Possible argument [for] not against theism?
I have been debating with myself one specific point which essentially stems from the fallacy that a lack of evidence is not an evidence of lack. (Note that this a purely a thought experiment, not a claim, and that, on balance, the whole set of arguments against theism outweigh one possible philosophical issue which only relates to intellectual decency.)
Essentially, the fact that there is a lack of evidence to support theistic views does not mean that it's evidence of a lack of God. Imagine God to be something similar to our 21st century minds and technology like the continent of America was to 15th century Europe.
(Side note: To avoid potential nitpicking about this specific premise, I know that America was discovered and rediscovered, but the "official" discovery was an accident as the goal of the expedition was to find India. That some in the 15th century Europe might even have been aware that America existed is a bit irrelevant as society as a whole certainly did not believe it was there, and it's the mindset of those who did not believe which is interesting.)
Now, try to enter this mindset and think that God is in a similar situation. Just like the 15th century mindset and technology could not comprehend the continent of America, the mindsets and technology today is not capable of providing the evidence required to detect or understand a divinity.
Therefore, a God may exist (but it doesn't matter).
Edit: The title was erroneous in it's use of the word "for". This is not an argument for theisim, it's an argument not against theism. Thanks to Kasu for this insight.
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Daria Black on -
For the most part I have to ask what even constitutes a god?
See I've been thinking about this exact thing myself. I was reading a Skepdic article about ghosts and he pointed out that we have to define what ghosts are before we can actually design equipment and tests etc to determine if they are real. It is the same thing with god. Before we can prove or disprove that god exist there needs to be a definition of god that we can seek out evidence for. So far, none of the definitions provided by the religious group have evidence supporting their existence.
So theoretically speaking, "god" may exist and there may be evidence supporting his/her/its existence but as a young species (when compared to age of the Earth) we do not have the capability yet to a) define what we are looking for and/or b) are not technologically advanced enough to test for its existence.
But I do agree that we should not live our lives as though god did exist. As we have learned from the past millenniums of living in this manner it doesn't work. We need to switch to a different system that promotes cooperation among our species for our continued survival.
-
Permalink Reply by Heather Spoonheim on -
I will go so far as to say 'something' might exist that we can't currently test for, and actually of that I am certain. I am equally certain, however that that thing is not a god. Plenty of people might want to claim I can't know if I don't even know what it is but I do know what a god is and I do know that it doesn't exist. I also know that it is not an invisible pink unicorn because I know what that is and invisible and pink are mutually exclusive. All this watered down 'absentee clockmaker' sort of rationalization of the god-concept succeeds in nothing more than proving that the bare minimum rationally definable god is no god at all.
-
Permalink Reply by Arcus on -
It all ends up as a "The God of the Gaps" when attempting to explain something supernatural by natural means. If religious people had not continually attempted to do just that, we would not need these types of debates. The natural world belongs to science, the supernatural to religion. When something considered to be supernatural is explained by natural means, it is no longer supernatural and thus not within the purvey of religion to hold opinions about.
-
Permalink Reply by Daria Black on
-
@ Heather
Plenty of people might want to claim I can't know if I don't even know what it is but I do know what a god is and I do know that it doesn't exist.
I think you are saying that you know what a god is as it is defined currently (commonly) and that particular being does not exist. If so, we are in agreement. I'm sure, though, as we evolve our ideas about "god" will evolve as well and maybe one day we'll hit upon one that actually makes sense. :)
-
Permalink Reply by Heather Spoonheim on
-
In doing so, however, I assert that we will end up with something that is NOT a god by any sense of the word as it was initially coined. At one time science postulated a lumeniferious aether, a medium for the motion of light. It has been proven that this lumeniferious aether does not exist, yet the concept of an aether was adapted to other ideas. It could be that one of those ideas turns out to be true, but those idea will NOT be the lumeniferous aether initially proposed and will NOT be the medium for the motion of light.
In point of fact, the only rational definitions of god are, by definition, rational. The only definitions that lead to the necessity of 'worship' are irrational onces and as such are self-refuting.
-
Permalink Reply by Daria Black on
-
Ah. I get what you are saying now :)
-
Permalink Reply by Ron V on -
Heather, I don't see my previous reply-
"Wow, I'm glad you're still with us"
-
Permalink Reply by Heather Spoonheim on
-
I'm glad to be here and glad to be still be welcome. :D
-
Permalink Reply by jharbs on -
I think this can be answered best with dawkin's "teapot" argument. My proxy for this argument = that there could be invisible unicorns that have sex with fairys producing "fairycorns", which are responsible for global warming due to their gratuitous amount of flatulence (which is comprised mostly of CO2 btws). Although it is highly unlikely fairycorns exist, it may be possible that we just dont have the technology or mental capacity to observe them yet.
Personally, I choose to believe in fairycorns rather than accept responsibility for my own actions because its easier :D
-
Permalink Reply by Kenneth Montville D.D. on -
Russell's Teapot not Dawkins'
-
Permalink Reply by Peter on -
I don't think this would work that well as an argument for theism (I like your point though).
If we think about our evidence for god as the the continent of America to 15th century Europe, then it would only require further scientific/technological advancement to find the answer (or at least as close as we can get to one).
This doesn't work well with theists because they (or at least many) hate science and try to fluff it with religious bull$hit in schools.
If they really want to work with this way of thinking and prove that there really is a god, then many would have to stop being jerks and promote the learning of science in schools and other places. Unfortunately, christianity is all about arrogance and knowing the answers immediately, so I doubt any christian would care for this mindset.
What's new today
Events
Forum
America - "Love It or Leave It"
Started by Ed in Small Talk. Last reply by archaeopteryx 13 minutes ago. 20 Replies 0 Likes
Blog Posts
Christian Man Claims Native American Statue On License Plate Violates His Freedom Of Religion, Sues Oklahoma
Posted by Rob Klaers on June 17, 2013 at 2:00am 5 Comments 3 Likes
Videos
The Latest Giz Gad
Services we love
Check out our new mobile/tablet version of Think Atheist! www.ThinkAtheist.com/m
© 2013 Created by Morgan Matthew.
Wow- I'm glad you're still with us.
I enjoy reading your posts.