Will there be more or less?

[Scrybe]

Thank you so much for the conversation!  I appreciate your candor and listening skills.  I hope that I am repaying you with the same.  

I actually think we may disagree on epistemological grounds.  I'm just not wired the right way to be a "hard core" philosopher that distrusts everything to such a large extent.

I might be sounding a bit more high-faluten than I actually am.  I only emphasize these limitations when speaking of philosophical or metaphysical issues.  I agree with you that there is a threshold at which the probability makes an idea so miniscule that it's not worth consideration.  When looking into getting my breaks fixed I don't waste time pondering whether there are breaks, or physical reality, or whether or not I deserve to use breaks.  I just get the damn things fixed.  
But when speaking of ultimate issues, I find it important to keep a proper perspective, which requires acknowledging that our very best ideas are still only guesses.  Something that I find lacking in most philosophy and theology.      

No one can even prove they exist.

I may be misinterpreting this, but I think that if you asked me to prove that you exist, I believe that I could reasonably do so.

Actually, I meant that YOU can not prove that YOU exist, and I can not prove that I exist.  But it works that way as well.  And you are correct: you could reasonably prove that I exist.  And that is what I mean about our agreement on epistemological grounds.  I approve of your standards and you approve of mine.  We have both implicitly agreed that we do indeed exist and our physical reality is perceived in a very similar way by both of us.  We implicitly agree that there is a law of non-contradiction.  These are necessary prerequisites to a meaningful communication, and I gladly accept them.  I only feel it necessary to keep it in the backs of our minds that those are, in fact, judgment calls we have made and we could be wrong about any of them.  But utility demands that we dispense with them.  

I understand your statement about our limitations --- it's just that after a certain level I have trouble finding meaning in them.

I agree with your assessment.  I only bring them up to keep us in context, not as a tool for argumentation.    

If, on the other hand, what you mean by "ultimate questions being worthy of investigation" is more a purpose of existence thing, then I would disagree.  

When I refer to Ultimate Questions, I'm talking about the sort that don't fit in a scientific box.  They are fundamentally philosophical.  Why are we here?  (Or… Is there a reason we exist, and if so, Who or what gives us that purpose?)  How ought we treat each other?  What happens after we die.  (If anything.)  Why is there injustice in the world?  What is beauty and why do we respond to it?  Etc.  

Clearly, many of these questions are pertinent to atheists.  But when it comes to anything regarding a telos, or purpose, you are instantly trespassing on religious ground.  Something most atheists I've conversed with find very distasteful.        

What I'm getting at here is that if there is a purpose to our existence, I would very much like to know, and would like to know what it is.  It's just that I view our current human understanding to be completely unable to even began to answer this question.

As do I.  Hence, the only viable solution: revelation.  It's quite possible that revelation does not exist.  It's quite possible that if there is a purpose, then, as you say, we could not even begin to grasp it.  To me, that is a hopeless view of life.  I choose to hope.

If such hope is seen as childish or stupid, than it's easy to see how a different interpretation of reality would occur.  

...if some supernatural deities exist, they have to interact with our physical existence to affect it, right?  So why couldn't our scientific examination of our existence be able to "find" them?

You are working under a couple of assumptions there.  First, that a deity would want to be found and proven scientifically.  Second, that if they did want that, they would want it to occur at this time in history or earlier.  Third, that we have not "found" them already and simply misinterpreted the data.  (Remember that scientific data collection, interpretation, and integration are all driven by philosophical principals, opening them to a vast array of corrupting influences.)   And forth, that historical accounts do not count as a "scientific examination".  

In one of my Carl Sagan books (I think his Gifford lectures), he says basically that as little as we know about the universe, he believes we know even less about god.

See what I mean about philosophical outlooks influencing science?  He could be right.  He could just as easily be wrong.  I personally believe, philosophically, there is no way a finite being could scratch the surface of understanding and infinite being.  So in that sense, I agree with Sagan.  But that leads me to one of my biggest puzzlements about atheism.  I completely agree with agnostics: We can not KNOW what religion â€" if any â€" is correct.  What I can't fathom is how one can assert what Sagan does: that we know SO little about the universe, and yet go on to say that they are SURE that there is no God.  How can you possibly be that sure?  It sounds as ridiculous to me as the TV preacher who says he's SURE that JEE-ZUS is going to rapture him leaving everyone else in hell.  How can you claim to KNOW for certain?  Especially with the whole field of quantum physics that keeps showing us more scientifically minded folk how little we really understand the reality we inhabit.    

I guess this fits my thinking fairly well.  In fact, I'd go so far as to say I don't think we have any knowledge of any gods.  Personally, I very strongly suspect everything that we have that claims to be "divinely inspired" is really just fiction written by people.

Most of it certainly seems that way to me as well.  One of the things that makes Christianity stand out to me (besides an acknowledged bias towards it as one raised in the belief system.) as a truth-claim is how it gets a lot of the typical religion process backwards.      

About the "external rubric" thing, you point out that everyone has a different lens through which they interpret reality.  I guess that's what I was hoping to avoid, using  the common parts of our different lenses, if you will.

Yes, we have many parts that overlap.  But many that don't.  Though, that doesn't have to be a problem if we are civil and generous with each other.        

Measure things using elements that we can all agree are reasonably valid.

Agreed.  Though it can be difficult to describe my position without reference to some elements that we do not agree on, such as revelation, faith, and purpose.          

there's no way a single eyewitness to a single transient event can possibly convince anyone, because in this case there's just too much room for error to be reasonably compelling.

While it may be true that you could not convince certain people of these types of things, there are clearly some people who will believe anything.  And most people fall somewhere in between.  For example, you may convince someone who has had a similar experience.  In the case of religious claims there is that mysterious element of revelation.  Ideally, one does not adhere to a particular faith because the arguments for it were strong enough.  (Though I think that should be a part of it.) But one adheres to a particular faith because one feels that they have been communicated with through its forms and rituals.  

In that case, a single person could be a witness to a single transient event, and convince another person, not because they proved it, but because the other person had some kind of revelation confirming the report.                        

Please pardon my example laced blue-collar philosophy, I'm an engineer by living, and I can actually feel my lack of eloquence attempting to discuss philosophical topics.

Most philosophy I've read could use a lot more "example laced blue-collar" influence!  I'm certainly no genius.  I appreciate every example I can get.  I'm not educated in this field at all, so I'm sure I'm missing all sorts of nuance and other important aspects.  But hey, I work with what I got!            

I, of course, would argue that we need food and air as a result of our physical nature, which we arrived at through evolution.  The fact that we can breath the air that exists on our planet, and eat the other stuff on our planet as food, is a direct consequence of our evolutionary process modifying us for survival in accordance with our environment.  Desire is a consequence.

Ok, you got me there.  I agree that we desire those things because our bodies need them.  Whether through design or evolution the concept doesn't change.  

the high desirability of surviving your own death and living eternally in unmatched bliss tends to make people less than objective when accepting religious stories as fact.

Agreed.

Primarily, I would say we feel that way because the actual evidence for truth in these tales is very weak, and yet such a large number of people accept them.

Yes, that is one way to interpret the data.  Or the universality of the idea could be attributed to an inborn knowledge that tells us this.  And there is only one test to determine which option it is.    

[SteveS]

Thanks Scrybe for taking the time to go through this.  I enjoyed the response, and I think we're getting very close to an end disagreement.  In fact, let me take a stab at it right here,

In the case of religious claims there is that mysterious element of revelation. Ideally, one does not adhere to a particular faith because the arguments for it were strong enough. (Though I think that should be a part of it.) But one adheres to a particular faith because one feels that they have been communicated with through its forms and rituals.

In that case, a single person could be a witness to a single transient event, and convince another person, not because they proved it, but because the other person had some kind of revelation confirming the report.

This is my problem with revelation.  There is no way that I can be sure that I have received any revelation, and we can't agree on revelation unless we've both received it.  In short, I just can't find a reasonable way for me to accept that revelation is real.  It would appear that we are going to be stuck on this one, as a true disagreement.

The only other thing I wanted to add was a further clarification on this paragraph,

But that leads me to one of my biggest puzzlements about atheism. I completely agree with agnostics: We can not KNOW what religion â€" if any â€" is correct. What I can't fathom is how one can assert what Sagan does: that we know SO little about the universe, and yet go on to say that they are SURE that there is no God. How can you possibly be that sure?

I think most atheists would say we are not sure that the existence of gods is impossible.  What we would say is that we currently have insufficient reasonable cause to believe that there are any gods.  Basically, examining the evidence that is put forward for the existence of a god, we find that it does not stand up to critical analysis.  So, I don't go out on a limb and say "there could never be any gods in the universe!", more what I say is "without any compelling reason to believe gods are real, why would I do so?".  I think that's all Carl Sagan is saying, is that the evidence that has been put forth for god(s) so far is weak, so what do we really know about god(s)?  And without any knowledge, why have a belief?  It's possible that we are going to disagree on the evidence for god, possibly for the reason above.  If you believe that revelation is legitimate, then you're going to believe that revelation provides a legitimate reason for holding a god belief.  I, on the other hand, have issues with revelation  :wink:  

So, to apply this in some context,

there is no way a finite being could scratch the surface of understanding and infinite being

I am a finite being, as near as I can tell.  If I can't even scratch the surface of understanding an infinite being, than how can I possibly claim to understand the existence of an infinite being?  If I can't understand it's existence, then why would I feel that it does, in fact, exist at all?  I'm not saying this in an "I'm right your wrong" sort of way, but I'm trying to convey why I hold my opinion.  Hopefully this makes some amount of sense.

[Scrybe]

there is no way a finite being could scratch the surface of understanding and infinite being

I am a finite being, as near as I can tell.  If I can't even scratch the surface of understanding an infinite being, than how can I possibly claim to understand the existence of an infinite being?

I don't think anyone can claim to understand God.  I think it is reasonable to claim that you have been communicated to by God.  Naturally, and communion requires a condensation on His part.  And most, if not all, of our understanding of Him is metaphorical in nature.  

If I can't understand it's existence, then why would I feel that it does, in fact, exist at all?  I'm not saying this in an "I'm right your wrong" sort of way, but I'm trying to convey why I hold my opinion.  Hopefully this makes some amount of sense.

Yes, It makes perfect sense.  As far as I can tell, communion with God requires two elements.  First, He must choose to communicate to you.  This decision was made before you were created, so you don't have any say in the matter.  Second, you must desire to orient your worldview in such a way as to interpret reality as a broader, deeper system than the mere mechanics of natural law.  Obviously if I don't want to believe in fish, and I choose to never go near water, it will be easier to disbelieve the existence of fish.  This analogy is clearly flawed since "seeing" God is a different sort of activity than seeing a physical entity, but I think you get my point.

[SteveS]

Yeah, so I'm bored, and I was flipping through the threads --- I missed that you had responded to this one, Scrybe.  After scrounging around for the context of this discussion, I'll go ahead an answer.

I don't think anyone can claim to understand God.

Umm, so what's left to talk about?  :wink:  

I think it is reasonable to claim that you have been communicated to by God.

I don't think it's reasonable to claim you've been communicated to by god.  To claim this as "reasonable" it has to be demonstrated through reason to have a sufficient basis.  Quite simply, this claim can be disputed with the question "why do you think that you have been communicated with by an external agent, and why do you think that agent is god?".  If there is no rational reason for believing god communicated with a person, if this claim cannot be rationally demonstrated, then this claim cannot be said to be "reasonable".  Has anyone who believes they've been communicated to by god been able to provide a rational, reasonable basis for holding this belief?

First, He must choose to communicate to you. This decision was made before you were created, so you don't have any say in the matter.

This is stated as if it were fact.  While this statement is possible, that hardly makes it likely.  What reason can you offer for supposing this to be the case?  It seems to me to be a defensive measure adopted to defend a presupposed truth in a fashion that immunizes it from critical analysis.

Second, you must desire to orient your worldview in such a way as to interpret reality as a broader, deeper system than the mere mechanics of natural law. Obviously if I don't want to believe in fish, and I choose to never go near water, it will be easier to disbelieve the existence of fish. This analogy is clearly flawed since "seeing" God is a different sort of activity than seeing a physical entity, but I think you get my point.

But we're off in a very fundamental way here.  Firstly, the veracity of the statement "fish exist" is hardly dependent upon my desire (you must desire to orient your worldview).  Therefore, the reality (or existence) of god can hardly be dependent on my desire to believe.  What can be linked to my desire is my belief.  Effectively you are saying "if you want to believe you will".  This may be true for irrational beliefs, but it does not work for rational ones.  This is not a valid defense of a rationally held position.

Secondly, avoiding water and all mention of fish is a flawed analogy --- how am I intentionally avoiding the immaterial or the supernatural?  Nobody, upon being challenged, can offer one shred of evidence for the existence or reality of anything supernatural or immaterial.  In fact, I'd say that by the definition of these things they are probably forever unknowable.  Which means that they are merely ideas that cannot be proven false.  There is no evidence, at all, for believing them to be true.  Simply imagining something that can't be proven false doesn't seem like much reason to believe in it?