News:

There is also the shroud of turin, which verifies Jesus in a new way than other evidences.

Main Menu

Futile Confrontations Between Theists and Atheists

Started by AnimatedDirt, June 13, 2012, 05:17:21 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

AnimatedDirt

Futile Confrontations Between Theists and Atheists

QuoteThe 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.


Crow

Talks a lot of sense, I might not agree with the choice of words but I do with the spirit of the article. I still think having a dialogue between the two is worthwhile, especially for the sake of those that are easily swayed and might easily fall prey to fundamentalist thinking (from both sides), give me the middle ground any day over the extremes. What do they say "great minds think alike but only fools rarely differ".
Retired member.

AnimatedDirt

Quote from: Crow on June 13, 2012, 05:30:31 PM
Talks a lot of sense, I might not agree with the choice of words but I do with the spirit of the article. I still think having a dialogue between the two is worthwhile, especially for the sake of those that are easily swayed and might easily fall prey to fundamentalist thinking (from both sides), give me the middle ground any day over the extremes. What do they say "great minds think alike but only fools rarely differ".

I agree with you.  It's the basis for my being here at HAF.  I'm not here to convert any person. ( It's not my job to do so as a Christian. )

En_Route

#3
I think this is a false dichotomy. It is not a question of science v religion but rather a question of the epistemological basis for religion. Theism can be challenged (I would say, refuted) on the basis of reason and logic, irrespective of the current state of scientific understanding. The notion that spiritual discourse is of a different order  to our  regular thought processes presupposes its own conclusion, ie that there is a spiritual dimension to our existence which transcends the reality we experience in our daily lives. The real antithesis is between rationality and faith.
Some ideas are so stupid only an intellectual could believe them (Orwell).

Siz

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?

When one sleeps on the floor one need not worry about falling out of bed - Anton LaVey

The universe is a cold, uncaring void. The key to happiness isn't a search for meaning, it's to just keep yourself busy with unimportant nonsense, and eventually you'll be dead!

Ecurb Noselrub

Quote from: Scissorlegs on June 13, 2012, 07:11:39 PM
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?

Not in all cases. Some believe because they have "experienced" that God exists. That goes to the idea of revelation, not reason.  There is, IMHO, a difference in the epistemological bases for atheism and theism - the same tools of inquiry do not apply in both spheres.  But we can talk about it forever. 

Genericguy

Is it pretentious of me to quote myself?

QuoteThings 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.


En_Route

Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on June 13, 2012, 07:54:01 PM
Quote from: Scissorlegs on June 13, 2012, 07:11:39 PM
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?

Not in all cases. Some believe because they have "experienced" that God exists. That goes to the idea of revelation, not reason.  There is, IMHO, a difference in the epistemological bases for atheism and theism - the same tools of inquiry do not apply in both spheres.  But we can talk about it forever. 

I thought that's why we were here !
Some ideas are so stupid only an intellectual could believe them (Orwell).

En_Route

Quote from: Genericguy on June 13, 2012, 08:35:19 PM
Is it pretentious of me to quote myself?

QuoteThings 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.
Some ideas are so stupid only an intellectual could believe them (Orwell).

Siz

Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on June 13, 2012, 07:54:01 PM
Quote from: Scissorlegs on June 13, 2012, 07:11:39 PM
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?

Not in all cases. Some believe because they have "experienced" that God exists. That goes to the idea of revelation, not reason.  There is, IMHO, a difference in the epistemological bases for atheism and theism - the same tools of inquiry do not apply in both spheres. 
Indeed. But the point is one set of tools is objective and the other subjective.
The theist might argue that 'revelation' is a reasoned (objective) argument for God, but this assumes that his brain is interpreting sensory input correctly. whilst I, as an atheist, would view it as an erroneous interpretation of an 'experience', it is evident that the subject will not. I would find it hard to blame him for that. But in his subsequent invitation to God he has either chosen to accept his non-objective thoughts over objective reasoning or ignored reasoning altogether.

So, with that in mind I wanted to ask if you accept that a belief in God is not a 'reasoned' position. I can respect a persons belief if he is honest about its origin. From this position the door to discussion is opened a crack.

When one sleeps on the floor one need not worry about falling out of bed - Anton LaVey

The universe is a cold, uncaring void. The key to happiness isn't a search for meaning, it's to just keep yourself busy with unimportant nonsense, and eventually you'll be dead!

AnimatedDirt

Quote from: Scissorlegs on June 13, 2012, 07:11:39 PM
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.)

Siz

Quote from: AnimatedDirt on June 13, 2012, 09:47:26 PM
The point is there is reason enough for me and others to believe.
Reason or rationale?


When one sleeps on the floor one need not worry about falling out of bed - Anton LaVey

The universe is a cold, uncaring void. The key to happiness isn't a search for meaning, it's to just keep yourself busy with unimportant nonsense, and eventually you'll be dead!

AnimatedDirt

Quote from: Scissorlegs on June 13, 2012, 10:12:11 PM
Quote from: AnimatedDirt on June 13, 2012, 09:47:26 PM
The point is there is reason enough for me and others to believe.
Reason or rationale?

Didn't I mention it being both IMHO?

Ecurb Noselrub

Quote from: Scissorlegs on June 13, 2012, 09:44:16 PM
Indeed. But the point is one set of tools is objective and the other subjective.
The theist might argue that 'revelation' is a reasoned (objective) argument for God, but this assumes that his brain is interpreting sensory input correctly. whilst I, as an atheist, would view it as an erroneous interpretation of an 'experience', it is evident that the subject will not. I would find it hard to blame him for that. But in his subsequent invitation to God he has either chosen to accept his non-objective thoughts over objective reasoning or ignored reasoning altogether.

So, with that in mind I wanted to ask if you accept that a belief in God is not a 'reasoned' position. I can respect a persons belief if he is honest about its origin. From this position the door to discussion is opened a crack.

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. 

Siz

Quote from: AnimatedDirt on June 13, 2012, 10:46:01 PM
Quote from: Scissorlegs on June 13, 2012, 10:12:11 PM
Quote from: AnimatedDirt on June 13, 2012, 09:47:26 PM
The point is there is reason enough for me and others to believe.
Reason or rationale?

Didn't I mention it being both IMHO?
Apologies, yes you did.
You are entitled to your honest opinion, but I will always consider your arguments insufficient to be classed as reason.

Here we have a futile confrontation... ;D

I've made my point. Peace.

When one sleeps on the floor one need not worry about falling out of bed - Anton LaVey

The universe is a cold, uncaring void. The key to happiness isn't a search for meaning, it's to just keep yourself busy with unimportant nonsense, and eventually you'll be dead!