Thesis: Both theism and atheism are rational beliefs within their own epistemologies.
Argument:
Which is more of a rational belief, to conclude that parallel lines never intersect, or to conclude that parallel lines always intersect? Obviously the answer is dependent upon whether you are operating within Euclidean or non-Eucledian space; the statement is not a conclusion at all - it is a basic postulate from which other deductions are reached. As a conclusion each statement is a tautology within each system and of course rational to hold.
So it is with God belief and atheism. Belief or non-belief are postulates within theistic and purely empirical constructs. Arguments between those who operate within the different constructs are misguided as they behave as if they are beginning with the same sets of postulates and are arguing merely about the conclusions made. They as silly as arguing Euclidian and a non-Euclidian geometricians arguing about whether or not parallel lines intersect.
But, you may argue, we can not only deduce, we can infer. We can state that our world behaves in a Euclidian fashion because we observe it to be so. Yet others can observe phenomena which are better described according to non-Euclidian thinking. Which is reality? Is one more rational?
Some see the world and experience the universe, its beauty and mystery, and induce that God must exist; others see the presence of evil and induce that there is no God. Induction does not help us much.
In geometry at least we can accept that reality can behave in accordance with more than one set of postulates and choose the maths that fit our need. We can make a rational choice about which postulates we accept for which kind of problem even though we know that both cannot actually be true. Perhaps it should be so with god belief? Perhaps sometimes the rational decision is to believe that parallel lines never intersect even if reality is non-Euclidian after all?
In a higher-order framework, there is no deep difference between Euclidean and non-Euclidean geometry; that does, however, not imply that there might not be one between theism and atheism.
Reasoning by analogy generally doesn’t constitute valid argument, since the analogy does not necessarily hold for all cases, and here, because essentially the different geometries are just manifestations of the same underlying principles, you assume your conclusion that theism and atheism are equivalent, it seems to me.
Wrong; theism is fundamentally irrational. It’s based on faith, not facts or reason. Theism requires outright denial of reason on some level - there’s no rational reason to buy a word of any religion, since they have zero facts to base them on.
Wrong, belief doesn’t fit the facts; non-belief does. Just making things up because you like to believe them is NOT as rational as basing your beliefs on facts. Nor does religion tend to internally hold together logically.
Because the theists are deluding themselves, or lying. There IS no evidence for a God.
Geometry is arbitrary because it’s human-defined. Reality is what it is, and all our arrogant insistence that God MUST exist because we really want him to won’t make it true. So no, it’s nothing like geometry.
I might buy your argument if it were for some form of deism (where the attributes of a higher power are not assumed, or known) but for theism, where there are very real, and very wrong, notions about who god is and what rules he he has set down I just don’t buy it. It’s demonstrably false.
It seems to me that theists are simply terrified of having to say “I don’t know” and so, to avoid it, they make shit up.
What you say is true to precisely the same extent that it is true that all beliefs act this way. You have given nothing to distinguish theism vs. atheism from, say, “9/11 was an inside job” vs. “9/11 was not an inside job”. Your argument does not establish any difference between the merits of arguing over the former and those of arguing over the latter.
I’d say it’s more a matter of the OP trying to pretend that those distinguishing properties don’t exist. He/she draws a false analogy between different premises about human-created geometry, and between different premises about objective reality. The Euclidean or non-Euclidean “argument” can’t be resolved because one side is true or false if we say it is; whereas there either is, or is not a God, and our opinions either way won’t change the truth. And the evidence ( and LACK of evidence ) leans heavily towards “not”.
In other words, the Euclidean or non-Euclidean dispute has no “true” side ( at least until we declare which one is true for a problem ); while the God argument does. But the OP wants to pretend they are identical in nature.
Theism. Deism.
Can’t say I understand your point. I mean most broadly having a god(s) concept. Not any particular set of revealed truths.
Indistinguishable, those statements are potentially falsifiable with observations. One has been falsified, the other not. God existence or non-existence are not falsifiable beliefs, despite Der’s standard postings.
Half, yet analogy making is often all we have. In this case it holds up at least to some degree: each side argues as if they are arguing about conclusions yet they are actually arguing about postulates - therefore they are doomed to talk right past each other.
Me, I’m a pantheist myself, in the tradition of Spinoza. Hard to know if that is really a god belief or not. Certainly not how most of the religious would define it. But I see the rationality of beliefs that I do not have.
Only because some of the believers over the centuries have retreated and retreated in the face of science until they have carefully created a version of God that doesn’t do anything detectable. God, and religion HAVE been falsified again and again; the non-falsifiable God you are defending is a remnant created specifically to be non-falsifiable. And, it’s a version of God that doesn’t appear to be believed in by most believers anyway; most as far as I know still believe in an interventionist God that does the sorts of things that science could study, if they actually happened.
You are also ignoring my point that there is no equivalence between a viewpoint that has all the facts behind it, and one that has none. AND, you are ignoring Occam’s Razor, which by itself disqualifies God and no-god as “equivalent”.
Still, it remains analogy and not argument, and you can’t validly conclude anything from it. Especially since, in the case of different geometries, there is a unifying framework from which to derive valid arguments for either case, which does not appear to exist in the ‘theism vs. atheism’ case.
But then, I may just be a biased observer, since I’m arguing a conflicting case with this thread, where I try to lay down an outline of arguments that leads to atheism being in fact the more fundamental stance from which to derive a description of the world as it is.
Euclidian and non-Euclidian geometry are both internally consistent and logical. However, the fact that we can construct such abstract frameworks says NOTHING about whether or not those frameworks accurately model reality.
Reality is one or the other. For a long time it looked like it was Euclidian. Now astronomers suspect that reality is actually non-Euclidian on large scales. Eventually we’ll probably know for sure one way or the other.
There’s either is a God or there isn’t one. Either the atheists are right, or the theists are. Both sides may be able to construct internally consistent, logical frameworks around their particular position, but only one of those frameworks will accurately model reality.
if you are arguing for a broad god concept with no particular theology (and none that would need to be developed) then the OP should be corrected to point out that you are contrasting atheism with deism, and not with theism. Theism makes specific claims about the nature of a god concept (and is therefore falsifiable), deism does not. Theism = theology… they have the same root.
Although I would further point out that for all intents and purposes a deistic universe and an athiestic universe only differ philosophically (they do not differ at all in the material processes, but deism makes a claim that cannot be known or tested about the “source,” essentially, in my mind, a worthless claim driven by anthropocentric thinking and ego.) This contrast may not fit the criteria of the OP.
It depends on what we take falsifiability to mean…
If “X is falsifiable” means something like “it is possible to convince someone that X is false”, then there is a deixistic aspect; falsifiability is in the eye of the beholder. Not everyone agrees on what observations falsify what claims. The atheist can be satisfied that God’s existence has been falsified by any of the usual arguments, even where the theist would not be. And the 9/11 conspiracy theorist is just as well able to persistently refuse to consider their beliefs falsified as anyone else; they, too, can pull off such Quinean tricks as to fashion their belief “non-falsifiably”. Again, there would be no difference between theism and any other belief.
Alternatively, perhaps “X is falsifiable” contains more normative content, meaning something like “it is possible to present an argument that X is false which anyone should find convincing, whether or not they actually do”. But, to simply assert from the start that God’s existence is non-falsifiable in this sense is to beg the question; it is to assume that there is no compelling reason to disbelieve in God, without providing such further argument as would convince anyone who was not already of the same mind.
To the OP, why not “gods”? Why doesn’t a non-euclidian universe lead to a herd of magical narwhal that poop solar systems? Why doesn’t it lead to the universe being recursive through itself–i.e. it begins and contains itself in an endless loop? In a non-euclidian space, why can’t parallel lines spiral around one another or diverge away from one another endlessly?
Saying that something is “possible” doesn’t mean that it’s likely and it certainly doesn’t mean that all of the other billions of possible answers are wrong and this one is right.
Sure it’s possible there’s a single, sentient and loving deity. But it’s also possible that we’re narwhal poop. Show me a smoking gun for one of these infinite options and I’ll care. Otherwise you’re just blowing smoke up my ass.
The primary purpose of a deity is to make the believer “feel better” or to have them feel the universe “makes sense.” There’s no geometric or physical difference, but rather a difference in the emotional state of the adherent.
So, I suppose, in reference to the OP, I think your analogy is way off base, unless you are suggesting that emotional=mathematical.
To those who find belief in a deity important please learn to say “I don’t know.”
Every morning when you get up, look at yourself in the mirror and repeat 10 times “there are things that we don’t know yet, and that’s okay.”
Or carry on believing, but please don’t delude yourselves into thinking that this belief is rational or implied (by your physical reality.) Accept that it’s a matter of the non-rational, and carry on with other, more important, tasks… like separating your garbage for recycling.
:dubious: That’s a very strong statement. How do you defend your statement when some people present their personal experiences as “evidence” for the existence of God? Or supposed miracles or “Holy books” or the universe itself as evidence?
Evidence isn’t the same thing as proof, right? And evidence can be insufficient and not compelling, can’t it? What does “no evidence” mean to you?
If I may, consider what happens when different personal experiences are described, or different scripture is produced. If I print a copy of Genesis that is identical in all respects to the King James version but in it I claim the universe was created in seven days and God rested on the eighth, am I wrong? Is the KJV wrong? Can you prove it either way?
Catchy Wins. Click the links. The words do not mean what you think they mean. Also you haveme confused with someone arguing that God or god exists. I am not particularly religious myself. I also disagree with your belief as to the purpose of a diety, but that is a different discussion.
Indistinguishable. I mean falsifiable in the Popperian sense of the word. Not as an argument convinces.
Sage Rat. I am not arguing for the existence of God or Gods, merely that such a belief is, in its own way, as rational as nonbelief. Your ass is free to be a nonsmoking zone as far as I care. I do not believe that there is any evidence even possible that can prove or disprove the existence of God or gods, even if individual religious beliefs are easily falsifiable. I am not defending any particular religion.
I also would argue that it is sometimes a rational choice to believe irrational things, but that is also a different discussion. (Which has nothing to do with Pascal’s bet btw.)
But for the broad concept of god induction is worthless and deduction is dependent upon the assumptions that one makes.
