Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Cthulhu]

That's Pascal's Wager.  The problem is that there are thousands of different afterlives, many of them mutually exclusive.  Christians believe Muslims and Jews who haven't accepted Christ go to hell.  Muslims believe Christians and Jews go to hell.  Jewish beliefs vary but the one I usually hear is that all righteous people go to heaven (Which makes sense, considering Judaism is about following the Law, not about salvation or creed). 

You're not just picking yes or no, you're picking between a huge variety of afterlives, many of which say you're going to hell for choosing wrong.  In this case, I say no to all of them, hope I'm right, and if I'm wrong hope God things I'm cool anyway.

Dammit, G-Flex ninja

[Aramco]

Or maybe there's a god who's just completely insane and sends you to Detroit, Michigan in a new body if you ever utter the name "Pat Sajak".

it's settled

this is the god I choose to believe in

[Graebeard]

I myself believe in god(s) through a rather convoluted but structurally sound assortment of logic and evidence, with approximately 60% confidence (Similar, in form, to the drake equation - meaning it's quite capable of varying wildly with new discoveries). You think this would end up with me on the theistic side in debates! But when I calmly present my case, the response is always along the lines of "How can you even call that a god?"

Glyph, I'm quite curious about the logic and evidence you've experianced, if you're inclined to share.  I've found, during the relatively infrequent times that I've been inclined to believe in a god, that the my conception of god was pretty unorthodox.  I've had religious experiances where the existence of a universal mind, almost a pantheism, seemed aparant to me at the time.  Once that time passed, though, I had little reason to continue believing in such.

Edit: pantheism, not pangeism

[kaijyuu]

Replace "empirical" with "scientific," then. Remember science is based on experimentation and "beyond reasonable doubt." You can find plenty of videos of ghosts out there, and if one were actually real it'd be dismissed as a hoax immediately.

If something can be observed and measured, then the scientific process can be applied to it. For example, if ghosts were real and interacted with the world in a measurable fashion (as proponents of ghosts believe), then it would be possible to show evidence for that via the scientific method.

Why in the world would it play such games with you, though? Maybe it's hiding for kicks.

Anything non-empirical affecting the empirical world would almost certainly be incredibly unpredictable. What experimentation could be considered valid if it's impossible to know if the conditions are the same?



Beyond that, I think I have fair enough empirical evidence to suggest that supernatural things do not affect the world on a regular basis, else we'd have a lot more unexplained phenomena. No certainty of this, of course, but a strong inductive argument.

And yes, the default assumption for things for which there is no evidence is "it's not real/true".

That's your default assumption, which is fine. It might not be the default assumption of the invisible, intangible elephant in your room.

[Cthulhu]

Empirical just means based on observation.  How can something imperceptible affect the perceptible?  There might be an invisible, intangible leprechaun on my shoulder, and he might constantly fuck with reality, using his powers to make it impossible to detect his tampering, but it's pretty safe to say he doesn't exist.

[G-Flex]

Anything non-empirical affecting the empirical world would almost certainly be incredibly unpredictable. What experimentation could be considered valid if it's impossible to know if the conditions are the same?

I have no idea what you think "empirical" means. "Empirical" simply means it can be observed. If something is affecting the world in a manner that can be empirically measured, it's not "non-empirical", since something that is "non-empirical" by definition couldn't be observed and may as well not exist.

Beyond that, I think I have fair enough empirical evidence to suggest that supernatural things do not affect the world on a regular basis, else we'd have a lot more unexplained phenomena. No certainty of this, of course, but a strong inductive argument.

Yeah, I'm speaking very hypothetically here. I certainly don't think there's any empirical data to support the notion of supernatural things.

Of course, then there's the definition of "supernatural" to begin with. If something exists and can be observed, what makes it supernatural rather than simply natural?

That's your default assumption, which is fine. It might not be the default assumption of the invisible, intangible elephant in your room.

... What? It's the default assumption of basically everyone regarding basically everything, whether they believe it is or not. Otherwise, we all have to believe anything that comes to mind at any time.

[Blargityblarg]

I suppose I'm falling for a slightly different form of Pascal's Wager, then: there are an infinite number of equally likely, mutually distinct gods/pantheons and afterlives to match (with the lack of any god/afterlife as one possibility), and I have no way of knowing which it is, so I simply fail to give a fuck and live how I damn well want to.

[G-Flex]

I suppose I'm falling for a slightly different form of Pascal's Wager, then: there are an infinite number of equally likely, mutually distinct gods/pantheons and afterlives to match (with the lack of any god/afterlife as one possibility), and I have no way of knowing which it is, so I simply fail to give a fuck and live how I damn well want to.

That's perfectly rational, unless you have some particular reason to actually believe in one or more of them as opposed to none.

Bear in miind there's an infinite number of all kinds of hypothetical things, not just "gods". You could apply all of the same logic to invisible space elves, or parallel universes where anime is real.

[Osmosis Jones]

EDIT: Ninja x15 :/

I'm siding with G-Flex on this one, as it's the logical* view;

In the absence of evidence to the contrary, the logical assumption for the presence of an unknown is that it does not exist. See Russell's Teapot for a famous example.**

As for anecdotal "evidence" such as revelations and miracles? There are numerous contradictory creation myths, multiple different deities, and varying perceptions of said deities both around the world and within each culture. As such there is "evidence" both for and against every religion. However; that evidence can also be reasoned as either self-delusion or deliberate deception. We then apply another theory, known as Occam's Razor, and choose the simpler one

Now, all that said, that's my belief. In everyday life, I don't bring this topic up unless one of two things happens; someone tries to convert me or otherwise explain my personal life in terms of their belief, or someone directly disparages scientific evidence purely on the grounds of their belief (neither of which has happened in this thread, and please let it stay that way). Then I will argue my beliefs as above.





*nb: Just because something is the logical viewpoint for a given set of evidence, it does not mean it must be true. However,  that said, given there are finite logical solutions for a situation with certain evidence compared to infinite illogical ones, it follows that the logical solution has a higher probability of being correct than an illogical one.
Also, it should be noted that an illogical view may become a logical one with sufficient new evidence; to refer to G-flex's elephant example, if you heard trumpeting, smelt elephant dung, and saw a trunk rise above the wall, that formerly foolish claim becomes a lot more sensible. Particularly if you knew the circus was setting up in a field on the other side of the wall.

**Concerning the counterarguments, the first two are farcial; and basically boil down to "It doesn't apply to god, because he is special" which is nonsensical, because he/she/they/it is only special to someone who already believes they are special.
The third paragraph, that burden of proof falls on any claim accepts burden of proof is a little more convoluted, but can be countered by demonstrating that whether God exists or not is the default depends entirely on the subjective experience. To you, I am claiming that a god doesn't exist; to me, you are claiming that it does.
Thus, any proving must fall on both claims.
Given it would be much easier to prove the positive than the negative (while a famous mantra, proving a negative is possible in certain situations [albeit, not to my knowledge, this one], it ultimately depends on the framing of the question) by having god do something undeniably godly (which, in the bible at least, has precedent) rather than exhaustively disproving god in every corner of the universe, we once more end up with the burden on the positive claim.

[Graebeard]

A lot of people posting here seem to be on the atheistic side rather than the agnostic side.  I don't see many people leaving it as open as kaijyuu.

For those who believe that lack of evidence of god's existence is a rational basis to believe in god's non-existence, let me pose another question.

If the existence of any non-empirical entity is irrational, how do you decide what the right thing to do is?  When you get to a fork in the road, how do you decide which way to go?  (In philosopher-speak, how do you derive normative statements from exclusively positive empirical statements?)

Here is a poor analogy that I'm quite fond of:

In Euclidian geometry, the parallel postulate cannot be derived from the other axioms.  People tried for centuries to prove it (it's so apparant, it must be true!), and as a result ultimately proved that it is unprovable.  In fact, the negation of the parallel postulate (which is also unprovable) leads to wonderful, interesting, and consistentgeometry (see Lobachevsky).  One problem for those who prefer not to add extra axioms, though.  Geometry with either the parallel postulate or its negation is much more powerful than without.

Just as the parallel postulate (or its negation) lets you make lots of interesting conclusions about space, belief in god (or any other normative principle) lets you make lots of interesting conclusions about the rightness or wrongness of certain behavior.  Unless you are willing to adopt some faith-based belief (christian god or no) how can we know how to act?

Apologies for failing to obey my own rule #4.

@ Osmosis Jones, don't sweat the ninja.  I have a big hope that more people jump on in and give their opinions.

[kaijyuu]

Anything non-empirical affecting the empirical world would almost certainly be incredibly unpredictable. What experimentation could be considered valid if it's impossible to know if the conditions are the same?

I have no idea what you think "empirical" means. "Empirical" simply means it can be observed. If something is affecting the world in a manner that can be empirically measured, it's not "non-empirical", since something that is "non-empirical" by definition couldn't be observed and may as well not exist.

My definition of empirical comes from good ol' philosophy 101. Anything detectable by sight, taste, touch, smell, or hearing (or things you can build a machine to detect and give you signals in one or more of those forms) would be "empirical." So yes, observation, but specifically with those senses. Not knowledge you gain through pure logic (so knowing your own existence through "I think therefore I am" would not be "empirical" knowledge). The oft cited religious "experience" or "feeling" wouldn't count either, for those who claim revelation of some sort.

Of course, then there's the definition of "supernatural" to begin with. If something exists and can be observed, what makes it supernatural rather than simply natural?

My guess would be either it cannot affect the world we live in, or does so based in criteria outside of the world we live in. So God could exist in some higher plane of existence and come down and mess with things once in a while, and be considered entirely "supernatural." At least by my definitions.

That's your default assumption, which is fine. It might not be the default assumption of the invisible, intangible elephant in your room.

... What? It's the default assumption of basically everyone regarding basically everything, whether they believe it is or not. Otherwise, we all have to believe anything that comes to mind at any time.

Which would make a difference, how so?

Let's go back to the elephant in your room that totally exists. He's intangible, so he doesn't affect you or the world in any way. Let's look at the consequences of both assumptions (existence and non-existence):

1) You assume he exists. He does not. Net effect: You move on with your life with an imaginary pet.
2) You assume he exists. He does. Net effect: You move on with your life with a pet that doesn't do anything.
3) You assume he doesn't exist. He does not. Net effect: You move on with your life.
4) You assume he doesn't exist. He does. Net effect: You move on with your life and you have a slightly miffed elephant, assuming he can observe you at all.

In every case, you move on with your life with pretty much 0 change.



But what about tangible things that actually matter, you ask? Well guess what: people make positive assumptions all the time, and then test them. It's called a hypothesis. Now, do they actually believe their hypothesis is correct? Maybe, maybe not. Either way, it doesn't matter since their testing will prove it correct or incorrect anyway.

1) Assumption of truth of hypothesis. Hypothesis true. Net effect: Test finished and knowledge gained.
2) Assumption of falsehood of hypothesis. Hypothesis false. Net effect: Test finished and knowledge gained.


Blah blah I don't want to write the other two lines Point is, for truly non-provable things via the scientific method, your assumption means squat. For things that are provable, your assumption again means squat since your tests will either confirm or deny it.


It is only when you do not test your hypothesis and assume truth or falsehood that there is a problem, and only for things that can be proven in the first place. In reality, most anything that can be tested has some sort of inductive argument you could make to shift your hypothesis either way. You want an example of assumption of truth being the most logical one? How about science in general? You have zero absolute proof of anything "proven" through the scientific method and experimentation. It's all "within reasonable doubt." There's always a risk of it being an anomaly, but the risk gets steadily smaller and smaller, approaching but never reaching zero. What you define as "reasonable" is what you define as "truth," not the other way around.


You make assumptions every day. Some assumptions of truth, some of falsehood. Most based on prior experience and using an inductive argument. But for those situations without prior experience, you assumption is equally pointless no matter what it might be. Truth, falsehood, whatever -- it doesn't matter to the invisible intangible elephant. EDIT: I shouldn't have to qualify this but I will anyway: Shoving your assumption about the invisible intangible elephant down someone else's throat is bad too. If he exists, he won't like you being a jerk. If he doesn't, you're still a jerk.

[Graebeard]

@ kaijuu: I'm definately on the same page as you regarding the empirical and assumption of truth points, but let me push you a bit farther.

What if the big invisible elephant doesn't ever interact with the world unless it wants to.  It is a fickle elephant.  There is no way to provoke it into action for sure.  Sometimes it decides to trample people (who never see it coming) for no reason, but it doesn't like people who curse, or people who are mean, or people who wear jnco's, and tramples them more frequently.  In that event, doesn't your belief in the invisible elephant have real consequences?

[G-Flex]

For those who believe that lack of evidence of god's existence is a rational basis to believe in god's non-existence, let me pose another question.

Nobody is saying this. I believe that there being no rational basis to believe a claim means that I should not believe that claim or put any stake in it, not that I should believe it's necessarily untrue.

Just as the parallel postulate (or its negation) lets you make lots of interesting conclusions about space, belief in god (or any other normative principle) lets you make lots of interesting conclusions about the rightness or wrongness of certain behavior.  Unless you are willing to adopt some faith-based belief (christian god or no) how can we know how to act?

This is a terrible analogy. Those geometries allow you to make "interesting conclusions" because those conclusions are consistent with the world around us. When we devise a geometry using those postulates, we can make predictions and descriptions with it and see if the observable universe is adequately described or predicted by them. Geometry is a descriptive tool that allows you to model space mathematically; it's simply a toolset for describing the world and putting it into mathematical terms. For example, you can use euclidean or spherical geometry to describe the same things, and whether you use one or the other generally comes down to what's more convenient for the task at hand. Geometrical postulates do lead to logical conclusions about how that given geometry works, but it's not that hard to tell whether or not those conclusions are actually useful for describing the world around us.

At any rate, I'm honestly not sure why morals are so special here. Why do we need God for morals if we don't need it for other things?

My definition of empirical comes from good ol' philosophy 101. Anything detectable by sight, taste, touch, smell, or hearing (or things you can build a machine to detect and give you signals in one or more of those forms) would be "empirical." So yes, observation, but specifically with those senses. Not knowledge you gain through pure logic (so knowing your own existence through "I think therefore I am" would not be "empirical" knowledge). The oft cited religious "experience" or "feeling" wouldn't count either, for those who claim revelation of some sort.

That's basically the same definition I'm using (although I'd say we have more senses than that, and I don't mean ESP), so I'm not sure why we aren't on the same page here.

Which would make a difference, how so?

Let's go back to the elephant in your room that totally exists. He's intangible, so he doesn't affect you or the world in any way. Let's look at the consequences of both assumptions (existence and non-existence):

1) You assume he exists. He does not. Net effect: You move on with your life with an imaginary pet.
2) You assume he exists. He does. Net effect: You move on with your life with a pet that doesn't do anything.
3) You assume he doesn't exist. He does not. Net effect: You move on with your life.
4) You assume he doesn't exist. He does. Net effect: You move on with your life and you have a slightly miffed elephant, assuming he can observe you at all.

In every case, you move on with your life with pretty much 0 change.

Except you've cherry-picked a single example which winds up being inconsequential. Most examples of people believing in unobservable, non-falsifiable things are very consequential indeed, like most religion. That, and lesser examples where it's consequential but not to an earth-shattering degree, like Icelanders planning roads around rocks they think elves live under.

But what about tangible things that actually matter, you ask? Well guess what: people make positive assumptions all the time, and then test them. It's called a hypothesis. Now, do they actually believe their hypothesis is correct? Maybe, maybe not. Either way, it doesn't matter since their testing will prove it correct or incorrect anyway.

1) Assumption of truth of hypothesis. Hypothesis true. Net effect: Test finished and knowledge gained.
2) Assumption of falsehood of hypothesis. Hypothesis false. Net effect: Test finished and knowledge gained.

If you automatically assumed a hypothesis to be true, you wouldn't feel the need to test it in the first place, and you might act upon it prior to testing, which is definitely consequential.

Blah blah I don't want to write the other two lines Point is, for truly non-provable things via the scientific method, your assumption means squat.

If you're telling me that people believing in unprovable things doesn't affect their behavior, I'd like to suggest you read about the history of the Roman Catholic Church.

You want an example of assumption of truth being the most logical one? How about science in general? You have zero absolute proof of anything "proven" through the scientific method and experimentation. It's all "within reasonable doubt." There's always a risk of it being an anomaly, but the risk gets steadily smaller and smaller, approaching but never reaching zero. What you define as "reasonable" is what you define as "truth," not the other way around.

What are you talking about? Even science never makes an assumption of absolute truth. Science isn't about absolute truth, it's about building and testing working models of the world around us. If you believe anything scientifically determined to be the absolute truth as opposed to simply a functioning predictive model, you're doing science wrong.

Also, you seem to not understand the difference between an assumption of absolute truth and the idea of variable confidence. I might act upon all kinds of knowledge throughout the day, but my certainty in that knowledge is never 100% no matter how much evidence there is. If I text someone's cell phone instead of calling them because I think they might be too busy then to talk on the phone, that doesn't mean I'm assuming absolutely that they're too busy, just that I find it likely enough based on available evidence that acting in that manner is the most appropriate thing to do.

[kaijyuu]

@ kaijuu: I'm definately on the same page as you regarding the empirical and assumption of truth points, but let me push you a bit farther.

What if the big invisible elephant doesn't ever interact with the world unless it wants to.  It is a fickle elephant.  There is no way to provoke it into action for sure.  Sometimes it decides to trample people (who never see it coming) for no reason, but it doesn't like people who curse, or people who are mean, or people who wear jnco's, and tramples them more frequently.  In that event, doesn't your belief in the invisible elephant have real consequences?

Sure it would, but what assumption would be the more logical one?

You have no idea whether he's able to do anything until after he does. Prior to that, any assumption is equally baseless. By making an assumption, you're rolling the dice. The elephant might trample you if you believe in him, or if you don't, or either way. The result of your assumption might matter, but you've no reason to choose one assumption over the other.

Personally, I'd choose based on whether I want an invisible elephant pet or not. Then hope I'm right, but not be convinced. But most of all, move on (until I'm trampled).

[Megaman]

Talking about religion on the net never goes well, but believing in god myself, it's interesting to see why others lack faith.

I'm just going to leave a note here-people say the church has done so many terrible things in its past (crusades, inquisition, etc.) but what about all those benevolent services done by religious institutions? The Salvation army is a good example, or the smaller charity activities done by local churches.