Live and let live in ignorance?

[I_Love_Me_Vol.I]

@the raindog

I’m gonna go out on a limb and say your ticket stub has you in the intellectual bleachers on this one.

I’m trying to figure out if this is a direct insult (it’s a little hard for me because I’m in the intellectual bleachers). If it is an insult I think you should consider taking it back.

It was you that derided a basically airtight logical augment (there is no more reason to believe in the existence of God [as commonly defined] then there is to believe in a FSM or Bigfoot). Do you know what sort of intellects people have who disagree with simple logic? Sometimes, not so good. Other times they are plty smart, just deluded. I don’t happen to sit in either set of those bleachers, do you?

It’s true that sometimes ignorance is bliss. The OP seems torn about whether this will remain to be the case for his/her mother. I have agreed with pretty much everyone else here (including you, I think) that the OP should not confront his mother on her religion.

In my original post I was simply pointing out that this is one of the horrible positions that religion puts some people in: do you try to help others see the logical fallacies of the typical “God” or do you let them live out there lives kowtowing to a make-believe game?

I will again opine that in many individuals cases concerning loved ones (like the OP’s case) you should probably let them live with a blissful ignorance but in the case of society as a whole this ignorance must by fought at every opportunity.

[Revenant_Threshold]

I agree with some bits of that, and disagree on others.

Overall, I would say that I am in general an agnostic. In theory, there are infinite possible gods, and of those infinite possible gods, there are again infinite numbers of gods that can’t be proved or disproved one way or the other using any of the tools we have at our disposal. I think that in the most general terms, the only reasonable conclusion for all people, whether they consider themselves theists or atheists, is that of general agnosticism, on both those grounds, the concept of a random universe, or just pure potential inability. And of course I don’t believe we can ever disprove or prove anything, so when I say “prove” or “disprove” further on, take it as for a certain value of proof.

That said, I disagree that a being defined as supernatural in nature cannot be studied using the tools of the natural world. Certainly this is true of a being that does not interact at all upon the natural world; a being entirely seperate, a deistic god, is entirely unprovable or provable with science or logic. A problem with that is this; an entirely supernatural god can only be observed using supernatural methods, and thus those who are believers must accept that a part of themselves is supernatural in nature (and I would think most do). Yet we may study them, and us atheists too, if the supernatural part of our nature is extended to us also. We can study those parts of us that exist and affect the natural plane. If a god, too, is not only assumed to be supernatural in nature but also to have had some impact on the natural world, then we may certainly observe those happenings.

Now, you may say that doing so doesn’t actually disprove anything about the god itself. A miracle of an apparent picture of a holy being discovered in a cave, for example, might be discovered to have been carved there by humans instead. That doesn’t disprove the god; only gives an alternate suggestion for how it might have come about. If the claim is “This could only have come about through a miracle”, then that claim may be disproved, but not the god.

But actually, we can disprove a particular god with that natural conclusion; we can disprove the existence of a god who brought about a particular event that could not have happened any other way. About the existence of a god who may not have brought about the event, it of course says nothing other than providing the alternate solution.

So natural tools can in fact disprove gods; specifically, if we can come up with alternate, natural suggestions for how events may have occurred, then any gods for whom it is suggested they alone could have caused the event are disproved. To use an actual example; should the theory of evolution be accurate, it does not disprove the existence of a god who may or may not have used it. Likewise it says nothing about a god who planted evidence to lead us to such a conclusion. However, a god for whom the creation of creatures could not have happened any other way than spontaneous creation is disproved; all that is required there is the alternative explanation.

Thus the question for me is; does the Capital G God include in its definitions anywhere the clause that something it has done could only happen because of that, and in turn can we come up with alternative, natural suggestions? If it does, and if we can, then it as a concept is certainly disproved.

Thus we arrive at a problem. It’s been suggested that the definition of the Capital G God includes that of “scientific method cannot disprove it”. Now, it is possible that this particular God also includes a definition of the type i’ve suggested above; one of “there are no natural alternative explanations for this particular thing this god caused”. Since theoretically the definition of the Captial G God could include this other definition, we can’t rule out in each and every case that scientific method cannot disprove it.

Now, it is possible the opposite is true; the overall definition of the Capital G God does not include the no-alternate-natural definition. However; if we say that the Capital G God cannot be truly defined in such a way, we need to be able to say that there is no chance that it may embody this definition supernaturally - but also that it cannot embody that definition naturally, either. And that itself is a no-alternate-natural definition, and as such is theoretically actually disprovable.

Thus we cannot say for certain that the Capital G God cannot be disproved by scientific method; either it encompasses as part of its defined nature the idea that it causes events that cannot have happened any other way, theoretically disprovable by finding alternate natural causes; or it does not, in which case accepts that it does not encompass that as part of its nature, which includes it encompassing it naturally as well as supernaturally, and so brings in the element of theoretical disproval anyway. So IOW, no, we can’t say that.

I think. Reading back on that lot, i’m sure there are plenty of holes in it, but i’m too tired to see them.

[I_Love_Me_Vol.I]

@WhyNot

Is religion the only thing, though? Going back to the question in the title and attempting to wrench this away from it’s IMHO-ness…what about other areas in which our loved ones (or we ourselves!) are ignorant?

No. By no means religion the only area where this situation can come up. I was just commenting on how IMO religion* causes problems in many ways, one of them being that some people feel torn between (1) helping folks rid themselves of delusion and (2) just letting them be. Remember-- when people suffer from just about any other kind of moderate to sever delusions family members usually try to talk them into seeking professional help. Religion one of the only delusions that is left untreated. It makes things really difficult for some people who want to help.

That being said, I did go off into something of a hijack, but imagine if the OP had said that his mother hears neutral or benevolent voices and talks backs to them. Don’t you think this thread would be full of hijacks talking about much more than whether to “live and let live in ignorance”?

It is fair game to discuss the absurdity of most religions anytime they come up. It is a serious and widespread problem that needs to be addressed–not ignored.

*the fantastical sky-god ones.

[hotflungwok]

@the raindog

It seems absolutely elementary to me that if a Supernatural God exists, he would be, by design, outside of our methods and ability to either observe or prove his existence [or non-existence].

In other words, I cannot use the natural world (and the tools in it) to observe a supernatural being.

Why? Because you conveniently define it that way? There is no reason that anything that interacts with this universe in any detectable way should be considered outside of science. If something does not interact with this universe in any detectable way, then from the point of view of this universe it does not exist.

Religionists call this sojourn outside of objective certainty towards what they may call moral certainty “faith.” Whatever it is, it is subjective in nature.

The atheist, however, must employ similar methods. He must (or, rather, should) investigate the objective evidence and then reason on the data. Whatever you want to call this process, it too is subjective.

The only subjective part of being an atheist is the point at which you conclude there is no god based on the lack of evidence. Atheism is not faith, period. An atheist does not make a ‘factual’ statement to the effect that there is no god, just that there is insufficient evidence to believe that any of the gods we have up for sale now. If actual evidence for a god comes along, then an atheist is open to it.

My issue is with those who refuse to acknowledge that there is a subjective component to their atheism. Recently, someone shut me up with the simple statement, “It’s common sense.” The atheist who takes the position—implicitly or explicitly----that there is an objective answer to the existence of God (and therefore must use the sciences; the only natural tool we have) sets himself for an argument he cannot win.

Excuse me? Of course there’s an object answer. For a definition of ‘god’, it either exists or it doesn’t. Either you can show it exists, or you can’t. If god affects the universe in any physical way, then that way has to be observable. If god doesn’t affect the universe, then why call it god? Faith has no effect on reality. You can believe that god X exists all you want, that will not bring it into existance.

[Apollyon]

@the raindog

It seems absolutely elementary to me that if a Supernatural God exists, he would be, by design, outside of our methods and ability to either observe or prove his existence [or non-existence].

In other words, I cannot use the natural world (and the tools in it) to observe a supernatural being.

So if a person insists that only objective, observable methods can be used to settle this issue, than agnosticism can be the only rational result.

I largely agree, and this is why I am agnostic. I’d contest your first statement above though – I can see no reason why you cannot stipulate that God is outside of our ability to detect or measure, but I’d argue that this is not the default position of many believers who contend that God has acted in measurable and physical ways upon the material world (whether it be creation or floods or parted seas or what have you). Objective methods should be able to measure / detect this physical interaction – even if our instruments cannot see God’s supernatural feet they should be able to see footprints in material sand.

Finding no such observable evidence does not allow (me at least) to state conclusively that God does not exist – but does undermine evidence based on acts… leaving us to conclude that either A) the acts did not occur as recorded, or B) they occurred but God chose to leave no evidence.

The fact is, scientific method can only be silent on the existence of the Capital G God.

Except that in one of the scenarios above entities are being multiplied beyond necessity (to paraphrase Occam’s Razor), and the scientific method does value a simpler theory (that fits the available facts) over a more complex one. While we cannot state categorically that “A” is correct, we can state that “A” fits as many of the observable facts as “B” and is simpler, requiring no supernatural actor.

Unlike the agnostic (perhaps) both the atheist and theist alike have progressed to the point where objective certainty ends and have felt the need to move toward another type of certainty; essentially more certainty. This is due, of course, to sentience—the unique ability that humans have to reason and a desire to make sense of their environment.

cough Agnostics aren’t sentient?

[tomndebb]

@the raindog

I’m gonna go out on a limb and say your ticket stub has you in the intellectual bleachers on this one.

I have no such confusion as I Love Me, Vol. I. This is clearly an insult and, as such, it is not appropriate to the GD Forum.

Do not do this again.
[ /Moderating ]

[prleone]

I like this thread. I must admit, the original question and many responses
are moe than wise and well thought.

I am an athesist, my Catholic family is accepting,
but you do not tell your mother she is wrong
about her belief and faith.

It seems she gave you choice. I doubt she’ll
ever disown you for it.

Best advice, please show her your alternative
logic and reasons for doubt without attacking
or denouncing her trusted faith.

She was born in a different time and place,
always respect her choices (or submissions)
as a human, not just a Christian.

Damn, sounds like a good human to me
from your description.

[raindog]

@tomndebb

I have no such confusion as I Love Me, Vol. I. This is clearly an insult and, as such, it is not appropriate to the GD Forum.

Do not do this again.
[ /Moderating ]

Actually, it seems clear to me that you are confused, and I resent you going off half cocked.

In the event I Love Me, Vol. I is similarly confused, I’ll premptively apologize to I Love Me, Vol. I and further clarify my thoughts.

It was my point, then and now, that I Love Me, Vol. I could not provide an answer that was substantively different than the repsonse given by Nametag and challenged him as such.

Read my words again. there is no argument that I Love Me, Vol. I—or anyone else—could muster that would render Mojo Pin’s mom’s beliefs objectively inferior to Mojo Pin’s; and that, in effect, I Love Me, Vol. I couldn’t get any closer than the bleachers in assailing her beliefs.

It would seem that my words weren’t clear enough to draw that distinction, unclear enough that I Love Me, Vol. I wasn’t sure if I intended to insult him. But you know, huh?

I Love Me, Vol. I, I apologize if it appeared to you that I was trying to insult you. Far from it. The fact is, I enjoy your posts. The “bleachers” comment was a reference to the fragility of any argument that seeks to label atheism as anything but another subjective belief system.

[raindog]

rescinded.

will repost

[I_Love_Me_Vol.I]

@the raindog

I Love Me, Vol. I, I apologize if it appeared to you that I was trying to insult you. Far from it. The fact is, I enjoy your posts. The “bleachers” comment was a reference to the fragility of any argument that seeks to label atheism as anything but another subjective belief system.

It indeed seemed to be an insult to me. I was kinda joking when I said I wasn’t sure. The idea was that since I am in the “intellectual bleachers” I was too dumb to discern your insult.

But, I accept your apology. I often wonder about the folks in the “intellectual bleachers” too (nice phrase, BTW). IMO when it comes to discussions on God (or the lack thereof) there are more folks in the bleachers then on the field. Hell, there are a lot of folks not even in the ballpark-- they’re on the intellectual rooftops-across-the-street.

About atheism being just “another subjective belief system”-- that has been covered so many times on this Board. I suppose any belief is subjective when you get right down to it. That includes the belief that you are a human being and not a robotic chihuahua.

Robotic chihuahua. An absurd thought, isn’t it? It’s kind of like the IPU or the FSM. That’s why those (FSM, IPU) arguments are so compelling and IMO, unshakable. Because the very absurdity of a belief in an Invisible Pink Unicorn is logically speaking, a precise duplicate of the belief in a magic Sky God.

That’s what I was trying to get at in my first post responding to your casual and perhaps somewhat flippant dismissal of the FSM/IPU/orbiting teapot argument. It seems to me that many theists (not necessarily you) just hate those arguments and will denigrate them any chance they get. Yet I have never seen a good logical refutation of those elegantly simple propositions. Maybe there is one-- but I don’t recall ever coming across it.

[begbert2]

Th debate over the existence of god in this thread irritates me, because it doesn’t belong here. (raindog’s comments specifically sicken me, because I’m allergic to fallacious arguments.)
Answering the actual OP, your mother already knows you’re atheist. So you’re not living a lie or anything, and that’s good. As for presenting your arguments, you should only do that if one of two things happens:

1. she preaches at you, like raindog’s doing here to us. By broaching the subject she invites you to at the very least explain why you’re not convinced by the arguments/sermons she presents to you, and further she has opened the door for other challenges that are not specifically rebuttals…though I don’t know that I’d recommend getting to crazy about that, except for general arguments for complete disbelief in sky-fairy (which underpin other rebuttals pretty naturally). Note that the licence to debate due to her broaching the subject is limited in duration; when the conversation ends, then it’s over, and you don’t bring it up again until she does.

2. The other case where ‘prostelytizing atheism’ is appropriate is if you believe that she is doing harm as a result of her religious hobby. For example, my brother has a young child, and he and my mother are working industriously to brainwash her to have the same imaginary friend they do. This is, of course, a vile and cruel behavior, and I am morally compelled to criticize it. However, one should be aware that you will never succeed in convincing them to change their evil ways, and therefore you should argue it as little as your conscience will allow, lest you do severe damage to your relationship with your mother, or lest you get too frustrated and have an aneurism. Neither of those outcomes is desirable, so one should attempt to balance their moral obligations and these other concerns to minimize unhappiness.

[raindog]

hotflungwok, in my view you are a perfect example of an atheist who’s become a religionist.

Case in point:

God objectively doesn’t exist. hotflungwok said:“Why? Because you conveniently define it that way? There is no reason that anything that interacts with this universe in any detectable way should be considered outside of science. If something does not interact with this universe in any detectable way, then from the point of view of this universe it does not exist.”

It’s not me who saying it. It’s science. Science makes no claim that it has the tools to establish the existence of a supernatural person, or spirit person.

Not only that, there are many, many, many things that intersect in the universe that science cannot detect. Do they not exist? Of course not. In fact, by your definition, galaxies other than the Milky Way didn’t exist until circa 1925.

Science does not, and would not, take the position, “If something does not interact with this universe in any detectable way, then from the point of view of this universe it does not exist.”

Only a religionist would.

God’s non-existence is now qualified. hotflungwok said: "The only subjective part of being an atheist is the point at which you conclude there is no god based on the lack of evidence. Atheism is not faith, period. An atheist does not make a ‘factual’ statement to the effect that there is no god, just that there is insufficient evidence to believe that any of the gods we have up for sale now. If actual evidence for a god comes along, then an atheist is open to it.

The comment , “The only subjective part of being an atheist is the point at which you conclude there is no god based on the lack of evidence…” is in direct contradiction to the comment, “If something does not interact with this universe in any detectable way, then from the point of view of this universe it does not exist.”

Science cannot objectively establish God’s existence. Can science objectively establish the non-existence of God?
**
I submit science’s answer to those questions is**, “I cannot establish through human observation the existence or non-existence of a supernatural God.”

In contrast, I submit the religionist’s answer to those questions is, “If something does not interact with this universe in any detectable way, then from the point of view of this universe it does not exist.”

It’s clear which camp you’re in.

(I’d also take note of the comment, “The only subjective part of being an atheist is the point at which you conclude there is no god based on the lack of evidence…”. Atheism is defined by the subjective belief that no God exists based on the lack of evidence! Did you think this “small” fact was a footnote? If you take this “only subjective part” out, atheism ceases to exist! With this logic, OJ isn’t a murderer except for those two bodies out on the sidewalk.)

Excuse me? Of course there’s an object answer. For a definition of ‘god’, it either exists or it doesn’t.

Right!, and consistent with science.

Either you can show it exists, or you can’t.

Right again!, and consistent with science.

If god affects the universe in any physical way, then that way has to be observable.

Wrong!, and and not consistent with science. (although compatible with a subjective belief system)

If god doesn’t affect the universe, then why call it god?

Beats me. That is a subjective assesment. Some would call it a question of faith.

Faith has no effect on reality.

Beats me again. What is reality? This much I know: the answer is *subjective. *

You can believe that god X exists all you want, that will not bring it into existance.

I suspect that’s true, but I have no scientific basis *to prove it.
*

[raindog]

“…hey’re on the intellectual rooftops-across-the-street…”

A reference to Wrigley Field/ Waveland Avenue perhaps…??

[raindog]

@begbert2

Th debate over the existence of god in this thread irritates me, because it doesn’t belong here. (raindog’s comments specifically sicken me, because I’m allergic to fallacious arguments.)
Answering the actual OP, your mother already knows you’re atheist. So you’re not living a lie or anything, and that’s good. As for presenting your arguments, you should only do that if one of two things happens:

1. she preaches at you, like raindog’s doing here to us. By broaching the subject she invites you to at the very least explain why you’re not convinced by the arguments/sermons she presents to you, and further she has opened the door for other challenges that are not specifically rebuttals…though I don’t know that I’d recommend getting to crazy about that, except for general arguments for complete disbelief in sky-fairy (which underpin other rebuttals pretty naturally). Note that the licence to debate due to her broaching the subject is limited in duration; when the conversation ends, then it’s over, and you don’t bring it up again until she does.

2. The other case where ‘prostelytizing atheism’ is appropriate is if you believe that she is doing harm as a result of her religious hobby. For example, my brother has a young child, and he and my mother are working industriously to brainwash her to have the same imaginary friend they do. This is, of course, a vile and cruel behavior, and I am morally compelled to criticize it. However, one should be aware that you will never succeed in convincing them to change their evil ways, and therefore you should argue it as little as your conscience will allow, lest you do severe damage to your relationship with your mother, or lest you get too frustrated and have an aneurism. Neither of those outcomes is desirable, so one should attempt to balance their moral obligations and these other concerns to minimize unhappiness.

Take a shot of Pepto-Bismol and belly up to the keyboard.

Please note that I am not taking a position for God in this thread. AFAIK, he doesn’t exist.

No my friend, I’m a minuteman patrolling the borders of science and doing my darndest to keep the undesirables at bay.

If you’d like to be my brother at arms, I extend to you the secret handshake of atheism. We simply require intellectual purity.

We don’t violate the objective accomplishments and sterling record of science by forcing words and subjective doctrines down it’s throat.

Sure, we accept that our atheism is subjective in nature. In the same breath, and as a means of distinguishing us from the subjective caprice of the believers, we are quite willing to defend our beliefs with objective fact, science, reason and logic. It’s a devastating combination I tell you.

I’m aware that some would call that witnessing. But by maintaining intellectual honesty, science isn’t denigrated into a defacto religion.

Can I count on your support?

[raindog]

ETA: please note that in post #72 the words in quote boxes that are bolded and underlined are my words.

more later, life intervenes…

[raindog]

Let me correct and clarify this point.

@hotflungwok

If god affects the universe in any physical way,then that way has to be observable.

Right once again! and consistent with science. If god affects the universe in any physical way , than those physical effects would be observable. (“that way”)

Those effects, in themselves, are not God, nor do they guarantee that God himself is observable. Further, to the extent he is not observable we cannot therefore scientifically conclude any observable phenomenon is "the hand of God"or has some other causation. For the exact same reason they cannot establish his existence, they cannot establish his non-existence.

[Apollyon]

@the raindog

Science makes no claim that it has the tools to establish the existence of a supernatural person, or spirit person.

Science should make no claim that it has the tools to establish the existence or non-existence of a supernatural / spirit person who is not detectable by scientific methods.

Not only that, there are many, many, many things that intersect in the universe that science cannot detect.

Prove it. (Objective / scientific proofs only please).

n fact, by your definition, galaxies other than the Milky Way didn’t exist until circa 1925.

Oh, humbug. Are you seriously suggesting that light from other galaxies didn’t reach earth until “discovered” by scientists? That 18th C “nebulae” weren’t actually galaxies until 1920 and the “Great Debate”?

Science does not, and would not, take the position, “If something does not interact with this universe in any detectable way, then from the point of view of this universe it does not exist.”

But science can and should take the position that if something has no detectable effect on the universe then it may be effectively discounted for practical consideration, and that the simplest theory that fits the facts is preferable to one that requires additional entities. (Particularly additional undetectable entities!) Else we would be unable to make any useful scientific observations: either the combination of these two chemical compounds had an effect, or the effect was caused by an undetectable additional entity. Which of these is more scientific?

Science cannot objectively establish God’s existence. Can science objectively establish the non-existence of God?
**
I submit science’s answer to those questions is**, “I cannot establish through human observation the existence or non-existence of a supernatural God.”

I would modify and extend the statement: "I cannot establish through scientific observation the existence or non-existence of a supernatural God about whom no falsifiable statements may be made".

In contrast, I submit the religionist’s answer to those questions is, “If something does not interact with this universe in any detectable way, then from the point of view of this universe it does not exist.”

I would submit that something that is (completely) undetectable does not in fact “exist” for any commonly understood value of “exist”. Gods (of all sort of shapes and flavours) most certainly do “exist” – I have mythology books full of them. Unicorns and dragons exist in precisely the same way. We have no scientific evidence for unicorns or dragons however, and most people would agree that they (most probably) have no objective existence outside of stories and fables. Regarding gods the question is the same: do they / have they ever existed outside of stories?

[ch4rl3s]

@Napier

…
Also, it’s typical of a religion that it holds some entity someplace to be more important than all of humanity, and it’s possible in the extreme for that kind of mindset to do more horrible damage than any athiest mindset could justify…

You mean like this athiest mindset? :
“God does not exist. Existence is everything. The only proper objective is to survive, to continue to exist by getting my genes into the next generation… By whatever means possible. If I have to nuke one or more continents to secure the survival of my offspring, then bring on the radioactive fallout, (over them of course.)”

How is that not a perfectly reasonable athiest mindset? Why should I care about **anything ** other than my survival and the survival of my genes? Other things have importance only as they relate to that.

Yeah, I can see how harmless that is.
sort of like this thread…
Parents - would you sacrifice SOMEONE ELSE’S life for your child?

where people posited the destruction of Australia, amongst other places, (and one poster included the rest of humanity,) to secure the existence of their child. And most admitted it wasnt’ a moral position, just a survival issue.

[ch4rl3s]

@DanBlather

Religious beliefs don’t get a special dispensation from rational thought.

“oooh, oooh, ooooh.” (hand raised and asking to field this one.)

um, it’s not a special dispensation, but it is a dispensation.

Rational thought will never prove everything that is true. There will always be any number of statements that are true that can never be proven. (that statement has been rationally proven, though.) So, I propose that there should be some system for trying to find those things that are true but can’t be proven…

Logic is a consistant system, and as such, can never be complete.
Religion is a system that strives for completeness, and as such, will be inconsistant.

There is a place for both rational thought, and faith. I believe in both.
I even believe in things-which-may-not-be-true, if they are useful. (Like a belief in God keeping someone from despair.)

[Napier]

>The only proper objective is to survive, to continue to exist by getting my genes into the next generation… By whatever means possible. If I have to nuke one or more continents to secure the survival of my offspring, then bring on the radioactive fallout, (over them of course.)" How is that not a perfectly reasonable athiest mindset? Why should I care about anything other than my survival and the survival of my genes? Other things have importance only as they relate to that.

One way in which this is not a perfectly reasonable athiest mindset is that it says “The only proper objective is to survive” but offers no reason at all for the statement. Unsurprisingly, such a bizarre and arbitrary worldview could lead to some disappointing behavior. Why in the world would there be no other proper objectives? Why wouldn’t it be equally reasonable to state that the only proper objective is to hide dead fish in shopping malls to make them smell bad?

It pains this athiest to see suffering in the world, and I feel motivated to try to alleviate or prevent it. I feel good inside when I give or receive or witness caring and helpful gestures. So, alleviating suffering and being helpful seem to me to be very proper objectives.