Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Subjective Evidence of Gods
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 136 of 468 (625776)
07-25-2011 5:03 PM
Reply to: Message 132 by GDR
07-25-2011 2:18 PM


Re: Track Record Isn't the Point
When you look at the world and conclude things like:
GDR writes:
Frankly to think that something as beautiful as that can have come about from a non-intelligent source stretches belief further than I can go.
You are invoking the exact same form of "evidence" that resulted in every single now falsified god. "That must be the work of an intelligent being. I cannot see how it can be otherwise." is at root the thinking behind every false godly conclusion.
There is absolutely no reason aside from faith to consider your subjectively evidenced invocation of god as an explanation to be any more likely to be correct than theirs was.
GDR writes:
An alien might come across one of our cars. He figures out how it starts and runs. He learns all about how it works. None of that tells him about who or what created it, whether it just happened by atoms just naturally coming together or what its purpose is. You have to look elsewhere for those questions.
The answers to those questions on that basis require a subjective conclusion, and we seem to be created in a way that the answers are ambiguous and we won't all come to the same conclusions.
But if one of these aliens looks objectively at things like functionality and ergonomics it will come to vastly superior conclusions about the origins of the car than a similar alien which simply invokes magic moonbeams creating cars ex nihilo because his species is psychologically predisposed to invoking undetectable and unfalsifiable causes to perplexing phenomena.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 132 by GDR, posted 07-25-2011 2:18 PM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 139 by GDR, posted 07-26-2011 2:18 AM Straggler has replied

Rahvin
Member
Posts: 4032
Joined: 07-01-2005
Member Rating: 9.2


Message 137 of 468 (625785)
07-25-2011 5:27 PM
Reply to: Message 132 by GDR
07-25-2011 2:18 PM


Re: Track Record Isn't the Point
An alien might come across one of our cars. He figures out how it starts and runs. He learns all about how it works. None of that tells him about who or what created it, whether it just happened by atoms just naturally coming together or what its purpose is. You have to look elsewhere for those questions.
The answers to those questions on that basis require a subjective conclusion, and we seem to be created in a way that the answers are ambiguous and we won't all come to the same conclusions.
You just said that the question of whether automobiles are a natural occurrence is a subjective conclusion.
To support such a position, you must equally hold that there is no definitive, objective evidence that automobiles are in fact artificial.
Do you really believe that whether automobiles are man-made or natural is a matter of subjective opinion? really?
If not, then why should we consider any matter of factual reality (ie, whether x evolved from y, whether a caused by, whether i preceded j, as opposed to such things as color or taste preference) to be a "subjective conclusion?"
In the matter of gods, either one or more gods exist or they do not. Your opinion or mine, our subjective beliefs, are irrelevant - they are either correct or incorrect. As soon as you say "I believe god(s) exist" or "I do not believe god(s) exist," you're either right or wrong regardless of whether we currently have sufficient information to know which is which.
Just as with cars, insufficient information to draw a definitive conclusion does not mean that we should throw up our hands, call the matter dependent on subjective opinion, and revel in our ignorance by worshiping the mysteriousness of a mystery rather than trying to solve it. Neither does it mean that we are incapable of drawing a rational, tentative conclusion based on the evidence that is available.
If you want to know whether automobiles are man-made or simple random collections of their constituent parts, you look at the objective evidence. Mass production. Identical parts. Factories that appear to have made the parts. Evidence of a civilization capable of having an industrialized infrastructure. Roads. Etc. There are many objective observations one would expect to see if cars are man-made, and not to see if they are naturally occurring; observations that differentiate between a world in which cars are natural and one in which cars are artificial.
The trick is to find observations that differentiate between the competing possibilities. Deciding that you prefer one hypothesis or that one just sounds better or that this one should be true is not and has never been an accurate or even acceptable method for determining which concepts more accurately reflect reality.
So how do we do this, and how does it apply specifically to god(s)?
Well, we can make the objective observation that many people believe in god(s).
This does seem to support the hypothesis that god(s) may exist. Unfortunately, it also supports the hypothesis that people just like to believe in god(s) to "explain" mysterious phenomenon.
We can make the objective observation that prayers occasionally seem to be answered...but unfortunately, the frequency of answered prayers appears in every double-blind experimental test done to have no statistical significance, and so cannot be strong (or even significant) evidence in favor of the existence of god(s) (because the strength of the evidential support of a given hypothesis is dependent on the relative likelihood of that same evidence being observed across different hypotheses; the more statistically aberrant the pattern is, the more strongly the evidence supports the obscure hypothesis).
None of this is subjective. All of it is objective. The actual beliefs are subjective, of course, but the observations are not, and therefore the evidence is not subjective either.
The problem we run into is that people subjectively inflate the importance of specific bits of evidence while disregarding others in order to support their chosen hypothesis.
It's a very well documented fact that human minds, including yours and mine and that of every man and woman who has ever existed, tend towards certain biases. These include confirmation bias, where we will tend to notice evidence that supports our preferred hypothesis and disregard or not even try to find evidence that supports alternatives. There are many, many others, but confirmation bias is perhaps the worst in its pervasiveness and effect on our daily lives and heartfelt beliefs, things that we completely take for granted.
This is the primary subjective component in answering the question of whether or not god(s) exist, not the evidence itself.
If you have a dream in which a deity speaks to you, that is an objectively true event. You had the dream. It's not subjective; many people have similar dreams.
The problem occurs when you decide that the dream strongly supports the actual existence of the dream-deity outside f your dreams; that the evidence of the dream supports the existence of a god more strongly than the hypothesis that you simply had a dream made up in your own subconscious imagination.
We know that completely fantastical dreams are common, so common that they in fact seem to be the rule in dreams. We make them up, combinations of fantasy and memory in a dream world of our own subconscious making. Since we would strongly expect such dreams to occur whether god(s) are real or not, that evidence cannot strongly or even significantly support the hypothesis that god(s) exist over the hypothesis that they do not.
It's not the evidence that's subjective. It's the irrational inflation of the significance of the evidence.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 132 by GDR, posted 07-25-2011 2:18 PM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 140 by GDR, posted 07-26-2011 2:37 AM Rahvin has not replied

GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 138 of 468 (625846)
07-26-2011 12:45 AM
Reply to: Message 135 by Straggler
07-25-2011 4:50 PM


Re: Track Record Isn't the Point
Straggler writes:
Practically all of the gods of antiquity were invoked to explain a particular phenomenon which the humans of the time couldn't comprehend without invoking conscious intelligent intent as the cause.
Yes, but at the same time the idea was to get these gods on your side so that you would be more powerful.
Straggler writes:
Is this not exactly what you are doing with regard to things like human altruism?
I see your point but an eclipse is material - an idea isn't. What is the naturalistic reason for you or me being concerned enough about someone in Africa, who we'll never meet and who is using up the finite resources of this planet, that we should sacrifice time and money to help this person out. It doesn't make sense to me from an evolutionary POV.
Straggler writes:
It is not a case of either assuming that gods do exist and then circularly concluding the god inclusive conclusion OR assuming that god does not exist and then circularly drawing the opposite conclusion. It is possible to make no assumption and simply follow the evidence. You have created a false dichotomy.
But the evidence can only lead to a subjective conclusion. I suppose the only certain conclusion that we can come to is the agnostic conclusion. However many of us become convinced enough to say that although we can't prove our position of theism or atheism we believe it anyway, based on our analysis of the subjective evidence.
Straggler writes:
It is a conclusion borne directly from objective positive evidence.
Sure the evidence is objective, but so is the fact that a living cell is extremely complex and how to come into existence somehow. We then take this objective knowledge and come to subjective conclusions.

Everybody is entitled to my opinion.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 135 by Straggler, posted 07-25-2011 4:50 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 141 by Straggler, posted 07-26-2011 6:39 AM GDR has not replied

GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 139 of 468 (625853)
07-26-2011 2:18 AM
Reply to: Message 136 by Straggler
07-25-2011 5:03 PM


Re: Track Record Isn't the Point
Straggler writes:
You are invoking the exact same form of "evidence" that resulted in every single now falsified god. "That must be the work of an intelligent being. I cannot see how it can be otherwise." is at root the thinking behind every false godly conclusion.
Saying that evolution is beautiful is not the same thing as saying a rainbow is beautiful. Evolution is beautiful because it is beautifully designed.
Straggler writes:
There is absolutely no reason aside from faith to consider your subjectively evidenced invocation of god as an explanation to be any more likely to be correct than theirs was.
I'm not saying that faith doesn't play a role but it doesn't mean that it isn't true. For that matter, let's face it. There are highly intelligent, well informed, highly educated people that hold theistic beliefs. Their beliefs must be based on at least some of the subjective evidence that you dismiss.
Straggler writes:
But if one of these aliens looks objectively at things like functionality and ergonomics it will come to vastly superior conclusions about the origins of the car than a similar alien which simply invokes magic moonbeams creating cars ex nihilo because his species is psychologically predisposed to invoking undetectable and unfalsifiable causes to perplexing phenomena.
Well a metaphor only takes you so far and there is no point arguing over a hastily thought up metaphor. The point is this. Let's say some scientist some day is able to, (as I suggested earlier) able to create life in a Petri dish. (Frankly I'm not optimistic that will happen but I'm willing to concede it's possible.) People might then conclude that is how it is done. It is still however an open question of whether or not it took a pre-existing intelligence to create the first life form out of likely pre-existing material, just as our theoretical future scientist does.

Everybody is entitled to my opinion.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 136 by Straggler, posted 07-25-2011 5:03 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 142 by Straggler, posted 07-26-2011 6:52 AM GDR has replied

GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 140 of 468 (625854)
07-26-2011 2:37 AM
Reply to: Message 137 by Rahvin
07-25-2011 5:27 PM


Re: Track Record Isn't the Point
Rahvin writes:
It's a very well documented fact that human minds, including yours and mine and that of every man and woman who has ever existed, tend towards certain biases. These include confirmation bias, where we will tend to notice evidence that supports our preferred hypothesis and disregard or not even try to find evidence that supports alternatives. There are many, many others, but confirmation bias is perhaps the worst in its pervasiveness and effect on our daily lives and heartfelt beliefs, things that we completely take for granted.
I agree
Rahvin writes:
This is the primary subjective component in answering the question of whether or not god(s) exist, not the evidence itself.
In order to have a bias you had to have come to a conclusion in the first place. I do know that my beliefs have changed considerably since I first became theistic. They continue to change. This forum has been a valuable tool in helping me come to the conclusions that have. I presumably am just like you in that I'm looking for the truth in the best way I know how. In the end though, because of the conclusion I have come to I do have a theistic bias. We are all biased towards the view we currently hold. That isn't really evidence one way or the other.
Rahvin writes:
This does seem to support the hypothesis that god(s) may exist. Unfortunately, it also supports the hypothesis that people just like to believe in god(s) to "explain" mysterious phenomenon.
So we are back to our subjective conclusions.
By the way, I agree with your statements on prayer and dreams. I don't see either being useful as evidence.

Everybody is entitled to my opinion.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 137 by Rahvin, posted 07-25-2011 5:27 PM Rahvin has not replied

Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 141 of 468 (625878)
07-26-2011 6:39 AM
Reply to: Message 138 by GDR
07-26-2011 12:45 AM


Re: Track Record Isn't the Point
Straggler writes:
But my god is different!! Isn't this the claim of every believer of every god?
GDR writes:
Straggler writes:
Practically all of the gods of antiquity were invoked to explain a particular phenomenon which the humans of the time couldn't comprehend without invoking conscious intelligent intent as the cause.
Yes, but......
So the god you are invoking to explain the phenomena you can't comprehend as being without conscious intelligent intent really is different to all those other gods invoked for the very same reason. Surely you can see the weakness of this argument?
GDR writes:
I see your point but an eclipse is material - an idea isn't.
The gods of modern sophisticated theists such as yourself are doubtless less petty, less self serving, less simplistic and (above all) devised to be less falsifiable than the gods of antiquity. But whilst the gods may evolve the subjective form of evidence is the same. I cannot believe that there is not a conscious intelligent being at work here. And we know as a deeply evidenced fact that this form of "evidence" is actually flawed human psychology at work rather than anything that genuinely qualifies as evidence at all.
GDR writes:
What is the naturalistic reason for you or me being concerned enough about someone in Africa, who we'll never meet and who is using up the finite resources of this planet, that we should sacrifice time and money to help this person out. It doesn't make sense to me from an evolutionary POV.
This is an incredibly selective view of reality combined with an incredibly subjective statement of personal incredulity. It is true that humans are capable of great empathy to strangers. But it is also true that humans are capable of horrific acts of selfish neglect and even cruelty towards people right in front of them. The psychology of us and them and the factors that decide when these things are applied is a complex area. But we are all capable of both behaviours. Robert Wright has much to say about this sort of thing: From "The Moral Animal" by Robert Wright
quote:
Altruism, compassion, empathy, love, conscience, the sense of justice -- all of these things, the things that hold society together, the things that allow our species to think so highly of itself, can now confidently be said to have a firm genetic basis. That's the good news. The bad news is that, although these things are in some ways blessings for humanity as a whole, they didn't evolve for the "good of the species" and aren't reliably employed to that end. Quite the contrary: it is now clearer than ever (and precisely why) the moral sentiments are used with brutal flexibility, switched on and off in keeping with self interest; and how naturally oblivious we often are to this switching. In the new view, human beings are a species splendid in their array of moral equipment, tragic in their propensity to misuse it, and pathetic in their constitutional ignorance of the misuse.
GDR writes:
However many of us become convinced enough to say that although we can't prove our position of theism or atheism we believe it anyway, based on our analysis of the subjective evidence.
Proof has nothing to do with it. That a god cited as the cause of an observable phenomenon is more likely to be a product of human psychology rather than the actual godly cause of said phenomenon is not simply some subjective interpretation. It is the objectively evidenced conclusion based on a wealth of objective evidence supporting the fact that humans invent gods for exactly this sort of purpose.
GDR writes:
I suppose the only certain conclusion that we can come to is the agnostic conclusion.
Why (beyond the inherent uncertainty in any evidence based conclusion) should we adopt an agnostic position if the balance of objective evidence is so incredibly weighted towards one conclusion rather than another?
GDR writes:
We then take this objective knowledge and come to subjective conclusions.
Conclusion 1: A god cited by a human to explain a perplexing phenomenon is in all likelihood a result of the known proclivity of humans to invent false gods to explain phenomena that they find perplexing.
Conclusion 2: A god cited by a human to explain a perplexing phenomenon really does exist and really is the cause of said phenomena. This time will be different. This god is not like all the others....
These two conclusions are not equally subjective are they?
Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.
Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.
Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 138 by GDR, posted 07-26-2011 12:45 AM GDR has not replied

Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 142 of 468 (625880)
07-26-2011 6:52 AM
Reply to: Message 139 by GDR
07-26-2011 2:18 AM


Re: Track Record Isn't the Point
GDR writes:
Saying that evolution is beautiful is not the same thing as saying a rainbow is beautiful. Evolution is beautiful because it is beautifully designed.
Wouldn't a rainbow god theist say exactly the same thing about rainbows?
Rainbow theist: "Saying that a rainbow is beautiful is not the same thing as saying grass is beautiful. A rainbow is beautiful because it is beautifully designed."
GDR writes:
I'm not saying that faith doesn't play a role but it doesn't mean that it isn't true.
But the question is - Why is it remotely likely to be true?
GDR writes:
For that matter, let's face it. There are highly intelligent, well informed, highly educated people that hold theistic beliefs. Their beliefs must be based on at least some of the subjective evidence that you dismiss.
Doubtless this is the case. In fact I consider you to be just such a person. So you are living proof of your own claim. But how valid is this subjective "evidence"? - That is the question here.
Ultimately I cannot believe that there is not a conscious intelligent being at work here is a demonstrably flawed approach. We know as a deeply evidenced fact that this form of subjective "evidence" is actually flawed human psychology at work rather than anything that genuinely qualifies as evidence at all.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 139 by GDR, posted 07-26-2011 2:18 AM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 143 by GDR, posted 07-26-2011 6:55 PM Straggler has replied

GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 143 of 468 (626015)
07-26-2011 6:55 PM
Reply to: Message 142 by Straggler
07-26-2011 6:52 AM


Re: Track Record Isn't the Point
Straggler writes:
So the god you are invoking to explain the phenomena you can't comprehend as being without conscious intelligent intent really is different to all those other gods invoked for the very same reason. Surely you can see the weakness of this argument?
Surprise surprise but I disagree. Both of us are fans of Robert Wright. He calls himself and writes as a materialist and as an agnostic. He writes in the introduction to The Evolution of God the following.
quote:
....I think gods arose as illusions, and that the subsequent history of the idea of god is, in some sense, the evolution of an illusion. On the other hand: (1) the story of this evolution itself points to the existence of something that you can meaningfully call divinity; and (2) the illusion in the course of evolving, has gotten streamlined in a way that moved it closer to plausibility. In both of these senses, the illusion has gotten less and less illusory.
To be fair he does go on to say that after this streamlining the kind of god that remains plausible is not the kind of god that MOST, (my emphasis), religious believers have in mind.
If he is correct and I think that both of us agree that he is, then it is quite reasonable for me to believe that my understanding of God is more likely to be accurate than that of the ancients. If we assume for a second that God does exist then I am at the pinnacle of the evolution of what Wright talks about. I have centuries of human experience, wisdom, inspiration and even revelation to build on.
Straggler writes:
The gods of modern sophisticated theists such as yourself are doubtless less petty, less self serving, less simplistic and (above all) devised to be less falsifiable than the gods of antiquity. But whilst the gods may evolve the subjective form of evidence is the same. I cannot believe that there is not a conscious intelligent being at work here. And we know as a deeply evidenced fact that this form of "evidence" is actually flawed human psychology at work rather than anything that genuinely qualifies as evidence at all.
If it is so deeply evidenced why are there so many highly intelligent people disbelieve your so-called deeply evidenced fact?
Straggler writes:
This is an incredibly selective view of reality combined with an incredibly subjective statement of personal incredulity. It is true that humans are capable of great empathy to strangers. But it is also true that humans are capable of horrific acts of selfish neglect and even cruelty towards people right in front of them. The psychology of us and them and the factors that decide when these things are applied is a complex area. But we are all capable of both behaviours. Robert Wright has much to say about this sort of thing: From "The Moral Animal" by Robert Wright
Good quote from Wright and I agree with all of it. It is true that we are capable of both kindness and cruelty in all of their various guises. But the point is though that you as an atheist, ( I believe that is how you would refer to yourself), and me as a theist both know that kindness is preferable to cruelty. Why is it that we know that? As far as self preservation is concerned, genocide is often a preferable solution to mercy and yet we both would agree that mercy is the better route to take. There appears to be something at work here that is other than simple physical evolution.
Straggler writes:
Why (beyond the inherent uncertainty in any evidence based conclusion) should we adopt an agnostic position if the balance of objective evidence is so incredibly weighted towards one conclusion rather than another?
We just fundamentally disagree on your premise.
GDR writes:
For that matter, let's face it. There are highly intelligent, well informed, highly educated people that hold theistic beliefs. Their beliefs must be based on at least some of the subjective evidence that you dismiss.
Straggler writes:
Doubtless this is the case. In fact I consider you to be just such a person. So you are living proof of your own claim. But how valid is this subjective "evidence"? - That is the question here.
Ultimately I cannot believe that there is not a conscious intelligent being at work here is a demonstrably flawed approach. We know as a deeply evidenced fact that this form of subjective "evidence" is actually flawed human psychology at work rather than anything that genuinely qualifies as evidence at all.
Well I was referring to people like Francis Collins, Alister McGrath, CS Lewis etc who all left atheism for Christianity as adults. As far as I'm concerned I have no doubt that I am less educated, less intelligent and less informed than you are. The only advantage I have is that I've been around longer which may even be a disadvantage. (But thanks anyway. )
One doesn't start with the idea that they have difficulty believing they cannot believe that there is a conscious intelligent being at work here. That is the conclusion of subjectively reviewing the evidence. Look at Antony Flew’s rejection of atheism for deism.
He said:
quote:
"My whole life has been guided by the principle of Plato's Socrates: Follow the evidence, wherever it leads."
Followed by:
quote:
"A super-intelligence is the only good explanation for the origin of life and the complexity of nature."
Here is another quote from The Evolution of God by Robert Wright. (Afterword Pg 447)
quote:
A believer in God perceives patterns in the moral world (or , at least, moral patterns in the physical world), and posits a source of these patterns and calls the source God. God is that unknown thing that is the source of the moral order, the reason there is a moral dimension to life on Earth and a moral direction to time on Earth; God is responsible for the fact that life is sentient, capable of good and bad feelings, and hence morally significant; God is responsible for the evolutionary system that placed highly sentient life on a trajectory toward the goo, or at least toward tests that offered the opportunity and incentive to realize the good; in the process God gave each of us a moral axis around which to organize our lives, should we choose to. Being human, we will always conceive of the source of this moral order in misleadingly crude ways, but then again you could say the same thing about conceiving electrons. So you’ll do with the source of moral order what physicists do with a subatomic source of the physical order, such as an electron — try and think about it the best you can, and fail. This at least, is one modern, scientifically informed argument that could be deployed by the believer in God.
Wright talks about a moral axis of the universe. I think that it is completely reasonable to come to the conclusion that we are not so special that we on our own can come to an understanding of a moral axis of the universe; and even to, if just sometimes, live it out in our lives to our own detriment, and to instinctively know somehow that that was the better path.
Edited by GDR, : No reason given.

Everybody is entitled to my opinion.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 142 by Straggler, posted 07-26-2011 6:52 AM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 144 by Straggler, posted 07-27-2011 2:44 AM GDR has replied

Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 144 of 468 (626089)
07-27-2011 2:44 AM
Reply to: Message 143 by GDR
07-26-2011 6:55 PM


Re: Track Record Isn't the Point
In your heart you no doubt have complete faith that your god does exist. And I am not seeking to deter you from that wholly subjective belief.
But in your head you must surely recognise that yet another human invoking yet another god to explain yet another phenomenon on the basis of I cannot believe that there is not a conscious intelligent being at work here is desperately unlikely to be correct. That this is a symptom of well known and well explained aspects of human psychology rather than indicative of a truth about the existence of a supernatural being.
Even if the human in question is yourself and it conflicts with your faith based beliefs how can this not be the reasoned evidenced conclusion? Or is it a case of - This time, in the case of my god I know that it will be different.?
GDR writes:
If we assume for a second that God does exist then I am at the pinnacle of the evolution of what Wright talks about.
But if we assume anything about the existence of god to come to our conclusions about the existence of god then our thinking is inevitably circular. If we treat the question of whether or not god exists as no more relevant to the validity of subjective evidence than whether or not the matrix exists then the conclusion here is clear.
Conclusion 1: A god cited by a human to explain a perplexing phenomenon is in all likelihood a result of the known psychological proclivity of humans to invent false gods to explain phenomena that they find perplexing.
Conclusion 2: A god cited by a human to explain a perplexing phenomenon really does exist and really is the cause of said phenomena. This time will be different. This god is not like all the others....
One of these conclusions is deeply objectively evidenced. One of them is not. Surely this much is indisputable?
GDR writes:
If it is so deeply evidenced why are there so many highly intelligent people disbelieve your so-called deeply evidenced fact?
Because faith trumps reason and they had faith that their god was different to all the others.........? I would be interested in their answer to the question above too.
GDR writes:
Look at Antony Flew’s rejection of atheism for deism.
At the age of 81 Flew announced his conversion to a form of desim and at the age 84 he wrote "There is a God" with co-author Varghese. The mental state of this octogenerian and just how much of the book he was even able to write himself is controversial to say the least.
It is possible that the evidence he had been examining all his life suddenly made it clear that god does exist. But having seen the mental decline of my own grandparents in their 80s I suspect this had more to do with his conversion than a sudden insight that had evaded him all his previous life.
GDR writes:
Wright talks about a moral axis of the universe. I think that it is completely reasonable to come to the conclusion that we are not so special that we on our own can come to an understanding of a moral axis of the universe...
That human morality seems so special is a rather human view. If the world were still full of dinosaurs or a post human Earth filled with cockroaches where would this moral axis be then? It seems to be more a property of the human mind or a result of our interaction with the social reality of being human rather than something which objectively exists as part of the universe independently to us.
Would there still be a moral axis if there were no humans to be moral?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 143 by GDR, posted 07-26-2011 6:55 PM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 145 by GDR, posted 07-27-2011 2:49 PM Straggler has replied

GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 145 of 468 (626170)
07-27-2011 2:49 PM
Reply to: Message 144 by Straggler
07-27-2011 2:44 AM


Re: Track Record Isn't the Point
Straggler writes:
But in your head you must surely recognise that yet another human invoking yet another god to explain yet another phenomenon on the basis of I cannot believe that there is not a conscious intelligent being at work here is desperately unlikely to be correct. That this is a symptom of well known and well explained aspects of human psychology rather than indicative of a truth about the existence of a supernatural being.
But as Wright says our understanding of god(s), real or imagined has evolved. Today there is no religion invoking god(s) to explain any particular phenomenon. The theistic religion invoke a God that in one way or another has brought us into existence and continues to be involved to one degree or another. Wright points out the degree of commonality between Christianity, Judaism and Islam. (We should all be focusing on what we have in common.) Essentially all of the Abrahamic religions came from the same root- Abraham's God. Virtually nobody worships a sun god or the like anymore. In a sense all major theistic religions, (I'd have to go and read again about Hinduism), worship the same God but have different narratives.
Straggler writes:
But if we assume anything about the existence of god to come to our conclusions about the existence of god then our thinking is inevitably circular. If we treat the question of whether or not god exists as no more relevant to the validity of subjective evidence than whether or not the matrix exists then the conclusion here is clear.
Conclusion 1: A god cited by a human to explain a perplexing phenomenon is in all likelihood a result of the known psychological proclivity of humans to invent false gods to explain phenomena that they find perplexing.
Conclusion 2: A god cited by a human to explain a perplexing phenomenon really does exist and really is the cause of said phenomena. This time will be different. This god is not like all the others....
One of these conclusions is deeply objectively evidenced. One of them is not. Surely this much is indisputable?
First off, although I do believe in the God of the Christian faith, this thread again is only about subjective evidence for any god(s) and so we aren't talking about a "perplexing phenomena". We are talking about all "perplexing phenomena".
Conclusion 1: There is a creative intelligence that is responsible for the design of living cell, regardless of how it was formed, that is responsible for the evolution of single living cells into life as we know it today, that is responsible for the fact that sentient beings evolved, that is responsible for the fact that there appears to be a universal moral code that beings can follow or reject, that is responsible for the fact that as sentient beings we have a wide range of emotional states etc.
Conclusion 2: All of the above, including intelligence itself came into existence from completely non-intelligent sources.
From polls I have seen the vast majority of people accept conclusion 1, which doesn't mean that they, or I, am right in that conclusion. However, I can't see that it is an unreasonable conclusion to come to.
Straggler writes:
Because faith trumps reason and they had faith that their god was different to all the others.........? I would be interested in their answer to the question above too.
But you're wrong. If you are talking about which particular faith one is an adherent of then, then yes, I agree. We however are looking at subjective evidence for the idea of any one of the faiths being valid. I explained above that objectively it can't be proven but it is reasonable to believe that our existence had an intelligent cause.
Straggler writes:
At the age of 81 Flew announced his conversion to a form of desim and at the age 84 he wrote "There is a God" with co-author Varghese. The mental state of this octogenerian and just how much of the book he was even able to write himself is controversial to say the least.
It is possible that the evidence he had been examining all his life suddenly made it clear that god does exist. But having seen the mental decline of my own grandparents in their 80s I suspect this had more to do with his conversion than a sudden insight that had evaded him all his previous life.
I've also seen people in their nineties very much on top of their game mentally. I've seen an interview of Flew and he spoke clearly and articulately.
Antony Flew
His primary reason is through the discovery of DNA and all that has been learned from that. Francis Collins, the man who headed up the program that mapped out the entire human genome, calls DNA "the Language of God".
Straggler writes:
Would there still be a moral axis if there were no humans to be moral?
I'd say yes. First off, it appears that the more highly formed members of the animal kingdom have a less highly formed moral code. If though we assume that only humans can be moral, my answer would still be yes. It would just be that there would be no humans around to respond to it.

Everybody is entitled to my opinion.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 144 by Straggler, posted 07-27-2011 2:44 AM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 146 by Straggler, posted 07-28-2011 9:21 AM GDR has replied

Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 146 of 468 (626291)
07-28-2011 9:21 AM
Reply to: Message 145 by GDR
07-27-2011 2:49 PM


Re: Track Record Isn't the Point
The problem with subjective evidence is that ultimately it is nothing more than another name for circular reasoning. You have to assume the conclusion before the so-called evidence supports that conclusion.
GDR writes:
But as Wright says our understanding of god(s), real or imagined has evolved.
The concept of god has certainly evolved. But the demonstrably flawed I cannot believe that there is not a conscious intelligent being at work here therefore this is evidence of god's existence" basis for belief remains the same. It is the argument from incredulity combined with circular reasoning.
GDR writes:
We are talking about all "perplexing phenomena".
So whom decides what is perplexing at any given time?
This is just the generic form of I cannot believe that there is not a conscious intelligent being at work here therefore this is evidence of god's existence".
GDR writes:
Francis Collins, the man who headed up the program that mapped out the entire human genome, calls DNA "the Language of God".
Which is just the same flawed I cannot believe that there is not a conscious intelligent being at work here therefore this is evidence of god's existence" incredulity applied to DNA specifically
GDR writes:
I explained above that objectively it can't be proven but it is reasonable to believe that our existence had an intelligent cause.
Which is just I cannot believe that there is not a conscious intelligent being at work here therefore this is evidence of god's existence" as applied to existence itself.
Making the god or phenomenon being cited more generic or vague does nothing to rectify the flawed nature of this approach.
GDR writes:
Conclusion 1: There is a creative intelligence.....etc.
Conclusion 2: All of the above, including intelligence itself came into existence from completely non-intelligent sources.
Firstly neither of these conclusions has any direct bearing on the validity of subjective evidence. God could conceivably exist and the subjective evidence you are citing would still be utterly flawed.
Secondly you are completely ignoring the objective evidence regarding mankind's psychological propensity to be utterly convinced of intelligent intent regardless of whether there is any or not. Things like overactive agency detection.
We cannot just ignore objective evidence because it conflicts with our subjective conclusions can we?
GDR writes:
I've also seen people in their nineties very much on top of their game mentally.
Practically all great thinkers complete their great works before the age of 30. I have never heard of any who left it until they were in their 80s to have their best ideas.
GDR writes:
First off, it appears that the more highly formed members of the animal kingdom have a less highly formed moral code.
There are far far far more lowly organisms than ones capable of morality. Do parasitic organisms follow the moral axis? Isn't suffering as innate in nature as morality?
GDR on the moral axis writes:
It would just be that there would be no humans around to respond to it.
But isn't this just another circular assumption?
Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.
Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.
Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 145 by GDR, posted 07-27-2011 2:49 PM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 147 by GDR, posted 07-28-2011 1:56 PM Straggler has replied

GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 147 of 468 (626332)
07-28-2011 1:56 PM
Reply to: Message 146 by Straggler
07-28-2011 9:21 AM


Re: Track Record Isn't the Point
Straggler writes:
The concept of god has certainly evolved. But the demonstrably flawed I cannot believe that there is not a conscious intelligent being at work here therefore this is evidence of god's existence" basis for belief remains the same. It is the argument from incredulity combined with circular reasoning.
First off. That isn't circular reasoning. Circular reasoning would be "there is a god(s) therefore I believe that there is a conscious intelligence at work here". The idea that, (to use one example) a living cell appears to be intelligently designed so it is reasonably to believe that a god(s) exist is direct reasoning.
Also to say that because I see no empirical evidence of god(s) so I can't believe that there god(s) exist is also an argument from incredulity.
Straggler writes:
Secondly you are completely ignoring the objective evidence regarding mankind's psychological propensity to be utterly convinced of intelligent intent regardless of whether there is any or not. Things like overactive agency detection.
We cannot just ignore objective evidence because it conflicts with our subjective conclusions can we?
If there is a theistic god(s) I would expect that we would have a psychological propensity to seek intelligent intent. I believe our friend Wright would agree with that. I'm sure Wright would say that if god(s) exist and are understanding of him/her/it/them is evolving then it would be expected that we would have as part of our nature a tendency to learn and understand him/her/it/them. (There has to be a shorter politically correct way of talking about a non specific god(s). )
I see no objective evidence that conflicts with my subjective conclusion.
Straggler writes:
Practically all great thinkers complete their great works before the age of 30. I have never heard of any who left it until they were in their 80s to have their best ideas.
That's true in the scientific field. Not true in theology. That's why John Polkinghorne, (brilliant guy who was over here giving a series of lectures at the university locally that I was able to attend a couple of years ago), left his studies in particle physics in his 40's and moved to studying theology.
Straggler writes:
There are far far far more lowly organisms than ones capable of morality. Do parasitic organisms follow the moral axis? Isn't suffering as innate in nature as morality?
No question. It does seem to me though, that the more highly formed animals who presumably have no thought of god(s)seem often to exhibit some form of a moral code, which might indicate that it exists externally, but I agree that is a very weak argument.
Straggler writes:
But isn't this just another circular assumption?
In this case it is, however you asked the question. Actually, rather than an assumption I'd call it speculation.
Cheers

Everybody is entitled to my opinion.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 146 by Straggler, posted 07-28-2011 9:21 AM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 148 by Straggler, posted 07-28-2011 5:00 PM GDR has replied

Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 148 of 468 (626350)
07-28-2011 5:00 PM
Reply to: Message 147 by GDR
07-28-2011 1:56 PM


Re: Track Record Isn't the Point
Subjective evidence as you have described it in this thread amounts to:
I cannot believe that this phenomenon is not a the result of an intelligent being at work therefore this phenomenon is evidence of the actual existence of an intelligent being capable of causing this phenomenon"
At root is there really any more to subjective evidence cited in favour of the existence of any god(s) than this? How many times in the past has this exact form of reasoning resulted in false conclusions about god(s)? How many times has it resulted in correct conclusions about god(s)?
If the track record of a form of evidence is not what the validity of that evidence should be judged upon then what on Earth should we judge it's validity upon?
GDR writes:
First off. That isn't circular reasoning. Circular reasoning would be "there is a god(s) therefore I believe that there is a conscious intelligence at work here".
GDR writes:
If there is a theistic god(s) I would expect that we would have a psychological propensity to seek intelligent intent.
And here you demonstrate the circularity of assuming the basis of your conclusion in exactly the way you deny doing.
That humans have a psychological proclivity to invoke intelligent intent where it doesn't exist is deeply objectively evidenced. But to conclude that this is in itself evidence of intelligent intent is dependent on exactly the sort of circular argument that all subjective "evidence" boils down to.
GDR writes:
Also to say that because I see no empirical evidence of god(s) so I can't believe that there god(s) exist is also an argument from incredulity.
Firstly - Is that true for all cases? I see no empirical evidence for the existence of pixies/goblins/fairies/unicorns/gods/the matrix/Last Thursdayism/Descarte's evil demon/thetans/djinns/genies/werewolves/ghosts/fire spirits/etc. etc. etc. etc. therefore I don't believe in the existence of these things. Is this an argument from incredulity in every case? Or just some?
Secondly (and much more importantly) - That is not my argument anyway. My argument is that there is overwhelming objective evidence in favour of the conclusion that humans will invoke intelligent intent whether it exists or not.
GDR writes:
If there is a theistic god(s).....
Whether there is a god responsible for any aspect of nature or not humanity has demonstrated it's absolute and utter inability to do anything other than be wrong about such conclusions.
To conclude that your own invocation of a godly explanation is more likely to be true rather than be yet another case of humanity exhibiting it's deeply evidenced proclivity to falsely invoke such beings for human psychological reasons is simply a denial of evidence.
GDR writes:
I see no objective evidence that conflicts with my subjective conclusion.
In the sense of outright falsification? No. But your conclusion does run absolutely counter to the objectively evidenced conclusion. As described above.
GDR writes:
I see no objective evidence that conflicts with my subjective conclusion.
If you define them suitably nor do pixies/goblins/fairies/unicorns/gods/the matrix/Last Thursdayism/Descarte's evil demon/thetans/djinns/genies/werewolves/ghosts/fire spirits/etc. etc. etc. etc. conflict with any objective evidence.
The "You cannot disprove the existence of my god" argument is really one of the the weakest arguments of all.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 147 by GDR, posted 07-28-2011 1:56 PM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 149 by GDR, posted 07-28-2011 11:34 PM Straggler has replied

GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 149 of 468 (626386)
07-28-2011 11:34 PM
Reply to: Message 148 by Straggler
07-28-2011 5:00 PM


Re: Track Record Isn't the Point
GDR writes:
First off. That isn't circular reasoning. Circular reasoning would be "there is a god(s) therefore I believe that there is a conscious intelligence at work here".
GDR writes:
If there is a theistic god(s) I would expect that we would have a psychological propensity to seek intelligent intent.
You quote these two disconnected statements of mine and then say this:
Straggler writes:
And here you demonstrate the circularity of assuming the basis of your conclusion in exactly the way you deny doing.
If you notice in the 2nd statement I was not coming to any conclusion about whether or not god(s) exist. The statement starts out with IF THERE IS A THEISTIC GOD(S).....
Straggler writes:
Firstly - Is that true for all cases? I see no empirical evidence for the existence of pixies/goblins/fairies/unicorns/gods/the matrix/Last Thursdayism/Descarte's evil demon/thetans/djinns/genies/werewolves/ghosts/fire spirits/etc. etc. etc. etc. therefore I don't believe in the existence of these things. Is this an argument from incredulity in every case? Or just some?
We can come to subjective conclusions in all cases. I subjectively reject pixies and subjectively accept that we exist as a result of a pre-existing intelligence. So what?
Straggler writes:
Secondly (and much more importantly) - That is not my argument anyway. My argument is that there is overwhelming objective evidence in favour of the conclusion that humans will invoke intelligent intent whether it exists or not.
Again, so what? That tells us nothing about whether god(s) exist or not. All it tells us is that there seems to be a part of our nature to look for something beyond ourselves.
Straggler writes:
Whether there is a god responsible for any aspect of nature or not humanity has demonstrated it's absolute and utter inability to do anything other than be wrong about such conclusions.
You don't know that. It is just your subjective opinion.
Straggler writes:
To conclude that your own invocation of a godly explanation is more likely to be true rather than be yet another case of humanity exhibiting it's deeply evidenced proclivity to falsely invoke such beings for human psychological reasons is simply a denial of evidence.
You're repeating what we went over before. We agree with Wright that our understanding of God is evolving whether or not He actually exists. If, and I repeat, IF He does exist then I should be closer to the truth than those in the past. Also, as I have said before I have no doubt that some things I believe are wrong, and based on my past I also believe that I will change my mind about some things in the future.
Straggler writes:
The "You cannot disprove the existence of my god" argument is really one of the the weakest arguments of all.
But I'm not using that as an argument for god(s). I only point that out to show that it is only subjective evidence that we are both using to come to our conclusions, even when it is subjectively evaluating objective evidence.

Everybody is entitled to my opinion.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 148 by Straggler, posted 07-28-2011 5:00 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 150 by Straggler, posted 07-29-2011 9:30 AM GDR has replied

Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 150 of 468 (626414)
07-29-2011 9:30 AM
Reply to: Message 149 by GDR
07-28-2011 11:34 PM


Re: Track Record Isn't the Point
Without engaging in circular reasoning — Can you explain how psychological factors (e.g. overactive agency detection) which lead to false conclusions about god(s) are indicative of the actual existence of god(s) rather than a reason to consider it likely that god(s) are a human psychological construction?
GDR writes:
Again, so what? That tells us nothing about whether god(s) exist or not.
Again - The question posed in this thread is not whether god(s) exist. The question in this thread is whether or not subjective evidence is a valid form of evidence. If you are unable to separate the two I would suggest it is because you are unable to make a case for the validity of subjective evidence for god(s) that doesn't first involve assuming that god(s) exist. Because that which you are calling "evidence" is really just circular thinking based on assuming the conclusion you want to reach.
GDR writes:
We can come to subjective conclusions in all cases. I subjectively reject pixies and subjectively accept that we exist as a result of a pre-existing intelligence. So what?
So it is merely a subjective opinion as to whether or not pixies etc. are real things or fictional entities invented by humans? There is no objective evidence that can sway us in one direction or the other with respect to unfalsifiable entities? Seriously?
GDR writes:
All it tells us is that there seems to be a part of our nature to look for something beyond ourselves.
My son's take on the world tells us a lot about human nature in this respect. When the car needs gas it is hungry. When the car won't start it is because it isn't feeling well and needs to rest. Night occurs because the Sun gets tired and needs to go to sleep. When I recently sat on the TV remote and shot the volume through the roof he decided that the TV was angry and shouting because nobody was listening to it. Rain is caused by sad clouds crying. Wind is caused by the air wanting to get from one place to another. etc. etc. etc. He is perfectly capable of grasping the fact that some things just happen. But this explanation is way down the list and he intuitively imbues pretty much everything with human-like motives, desires, emotions and conscious intent.
GDR writes:
All it tells us is that there seems to be a part of our nature to look for something beyond ourselves.
Indeed - But why would we trust this demonstrably misleading instinct to seek conscious intent where none exists?
Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 149 by GDR, posted 07-28-2011 11:34 PM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 151 by GDR, posted 07-29-2011 2:40 PM Straggler has replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024