Agnostheism??

Great Debates
21

Faith need not be the result of an absence of reason. Faith that there is no God, or that there is one are identical in their rational base. There is no rational base. One must choose to believe one or the other, or dismiss the issue entirely. There can be no evidence that cannot be otherwise explained by another observer who holds the view opposite to that of the reporter. If God showed up at your house and demonstrated his power to you with miracles beyond deniability, you would still have no proof for me. I would have to listen to your report with skepticism.

To assume that this inevitable deniability is evidence of fraud, stupidity, or insanity is no more reasonable, rational, or inherently provable than its converse. You accept the absence of God pretty much on faith, whether you care to call it that or not. I can find no fault with you for your choice, although I might await the best moment to offer you my opinion that you might be wrong. I have no reason not to respect you, and love you as a person because of your faith, whatever it might be. Agnostics and atheists comprise a vast array of human beings, some great, and some ordinary, some sadly limited. So, too do theists.

To seek to apply the tools of science to faith in God or faith that there is no God is a poor use of tools, and of time. The method of science is a powerful tool for the examination of the world. In such matters faith has little use, and much abuse. Failing to recognize the limits of ones methods is as much an error in one matter, as in the other. Human experience transcends the world. Einstein said, “Imagination is greater than knowledge.” Faith is not tested by experiment, nor is belief a form of evidence. These matters are unrelated, and that division does not make either of them less.

<p align=“center”>Tris</p>

22

Tris, I don’t know how it works in your world, but here in the real world, the more incredible the claim you make, the more evidence you need. You claim that there is an omnipotent, omnipresent, eternally existing being that is responsible for the creation of ewverything, that used to speak to mere humans often(as told in stories handed down after thousands of years), and is invisible.
Then you bring up a straw man argument that we wouldn’t believe in him if he came up to the door and announced his presence.
I asked for any evidence outside of your personal beliefs. The non-answer that you gave is the typical hooey that we have heard so many times before. If you have nothing, at least admit it. It is NOT up to me to disprove your claim, it is up to you to prove it.

23

I agree with 95% of Tris’s last post. On other threads here, I’ve asserted that my judgment that God exists and is benevolent is founded on my own subjective experience of Him. I consider that “logical proofs of God” resemble the Holy Roman Emperor or the Moral Majority – they aren’t either one!

A small problem, as pointed out here and there on this board, is that one needs to have an agreed definition of what one means by “God.” We can argue at length on the truth value of a given belief before discovering that our assumptions on what the words we’re using mean and imply are not shared.

I have a very strong adherence to the concept (avoiding phrasing that as “I believe”) that, in principle, one can adduce objective proof of God sufficient to convince an open-minded non-believer (e.g. David, Phil, or Gaudere) of the existence and nature of the being behind that proof. Such a proof would require objective evidence that could be scientifically tested and which would lead by direct inference to the existence and nature of God.

As you note, however, faith is a different story. Adducing the existence of God would not in and of itself lead to any relationship with Him, which is, to me at least, the essence of faith. If I were, in Gaudere’s metaphor, to give credence to the idea that tiny purple fairies dance in my garden in the wee small hours of the night, I would not “believe in” those fairies – I have no trust in them nor have they communicated any promise or assertion of their love to me.

24

Slythe, I take your point in your post to Tris. I think the fair question would be to ask what sort of evidence you would consider sufficiently extraordinary to prove such a claim. I realize that sounds like putting the ball back in your court, but David and I have volleyed this one back and forth already. Switch roles for one quick moment and for the sake of argument attempt to demonstrate the validity of an extraordinary claim. How might this be accomplished?

Without any intention to flame, it is only fair to assert that if you say we must play by your rules, you have an obligation to state those rules. I agree that your concurrence to my assertion that I saw an angel yesterday requires a lot more proving than your concurrence to my assertion that I saw a rainbow yesterday. But what sort of proof would be sufficient? I’m not asking for an encyclopedic all-inclusive definition; demonstration by example would be fine. But some sort of clarity on what constitutes “extraordinary evidence” is needed.

25

Polycarp, I am so damn tired of this game. The claim of a god has been made with NO evidence. I asked for ANY evidence. I have been asked to prove the non-existance of this god, which is not my job. I have been told that I would not except all the evidence in the world, which is not true.
Just present what you think is evidence of the existance of the god you believe in, and we will go on from there. Or admit that you have NO evidence, just blind faith based on your upbringing and personal experiences, filtered through your wants and needs.
But no more stalling word games, o.k.?

26

slythe said:

Read it again slythe. I believe you are the one using straw man arguments. Tris said:

Tris is not saying that if God showed up at your door, you wouldn’t believe. Tris is saying that this wouldn’t be proof for him.

27

I hate C&P point-by-point rebuttals as a rule. But I need to do one here.

Nope. Lots of evidence. Most of it attributable to urban legend, other varieties of legend, coulda-been-by-natural-means refutations, etc. But not “no evidence.” Inadequate evidence, maybe.

Maybe you have, but not by me. The whole point of my post was to acknowledge that I was attempting an “extraordinary claim” and looking for guidance in what sorts of things you would accept as “extraordinary proof.”

Ditto. See below.

I’ve posted before, on another thread, my evidence. It’s subjective. I fully admit that my personal emotional state may have a lot to do with my reactions. I’m interested in exploring the objective truth of the god question. Maybe I want there to be a god. Maybe you fear the consequences if there is. (I’m not alleging, just setting up the antithesis.) Either or both statements have nothing to do with whether in objective reality there is such a thing as a god.

I was not out to play “stalling word games.” Nor am I particularly out to play religious head games. I’ve been up front on my “religious” intention: I personally have benefitted and I’ve seen others benefit in my/their own mundane spiritual/emotional existence, not in some metaphysical after-death state, from a relationship with what I and they know as a loving God. I’d like to share that with anyone that would welcome it.

However, I am also a fairly rational person who happens to have been convinced of the existence and benevolence of this God (who is AFAIK the Christian God, or at least has not tried to convince me otherwise) by a personal subjective experience of His presence. I am not enamored of the “believe or you’ll be sent to Hell” theology of right-wing Christians. I’m not interested in preaching my beliefs as though I have a hot line you don’t. I am prepared to explore the implications of any aspect of nature with anyone who cares to discuss them. And the reality or lack thereof of my god or any god is one such aspect, one that this board has as one of its functions. IMHO, it is indisputable that the presence or absence of a god is a significant fact in the composition of the universe. To divorce this from theism for a second, a hypothetical universe where the Necronomicon was a real grimoire and Cthulhu actually existed would result in some far-reaching implications about the nature of reality and what one actually does in everyday life.

The assertion that “extraordinary claims demand extraordinary proof” has been made repeatedly, and in particular in relation to the allegations of religion. I posed the question of what sort of evidence might be sufficiently extraordinary to constitute
adequate proof of such an extraordinary claim. I’d welcome some feedback on that, if you care to give it. I wasn’t interested in playing games, and I respect the idea that you weren’t either.

While I understand your asperity, I’m looking for a rational discussion. I’m under the impression you are too. I feel flamed, though if you don’t know me as a poster, you may well have mistaken me for another “the Bible is proof” PITA. Wasn’t my intent. “Come, let us reason together.” :slight_smile:

28

Although the point that it is possible to remain skeptical in the face of nearly overwhelming evidence is well met - Slythe’s point is that there is no evidence for the existence of god and Tris’ gambit is nothing but a diversion.

I do not agree that it takes a leap of faith to deny the existence of god. You would never think such a thing if you were not raised in a culture that is overwhelming theist. I for one, do not believe in Hoopy, the Golden Speckled Trout of the Milky Way that created all life (including himself) in a fit of indigestion. And you would have me believe this is an article of faith?

29

Polycarp,

Your post was directed to someone else, but may I take a swing at it anyway? Your question seems worthy of a new thread, which I shall start.

–
peas on earth

30

Slythe

I know you asked for evidence. I have none, nor did I claim that I could find any. I cannot convince you of the existence of God. Nor can you convince anyone that He cannot exist. We each accept our belief without proof, because we have no other choice. You choose to believe that your senses and such things as evidence are the limits of all reality, and that all else is hooey. It is not up to me to disprove you, nor is it up to you to prove it. The matter is not within the realm of evidence, or proof. Where we differ is your insistence that your choice is somehow based on something more stringently proven than mine.

I also object to the characterization of my thinking as “Typical Hooey”. It might well be hooey, but it is hardly typical!

<p align=“center”>Tris</p>

31

“I also object to the characterization of my thinking as “Typical Hooey”. It might well be hooey, but it is hardly typical!”

Actually, it is pretty common amoung theists who argue with atheists. While I agree that an absolute standard of truth is unattainable, I think we have come to certain conclusions based on sensory input and reason in order to simply survive. If you have sensory data that indicates there is a god, I would love to hear it.

32

Cooper

I have no data that would indicate to you that there is a God. I don’t believe in God because of evidence, and you don’t believe that he does not exist because of evidence. You choose to accept the absence of proof as the proof of absence, I accept evidence which cannot be displayed as proof. Neither of us has done so out of logical consistency, but as an exercise of choice. I completely understand your position, and find no particular fault with you by reason of your faith. I simply do not share it. If you choose to believe that nothing but stupidity can account for my belief, that too is a matter of faith, not based on evidence.

<p align=“center”>Tris</p>

33

I don’t think many atheists equate those two things. But the burden of proof is on the positive exceptional claim. You seem to be saying that both cases are based on a lack of evidence and are therefore equivalent, but that is most definately NOT the case.

For example: I can provide no evidence that there are fluffy pink bunnies living on a planet orbiting a certain star in the M31 galaxy, even though I believe they are real. You can provide no evidence there are NOT such bunnies. Either of us COULD be right. I believe in these bunnies for my own reasons. You (I’m guessing) don’t. Neither of us has evidence for our beliefs. Are they equally rational?

–
peas on earth

34

Yes.

We have each made a decision without evidence. Each of us has decided that evidence is not germane to what we believe. We are each precisely as rational as the other.

I am not going to kick your bunnies.

:wink:

<p align=“center”>Tris</p>

35

I don’t believe that you believe this Tris. At least, I have a hard time believing that you believe this, because of some of the implications that result from it.

More to the point, I think it seriously begs the question of what is meant by the word ‘rational’ when you say it is irrational to believe there are no pink bunnies on the planet M32. What does the word rational mean to you?

36

Cooper

I responded to a lighthearted example with a lighthearted reply, the underlying point is not false, though. I have no evidence of reality for much that might exist in the universe, and no evidence that there might be realities outside of my perception. That is not a logical proof that no such things exist. The logical demand for proof is not a limit on reality, but a limit to belief. You have one criterion for suspending that need for proof, and when that is met, you proceed without doubts to accept that there are no bunnies, and there is no God. I have a different criterion, and proceed with strong doubts about bunnies, and no doubt about God. Neither of us used logic or rational thought to reach our conclusions, because logic and rational thought were insufficient to the task. Since we live in a world that often exceeds our mental limits, we have learned not to cripple ourselves simply because one of our intellectual tools is not able to serve our need.

Your belief that there is no God is no more rational than my belief that there is one, neither is it any less rational. We are not limited by rationality, only served by it.

Each of us has reasoned his belief based on something other than logical proof. Some believe in God, some believe in bunnies, and some believe in nothing. Some believe themselves to be superior because of their choice. I cannot support that conclusion, for either of us.

<p align=“center”>Tris</p>

37

Well, you didn’t answer my question. What does ‘rational’ mean to you?

38

Cooper

The word is oddly applicable to my point, in fact. It is generally used to mean proceeding out of reason, not foolish or silly. It comes from the root ratio, and means of or related to the use of ratios. Specifically it grew out of the rationalist view of the world, which gained prominence in conjunction with the Renaissance, and the birth of science. Related to ratio, or proportional, and subject to understanding by mathematics, and measuring. As the understanding of the nature of the world grew, the meaning of rational began to include an evaluation of worth, and reliability.

It means to seek to determine things by means of careful consideration, with a connotation that that will include logic, and reasoning from known things.

The supernatural is a designation of things not proceeding from known things. In many ways rational and mathematical logic can reveal underlying elements of things believed to be supernatural, and show that they are natural, and arise from knowable, measurable things. Rationality is a very useful tool for examining and revealing things.

There is also an additional and rather new meaning. Rational has come to mean not crazy, able to understand basic reality, in a recognizable similarity to the consensus of ones peers. In this way our language affirms our growing expectation that each and every thing that is real can be measured, and proven. Surely if you perceive a thing which others do not perceive, it must be that you have some fault of faculty which causes this perception.

I hold this view to be an anthropocentric conceit. Delusion does exist, but there is not logical surety that every matter that does not meet with the measure of mathematics, and logic must therefore not be real. Science does not provide a bound for reality, but rather serves as a tool to reveal some part of what is real. Logic is not a limit to reality, nor is rational thinking unfailingly a delineation of truth.

I find reason, rational thought, and factual verifiability to be very important things, and often rely on them for my understanding of the world I live in. When I consider things that cannot be measured, and are not within the realm of logic or science, I accept that my tools will not serve me, and do not try to use them. Just because I have a hammer, does not make my task a nail. Art, love, hope, inspiration, faith, kindness, joy, and, yes, even God exceed my measure and logic. I choose not to deny them. If I am thereby irrational, even mad, I am content. I recommend it to you.

<p align=“center”>Tris</p>

39

Just speaking for myself here… I don’t deny the possibility of the bunnies. Heck, they might be there. Such bunnies don’t require suspending the laws of physics and so on, but since it’s a random claim with no valid evidence backing it up, I give it a pretty slim chance of being true. So my default position is “no bunnies are on that planet” until some evidence for them turns up. My position would be unaffected by how many people believe in the bunnies. Only evidence would change it.

Why makes these different? At least the bunnies pretty much fit within our knowledge of physics, biology, and so on, even if I can’t support my claim that they exist. They seem at least as plausible as a god.

If the problem is that many people believe in god an only a few in the bunnies, I can come up with a new case that millions of people either currently believe or once believed, but that I wager you won’t.

peas on earth

40

This is not directed at any particular “believer” in the Christian god, but the whole group.
A simple request: please show me the evidence that your god exists.
Do not make false claims that I am asking for an impossible amount of evidence.
Do not bring forth hypotheticals about how the evidence wouldn’t be believed if “God” himself showed up in person. He hasn’t yet.
Please do not tell me that I wouldn’t believe or understand your evidence, because that would mean that you could read my mind.
Just show me any evidence.

sigh Is anyone else getting tired of the tap-dancing?