|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 93 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Subjective Evidence of Gods | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.1 |
Straggler writes: 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? As I said, this isn't a major factor in my theistic beliefs. Let's look at it the other way around. If, and again if, I was an atheist I would expect that by this point in human development the majority of humans through reasoning and experience would have come to the conclusion that god(s) don't exist. It is not circular reasoning to presuppose an outcome to see if the evidence fits. It is only circular reasoning when one has already reached a final conclusion and then goes back and makes the evidence fit the conclusion. For example, if I had decided that Genesis is to be read in such a way that the world was formed 6000 years ago and then go back and make science fit that outcome it would be circular. However, if I pre-suppose a 6000 year old earth and look at the scientific evidence, I'd find that the scientific evidence clearly shows that what I had pre-supposed is wrong and it is the presupposition that has to be adjusted.
GDR writes: All it tells us is that there seems to be a part of our nature to look for something beyond ourselves.Straggler writes: Indeed - But why would we trust this demonstrably misleading instinct to seek conscious intent where none exists? But it has not been demonstrably proven as I have already said. It has been shown that many of the attributes of god(s) have been shown to be wrong if for no other reason that there are numerous contradictions, but it has not been demonstrably shown that our instinct to seek god(s) is wrong.
Straggler writes: 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. I don't see that as valid. In one sense everything we believe is subjective. Even take politics. People look at political figures and their parties and come to different conclusions based on the same information. Even in science which is empirically based you have scientists disagreeing on a wide variety of issues subjectively. Let's look at the Bible. (The same goes for any holy text.) The Bible objectively exists but we subjectively decide what to make of it. What we are discussing is this. I look at the world and our existence which includes life itself, reason, wisdom, emotion etc and know objectively that all of that exists. With that in mind I subjectively conclude that there is much more likely to be a pre-existent intelligence than not, although I can't be sure or prove that I am correct in the same way that I know things objectively.
So...... where I wind up with all of that, is the conclusion that there is no such thing as subjective evidence. There are only subjective thoughts or ideas. Edited by GDR, : No reason given.Everybody is entitled to my opinion.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 93 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
The objective evidence strongly favours the conclusion that gods are invoked by humans for psychological reasons rather than because they actually exist.
Do you dispute this evidence?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.1 |
"Psychological reasons" is too vague a term. Can you be more specific?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 93 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
GDR writes: "Psychological reasons" is too vague a term. Can you be more specific? Yes - The proclivity for humans to overactively invoke agency in order to explain seemingly perplexing natural phenomena Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.1 |
My answer would be no I don't agree. It has only been in the last couple of centuries that anyone doubted the existence of god(s). According to what I read virtually everyone just assumed the existence of god(s) so they didn't even think about the question.
Early history seemed largely about finding a god that you could get on your side in battle. Frankly I don't think most people approach it from a logical point of view as you are suggesting. It was to a degree the route I took but I don't think that is normal. (Even at that you and I look at that differently in terms of how and why.) I also think for many it is experiential but that is impossible to assess objectively. I also believe that many believe as it makes them part of something, or a sense of belonging. Some I believe are looking for purpose. In the end I don't have a real answer because I can't be in other people's heads, but I think that it would be a small minority that believe in order explain something that they can't. Somehow, whether god(s) exist or not we seemed to be hard wired to look beyond ourselves. Do you agree with my earlier statement from post 151? So...... where I wind up with all of that, is the conclusion that there is no such thing as subjective evidence. There are only subjective thoughts or ideas.Everybody is entitled to my opinion.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 93 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined:
|
GDR writes: Somehow, whether god(s) exist or not we seemed to be hard wired to look beyond ourselves. That humans are psychologically hard wired to attribute intelligent intent whether it is present or not is all but inarguable. Nor is this deep proclivity restricted to gods. That humanity is particularly prone to erroneously invoking intelligent intent to explain things it doesn't understand is also just a fact. Here are a tiny selection of the entities humans have invented in order to imbue seemingly incomprehensible mindless physical processes with intelligent intent.
Solar deities, Wind gods, Fertility deities, Lunar deities, Thunder gods, Creator gods, Fire gods Etc. etc. Now the sort of god concept you are advocating in this thread is doubtless a more sophisticated and evolved concept of god than any of these. But when you look at the phenomena you have cited as evidence of intelligence in this thread (DNA, morality etc.) and find it incomprehensible that these things lack intelligent intentional cause you are ascribing intelligent intent to puzzling phenomena in exactly the same way that resulted in all of these other now refuted gods. Your reasoning is displaying wholly predictable human psychological tendencies with a past record of both abject failure in terms of being correct and amazing success in terms of inspiring devout conviction that they must be correct despite being wrong. It really isn't a very successful recipe.
GDR writes: Do you agree with my earlier statement from post 151? GDR writes: So...... where I wind up with all of that, is the conclusion that there is no such thing as subjective evidence. There are only subjective thoughts or ideas. I do agree that there is no such thing as subjective evidence in the sense you have described it previously this thread. But this doesn't mean that all conclusions are equally subjective does it? Where proof/disproof is not an option how do we determine which conclusions are most likely to be correct?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Chuck77 Inactive Member |
GDR writes: So...... where I wind up with all of that, is the conclusion that there is no such thing as subjective evidence. There are only subjective thoughts or ideas. Well, that was unexpected. It seems Straggler has worn you down. Why are you letting him? Just because someone repeats himself 900 times doesn't make him right. He's in his own world and half the time doesn't even have a point. He just keeps repeating repeating repeating repeating himself and eventually you end up saying "well, maybe there isn't subjective evidence, maybe it's all in my head". Curiously, (in honor of RAZD ) you said " There are only subjective thoughts or ideas." How do you figure? Are you implying that the Bible is simply a thought? Or idea and not valid undeniable proof much less subjective, at the very least? It is definitly subjective, if anything. And prayer is not subjective evidence? How so? Thousands and thousands of peoples testimonies telling of there experiences with God(s) is not subjective but ideas or thoughts? I could go on but for what? We've already been over this and you just went ALL the way back too, well, I dunno. Where are you? Are you demoting all subjective evidence to merely thoughts and ideas now?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 93 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
What is that makes any of the things you cite as evidence (the bible, religious experiences etc.) qualify as a form of evidence other than people being convinced that they are?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.1 |
Chuck77 writes: Well, that was unexpected. It seems Straggler has worn you down. Why are you letting him? Just because someone repeats himself 900 times doesn't make him right. He's in his own world and half the time doesn't even have a point. He just keeps repeating repeating repeating repeating himself and eventually you end up saying "well, maybe there isn't subjective evidence, maybe it's all in my head". I think maybe you missed my point. In working this around that what we are really discussing is what seems to me as the fact that there is only objective evidence, and in that really what we have been calling subjective evidence is an oxymoron. I contend that we come to subjective conclusions about objective realities. Take the Bible then. We know objectively that The Bible exists. We then subjectively consider the Bible to come to a conclusion about what we believe to be the truth of what it says. An atheist would probably even believe some parts of it. Look at the differences between Christians on this forum as to how it should be understood.
Chuck77 writes: Are you demoting all subjective evidence to merely thoughts and ideas now? I don't think I have the influence to demote anything. I think that I just clarified the definitions.Everybody is entitled to my opinion.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.1 |
Straggler writes: Here are a tiny selection of the entities humans have invented in order to imbue seemingly incomprehensible mindless physical processes with intelligent intent. Solar deities, Wind gods, Fertility deities, Lunar deities, Thunder gods, Creator gods, Fire gods Etc. etc.
Good job with the links. I agree that in a one sense that is correct, but I also think that in a larger sense what they were looking for was not an explanation for the phenomenon but the ability to have the power to be able to have influence over their environment. However, I don't think that really makes any difference to our discussion.
Straggler writes: Now the sort of god concept you are advocating in this thread is doubtless a more sophisticated and evolved concept of god than any of these. But when you look at the phenomena you have cited as evidence of intelligence in this thread (DNA, morality etc.) and find it incomprehensible that these things lack intelligent intentional cause you are ascribing intelligent intent to puzzling phenomena in exactly the same way that resulted in all of these other now refuted gods. Your reasoning is displaying wholly predictable human psychological tendencies with a past record of both abject failure in terms of being correct and amazing success in terms of inspiring devout conviction that they must be correct despite being wrong.
I frankly disagree with your premise as I don't see the question of whether god(s) exist at all is analogous to the idea of a specific god of the ancients existing. Remember, we aren't talking about the Christian God, but whether there is any theistic or even deistic god(s) at all. In this discussion even a creative intelligence, who on a lark created all we perceive and then headed off to greener pastures would fill the bill. Sure I believe more than that, but that isn't the point of the discussion. However to be specific, in an off topic sort of way, you have made this point before, and I think that I answered it by pointing out that our understanding of God has evolved and there is virtually no one left that believes in the gods that you cited. It is my subjective contention that divine truth is becoming more and more focused on human imagination so that we continue to grow in our knowledge of Him.
Straggler writes: I do agree that there is no such thing as subjective evidence in the sense you have described it previously this thread. Great. That clarification should be helpful.
Straggler writes: But this doesn't mean that all conclusions are equally subjective does it?
Of course not.
Straggler writes: Where proof/disproof is not an option how do we determine which conclusions are most likely to be correct? In your case, just ask me and I'll let you know. (Of course to do that you have to subjectively come to the conclusion that I'm always right.) It is done through reason. We look at what we know objectively and come to our subjective conclusions. That is why highly intelligent people in all fields of human endeavour, including science, come to different conclusions about what to make of things that we objectively agree on. You ask how do we know which conclusion is most likely to be correct. In some cases we just can't objectively know. It is my considered opinion that this world is almost obviously the result of a pre-existing intelligence, and yet you who are objectively aware of essentially the same things that I am see it differently. C'est la vie. Everybody is entitled to my opinion.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 93 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
GDR writes: It is my considered opinion that this world is almost obviously the result of a pre-existing intelligence, and yet you who are objectively aware of essentially the same things that I am see it differently. C'est la vie. It seems that we have come to some sort of agreement about "subjective evidence" being a misnomer. That was the core topic of this thread. With regard to the wider but related question of whether god(s) are more likely to be human constructions or entities that actually exist - I will say one further thing and then let you have the last word should you so wish: The conclusion that humans invoke supernatural intelligent entities as explanations for mysterious natural phenomena as a result of a deep psychological proclivity to ascribe intelligent intent regardless of whether it is present or not - Requires no assumptions about the actual existence of gods and is a highly objectively evidenced conclusion. The conclusion that current godly explanations for currently mysterious phenomena are not a symptom of the above and are instead the result of more evolved and closer to the truth godly conclusions requires that one first assume that a real and more evolved god actually exists. Despite there being no objective evidence in favour of the existence of such a god. One conclusion is overwhelmingly more objectively evidenced than the other.
GDR writes: (Of course to do that you have to subjectively come to the conclusion that I'm always right.) Dude - I'll leave it there. But it's been a pleasure and I apologise if I have annoyed you with my characteristically forthright approach at any point. Hopefully we have made each other think at the very least. Till next time......... Adios.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Panda Member (Idle past 3741 days) Posts: 2688 From: UK Joined: |
I would just like to thank both you and GDR for an interesting and well-mannered (even if slightly long-winded) discussion.
(No sarcasm intended)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.1 |
I have really enjoyed the exchange Straggler. I too hope I haven't been annoying.
Straggler writes: It seems that we have come to some sort of agreement about "subjective evidence" being a misnomer. That was the core topic of this thread. Agreed
Straggler writes: The conclusion that current godly explanations for currently mysterious phenomena are not a symptom of the above and are instead the result of more evolved and closer to the truth godly conclusions requires that one first assume that a real and more evolved god actually exists. I saw this a little differently as I was thinking of Wright's book, (The Evolution of God), when I wrote that. Of course his view is that our understanding of the nature of God has evolved whether or not He actually exists. With that in mind I was suggesting that if He exists then it is likely that we are closer to understanding His nature now than we were in the past. If He doesn't exist then it is just a matter that we have evolved socially. As a Christian, I'm not suggesting He has evolved, but that our understanding of Him as evolved as we continue to learn more about Him and His creation. I don't actually think we particularly disagree on that but I just wanted to clarify. Thanks againEverybody is entitled to my opinion.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Chuck77 Inactive Member |
Straggler writes: What is that makes any of the things you cite as evidence (the bible, religious experiences etc.) qualify as a form of evidence other than people being convinced that they are Huh? The results, that's what. I told YOU before that I was healed from using prayers from the bible. Using words from the Bible to speak to my circumstances. THEREFORE the bible is ...evidence. Subjective to you and valid proof to me. What's the problem?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Panda Member (Idle past 3741 days) Posts: 2688 From: UK Joined: |
Chuck77 writes:
So, if you honestly and reverently prayed for healing, but did not use prayers from the bible, then god would have refrained from healing you? I told YOU before that I was healed from using prayers from the bible. Using words from the Bible to speak to my circumstances.I doubt you believe that is true. Lady: "Please, heavenly father: save my child from the hurricane!"God: "You didn't quote from the bible - so, no." Surely, it is the person praying (and what they are praying for) that is important, not the actual words of the prayers? Edited by Panda, : No reason given.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024