Interesting. How do you express your feelings? I’m honestly surprised you find “unfalsifiable” pejorative. And, why do you feel a dissonance? Unfalsifiable does not imply contradictory.
There’s no single thing I can point to. It ultimately comes down to that my beliefs are a result of my lifetime of personal experiences. It’s reasonable to assume my beliefs would be different if my experiences were different. But then I’d not be the same person I am now, having experienced a different life.
I could ask you a similar question: why have you decided to have only falsifiable beliefs?
Both, since I believe faith requires an absence of evidence or proof. I also believe God is capable of acting without violating the laws of nature.
I do not see how it resolves the Problem of Evil, which is a big unanswered question for me. For the time being, I accept that I just don’t know.
Only in certain contexts. In casual conversation I don’t believe there is much if any stigma among most people. In a debate or scientific discussion the reaction would be different.
Expressions of feelings don’t make claims about the world; if I say “Ow!” I am not asserting anything. (A different case would be, say, when I claim ‘I am feeling pain’ or something like that, in which case I am making a report of some state of which I am directly aware. Again, I don’t see the problem here.) As for the dissonance, I meant the dissonance of having an unfalsifiable belief while at the same time rejecting unfalsifiable beliefs as unjustified.
Because both reason and experience tell us that allowing ourselves to be guided by evidence leads more reliably to the truth than doing the opposite.
Who cares what most people think? Most people commit the gambler’s fallacy, the fallacy of ignoring the base rate, the fallacy of excessively discounting future costs/benefits, etc., etc., etc. How one ought to reason is not determined by how most people in fact reason.
What definition of God are you using? If it is a deistic god, that is true by definition. The fundamentalist’s god, on the other hand, would leave traces of the Flood. There might be a trickster god who makes everything look natural and then says “surprise, I exist” when you die. But any god supposedly concerned with us, who has been in direct communication, and who has left some sort of directions, looks very improbably under my test.
I like “convinced.” I don’t believe in evolution, I’m convinced of its validity.
Do you mean that God is capable of acting without violating the laws of nature, or must act without violating the laws of nature. The first statement is trivially true.
But here’s another test. Which seems more likely, God dictating or inspiring a book full of contradictions and statements at odd with reality, god inspiring certain parts of that book without attempting to ensure the other parts are clean (and thus would not work against his message, or the book being written by people, uninspired in the theological sense, writing about the world to the best of their ability and knowledge?
That’s one example of the way I looked at things. There are similar arguments for different god flavors.
I think that faith only requires ignorance or incomprehension of evidence or proof - and the wilful versions of either will work.
And who cares that he’s capable of acting in accordance of the laws of nature - unless you have an argument for why he would choose to restrain himself to such rules when doing so propages a world state that is repugnant to him and his goals and preferences, his ability to sit on his hands is irrelevent. The fact that he (as demonstrated by the state of the world) does so is the kicker.
The Problem of Evil is the unanswered question of why, if God exists and has the properties and goals that he’s claimed to, does reality not appear the way one would expect it to if it contained a god with those powers and goals. Basically any model that doesn’t resolve the Problem of Evil will by its very nature posit that with-god and without-god are irreconcileable. This holds true even if you try and ignore the problem or plead ignorance or incomprehension.
I would say “doesn’t”. Whether it’s by choice or not, doesn’t matter to me.
Haven’t we agreed that faith is not based on evidence? What does it matter then, what the nature of the Bible is?
I would call the Bible a mishmash of morality stories, oral histories, laws, and personal experiences. I would also say it’s a useful, but not essential, part of my faith.
I believe God doesn’t violate the laws of nature because he created them. Why should he break his own rules?
Also, I do not believe that the world is repugnant to God.
I don’t see why this is true. Can you explain further?
Whereas it makes a great difference when trying to decide what sort of a deity you’re theorically dealing with.
It matters that to ignore this evidence you are essentially forced to engage in willful ignorance. This makes the faith, well, stupid. (Not all faith is stupid. Willful ignorance, though, is.) I didn’t start the debate on this particular point but I think the point is that once you have the evidence, the faith sometimes goes away…if you don’t cling to it at the expense of intellectual honesty.
To reduce, dissuade, or prevent evil? To avoid losing unsaved souls to other, false religions? To prevent war and atrocity? Presuming a benevolent deity of course.
I’m sure the idea that people are dying senselessly in various places in the world just tickles him to death. He probably chuckles every time a child cries. Right?
The problem of evil is that evil expects and we wouldn’t expect it to under the reign of a universally benevolent, interfering, and all-powerful god. It’s a recognition that the universe does not appear to be what it would be if God was real - that’s why they call it a problem. If you don’t solve that, then by definition the universe isn’t behaving how you expect it to under a God.
It may matter to some people, but it doesn’t for me.
My point was I do not believe there is any evidence for or against the existence of God. That includes the Bible.
What if God does all those things without violating the laws of nature?
Your argument depends on your expectations. I do not see why the existence of God (or not) affects the existence (or not) of evil. Or, another way of saying things, I do not belief the existence of evil disproves the existence of God (the whole there is no evidence thing again).
Except that it typically rests on the unjustified assertion that there IS a God, and is thus fatally flawed “analysis” unless and until they come up with some evidence for God. Rationalizing excuses for a predetermined belief hardly seems to qualify as “critical analysis”.
There is, or should be, when there’s no objective evidence for the statement in question, and when the subjective “evidence” is wildly contradictory. That is the situation with the statement “God exists”; there’s no objective evidence for it, and the claims people make about their supposed personal experiences with God aren’t at all consistent.
There is no “boot strap” problem with mathematics. It’s an abstract construct that need not have any correlation to the real world. Unlike something that is real or supposed to reflect reality, “Because I say it is” is a perfectly valid explanation for a particular axiom. As for assuming logic to be valid; just by using mathematics you are using logic; treating logic as valid is necessary before you even start.
As for science, the “boot strap” problem only matters for philosophers. The fundamental justification for science is the same as the fundamental justification for believing in an objective reality; because it works.
The “boot strap problem” matters for faith, because it has no justification. It makes claims about the real world, unlike mathematics, and has no evidence to back it up, unlike science. A belief based on faith is just an empty assertion.
The natural laws of the universe are evidence against God. There’s no room for one. The Bible is also evidence agaisnt God, as it is contradictory and denies objective fact in a number of places; the same goes for those who believe in God.
He hasn’t.
It disproves the existence of the kind of God that the vast majority of people believe in. It doesn’t disprove an evil or uncaring God, or a powerless one.
OKay, So the conclusion that subjective experience X was “true love” may or may not be factual but love, although not clearly defined, exists?
So, because we experience love, but it remains unfalsifiable, we should stop asserting it exists?
I’m not trying to be a smartass. It’s just that if we experience God in a spiritual subjective way, beyond the realm of current science to measure, then our own experience is enough to make that assertion. Isn’t it as valid as other subjective experiences?
I suppose it takes a certain faith, or perhaps conviction, for a scientist to put forth an hypothesis that others find has little value or merit, and then to continue to pursue that hypothesis despite little support. He pursues it feeling and thinking that he is on the right track to some truth, some discovery.
I agree that too many religions hold fast to tradition and dogma in spite of clear evidence against. It saddens me and occasionally angers me to see people who claim to value the truth be so attached to falsehoods.
IMHO the great variance in religions has to do with the difference in people all trying to fathom and define something beyond them. The divine light shining through a variety of imperfect filters if you will.
Seeking the truth as we are called to do
requires exactly the kind of attitude you described in scientists. To be willing to cast off tradition and dogma when the evidence and our own quest for truth tells us to.
Fortunately it is happening and I believe will continue to happen in religion. In another thread I mentioned some Bahai teachings.
and
I think liberal Christianity is on the rise as well. Traditional beliefs are fading and the basic principles of moral behavior are being stressed. A move in the right direction IMO.
Sure. Give ask 100 people on the street if the base rate of AIDS in a population is 1%, and a test is 99% reliable, and you get a positive on the test, what the probability is that you have AIDS. Then ask a statistician the same question. If you felt it was necessary, you could conduct empirical studies to verify the results of your statistical reasoning.
As I said above, mental states are theoretical entities: we can’t observe them (in others, at least), but we have good evidence (behavioral, neurological, linguistic, etc.) that other people experience these mental states. It’s just like the evidence for quarks: you never see a quark, but you infer the existence of quarks from the behavior of things that you can see. The existence of theoretical entities can be entirely falsifiable. So why should I deny that there is love, or that people feel love? It is a well-established entity in our folk psychology.
As I argued above, inner states (including emotion) are not beyond the reach of evidence. If God is beyond the reach of evidence, then a fortiori you have no more *reason * to believe in God than in Thor or Odin or Vishnu. And (although I’m sure this statement will eventually come back to bite me on the ass) if you have no reason to believe A, and equally good non-reasons to believe B or C or D instead of A, then why believe A?
If you don’t solve that, then by definition the universe isn’t behaving how you expect it to under a God.