The objective evidence strongly favours the conclusion that gods are invoked by humans for psychological reasons rather than because they actually exist.
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.
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?
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?
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.
THEREFORE the bible is ...evidence. Subjective to you and valid proof to me. What's the problem?
Then a Hindu who cites a similar experience has "proof" of the existence of their particular chosen god too. And so on and so forth.
With all these personally "proven" but mutually exclusive gods knocking around it seems that this "proof" you talk of is essentially worthless as a form of actual evidence.
Well, superstition is rather pejorative term, however, my position all along has been that just because people in their search for an understanding that extends beyond themselves have gotten it wrong more often than not, is not evidence that there is no god(s).
Just to be clear - I have never claimed that the multitude of refuted gods is evidence that there are no gods per se.
What I have said is that there is overwhelming positive evidence on which to conclude that the entire concept of god is a human construction derived from evidenced human psychological proclivities rather than anything to do with gods actually existing.
This is subtly but importantly different.
GDR writes:
Actually, (although as I said I don't see this as a strong argument), it seems to me that the fact that part of our nature is that we search for this understanding, whether it be via theology or science, is an indication that there is something beyond our physical existence that we can, to one degree or another, comprehend.
The deep proclivity for humans to invoke conscious/intelligent intent where none exists is highly objectively evidenced and certainly isn't restricted to god related matters.
If this is god's method of revealing himself to us "he" isn't just moving in mysterious ways he is taking a bewilderingly scattergun approach to our enlightenment.
But I think that you're saying that the objective fact that there are a multitude of refuted gods can help lead to a subjective conclusion, with you and I coming to very different subjective conclusions. Would you agree with that?
I wouldn't agree that the two conclusions are equally subjective. But as with all evidence based conclusions, it is a question of relative likelihood rather than proof.
GDR writes:
The thing is that I think that you are implying that the entire concept of god(s) has been invoked to explain what appears to be the unexplainable.
Gods have certainly been invoked for that reason. And continue to be invoked for that reason. But that isn't the whole story. The question is why humans do this.
GDR writes:
In other words there was a general consensus amongst all groups that there was an intelligence behind everything.
Everything? I wouldn't go that far. But I accept the gist of what you are saying. So what is the cause of this "general consensus"? Is it:
A) The actual existence of supernatural entities that go round causing aspects of nature B) Universal aspects of human psychology that will lead humans to conclude that aspects of nature demand intelligent intent where in fact there is none present.
One of these explanations we have objective evidence for and one we don't. When comparing explanations with objective evidence to explanations with no objective evidence I would suggest that (rationally at least) there can only be one outcome.
Highly Evidenced Naturalistic Explanation Vs Unevidenced Supernatural Claim
GDR writes:
There is no objective evidence for either of your two possible conclusions.
But there is!!! The evidence in question pertains to general aspects of human psychology that are essentially inarguable regardless of their relevance to the question under discussion here. We know for a fact that humans are prone to invoking conscious intent where none exists. We know that humans will find meaning and patterns where in fact there is just randomness and/or mindless physical processes at work. We know humans have a proclivity to embellish, imagine, and speculate. The extreme human tendency for wishful thinking and other such cognitive biases when faced with insufficient evidence or evidece which we don't like. Etc. etc. etc. There is a great deal of objective evidence relevant to the question of why humans believe the things that they do. This idea that there is an absence of evidence is just false.
GDR writes:
You use your claim that human psychology leads us to come to conclusion about god as objective evidence for their non-existence.
Not exactly. In a nutshell - I am arguing that a highly evidenced naturalistic explanation for a given phenomenon is far more likely to be correct than an unevidenced supernatural explanation for that same phenomenon.
GDR writes:
This same analogy can be used in regards to any phenomenon that you might like to name.
In this case the phenomenon in question is human belief in god(s). What is the cause of this? On one hand we have an evidenced naturalistic explanation and on the other we have a baseless supernatural alternative. Which is more likely to be correct?
GDR writes:
Read again what Wright says about Paley from the bottom of page 400 to page 404 in "The Evolution of God".
That nature exhibits the appearance of design nobody is disputing. But given that we know for a fact that mindless physical processes can and do lead to this appearance of design on what basis do we ever rationally invoke an unevidenced supernatural designer to explain such things? And why does the scale of the "design" (whether we are talking about an eye or an entire planetary ecosystem) matter?
GDR writes:
We all just look at the sprinkler system, (our universe) including the timer, (scientific discoveries of our natural existence), and draw our own conclusion about whether or not it came into existence on its own or whether there was a pre-existing intelligence that caused it to be.
Or we could simply admit that we don't yet know how the universe came to be and investigate this question by applying the most objective methods available to us. Namely the scientific methods that have been developed precisely because of the need to counter our natural proclivities to jump to biased subjective conclusions.
GDR writes:
How about this posssibility: Universal aspects of human psychology that will lead humans to conclude that aspects of nature demand intelligent intent causing people to attribute false attributes to the actual god(s) of the universe.
Firstly - It's "possible" in the same sense that Last Thursdayism is "possible". It is a baseless and unfalsifiable claim and I see no more reason for it to be true than any other equally baseless or unfalsifiable claim.
Secondly - The obvious problem with this is that it requires circular reasoning. One must first assume that god(s) exist in order for the evidence to be indicative of the existence of god(s).
GDR writes:
It tells us something about human psychology but it tells us nothing about the reason that human psychology exists at all.
Yes it does. The evolutionary reasons humans have these sorts of proclivities are borne from the same sort of instinct that inspire us to desire cheesecake rather than lettuce. You might find this video of a rather informal lecture on this interesting:
Re: Highly Evidenced Naturalistic Explanation Vs Unevidenced Supernatural Claim
Do you agree that objectively evidenced conclusions and explanations are more likely to be correct than unevidenced claims?
Is there any objective evidence in favour of the notion that god(s) exist?
Is there any objective evidence in support of the conclusion that humans can and do invent non-existant god(s) for evolved psychological reasons?
GDR writes:
I admit that we don't yet know how the universe came to be and that we should investigate this question by applying the most objective methods available to us. As I’ve said numerous times, in my view science is a natural theology.
Do you also agree that the question of why humans believe in gods should be investigated by applying the most objective methods available?
GDR writes:
The fact that a "highly evidenced naturalistic explanation for a given phenomenom" exists tells us nothing about why the "highly evidenced naturalistic explanation for a given phenomenom" exists.
Baselessly invoking god(s) as explanations tells us nothing about why god(s) exist. So at what point do we accept the evidence available without recourse to invoking subjectively desireable but unevidenced cause upon cause upon cause? I say we stop at the point we find ourselves invoking anything for which there is no evidence. What do you say?
GDR writes:
They are out looking for evidence to support their beliefs. It is no different than Biblical literalists hunting for geographical data to support the idea of a worldwide flood.
I would suggest that it is different in two key ways:
1) Unlike biblical literalists the objective evidence being cited does actually exist and does actually support the conclusion being made.
2) I would suggest that most atheists who conclude that gods are most likely human inventions have come to their conclusion as a result of objective evidence and would change their position if objective evidence of god(s) existence were to come to light.
THEREFORE the bible is ...evidence. Subjective to you and valid proof to me. What's the problem?
Straggler writes:
Then a Hindu who cites a similar experience has "proof" of the existence of their particular chosen god too. And so on and so forth. With all these personally "proven" but mutually exclusive gods knocking around it seems that this "proof" you talk of is essentially worthless as a form of actual evidence.
Chuck writes:
Not at all. We can compare them and seek out the truth.
How are you going to compare two contradictory conclusions of the same religious experience and find out which one is true?
Chuck writes:
All roads don't lead to God, only one, but it's good enough evidence for this thread isn't it?
But what is your experience evidence of?
You say it is evidence of biblical truth. A scientologist would say it is evidence of dianetics. A Hindu might say it is evidence of the true god that underlies your belief in the false Christian god. Etc. etc.
How do you intend to work out who is right and who is wrong here?
Re: Highly Evidenced Naturalistic Explanation Vs Unevidenced Supernatural Claim
The objectively evidenced facts are simple:
Humans can and do invent gods that don't exist.
There is no objective evidence that any gods do actually exist.
GDR writes:
We then take these objective facts on board and come to subjective conclusions.
There is nothing subjective about the conclusion that humans can and do invent non-existant gods is there? Whilst the notion that gods do actually exist is entirely subjective is it not?
GDR writes:
Absolutely, but subjectively I don't see that as evidence against the idea that god(s) exist.
I haven't claimed that anything is evidence "against" the existence of gods as such. I have claimed that it is evidence in favour of gods being products of the human mind. Can you see the difference?
On one hand we have the objectively evidenced fact that humans can and do invent non-existent gods. On the other hand we have evidentially baseless proposition that god(s) actually exist.
On one hand we have the objectively evidenced facts regarding human psychology and the environment in which this evolved. Facts which explain the human proclivity to invent non-existent gods (the human tendency to find patterns and meaning in random events, hyper active agency detection, the selection advantage of false positives over false negatives etc.) On the other hand we have evidentially baseless proposition that god(s) actually exist.
On the simple and essentially inarguable basis that objectively evidenced conclusions and explanations are more likely to be correct than unevidenced claims we have the conclusion that gods are more likely to be human constructions than real entities. On the other hand we have the (still) evidentially baseless claim that god(s) actually exist.
GDR writes:
....what objective evidence there is can be subjectively viewed favouring either conclusion.
You keep saying this. But this just isn't so. ALL of the evidence available points towards gods as products of human invention. Can you describe step by step as I have above how you use the same objective evidence to come to your subjective conclusion that god(s) exist? I predict that you won't be able to without first assuming that god(s) do exist.
GDR writes:
All true, but there is no objective evidence that god(s) don't exist...
There is no objective evidence that Last Thursdayism didn't occur. But it would be ridiculous to say that evolutionary theory and Last Thursdayism are both equally subjective explanations for the origin of species wouldn't it?
There is no objective evidence that the infamous Immaterial Pink Unicorn doesn't exist. But it would be ridiculous to say that the IPU is just as likely to exist as be a product of the human mind wouldn't it?
If the best that can be said for the existence of god(s) is that there is no evidence against their existence then god(s) are in the same category as all those other baselessly conceived unfalsifiable entities and propositions. Philosophical possibilities which are far more likely to be human inventions than real entities.
GDR writes:
Sure I see the difference but I would say that it is only evidence of some god(s) being products of the human mind.
The objective evidence tells us that it is far more likely that any given evidentially baseless god concept is a product of the human psychological proclivity to invent such things. So which concept of god are you suggesting that this doesn't apply to?
On one hand we have the objectively evidenced fact that humans can and do invent non-existent gods. On the other hand we have evidentially baseless proposition that god(s) actually exist.
On one hand we have the objectively evidenced facts regarding human psychology and the environment in which this evolved. Facts which explain the human proclivity to invent non-existent gods (the human tendency to find patterns and meaning in random events, hyper active agency detection, the selection advantage of false positives over false negatives etc.) On the other hand we have evidentially baseless proposition that god(s) actually exist.
On the simple and essentially inarguable basis that objectively evidenced conclusions and explanations are more likely to be correct than unevidenced claims we have the conclusion that gods are more likely to be human constructions than real entities. On the other hand we have the (still) evidentially baseless claim that god(s) actually exist.
GDR writes:
There is no objective evidence. There are objective facts on which we draw subjective conclusions.
....what objective evidence there is can be subjectively viewed favouring either conclusion.
This seems to be the key point of contention. So let's focus on that.
Can you show me where my own reasoning above departs from the objective evidence and becomes a subjective conclusion?
Can you describe step by step as I have above how you use the same objective facts regarding humans inventing gods to come to your subjective conclusion that god(s) actually exist? Can you do this without assuming the premise that some form of god(s) exist?
GDR writes:
It would make sense that for a variety of reasons there would be numerous false gods.
IF we assume that a real, more generic and more sophisticated god exists THEN it would make sense that for a variety of reasons there would be numerous false gods
GDR surely you can see that this only "makes sense" IF you start from the premise that there is a real god? Assuming that god(s) exist in order to conclude that god(s) exist is circular reasoning. Can you really not see this?
I'll answer the rest of your post separately. The above, I think, is the key difference between us and where your assertion that both positions are equally subjective breaks down.
And as I've said before, that the fact that we do seem to have a built in tendency to search for and try to understand gods is suggestive that the real thing does exist.
This completely misses the fact that the objective evidence tells us that FALSE POSITIVES give a selection advantage. Not some inbuilt urge to seek the true divine. But instead a proclivity to draw FALSE POSITIVES with regard to detecting intelligent intent.
GDR writes:
You believe in a strictly naturalistic explanation and I believe that it is all the result of a pre-existing intelligence.
You keep raising this false dichotomy as if we just choose one or the other and then seek evidence to support our baseless belief. But it doesn't have to be like that. There are evidenced explanations and there are unevidenced explanations. And then there are questions to which we don't yet have answers.
GDR writes:
You can compare my belief in God to belief in a IPU or a FSM, but do you really think subjectively that they are comparable.
They are evidentially comparable though. That is the point.
GDR writes:
You seem to believe that because there have been many false concepts of god over the centuries, that this is an indication that there is no god(s), known or unknown.
No no no no. Again - The abundance of false gods combined with the known psychological reasons that humans are prone to creating these FALSE POSITIVES leads to the conclusion that god concepts are more likely to be human constructions than real entities.
GDR writes:
All the evidence points towards most god(s) as products of human invention.
Are you aware of the role of inductive reasoning in science?
GDR writes:
I just don't see that as reasonable.
Like all evidence based conclusions it is inductive and tentative but I don't see on what basis you can call it unreasonable?
(Of course to do that you have to subjectively come to the conclusion that I'm always right.)
™ Version 4.2
(1)