I don’t know if you’ve ever read the ancient Greek and Roman philosophers writing on science. They use logic, but not experiments, in deducing scientific principles. If these guys were still around, and if this strand of inquiry hadn’t been converted to the use of the scientific method, we could have the situation where philosophers drew conclusions using logic only. Now, if they resembled theologians, when presented with experimental evidence demonstrating that their conclusions were incorrect, they would either deny the results or add special cases to their hypotheses.
To be fair I must admit that some theologians have looked at the facts about God and found them wanting, and became atheists. However many start with God belief, and don’t really examine it. They certainly don’t try to draw conclusions about the world based on their faith that can be checked against reality. This does not require a religious calculation of the mass of the electron - the problem of natural evil does quite nicely.
yes I noticed. That’s why they don’t care where something is made as long as it’s really cheap. So they in their relative poorness help support those who labour long hours in China for little pay.
and it was a joke see, if we kill the poor there won’t be enough people buying cheap crap made in China and it will ruin our relations with them. lost it’s luster after explaining it.
If we buy this argument, then religions don’t exist - people exist. A religion is nothing besides the actions and assertions of its adherents; you can’t divorce the two.
I don’t intend to disbelieve in the existence of religions, so I dismiss your rather shallow argument that religions don’t kill people. And yes, guns kill people too.
The other thing that loses it’s luster is when you tell a joke, and someone jokes back, and you respond to their joke with another joke, except they don’t get that you’ve been joking, and then you have to explain that everything you’ve been saying is a joke.
Your view of theologians is very narrow; have you ever read any? How about starting with Thomas Aquinas, who basic fits the exact model of philosophy by logic you describe?
I wonder if you read my post 73 concerning Michel de Montaigne. I was intrigued by his basic question “what do I know” and it’s implications. When I started studying the Bible and exploring my own beliefs years ago it was a very relevant question. I would ask a queston and then explaore the possibilities. It was always important to see the clear difference between beliefs and knowledge. That’s why your suggestion of believers holding thier beliefs provisonally was meaningful to me.
I think one of the main things that hold believers back is emotiuonal attachment to needing to frame doctrine in terms of “we know this is true” instead of , this is what we believe so far. THat leads to rejecting evidence that conflicts with what they think they know.
That said, while I think atheism is a perfectly reasonble position I think it’s also important for atheists to acknowledge that that while they see no reason to believe in any god they also can’t know that there is no god or something like one. We’re not sure what may lie beyond the realm of our current knowledge so what’s wrong with someone chosing to explore the religoius or spiritual path as thier particular choice of a path of exploration?
Denying evidence and facts in favor of myth and tradition is one thing and IMO holds individuals and mankind back, but asking questions and choosing your own path of discovery , does not.
Indeed. I think the proper atheist position is not “there is no god” but rather “I see no need for that hypothesis.”
Scientific need, that is. Some have an emotional need for it, and a good scientist is able to segment these needs. This doesn’t hold only for god - plenty of people are emotionally invested in a hypothesis, and peer review, double blind studies and reproducibility all help keep the results someone wants to see from being the results that they do see.
right, or even personal need for that matter. What a lot of people don’t seem to get is that the basic elements of life , what we value, how we grow and interact with others, remain intact and basically the same whether we believe or not. Whether there is a god or an afterlife those basic things remain the same. There’s no real need or reason to let belief or lack of it divide us.
I see the same intellectual and emotional mechinisms at work in believers and non believers. As a part of our humanity it’s not something we can get rid of by getting rid of the subject We have to gradually change our own consciousness and the consciousness of our society as a whole. I think rather than getting rid of religion that means we become more accepting of of letting people choose there own path, providing it doesn’t harm others.
Virtually all god-hypotheises can be solidly disproven, and thus the correct scientific position on them is “the god described by that god-hypothesis doesn’t exist”. This is what you get when you defy the laws of physics and/or logic. Those few gods who are not disprovable are properly dismissed as unnecessary fiction - but it’s not like anybody actually believes in them anyway, since they’re non-omni and don’t interact with humanity in any significant way.
And since y’all asked, what’s wrong with someone chosing to explore the religious or spiritual path as thier particular choice of a path of exploration, is that they’re fantasizing and erroneously calling it exploration, and fallaciously drawing conclusions about reality from these fantasies, with predictably erroneous results. Since y’all asked and all.
Well that’s just bullshit, unless you have different definitions of “solidly” and “disproven” than most people. “Unproveable” does not equal “disproven.”
The reason Darwin turned out to be so influential in shifting ideas, was that natural selection really did do away with what was at that time the last mysterious work of god - at least to people inclined to simplify history. As long as you don’t take genesis literally, the age of the earth is no real problem to Christians. A purely mechanical algorithm that can lead to “the pinnacle of creation” - that’s us, humans - from the lowliest bacterium is.
Please tell me this is sarcasm. It’s hard to spot on the internet, you know.
I second that challenge. I can take out all omnimax and near-omnimax gods in one swoop, and then wipe out about 99.9% of the interactive remainder by noting their utter failure to make the detectable statistical difference they’re claimed to make in the world. This leaves only completely noninteractive gods or ones that only help a couple people who managed to never get themselves into any relevent statistics - only those gods are undisproveable (and some would argue the latter aren’t either). I stand by my claim that pretty much nobody worships such gods.
No, he’s right, though he is assuming that a particular god hypothesis stands still. What actually happens, and the Catholics are an excellent example of this, is that many of the details of a god change as the old details get disproven - details like God created the world in 6 days.
I’m not sure I’d agree on most, since so many religions have found that keeping the dogma a bit fuzzy cuts down on dogma rewrites. But I’ll echo Superfluous Parentheses - give us details of a god, what he has done, how he has interacted with the world, and we can falsify him. Deistic god as the universe, not so much, but that is a class of god where the universe with them is identical to the universe without them.
But this enviable goal gets rid of huge chunks of religions - the ones who feel they have a direct line to god, and this god instructs them on how people should behave. Going your own way in this model is going against god, which seems to offend many of these people. Especially if you are having fun doing it.
I’ll just stick to the classic Christian God of Catholic/Orthodox/Protestant faith. Not all the details, upon which there is disagrement, but what is generally common to their understandings of God.
First God is wholly Other - ineffable and beyond human comprehension. Right there that gives us problems with defining God, let alone proving/disproving.
God is the First Cause (in the words of the Creed, “Creator of Heaven and Earth; through Him all things were made.”)
Let’s see - God is eternal and omnipresent. Those, I think, are important parts of the definition.
I agree with this, and also with the gist of cosmosdan’s argument. It’s a hard problem, if you think of it as a problem.
IMHO humans are naturally “spiritual”. I don’t consider myself spiritual in the slightest - at least not in the conventional interpretations - but I do sometimes feel the kind of overwhelming sensation or “awe” that religious people seem to associate with their faith.
Since I don’t think gods exist anyway, I don’t really care about keeping to specific details. A decent religion (even if not based on “true facts”) should help society and the people in it progress in their social and mental abilities. A bad religion doesn’t. It’s a real damn shame that many religions fall on the bad side as far as I can see.
Just as an expiriment and demonstration try this one
Well, if that exploration is entertaining the possibility , as in an ongoing work of discovery, subject to revsion as new information is gathered, then I wouldn’t say it’s fallaciously drawing conclusions. Not only that, I’m pretty skeptical about that first statement you just made and until you can demonstrate it’s accurate this 2nd one is just your own erroneous conclusion.