Evidence for Beliefs

That could be an argument, and a god could do whatever it wanted for whatever reason. But, as a mere mortal, I could come up with better, more convincing ways to accomplish that.

 

Well said.

I am not interested in proving god’s non-existence. My main concern is whether there IS PROOF of god’s exitence. Because as soon as we concede that god’s existence is more than a matter of faith, then we start drifting into accepting that god’s “will” is known with certainty. And from there it seems we easily go towards the certainty of validating all sorts of strange and dangerous things like witch burning and jihadism.

So, as long as god’s existence (and will) remains a matter of faith.... I say live and let live.

I would also like to note what I consider to be a fundamental incompatibility between notions of religious faith and the idea that god’s existence (and will) are DEMONSTRABLE FACTS. As I see it, if something is demonstrably true, then there is nothing particularly laudable about asserting ones “faith” in that which is known to be demonstrably true.

For example, we can agre that gravity is demonstrably true. And that obvious truth makes it completely meaningless to affirm our faith in gravity. No one would say they have “faith” that they would fall if they jump out a window. We can only have “faith” in matters that are inherently uncertain. And things that are inherently uncertain can not, at the same time, be demonstrably true.

There is a clear and inexorable incompatibility between “demonstrable truth” and “faith.”

But why do I care about what I see as an incompatibility? Because our society gives special privilege to matters of faith. You have the absolute RIGHT to believe what you want with out the need to justify that that belief to me or anyone else.

But matters of demonstrable fact are inseparable from science. These are things upon which we all agree to structure our society. For example, if climate change (and its impacts) are agreed to be matters of demonstrable fact—- then we would agree that these “ facts” should be the basis to alter the way we live. Otoh, if climate change were a matter of faith, then many people would rightly object to being required to change their life based on someone else’s faith in climate change.

This is why strongly object when people of religious faith insist on conflating their faith with demonstrable fact.

Does god exist? It is my right to not care. I do not claim to be able to prove his non existence.
Nor do I have an interest or right to dispute another person’s faith

But I absolutely insist that matters of faith cannot also be matters of indisputable truth. So if believers simply keep their faith to themselves, then it’s all good.

 

I think if it wanted a son (or at least if it went through with it) then I might not call it a deist god to begin with. Planting your son in the world definitely seems like interfering to me.

I think "everyone wants a son" is an idea laden with evolution. We want children because any species which doesn't want children died out real fast. A deist god would not have gone through evolution, so I see no reason to believe it would want a son any more than a rock might.

 

He/She/It might.

The ancient Greek gods wanted humans to amuse themselves with, according to Hesiod.

A Deist God might also.

 

Well, those gods can hardly be called deistic. Amusing oneself with humans would probably be considered intervention.

Similarly, putting a son on earth, I would consider an intervention, thus making the god not really deistic.

 

Not literally Deist.

However for all intents and purposes Deist if the only intervention is the birth of a Son-God.

 

I’ve never had any such experience.

My wife thinks God talked to her in a dream once. But there is nothing about her experience that is objectively provable.

And that’s the problem: there is no way to objectively prove one’s personal experience of the supernatural, or tell it from a hallucination, dream or a lie.

Same thing with the Second Coming. If someone says they are Jesus, how to you tell the real Jesus from the thousands or millions of delusional people who claim or even actually think they are Jesus?

What if the Second Coming has already happened, and Jesus is locked up in a psych ward somewhere?

 

Beliefs don't require evidence.

 

I suppose, could have taken a few people every few years and beat them senseless, what would be more convincing LOL

 

yep everyone has them! (well except fr those in a coma and neoatheists of course) LOL

 

Maybe not 'require', but everyone HAS a basis for their beliefs.
1. Upbringing
2. Schooling
3. Propaganda/Indoctrination
4. Personal experience
5. Personal inquiry

Nobody came to their worldview/beliefs in a vacuum, but these were developed by a series of events, influences, and education/indoctrination.

Consider your own beliefs about the mysteries of the universe.. the questions of origins, purpose, and destiny. Everyone has thought about these things, and their beliefs are molded by the influences in their lives.

Even if they pretend to be above it all, they are still products of their influences. Nobody arrived at a philosophy of life in a vacuum.

 

I include all those terms.. I'm not wanting to get bogged down with semantics, but go to the issue of any experience or encounter with 'something' that you or someone else might call, 'supernatural'.

Mystical or spiritual convey this idea nicely, too.

 

It seems to me to be a simple dichotomy. 'I don't know,' is merely an admittance or expression of ignorance, not a positive or negative claim about the nature of the universe.

I could also include absurdism, as ridiculing the question as irrelevant, but that does not address the simple, 'God, no God' dichotomy, just avoids it.

But the pathway to belief is the topic here. What influences, knowledge, or experiences shaped YOUR beliefs? They did not pop randomly from the ground, but combined to mold into your current belief set.. which changes, as we gain new information, or have other shaping experiences.

 

If you have not had any experiences that could be called 'supernatural,' you are probably in the minority of human experience. ..that is not to say that the subjective experiences of others are, in fact, 'supernatural,' but only that most people, especially by middle age, have experienced the mysterious.

..and while ridiculing the beliefs and/or experiences of others might be mildly amusing, it does not really aid in any quest for knowledge and truth.

It is very likely that many claimed 'supernatural experiences,' ARE delusional or a lie. But then how do you know they all are? Or, how do you know if YOUR experiences and beliefs are also not based on delusions and lies?

If delusion and deception are such common factors in the human psyche, how do you know you are immune from it, and have Pure Truth in your posession?

 

I ridiculed no one. I said one's personal experience is not objectively provable. That's simply a fact.

Do you really think I would be ridiculing my wife?

 

It is the mission of the Wise to denounce and rebuke falsehood with FACT:
Here is a FACT for those who continue the lie and state that what Isa taught has nothing to do with the so-called "Old Testament", when there is neither and Old Testament nor a New Testament because they are ALL of the same origin and discipline. Selah!

Here is the follow-up:

If Isa taught of keeping the Commandments, what commandments was he referring to being that there are NONE in the so-called "New Testament"?
Oh what a tangled web we weave, when at first we set out to deceive!

 

I don't know you, and plenty of people ridicule their spouses..

I completely agreed with the subjectivism in experiences, and have repeated it since the OP.

i thought i detected a little ridicule in the comments about Jesus and second coming.. if not, no worries, I'm used to being mistaken..


I just didn't want to see a philosophical thread degenerate into a religious bigotry bash.. it happens a lot.

 

And all are equally worthless...the correct "belief" is, "I don't know".

 

..so you believe...

 

Funny, yet true.

 

First I don't have any beliefs about the origin of the universe it is a mystery. I don't believe in destiny. Sure I've thought about it in the more I thought about it the more questions I have and the less answers. The universe and it's vastness is something that if I start thinking about I can't formulate any beliefs on.

Destiny is preposterous in my opinion.

I didn't say I came to believe what I do in a vacuum. All I said is that to beliefs do not need evidence.

 

What are you talking about? I made an argument using a hypothetical deistic god, how can that god not be literally deist?

 

I agree. There is a dichotomy between "There is a god" and "There is no god" (exactly one must be true) but there is not a dichotomy between "I believe there is a god" and "I believe there is no god" (it is possible that neither is true). So when you say that this is more about belief and less about the actual state of things, I'd be inclined to look to the latter. But I'm not quite certain on where this all is going.

Well, first we'd have to point out which beliefs we're actually talking about. I belong to a strain of non-religious people who are fundamentally uninterested in the question of whether god exist. It's not that it's not important, the current debate climate simply fails to address it efficiently.

I found most of the time, the people arguing for and against religion were talking past one another, to the point where they were rarely even talking about the same thing. So I became obsessed with the idea that in order for a question to even make sense, it needs to be properly defined. That is the belief that I want to impose on others.

 

I'd have to disagree. Plenty of non-religious and atheists people are primarily interested in whether or not god-beliefs are true out of a desire to believe true things and reject false things, and most are well aware that many of the abuses associated with religion would still exist even without religion. And the question of "how should we live/govern/be" is a universal concern that equally applies to both atheists and theists. Theism often tries to provide shortcuts and just-so "answers" to this question, but inevitably introduces even more questions than it purports to answer, such as the Euthyphro dilemma. I understand where you are coming from in a pragmatic sense, but I don't think that same pragmatic way of thinking is what most atheists are concerned with when they challenge beliefs. There are a lot of non-pragmatic "how many angels could dance on the head of pin" type debates in the broader atheist community.

 

You're right, I shouldn't be claiming to talk for all or most atheists.

I still reckon there is a large contingency who think like that though. As USfan pointed out, the religious debate is mostly concerned with religious claims about the world, and not so much the non-religious claims about the world. It seems to me my argument is a good explanation of that.

Of course, it's not always direct, I reckon there are many who make arguments which are non-pragmatic, but which still are informed by more pragmatic opinions.