Summary
Offline I have a feeling this argument between theists and atheists is going to go back and forth for a while. here is my summary:
1. theist believes something
1. atheist believes something else
2. theist believes he has evidence which makes him right, and when he is right he feels good because his belief is reinforced
2. atheist believes he has evidence which makes him right (principally by countering the evidence of theist), and when he is right he feels good because his belief is reinforced.
3. if theist is 100% right that the evidence he has provided is a. valid and b. corresponds with Bible he still hasn't proved there is a Christian God
3. if atheist is 100% right about the evidence he has provided which debunks theist's evidence he still hasn't proved there is not a god (even if he proves that this god is contradictory by some rational philosophical standards).
4. we don't have access to knowledge of the relationship between our beliefs shaped by our experiences ("evidence" or "proof" ) and the actual truth of things; we pretty much only know what makes us feel good about ourselves.
a. theist feels good about being Christian
b. atheist feels good about being atheist
(some atheists say something like well maybe i'd be happier if i believed in heaven/afterlife/whatever but i'd rather sacrifice that happiness for truth; ultimately, atheist is still choosing his own happiness)
that's about it.
- Login to post comments
It's not readily clear what bearing your last response purports to have on the topic as originally presented, but...
If you attach importance to questions such as "where can I get food, what can make me happy, why is there suffering, etc.", once again, please offer up what you regard as a rational method of answering these questions.
Perhaps you are aware, there are many who seek to answer your lofty questions in terms of god, or psychic ability, or whatever. Any answer given demands proof, lest it turn out to be an atrocious fraud. If definitive proof cannot be provided, said answer cannot be regarded as tenable, do you agree?
There are no theists on operating tables.
What I think I agree with you about is that our beliefs, subjectively sculpted as they are on their own aren't reliable enough sources of truth to have cause for commiting violence on others or causing suffering for others. I think it is safe to say (and perhaps this does not have any basis) that a belief or ideal we can strive for is to not make life hard for other people.
(cue Imagine by John Lennon)
If that's how you wish to draw this thread to a close, fine, we can go skipping through the daisies into the sunset while John plays his white piano (and Yoko...oh never mind). It's just somewhat removed from your original post where you seemed to assert that theism and atheism were equally sound arguments. If I'm wrong about that, and you're happy with the matter as it stands, very well.
There are no theists on operating tables.
My point is that it is difficult to judge beliefs because of the way they are uniquely formed by a person.
Because it is difficult to characterize beliefs, and why and how people believe, and what their particular beliefs mean to them, arguing back and forth about them is going to be about as productive as it has been so far on this website. I think there are more productive debates to be had. I don't think I've strayed from the initial points I posted above.
What I posted is simply a summary of the way things are going on many threads on this site (if you know of any forum threads that challenge my assertion, I'd really like to read them) As far as the argument for the atheist (materialist?) belief system versus the argument for the theist belief system, I really don't know to where to start, but I think maybe it might be that taking a closer look at beliefs themselves, what constitutes them, and how much they can be separated from a person is a more productive aim.
Say the argument for atheism or more specifically a-judeochristian theism (which iI think is the main atheistic argument in this website) is more sound than the argument for judeochristian theism. The next question is, is it rational to believe you can convince someone who is judeochristian to rescind his beliefs based on his life experiences? (Here's the fruit question: can you tell an apple to be an orange?)
How much does a human mind really respond to rational arguments anyways, especially when these arguments turn out unfavorable results? Is it rational for you to believe I'm a human rather than a robot? Or is it simply that a model of the world where we are all humans is more functional, conducive to your life? (See point 4a and 4b above)
I think maybe you can work to change someone's model or representation of the world, for better, if you really understand what belief means but so far, I don't know how to separate the way my own experiences in the world have shaped my beliefs from the beliefs themselves, much less separate someone else's beliefs from their person.
What would you consider a more productive debate? You acknowledge that "...our beliefs, subjectively sculpted as they are on their own aren't reliable enough sources of truth to have cause for commiting violence on others or causing suffering for others..." As long as people do visit suffering on others (either directly or indirectly) as a result of their beliefs, it is fair to call their beliefs into question, and demand that they qualify their beliefs. Scientific claims have to be rigorously defended and are always available to revision or outright dismissal. Hitherto, religious beliefs have not been held to this standard, because "we should respect other people's beliefs", "it's a matter of faith...". If forums such as these move faith out of the ivory tower, it is all to the good. If 12 different people give 12 different solutions to "2 + 2", at least 11 (if not 12) of those people have to be wrong. If 12 different people hold 12 different beliefs about god, should we respect all their beliefs, or should we say at least 11 (if not 12) of those people are wrong? We do not "respect" anyone's belief that "2 + 2 = 5". The burden is on them to justify why they believe that. Belief in god should be held to the same standard as "2 + 2".
There are no theists on operating tables.
First of all to sort of break down some issues, our intuition of 2+2 is based on where we grew up. If you have access to Sanskrit numerals which are easy to manipulate in arithmetic operations, then you have access to the meaningfulness of 2+2=4, (or more complicated operations, and bigger numbers). For example, the Hoop Indians in Central America don't have an intuition for quantities or arithmetic beyond 3 (1, 2, 3, many). Does that make 2+2 true or false to these people? No; it is meaningless to them.
2+2 is not an empirical truth; you cannot prove or disprove this statement empirically. So, in other words, saying 2+2 =4 is not the same as the empirical observation that the sun rose today, as perceived by our sight, telescopes, warmth, etc. However some of us do have an intuition of 2+2 based on our background and experience of the world.
Now a question is, should the Hoop Indians care about 2+2=4 at all? I would guess that they would only care inasmuch as it added, well, meaning to their lives. Why do mathematicians do math? Because it brings them some kind of joy, meaning in their own lives.
(This is not an argument for theism, it is just to show an example of how our beliefs are shaped by experiences, to distinguish the truth of 2+2=4 from an empirical truth, and to distinguish the truth of 2+2=4 from what actually has meaning in the lives of people)
Perhaps a more productive debate would be to identify where contradictions in belief systems relate to suffering and problems in the world. And maybe specifically define "mind disorder" as an outlook which causes suffering for humanity. Thus the 'problem at hand' would be addressed more specifically. The issue here becomes, when someone comes up with the idea that harming someone is bad, this is part of a belief system itself. To believe you are doing something bad you have to take on the assumption (faith?) that there is some human element which is worth preserving. My feeling is that this cannot be tested empirically either.
*sorry if some of this is jumbled/confusing. let me know if i need to clarify some points.
Maverick Philosopher addresses one of the constant claims that atheists make about belief in god or a theistic belief, his blog can be found here but I'll sum up his argument for you.
Often it is suggested that belief in God is on the same epistemic boat as unicorns, celestial tea pots, the flying spaghetti monster etc. This, Maverick Philosopher argues, is not the case. There are several readings of what these analogy’s may mean the weaker suggests something like (W), which follows:
(W) We do not have any reason to believe that celestial tea pots exist, just as we do not have any reason to believe that God exists.
This is false, there are several reasons for believing that God exists. These arguments may be unsound, of course, the problem is that a reasoned case can be made for theism. Belief in God and Unicorns are therefore not on a par since there are no empirical or theoretical reasons given for believing in a unicorn.
Another presupposition may be that if God exists then God is just another physical thing in the universe; the sophisticated theist, of course, holds that God is much more than another thing, he is a spiritual being.
Another problem with such analogy's comes from our understanding of what the Christian theist posits God is like. For the Christian theist if God exists, then God caused the existence of every contingent being, and every being distinct from God. If one were to posit Unicorns or celestial teapots then that person would hold that if it exists then it is just another isolated fact about the universe; if God exists, then everything has a ground of its being and its intelligibility in the creative activities of this being. The former and the latter are two very different senses of existence.
The theist may hold that one can argue from general facts about the world to the existence of God, the same cannot be said about unicorns or celestial teapots; this is a cosmological argument as many of you are well aware of. On the other hand there are no a posterori arguments for unicorns. There are numerous other arguments that can be made for the existence of God, and not unicorns: Arguments from truth, consciousness,apparent design,desire, morality etc.
This shows that God is not a being amongst other beings and not some addition to what exists. Sure the arguments may not be compelling, but there are not a lot philosophical conclusions that are. So the objection to these analogys is as follows:
1) If (W) is true then God is a gratuitous posit, God is a physical being, and God is a being who simply exists alongside other beings.
2) It is not the case that any theoretical God is a gratuitous posit, a physical being and a being who simply exists alongside other beings.
3)(W) is false (1,2 Modus Tollens)