Futile Confrontations Between Theists and Atheists

[Siz]

The way I see it is that revelation and reason are simply on different planes. While the recepient of the revelation experience may be, IMO, justified in taking it as real, he is not justified in calling it "knowledge," which I think remains in the realm of objective observation and reason. He may refer to it as "faith" and remain constant in his belief, but should be open to criticism by those who don't accept his particular epistemology. Belief in God is not, IMO, a reasoned position, but should be open to reasoned arguments as a safeguard against bias and against inappropriate extension of his faith into the realm of reason/knowledge. 

Perfect. Respect.

[En_Route]

Further to ER's post, interestingly, today I was e-talking to a (atheist) friend about arguments between theists and non-theists. I hypothesised that it was the misunderstanding of the concept of 'reasoning' that is often the issue, whereby a theist believes in God because his subjective emotions and desires and beliefs tell him so. This is his RATIONALE. A non-theist has decided that god doesn't exist because he has REASONED so with objective facts.
So when a theist says he has 'reasoned' that God exists, what he means is he has 'rationalised' that God exists.

Would you say that's fair AD?

It's both IMHO.  Understanding that most, if not all, atheists disbelieve the bible as historic.  However there is evidence to show it is authentic.  Once one has determined to him/herself that their requirement of evidence is satisfied, then one can start looking at the prophecies within.  If it is determined that the timing/dates of the writings of this collection of books is accurate (enough) then one can start seeing that the writers of these prophecies couldn't possibly have known such things.  The city of Tyre and the prophecy of the world ( Nebuchadnezzar's dream ).  Now, I know quite well there is opposition to these from the atheist perspective so no need to get all up in arms.  The point is there is reason enough for me and others to believe.  (I'll look for the prophecy of Tyre as explained by someone who knows both the bible and history.  I've looke before, but not found a presentation as I've heard before.)

I thought the claims regarding Tyre had long since been punctured.

[Genericguy]

Is it pretentious of me to quote myself?

Things that are considered supernatural are outside of science. However, when a person proposes something to be true, they are in fact claiming that it is natural and not supernatural. They turn it into a scientific hypothesis by simply asserting it as truth. It is up to scientific testing to discover if it's even testable in the first place. We decide it's not testable and put it back in the supernatural category, comfortably outside of science once again.

It is futile in that it will never be resolved, but I don't agree that "scientific experiments are not appropriate". Without science, the god(s) hypothesis would be known as natural. It is science that keeps it in the supernatural category.

I don't see how you need the existence of  science to establish the Christian god's status  as a supernatural entity, viz. not of this world.

If something truely existed, that was not of this world or of this universe, it would be considered natural for it to exist, not supernatural. The fact that it exists is what defines it as natural. The word supernatural is an oxymoron. Any claim that something exists is a claim that it is natural and not supernatural. It is up to science to determine if it's natural or not.

I hope I'm explaining my thoughts on this clear enough.

[En_Route]

Is it pretentious of me to quote myself?

Things that are considered supernatural are outside of science. However, when a person proposes something to be true, they are in fact claiming that it is natural and not supernatural. They turn it into a scientific hypothesis by simply asserting it as truth. It is up to scientific testing to discover if it's even testable in the first place. We decide it's not testable and put it back in the supernatural category, comfortably outside of science once again.

It is futile in that it will never be resolved, but I don't agree that "scientific experiments are not appropriate". Without science, the god(s) hypothesis would be known as natural. It is science that keeps it in the supernatural category.

I don't see how you need the existence of  science to establish the Christian god's status  as a supernatural entity, viz. not of this world.

If something truely existed, that was not of this world or of this universe, it would be considered natural for it to exist, not supernatural. The fact that it exists is what defines it as natural. The word supernatural is an oxymoron. Any claim that something exists is a claim that it is natural and not supernatural. It is up to science to determine if it's natural or not.

I hope I'm explaining my thoughts on this clear enough.

I continue to struggle. Supernatural in its wider sense denotes something which cannot be explained by the ordinary laws of nature, or more narrowly, as relating to a deity. Neither of those definition predicates that that the object in question does not exist. God in the Christian tradition passes man's comprehension but they think they know he's up there. So God on this understanding is not testable by science which is confined to explaining the ordinary laws of nature. I think where Science has  in practice most seriously undermined  popular adherence to theism is by demonstrating that the apparent "design"  of the world's inhabitants can be explained as an accident of circumstance.

[Genericguy]

Supernatural in its wider sense denotes something which cannot be explained by the ordinary laws of nature, or more narrowly, as relating to a deity.

It would have to be "known laws of nature". If a claim that something exists is proven to be fact, then our understanding of the laws of nature would have to change. The laws of nature itself would remain in harmony with the subject being discussed. The "supernatural" subject being discussed would In fact be natural.

Neither of those definition predicates that that the object in question does not exist.

I agree. It means it goes against our current understanding of the laws of nature.

God in the Christian tradition passes man's comprehension but they think they know he's up there. God on this understanding is not testable by science which is confined to explaining the ordinary laws of nature

Believing in it does not warrant scientific involvement. Asserting it as fact does. To make a claim that it exists, it to claim that it's natural. Science is the study of nature.

I think where Science has  in practice most seriously undermined  popular adherence to theism is by demonstrating that the apparent "design" of the world's inhabitants can be explained as an accident of circumstance.

Yes. Science, figuratively speaking, is a shield preventing god(s) from becoming natural. It does a great job of that. The sword of science, so to speak, unfortunately, has little effect. It can always be countered by the theists shield... "god made it that way". Therein lies the futility.

[En_Route]

How would you differentiate between "believing something" and "stating that it is a fact". Can I say that I believe in God without necessarily implying that the existence of God is a fact?

[Genericguy]

 I was trying to imply that when a person says something like... "god is real, here is my evidence", science must get involved.

[En_Route]

I was trying to imply that when a person says something like... "god is real, here is my evidence", science must get involved.

Theists would say that science is concerned only with the material universe and the laws which govern it.

[technolud]

I know I'm late to the party here (its been a busy week) and En_Route, ScissorLegs and others have already made some elegent and thoughtful responses, but really....

Quote
The first step toward mutual respect between theists and atheists should be the recognition that most people on Earth live in two different worlds: material and spiritual. Methods of validation of claims made by theologians specializing in spiritual doctrines are very different from those used by scientists exploring our physical world. God is not a material entity, and attempts to refute God's existence by performing scientific experiments are not appropriate. The same is true for attempts to refute scientific claims, such as the age of the earth, on the basis of disagreements with holy books.

This statement is simply an appeal to ignorance, X 2.  Your science can't disprove the existance of my God, therefore he exits, PLUS, my theology cannot disprove you science, therefore your age claim to the earth is invalid.  This is nothing more then the familier tried and true argument to justisfy the existance of god, you can't prove he doesn't exist, therefore he must.  As En_Route stated earlier, a false dichotomy. 

I agree with the earlier statement from Scissorlegs "accept that a belief in God is not a 'reasoned' position. I can respect a persons belief if he is honest about its origin."  But to offer the existance of god up as a subject that cannot be meaningfully discussed by atheists because they don't posess the theists spirtitual wisdom is condescending at best. 

[technolud]

It's both IMHO.  Understanding that most, if not all, atheists disbelieve the bible as historic.  However there is evidence to show it is authentic.  Once one has determined to him/herself that their requirement of evidence is satisfied, then one can start looking at the prophecies within.  If it is determined that the timing/dates of the writings of this collection of books is accurate (enough) then one can start seeing that the writers of these prophecies couldn't possibly have known such things.  The city of Tyre and the prophecy of the world ( Nebuchadnezzar's dream ).  Now, I know quite well there is opposition to these from the atheist perspective so no need to get all up in arms.  The point is there is reason enough for me and others to believe.  (I'll look for the prophecy of Tyre as explained by someone who knows both the bible and history.  I've looke before, but not found a presentation as I've heard before.)

Animateddirt, I don't mean to pick on you.  In the past I've admired much of what you have to say, but the above statement has been bugging me all day.

Lets assume for the moment that the Bible does represent THE TRUTH.  (I for one believe many of the historical facts in it are correct and that there was a dude named Jesus who had a really good philosophy, but that doesn't make him the son of God)  This means that your christian god is THE GOD and everyone elses god is make believe.  Like the Muslims, Jews, Hindu's, Buddists.  The other 51% of the world who believe in god, (according to Wikipedia @ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Major_religious_groups not counting us athesists) have it all wrong.

Or maybe your GOD is just "a god".  How is the poor, uniformed atheist to get it right?  Which god do we have to prove doesn't exist?  The christian god, buddist, muslim, thor, zues, ra?  Maybe the "Real" god is one that a small group of indians who have still never made contact with "civilization" worship in the amazon rain forest.  Its a tough job disproving the existance of all these gods.  There must be ten thousand of them.

So if theists wish to claim the existance of God on the basis of Faith, I can get behind that.  Its thier thing.  But if they contend that the laws governing society or ethics (a sly use of moral in a different form) should be determined by thier GOD or religion I'm against it.  And if they want to debate the existance of God, then enter the arena.  But they cannot say they want to participate in the debate then dissallow the alternative point of view because we don't share your acceptance of the bible (or any other religious book) as the word of God or participate in thier spritual belief's. 

Atheists can be spiritual.  Nothing more so then a mighty OAK TREE dripping in a morning rain, or a mountain or waves crashing on the shore or holding your child in your arms.  Theists do not have an exclusive on spirituality.

   

[Sandra Craft]

So if theists wish to claim the existance of God on the basis of Faith, I can get behind that.

Me too.  I have no problem with people having faith in supernatural entities -- I've got friends who believe in ghosts and unicorns and all what not -- my problem is when people try to force their specific faith practices into everyones life.

And if they want to debate the existance of God, then enter the arena.  But they cannot say they want to participate in the debate then dissallow the alternative point of view because we don't share your acceptance of the bible (or any other religious book) as the word of God or participate in thier spritual belief's. 

Pretty much my thinking too.  The problem seems that theists claim they have evidence which atheists choose to ignore, while atheists (or at least me) consider their "evidence" actually unsupported stories and ancient hearsay.

I wonder if there's some compromise -- atheists concede that absence of proof isn't proof of absence, and theists accept that evidence is something that must be run thru a lab (so to speak)?

[Genericguy]

I was trying to imply that when a person says something like... "god is real, here is my evidence", science must get involved.

Theists would say that science is concerned only with the material universe and the laws which govern it.

If empirical, undeniable proof of ghosts were brought forth, would our understanding of the laws of nature not have to change to comply with their observed existence? I don't see how a god would be any different.

[En_Route]

I was trying to imply that when a person says something like... "god is real, here is my evidence", science must get involved.

Theists would say that science is concerned only with the material universe and the laws which govern it.

If empirical, undeniable proof of ghosts were brought forth, would our understanding of the laws of nature not have to change to comply with their observed existence? I don't see how a god would be any different.

This is the nub of it. God is defined so as to be outside the reach of science. He is exempt from the laws of nature. When he rides into town, virgins give birth, water turns into wine and the dead rise again. These feats are described as miracles, exactly because they defy the laws of nature. If there were any evidence these miracles had genuinely occurred then we atheists might have to reconsider our position. But of course there isn't any.

[Tank]

Please would people attempt to attribute quotations. - Tank

To do so you simply need to add the name of the person you are quoting into the first quote tag [quote=Tank]

Thus

[quote=Tank]
Tank wrote this
[quote]

Will appear as

Tank wrote this

If you are doing multiple quotes from one user you only need to attribute the first quote although it would be appreciated if all quotes were attributed so if they are in turn quoted we can all see who said what.

Thank you.

[technolud]

Please would people attempt to attribute quotations.

Alas, all that wonderful ambiguity will be lost.......