all religions - or all god concepts- are false. In no way does god exist, etc.

So, then can we conclude that all believers, from whatever faith or theological disposition, have been and are equally credulous? (Note: They don't yet know about god's nonexistence, its our secret).

Or, on the other hand, is there variation in the epistemological rationality (smart thinking relating to knowledge) of believers? Such that even though they have it wrong, no all are that credulous (as some others) after all.

Like weather forecasters, they sometimes have it wrong, but its not like theres no "science" behind their opinions. Is a weather forecaster credulous when his guess is wrong, as compared to a complete amateur? Is this analogy good or bad?

Lets take St Stomas and his 5 ways as a example of one type of believer (representing natural theology), or Pascal after his religious experience (representing revealed religion), as opposed to one of his young students who believes because his parents brought him up to believe, as an alternative to Thomas or Pascal, but thats about it as far as his thought processes have gone (lets call him "Sunshine").

Are apparentt "good reasons for belief" all equally absurd, irrational, etc. just because the belief turns out to be false. How does this relate to religious belief and the potential for religious knowledge?

 

[DogmaHunter]

Skeptics often accuse the "faithful" of believing of little or insufficint evidence. Credulity. They add that thats pretty much the definition of faith itself, i.e. believing on no evidence.

Well, it is pretty much the definition. At least it is in a religious context. As a theist you require faith precisely because you don't have sufficient evidence to justify your beliefs...

So, then can we conclude that all believers, from whatever faith or theological disposition, have been and are equally credulous? (Note: They don't yet know about god's nonexistence, its our secret).

Not equally. A guy like Ken Miller for example, evolutionary biologist and roman catholic, is not nearly as credulous as a guy like Kirk Cameron.

Like weather forecasters, they sometimes have it wrong, but its not like theres no "science" behind their opinions. Is a weather forecaster credulous when his guess is wrong, as compared to a complete amateur? Is this analogy good or bad?

It is a bad analogy. For starters, weather forecasters don't use "faith" to come to their conclusions. Wheather forecasts are based on scientific data and theories. And unlike theistic claims, they aren't presented as Truth, capital 'T'. In fact, almost always will you see probabilities attached. These forecasts are reasonable expectations, not prophecies.

Are apparentt "good reasons for belief" all equally absurd, irrational, etc. just because the belief turns out to be false. How does this relate to religious belief and the potential for religious knowledge?

I wouldn't say that the problem with theistic beliefs is that they are "false". There are parts of theistic theology that are impossible to proven wrong - they are unfalsifiable. There's nothing wrong with being wrong if you were justified in believing it anyway. New evidence came up and you changed your beliefs, that's fine. It's called learning.

I'ld say that the problem is that there is no reason to hold them in the first place. And that most of the time, they are to be held dogmatically.

Think about why you don't accept the claims of alien abductees and consider that I don't accept theistic ideas for the exact same reason.

Let's assume god doesn't exist? Let's. Nothing at all changes. Now let's assume that gravity doesn't exist...

 

[keith99]

Short answer no.

If one God concept says God created everything and then left the building and another says God is still active and behaves in certain very specific ways, ways that when tested prove false, then there is a huge gap in credulity.

Simple example if it is claimed that if I take Gods name in vain he will immediately strike me dead (or anyone else who does the same) would take an amount of credulity I hope none here have as we have all seen this claim falsified.

Personally I find the God of Scripture more believable than the modern inflated and cleaned up version.

 

[poolerboy0077]

There are parts of theistic theology that are impossible to proven wrong - they are unfalsifiable.

I think most people don't understand the concept (and hence why they commit the blunder of making unfalsifiable claims). You should perhaps explain it to them in easy-to-understand terms.

Let's assume god doesn't exist? Let's. Nothing at all changes. Now let's assume that gravity doesn't exist...

It's also the case that a larger point is lost if God belief is just done away with without a good reason. One can still be superstitious and not believe in God. Skeptical thinking is immensely useful outside the context of theism.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

So a trained skeptic like me, lol, is more credulous than a uneducated man from a less complex society? I mean, I know Occams Razor from a 747 in a junkyard, and all that. Whereas someone with less education can be forgiven for making mistakes.

But my point was also, lets say a God does exist. Can there be any philosophy or theology that may bring us closer to knowing he exists, rather than a random toss of a coin based belief.

And falsifiability, isnt that for empirical sciences, rather than all knowledge per se? Popper was it said falsifiability demarcated science, but I dont think he was adviocating scientism. Meaning any scientific claim had to have a chance of being shown to be false, otherwise theres no sufficient test for the idea purt forwards.

I thought the weather forcast analogy was ok in that one can heve inductive arguments for God, although they are not teatsble. The issue is whether any induction (eg probably there is a unmoved mover, because the argument seems valid enough) would be "justy lucky" if there were actually such a god as described.

 

[Gottservant]

this is exactly the sort of problem you run into, when you make the assumption that you can "negate" that which exists for all time

in reality your negation cannot last out the conversation

and in the process you confuse people about what the real meaning of conversation is

 

[CabVet]

this is exactly the sort of problem you run into, when you make the assumption that you can "negate" that which exists for all time

in reality your negation cannot last out the conversation

and in the process you confuse people about what the real meaning of conversation is

The assumption is that God exists, not that he does not.

 

[Gottservant]

The assumption is that God exists, not that he does not.

Wrong.

So, lets assume that all religions - or all god concepts- are false. In no way does god exist, etc.

Don't arbitrarily correct me, again.