Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Roof Woofer on February 15, 2010 at 11:48am

I find trying to discuss the nature of atheism with atheists a little like trying to seize a watermelon seed - very slippery. On the one hand, many will put the burden of proof of the existence of God on the believer, saying that their skepticism is based on the lack of rational evidence. On the other hand, provision of rational evidence, such as medical documentation of a miraculous healing, is dismissed out of hand as invalid because "there must be a scientific explanation; we just don't know what it is yet." Arguments tend to veer between God as a Prime Mover, as it were, and God as described in the Bible, as in this which I quote verbatim: "Regardless of any supposed holes in the fossil record, it's impossible that a loving God would allow the injustice and suffering that there is in the world . . ."

I believe that respectful discussion of the issues is a good thing. A number of atheist bloggers are quite mean-spirited, perhaps imitating the exaggerated pronouncements of some outspoken and obnoxious Christians while ignoring the majority who are less attention-getting. Even the existence of "atheist street teams" which I see on this site argues for a less than completely rational approach. Since when are "atheist evangelists" who are trying to persuade someone about the rightness of their belief system and argue Christians out of their beliefs any different than religions trying to seek adherents?

But one of the most significant problems with your assumption, Jeff, is that scientific, testable proof is the only way of determining whether anything is real. When people fall in love, is that real? The feeling of awe you get at the lip of the Grand Canyon -- is that real? When you have an "aha!" moment - did something real happen? When someone receives a word of encouragement that starts them on the path to reconsidering their decision to commit suicide -- what has really happened there? I am not saying that God only makes himself known in the subjective experience, but a petulant demand that God demonstrate his reality to me according to the criteria that I set down in a way that I determine will convince me -- let's just say that it might not be the tool for the job if genuine inquiry is the goal. C.S. Lewis said that our efforts to understand God might be a little like his dog's effort to understand what he is doing as he sits reading in front of his evening fire. We might not be able to understand everything we observe.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Roof Woofer on February 15, 2010 at 12:18pm

That's one possibility.

Nevertheless, I used it as an example of something that's real. Science can show that there's a dopamine rush, perhaps. But If someone asked you to prove that the sight of the Grand Canyon moved or inspired you, how could you do that?

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Cara Coleen on February 15, 2010 at 10:00pm

My mother had a meningioma tumor in her brain, right behind her left eye. For weeks before she finally had an MRI, she heard music at random moments. At first, she thought they had played it during a TV show but later saw a rerun and realized there was no music in that scene at all.

The frequency with which she heard the music increased and her fingers and arms began to feel tingly when that happened (I think on the right side of her body). She had acupuncture and almost skipped her MRI because it had gotten rid of the symptoms (which there were more of, besides the one I mentioned).

We could have interpreted her experiences as "spiritual", but would that have been safe? And if you think that it was obviously abnormal and probably something to be checked out, why? You intuitively know that what she was experiencing needs to be checked out and can be explained. By what? Science. Science knew there was something wrong and diagnosed her quickly. She was in surgery within 24 hours.

What would her fate have been if we had believed that she was having a spiritual experience? She'd be dead... just like many children have died at the hands of their well-intentioned parents who thought they could pray them out of an easily treatable cold that turned into pneumonia.

Do you depend solely on God when you are diagnosed with cancer? No. You go to the scientists... and condemn them later when you're in the clear and give all the credit to God who did nothing but give you warm fuzzies while you were scared.

Sorry, until someone is ready to put ALL their faith in God, and none of it in science, I am unconvinced that anyone really believes he will come through. I think death-rates would skyrocket, and no one could brush the numbers aside by claiming "it was their time". God doesn't save people who don't use science. He lets them die even if they have the "faith of a mustard seed". Science doesn't care if you believe in it; it just works. It also admits when it fails and regroups.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Shine on February 15, 2010 at 10:36pm

Science doesn't care if you believe in it; it just works. It also admits when it fails and regroups.

Well said.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by T A A on October 28, 2010 at 8:04am

Odd you guys would say religious die off faster cuz most studies show that people who attend church regularily actually live longer. This is not a god effect of course, simply a matter of stable peer group. Stability and cooperation, community support.

So for you to say: they do have high death rates is actually completely and demonstratably false.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by T A A on October 28, 2010 at 8:20am

thanks, you did it for me, nice conclusion there :)

Permalink Reply by Jewelz on October 28, 2010 at 8:11am

So for you to say: 'they do have high death rates' is actually completely and demonstratably false.

I believe they were referring to religious people who don't seek proper medical attention.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by M on October 26, 2010 at 10:05pm

Do you depend solely on God when you are diagnosed with cancer? No. You go to the scientists... and condemn them later when you're in the clear and give all the credit to God who did nothing but give you warm fuzzies while you were scared.

Love this. It's so true.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Roof Woofer on February 15, 2010 at 1:20pm

Slippery is when the discussion topic slides around. If the issue is testable evidence, then I would ask how, in any sense of the word, the miraculous (which by definition is something that doesn't happen in the usual order of things ) would be test-retest verifiable? Is the primary question for you "Is this true?" or "Does this meet my criteria of something that can be reduced to a lab experiment?"

Re the C.S. Lewis reference, what I cited wasn't anecdotal evidence or any evidence at all. It was an illustration of how assuming that our perspective is sufficient to understand everything that is valid might be faulty.

And, I guess, this conversation meets a criteria of slippery. I raised questions of the sufficiency of testable evidence to discover all things that are real. You respond by saying I didn't offer sufficient testable evidence.

Could you please say more about how rational evidence falls into circular logic? I'm not sure I understand (1) why you believe it does, and (2) why rational argument is an invalid way to explore meaningful questions.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Roof Woofer on February 15, 2010 at 1:27pm

It seems like you're not interested in engaging in a dialog here. Anyone else? I'd like to explore this.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Roof Woofer on February 15, 2010 at 2:25pm

Jeff, you said "Testable evidence is the key, not rational evidence. Would not rational evidence fall into philosophy and circular logic?" So I was asking about that reference to "rational evidence" that's distinguished from "testable evidence".

The way I used it it my original post was in this way: On the one hand, many will put the burden of proof of the existence of God on the believer, saying that their skepticism is based on the lack of rational evidence. On the other hand, provision of rational evidence, such as medical documentation of a miraculous healing, is dismissed out of hand as invalid because "there must be a scientific explanation; we just don't know what it is yet." You said, "Testable evidence is the key, not rational evidence. Would not rational evidence fall into philosophy and circular logic?" I was talking about evidence in general that supports reasonable deductions, but if you separate out testable evidence as a separate entity, then I'm curious about how you would define "rational evidence", since you seem to have a construct in mind.

It's always good to make sure we're talking about the same things, so thanks for probing on this.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Nelson on February 15, 2010 at 3:24pm

On the one hand, many will put the burden of proof of the existence of God on the believer, saying that their skepticism is based on the lack of rational evidence. On the other hand, provision of rational evidence, such as medical documentation of a miraculous healing, is dismissed out of hand as invalid because "there must be a scientific explanation; we just don't know what it is yet."
if the burden of proof is not on the person making the truth claim then who is it on? using the same example i gave above, if the burden of proof does not rest with the person making the truth claim, as you suggest, prove to me that my green cheese arm doesn't turn into flesh and bone whenever it's observed. what sort of evidence would you offer to disprove this? why wouldn't i still be justified in believing it to be true when you can't disprove it? why wouldn't the most intellectually honest position to be to withhold belief until the claim could be justified on evidence NOT to believe the unevidenced claim until it could be disproved? do you believe in every single claim that humanity has ever and can imagine so long as it hasn't been disproved?
you speak of medical documentation of a miraculous healing... first of all, i would, and i think most people would, make the distinction between a healing that is referred to as miraculous in the conversational sense and one that was the result of a genuine miracle. next, where is this medical documentation of a miracle that you speak of? miracles, i'm sure you'd agree, are by their very nature exceedingly improbable. accordingly, any plausible naturalistic explanation for the cure, even an explanation that is merely less improbable than that the cure was the result of a miracle, is vastly preferable. and, failing any known naturalistic explanation for the cure, we are still far more justified in saying, simply, "i don't know" instead of jumping to "god did it!", which is essentially what "it must have been a miracle!" really means. this is true because that we are ignorant of some mechanism underlying the cure is itself infinitely more probable than that the cure was the result of a miracle.
this is not dismissal out of hand. this is skepticism grounded in the vast length and breadth of human experience and the success of methodological naturalism. it's the only reliable method for discovering the nature of reality that we've ever come across. it's got an unrivaled track record of success. given our background factors why shouldn't i be skeptical of miracles?

Arguments tend to veer between God as a Prime Mover, as it were, and God as described in the Bible, as in this which I quote verbatim: "Regardless of any supposed holes in the fossil record, it's impossible that a loving God would allow the injustice and suffering that there is in the world . . ."
certainly they do veer between God, the Prime Mover, and God, Yahweh, and when a person does veer they should be clear that they are arguing against either one or the other or both, and i try my best to do just that. but let's be clear that even if a person fails to make clear which they are arguing against that doesn't by itself make the argument invalid. it just calls for clarification.

Even the existence of "atheist street teams" which I see on this site argues for a less than completely rational approach. Since when are "atheist evangelists" who are trying to persuade someone about the rightness of their belief system and argue Christians out of their beliefs any different than religions trying to seek adherents?
i'm sorry but i find this thought absurd. how is persuading someone about the rightness of their belief system and arguing Christians out of their belief system the same as religious people trying to seek adherents? you claim that "atheists evangelists" are not taking a completely rational approach but that indictment must be made on a case by case basis from person to person. yes, if an atheist is not using rational arguments then it is not a rational approach but if they are then it is by its very nature a rational approach.
the religious proselytizer never offers a rational approach insofar as the arguments are all emotional pleas/blackmail ("you're going to hell if you don't believe!"), personal experience arguments ("i prayed and god answered my prayer so you should believe me"), pragmatic arguments (Pascal's Wager), and bible quotes.
moreover, if we strip out the "atheist" and "Christian" from the context then how is the discussion not a rational approach (provided the discussion stays rational and not emotional of course) when compared to a political discussion ("your position on immigration reform is wrong because...") or a discussion on sports ("the Yankees are the best team in baseball because...")?
are you saying that we don't have the right to tell others when we think they're wrong and to explain why? are you saying that when the matter is of such crucial importance to society we don't have the moral obligation to tell people when they're wrong and explain why?

But one of the most significant problems with your assumption, Jeff, is that scientific, testable proof is the only way of determining whether anything is real. When people fall in love, is that real? The feeling of awe you get at the lip of the Grand Canyon -- is that real? When you have an "aha!" moment - did something real happen? When someone receives a word of encouragement that starts them on the path to reconsidering their decision to commit suicide -- what has really happened there?
ah, classic! LOL. of course love is real! we can point to evidence of the truth of a person's love for another. we can conduct fMRI scans to see the centers of the brain where feelings of love are produced. of course love is real. the same goes for feelings of awe.
but let's make sure we understand the clear distinction between the question of whether abstract concepts like love and awe are real and whether an entity can be said objectively to exist.

I am not saying that God only makes himself known in the subjective experience, but a petulant demand that God demonstrate his reality to me according to the criteria that I set down in a way that I determine will convince me -- let's just say that it might not be the tool for the job if genuine inquiry is the goal.
then how are you saying that your god makes himself known? if not only through subjective experience then by what other way?
and let's be clear once more that we're not talking about an arbitrary self-defined criteria that each of us sets down; we're talking about the same rules of evidence we use in our day to day lives when deciding truth claims; we're talking about the same rules of evidence you apply to the claims of other religions besides your own.
why the double standard?
let's just say that it might not be the tool for the job if genuine inquiry is the goal.
then what is the best tool for the job?

C.S. Lewis said that our efforts to understand God might be a little like his dog's effort to understand what he is doing as he sits reading in front of his evening fire. We might not be able to understand everything we observe.
not being able to understand everything we observe is starkly different from not being able to understand ANYTHING we observe. certainly we can't understand everything we observe but what we do understand leads us to the conclusion that the probability of the god hypothesis being true is vanishingly small. we're open to new evidence and future expansion of our understanding but we're not going to live our lives as if it's an open question, just as we don't live our lives as if my green cheese arm is an open question. plus, that we don't understand something doesn't mean that we won't ever and here's where Lewis' analogy breaks down. the dog will never discover anything more than what it knows at that moment and so will never understand what we're doing as we read in front of the fire. we, on the other hand, will always discover more and in so doing it is highly likely that we will come to understand something that we do not currently understand. we are only justified in saying "i don't know" while we lack understanding. we are not justified in moving from "this is currently beyond our understanding, therefore god exists!" if we can't understand everything we observe then it is incumbent upon us to remain skeptical of the grand claims to understanding on the part of the religious, all without evidence.

• ▶ Reply

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• 3
• 4
• …
• 8
• Next ›
• Page