13 comments

• 

  5ive

  1 year ago

  While I agree with you on the question at friendly atheist, you have a logical problem with what you state above, "The fact is that atheists in general fail to produce proof that all experiences of God in the history of humankind have been false." See, the experiences of God are almost always unfalsifiable and therefore cannot be disproved and are not worth anyone's time to attempt to do so. Which is why many people (not just atheists) tend to discount them as psychological phenomena instead of authentic experience. Furthermore, it is not up to anyone else to disprove something. It is up to the person pursuing the hypothesis to prove its basis in reality. Since religious beliefs cannot be disproved, they cannot be proven as an acceptable part of reality. I hope that made sense...
  Also, your example of the 300 people in the room is a good one. However, I would also say that there are oodles of theists that would jump to the conclusion that those people never had an authentic experience as well, due to the fact that that supposed experience violates natural law. It is also very scientific to try to disprove something. That is what science does. It tries to prove things false. So you take something like, "300 people saw a ghostly thing in a room" and say, let's see if they really did, let's try to disprove it. The same way you say ," things residing on the earth tend to be drawn toward the earth when dropped from a height." Let's if they really do, let's try to disprove it. When you think about it, science does not really "prove" anything, it can only disprove things. That is why religion has no place in science and vice versa. religion=mind, science= outside world.
  reply
• 

  Drew Tatusko

  1 year ago

  Thanks for the comment. But you have a contradiction that does not make sense.
  
  1. "See, the experiences of God are almost always unfalsifiable and therefore cannot be disproved and are not worth anyone's time to attempt to do so."
  
  2. "When you think about it, science does not really “prove” anything, it can only disprove things."
  
  Saying that something is not unfalsifiable and so not worth anyone's time is not helpful and quite evasive. The rhetoric employed is to switch the burden to the religious person to devise a structure of evidence of God. But these evidences will not go far to meet the atheist claim for evidence. Why? Personal experience regardless of how often, how predictable, and how powerful it is socially and psychologically is rejected outright under the ubiquitously vague use of the term "delusion". Accepting that even one in 10 billion experiences of God in human history was an authentic experience of a being that science cannot substantiate ruins the premise that all experiences of God are delusional. Then what? If one, perhaps two? If two then perhaps four? and so on. Not to suggest a slippery slope is a good way to go, but the door of probability is swung wide open. This is why Hitchens, et. al. must go with an all or nothing argument. It is also why I think agnosticism which nods to the probability of God's existence but does not care for it as a basis of human living is a far more rational position to take. But we know what Dawkins and Hitches think about agnosticism and it's not all that positive.
  
  So the issue that I am raising is that the evidence for the existence of God is quite satisfactory and has been for centuries of those who claim to have had religious experiences with a real existent as opposed a fabrication of psycho-somatic proportions. My point is that it seems rather implausible that every single claim of the religious sort is a delusion on this basis unless there is a substantive body of literature to prove that this indeed is the case. While it might be the case some of the time, to suggest that it must be the case all of the time begs the question and is a rather bold logical leap. Nonetheless, it is exactly the position many atheist arguments take as a default position without substantive ground. Better not to make such lofty claims and humbly recognize that current scientific discourse will be limited in the matter. The same is true for religious arguments that lie to us as if they are scientific when they are clearly not. To that I think we agree.
  
  My position is that religion and science ought to be continual conversation partners correcting each other when appropriate and effectual since both are integral components of human experience. The popular atheist arguments attempt to shut the door on this in as much as fundamentalist religious arguments and this is hardly helpful for us to get along and improve the human condition. The argument that Mehta references is a participant in this unhelpful rift and it exacerbates fundamentalist claims to truth even as fundamentalist claims catalyze such atheist arguments hence my use of the term "fodder".
  reply
• 

  miller

  1 year ago

  For your first point, I basically agree. I think it is a little ridiculous to expect religion to prove science wrong. If religion really did "prove" science wrong, how would we even know until science itself verified it?
  
  But argument from experience? How is that even related?
  
  Also, I feel you have confused your pop science philosophy a bit. The statement "X is confirmable by evidence" is equivalent to "X is falsifiable" which is equivalent to "Not-X is falsifiable". Is God falsifiable or not? In any case, falsifiability is not my favorite piece of science philosophy (nor is Scooby-doo my favorite TV show).
  reply
• 

  Drew Tatusko

  1 year ago

  An experience of something is a form of evidence that something might just exist that one actually experiences. I have no idea why that is such a hard thing for people to understand is rational. I could care less if you call it "argument from experience". It is what it is. Either the experience was with a real existent or not. Hardly a logical fallacy.
  
  Pop science? Since when is a null hypothesis (test of falsifiability) pop science? It's not a philosophy here it is a method first and foremost. I think many atheist arguments that pull science as the great white hope of the human condition confuse the method with what you are calling pop science philosophy.
  
  X was experienced.
  Not X was not experienced.
  X is not falsifiable.
  It is therefore probable that X was experienced.
  
  or
  
  X was experienced.
  X does not exist.
  Therefore X was not experienced.
  
  I prefer the first as a rational starting point since the second premise of #2 cannot be substantiated. Clear?
  reply
• 

  miller

  1 year ago

  I'm not saying your argument is right or wrong. In fact, I intend to entirely avoid commenting either way. It just wasn't clear to me how it was related to the Friendly Atheist's question, that's all.
  
  I still think you are not using falsifiability correctly. The whole point is that if you cannot falsify something, it is not scientific, and therefore you cannot present evidence for or against it. But here, you seem to be presenting evidence for X, while simultaneously saying X is not falsifiable. Now, I do not take a stance on whether God is falsifiable--obviously, it depends on your definition of God. But the way you've defined God, he's definitely falsifiable.
  
  As for "pop philosophy", I was mainly thinking about the philosophy of falsifiability. For all its reputation, it's not particularly well accepted among scientists. You can put me in the inductionist camp. Of course, I just used falsifiability in an argument myself... but you did it first! :-)
  reply
• 

  5ive

  1 year ago

  I realise that it could be interpreted as contradicting myself in reference unfalsifiability and proving something wrong. That is the premise of science :try to prove it wrong. See more on that below. Let me know if I was unclear or just led to confusion. I swear this all makes sense in my head, I just don't always get what I want to say across.
  
  "The rhetoric employed is to switch the burden to the religious person to devise a structure of evidence of God."
  
  The burden of proof is always placed squarely on the purveyor of the hypothesis. For instance, let's say I make a claim that I can levitate without any device other than my mind. But maybe it only works when no one is watching. This is wholly unfalsifiable and not worth a nickel. There is no way you could ever prove me wrong. Now let's say that I can levitate when ever I see a dog. This can be proven false. It is falsifiable. Just show me a dog and see if I levitate. God works like the first scenario. He can always hide behind any number of excuses, "God works in mysterious ways" covers pretty much any condition one can think of. You cannot prove God wrong, this makes it not anyone else's responsibility to try to do so. Rather, the believer needs to bring forth some evidence that can be proven wrong before it can be accepted as part of the real world in a scientific manner.
  
  But these evidences will not go far to meet the atheist claim for evidence. Why? Personal experience regardless of how often, how predictable, and how powerful it is socially and psychologically is rejected outright under the ubiquitously vague use of the term “delusion”.
  
  Predictable, that is the perfect way to use science. Science provide accurate predictions, otherwise it gets tossed out. look at ether and cold fusion. They ceased to make accurate predictions, they got thrown out. Think about Newtonian gravity and the Einstien's gravity. Einstien's theory made better predictions. I am totally open to seeing accurate predictive success in religion, yet have seen none.
  
  "Accepting that even one in 10 billion experiences of God in human history was an authentic experience of a being that science cannot substantiate ruins the premise that all experiences of God are delusional. Then what? If one, perhaps two? If two then perhaps four? and so on. Not to suggest a slippery slope is a good way to go, but the door of probability is swung wide open. This is why Hitchens, et. al. must go with an all or nothing argument.
  The thing is that when there have been personal experiences that can be verified, they always have had a scientific explanation. I have yet to see of a verified (and not by the catholic church) proof of god. SO that very idea means nothing until there is some sort of falsifiable evidence of a god's existence.
  
  It is also why I think agnosticism which nods to the probability of God’s existence but does not care for it as a basis of human living is a far more rational position to take. But we know what Dawkins and Hitches think about agnosticism and it’s not all that positive.
  I am unfamiliar with what Dawkins' view of agnosticism is, but Hitchens is just a bitter nut who saw a good way to sell books. (my very personal, cynical opinion of him) Though I am pretty sure that Dawkins has said if someone could provide falsifiable proof of a god, he would change his mind.
  
  "So the issue that I am raising is that the evidence for the existence of God is quite satisfactory and has been for centuries of those who claim to have had religious experiences with a real existent as opposed a fabrication of psycho-somatic proportions. "
  I see the misunderstanding I was having here. I do not find the evidence to be satisfactory and you do. For evidence to be satisfactory for me ( and the scientific community) it must be: Repeatable, falsifiable and provide an accurate prediction of future behaviour according to natural law. I have not seen evidence for god of this nature. But again, it is tedious and dull to go through and disprove every single instance of religious possibility. Much like trying to go through every single little ghost experience. There is just not the time or resources to do so. And what would be the point? There has been no adequate proof so far since gods seem to lack a predictive nature about them in general. It is not up to the doubter to prove something, it is up to the believer to prove something true. That has yet to happen.
  "My position is that religion and science ought to be continual conversation partners correcting each other when appropriate and effectual since both are integral components of human experience. "
  I fully agree with this. Religion is an incredible psychological tool that just fascinates me to no end. Which is why it is really neat to be able to talk with people of differing views through places like the internet. There is so much yet to learn!
  I personally could describe myself as an agnostic atheist. that is that I hold no belief in god, yet allow for the possibility (not probability as you stated above) should repeatable evidence arrive. Much in the same way that I am open to the idea of dragons, imps, fairies, aliens and other possibilities that lack repeatable evidence.
  reply
• 

  Drew Tatusko

  1 year ago

  Thanks for the clarification. Your position makes much better sense to me now. And I continue to think that the real issue is what Polkinghorne calls "motivated belief" structures - that is some forms of knowing are quite workable and satisfactory to some but not others. The problem is that this has taken the form of "my knowledge is better than yours" as atheists and Christians continue to do no more than whip out their respective phalluses and compare size! You and I are probably on very close opposite sides of the fence - the fence being an affirmation of "the God thing".
  reply
• 

  5ive

  1 year ago

  "You and I are probably on very close opposite sides of the fence - the fence being an affirmation of “the God thing”."
  And yet I have no desire to come to blows with you and you seem to lack that desire as well... amazing what we can do with our gift of speech, no?
  
  "The problem is that this has taken the form of “my knowledge is better than yours” as atheists and Christians continue to do no more than whip out their respective phalluses and compare size! "
  
  Hehe...I have issues with that as well. I really think that is just human nature, to pick a philosophy and defend it, even when it ceases to be useful. If you have any inkling towards psychology, I would very much recommend a book called, "Mistakes were made, but not by me" about cognitive dissonance. It goes a long way in explaining that particular human behaviour.
  I am curious about the evidence for the existence of God that you find satisfactory. Have I missed something or does that evidence not meet my guidelines for satisfactory evidence?
  reply
• 

  Drew Tatusko

  1 year ago

  Who wrote that book? I have a background in educational and developmental psychology so I am totally enthused by hat (not as much enthused by Fowler's work if you have encountered that).
  
  The evidence for me is really strange actually. I have had a few experiences with what I am quite comfortable, culturally, socially, developmentally, traditionally, etc., calling God - or at least the God I have grown up understanding. I have lost faith a few times and came back to it a few times. I know enough psychology and sociology to say that the experiences were salient and visceral enough that a differential diagnosis that these were delusions does not really make a lot of sense to me.
  
  Because I know of others who have had similar experiences it came to "make sense". All this after I had basically said "screw you" to the church and to Christians ironically following my four years at seminary. Moreover, it was my concerted effort to understand my own beliefs in conversation with atheists that lead me to the conclusions that my experiences were not that of a needy or momentarily lapsed person. Athiesm helped be believe again.
  reply
• 

  ReACTIONary

  10 months ago

  Athiesm as a force for faith. I've always thought that God works in mysterious ways...
  reply
• 

  5ive

  1 year ago

  Okay. Now I know you really have to read that book. But you really, really have to be open to questioning yourself and what you think and remember. Or at least think you remember. It is written by Carol Tavris and Elliot Aronson.
  It had me questioning almost everything I thought. Changed my thoughts on some things but I remain with the same basic life philosophy as I had had for the last few years, but then again, according to cognitive dissonance theory, that is exactly what I should have done. Making that book that much more frustrating.
  It will explain why you say "atheism helped me believe again".
  I honestly don't think of religion as a delusion, just a really amazing psychological tool that many people seem to resort to when pressured. It is no more delusional than talking to oneself unless a person takes it too far.It is also not surprising that is what people do under pressure when one is indoctrinated into a that belief system from birth. A person stands little chance of leaving religion when they receive big wooden rosary beads and a board book chronicling the 14 stages of Jesus when they are only 1 year old. Not saying this occurred to you, but it is pretty normal where I live.
  
  Are you familiar with Quine's web of belief? That is sort of at the center of cognitive dissonance. Have you ever taken a philosophy of science course? I would very much recommend it, not just to you, but to anyone interested in how science works. But take it from a secular school to avoid any bias.
  reply
• 

  marc

  10 months ago

  yes. i can think of one example. in 1927, catholic priest and astonomer Georges Lemaître proposed the idea of a moment of creation in the universe, stating that einsteins theory of general relativity required it. Einsteins theories of gravity seems to point that the universe should be collapsing in on itself. (einstein, as well as most of the scientific community, believed in a steady state universe with no beginning or end. einstein believed that there was a missing equation in his own theory of general relativity, that would explain why the universe wasn't collapsing. this was called the cosmological constant). Georges Lemaître's theory implied that a point of expansion (and creation) is an alternative to the cosmologigal constant because both explain why the universe hasn't collapsed under the pull of gravity.
  for years, Georges Lemaître's theory was mocked as religious nonsense, even being given the name "Big Bang Theory" as a joke by opponent Fred Hoyle. However, two great discoveries convinced the scientific world. Edwin Hubble discovered that the universe is expanding (by observing a red-shift in the galaxies, meaning they are moving away from us). And radio astonomers Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson discover that every point in the universe appears to be filled with low level radiation, the remnants of the big bang.
  The commonly accepted Steady State Universe was rejected by popular science, and the once mocked Big Bang Theory, and it's moment of creation became the leading model of the universe.
  reply
• 

  ReACTIONary

  10 months ago

  Marc, your example of the "Big Bang Theory" is not an example of "religion proving a scientific claim wrong". The big bang theory, whatever its original inspiration, is not a religious claim, and the steady-state theory was not disproved by religion. It was "disproved" the old-fashion way, by science.
  
  In general, I would maintain that the request that religion prove a scientific claim wrong is nothing more than verbal obfuscation - when talking about religion and science we are really talking about two different things and to confuse them in this way isn't helpful for anyone.
  
  On the other hand, a careful thinker might also conclude that there hasn't really been a case of science proving a religious claim wrong. Most of the supposed examples of this that come readily to mind date from the period of transition when scientific thought, in the modern sense, was being developed and was starting to take hold. Before this transition, there really wasn't much of a clear distinction between an empirical, scientific claim and a religious, spiritual claim. As this distinction was developed and as scientific thought progressed, there was a lot of give-and-take, so to speak, between the new way of thinking, which made the distinction, and the old, which did not. The claim, for instance, that the earth is the center of the universe, verses the claim that it rotates around the sun, is not actually a religious claim. The fact that the newer view proved to be more satisfactory than the older view really does not mean that "religious claims" were "disproved" by science.
  
  Now that we have a pretty good understanding of the distinction between the two, we should not have to engage in this argument over and over again.
  reply