|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13476 Posts |
 Posted - 08/14/2004 : 15:00:06 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Wulfstan:
As a strong atheist, I take the view that God or gods do not exist, can never exist and will never exist in any physical, omniscient, omnipotent sense.
As an agnostic, I take the view that God or gods probably don't exist, probably never existed and most likely never will exist in any physical, omniscient, omnipotent sense.
As a skeptic, I try to hold my beliefs up to the same standard of evidence I require from others. Therefor, being agnostic is to me a more precise description of how I view the god issue. I will go as far as to say that those who call themselves strong atheists are probably correct in their assessment. But I will not take any position that amounts to a leap of faith. Why should I? How does it serve me to proclaim an absolute based on negative evidence?
I am aware of the fact that I am also an atheist. It seems to me that it is through my agnosticism, and my skepticism, that I arrive at a satisfactory explanation for why I am an atheist.
quote:
Filthy:
"An Agnostic is no more than an Atheist lacking the courage of his convictions!"
Don't recall where I read that -- it was a long time ago -- but I've always liked it.
First of all, bite me. Then, see above... |
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
 |
|
|
Ricky
SFN Die Hard
USA
4907 Posts |
|
|
beskeptigal
SFN Die Hard
USA
3834 Posts |
Posted - 08/14/2004 : 15:41:51 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Kil
As an agnostic, I take the view that God or gods probably don't exist, probably never existed and most likely never will exist in any physical, omniscient, omnipotent sense.
As a skeptic, I try to hold my beliefs up to the same standard of evidence I require from others. Therefor, being agnostic is to me a more precise description of how I view the god issue. I will go as far as to say that those who call themselves strong atheists are probably correct in their assessment. But I will not take any position that amounts to a leap of faith. Why should I? How does it serve me to proclaim an absolute based on negative evidence?
Suppose you take the position, as I do, that there isn't a single religion that has any evidence of real gods. Now you have not just lack of evidence, but no reason to even begin the question, is there a god?
So do you leave the door open to anything and everything a human imagination can create? For example, fire breathing dragons? Or do you require at least some limits on what the possibilities are? |
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13476 Posts |
Posted - 08/14/2004 : 16:13:52 [Permalink]
|
quote:
beskeptigal:
Suppose you take the position, as I do, that there isn't a single religion that has any evidence of real gods. Now you have not just lack of evidence, but no reason to even begin the question, is there a god?
All I have is a lack of evidence. Nothing changes. By the way, there's tons of anecdotal evidence. I don't happen to accept anecdotal evidence. But a claim has been made...
quote:
bespeptigal:
So do you leave the door open to anything and everything a human imagination can create? For example, fire breathing dragons? Or do you require at least some limits on what the possibilities are?
I leave the door open this far. I ask "what evidence do you have to support your claim?" Do I sit around and consider the possibility of the existence of dragons? No. And I don't sit around and consider the possibility of god either. I also do not make statements of fact without evidence to support my claims. Negative evidence may be regarded as a pretty good reason to doubt a claim, but I cannot make claims of fact based on that. Again, why should I? What exactly is the point of doing that? Is my doubting nature not sufficient enough? What do I gain by closing the door all the way on any possibility that someday someone just might be able to support what now looks to us like a completely ridiculous claim? |
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
Wulfstan
New Member
USA
42 Posts |
Posted - 08/14/2004 : 19:00:55 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Kil said:
As an agnostic, I take the view that God or gods probably don't exist, probably never existed and most likely never will exist in any physical, omniscient, omnipotent sense.
As a skeptic, I try to hold my beliefs up to the same standard of evidence I require from others. Therefor, being agnostic is to me a more precise description of how I view the god issue. I will go as far as to say that those who call themselves strong atheists are probably correct in their assessment. But I will not take any position that amounts to a leap of faith. Why should I? How does it serve me to proclaim an absolute based on negative evidence?
Firstly, I was expressing what I believe, not making an argument. I'm aware that an argument from ignorance exists (as was expressed between Dave and Dude in the afterlife consciousness discussion). But then too, argument fallacies aren't rules of life--they are tools. So, I'm asked to leave the door open to a claim that was preposterous, though understandable, to begin with, and with which I have no control since religion began so long ago? What's the reason I should give credence to the claim to begin with? Because so many people believe it? Because of the anecdotal evidence of whoever through the ages? Again, I can adamantly say no unicorns exist, but for a good argument I have to leave the door open that they might exist, even though the Earth has been scoured enough that I can be pretty darn certain that unicorns don't exist. I can leave the door open to aliens, since so much of the universe is unexplored.
Based on what I said earlier...language, the evolution of religion, man's gaining knowledge, the whole contradictory aspect of God (at least the Christian one),etc, etc, I feel certain that no one will ever be able to prove that God exists. If one can show me this God, or point to some manifestation of it other than what I call the process of nature, then I'll be more than willing to say, "Hey, mayne there is some truth to this." I'm not the one making some wild claim--the onus is on the God-exists claimant. The claim "God exists" came before "God doesn't exist."* As Bestskeptigal said, I could make claims all day and be "right", whether it's that ghosts exist or some alien with a joystick is controlling the universe or whatever. Most people will think I'm nuts, but can they be so sure that ghosts don't exist? People say that universal negatives can't be proven since we are not omniscient, but we can look at the matter, in this case God, and find that there's so much illogic in the construct of God
Filthy:
"An Agnostic is no more than an Atheist lacking the courage of his convictions!"
I guess this quotation comes from this notion that we can't or shouldn't claim an absolute and for the sake of argument we should leave the possibility open. We claim absolutes like the earth revolves around the sun--makes sense, we can see that, we study the evidence. The same goes with this idea of gods and God--for me, it's not merely that we can't see that God exists, but why humans constructed gods in the first place and our tendency to believe in the supernatural and superstitions (iow, human nature), to this day. It is not just about arguing with negative evidence--there is much positive evidence that no God exists just by studying this "perfect" God. Without getting into allthe evidence (the Olympics are on) I am led to this conclusion of mine.
*Who the burden of proof lies upon is another argument in itself. My feeling is, I didn't come into this world believing in God, someone--mainly my parents told me that God exists, and even from four years old I have continued to ask for proof or something that makes sense since I never thought it sounded plausible or even a good idea to begin with. So, I think the burden of proof is on them. 
|
|
|
|
Ricky
SFN Die Hard
USA
4907 Posts |
Posted - 08/14/2004 : 19:51:28 [Permalink]
|
About leaving the door open for claims, I would think of that as a standard for all claims. For example, the cat is on the mat. We can see if the cat is on the mat or not. But what if there was some phenomenon that bends the light waves which makes the cat appear on the mat? What if you are having a hallucination? Hell, what if you are making up the entire universe with your mind (not a common belief, but some actually believe this)? There is no way to ever say anything is anything 100%, so "leaving the door open" in any situation is a given, at least to me. (note: the example came from the article someone posted about philosphy and Monty Python, I foget which topic its in though)
That being said, I treat god the same way. Just like in any other situation, the door must be left open. But I also treat it in the same way as I think Dave W. put it, there could be zillions of little green men pushing objects creating gravity. That is to say I think its unlikely to such an extreme that I can be say he/she/it doesn't exist. |
Why continue? Because we must. Because we have the call. Because it is nobler to fight for rationality without winning than to give up in the face of continued defeats. Because whatever true progress humanity makes is through the rationality of the occasional individual and because any one individual we may win for the cause may do more for humanity than a hundred thousand who hug their superstitions to their breast.
- Isaac Asimov |
| Edited by - Ricky on 08/14/2004 19:54:45 |
|
|
|
beskeptigal
SFN Die Hard
USA
3834 Posts |
Posted - 08/15/2004 : 00:12:44 [Permalink]
|
quote:
"An Agnostic is no more than an Atheist lacking the courage of his convictions!"
Well, I don't agree with this at all. Whatever reasons a person has to be agnostic or atheist, to question that person's underlying convictions would have to presume you could read their mind. It would be projecting your convictions onto theirs.
I respect that others have left the option open, and I've had this kind of discussion before about should we leave everything, every possibility open. It is along the same lines of proof vs absolute proof.
In my field, research has to be evaluated on a continuum of evidence. In medicine, we don't deal with absolute proofs like one might in math or perhaps some other physical sciences. Instead you have things like 'evidence suggests' or there is 'overwhelming evidence'. I have chosen not to leave the door open for fire breathing dragons or gods because I evaluate the evidence to be overwhelmingly against such things.
But it is a fine line. Unicorns, well a horse like creature with a single horn, that's not in the realm of impossibility as an animal spewing fire out of their mouth. I don't think there is any evidence for such a creature, but we have not discovered all the animal species there ever were or even that exist today. There is a reason to leave that particular door open.
I think there is strong evidence for the possibility of ET life. I doubt aliens have visited Earth, and have seen no convincing evidence, but again, the fine line for me says to keep that door open as well.
I recognize my position might be fallible, but some things are just over the line. Fire breathing dragons and coyotes stealing fire from heaven are over the line.
As to the anecdotal evidence, there is none re: gods. There is evidence that someone believed a god or angel or deceased person or what ever intervened or contacted them, etc. I will leave open the possibility these experiences might have unknown as yet explanations.
But I have looked very thoroughly at the evidence for gods in many different religions. Based on the fact that religious accounts/beliefs invariably can be attributed to human imagination and invariably do not contain inexplicable elements such as I described above (criteria that would meet the god intervened test) I think there is overwhelming evidence that no gods exist.
I guess it boils down to my leaving the door open for all sorts of fantastic things but believing religious beliefs have been thoroughly accounted for and religion is human, not supernatural. |
|
|
|
R.Wreck
SFN Regular
USA
1191 Posts |
Posted - 08/15/2004 : 10:13:52 [Permalink]
|
Based on the lack of evidence supporting the claim of the existence of any supernatural being, I think it is reasonable to conclude that no such being exists. Sure, you can "leave the door open" to it, but I wouldn't waste too much time searching for it. There's more important things for all of us to use our brainpower on, like finding solutions to actual earthbound problems, or just enjoying your life.
So why do so many believe in some sort of supernatural creator / caretaker / dice player / disciplinarian? I think that it gives a sense of comfort to believe that you are "special", created and cared about by an omnipotent being (hey, who wouldn't want to have that kind of friend in high places?). Most people don't seem to want to question the idea, because if they come to the conclusion that there is no such being, they are afraid that they will feel "lost" and their life will be without meaning (I have actually heard this said). There are problems that arise form this world view. Obviously, there are those that not only believe in their god, but also that it directly communicates with them, and tells them what to do. I find that unhealthy at the least, and dangerous if taken to the extreme. Also, this willingness to believe in the unproved and unprovable god tends to predispose people to belive in other unsupported suppostitions, many of which are pure nonsense (pet psychics!). I have observed that many "believers" are willing to believe in anything (as long as it doesn't go against their religious dogma) if it makes them feel better. A good part of the advertising industry is built on this principle.
I suppose there is just something in our brains that causes this, maybe to keep us from just being scared stiff and unable to function knowing that we are here not by the benificence of the almighty, but due to some unknown reason or perhaps purely by cosmic accident or probability. I think it is difficult for most people to accept that possibility, so they are happy to continue believing in magic.
Anyway, belive what you want, including the possibility of anything. But when it comes to making decisions about living, I prefer to stick to that which has been shown to be true, or at least highly probable given the evidence. |
The foundation of morality is to . . . give up pretending to believe that for which there is no evidence, and repeating unintelligible propositions about things beyond the possibliities of knowledge.
T. H. Huxley
The Cattle Prod of Enlightened Compassion
|
|
|
|
N C More
Skeptic Friend
53 Posts |
Posted - 08/15/2004 : 10:59:59 [Permalink]
|
A personal God, as portrayed in the Bible...not likely. However, I will not dismiss the possibility of "something" beyond ourselves. I like what Einstein had to say about this matter:
quote:
"Our situation on this earth seems strange. Every one of us appears here involuntary and uninvited for a short stay, without knowing the whys and the wherefore. In our daily lives we only feel that man is here for the sake of others, for those whom we love and for many other beings whose fate is connected with our own." ... "The most beautiful and deepest experience a man can have is the sense of the mysterious. It is the underlying principle of religion as well as all serious endeavour in art and science. He who never had this experience seems to me, if not dead, then at least blind. To sense that behind anything that can be experienced there is a something that our mind cannot grasp and whose beauty and sublimity reaches us only indirectly and as a feeble reflection, this is religiousness. In this sense I am religious. To me it suffices to wonder at these secrets and to attempt humbly to grasp with my mind a mere image of the lofty structure of all that there is." Einstein's speech 'My Credo' to the German League of Human Rights, Berlin, autumn 1932, Einstein: A Life in Science, Michael White and John Gribbin, Page 262.
|
"An open mind is like an open window...without a good screen you'll get some really weird bugs!" |
|
|
|
R.Wreck
SFN Regular
USA
1191 Posts |
Posted - 08/15/2004 : 14:15:14 [Permalink]
|
quote:
"The most beautiful and deepest experience a man can have is the sense of the mysterious. It is the underlying principle of religion as well as all serious endeavour in art and science. He who never had this experience seems to me, if not dead, then at least blind. To sense that behind anything that can be experienced there is a something that our mind cannot grasp and whose beauty and sublimity reaches us only indirectly and as a feeble reflection, this is religiousness. In this sense I am religious. To me it suffices to wonder at these secrets and to attempt humbly to grasp with my mind a mere image of the lofty structure of all that there is."
My interpretation of what Einstein was saying is that what's out there beyond us is an understanding of how everything that exists came to be, how it all works, and how everything relates to everything else (the "lofty structure"). The breadth, depth, and compexity of the universe we know (not to mention the possible universes we don't know) certainly is something to be wondered at. I think its the incredible combination of complexity and simplicity, consistency and contradiction that we find as we explore the universe, from the smallest particles to the whole enchilada, that Einstein was "religious" about. I'm not sure that he was talking about a "something" outside the universe, as much as the universe itself as the object of his wonder. I don't dismiss the possibility of "something", but I find the things we already know and the process of learning more to be more than enough for me. |
The foundation of morality is to . . . give up pretending to believe that for which there is no evidence, and repeating unintelligible propositions about things beyond the possibliities of knowledge.
T. H. Huxley
The Cattle Prod of Enlightened Compassion
|
|
|
|
Boron10
Religion Moderator
USA
1266 Posts |
Posted - 08/15/2004 : 15:09:29 [Permalink]
|
beskeptigal, I like your post; however, I have a few comments and questions:
quote:
In medicine, we don't deal with absolute proofs like one might in math or perhaps some other physical sciences. Instead you have things like 'evidence suggests' or there is 'overwhelming evidence'.
I concur. This is a fundamental issue that arises when one makes the intellectual transition from an ideal (like mathematics) to reality (medicine, to use your example). Since there are often too many variables to consider, one is often forced to deal with statistical analyses of facts.
This is my first disagreement with your post:quote:
I have chosen not to leave the door open for fire breathing dragons or gods because I evaluate the evidence to be overwhelmingly against such things.
What evidence do you believe exists that is against fire-breathing dragons or gods?quote:
But it is a fine line. Unicorns, well a horse like creature with a single horn, that's not in the realm of impossibility as an animal spewing fire out of their mouth. I don't think there is any evidence for such a creature, but we have not discovered all the animal species there ever were or even that exist today. There is a reason to leave that particular door open.
I think there is strong evidence for the possibility of ET life. I doubt aliens have visited Earth, and have seen no convincing evidence, but again, the fine line for me says to keep that door open as well.
Are you suggesting that it is more likely for a unicorn or an alien to exist than for a god to exist? Are you saying it is just as likely for an alien to exist as it is for a unicorn? If so, what brings you to this conclusion? (I do agree that a unicorn seems far more within the realm of possibility than a fire-breathing dragon. What makes you put a god into the same category as the dragon?)quote:
I recognize my position might be fallible, but some things are just over the line. Fire breathing dragons and coyotes stealing fire from heaven are over the line.
They definitely seem far less possible than many other suggestions.
Here is my second significant disagreement with your post:quote:
As to the anecdotal evidence, there is none re: gods.
There is an abundance of anecdotal evidence! Every religious text out there is anecdotal evidence. Every time somebody claims to have spoken to his or her god, that is anecdotal evidence. As Kil said, there is a lot of it, it just doesn't really count. Perhaps you meant to say that anecdotal evidence is not valid?quote:
There is evidence that someone believed a god or angel or deceased person or what ever intervened or contacted them, etc. I will leave open the possibility these experiences might have unknown as yet explanations.
I am not sure what you are trying to say here. Do you leave the possibility of a god open or not? Are you only saying there may be more to these claims than delusion? quote:
But I have looked very thoroughly at the evidence for gods in many different religions. Based on the fact that religious accounts/beliefs invariably can be attributed to human imagination and invariably do not contain inexplicable elements such as I described above (criteria that would meet the god intervened test) I think there is overwhelming evidence that no gods exist.
Again, I see no evidence for the nonexistence of a god, merely the lack of evidence for a god. There is a subtle yet very important distinction here. quote:
I guess it boils down to my leaving the door open for all sorts of fantastic things but believing religious beliefs have been thoroughly accounted for and religion is human, not supernatural.
Again, I don't see what point you are trying to make in this conclusion. Are you saying there may be a god, but you choose not to believe it? Are you saying there may be any number of fantastic things, but you choose not to believe in a god? Or, are you saying there may be any number of things, but you choose not to believe in any of them?
Edited to put names in bold font |
| Edited by - Boron10 on 08/15/2004 15:11:42 |
|
|
|
Ricky
SFN Die Hard
USA
4907 Posts |
|
|
beskeptigal
SFN Die Hard
USA
3834 Posts |
Posted - 08/16/2004 : 02:52:24 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Boron10
This is my first disagreement with your post:quote:
I have chosen not to leave the door open for fire breathing dragons or gods because I evaluate the evidence to be overwhelmingly against such things.
What evidence do you believe exists that is against fire-breathing dragons or gods?
Some people choose to leave open every possibility. Just as some choose the definition of proof as 'absolute' and almost never attain it. There is nothing better nor worse in those positions from mine, but I draw the line a tad on the side of less than absolutes. I have an open a mind, but I see no reason to think absolutely everything is possible.
Let me start by asking you if you are leaving the idea open for Pele the volcano god or have you decided there is sufficient evidence that volcanoes are not conscious? Again we have some people who won't say 'absolutely no' to anything. I don't think that is a useful position.
Fire breathing dragons: the only reason we have for their existence is human imagination. Fire would not be compatible with the living tissues of one's mouth. Only single celled thermophiles can survive in environments consistently > 45 degrees C. and even those don't survive combustion temperatures. I suppose I might have to reconsider if lower temperature combustible materials were brought to my attention.
God(s): I start with the idea that the only reason we have for allowing the possible existence of gods in the first place is human imagination. There is no other evidence.
You find god(s) in most if not all cultures. These religions are not consistent enough to have significance other than it is human nature to imagine there are god(s). The social reasons for this human activity can be evaluated and can explain religion.
And most important, all religious beliefs are based on what the persons who developed them knew at the time. In no religion is there any insight or knowledge that meet the criteria of being beyond what humans could have known at the time.
For example, the Bible: Not only does it have all the science wrong, it also lacks awareness of the rest of the world. It lacks awareness of bacterial causes of disease. It lacks awareness of galaxies. It treats the Moon as if it had its own light source. All of this is overwhelming evidence there was no god influence in the Bible's origins.
There is overwhelming evidence there are no god(s)' influence in any religion. There is evidence people make up religion and that it has a psycho-social basis. That leaves no thread from which to even begin a god possibility. Just as there is no thread from which to begin a fire breathing dragon possibility.
quote:
quote:
But it is a fine line. Unicorns, well a horse like creature with a single horn, that's not in the realm of impossibility as an animal spewing fire out of their mouth. I don't think there is any evidence for such a creature, but we have not discovered all the animal species there ever were or even that exist today. There is a reason to leave that particular door open.
I think there is strong evidence for the possibility of ET life. I doubt aliens have visited Earth, and have seen no convincing evidence, but again, the fine line for me says to keep that door open as well.
Are you suggesting that it is more likely for a unicorn or an alien to exist than for a god to exist? Are you saying it is just as likely for an alien to exist as it is for a unicorn? If so, what brings you to this conclusion? (I do agree that a unicorn seems far more within the realm of possibility than a fire-breathing dragon. What makes you put a god into the same category as the dragon?)
Alien life is clearly within the range of possible, I'd say it is more likely probable given what I know about evolution.
But god(s) have failed the god theory test. In no religion do you find evidence for supernatural (for lack of a better word) influence. The Bible clearly originated in the imagination of humans probably beginning before they first migrated out of Africa. The myths can be traced back beyond the first appearance of the written Bible text. But nowhere in the myths are there any insights or information that is beyond what men knew at the time.
quote:
Here is my second significant disagreement with your post:quote:
As to the anecdotal evidence, there is none re: gods.
There is an abundance of anecdotal evidence! Every religious text out there is anecdotal evidence. Every time somebody claims to have spoken to his or her god, that is anecdotal evidence. As Kil said, there is a lot of it, it just doesn't really count. Perhaps you meant to say that anecdotal evidence is not valid?
Claiming to speak to a god isn't what I would consider anecdotal evidence for a god. It is anecdotal evidence for a person's belief, which there is no doubt of. OTOH, claiming your prayers were answered would be considered anecdotal evidence of a god.
But I have read all the studies of whether prayer affected outcomes that I am aware have been done. The studies claiming positive results for prayer having any effect were considerably flawed. While a couple studies clearly showed no effect. So, from what I have seen, there is still overwhelming evidence the god theory has been sufficiently disproved.
Which, as I try to explain my perspective, I guess is the core of the matter. I think there is evidence against the god theory while others believe there is only a lack of evidence for a god theory.
quote:
quote:
There is evidence that someone believed a god or angel or deceased person or what ever intervened or contacted them, etc. I will leave open the possibility these experiences might have unknown as yet explanations.
I am not sure what you are trying to say here. Do you leave the possibility of a god open or not? Are you only saying there may be more to these claims than delusion?
I haven't seen convincing evidence for paranormal claims like esp. And I accept the skeptical view that coincidence can explain the incidents. But unlike belief in god(s) where there is no evidence of god events occurring, there is evidence for highly unusual coincidences having occurred. I leave open the possibility that the |
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13476 Posts |
Posted - 08/16/2004 : 07:12:51 [Permalink]
|
quote:
beskeptigal:
But again, just as there might be an unusual animal yet to be discovered it won't be a fire breather. And the nature of the Universe isn't fully known, but there won't be gods in it.
I'm assuming these conclusions are tentative... |
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
Ricky
SFN Die Hard
USA
4907 Posts |
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
