We're talking about the difference between followers of God (religious people) and non-religious people.
We are talking about followers of God, yes, but, there need not be any religious affiliation to follow God.
This 'advantage' you've provided is something that (generally) non-religious people accept and religious people tend to reject.
I believe evolution is widely accepted by religious people, it's just that the fanatical lunatics are louder and get more attention.
Reasonable doubt. That's all. And I think you are conflating the term "reasonable doubt". What's meant here is what we can show to be true, not what some people may think is "reasonable".
But there in lies the rub. Reasonable doubt by whos standards...?
You use the scientific method and limit our capability as a society to just that method because you feel it provides the most accurate data, and I as an atheist agree with you. To us, it provides reasonable doubt.
A person of faith, lets go with a moderate who accepts evolution, also applies the scientific method, BUT, includes as well their own subjective experience. They value this subjective ability and place faith on it. To them this faith and subjectiveness provide an equal doubt that our atheistic method is not good enough.
The question of who is right is irrelevant, both the moderate and the atiest provide themselves with reasonable doubt to satisfy what each individual feels is important. The atheist feels science and only science is important. Where as the moderate feels that not just science but also our subjective interpretations are improtant too. So,
reasonable doubt is not judged equally. Each individual has their own level of reaonable doubt and their own method by which to get there.
They understand that their faith is not rational or reasonable in the sense that it can be shown to be a part of reality.
I think people like Catholic Sci or Bluejay would disagree with the
not rational or reasonable part.
They understand that their faith rests on their personal conviction.
I wouldn't say convictions, sounds like they are being stubborn. I would say they place faith on their subjective experiences.
With this understanding they do not allow their faith to interfere with other people's life-decisions. They also do not attempt to "prove" or "show" their faith, since they understand that such an act is unnecessary and even counter-productive to what faith actually is.
As should be the case with all subjective experiences; they are yours and yours alone.
As a side note: I personally think that faith started off this way long ago, when man first started to interprete their subjective experinces and express them to others. It manifested into organized religion with rules and laws to govern and control. Of course no one listen to the laws if man said it so they said God said it to strike fear. But, one need not follow this type of religion. Nor is religion
required to follow God.
Sort of. Rational Theists do make hard claims about reality... those claims are just kept private and personal. They do not make hard claims about reality to other people.
I was thinkiing more along the lines of Einsteins God. Where it is not really an "IT" but more of a
law of phisics type ideology. The claims that would be made would fit within the knowlegde of the applied sciences. Remembering of course that even theoretical physicist make claims that can't yet be objectively verified.
In exactly the same way that I do not accept anything but what can be shown to be true in reality, they are able to accept some things that are not yet shown to be true in reality. Although this isn't possible for me, the personal conviction at the end of the day is exactly the same. My choice to only accept what can be shown is exactly the same as someone elses choice to sometimes accept what is-not-yet-shown.
Agreed.
It does not matter who personally accepts an argument for "reasonable doubt". The point is to show, within the confines of reality, that what you say is actually true.
I will point you to Bluejays post #282 for the reply to this.
If I claim there are no keys in my pocket, and we turn my pocket inside out on the table and there are no keys there, then we have shown "beyond all reasonable doubt" that there are no keys in my pocket.
What if we are on the phone with each other. To you in your apartment looking in your pocket, there is reasonable doubt. To me half way across town on the phone with you, there isn't enough reasonable doubt. Even though the keys may actually not be in your pocket. Reasonable doubt, like time, is relative to the observor, lol. What I'm say is that reasonable doubt is judge differently by people. Some include the objective and only the objective. Some include the object AND the subjective. Both cast doubt on each others methods, equally, so neither side wins.
In the same way, if we look for God in all the places God is supposed to be (which people are constantly doing) and there is no God there and has never been any God there throughout the history of humanity... then it is shown "beyond all reasonable doubt" that God does not exist.
This will sound corney but, what about the people that look within themselves and claim to find God? Is that not proof that God exists for them? Is objectivity the only correct method for reasoning? I don't think I would like to live in a world where that was the case. I am an atheist, but I don't feel that my method of determining that is the only proper method. For all we know God is ONLY experienced subjectively and we are the one's who are wrong. Maybe both atheists AND religion is wrong. Maybe it's somewhere in the middle, like a combo of both, like Einstiens concept of God. I don't know. But, I don't think we should be closed minded to ONLY the objective.
Reality doesn't care what other people think, it only cares what we can show.
This will take us into a philosophical argument. Who determines what
reality is...? We are one species in a pretty big universe, we may not know shit yet. Don't think our ability to experience reality shows us the ONLY reality there is to experience. Evolution shows us a gradual change in the level of awareness that species experience. The reality we experience maybe only
one of the ways to experience the universe.
It doesn't matter if this is a valid argument to someone from a tribe in the middle of the rainforest.
It doesn't matter if this is a valid argument to onifre.
What matters is that this is a valid argument. That's all, period.
To you...?
If it doesn't matter if it's a valid argument to the rainforest people, or to me, or I guess to anyone else, to include you, then we can reasonable determine that it doesn't matter if it's a valid argument,
period. It doesn't matter because it's only a valid argument to those who feel it's a valid argument.
And it will remain a valid argument until such time that anyone is able to produce some sort of valid evidence from reality that contradicts this "reasonable doubt".
Yes to both you and I it is a valid argument, and it does place reasonable to doubt by my standards.
Edited by onifre, : No reason given.
"All great truths begin as blasphemies"
"I smoke pot. If this bothers anyone, I suggest you look around at the world in which we live and shut your mouth."--Bill Hicks
"I never knew there was another option other than to question everything"--Noam Chomsky
™ Version 4.2
