Once someone claims that something is not proveable nor falsifiable then we have left the realms of science completely.
No amount of rational argument can bridge that gap. People will contend that there is a different “type” of “knowing” that stands outside the physical and scientific.
Perhaps there is but I have yet to see in what way it is useful nor any way in which it impacts on my life in any meaningful way (or in a way that cannot be also explained by the natural). I guess the harshest charge against that is that if such knowing exists in the supernatural and intangible, in what way is it useful?
That’s exactly right. Even accepting a religious moral framework requires the individual to first make an autocratic, unassisted moral assessment that it’s the right thing to do.
Nah. The existence of an invisible, intangible, pink unicorn is pretty earth-shattering and has some strange scientific ramifications but, like most Christians, I was raised from youth to [del]think[/del] know that it’s there, so I’m accustomed to it.
Exactly, so there’s ultimately no difference between a theistic and atheistic framework. It still just boils down to the individual deciding for himself what is moral.
I don’t deny the religious experience, I spent a good period of my life pursuing them through various methods, and I succeeded in having a couple of experiences myself. That doesn’t mean they have any objective truth value, though. I’m certain that my own experiences were self-generated, no matter how profound they may have seemed at the time. When I really thought about them afterwards, I realized I hadn’t actually learned anything I didn’t already know.
Yes, I’m aware of this, however is something revealed to you if you can’t detect it or there isn’t a proof for it?
I’m not denying it’s possible, but putting on my theist shoes for a moment, I can’t imagine how I could say I know X or Y, just by revelation.
Maybe I’m being overly pedantic here, but it seems to be that if you take away rational proofs and the ability to be detected all you are left with is faith.
At least, that’s all I can think of (and I freely admit I could be wrong) and I can’t see how anyone could make a claim that they know something is true and then appeal to faith.
(I recognize that some people do just this, but it seems to me to be contradictory).
Okay, well if it doesn’t affect you it makes me wonder how you know it’s there. But to each his own.
I think it’s a semantic issue. If your definition of “knowing” requires scientific proof, then you’re right that revelation doesn’t meet that standard. If we had proof, we wouldn’t need revelation would we? Ultimately, it is based on faith which comes from personal experience (and, to quote Paul, by God’s grace).
Oh, it affects me. I just feel all warm and tingly inside knowing that no matter what happens that unicorn will be there under my bed, you know? Yeah you do.
Well if the OP wanted people merely to report ‘what changed them’, and leave it at that, they could have posted in IMHO. Posting in GD means, you say what changed you, then people try to rip it apart. And good for them.
I think here you are confusing moral ontology with moral epistemology. Theists believe that an objective morality framework does really exist, although knowing truly what that framework is may be difficult. Atheism (at least consistent atheism) denies that any such framework exists and that all possible frameworks are ultimately subjective. That is a huge difference in views of morality.
Of course all views of morality are subjective in the sense that they are shaped by the view of reality that the individual has. But then if you follow that line of reasoning all statements, including scientific statements, are inherently subjective. Science also relies on the subjective view of reality of the individual, and so in your sense something like evolutionary theory is just a subjective choice as is creationism, because each person picks and chooses what they believe.
Whether or not something is objectively real is separate from how we know what the objectively real is. Theists believe that morality is objectively real, where as atheists I think cannot. How anyone knows what that objective reality actually consists of is a different question.
I think you are confusing the positions of “lacking a belief in God” with "lacking a belief about God. The distinction is that someone that has no God beliefs, either positive or negative, lacks a belief about God. Someone who lacks a belief in God is someone that does not say that God exists. All people who lack a belief about God also lack belief in God. However not all that lack belief in God also lack belief about God.
Babies and infants lack beliefs about God, simply because they have never thought about it, and so also lack a belief in God. Someone like Richard Dawkins does not lack beliefs about God. He positively asserts that it is almost certain that God does not exist. So while Richard Dawkins lacks belief in God, he believes himself to have definite knowledge about the concept of God. To suggest that babies and Richard Dawkins are atheists in the same sense then I think is quite silly. Nor do I think it descriptively useful to say that all babies are born atheists, because of this dsitinction between beliefs in God and beliefs about God. Until you understand that distinction I don’t think we can make much progress.
If you really want to stick with the definition of atheism as “the lack of belief in God”, then for the definition to me meaningful I would say that atheists also do have belief/s about God, namely about the non-existence of Gods.
The distinction comes into play when you consider the truth claims of other positions like theism. Someone who affirms that theism is incorrect does have a belief about Gods (namely that they do not exist) while at the same time lacking a belief in God. If you really do have no beliefs about God, then you have no basis for saying that any other belief about God is actually incorrect. And if you do have beliefs about God then those beliefs require justification just as any other belief does.
The problem in these debates is that atheists often will use their beliefs in the non-existence of God to claim that theism is false. Then, whenever they are challenged on this they simply retreat to the position that they have no beliefs, and therefore their position requires no justification. However if you want to say that my position of theism is actually wrong, or indeed any position, that can only be done from a position of knowledge about reality. And that supposed knowledge can be questioned and reasons for it can be sought. Refusing to engage with the reasons why you think other beliefs are wrong is simply refusing to engage in the issues at hand. If you refuse to offer any arguements at all for your position, then there is no possibility of debate, nor should I think that your position is somehow better than mine.
The belief in what I would call exclusive atheism (that it is correct to lack belief in Gods and that other views are wrong) is making a positive claim. That is only true if God does not in fact exist, and so if you want to say that my theist posiition is incorrect you necessarily are making the positive claim that God does not exist. If you want to say that my theist position is just as valid as an atheist position then that requires no positive claim. However hardly any of the people that adopt the label “atheist” would be happy with that statement.
If this is the road you want to go down, we’re going to be here a long time naming everything people don’t believe in, Thor, Spaghetti Monsters and teapots around Jupiter.
Some things, like Thor, I think don’t exist on the basis of logical contradiction, not on the basis of lack of evidence. So for instance if Jesus really is God then logically Thor (at least in the sense of the deity Thor) cannot exist. So this is very different to the typical atheist claim that Thor does not exist on the basis of lack of evidence.
Other things, like the teapot around Jupiter I would say may exist. However since it is a completely contrived example it has no bearing on my life whether I believe it to exist or not, and so I can safely remain agnostic about it.