Raindogs comments.. [on belief and proof - edited title]

Great Debates
1

[QUOTE=Raindog]
<-----strong theism----------------------strong belief for-----------------------weak belief for-----------------| no belief either way; agnosticism |--------------------weak belief against--------------------strong belief against--------------------strong atheism----->

Either your position can be objectively proven, or it cannot. All of our positions (except for the pure agnostic) have elements that are both objective and subjective.

Both the atheist the theist have the known objective scientific “truths” before us. From the human genome to the cosmos, we have the same evidence to interpret. But the fact is, once we cross over from objective fact, we are espousing subjective belief. It doesn’t matter how compelling the evidence is to you (and it shouldn’t be lost on anyone that both the atheist and theist most often rely on the same data) you are doing nothing more than sharing your inferences from the objective evidence; you are witnessing for your belief.

The theist has previewed the data and concluded that there is a God. The stronger that conviction------IOW, the greater the moral certainty-----the more blurred the lines between objectivity and subjectivity become;* to the point that they all look objective.* (see: kanicbird)

The atheist is on the opposite side of the same row boat. It is not a minor distinction to go from “there is not enough evidence for me to believe in God”, to “there is no god.” The moment you go from no position to a position of belief for/against the existence God/god, you are leaving objectivity towards subjectivity. And to the extent you wish to proclaim your atheism you are witnessing for your subjective beliefs.

I think it’s disconcerting to the point of nausea for the SDMB atheists to admit the kinship that atheism and theism share. The bedrock of both is a set of beliefs.

So, instead of embracing their faith, we get an Abbott & Costello “who’s on first?” routine.
[/QUOTE]

The evidence you are speaking of is “that which we dont understand.” Largely you are referring to a person with a friend sick who has an incurable disease. If the friend gets better the theist says “it must have been my prayer, thank God.” The atheist would say “Wow, you are really lucky!”

The evidence here isnt the same. The theist is attributing non-evidence to their belief in God. It is not a subjective position to say “since there is no evidence for the existence of God, God does not exist.” It is a rational argument and objective position.

The true difference in this situation is that the atheist doesnt know why the person got get better, so they dont make a judgement on what caused it. The theist assumes it was God. There is a huge leap in logic between the two points. The theist position may have the same evidence, but they have discounted every single other option without reason. The atheist simply doesnt make a judgement on the situation for why they got better.

It is this lack of assumption that leads to the atheistic position.

Put simply, there is 0 evidence for God as I see it. You may interpret the evidence differently, but the fact is that you are making assumptions in choosing your evidence, I am not (or at least to a much lesser degree). This is why an atheist gets upset when you say that they have a similar belief system. I understand that my example is a little narrow, but I think it shows what I wanted it to.

In my opinion, an idea which is impossible to disprove which also has no evidence proving it is considered false until it is proven in some way.

If you are going to reply, please define God and Belief. A lot of problems are solved when you define terms..

2

Here’s how I see it, and why I consider myself agnostic:

  1. None of the evidence purported by theists can be considered empirical, direct or indirect.

  2. What the hard sciences shows us of nature and reality is still a very incomplete picture, and we can’t know the bounds of how far our instruments will be able to reach, given whatever time and further developments science, technology and research may have in store for us.

  3. We do not yet know, no matter how unlikely it seems at this juncture, whether or not finding empirical evidence for God is possible.

  4. Believing in something which has no empirical evidence is a matter of faith.

  5. Dismissing the possibility of something as yet un-testible (despite all signs pointing to damn near un-testible as we don’t even have one good hypothesis), is a matter of rejection.

Given this, I believe the proper position, as a rational, open-minded thinker, is to remain dead-center agnostic.

3

I didn’t give my definition of what I would consider “God”… but it’s sort of inferred.

I believe anything that created or is a part of this universe/reality to be natural, therefore there is no such thing as “supernatural” as any newly discovered physical nature would, by definition, become natural.*

Just as when the Nuclear Forces were postulated in the 30s, it wasn’t confirmed until the 60s and 70s. This doesn’t mean it was “supernatural” before, nor would anyone describe it as such retroactively.

*that is to say, there would be some laws of physics that could describe it.

4

+1

5

Very interesting.

My issue with it, however, is it presupposes that, in time, everything can be ‘discoverable.’

In truth, to the extent something/someone is supernatural they will always be undiscoverable by natural means. The fact that ‘Nuclear Forces’ weren’t discovered until the 70’s doesn’t mean they were [implicitly] considered supernatural retroactively.

6

I’ll post as an atheist if you’d like. Your post veers a bit and seems to lack some cohesion.

But I’ll say this much: It is a rational position to say that “It is not a subjective position to say “since there is no evidence for the existence of God, God does not exist.””

It is not objective, however.

7

But that’s just it. We can’t assume everything there is to know about reality is discoverable.

Also, anything that can interact with nature, should be able to be detected using some sort of instrument, assuming the technology to test for it is feasible and, of course practical.

If a thing were supernatural, how could it interact with nature? Unless God spirited himself away to a void somewhere and doesn’t interact with nature. But now we’re into the murky depths of fringe philosophy, where you can dream up any scenario of this sort (And this isn’t the typical God most theists believe in, that can and do interact with his creation).

8

+1

9

I apologize for the incoherence, I tend to write what comes to mind with little filtering. Im sure my profs/TA’s love me for it.

My definition of objective is probably the issue. I define something as objective when it is based on evidence alone. Based on my position that there is no evidence for God, I have an objective position that there is no God. Perhaps this is pointless as my definition doesn’t matter.

The facts (documented and efficiently proven instances) are that there are no cases in which physical laws are broken which would imply a God acted. It is not a subjective opinion given this information to say that God does not exist. In any case where God has been posited, it is either the case that it is proven nothing supernatural happened, or we arent equipped enough to interpret the data, or the data does not exist. There is no opinion in this, except for the opinion that God did it. Any other position is simply “I/we dont know”.

I/we dont know makes the assumption that all options are possible, but it is very likely all but one are wrong, so we discard all options until one has evidence suggesting it had an effect. In this case God becomes irrelevant to the scenario.

10

I am with you up until #5 and the conclusion. My problem with your wrap up is you can replace the word God in the above and it becomes non-sensical. Are you agnostic on the existence of leprechauns, demons, and fairies? If not, why the difference?

11

“I don’t know” is a statement that can and should be used, unabashedly, in life in general and science specifically. Encouraged even.

12

Because Leprechauns, demons, and fairies aren’t posited as the creator of the universe. In that sense it all comes down to the most profound question ever:

Why is there something, rather than nothing?

Now, sure, this begs the question, as does postulating the existence of a God to bring it forth. But here we are asking it, and to be completely honest with ourselves… we don’t know.

::shrug::

13

Does Santa Claus exist?
Does the Loch Ness Monster exist?
Were the moon landings faked?
Is Superman only a fictional character?

14

True.

So we can say-----both rationally and objectively------“that it is possible, if not highly likely, that there are elements of our natural world that we don’t understand, including some elements we’re completely unaware of at this point. Further, science is unable through natural means to “discover” a supernatural being (should one even exist).”

So the agnostic says “the data isn’t compelling enough for me to take a position. I withhold my opinion until better data is available.” (implicitly leaving the door open for either eventuality) The agnostic stops short of subjective inferences based on the objective data.

The theist says, “the data is compelling enough to conclude than an intelligence force is behind all of this.” (and that belief takes thousands of different forms, even among people of like faiths; from YEC to evolutionary Christians.") In any event, those conclusions/ inferences are subjective in nature.

The atheist looks at the same data and says. “the evidence is compelling enough to conclude there is no god, and with each passing passing year/discovery we understand our natural better and each revelation (pun intended) another religious “truth” is debunked.”

In any event, evaluating the evidence----whatever that is----is too a subjective exercise.

Science----as the catchword for “objective truth” through natural observation---- is silent on the matter of God.

15

I missed my edit window:

Whether or not this position is actually true becomes irrelevant until more data is presented

as to the above post:

The atheist says the evidence is compelling enough to conclude there is no God. If evidence appears which shows there is a God I will change my position.

16

Science is also silent on the matter of the Easter Bunny, for much the same reason.

17

I don’t believe so.

I don’t believe so.

No.

Yes.

18

But if you disbeleive in all those things, why do you bleeive in God? God is a less plausible thing than Santa Claus, Superman, or the Loch Ness Moster.

19

I knew you’d come around.

You’re exactly right. Now, the relative merits of the existence of Yahweh vis a vis the Easter bunny, is entirely based on how compelling the evidence is for either of them. That, is a subjective exercise most often called witnessing.

But I have enough experience with you to guess you don’t see that.

20

In other words, we’re agnostic already on a bunch of other hypotheticals. Why stop at where did everything come from?

I don’t think that question can be answered for quite a while.

This is all to say, I’m technically agnostic, but live my life like an atheist.