Calling all Theists: The Argument Challenge

Great Debates
81

If you want to know the truth, I’m not sure the santa argument applies to you, since you seem not to be saying that you believe in god because there’s evidence that god is real, but rather because you feel you have have evidence that the belief itself is beneficial. And so you choose to believe, regardless of the lack of evidence. (I think this makes you intellectually dishonest by Liberal’s definition. :wink: )

It almost sounds like you’re saying “By all evidence I’m wrong and I know it, but I’m going to believe anyway.” I’m not sure how common this approach to belief is, but I’m pretty sure this isn’t what the Santa argument is even meant to counter.

Yeah, I saw that. In fact, why not examine it? Starting at the top:

I’m thinking the odds are, you haven’t had an epiphany about the existence of Santa Claus. (Unless you had one when you were a young child?) Provisionally accepting that you have never had an epiphany of Santa Claus, then this is a point of evidence that you have had about God, but not about Santa, which counts against the Santa argument applying to you. (Incidentally I don’t accept your epiphany as valid evidence, even from your perspective, but that’s not really relevent to the Santa argument.)

Also, I note that you said that this is the only evidence you would accept about God, meaing that you reject the rest of your evidences as much as if they were about Santa Claus, which keeps you consistent across the board and avoids you running afoul of the analogy, so technically, we’re done. The Santa argument does not work against you, unless you spontaneously have (or at some point had) an epiphany about Santa.

It seems hardly worth looking at your other ‘evidences’, since you discount them so thouroughly yourself. For the record, I don’t think they hold up nearly as well with regard to being unsantalike as the epiphany does, though. Which may be why you distanced yourself from them, perhaps? :slight_smile:

So, you win; the Santa argument doesn’t apply to you. (Which also means there’s no need for you to be offended by it, incidentally, beyond being tired of repeatedly deflecting it.)

Now, how many religious people do you suppose arrived at their beliefs via spontaneous epiphany? I’m thinking not many. Just because the Santa argument doesn’t work on you doesn’t mean that it’s not useful in discussion with others, after all. In fact, the unique nature of your defense against it suggests that you should think that the Santa argument would be a very good argument for presenting your average garden variety theist with the special pleading that underlies their beliefs.

82

It would have been somewhat effective on me when I was a theist towards the end when I was becoming more worldly and thinking more for myself; at that point, it might have triggered some reflection. Before then, it would have just triggered defensiveness and anger.

83

If one believes devoutly, as I did, that god is a ‘perfectly legitimate claim’ that is nonetheless ‘not subject to the rules of scientific evidence’ then it’s not condescending. It’s simply a statement outside the scope of the basis of my (former) religious belief. If, on the other hand, I do believe that my god’s legitimacy is called into question by a lack of scientific evidence then I’d have been humiliated.

84

Are you saying that it’s not the question that is humiliating, but the potential answer?

85

As has been pointed out before and upthread, there’s a difference between belief and a lack of belief. Not believing in god isn’t necessarily a belief, it’s the absence of one. Otherwise, there’s an arrogant suborning of that lack of belief going on.

Challenging a nonbeliever’s lack of belief isn’t the same thing as challenging their beliefs. And it’s the former that often is the form taken by prosletyzing.

86

That’s an interesting and I think accurate take on it. I’d qualify it to say that I believe god represents {to me} something real and true that we have yet to understand. Not a separate all powerful being, but something about our connection to the universe and our consciousness. Furthermore , since we don’t know, it’s normal for people to personify and add some mythology and structure to that part of themselves. The problem comes when we cling to the mythology and structure too much. From the Bahai’s I think;

We are drawn to the light but we make the mistake of worshiping the light.

I think if we could focus on the light more rather than the form it’s presented in we’d do better.

Hmmm No that’s not what I’m saying. I’m saying I claim my right to interpret the meaning of my own experiences using physical evidence as well as my subjective experiences knowing that I will , like most people, be partly right and partly wrong. As long as my god belief remains provisional and growing, open to new facts and experiences, it isn’t wrong. It’s just my choice of vehicle.

I’m not sure how to take this. How is it you get to say what is valid from someone else’s perspective?

This is my objection to a lot of arguments both atheist and religious.

No doubt a lot of people came to beliefs by tradition but for many others it was a sincere spiritual experience that brought them to belief. Even those raised in a church often tell of their own spiritual experiences that are part of their conviction.

These may vary from person to person but they add to the conviction that there is indeed some transcendent other that we have connected with.

87

well okay. That has nothing to do with what I was talking about but okay.

88

In retrospect, it may been the potential answer looked at from a broader perspective; at the time, it would have been the mere fact that I might be wrong in my expression of that religious viewpoint or otherwise befuddled. My catholic friends always get red-faced and run to their priest about ‘hard’ questions.

In other words, at the time I wouldn’t have been humiliated by the notion that the potential answer could lead to concluding that my religious belief was wrong (when in the throes of what I recognize for myself was a cult-like state of belief there was no such possibility anyway) as much as just humiliated by not being able to come up with the right answer. My actual belief wouldn’t have been threatened at that time because it was impervious to logic. In fact, logic and reasoning were explicitly warned against in my religious upbringing: satan will ‘mix truth and lies’ to confuse me so there was an arrogant superiority to those that so sadly only used their brains to figure things out while we had god on our side so that when something became untenable or impossible to explain, we could just resort to ‘god works in mysterious ways’ or ‘god will explain in heaven,’ etc.

I would have been humiliated at their use of logic and seen it as vaguely satanic.

89

Okay, just commenting on your use of the phrase ‘belief systems of everyone’ so I assume you wouldn’t include my lack of belief.

90

HOLY CRAP! I just had a personal epiphany that Santa Claus is my personal savior!!! It just happened right now!

91

He said valid evidence. He didn’t say not valid stuff. He’ll clarify what he meant, I’m sure, but for me I draw a distinction.

It’s why I told **Liberal **I accept and respect his reasons for believing what he does. I didn’t question their validity, but I did disagree that they’d qualify as valid evidence. I referred to them as reasons, and valid reasons as far as I know.

So, perhaps it’s a semantic disagreement about the meaning of the word evidence in that I employ that term in philosophical discussions to be something falsifiable. Liberal replied that falsifiability is itself not falsifiable but later clarified that pointing that out doesn’t affect my critique, but was just done to ‘put it into context.’

Not to say that the conclusions are necessarily incorrect though even without what I’d term valid evidence. Minor point, perhaps.

92

Did you feel his presents in your heart?

93

Moooooaaaan :cool:

94

Oh, c’mon, let’s not be silly…

I felt his presence in my hearth.

95

nope
of course your beliefs about religion are up for examination. :slight_smile:

96

Yup. I started a whole thread about it.

97

I understand the difference in defining evidence as something falsifiable or not. My question was about judging the validity anothers perspective.

Regardless on whether we call it evidence or an experience or a subjective event, it doesn’t matter except to clarify communication. We all as humans must interpret what those mean and how they alter our belief system. Valid reason is acceptable to me if you prefer. I’d also be okay with subjective evidence or internal evidence.

Even falsifiable evidence can lead to wrong conclusions. We continue to grow and learn both within the realms of science and more personal discovery. The Bahai’s describe it as two wings of the same bird. Both intended to be the quest for truth. Both not yet perfected.

IMO the fact that interpreting subjective experiences is a common unavoidable human experience pretty much makes it valid for people to have different interpretations. I think if I want mine to be treated with some modicum of respect and want to continue to claim my right to translate those experiences then I have some moral obligation to respect and support the same in others, providing they are not harming me or mine.

98

I found these puns to be some pretty funny blasphemy. :slight_smile:

99

Oh, it matters what we call it beyond just clarifying communication. When and if subjective experiences are held up as objective evidence, for example. Whether or not the word evidence implies objective is a fair discussion but I think “reason” is the best word I can think of and it’s the one I used in responding to Liberal.

I wouldn’t need the word ‘valid’ in front of ‘reason’ if all subjective reasons are considered valid due to their subjectivity. That just gives it undeserved weight in my ear and starts to smell like an assertion of objectivity. And since I do think some things are objectively valid, I’d need the distinction made.

For me, outgrowing religion was a valid reason to reject it in my subjective. But I’d just as soon say ‘reason’ without needing to call it valid.

I believe **Liberal **has stated that the majority of objective evidence out there beyond his subjective experiences supports theism. I disagree.

I think I’m pretty much in agreement with the rest of what you said.

As for modicums of respect, etc. I’m pretty much done with that unfortunately unless I’m in the mood and feel that I’m dealing with non-agenda-driven folks.

100

I haven’t seen anyone hold up subjective experiences as objective evidence.

Would you say you have an agenda?