Monday, 13 February 2012
-
A Friendly Response to "Is There a God?"
The following is a response to Nidan's post on Revelife: Is There a God?The Combatants
Our minds are indeed filled with great questions, most of which don't even begin to express the enormity of the task of providing accurate answers to those questions. One of the most humbling aspects of asking those questions is encountering the realization that we may not even be equipped to find the answers yet...or ever.
I really enjoyed the description of the three basic positions on the question of God's existence, primarily because it was more even-handed than most such descriptions. The list does omit some important distinctions, but it's pretty impossible to include them all if there's a character limit.
"On the question of God there are three basic positions. They are the Theist, the Agnostic, and the Atheist. Then in those positions people tend to lean on two sides.
- Theists lean from moderate to fundamentalist. (Though I prefer to use the word fanatic to describe them)
- Agnostics tend to lean towards theism or Atheism. (I lean theist)
- Atheists lean from moderate to fanatic as well. (Secular fanatic, specifically)"
So here they are, our contestants in the fight to answer what many people consider to be a great question, some consider to be an interesting question, and others consider to be a meaningless question. Who will win the battle?
The Battlefield
Nidan accurately points out that, in recent history, the public debate between theists and atheists has taken place largely on the battlefield of the questions of origins. Folks want to put forth their favored answers to the following questions: 1.) How did our world come about? 2.) How did we come to be in this world?
Obviously, there are related questions, (i.e. How long did it take for our world to come about?), and there are a variety of disagreements over the answers to those questions as well.
Rather than focusing on the questions and the various answers to them, which makes a discussion about answering the initial question either into a heinously long attempt to provide a comprehensive treatment of the subject or an impossible attempt to provide an account of the topic that is both concise and accurate...
Let's look at the tools we have available to answer questions about our existence, and see if we can pick the right tool for the job before heading into the fray.
The Weapons
As it turns out, we human beings don't have a large number of options when it comes to answering questions about our reality. There are two tools available:
- Reason
- Experience
Our combatants can use their experience or the experience of others to support their positions. They can use reason to construct and deconstruct arguments in support of their positions. And using both is often a possibility. Unfortunately, neither of these weapons work perfectly well in answering questions.
If we use reason to construct arguments in support of our positions, inevitably our opponents will use reason to deconstruct those arguments or attempt to falsify them using experience. If we use experience, our opponents will inevitably provide other experiences with which to counter it, or attempt to use reason to argue that the experience isn't sufficient to provide support for our positions. If we use experience and reason in tandem, those difficulties do not decrease. Sometimes the difficulties are compounded by using them in tandem because our opponents have more opportunities for effective rebuttal.
Some might suggest that if all we have are two lousy blunt weapons that we can't use to win the fight anyway, we should just stop fighting. I would agree that we should stop fighting over the answer to the question. It generally doesn't accomplish anything but headaches and hurt feelings. At the same time, the process of attempting to use those tools in the search for answers can be a great learning experience, especially if we do it in honest collaboration with those who do not share our views and are willing to challenge us in a constructive way.
The Terrain
In any battle, the terrain must be considered. We need to know which ravines we may fall into and which mountains we may have to climb. Speaking of which, I just noticed a boulder in our path.
The Law of Causality
I'm sorry, what law of causality? The Problem of Induction as laid out by David Hume demonstrates fairly well that even if causality exists, we have no rational justification for believing that it does. In addition, any inductive argument we make for our belief tends to simply beg the question or in some cases answer a slightly different question.
And even if we assume that the problem is solved by the means proposed to have solved it in the article referenced above, we still have a ways to go. If the Problem of Induction is solvable, and our belief in causality is rationally justified, then we just get turtles all the way down. I'll just apologize in advance to any turtles in may step on. But up ahead lies a jagged ravine. Let's take a look and see if those turtles can get us across.
Exclusion a Priori
I sympathize with your points about the use of Occam's Razor. I think it's overused and often abused in the debate over God's existence. There are too many instances of simple and yet horrifically wrong theories as well as complex correct ones for folks to be wielding that razor all willy-nilly.
And let's face it, Berkeley's idealism is a devastatingly simple approach to metaphysics, and yet is commonly rejected by the same folks who champion simplicity.
So when we have competing theories regarding the existence of God, how do we decide which is true if not using the principle of parsimony? Here we run into the Problem of the Criterion. I suspect that crossing this particular chasm, if it's possible, could take as many of our years as it takes light years to cross the universe. I don't think we have enough turtles for that.
Conclusion
This isn't intended to be a demonstration that the existence of God cannot be proven, or even that God's existence cannot be supported via rational or empirical means. What I would like the audience to consider is that the attempt to demonstrate God's existence or lack thereof is extraordinarily problematic, and that we may not have so much room to judge our opponents for their lack of solutions to those problems given that we often haven't solved them effectively either.
I look forward to your thoughts on the questions about Christianity and Jesus.
Do you agree or disagree with the above conclusions? Do both sides of the argument have a lack of solutions to the problem? If so, why do we always judge each other so harshly? How can we have a more friendly discussion about the existence of God?
RecommendRelated Posts
Post a Comment
- Back to revelife's Revelife Site!
- Note: your comment will appear in revelife's local time zone: GMT -05:00 (Eastern Standard - US, Canada)
About the Author
-
- From: Nous_Apeiron@xanga
- Name: Sam
- About Me: I'm odd and nerdy, serious about my personal integrity and physical health, care deeply about others, enjoy writing poetry and song in particular, like to understand the world in a deeper way than most, die laughing at excellent satire, and prefer meaningful relationships. Strange, I know. In my interactions with other people, I try to comfort the disturbed and disturb the comfortable, just like that Jesus guy people are always talking about.
Stats: This Week All Time Posts: 0 6 Views: 0 7009 Comments: 0 404 View all posts by Nous_Apeiron@xanga
Comments (176)
Some people ask the wrong questions on purpose to get the loaded answer they predict subconsciously. A much better question is what evidence in all creation is there for a life creating/giving God. All of creation screams of a creator, screams of order, screams of structure and screams of everlasting life. But hey, what do I know, I am just a fanatic.
Since God is the first cause, he is uncaused. The law of causality applies to all created or "caused" things. So by tracing all causes back to the first cause, the existence of God is a reasonable conclusion.
@RobertLeeRE@xanga - Maybe you are a fanatic. I'm a bit of fanatic myself when it comes to certain core values. That's not always a bad thing. :)
@sometimestheycomebackanyway@xanga - Of course the existence of a Prime Mover is a reasonable conclusion. So is the lack of a Prime Mover. We can use reason to arrive at all sorts of conclusions about many things, and the conclusions will vary widely based on which premises we hold true and the kind of reasoning we employ.
@RobertLeeRE@xanga - i think that's your personal experience, and i would never tell you to not base your beliefs on it. but that is what it is--- a personal experience. i've never had such notions about nature, so your argument means nothing to me. i think we view nature as orderly because we have nothing else to base the concept on, and because we desire a sense of order to feel more comfortable about our own existence. i find nothing scary about believing we exist by chance. in fact, i find it preferable to believing we were created for reasons beyond our understanding.
anyway, i'm not saying you're wrong about the existence of God. i'm merely pointing out that you can't expect someone to agree with you based on a personal experience they never had.
@Nous_Apeiron@xanga - I didn't say anything about a prime mover. You brought of up causality and followed it up to the logical conclusion that God exists.
There is no evidence whatsoever that God does not exist. Not in reason. Not in nature.
Only in the darkness of human denial.
@sometimestheycomebackanyway@xanga - So you were just using the cosmological argument? If so, fair enough. Were you using Plato's version, Aristotle's version, Aquinas' version, or some other version of that argument?
As to there not being evidence of God's existence, that really depends on your concept of God. For example, if a person believes that the only kind of God that could exist would never allow suffering in the world, then the existence of suffering might be evidence against that God's existence. Of course, it could also be that God exists and that their concept of God is incorrect.
@Nous_Apeiron@xanga - I'm just using the simple ability to think and not mindlessly regurgitate Philosophy 101 talking points.
@Nous_Apeiron@xanga - Evidence does not depend anyone's idea of anything. If you accept the ideas presented in your own article, then evidence is evidence, logic is logic, and being able to cobble together a few coherent thoughts and come to simple conclusions is a given.
@too_pretty_to_die@xanga -
Thats right. That my [mine] personal experience. To me it takes more faith to believe in chance, a faith which I am not built for. I guess I could build that faith by reading a bunch of books and learn all the correct answers but it is just requires too much work to believe. I would rather believe the more logical!
- "Each makes this cosmos and its construction the pivot of his emotional life.."
- "It is harder to crack a prejudice than an atom."
- "The only thing that interferes with my learning is my education."
* Albert Einstein
After the rehash, my original reply stands:
People on both sides of the debate truly are on the same side of a certain construct and so do not have full information and therefore shall never reach full agreement.
Groupthink leads to stagnation anyway so let's celebrate our disparate thinking about our origins. All combined we can make a fine cosmos and for me it will be held together by God.
@FullTruthSeeker -
Yes!
@sometimestheycomebackanyway@xanga -"
There is no evidence whatsoever that God does not exist. Not in reason. Not in nature. "
God is an unfalsifiable claim. The burden of proof is upon those asserting the positive. Claims without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.
I've pushed you on the cosmo argument before and you stumbled through its weaknesses terribly. A quick glance of physics and it's clear that our entire understanding of causality breaks down at the beginning of the universe, so you can't link causality to anything, especially the arbitrary answer of "God" that is the crux of the cosmological argument being an Argument from Ignorance anyway. It's based on fallacy upon fallacy.
@sometimestheycomebackanyway@xanga - I'm glad to hear that you don't mindlessly regurgitate Philosophy 101 talking points. If you're just using the "simple ability to think" along the same lines as other thinkers who did the same thing, that's great.
I'll agree that evidence doesn't depend on anyone's idea of anything. Unfortunately, our interpretations of the evidence and its implications do very much depend on our ideas. Which is why some people look at our world and see evidence of God...and others see no evidence of God.
How do you think you might be able to impact their ideas in such a way that people are more likely to see God when they look at the evidence?
@When_We_Were_Both_Cats@xanga - If you make a claim, any claim, you must offer supporting argumentation.
If you claim that their is no God then you must be able to explain why. Saying that there is no evidence that God exists is a false statement. There is plenty of evidence that God exists and it comes from science and mathematics.
Further, the existence of God can be proven through reason. That means that the existence of God is self evident.
So to claim that God does not exist is simply a matter of personal preference which makes such a claim irrational.
@Nous_Apeiron@xanga - Truth is not a matter of interpretation or personal preference.
People who deny the existence of God deny any evidence and deny any reasoning to the contrary. Consequently, denying the existence of God is a matter of personal preference which makes such a denial irrational.
@sometimestheycomebackanyway@xanga - I'm glad we can agree that truth is not a matter of interpretation or personal preference. That's good.
It's interesting that I've heard and seen many atheists make that same basic claim about theists, that theists deny any evidence against God's existence and deny any reasoning contrary to God's existence, which makes belief in God an irrational personal preference.
I would suspect that if two groups accuse each other of holding their beliefs out of an irrational personal preference, it would be difficult for them to persuade the other group to share their beliefs. How do you think we could overcome that problem?
I think the approach to the question is more fruitful if people stop looking at is as a battle and simply explain their own understanding and how they came to it. Presenting and idea and then deconstructing that of someone else keeps the focus on "winning" or "convincing" rather than on the actual question itself. It becomes a contests of wits, not unlike most court room situations these days. The truth matters less than winning. Neither side cares about the ultimate truth, they just want to bring others around to their perspective.
That may be, as you have pointed out, that the Ultimate Truth may be, and may always remain beyond our capabilities to recognize it or discern it. So we rely on circumstantial evidence at best, or our own desire to be declared "right", or to have our ideas validated to lessen our mortal paranoia.
That is not necessarily a bad thing. Being mortal and finite and aware of that, IS scary, and coming up with ideas that allow us to move past the paralysis of that fear and toward productivity are crucial. The idea of a supreme being or force provides that for many people. Other people find solace in the idea of their own mental supremcy, and bolster that by attempting to prove themselves more logical than others.
My take on the question is that the ultimate truth of how the Universe came to be isn't something we need to know. It is not the job of humanity to "run" the Universe so if we don't know, the Universe goes on just fine without us,. It has for many billions of years, done without humans, and I expect that when humans have gone extinct, the Universe will continue to muscle on.
Evolution has instilled us with this curiosity, with a desire to know and understand EVERYTHING, and that IS useful to the survival of our species. In that sense, these discussions are useful/necessary. The search for meaning leads us to important discoveries in both a practical and philosophical sense. Note I used the word discussion. The battle over religion has led to horrendous slaughter. It leads to hatred, misunderstanding, mudslinging, and wasted talents. The application of religion, on a personal level often leads to a person being more willing and mentally and emotionally more capable of meeting the challenges of life.
And on a societal level often leads to stronger communities, sharing resources etc.
My own faith greatly enhances my life, indeed makes me a "better" person, friend, parent, employee, and member of society. The discussion of my beliefs sharpens my mind and deepens my understanding of myself and other people. Arguing over beliefs hasn't done much except frustrate me, waste time and cause strife rather than union with my fellow beings.
@sometimestheycomebackanyway@xanga - "
There is plenty of evidence that God exists and it comes from science and mathematics."
Then how come scientists and mathematicians are less likely to say so? Advanced education shares a negative correlation with religiosity.
You seem to be big on merely claiming that there is all this evidence and argumentation for God's existence yet you fall very short on actually providing it. High on claims, short on proofs...
@When_We_Were_Both_Cats@xanga - Atheists don't value science. They just use it as an excuse to attack religion. Scientists are people too. And people tend to be guided by their personal preferences.
@sometimestheycomebackanyway@xanga - Atheists don't value science? How else could we conclude that there is more than likely not a creator? You argue that we don't use logic and reasoning, yet you govern your life according to a fictional book you read. Come to think of it, have you read the bible? I mean have you REALLY read it, alone, with a clear mind, without the help of a priest, pastor, or bible study group? If you have, I'm surprised that you and I don't agree on this subject. Your god is cruel, unjustified, jealous, and hot-headed. Remember Lot and his two daughters? The ones he was willing to sacrifice to the angry mob outside that was willing to rape them? Remember Noah's ark and how your god KILLED thousands of people, including innocent women, children, and infants? Remember how Jesus condemned a fig tree to death because it wasn't in season, and therefore, could not produce a fig for him to eat? I could go on and on with these examples. Have you read this stuff? Are you just choosing to worship that sugar coated stuff and brush the evil stuff under the rug?
@Reality_Rules@twitter - If you can refute my argument then refute it. Simply making a claim that my argument is long refuted is meaningless without also offering some sort of reasoning to support your claim.
The OP offered the law of causality. But I demonstrated that the law of causality only applies to anything that was caused.
Since God is uncaused the law of causality cannot possibly apply to him.
@MagicalMayhem@xanga - If you value science then show how it refutes the existence of God. You have made a claim that you value science and then you used the Bible to back up your claim. That is completely irrational.
If you make a claim about science you must use science to back up your claim.The Bible is a book of faith. That makes it useless in matters of science.
@sometimestheycomebackanyway@xanga - I wasn't using the bible to back up my claim, I was using it to show how crazy yours is. Though I cannot prove that there isn't a creator of some sort, you are no closer to proving there is (hint: the bible is not a legitimate resource). For starters, evolution is at least proven that there are holes in your story. Evolution has been scientifically proven, it is a FACT. If you refuse to believe it, you are in denial. There is countless evidence to back up evolution. Also, scientists have now discovered that we live in a flat, closed universe - a universe which does not need a creator to exist. With this new information, we also now know how the universe will end - there will be a reverse big bang. First we went from nothing to something, next we will go from something to nothing. If you are interested in learning more about this, you can research the cosmologist Lawrence M. Krauss, he is the scientist, with help from his team, who discovered this information.
I don't think that's very irrational, but do you know what is? Using a fictional book to try and prove the existence of something. This would be like someone trying to prove that Harry Potter was a real wizard in about 2,000 years (hey, that's just like Jesus!) by simply reading exerts from the series. I don't see much difference between that and your god.
@sometimestheycomebackanyway@xanga - Also, I like how you tip-toed around my question.
I hate when "god," in the philosophical sense, gets turned around into a Christian god religion debate. As far as science goes, we have theories and facts about how the universe works, how it came to be, how we came to be, and so on. Aristotle's argument about the Prime Mover implies that there was some sort of intelligence that "created" the universe and everything in it. As an agnostic that refutes all religions equally, science explains the HOW but not the WHY. Sure, maybe it was just chance, but I think we are too intelligent and complex to have been developed by chance. Maybe there is some sort of intelligent Prime Mover (or God, if you want to call it, though I think it's a genderless entity...) that was the great scientist that went BANG and begun the whole damn thing. I like to think that sometimes. It makes more sense to me than any religions. Maybe this Prime Mover made up all the Laws of the Universe, figured out how evolution worked, created all the elements and so on... maybe we're just it's grand experiment. Who really knows anything for sure...