Theology and Falsifiability

[zippy2006]

Personal opinion is all there is when it comes to religious faith. You are of the opinion that theologians are right in the absence of any evidence to support it. You are of the opinion that God inspired the Bible, without any evidence to support it.

I am of the opinion that you are too daft to talk to, and the evidence just keeps accumulating in my favor.

 

[Michael]

Personal opinion is all there is when it comes to religious faith.

That's all you ultimately have to support your faith in LCDM too.

You are of the opinion that theologians are right in the absence of any evidence to support it.

Likewise you are of the opinion that the astronomers are right about space expansion being a possible cause of photon redshift without any empirical cause/effect evidence to either support it or falsify it in controlled experimentation.

It would seem that someone can become an expert theologian by simply asserting that a deity talked to them with a voice that only exists in their head.

Likewise it would seem that someone can become an "expert" on dark energy or dark matter simply by asserting any process is "real" which only actually exists in their head.

 

[Loudmouth]

I am of the opinion that you are too daft to talk to, and the evidence just keeps accumulating in my favor.

This is what people say when they can't counter an argument.

 

[Michael]

This is what people say when they can't counter an argument.

You're just in pure denial of (or ignorance of) everything I've countered your claims with.

 

[zippy2006]

Missed your edit:

This doesn't directly address the issue I raised, though it certainly touches on it. There are many claims about what God has allegedly testified to and what he wills.

So what? You keep saying this. What is your argument? What is your proposed conclusion?

I don't think I'm blowing it out of proportion given that, historically, wars have been fought over these "slight variances," and those accused of blasphemy or heresy were violently silenced. In many places, they still are.

Without entering into the politics of such wars, what does that have to do with the % disagreement? Heresy could be accused based on a single doctrine. It says nothing about the % of doctrines held in common.

I'm not sure what relevance the size of the fraction has.

That's curious considering the fact that you're the one who brought it up.

The issue I'm talking about affects all religious belief systems.

I'm still waiting for you to make your argument.

It's worth noting that you offered no evidence for your claims that in theology there is little agreement on basic questions or even methods.

 

[KCfromNC]

Why believe that it was revealed by God?

Add in the same question for the second set of baseless assertions, too.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

No, the question is why its existence would be in question for a believer. When we talk about whether theology is a rational discipline, we are talking about things from the perspective of (believing) theologians, not atheists. The fact that you don't believe in God doesn't entail that theology is irrational. Like I already said, if we were concerned only with individual opinions, your vote would lose.

In what sense would it lose? The abundance of a belief system doesn't confer it with truth. That's why I questioned why you referred to statistics earlier: all it shows is that a certain percentage of the population shares your theological commitments, not that such commitments are justified.

Furthermore, how do your claims about "legitimate expertise" impact the OP? Does it have anything to do with Fcf? And if not, what separate conclusion, apart from the OP, are you attempting to argue for?

This brings me to an interesting question: do you hold that there is any standard of rationality with which to measure theology, that is not simply "Convince Archaeopteryx that Christianity is true"? What I did in the OP is establish a standard of rationality and then argue that theology fulfills it. What you characteristically did is argue that since Christianity has not convinced you, or has not convinced all people of the world, it is somehow illegitimate. Again, I don't know what your argument has to do with the OP, but do you accept any standard of rationality with which we can measure theology that is not simply "Convincing Arch," or "Convincing the entire world"? Surely something could fall short of these things and still be rational?

I brought up 'legitimate expertise' (or 'legitimate authority') when describing my main issue with theology, which is simply that no religionists appear to possess such expertise, though they forcefully assert that they do. The Church insists that its expertise is divinely given and that its claims are authoritative for that reason. But it's not unique in exercising this line of argument, which is common among virtually all religions. The issue then becomes exactly what I described earlier: given the multitude of disparate claims appealing to the divine for their justification (so-called "revealed premises"), how are we to determine which have genuine supernatural origins? In short, despite insisting that their authority comes from the divine, religionists have failed to show that they possess any such authority. They still expect that their claims be treated as authoritative, however, which can lead to problems.

I see the question — "can theology be rational?" — as more of a peripheral issue. It's similar to the question of whether astrology can be rational — a question that may be construed separately from whether it is scientific.

 

[zippy2006]

In what sense would it lose? The abundance of a belief system doesn't confer it with truth. That's why I questioned why you referred to statistics earlier: all it shows is that a certain percentage of the population shares your theological commitments, not that such commitments are justified.

I respond that way because you have a tendency to assert your own belief, to beg the question. If you are only going to assert your own belief, then I will assert the belief of hundreds of thousands more than your own company. For example, you claim that faith offers no insight into the world. Says who?

I brought up 'legitimate expertise' (or 'legitimate authority') when describing my main issue with theology, which is simply that no religionists appear to possess such expertise, though they forcefully assert that they do. The Church insists that its expertise is divinely given and that its claims are authoritative for that reason. But it's not unique in exercising this line of argument, which is common among virtually all religions.

Instead of me drawing up fallacies for a vague argument, why not just formalize your argument? "Lots of religions claim authority, therefore..."

The issue then becomes exactly what I described earlier: given the multitude of disparate claims appealing to the divine for their justification (so-called "revealed premises"), how are we to determine which have genuine supernatural origins?

Study. Study the traditions, the founders, the holy books, the history, and the claims. That's what I did.

In short, despite insisting that their authority comes from the divine, religionists have failed to show that they possess any such authority.

Here is another example of your assertions. Who says religious have failed to show they possess any such authority? The 3% of atheists, or the 22% of Catholics?

I see the question — "can theology be rational?" — as more of a peripheral issue. It's similar to the question of whether astrology can be rational — a question that may be construed separately from whether it is scientific.

It's not a peripheral issue for this thread, as the OP makes clear.

So how is that argument coming along? So far we have, "Religious disagree on things." Is there anything else? Any conclusions you wish to draw? Apparently you want to draw the conclusion that it is impossible to discern religious truth, but how that follows from "Religious disagree on things" is not at all clear to me.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Instead of me drawing up fallacies for a vague argument, why not just formalize your argument? "Lots of religions claim authority, therefore..."

I already outlined what the issue was in my very first post to this thread. I also noted my reluctance to respond because (1) I felt that these issues had already been touched on from various angles in a multitude of other threads, and (2) many had already essentially made the same point or said something similar. Given this, I'm not seeing why you're having difficulty with what I've written. I strongly suspect you've encountered something like it before, either here or on other forums.

Study. Study the traditions, the founders, the holy books, the history, and the claims. That's what I did.

As have many others. And yet the issue I described earlier still remains.

Here is another example of your assertions. Who says religious have failed to show they possess any such authority? The 3% of atheists, or the 22% of Catholics?

You insist that your Church has authority. I don't recognise its purported authority any more than you recognise the purported authority of Islam. You can continue insisting, loudly, that you possess all the authority in the world. It won't make a difference until you establish that that is the case.

It's not a peripheral issue for this thread, as the OP makes clear.

Ok. Then I'll ask a similar question: can astrology be rational?

So how is that argument coming along? So far we have, "Religious disagree on things." Is there anything else? Any conclusions you wish to draw? Apparently you want to draw the conclusion that it is impossible to discern religious truth, but how that follows from "Religious disagree on things" is not at all clear to me.

I don't know why you keep asking for this, given that I've already outlined the core issue as I see it in my first post. You are asking me to repeat myself, which I already did by framing the issue in terms of authority.

 

[variant]

So how is that argument coming along? So far we have, "Religious disagree on things." Is there anything else? Any conclusions you wish to draw? Apparently you want to draw the conclusion that it is impossible to discern religious truth, but how that follows from "Religious disagree on things" is not at all clear to me.

It's impossible to assert religious truth because all religious claims come to us via assertions of authority that we can't validate.

Religions don't just disagree on things, they also have no way of resolving their disagreements because they rely on the exact same kinds of unverifiable appeals to authority.

Islam can't show your appeals to authority wrong like you can't show theirs wrong but you can both (violently) assert that your authority is correct.

So, philosophically speaking you are shooting blanks at each other, which is why religious differences get "resolved" more often with pointy or sharp objects, fast lead and hot wood.

 

[Michael]

It's impossible to assert religious truth because all religious claims come to us via assertions of authority that we can't validate.

True, but one cannot empirically validate the legitimacy of an 'authority' of any hypothetical construct in science either.

 

[zippy2006]

I already outlined what the issue was in my very first post to this thread. I also noted my reluctance to respond because (1) I felt that these issues had already been touched on from various angles in a multitude of other threads, and (2) many had already essentially made the same point or said something similar. Given this, I'm not seeing why you're having difficulty with what I've written. I strongly suspect you've encountered something like it before, either here or on other forums.

What is the conclusion you wish to draw?

As have many others. And yet the issue I described earlier still remains.

You just keep pointing in circles; you haven't described an issue. You've described the fact that religions disagree. So what? What is you conclusion?

You insist that your Church has authority. I don't recognise its purported authority any more than you recognise the purported authority of Islam. You can continue insisting, loudly, that you possess all the authority in the world. It won't make a difference until you establish that that is the case.

I'm not insisting that the Church has authority, I'm just blindly asserting to counter your blind assertions, but with greater numbers. If 3% of the population's blind assertions are worth something, then 22% are worth more. You're really having a hard time with this.

Ok. Then I'll ask a similar question: can astrology be rational?

Feel free to make a case for it, as I did in the OP.

I don't know why you keep asking for this, given that I've already outlined the core issue as I see it in my first post. You are asking me to repeat myself, which I already did by framing the issue in terms of authority.

What is the conclusion you wish to draw?

We may again be headed for that extremely awkward place where I ask true or false questions and you refuse to answer. If you can't formalize your argument or even state your conclusion clearly then I don't see how re-opening the philosophy forum is going to be in your favor. Is it really that hard for you to state your conclusion? I just don't see why this must always be so difficult. If you read Variant's short post you will see how easy it is to give some simple reasons for a belief.

 

[zippy2006]

It's impossible to assert religious truth because all religious claims come to us via assertions of authority that we can't validate.

Why can't you validate them? Apparently you can invalidate them, for you believe them to be false and have your reasons for doing so. But if you can invalidate something, then you can validate it.

For example, when looking at Christianity we might ask if Jesus was a historical person, whether he claimed to be God, whether he provided any evidence for his claims, etc.

Religions don't just disagree on things, they also have no way of resolving their disagreements because they rely on the exact same kinds of unverifiable appeals to authority.

As long as religions adhere to Fcf, their claims are not unverifiable. In Christianity the belief that something is divinely revealed is based on what are called "Motives of Credibility." All such motives are subject to verification.

Islam can't show your appeals to authority wrong like you can't show theirs wrong...

Why think that?

So, philosophically speaking you are shooting blanks at each other, which is why religious differences get "resolved" more often with pointy or sharp objects, fast lead and hot wood.

...because no one has ever converted on the basis of anything but violence! Right!?

 

[variant]

Why can't you validate them? Apparently you can invalidate them, for you believe them to be false and have your reasons for doing so. But if you can invalidate something, then you can validate it.

No, not everything that lacks sufficient evidence is false.

For instance, the inability of Scientists to test for a multiverse doesn't mean there isn't a multiverse, it means there isn't sufficient evidence or a way to test for one.

The inability to assert religious truths in a meaningful manner doesn't mean that theology doesn't have any true claims.

I don't have to argue (and I haven't been arguing) that theological claims are always false.

For example, when looking at Christianity we might ask if Jesus was a historical person, whether he claimed to be God, whether he provided any evidence for his claims, etc.

You could definitely try to deal with the claim "was Jesus a historical figure" from an evidence perspective, but that isn't a theological claim. You have to take it quite a few more steps to establish the Bible as an authoritative work on the divine.

As long as religions adhere to Fcf, their claims are not unverifiable. In Christianity the belief that something is divinely revealed is based on what are called "Motives of Credibility." All such motives are subject to verification.

And there is no way to tell whether a claim of divine revelation is appropriately emanating from the God it claims to describe.

Why think that?

Because their basis is nearly identical. A divinely revealed holy book.

...because no one has ever converted on the basis of anything but violence! Right!?

No people are free to be convinced by subjective appeals that religions tend to throw at them.

Violence is the usual objective way to settle religious arguments aside from the beliefs themselves harming the people and society they exist in to the point where they are abandoned or kill off all the believers.

There is a sect down the road from where I live that preached total chastity and there are all of two members left.

Is their theological claim wrong though or did it just not tend to make more believers?

I can't say.

 

[zippy2006]

No, not everything that lacks sufficient evidence is false.

For instance, the inability of Scientists to test for a multiverse doesn't mean there isn't a multiverse, it means there isn't sufficient evidence or a way to test for one.

The inability to assert religious truths in a meaningful manner doesn't mean that theology doesn't have any true claims.

I don't have to argue (and I haven't been arguing) that theological claims are always false.

Okay, fair enough.

Still, why think claims of authority can't be validated? For each person who believes in revelation there is a reason they believe the claim of authority to be true. Some might include miracles, prophecies, the constant witness of the Church throughout the ages, the person and works of Jesus of Nazareth, the saints, etc. To quote part of Catholic Encyclopedia's entry on Motives of Credibility:

These motives of credibility may be briefly stated as follows: in the Old Testament considered not as an inspired book, but merely as a book having historical value, we find detailed the marvellous dealings of God with a particular nation to whom He repeatedly reveals Himself; we read of miracles wrought in their favour and as proofs of the truth of the revelation He makes; we find the most sublime teaching and the repeated announcement of God's desire to save the world from sin and its consequences. And more than all we find throughout the pages of this book a series of hints, now obscure, now clear, of some wondrous person who is to come as the world's saviour; we find it asserted at one time that he is man, at others that he is God Himself. When we turn to the New Testament we find that it records the birth, life, and death of One Who, while clearly man, also claimed to be God, and Who proved the truth of His claim by His whole life, miracles, teachings, and death, and finally by His triumphant resurrection. We find, moreover, that He founded a Church which should, so He said, continue to the end of time, which should serve as the repository of His teaching, and should be the means of applying to all men the fruits of the redemption He had wrought. When we come to the subsequent history of this Church we find it speedily spreading everywhere, and this in spite of its humble origin, its unworldly teaching, and the cruel persecution which it meets at the hands of the rulers of this world. And as the centuries pass we find this Church battling against heresies schisms, and the sins of her own people—nay, of her own rulers—and yet continuing ever the same, promulgating ever the same doctrine, and putting before men the same mysteries of the life, death and resurrection of the world's Saviour, Who had, so she taught, gone before to prepare a home for those who while on earth should have believed in Him and fought the good fight. But if the history of the Church since New-Testament times thus wonderfully confirms the New Testament itself, and if the New Testament so marvellously completes the Old Testament, these books must really contain what they claim to contain, viz. Divine revelation. And more than all, that Person Whose life and death were so minutely foretold in the Old Testament, and Whose story, as told in the New Testament, so perfectly corresponds with its prophetic delineation in the Old Testament, must be what He claimed to be, viz. the Son of God. His work, therefore, must be Divine. The Church which He founded must also be Divine and the repository and guardian of His teaching. Indeed, we can truly say that for every truth of Christianity which we believe Christ Himself is our testimony, and we believe in Him because the Divinity He claimed rests upon the concurrent testimony of His miracles, His prophecies His personal character, the nature of His doctrine, the marvellous propagation of His teaching in spite of its running counter to flesh and blood, the united testimony of thousands of martyrs, the stories of countless saints who for His sake have led heroic lives, the history of the Church herself since the Crucifixion, and, perhaps more remarkable than any, the history of the papacy from St. Peter to Pius X.

You could definitely try to deal with the claim "was Jesus a historical figure" from an evidence perspective, but that isn't a theological claim. You have to take it quite a few more steps to establish the Bible as an authoritative work on the divine.

But why think such a thing is unfalsifiable?

And there is no way to tell whether a claim of divine revelation is appropriately emanating from the God it claims to describe.

Why? I'm tiring of your assertions. Suppose someone claims to be God, is psychologically healthy, works miracles and fulfills prophecies, and associates himself with the Judaic religion. Are you trying to tell me that there is no way for us to determine whether this emanates from one god or another? The phenomena themselves are almost always associated with a specific tradition.

Because their basis is nearly identical. A divinely revealed holy book.

Not really. They are both based on founders, and we have good access to the lives of each of them. Religious texts don't just fall from the sky.

Violence is the usual objective way to settle religious arguments aside from the beliefs themselves harming the people and society they exist in to the point where they are abandoned or kill off all the believers.

Nonsense! Reason can settle religious disputes. Hart's book Atheist Delusions provides numbers historical arguments against the "violence only" parroting of atheists.

There is a sect down the road from where I live that preached total chastity and there are all of two members left.

Is their theological claim wrong though or did it just not tend to make more believers?

I can't say.

It runs counter to the natural human desire to procreate. God can't give the species that desire and then simultaneously prohibit procreation without contradicting himself.

Gone for the weekend

 

[Archaeopteryx]

You just keep pointing in circles; you haven't described an issue. You've described the fact that religions disagree. So what? What is you conclusion?

My goodness, zippy. I don't know how much clearer I can make it. I didn't just say "religions disagree." Anyone reading along can see that there was more to it than that, so why are you reducing it to that single observation? It's not just that religions disagree, often violently; it's that they all purport to draw on divine authority for their claims, but none of them are able to establish that they possess any such authority.

I'm not insisting that the Church has authority, I'm just blindly asserting to counter your blind assertions, but with greater numbers. If 3% of the population's blind assertions are worth something, then 22% are worth more. You're really having a hard time with this.

What assertion are you countering specifically? I'm having a hard time with this because the numbers aren't all relevant to the issue I've described, which pertains to how religious claims are justified, and not to what fraction of the population believes those claims.

Given the history of our conversations, I suspect that you are trying to impose an additional burden on atheists that goes beyond what is required of them, which is to explain why they are not convinced by the assertions of the religious. The fact is that you do insist on the Church's authority. As an atheist, I'm not convinced that the Church has authority, much less authority imparted from the divine. That's not a "blind assertion." It's me pointing to the Emperor and saying he has no clothes.

Feel free to make a case for it, as I did in the OP.

You're not going to answer it though, with your own view?

We may again be headed for that extremely awkward place where I ask true or false questions and you refuse to answer. If you can't formalize your argument or even state your conclusion clearly then I don't see how re-opening the philosophy forum is going to be in your favor. Is it really that hard for you to state your conclusion? I just don't see why this must always be so difficult. If you read Variant's short post you will see how easy it is to give some simple reasons for a belief.

Really, zippy, I don't understand why you're having such difficulty with this. I suspect we are again heading in this direction:

What you seem to be trying to do is to impose a burden on atheists based on what you perceive to be a "mere consensus" of religious thought. I've already addressed how, in my view, the atheist can satisfy this burden.

variant summarises the issue succinctly:

And there is no way to tell whether a claim of divine revelation is appropriately emanating from the God it claims to describe.

As you can see, it's not merely that religions disagree, it's that they produce multitudes of supernatural claims that are asserted as incontrovertibly true (dogma); claims that are supported by invoking supernatural authorities that have not been established. In view of the abundance of such claims, what is needed is a way of determining which claims have merit, or which purported "revelations" genuinely emanate from the divine. Theology doesn't give us a way of doing this.

As you have described him, the theologian works from the "revealed premises" (or dogmas) of his religion, and he evaluates claims in accordance with the traditions, scriptures, and councils of his religion, which together constitute "the authority" he appeals to in the belief that such authority is ultimately derived from the divine. The authoritativeness of the Church, for example, is assumed, and "outside" criticism is deflected by means of faith in the religious sense. This outside criticism may even take the form of an alleged "revelation" that casts into doubt the authenticity of some (or all) of the Church's "revealed premises." Such a revelation is dismissed as illegitimate, heretical, or blasphemous on the basis of the divine authority ostensibly belonging to the Church. But as I, and others, have repeatedly pointed out, it's far from established that the Church possesses such authority.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

So what is theology? Theology is a science which proceeds from principles revealed by God.

...

All of the various disciplines of theology are falsifiable. Many are Fmse, not precisely in the sense of scientific experiments but rather in the sense that future observations and discoveries will impact the theological theories. The more famous and abstract theological disciplines may not be Fmse, but are certainly Fcf. Despite not adhering to modern scientific falsifiability, these disciplines are rational, rigorous, and legitimate.

Aside from issues with how you have defined 'faith', I think it's worthwhile thinking about how you've defined 'science' in your OP and follow-up posts. According to you, theology is a science, but not one that adheres to modern scientific falsifiability. In what sense is it a 'science' then? I suspect you'd point to the systematic nature of theology as an academic enterprise, but I don't think this is sufficient to qualify as a 'science'. Astrology is also systematic, but not scientific. Astrologers would insist that their practice is also rational and rigorous, presumably meaning that it proceeds from certain rules and formulas that allow (or disallow) certain conclusions. It's systematic in that sense, even if its fundamental premises — such as the idea that planetary motions through the zodiac are connected to human affairs — are flawed or wrong; but still not a 'science'.

What then could make something a science? We'd have to turn to philosophy of science for that, to Popper, Kuhn, Lakatos, and many others. But that may be a discussion for another thread. My point here, in relation to your OP, is simply that you may be conflating 'systematic' with 'scientific'.

 

[Michael]

My goodness, zippy. I don't know how much clearer I can make it. I didn't just say "religions disagree." Anyone reading along can see that there was more to it than that, so why are you reducing it to that single observation? It's not just that religions disagree, often violently; it's that they all purport to draw on divine authority for their claims, but none of them are able to establish that they possess any such authority.

What assertion are you countering specifically? I'm having a hard time with this because the numbers aren't all relevant to the issue I've described, which pertains to how religious claims are justified, and not to what fraction of the population believes those claims.

Given the history of our conversations, I suspect that you are trying to impose an additional burden on atheists that goes beyond what is required of them, which is to explain why they are not convinced by the assertions of the religious. The fact is that you do insist on the Church's authority. As an atheist, I'm not convinced that the Church has authority, much less authority imparted from the divine. That's not a "blind assertion." It's me pointing to the Emperor and saying he has no clothes.

You're not going to answer it though, with your own view?

Really, zippy, I don't understand why you're having such difficulty with this. I suspect we are again heading in this direction:

variant summarises the issue succinctly:

As you can see, it's not merely that religions disagree, it's that they produce multitudes of supernatural claims that are asserted as incontrovertibly true (dogma); claims that are supported by invoking supernatural authorities that have not been established. In view of the abundance of such claims, what is needed is a way of determining which claims have merit, or which purported "revelations" genuinely emanate from the divine. Theology doesn't give us a way of doing this.

As you have described him, the theologian works from the "revealed premises" (or dogmas) of his religion, and he evaluates claims in accordance with the traditions, scriptures, and councils of his religion, which together constitute "the authority" he appeals to in the belief that such authority is ultimately derived from the divine. The authoritativeness of the Church, for example, is assumed, and "outside" criticism is deflected by means of faith in the religious sense. This outside criticism may even take the form of an alleged "revelation" that casts into doubt the authenticity of some (or all) of the Church's "revealed premises." Such a revelation is dismissed as illegitimate, heretical, or blasphemous on the basis of the divine authority ostensibly belonging to the Church. But as I, and others, have repeatedly pointed out, it's far from established that the Church possesses such authority.

I'm not convinced that "science" possesses anymore "authority" over hypothetical particles/energies/processes than the Church possesses over God.

The moment we move away from empirical laboratory physics, and we delve in the "unseen" in the lab, the "credibility" of "authority" becomes iffy at best.

For all their "authority", the "believers" in exotic forms of matter struck out at LHC. They struck out at LUX. They struck out at PandaX, and everywhere else too. What then makes them "authorities" on hypothetical entities that continue to elude them in the lab? Why do we even need hypothetical particles now that the standard particle physics model is "complete" and it accounts for everything we've ever seen in any lab, including LHC?

 

[variant]

Okay, fair enough.

Still, why think claims of authority can't be validated? For each person who believes in revelation there is a reason they believe the claim of authority to be true. Some might include miracles, prophecies, the constant witness of the Church throughout the ages, the person and works of Jesus of Nazareth, the saints, etc. To quote part of Catholic Encyclopedia's entry on Motives of Credibility:

The difficulty in dealing with religious historical claims of religiously important events is that I basically have to take their word for it.

It is either true that Mohamed met the angel Gabriel in a cave and had the Koran dictated to him or it is false, but I am not sure how you determine which actually happened as an objective observer, and I don't believe it just because it says it happened in a scripture that some people deem true.

But why think such a thing is unfalsifiable?

Because I don't think there is a single observation that would convince the believer they were in fact false.

The shakers as I have already brought up rather stubbornly decided to chastity themselves out of existence based upon their views of God and they simply couldn't be convinced otherwise.

Perhaps I am being to harsh though. Something that most people would believe was a proper God could show up and say so to everyone. I don't happen to live in a world where God is pretty open about showing it's self in an obvious manner to everyone though so this idea is remarkably unhelpful and it doesn't yeild any claims that I can actually investigate. I have to wait around for Gods to show up given that idea.

This isn't what religion claims happens though, we get "special revelations" to specific "special people", and the rest of us are left to grope around for the truth in the dark.

Why? I'm tiring of your assertions. Suppose someone claims to be God, is psychologically healthy, works miracles and fulfills prophecies, and associates himself with the Judaic religion. Are you trying to tell me that there is no way for us to determine whether this emanates from one god or another? The phenomena themselves are almost always associated with a specific tradition.

A claim that being religious in a specific way is psychologically healthy is a psychological claim, it can be somewhat easily evaluated given specific definitions of what is meant by "psychologically healthy".

The theological claim that the psychological health of the believer denotes the true nature of God isn't in evidence though.

The issue is that we aren't examining an objective "God" at all or even defining it in a way where we could evaluate it as a description of an objective thing. We are dealing with what convinces people of things like the idea of God, and what is aesthetically pleasing to them.

Not really. They are both based on founders, and we have good access to the lives of each of them. Religious texts don't just fall from the sky.

Given we don't know much about the authorship on any of them, and their miraculous claims are outside our ability to test, they might as well.

Nonsense! Reason can settle religious disputes. Hart's book Atheist Delusions provides numbers historical arguments against the "violence only" parroting of atheists.

Reasoning is subjective without proper evidence. Please stick to it, the objective form of evangelism gets a little messy.

It runs counter to the natural human desire to procreate. God can't give the species that desire and then simultaneously prohibit procreation without contradicting himself.

Which sounds all well and good but you've just basically assumed Gods nature to deal with a claim about Gods nature.

Why should we believe God wishes humans to procreate just because it is a natural desire of humans?

Should I apply an evolutionary (ideas that are more likely to be true when they yeild more believers) standard of truth?

Gone for the weekend

Have a good weekend.

 

[Michael]

Perhaps I am being to harsh though. Something that most people would believe was a proper God could show up and say so to everyone.

FYI, most "Christians" already believe that is exactly what happened when Christ walked the Earth.

I don't happen to live in a world where God is pretty open about showing it's self in an obvious manner to everyone though so this idea is remarkably unhelpful and it doesn't yeild any claims that I can actually investigate. I have to wait around for Gods to show up given that idea.

From a Christian's perspective, you mean "again".

This isn't what religion claims happens though, we get "special revelations" to specific "special people", and the rest of us are left to grope around for the truth in the dark.

Christianity doesn't make that claim however. It suggests that we all have direct access to the very same Holy Spirit. Not everyone might 'ask' for help mind you, but that's not a limit *imposed* on anyone.

Those criticisms may apply to other religions, but not to Christianity.

The issue is that we aren't examining an objective "God" at all or even defining it in a way where we could evaluate it as a description of an objective thing.

That's absolutely not true. Both Pantheism and Panentheism provide you with a physical definition of God that can be evaluated like any other cosmology theory under the sun. You're welcome to reject the concept of course, but both theories define God as a description of an objective thing.