The Atheism Thread

[Jeff Lebowski]

But do we truly "know" that the earth is billions of years old? How could we? No one can truly know that. We can form a belief, and it may be a very strong belief, based on inferences we make from facts. But it is no more knowledge than the belief that God exists that is derived from personal experience. How does someone "test" the age of the earth?

Yes, we can truly know that. It is an established fact based on countless pieces of independently verifiable evidence that consistently converge on the same conclusion. Read a book on astronomy, physics, or geology and you will see what I mean. That is in no way comparable to evidence that God exists. You can't prove the existence of God through objectively verifiable means. It is purely a matter of faith (nothing wrong with that). Distinctions between faith and knowledge aren't silly and pointless.

[UVACoug]

The problem is that no one can tell you what His decisions are based on. No one can really tell you why sometimes murder, slavery, rape are okay, or why polygamy is okay one day but not the next or why institutional racism is okay one day but not the next, lying is sometimes okay but not other times. The best explanation seems to be that God is operating within a set of rules that we are not privy to. Given this ignorance, the God of Mormonism is morally inscrutable. He can literally command almost anything and it is right. There is no methodology by which we can analyse what he is saying. Of course, He is not actually saying anything, rather, a human being is telling me what he thinks God said.

The problem here is that if I said that I am operating by a set of rules that I'm not going to tell you about, but that are better than yours, and which justify all sorts of things that by most definitions are immoral you would rightly not accept that. You would insist that if we are going to analyse these things that we do so by the same set of rule or criteria and that I cannot exempt myself by saying "I'm not telling you how I make my judgments." This is what Mormonism asks people to do. And if I tell you that I after much deep thought and meditation on countless occasions that both my mind and my emotions have confirmed to me that my judgments are right, will this be convincing evidence to you?

So given the lack of any explanation of the rules being played by, it simply appears that the Mormon God's ethics are ever shifting in a fashion that it is just a coincidence, we are urged to believe, seems to mirror the social evolution of the societies the people claiming to speak for him live in.

The problem here is that you are assuming the human mind is capable of understanding everything there is to know about the universe in a matter of about 5 minutes. That is silly. It is my belief, and I belief the the teaching of the Church, that the entire purpose of life is to learn to understand what God understands. The "why" questions that you seem to be hung up on are the entire essence of existence. The problem is you want God to give you all these answers in a fifteen minute power point presentation when it can't be boiled down to that.

It would take a lifetime to know and understand everything Einstein or Steven Hawkings knows. Do we write off all their theory because they can't boil it down to fifteen minutes worth of prose? Of course not.

Your tests for God prove nothing. If God exists, and he truly is a superior being, then it is entirely possible and completely likely that we can't understand and comprehend everything he comprehends in an instant. The problem for you is that doesn't comport with your assumption that human reasoning is the ultimate, and really only, source of truth. Therefore, you must assume God doesn't exist.

Because I take the opposite position ... because I allow myself to infer the existence of God through my experiences (just like you make inferences and assumptions that can't be absolutely proven) ... I allow for the possibility that there are some things in the universe that cannot be understood in a lifetime. That doesn't mean I will never understand them. To the contrary, I believe all things are capable of being understood and will be understood. The search for all truth is the entire purpose of existence. But I am not arrogant to think that for something to be true, it must be capable of being boiled down to a fifteen minute power point presentation that my human mind can comprehend. To believe that, I have to start with the premise that I am the ultimate rational entity in the universe, which presupposes that God does not exist.

[UVACoug]

This isn't true. Science does rely on methodological naturalism, but doesn't require ontological naturalism. The motivation for the former should be obvious -- of course a scientist wouldn't go about trying to experiment on phenomena with no impact on the physical realm (unless it's to test that very hypothesis). That doesn't necessarily mean it doesn't exist, or even that the scientist(s) performing the experiment must assume it doesn't exist. All that's been demonstrated is that if any kind of supernatural realm exists, it either doesn't seem to interfere with material laws, or else covers its tracks pretty well.

Many people in the world think that there are more "ways of knowing" than what we can observe. As my argument above indicates, I simply deny that the supernatural ways of knowing actually lead to knowledge in the standard sense (adjudged by fMRI data). Perhaps they lead to some kind of higher knowledge instead. I just think there's already a perfectly functional word for that -- belief.

So the definition of "knowledge" is now what can be measured by fMRI data? And what are these other senses, and when were they discovered? Have we discovered all of them?

And I would love to hear your double speak on the difference between nonexistence and nonsense.

[UVACoug]

Yes, we can truly know that. It is an established fact based on countless pieces of independently verifiable evidence that consistently converge on the same conclusion. Read a book on astronomy, physics, or geology and you will see what I mean. That is in no way comparable to evidence that God exists. You can't prove the existence of God through objectively verifiable means. It is purely a matter of faith (nothing wrong with that). Distinctions between faith and knowledge aren't silly and pointless.

But ultimately it requires an inference that the evidence proves the conclusion. I can point to many empirically verifiable facts or pieces of evidence that have led to my inference that God exists. What is the difference? You didn't see the earth a billion years ago. You couldn't have, and neither could anyone else. You have to make a leap of logic from empirical verifiable evidence to the conclusion. You call that knowledge. How is that any different than someone that makes a similar inference about the existence of God?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

[Jeff Lebowski]

But ultimately it requires an inference that the evidence proves the conclusion. I can point to many empirically verifiable facts or pieces of evidence that have led to my inference that God exists. What is the difference? You didn't see the earth a billion years ago. You couldn't have, and neither could anyone else. You have to make a leap of logic from empirical verifiable evidence to the conclusion. You call that knowledge. How is that any different than someone that makes a similar inference about the existence of God?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

No, I call a conclusion drawn from overwhelming amounts of objectively verifiable evidence to be knowledge (you are overstating the leap required). All of the evidence for God is of the subjective variety.

Let me ask you a question: if the two realms are so similar in terms of evidence and knowledge, what is the role of faith? For example, if I could come up with a single piece of rock-solid, indisputable evidence for the existence of God, why would anyone need faith? If you believe the LDS narrative that one of the main objectives of our existence here on earth is to learn to walk by faith, then I think you have to concede that one will never be able to prove the existence of God in an objective fashion. Now please don't copout and and tell me that nothing can be proved definitively.

The problem in these discussions is that believers feel the need to deconstruct the concept of knowledge and the scientific method in order to defend the concept of faith. It's embarrassing and unnecessary. Religion has always been about faith!

Perhaps this quote says it better than I can:

It was Rabbi Irving Greenberg who once wrote that it is important to distinguish between belief and knowledge. What one believes, one cannot know. What one knows, one cannot believe. To believe something means that its perceived veracity depends upon the subjective loyalty of the believer, based upon reason, personal, expeience, or some other compelling catalyst to such faith; to know something depends upon its being provable as fact.

In truth, then, the worst thing that could happen to the faithful person would be the discovery of a means to prove that there is indeed a God, for this would preclude the possiblity of faith, altogether! Rightly, the answer to the question, "Is there a God?" is not yes or now; it is rather, "I believe that there is a God" or "I do not believe that there is a God."

http://www.opposingviews.com/argumen...faith-vs-proof

[woot]

So the definition of "knowledge" is now what can be measured by fMRI data? And what are these other senses, and when were they discovered? Have we discovered all of them?

And I would love to hear your double speak on the difference between nonexistence and nonsense.

It's clear that you're less interested in honest debate than in manipulating my words to try to win an argument, so I'll avoid taking the bait any further. Regarding the number of senses we possess, I'll just encourage you to google it; it's not obscure information.

[UVACoug]

No, I call a conclusion drawn from overwhelming amounts of objectively verifiable evidence to be knowledge (you are overstating the leap required). All of the evidence for God is of the subjective variety.

Let me ask you a question: if the two realms are so similar in terms of evidence and knowledge, what is the role of faith? For example, if I could come up with a single piece of rock-solid, indisputable evidence for the existence of God, why would anyone need faith? If you believe the LDS narrative that one of the main objectives of our existence here on earth is to learn to walk by faith, then I think you have to concede that one will never be able to prove the existence of God in an objective fashion. Now please don't copout and and tell me that nothing can be proved definitively.

The problem in these discussions is that believers feel the need to deconstruct the concept of knowledge and the scientific method in order to defend the concept of faith. It's embarrassing and unnecessary. Religion has always been about faith!

Perhaps this quote says it better than I can:



http://www.opposingviews.com/argumen...faith-vs-proof

I'm not equating faith with knowledge, and I don't claim to have knowledge of the existence of God. I am simply disputing the claim that no one CAN know that God exists. If Joseph Smith really did see God, would he KNOW that he exists? Of course he would. Would he be able to prove his existence to someone else? No. But knowledge and proof are not the same thing. Is his vision of God subjective? Your interpretation of it is, but his experience was not. Either it happened to him or it didn't.

The only distinction between the leap that is required to "know" that the earth is a billion years old and to "know" that God exists is the size of the leap. But with regard to the existence of God, that leap may be smaller than you think. What if you were alive in Jesus time and witnessed him heal the blind or cure a leper? Is that not an objectively verifiable piece of evidence that you can rely on? What if the miracle you witness is not so obvious? Is it not evidence?

Faith is an essential part of God's plan, in my opinion ... but I do not dispute the possibility that some people can move beyond faith to knowledge.

[UVACoug]

It's clear that you're less interested in honest debate than in manipulating my words to try to win an argument, so I'll avoid taking the bait any further. Regarding the number of senses we possess, I'll just encourage you to google it; it's not obscure information.

Did you, or did you not, say that knowledge comes from fMRI data? That is what it seemed like you said.

I am perfectly fine with you not "taking the bait". I find most of your comments pretty convoluted and full of contradictions and unprovable assumptions. If you want to have an honest debate, maybe you should start with being honest.

[Jeff Lebowski]

I'm not equating faith with knowledge, and I don't claim to have knowledge of the existence of God. I am simply disputing the claim that no one CAN know that God exists. If Joseph Smith really did see God, would he KNOW that he exists? Of course he would. Would he be able to prove his existence to someone else? No. But knowledge and proof are not the same thing. Is his vision of God subjective? Your interpretation of it is, but his experience was not. Either it happened to him or it didn't.

Maybe it did, but we have zero objective, irrefutable evidence that it did so once again we are right back where we started. You take it on faith or you don't.

The only distinction between the leap that is required to "know" that the earth is a billion years old and to "know" that God exists is the size of the leap. But with regard to the existence of God, that leap may be smaller than you think. What if you were alive in Jesus time and witnessed him heal the blind or cure a leper? Is that not an objectively verifiable piece of evidence that you can rely on? What if the miracle you witness is not so obvious? Is it not evidence?

Faith is an essential part of God's plan, in my opinion ... but I do not dispute the possibility that some people can move beyond faith to knowledge.

This is hard to follow because you are discussing two different things at once. Yes of course a handful of people could theoretically experience the divine in such a direct fashion that the evidence would be irrefutable for them. But the vast majority of us are left to decide whether or not we believe them since we cannot prove that they are telling the truth. And again, if you believe LDS theology, that is part of the plan.

Also, your "size of the leap" logic is not correct. The two things you present are based on entirely different types of evidence. One can be objectively verified and the other cannot.

[ERCougar]

From Zizek, as entertaining and provocative as ever: "If There is a God, Then Anything is Permitted."

http://www.abc.net.au/religion/artic...17/3478816.htm

this is a great piece. thanks.

his point that most men (excluding the few very bad) have a basic internal revulsion to doing bad things , and that it takes religion (or some other cause bigger than self, which is simply another form of it) to get one to overcome it is an interesting one. we certainly see it at play now with fundamentalists, although I'm not sure his example of sheltering pedophiles in the church works very well. my problem is that he seems to ignore the smaller good that religion inspires in so many of its adherents--feeding the poor, visiting the sick, etc. in practice, isn't this really the much larger influence of religion, even if less interesting an example?

I'm in the middle of brothers karamazov--coincidentally, just past the inquisitor section--and i have to admit, I'm afraid I'm missing Dostoyevskys point here, as I am zizeks too. anyone care to flesh this out a bit more?

[ERCougar]

I'm not equating faith with knowledge, and I don't claim to have knowledge of the existence of God. I am simply disputing the claim that no one CAN know that God exists. If Joseph Smith really did see God, would he KNOW that he exists? Of course he would. Would he be able to prove his existence to someone else? No. But knowledge and proof are not the same thing. Is his vision of God subjective? Your interpretation of it is, but his experience was not. Either it happened to him or it didn't.

The only distinction between the leap that is required to "know" that the earth is a billion years old and to "know" that God exists is the size of the leap. But with regard to the existence of God, that leap may be smaller than you think. What if you were alive in Jesus time and witnessed him heal the blind or cure a leper? Is that not an objectively verifiable piece of evidence that you can rely on? What if the miracle you witness is not so obvious? Is it not evidence?

Faith is an essential part of God's plan, in my opinion ... but I do not dispute the possibility that some people can move beyond faith to knowledge.

I won't dispute your larger point, mostly because I'm not very interested in debating you, but as to the smaller--specifically, that js's vision was so objective--this is plain wrong. in fact, his vision, and the 9 or so competing versions of it--is proof positive of the subjectivity of spiritual experience.

[woot]

Did you, or did you not, say that knowledge comes from fMRI data? That is what it seemed like you said.

I am perfectly fine with you not "taking the bait". I find most of your comments pretty convoluted and full of contradictions and unprovable assumptions. If you want to have an honest debate, maybe you should start with being honest.

Sigh. In case you really did misinterpret things that badly: fMRI data show us that religious "knowledge' and real knowledge are the result of different mental processes. That's one empirical way to distinguish between the two. There are others. I didn't even hint that "the definition of "knowledge" is now what can be measured by fMRI data", as you suggested I had.

I'm sorry if my posts are hard for you to understand. I'm happy to explain further. If you notice any contradictions or unprovable assumptions that I stated are provable, please point them out. If you're just throwing out those accusations to avoid engaging with the issues, then proceed.

[Jarid in Cedar]

I won't dispute your larger point, mostly because I'm not very interested in debating you, but as to the smaller--specifically, that js's vision was so objective--this is plain wrong. in fact, his vision, and the 9 or so competing versions of it--is proof positive of the subjectivity of spiritual experience.

This is a litmus test in this discussion.

[myboynoah]

Maybe it did, but we have zero objective, irrefutable evidence that it did so once again we are right back where we started. You take it on faith or you don't.

I won't dispute your larger point, mostly because I'm not very interested in debating you, but as to the smaller--specifically, that js's vision was so objective--this is plain wrong. in fact, his vision, and the 9 or so competing versions of it--is proof positive of the subjectivity of spiritual experience.

This is a litmus test in this discussion.

Reread what he wrote.

I'm not equating faith with knowledge, and I don't claim to have knowledge of the existence of God. I am simply disputing the claim that no one CAN know that God exists. If Joseph Smith really did see God, would he KNOW that he exists? Of course he would. Would he be able to prove his existence to someone else? No. But knowledge and proof are not the same thing. Is his vision of God subjective? Your interpretation of it is, but his experience was not. Either it happened to him or it didn't.

As I read it, UVaC isn't arguing as to whether you or I can know if Joseph saw God, proving the existence of Deity. That is obviously taken on faith by believers. As he notes, he is disputing the claim that none can know that God exists.

[Jarid in Cedar]

Reread what he wrote.



As I read it, UVaC isn't arguing as to whether you or I can know if Joseph saw God, proving the existence of Deity. That is obviously taken on faith by believers. As he notes, he is disputing the claim that none can know that God exists.

Unless JS didn't see God in the grove, but just claimed it, then we are back to square one. In addition to Jerry Falwell who saw Jesus on a white charger, where Jesus commanded him to take up his ministry. Visions of God are not isolated to the Mormon experience. That someone claims to have seen God does not give any more credence to the existence of God than if they hadn't made that claim. UVaC is placing faith that JS is telling the truth, which is back to what JL is saying.