forceoftruth wrote:I agree with your final statement, however I am unwilling to decide(based on my own limited understanding of reality) that the concept of a god or gods is an impossibility. I appreciate your advice though.

Do you think that is the only option: A dichotomy of gods existing being an impossibility or not? Odd.
To have any hope of determining that you would have to start by properly defining this/these god/gods. Some are logically impossible, some are not. None that are not impossible from the get go seem to be implausible and lacking any anything close to sufficient evidence to be reasonably believable. As far as I can tell at any rate.

Nothing at all wrong with holding an agnostic position. On the contrary it is a good idea. Although there is a rather silly ;dogmatic agnosticism' position some stick to.

forceoftruth wrote:

ADParker wrote:Seeing as Charles Darwin did not assume that there was not a supernatural creator; your question is irrelevant. It could be said that what he did do was drop the assumption that "God did it" was a good enough answer. So essentially the exact opposite of assumption.

Charles darwin had to at least be willing to consider the possibility that god did not exist. I believe that to be a reasonable starting point. He evaluated the evidence in light of that possibility. That is my understanding of his process. He assumed a possibility.

Have you read any of his work?
For a start; being willing to to consider something is a far cry from assuming.
And no he did not even have to consider that. All he had to do was what he did do; collect and examine the evidence. Only later on comparing his (and others') finding to his religious beliefs did he come to notice the discrepancy, and his assumed beliefs began to crumble. A fair few don't do that, due to being 'better' at compartmentalization, keeping their views (on evolutionary biology and god-stuff) separate, and thus avoiding facing the contradictions that raise.

The vast majority of evolutionary biologists do not consider the existence of gods at all, not while doing their scientific work at least. No considering possibilities or anything; they just do their job, apply the scientific method etc.

Assuming a possibility?! Nice bit if twisting language to try to imply that not assuming something is actually assuming something else.

I forget who he was, but the one creationist (I think even YEC) I have any respect for said something along the lines of (wild wild paraphrasing) "I am a creationist, however arguing over the science, and trying to distort it to fit creationist views is ridiculous. The science absolutely supports the conventional model (old earth, evolution through random mutations and natural selection etc.), I believe that someday the evidence will swing around, as such paradigm do occur in the science, but for now it is what it is."

tolman wrote:

forceoftruth wrote:Oh well, I try to think for myself and gave it my best shot. I (as you can tell) don't have a science background. I resist what appears to be narrow mindedness(to me). I thank all of the people on here for giving my ideas a chance. You are all quite intelligent and it has been a pleasure. Next time perhaps I will be the other side of the debate.

No-one seems to be saying you can't believe what you want, rather that personal subjective standards of 'evidence' are of little value if trying to convince other people.

All manner of people believe that some folk remedies help them with one or other medical condition, but in that situation, 'evidence' of a quality to convince other people who weren't already believers would be something like a realistic trial rather than anecdotal evidence.

With religions, humanity as a whole shows that different people inclined to believe different incompatible things can easily see 'evidence' for their belief which they consider adequate even if it is of precisely the same nature as evidence as evidence other people cite for some other belief.
No doubt many ancient Vikings heard Thor talking to them just as Catholics have heard angels or the Virgin Mary.

I'm sure if someone invented a religion now with various characters in it and brought children up to believe it, some of them would have 'religious experiences' with the invented characters which seemed to them to be very real, and if the religion was even vaguely intelligently constructed, many of the believers would see all kinds of everyday things as evidence for its Truth.
As natural pattern-matchers humans are very good at seeing patterns and 'evidence' for some ideas even when real evidence doesn't exist, especially if the ideas are attractive in some ways.

I guess I find asking supernatural believers for evidence that fits into only a naturalistic frame seems an unrealistic request. I feel just as put off by hearing creationists blabber on about requests for evidence that evolution occurred. evidence they would not expect to see produced if they would only give "the blind watch maker" a sincere read.

ADParker wrote:

forceoftruth wrote:

ADParker wrote:Seeing as Charles Darwin did not assume that there was not a supernatural creator; your question is irrelevant. It could be said that what he did do was drop the assumption that "God did it" was a good enough answer. So essentially the exact opposite of assumption.

Charles darwin had to at least be willing to consider the possibility that god did not exist. I believe that to be a reasonable starting point. He evaluated the evidence in light of that possibility. That is my understanding of his process. He assumed a possibility.

Have you read any of his work?
For a start; being willing to to consider something is a far cry from assuming.
And no he did not even have to consider that. All he had to do was what he did do; collect and examine the evidence. Only later on comparing his (and others') finding to his religious beliefs did he come to notice the discrepancy, and his assumed beliefs began to crumble. A fair few don't do that, due to being 'better' at compartmentalization, keeping their views (on evolutionary biology and god-stuff) separate, and thus avoiding facing the contradictions that raise.

The vast majority of evolutionary biologists do not consider the existence of gods at all, not while doing their scientific work at least. No considering possibilities or anything; they just do their job, apply the scientific method etc.

Assuming a possibility?! Nice bit if twisting language to try to imply that not assuming something is actually assuming something else.

I forget who he was, but the one creationist (I think even YEC) I have any respect for said something along the lines of (wild wild paraphrasing) "I am a creationist, however arguing over the science, and trying to distort it to fit creationist views is ridiculous. The science absolutely supports the conventional model (old earth, evolution through random mutations and natural selection etc.), I believe that someday the evidence will swing around, as such paradigm do occur in the science, but for now it is what it is."

So much has to do with perspective. I have read some of his work. I used him as an example in the hope that it would be a relevant one. Perhaps, to you it isn't. I respect his willingness to think against a powerful stream of dogma. If he didn't make an assumption on any level I cant know. It is ok. with me if he did, it matters not with respect to his findings.

forceoftruth wrote:I guess I find asking supernatural believers for evidence that fits into only a naturalistic frame seems an unrealistic request.

Funnily enough I have only ever found "asking supernatural believers for evidence that fits into only a naturalistic frame[work]" to be a supernaturalist straw man, as I have never seem such a request from a 'non-supernaturalist'.
Invariably as a set up to make bizarre, and entirely empty, assertions about "other ways of knowing" and some unspecified forms of special evidence. Which, if anything, ends up amounting to just taking things on Faith and/or accepting stories and personal feelings as good enough, even though it isn't good enough for anything else.

ADParker wrote:

forceoftruth wrote:I guess I find asking supernatural believers for evidence that fits into only a naturalistic frame seems an unrealistic request.

Funnily enough I have only ever found "asking supernatural believers for evidence that fits into only a naturalistic frame[work]" to be a supernaturalist straw man, as I have never seem such a request from a 'non-supernaturalist'.
Invariably as a set up to make bizarre, and entirely empty, assertions about "other ways of knowing" and some unspecified forms of special evidence. Which, if anything, ends up amounting to just taking things on Faith and/or accepting stories and personal feelings as good enough, even though it isn't good enough for anything else.

Religious folks have a huge emotional investment in their beliefs. Challenge that directly, and you will only get counter-voltage. The trick [at least it worked with me! ]is to reduce the threat level, not to increase it. I did this by running atheism in "safe mode" or "simulation", in my head. This allowed me to examine the arguments for atheism without feeling threatened-it was just a game. The results were absolutely astounding. Things I previously found troublesome disappeared. It was scary and uplifting at the same time. I found my belief, and need to believe, was irrational. Therefore I discarded it. The atheist "simulation" now runs in 'real mode".

ADParker wrote:

forceoftruth wrote:I agree with your final statement, however I am unwilling to decide(based on my own limited understanding of reality) that the concept of a god or gods is an impossibility. I appreciate your advice though.

Do you think that is the only option: A dichotomy of gods existing being an impossibility or not? Odd.
To have any hope of determining that you would have to start by properly defining this/these god/gods. Some are logically impossible, some are not. None that are not impossible from the get go seem to be implausible and lacking any anything close to sufficient evidence to be reasonably believable. As far as I can tell at any rate.

Nothing at all wrong with holding an agnostic position. On the contrary it is a good idea. Although there is a rather silly ;dogmatic agnosticism' position some stick to.

No, I'm not suggesting it is the only option. I have met some people I respected a great deal who were believers. It makes me feel like there must be some rational minds that consider god(s) real. One of these people is a transplant surgeon one of five people in the u.s. that can do what he does. I know it doesn't really mean any thing in the (scientific) sense but, I wonder if I do the argument justice for people like him. I too, am annoyed by dogmatic positions whatever the flavor.

There are certainly generally rational people who believe that god(s) exist - but that doesn't mean that they have subjected their belief in god(s) to rational analysis.

Weaver wrote:There are certainly generally rational people who believe that god(s) exist - but that doesn't mean that they have subjected their belief in god(s) to rational analysis.

If they have, I imagine they did so on a personal experience basis. emphasis on imagine. I am at a loss as to what else would provide them any evidence. That (and here we come down to it ) is why I brought up the "faith" hypothesis (however unsatisfactory it has turned out to be.) I don't know how else to argue it. Perhaps I need to prepare a different approach.

I think you will find, if you actually ask them, that they isolate their religious beliefs from their scientific mind, and do not subject their beliefs in god(s) to rational analysis at all.

Certainly, if they are scientists, they would not accept personal experience as evidence, knowing the inherent bias which is impossible to escape with any totally subjective feeling.

forceoftruth wrote:No, I'm not suggesting it is the only option. I have met some people I respected a great deal who were believers. It makes me feel like there must be some rational minds that consider god(s) real.

The thing to remember is that rationality isn't a single thing, in which people either have or don't have it, nor simply having a certain degree (27% rational for example). But rather people can have various degrees of rationality in different areas, as well as apply it to different degrees in different situations etc.
Making "X seems smart and rational to me, therefore their belief in fairies is probably a reasonable one" quite fallacious.

forceoftruth wrote:One of these people is a transplant surgeon one of five people in the u.s. that can do what he does. I know it doesn't really mean any thing in the (scientific) sense but, I wonder if I do the argument justice for people like him.

It doesn't really mean anything in any reasonable sense. What does expertise in transplant surgery have to do with any kind of ability to understand the existence of 'supernatural' intelligences and mystical realms, or whatever? And even then it is basically irrelevant; all that matters is why they believe what they believe. Otherwise you have nothing but an appeal to authority.

As I often like to mention: Isaac Newton, one of, if not "the", most brilliant mind in recorded history, believed in God. But so what? He didn't have any halfway decent arguments for doing so. Which is why he is remembered for his science, not his religious writings, even though he wrote more of the latter than the former.

And then you get the nonsense from Francis Collins (head of Human Genome Project etc.), reportedly brilliant, told a story of what convinced him to be a devout Christian: Seeing a frozen waterfall frozen into three streams as that reminding him of the trinity, and then and there dropping to his knees and giving his life to Jesus.
The problem is people applying vastly different standards for no good reason.

Weaver wrote:I think you will find, if you actually ask them, that they isolate their religious beliefs from their scientific mind, and do not subject their beliefs in god(s) to rational analysis at all.

Certainly, if they are scientists, they would not accept personal experience as evidence, knowing the inherent bias which is impossible to escape with any totally subjective feeling.

Yep, because the two are mutually incompatible.

I once thought they could co-exist but no longer.

Wow, everyone is playing so nice together I'm almost tempted taking the side of a believer/super naturalist/etc. just to watch the monkey's fling poo.

Anecdotal evidence, tough thing there. Anything like metaphysical evidence?

Weaver wrote:There are certainly generally rational people who believe that god(s) exist - but that doesn't mean that they have subjected their belief in god(s) to rational analysis.

^^^This^^^

forceoftruth wrote:

Weaver wrote:There are certainly generally rational people who believe that god(s) exist - but that doesn't mean that they have subjected their belief in god(s) to rational analysis.

If they have, I imagine they did so on a personal experience basis. emphasis on imagine.

That is certainly one claim. Although when asked what that "personal experience" was exactly things often become suspiciously vague. And don't underestimate the power of indoctrination, which often begins in early childhood, and never really ends (much of which becomes internalized; ongoing self-indoctrination.)

Here for example is a neat little video on how to induce what for some is the quintessential "personal experience" of the divine (no gods required):

forceoftruth wrote:I am at a loss as to what else would provide them any evidence.

And that's the problem; many, probably most, don't rely on evidence at all. They believe because the belief has been ingrained into them. It is much like how many who have been raised to be bigots (racists, homophobes...) without ever really knowing a damn thing about those they feel hatred for, with all their 'facts; that have no basis in reality and they 'know' based on nothing more than what other bigots has told them etc.

forceoftruth wrote:That (and here we come down to it ) is why I brought up the "faith" hypothesis (however unsatisfactory it has turned out to be.) I don't know how else to argue it. Perhaps I need to prepare a different approach.

I agree that many rely on Faith. Faith however is not a tool for increasing evidence, understanding or knowledge. It is effectively "just believing anyway". The assertion and insinuation that "Faith is a virtue" is perhaps the most damaging lie of all.

forceoftruth wrote:I guess I find asking supernatural believers for evidence that fits into only a naturalistic frame seems an unrealistic request.

I addressed that question here.

Basically, what we're asking supernaturalists to do is this:

[1] Develop a proper, rigorous methodology, one that reliably and repeatably yields the same answers to various questions about the entities and phenomena they claim exist, regardless of one's presuppositions on the matter. This does not entail restricting them to specific categories of evidence, but it does require them to provide a proper, substantive basis for any new categories of evidence they wish to introduce.

[2] Demonstrate that said methodology is genuinely rigorous, by demonstrating that its methods yield answers to questions that are independent of presuppositions.

[3] Having developed that methodology, demonstrate via said methodology, that their assertions are actually true.

Quite simply, many here don't accept supernaturalist assertions, because supernaturalists haven't even attempted step [1], let alone reached step [3]. The reason science enjoys the status it does, is because scientists did the hard work of putting all of steps [1], [2] and [3] in place a long time ago.

forceoftruth wrote:I feel just as put off by hearing creationists blabber on about requests for evidence that evolution occurred. evidence they would not expect to see produced if they would only give "the blind watch maker" a sincere read.

Well first of all, creationists aren't interested in genuine appraisal of any evidence that falsifies the assertions of their beloved doctrine. They're only interested in seeking hegemony for that doctrine, by fair means or foul. Learn this lesson, and you'll be in a position to understand creationists like never before.

forceoftruth wrote:I guess I find asking supernatural believers for evidence that fits into only a naturalistic frame seems an unrealistic request.

Seems a fairly honest approach to me, since if people are going to choose to come here and try and convince people that their beliefs are based on 'evidence', is it not reasonable for people to say what kinds of 'evidence' they would count as worthwhile?

Seriously, subjective faith-dependent evidence clearly does convince individuals that they were already right, not just regarding religion but all kinds of other things (hell, just think of politics in general or all manner of single-issue social questions).
It seems likely that there are few people who are wholly immune to such reasoning even when they try to avoid it.
It's just that given multiple people can use that kind of 'evidence' to justify mutually incompatible beliefs, it's not something anyone else need be expected to take as more substantial than an argument designed to justify a pre-existing opinion to the holder of that opinion.

Fundamentally, people arguing for something 'extra' can argue for a supernatural realm which has little or no actual effect on 'reality' or which tries to mask its effects to make itself unprovable, or for something more interventionist.

In the first instance, there isn't likely to be convincing evidence and people not already believers are unlikely to be converted.
In the second, there should be some real evidence which could be pointed to.

The problem with much supernatural belief seems to be people wanting to claim the existence of an effective supernature while still holding that asking for evidence of effects is unfair.

tolman wrote:

forceoftruth wrote:I guess I find asking supernatural believers for evidence that fits into only a naturalistic frame seems an unrealistic request.

Seems a fairly honest approach to me, since if people are going to choose to come here and try and convince people that their beliefs are based on 'evidence', is it not reasonable for people to say what kinds of 'evidence' they would count as worthwhile?

Seriously, subjective faith-dependent evidence clearly does convince individuals that they were already right, not just regarding religion but all kinds of other things (hell, just think of politics in general or all manner of single-issue social questions).
It seems likely that there are few people who are wholly immune to such reasoning even when they try to avoid it.
It's just that given multiple people can use that kind of 'evidence' to justify mutually incompatible beliefs, it's not something anyone else need be expected to take as more substantial than an argument designed to justify a pre-existing opinion to the holder of that opinion.

Fundamentally, people arguing for something 'extra' can argue for a supernatural realm which has little or no actual effect on 'reality' or which tries to mask its effects to make itself unprovable, or for something more interventionist.

In the first instance, there isn't likely to be convincing evidence and people not already believers are unlikely to be converted.
In the second, there should be some real evidence which could be pointed to.

The problem with much supernatural belief seems to be people wanting to claim the existence of an effective supernature while still holding that asking for evidence of effects is unfair.

In short, it's perfectly legitimate to ask for observational evidence in support of assertions that have observational consequences. A concept I introduced him to in an earlier post.

I think I have made the mistake of assuming that people with such high intelligence understood the issue on a level beyond my understanding. I have no problem considering that may be the case. When I don't understand something well, I guess I just delegate more authority to others than I should. When I was about 5 or 6 yrs. old some well meaning religious person told me about the "devil" I was terrified and needed to know the truth. When they dropped me off back home with mom and dad that same day there I was digging a hole beside the house! A few feet down I hit a" inconveniently hornlike root" I still remember the absolute terror my heart almost jumped from my chest!! It took my parents quite some time to calm me down. (at least it wasn't a 6 ft. cockroach ). I learned then( if not sooner) that there was a huge possibility of being deceived. Somehow, I have managed to meet so many highly intelligent believers in the supernatural. Here is one more example, when I was about 10 years old a stepfather came into my life. His mother was an incredible woman. She taught 3 or 4 different courses at the local college in town. It was rumored and then acknowledged by my step dad that she had an IQ in the 170's. She was an undeniable genius and belonged to mensa and all that jazz. She was an expert in botany and anatomy, an accomplished opera singer and Also taught e.s.p. and supernatural phenomena. I'm not sure if she believed in the god of the holy bible or what but I can assure everyone that she was firmly convinced of the supernatural. She was always talking about spirits and that sort of thing. I guess I thought that (maybe) her intelligence could somehow "penetrate" what was simply a veil obscuring that "reality" for me. I see now (somewhat embarrassed) that I have thought quite wrongly about that issue. In all honesty it was a foolish notion and I thank you all for helping me to see that. People, however intelligent they may be are likely to accept things they should not. It is quite hard to imagine that minds of that caliber could be so deluded isn't it? Maybe there is something I am not seeing here, I don't know. maybe some people find that a life with these "imagined" qualities is more enjoyable on some level. For me, I just want to know the truth. always have.

ADParker wrote:

forceoftruth wrote:

Weaver wrote:There are certainly generally rational people who believe that god(s) exist - but that doesn't mean that they have subjected their belief in god(s) to rational analysis.

If they have, I imagine they did so on a personal experience basis. emphasis on imagine.

That is certainly one claim. Although when asked what that "personal experience" was exactly things often become suspiciously vague. And don't underestimate the power of indoctrination, which often begins in early childhood, and never really ends (much of which becomes internalized; ongoing self-indoctrination.)

Here for example is a neat little video on how to induce what for some is the quintessential "personal experience" of the divine (no gods required):

Thank you for posting the video! that was fascinating. I didn't smell the mint (or anything else for the record) did you?

ADParker wrote:

forceoftruth wrote:I am at a loss as to what else would provide them any evidence.

And that's the problem; many, probably most, don't rely on evidence at all. They believe because the belief has been ingrained into them. It is much like how many who have been raised to be bigots (racists, homophobes...) without ever really knowing a damn thing about those they feel hatred for, with all their 'facts; that have no basis in reality and they 'know' based on nothing more than what other bigots has told them etc.

forceoftruth wrote:That (and here we come down to it ) is why I brought up the "faith" hypothesis (however unsatisfactory it has turned out to be.) I don't know how else to argue it. Perhaps I need to prepare a different approach.

I agree that many rely on Faith. Faith however is not a tool for increasing evidence, understanding or knowledge. It is effectively "just believing anyway". The assertion and insinuation that "Faith is a virtue" is perhaps the most damaging lie of all.