Notes From Off Center - Latest Comments in God and Supernaturalism

Re: God and Supernaturalism

larryniven — Fri, 06 Jun 2008 17:23:54 -0000

The only reason to think that any particular god is unfalsifiable is because that god is epistemologically equivalent to atheism, i.e., it is responsible for at most the creation of the universe and, beyond that, will have no effect whatsoever on anyone's life or afterlife, if such a thing exists. Notably, however, pretty much no popular gods actually fall into this category. So, while you may not want to rigorously examine the reasonable predictions that would follow from the existence of your specific God, purposefully leaving them vague doesn't help you convince anybody: if your God is really one that cannot be disproven empirically, it will never matter to anyone, and so atheism is just as rational as theism. Moreover, since the majority of religions posit a god that frequently and systematically intervenes in human life, the question of empirical evidence is entirely relevant to the existence of gods: if no empirical evidence can be found, or if all the purported evidence is empirically indistinguishable from non-evidence (such as in your case), then we can eliminate those gods from our consideration. In other words, you have it backwards when you say that atheists irrationally reject too much in rejecting your experience. Since you are positing an apparently arbitrary distinction between apparently identical events, you're going directly against everything that's apparent to the intellect and thus believing irrationally. Not that you should stop, necessarily - everyone's got something they hold to without solid grounding, but when you refer to emotions and other "higher" experiences of humans (which, for the record, can in and of themselves be empirically observed, as brain activity) as justification for belief, you've removed yourself from the realm of rationality.

Re: God and Supernaturalism

qetzal — Sat, 17 May 2008 11:32:27 -0000

I agree that many people have personal experiences that they interpret as some sort of contact with something they call God. The issue (for me) is how one extrapolates from that experience to the actual existence of God (i.e. God as something more than just an internal mental/emotional/physiological phenomenon that some people experience).

Re: God and Supernaturalism

dtatusko — Fri, 16 May 2008 22:28:57 -0000

But to take it a step further, I am not so sure that my experience is so idiosyncratic that it is all that very unique. It is the shared experience among individuals that creates what sociologists call a plausibility structure to legitimate concurrent experiences in kind. Without that plausibility structure in place to legitimate it, I would probably be a rather devout agnostic today as my own pragmatist sensibilities would dictate.

Re: God and Supernaturalism

qetzal — Fri, 16 May 2008 17:08:36 -0000

Thanks for the clarifications. If your belief comes from your own idiosycratic experiences, I'm fine with that.

As for the "we" language, it was not meant to refer to all atheists - merely to Dr. Moran and myself (since he posed the question in his post, and I repeated it in the comments).

Re: God and Supernaturalism

dtatusko — Fri, 16 May 2008 11:26:46 -0000

I actually did answer that specific question on Larry's blog, maybe in another thread than the one that got you here.

The quick answer is that it comes from experience of what I believe to be God understanding that what I believe to be God has been irreducibly conditioned by my psycho-social constructions of reality. This is quite satisfying to me and it works for me. And I understand the philosophical weakness of the pragmatist position for many, but there it is.

And I don't think that arguments for God's existence will go anywhere. The better grounds for argument is whether belief in God is fundamentally irrational and even dangerous which is quite a powerful charge against religious belief. That is what interests me here. Arguing God's existence is an unfalsifiable claim either way and useless to brow-beat in my view.

One more thing: The "we" language is not helpful either as if all atheists are united in some monolithic front. I would not want you to characterize all Christians under the same umbrella of degree of belief and I would not want Christians to do the same for atheists. But this kind of language perpetuates that untruth. It's pedantic I know, but worth mentioning. :-)

Re: God and Supernaturalism

qetzal — Fri, 16 May 2008 10:55:37 -0000

To ask for a naturalistic explanation for God that meets certain scientific criteria is therefore a categorical error.

Actually, if you read Dr. Moran's post, the allegation is that "[T]heists maintain that there are very sophisticated arguments for the existence of God." The question is therefore: what are some good/sophisticated arguments for the existence of God? His post doesn't insist that it be a naturalistic argument, or that it be an explanation of God, or that it meet any scientific criteria. Only that it be a "good" and/or "sophisticated" argument. (Note that respondents are free to answer in the context of whatever God concept they favor.)

Of course, what you consider good, sophisticated arguments may not meet Dr. Moran's criteria (or mine), and that may well lead to disagreements on the relevance of empirical evidence, etc. But we can't very well get that far unless someone will actually say, "I think a good, sophisticated argument for God's existence is X."

In terms of your analogy, forget the bees, tell us why sophisticated chair-ists think chairs exist, in whatever terms chair-ists consider most relevant.

Alternately, you could argue that Dr. Moran's premise is wrong. That theological scholars do not typically claim there are good sophisticated arguments for God's existence. That would make his question moot, but I haven't seen anyone take that position either.

As an aside, your question about why atheists hold to their belief criteria is definitely a valid one. And I admit that my atheism is founded on a principle that I'm not sure can be independently justified. That is, I choose to consider empirical evidence as the critical factor in deciding what exists. You can certainly ask whether I have good, sophisticated arguments in favor of that principle, and frankly, I'm not sure that I could defend it very well.

But, as they say in the schoolyard, we asked you first!

;-)