Calling all Theists: The Argument Challenge

[Triskadecamus]

The guy in the beard (and it wasn’t white) was there because people needed a human face for God. His existence was an act of love to bring the promise of immortality to us. I don’t think the universe was made for Man, but rather, that Man was made for God. It’s a big universe, and I don’t know all that much about it, or God, so I generally assume he has other matters on His divine agenda than this little ant hill. However, purely locally, this world seems pretty much to be our sand box. We don’t seem, to me at least, to be making it all that heavenly.

However, the anthropocentric mental picture of God, even aside from the person of Jesus is a part of my faith. It is not a set of limits that God must exist within. It is an emotional reflection of the limits of my mind. It would also fail in its divinity in almost any audio/visual presentation, whether by George Burns, or Morgan Freeman. The fact is, most of the time I find the guy in the Santa Suit to be well short of the person in my mental picture.

I believe that God has the set of characteristics that I attribute to being a person. He is someone, not something. Since my entire experience with people includes human people, and no other sort, and my mind creates images that are, to me, whom I call God, then in my mind, God is a human person. (The beard is still not white, though.) However, nothing in my faith requires Him to fit into my mental image. Actually, fitting into my mental images seems very mortal, and minor. Not Godlike at all, if you follow me.

If God made me in His image, then in at least one small part, God is a fat old white guy with a long white beard. But, evidently He is also a muscular young black woman with long braids, too.

[center] Tris[/center

[Hentor_the_Barbarian]

@Liberal

Then how about “spirit” or “soul”? Many Western, Eastern, and Indian cultures have all shared the notion of a noncorporeal supernatural entity.

Would that work for you? My sense is that most believers would simply say that such an entity is really the same as what they regard as god. Do you believe that the “spirit” or “soul” of such cultures does not exist?

[Voyager]

@Czarcasm

Does anyone else here find the term “devout belief” to be condescending or insulting? I am willing to quit using the term if a fair number of people do-live and learn, I always say.

If a minister told his congregation that they were devout believers, I think they’d consider themselves complimented, not insulted.

[Voyager]

@Hentor the Barbarian

True, good point. It will only work for this example for people who reject the existence of angels but do believe in the existence of god. I’m looking for something that is divested of the pre-existing authority of established religion. Something that people aren’t going to believe in because of tradition, culture or shared belief set.

I’m particularly interested in whether it is possible to describe an entity de novo that has at least some of the properties of god but isn’t ridiculous. My hypothesis is that it is not possible to do so because the idea of a belief in a supernatural entity is inherently ridiculous if it is not already supported by a commonly accepted mythos. If it is possible, then it should serve well in place of Santa Claus for the comparisons between accepted supernatural entities and non-accepted supernatural entities.

I think you’re right. Almost anything you can think of that is not absurd, including fairies and men from Mars, someone somewhere believes in. The goal was to have an entity that basically no one could support, and which you could criticize without people getting upset.

Special pleading is nothing new. I’m reading a book of essays by T H Huxley (and I’ll post something about what he really thought about agnosticism) which includes a debate with Gladstone on the Gadarene swine - the ones Jesus drove the demons into and then drowned. Huxley said that he didn’t believe the story, but he thought that the act of drowning someone else’s valuable herd of pigs was illegal and improper. Gladstone responded by basically saying how dare you say our Savior (sorry, Saviour) could have broken the law.

BTW, this book resembles an SDMB thread, except that the posts are a lot longer, a bit more thought out, and take place over years, not minutes.

[Hentor_the_Barbarian]

@Malacandra

Wasn’t she that two-bit hooker who famously blew Hugh Grant? As for The Pit, the one time I got hauled in there I came out of the whole business not too poorly, I thought, so I’m not scared of a little flame.

Uh, I meant to spell it that way. That spelling is the truth and the way and the light. Henceforth all other spellings will be considered heretical.

(You know the details of infamous blowjobs far better than I do. )

Hmm, tricky. It would depend upon what properties you had in mind. Omnipotence and omniscience, for a start, would be right out as they fall foul of “another way of thinking about God”. Can we agree terms here?

I don’t know. I’m trying to allow as much flexibility as possible. I think it may not be possible, which to me says something about the necessity of the contextual basis or grounding for believers.

What about considering it this way: What if god had never previously made himself known to us, and chose to do so only today. (Okay, of course he would have been a sensation, since Israel in 4 BC had no mass communication, but setting that aside…). If he used only the methods that he uses today (intrapsychic, personal, idiosyncratic, generally unidirectional), how would that affect believers? Would it seem ridiculous, rather than “devine”?

[Voyager]

@Malacandra

Probably on account of being inherently ridiculous (and deliberately so, I suggest). Santa, IPU, or teapot orbiting Saturn, it’s still a thinly disguised Appeal to Ridicule - and Czarcasm has said in the thread that spawned this one that he thinks it most unfair that he should be restrained from using ridicule as a debating tool. I’m not sure how we get from that to “Believers’ intransigence is the one true obstacle to honest debate”, but then I’ve been poorly lately and I’m still running a slight temperature.

If there is an element of absurdity, it was meant as shock therapy for theist special pleading. There was and still is a default assumption about the western God, which can be seen in the cosmological argument. The IPU argument demonstrated that there was no more reason to treat God as the default than the IPU, and that arguments for a particular god had to be evidence based. Using Krishna or the like could get into the all gods are the same line. Around here people who use the default argument get called on it pretty quickly, and the average theist Doper is a lot smarter than the average theist poster to alt.atheism, so I can understand why many here don’t see the need for the IPU.

[cosmosdan]

@Malthus

My original point was an attempt to demonstrate why the popular argument for athiesm - namely to analogize belief in God with belief in Santa Claus (or the tooth fairy or whatever) - was a bad argument; namely that it was childishly insulting and that it seriously failed to address the actual import of religious belief, and thus would not prove convincing (except to those suceptable to brow-beating).

I was then challenged to come up with a better argument; the above was my attempt.

I was thinking of starting a thread about what I found wrong with the IPU, FSM, arguments and why they were inappropriate. You’ve touched on it in this thread.

Most of the fictional characters used as examples apply only to the existence of God as separate being from us. They do not touch on the more meaningful elements of belief such as love, forgiveness, inner growth etc. IMO although many believers do see God as a separate being from us that is not the most significant part of their belief. There is much more meaningful ideals and emotions involved than that one detail of belief. That’s part of why the IPU argument is seen as insulting no matter how intellectually accurate someone thinks it is. IMO the argument fails for the most part because it doesn’t address the more significant part of god belief.

I agree with you that it is possible {probably more helpful} to look at the ideals taught in Christianity and prioritize those rather than belief in whatever traits we think God may or may not have. I also agree with Czarcasm that many theists will still see it as objectionable or insulting.

Still, focusing on the principles seems more productive. IMO it doesn’t matter if I don’t agree with details of belief if I’m working with someone to improve the human condition.

I think for a lot of people god represents that striving to understand our connection to the universe and each other, the desire to feel that connection and to find purpose in meaning. I don’t think that’s something we should discourage.

I’ve said many times that beliefs should be challenged but that includes the belief systems of everyone. Seems reasonable right? Since we can’t conclude whether god exists or not or in what form, maybe we can leave that detail alone and discuss more pertinent details.

[Liberal]

@Hentor the Barbarian

Would that work for you? My sense is that most believers would simply say that such an entity is really the same as what they regard as god. Do you believe that the “spirit” or “soul” of such cultures does not exist?

Not really. But then, I think I haven’t really understood this thread from the start, though I’ve tried to. Are you looking for a way to be nice to believers without being condescending or something? If so, that’s a laudable search, and I’m willing to help as much as I can.

I think the best thing you can do is simply to stop qualifying your remarks at all. It always seems to come across that we believe in spite of ourselves, or in spite of all reason, or in spite of something. Like Czarcasm’s seemingly innocuous “devout belief” which, devoid of context, is not in the least insulting. But when comparing theists to atheists as he did, feeling the need to qualify our faith as though we were helpless in the grips of a spell while not qualifying his own faithlessness was condescending to the extreme.

Again, as I said before, it seems to me that the most polite way you can possibly put it is to say simply, “I don’t believe in any god.” That conveys your message just fine, and is qualitatively neutral.

[Voyager]

@cosmosdan

I was thinking of starting a thread about what I found wrong with the IPU, FSM, arguments and why they were inappropriate. You’ve touched on it in this thread.

Most of the fictional characters used as examples apply only to the existence of God as separate being from us. They do not touch on the more meaningful elements of belief such as love, forgiveness, inner growth etc. IMO although many believers do see God as a separate being from us that is not the most significant part of their belief. There is much more meaningful ideals and emotions involved than that one detail of belief. That’s part of why the IPU argument is seen as insulting no matter how intellectually accurate someone thinks it is. IMO the argument fails for the most part because it doesn’t address the more significant part of god belief.

How do you feel about the “inner Santa” argument? That seems to the god within us position fairly well.

The IPU of course does not touch on love, forgiveness, etc. That some people get this from belief in god is beyond dispute - though plenty of people get these from other sources, without god belief. The IPU argument isn’t about religion at all, but only about standards of evidence for god.

[Hentor_the_Barbarian]

@Liberal

Not really. But then, I think I haven’t really understood this thread from the start, though I’ve tried to. Are you looking for a way to be nice to believers without being condescending or something? If so, that’s a laudable search, and I’m willing to help as much as I can.

I appreciate that, but that is not my goal, nor as I understand it, the purpose of this thread.

Apart from that, why would you ever think it was my goal to be nice and not condescending? Have you forgotten that I’m ugly and nobody likes me.

My goal here was to 1) suggest that those who are opposed to the Santa Claus/god belief comparison (or accepted versus non-accepted supernatural entity, if you will) as necessarily mocking may be (perhaps inadvertently) erroneously crying foul, and 2) to try to find some foundation for the comparison that was not to be rejected out of hand due to complaints of mockery.

I see the comparison not as necessarily mocking, but as a context for considering why some supernatural entities are rejected and others are not, when the evidence for the two is equally absent.

[Sitnam]

Malthus: Is the object here really to equate the faithful with children? If it is, good.

[cosmosdan]

@Voyager

How do you feel about the “inner Santa” argument? That seems to the god within us position fairly well.

The IPU of course does not touch on love, forgiveness, etc. That some people get this from belief in god is beyond dispute - though plenty of people get these from other sources, without god belief. The IPU argument isn’t about religion at all, but only about standards of evidence for god.

There’s a lot of talk about the spirit of Christmas and that’s all good. It doesn’t matter to me what vehicle serves other individuals best. There are religious beliefs that bother me and I’d be just as eager to challenge those if I saw them on the boards. I don’t much. IMO some beliefs encourage growth and progress and some stifle them. Looking at my own journey it may be that some serve as stepping stones to others, or maybe it just depends on what you’re exposed to and when.

IMO we should be a little more accepting of the differences in our perspective journeys as humans knowing that all our belief systems are less than perfect.

Concerning the IPU and other arguments about evidence. Believers should be content to acknowledge the personal and subjective nature of their beliefs and the lack of objective evidence.

for me it’s a big SO WHAT? Once we accept that there isn’t any solid objective evidence for God’s existence can’t we leave that argument behind and move on to the more pertinent things?

[Liberal]

@Hentor the Barbarian

I appreciate that, but that is not my goal, nor as I understand it, the purpose of this thread.

Okay. Sorry about that, then.

I see the comparison not as necessarily mocking, but as a context for considering why some supernatural entities are rejected and others are not, when the evidence for the two is equally absent.

Maybe that’s the source of the problem. You will find that the faithful disagree with you about the alleged absence of evidence. You need only look from your own point of view to understand. You are incapable of believing because you are intellectually honest; that is, you cannot believe in something you are convinced is not true. All we are is your opposite. We are compelled to believe because we are intellectually honest; that is, we cannot disbelieve in something that we are convinced is true. You demand scientific evidence for supernatural things. We demand scientific evidence only for natural things. In other words, you’re white and we’re black, and we just need to come to respect one another. I believe it is doable.

[begbert2]

@cosmosdan

There’s a lot of talk about the spirit of Christmas and that’s all good. It doesn’t matter to me what vehicle serves other individuals best. There are religious beliefs that bother me and I’d be just as eager to challenge those if I saw them on the boards. I don’t much. IMO some beliefs encourage growth and progress and some stifle them. Looking at my own journey it may be that some serve as stepping stones to others, or maybe it just depends on what you’re exposed to and when.

IMO we should be a little more accepting of the differences in our perspective journeys as humans knowing that all our belief systems are less than perfect.

Concerning the IPU and other arguments about evidence. Believers should be content to acknowledge the personal and subjective nature of their beliefs and the lack of objective evidence.

for me it’s a big SO WHAT? Once we accept that there isn’t any solid objective evidence for God’s existence can’t we leave that argument behind and move on to the more pertinent things?

This is all well and good for people who 1) acknowledge that their belief systems are less than perfect, 2) acknowledge the personal and subjective nature of their beliefs and the lack of objective evidence, and 3) accept that there isn’t any solid objective evidence for God’s existence. I recognize that you and many others on this board meet these criteria, but that’s not representative of the general population at ALL, in my experience. As you yourself say, believers should be content to adopt your kinder, gentler, ‘my religion is not for everyone’ attitude; arguments like this exist to help the generous supply that don’t believe that, to assist them in correcting their ways. Is there a problem with us discussing such arguments?

Yes, these arguments also challenge the more harmless variety of theists with the fact that their beliefs are difficult or impossible to defend without appealing to one’s own supposed infallibility. Is that a problem?

[begbert2]

@Liberal

You are incapable of believing because you are intellectually honest; that is, you cannot believe in something you are convinced is not true. All we are is your opposite. We are compelled to believe because we are intellectually honest; that is, we cannot disbelieve in something that we are convinced is true.

Your definition(s) of intellectual honesty here don’t match my definition of intellectual honesty. I consider a person intellectually honest if they can suspend both belief and disbelief to a sufficient degree that they can be convinced, by as objective an assessment of the evidence as they can make.

If you have to resort to special pleading to remain convinced in your beliefs, then by my reckoning you’re not assessing the evidence as objectively as you could (since you demonstrably are more objective about the things not being specially plead) and therefore you’re not being intellectually honest. If you’re not engaging in special pleading, it should be trivial to demonstrate that Santa and IPU analogies don’t apply to your beliefs, because your evidence for God would of course be considerably better in that case.

[Liberal]

@begbert2

I consider a person intellectually honest if they can suspend both belief and disbelief to a sufficient degree that they can be convinced, by as objective an assessment of the evidence as they can make.

You miss the point. The point is that reasonable people can disagree about what constitutes evidence. And even if they agree on that, they can disagree about the interpretation of it. An intellectually honest person ought to agree that it is reasonable to reject demands for scientific proof of a supernatural claim since science examines only nature. If you’ll suspend your disbelief, you’ll agree with that statement.

[begbert2]

@Liberal

You miss the point. The point is that reasonable people can disagree about what constitutes evidence. And even if they agree on that, they can disagree about the interpretation of it. An intellectually honest person ought to agree that it is reasonable to reject demands for scientific proof of a supernatural claim since science examines only nature. If you’ll suspend your disbelief, you’ll agree with that statement.

It would be a lot easier if I didn’t define “supernatural” as “things that are either real and natural but haven’t yet been explained by science in a plausible way, or that are imaginary and unreal.” (As far as I can tell, any other definition of the term ‘supernatural’ makes the definition of the term ‘natural’ incoherent in that context.)

Sure, reasonable people can disagree what constitutes evidence and the interpretation thereof. But the believer should still be able to make a reasonable and consistent case why their evidence for God is significantly different than their evidence for Santa Claus, in a way that makes the one belief significantly more justified the other. This should be doable even if the atheist himself would not accept either standard of evidence; you should at least be able to show a signficant different in the two standards, and that should be enough to demonstrate that the analogy doesn’t apply to you.

[cosmosdan]

@begbert2

This is all well and good for people who 1) acknowledge that their belief systems are less than perfect, 2) acknowledge the personal and subjective nature of their beliefs and the lack of objective evidence, and 3) accept that there isn’t any solid objective evidence for God’s existence. I recognize that you and many others on this board meet these criteria, but that’s not representative of the general population at ALL, in my experience. As you yourself say, believers should be content to adopt your kinder, gentler, ‘my religion is not for everyone’ attitude; arguments like this exist to help the generous supply that don’t believe that, to assist them in correcting their ways. Is there a problem with us discussing such arguments?

Heck no. That’s what we’re here for.

My thinking is that the goal , other than entertainment, is to refine our arguments and examine them in detail. Change them if we find them lacking or unproductive. Believers and non believers alike have aided me in that.
I agree that there are plenty of believers who hold a more determined conviction. for some no argument will do any good in changing their mind. I think for quite a number though, even those who believe in some separate all powerful ruler of the universe, an appeal to the principles can be more effective than arguments about logic and science. In those areas where science does have clear evidence against certain beliefs then education and persistence are probably our best tools.

Yes, these arguments also challenge the more harmless variety of theists with the fact that their beliefs are difficult or impossible to defend without appealing to one’s own supposed infallibility. Is that a problem?

Not for me. I don’t have any spiritual beliefs that I’m interested in defending as scientific fact.

[cosmosdan]

@begbert2

It would be a lot easier if I didn’t define “supernatural” as “things that are either real and natural but haven’t yet been explained by science in a plausible way, or that are imaginary and unreal.” (As far as I can tell, any other definition of the term ‘supernatural’ makes the definition of the term ‘natural’ incoherent in that context.)

Sure, reasonable people can disagree what constitutes evidence and the interpretation thereof. But the believer should still be able to make a reasonable and consistent case why their evidence for God is significantly different than their evidence for Santa Claus, in a way that makes the one belief significantly more justified the other. This should be doable even if the atheist himself would not accept either standard of evidence; you should at least be able to show a signficant different in the two standards, and that should be enough to demonstrate that the analogy doesn’t apply to you.

That seems reasonable, for those with that ability. Many believers could only describe it as a feeling. That doesn’t make it any less real for them, or less valid.

I thought had done what you’re describing here in an earlier post. God belief is connected to a feeling of connection, purpose and meaning in a way Santa and IPU are not. Personally God belief has helped me on a path of personal growth and understanding. I’d add at least a couple of very profound spiritual experiences
that helped convince me the journey is worthwhile.
That is the personal evidence I have that makes me see god belief as more justified , or at least much more personally meaningful and valuable , than belief in Santa.

I’d add what may be obvious. The name doesn’t matter. Jehovah, Allah, Great Spirit, Jesus, whatever. It’s what goes on inside that matters.

[Liberal]

@begbert2

Sure, reasonable people can disagree what constitutes evidence and the interpretation thereof. But the believer should still be able to make a reasonable and consistent case why their evidence for God is significantly different than their evidence for Santa Claus, in a way that makes the one belief significantly more justified the other. This should be doable even if the atheist himself would not accept either standard of evidence; you should at least be able to show a signficant different in the two standards, and that should be enough to demonstrate that the analogy doesn’t apply to you.

Well, in this post, I listed some of the evidence that convinced me personally of the existence of God, and none of it convinces me of the existence of Santa Claus. Would that help?