Can Atheist Arguments Ever Convince a Devout Theist?

[Prasanna Suman]

Theist --> Atheist

I am a worshipper of science ie. I need evidence for everything I beleive. (I know I am not perfect at this!) I have often tried to talk to theists about my reasons for dumping the idea of God and found that theists are unaffected by any of these reasons due to the jacket of faith they wear.

Has anyone here, successfully satisfied a theist about an atheist philosophy?

 

[Evo]

An atheist doesn't need a philosophy or reason to simply not believe what he considers imaginary.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

I am a worshipper of science ie. I need evidence for everything I beleive. (I know I am not perfect at this!) I have often tried to talk to theists about my reasons for dumping the idea of God and found that theists are unaffected by any of these reasons due to the jacket of faith they wear.

Has anyone here, successfully satisfied a theist about an atheist philosophy?

You can't defeat faith with logic when the logic is based on faith.

As you said, to you science is a religion.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Oh yes, not to forget that God is not a subject of science.

 

[Evo]

Why do people think they have to give up a belief in God to believe in science and vice versa?

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Dogma vs concept? When I listen to any number of religious leaders speak, it makes my stomach turn, but this is a separate issue from faith.

I liked the thesis from the movie Contact: Science and religion both seek truth.

 

[Moridin]

You can't defeat faith with logic when the logic is based on faith. As you said, to you science is a religion.

That was a tricky argument, but it is generally an equivocation fallacy.

Belief
1. conviction (and/or)
2. accept things as true in the absence of evidence

conviction =/= accept things in as true in the absence of evidence

"I believe in democracy" is a conviction, but does not require that you accept thing in the absence of evidence. Then a claim that tries to equate 'belief in democracy' (evidence-based conviction) with belief in, say, the supernatural (conviction in the absence of evidence) is not that valid. Semantics, I guess.

Some characteristics of religion is:

- belief in supernatural beings
- sacred versus profane objects, places and times
- rituals dealing with the sacred versus profane objects, places and times
- moral code with supernatural origin
- religious 'feeling'
- some type of prayer / communication with the supernatural

etc.

I do not quite see how science (or indeed the OP:s thoughts on it; pretty sure it was metaphorical) constitutes a religion.

Oh yes, not to forget that God is not a subject of science.

Indeed. Providing alternative scientific explanations to phenomena that is claimed as supernatural, however, is.

Why do people think they have to give up a belief in God to believe in science and vice versa?

It is an interesting question. I do not think it is just because of a belief in a deity per se, but more with the extra luggage, for a lack of a better term, that usually comes with it (like religious doctrines). I think the problem that lead some people to that dichotomy is that science often is corrosive to religious doctrines (or any other supernatural belief for that matter) about the nature of the Universe.

A joining of the philosophical / metaphysical underpinnings of both science and theism usually requires at least some degree of bifurcation and I guess some people cannot handle it as well as others who do.

 

[Moridin]

I liked the thesis from the movie Contact: Science and religion both seek truth.

I am inclined towards that as well, but what happens when those two attempts collide?

 

[Ivan Seeking]

I am inclined towards that as well, but what happens when those two attempts collide?

We grow.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

"I believe in democracy" is a conviction, but does not require that you accept thing in the absence of evidence. Then a claim that tries to equate 'belief in democracy' (evidence-based conviction) with belief in, say, the supernatural (conviction in the absence of evidence) is not that valid. Semantics, I guess.

However, to reject the God concept is to reject 4000 years of human experience [claims]. That is an act of faith.

 

[Lucretius]

However, to reject the God concept is to reject 4000 years of human experience [claims]. That is an act of faith.

But there is no real link between human experience (natural) and the conclusion (supernatural). The logical relationship between experience and God is too weak to be a justifiable reason to call denying the God concept an "act of faith". At best we can conclude that human beings have similar make-ups and are prone to draw similar irrational conclusions when experiencing things.

Take hypnogogic imagery; most humans experience the same sort of imagery and sounds (ones that invoke fear) but it isn't due to the reality of hypnogogic images that the mind creates, it's the fact that humans are social creatures and tend to see (and fear) the same sort of things. I see God as just another example of this. Just like denying the reality of hypnogogic imagery (even though many people experience it), I deny the existence of God.

 

[Moridin]

However, to reject the God concept is to reject 4000 years of human experience [claims]. That is an act of faith.

I think that is a mischaracterization of atheism. It simple means a lack of belief in deities. That is like arguing that being a non-astrologer or a non-unicornist is an act of faith.

In fact, a lot can be gained by the scientific study of the natural emergence and evolution of religion. Religion and so on is a lot older and dates back to ancestor worship and natural religions thousands of years earlier. It is also fascinating to see that religions started to pop up into human culture when it did compared to the biological evolution of the brain. At the time, such a vast part of the world was unknown that only an equally or more vast entity could settle the minds of the humans. What would our ancestors have responded to the sunrise, for instance?

An interesting books on religion from an anthropological / evolutionary perspective is Religion Explained by Pascal Boyer.

 

[Garth]

Why do people think they have to give up a belief in God to believe in science and vice versa?

Some don't, as http://www.thesosc.org/index.html .

Garth

 

[Hurkyl]

But there is no real link between human experience (natural) and the conclusion (supernatural). The logical relationship between experience and God is too weak to be a justifiable reason to call denying the God concept an "act of faith". At best we can conclude that human beings have similar make-ups and are prone to draw similar irrational conclusions when experiencing things.

Take hypnogogic imagery; most humans experience the same sort of imagery and sounds (ones that invoke fear) but it isn't due to the reality of hypnogogic images that the mind creates, it's the fact that humans are social creatures and tend to see (and fear) the same sort of things. I see God as just another example of this. Just like denying the reality of hypnogogic imagery (even though many people experience it), I deny the existence of God.

This appears to be an accurate summary of what you wrote:

Some things we see are imaginary. Therefore God is imaginary.​

That's not especially persuasive.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

I think that is a mischaracterization of atheism. It simple means a lack of belief in deities. That is like arguing that being a non-astrologer or a non-unicornist is an act of faith.

In fact, a lot can be gained by the scientific study of the natural emergence and evolution of religion. Religion and so on is a lot older and dates back to ancestor worship and natural religions thousands of years earlier. It is also fascinating to see that religions started to pop up into human culture when it did compared to the biological evolution of the brain. At the time, such a vast part of the world was unknown that only an equally or more vast entity could settle the minds of the humans. What would our ancestors have responded to the sunrise, for instance?

An interesting books on religion from an anthropological / evolutionary perspective is Religion Explained by Pascal Boyer.

Yes, it would seem that God concept is intrinsic, which coincidentally is what many religions tell us. But as for your specific objection:

have often tried to talk to theists about my reasons for dumping the idea of God and found that theists are unaffected by any of these reasons due to the jacket of faith they wear.

So I was responding within the context of the OP. However, to believe in a God or not is to reject the claims of others [and a good part of history], or not, and is still a choice that must be taken on faith.

 

[Brin]

Ivan makes a good point:

However, to not believe in a God is to reject the claims of others, which is still a choice.

If I am correct in saying so - to actively deny the existence of God (i.e. make a claim that God does not exist; How do you know a god doesn't exist? You don't.) is just as fallacious as believing in one. However, remaining unsure of the existence of a God isn't a logical fallacy.

What I am saying is, you can't ever reject the experience of others - to do so would be a 'leap in faith,' as Ivan said. So, if your next door neighbor, parents, other family, random forum-goer claim to have had a religious experience, you'd be irrational to claim that what they experienced was not real (You aren't them!). You may of course be able to find 'better explanations,' but most likely it'd be a mistake to even attempt to persuade them.

Yes, this would also mean that if you have a little girl, and she claims she saw a monster in the closet, you'd be mistaken to actively deny her experience as being "real." However, you could provide persuasive evidence against this - "See? There's nothing in here! It's probably just the shadows, or this stack of coats, etc..."

 

[Ivan Seeking]

But there is no real link between human experience (natural) and the conclusion (supernatural). The logical relationship between experience and God is too weak to be a justifiable reason to call denying the God concept an "act of faith".

Religion has defined a good part of human history and we have thousands of years of testimonials of divine intervention in human affairs. I hardly consider that weak. And even when we see what some claim to be miracles, such as in cases of the spontaneous remission of incurable diseases, we either ignore or deny the evidence, or we chalk it up to unknown scientific explanations, which is yet another act of faith.

Do you want an example of an alleged modern miracle witnessed by thousands of people? How about the vision at Fatima? Seventy thousand people gathered to witness a promised miracle in the sky, and by official accounts, the miracle occurred as promised and when promised.
https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=149860

I'm not saying that this was God, but the event is in the historical records. If true, it surely gave many people a concrete reason to believe.

At best we can conclude that human beings have similar make-ups and are prone to draw similar irrational conclusions when experiencing things.

And you think this is the only way that history can be interpreted? That is clearly a leap of faith.

Take hypnogogic imagery; most humans experience the same sort of imagery and sounds (ones that invoke fear) but it isn't due to the reality of hypnogogic images that the mind creates, it's the fact that humans are social creatures and tend to see (and fear) the same sort of things. I see God as just another example of this. Just like denying the reality of hypnogogic imagery (even though many people experience it), I deny the existence of God.

Sure, that is the party line, but all that this says is that we can make mistakes. It doesn't invalidate every human experience that science can't explain.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

One last comment: Mostly because of me, this thread is dangerously close to being lockable... if its not already. Please keep this generic and not about any particular religion or beliefs.

 

[Moridin]

Some don't, as http://www.thesosc.org/index.html .

Garth

Others that attempt to do this is AnswersInGenesis and Institute for Creation Research. Some do better (more pro-science) as you linked to, others do not (less pro-science; anti-science).

However, to believe in a God or not is to reject the claims of others [and a good part of history], or not, and is still a choice that must be taken on faith.

Now you are asserting that belief is a choice? Can you make yourself believe in a given proposition? Let us take an example:

Statement: "Your daughter is being tortured in an English prison".

You probably do not believe this; you may not have a daughter or you may know where she is or that English prisons do not torture people. I assert that you cannot make yourself believe in this proposition because of its contradictions with the facts you have and the lack of evidence?

Atheism is simply skepticism about deities. Skepticism is certainly not a faith-based enterprise. You are probably skeptical about the existence of unicorns or witches. Does that skepticism require faith (to accept something without evidence)? No.

Bertrand Russel had an analogy

"If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes. But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is an intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense. If, however, the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in ancient books, taught as the sacred truth every Sunday, and instilled into the minds of children at school, hesitation to believe in its existence would become a mark of eccentricity and entitle the doubter to the attentions of the psychiatrist in an enlightened age or of the Inquisitor in an earlier time."

People have believed in some forms of demons and mystical creatures as long as there have been religions. Do this very fact suggests that demon and mystical creatures exists? Not quite. In fact, it says nothing about their existence or lack thereof. At all. However, it certainly requires no faith at all to be skeptical of those.

A scientific explanation of the abundance of belief in mystical creatures would be that the brain is hardwired to recognize patterns by evolution, even if none are there.

Of course, this does not address the question if they, including deities, really exist in reality, but gives a scientific view of how such belief can have arisen.

Hopefully this was generic enough.

 

[Lucretius]

This appears to be an accurate summary of what you wrote:

Some things we see are imaginary. Therefore God is imaginary.​

That's not especially persuasive.

I think both you and Ivan didn't quite get my point.

My point was not that, because some experiences are invalid that ALL are invalid — it is simply that because some experiences are invalid, other human experiences (when taken alone) cannot be concluded to be evidence for the existence of a given thing. Experiences have to be validated — and while most people don't take the experiential claims of alien existence at face value, I don't take the experiential claims of God-believers at face value either, and (on a very basic level) for the very same reason.

 

[Hurkyl]

Atheism is simply skepticism about deities.

In my experience, this watering down of the word "atheism" is fairly recent. Five years ago, I think I had never seen anyone use the word other than to refer to the rejection of deities.

And even if, today, it is correct to label a skeptic as an atheist, it is still fact that many atheists actually do reject God.

People have believed in some forms of demons and mystical creatures as long as there have been religions. Do this very fact suggests that demon and mystical creatures exists? Not quite. In fact, it says nothing about their existence or lack thereof. At all. However, it certainly requires no faith at all to be skeptical of those.

Actually, yes it does. It's neither deductive proof nor scientific evidence, but it is evidence nonetheless.

A scientific explanation of the abundance of belief in mystical creatures would be that the brain is hardwired to recognize patterns by evolution, even if none are there.

This is not a scientific explanation; it is a hypothesis. It's only a scientific explanation if, y'know, it has scientific proof to back it up.

 

[Hurkyl]

I think both you and Ivan didn't quite get my point.

My point was not that, because some experiences are invalid that ALL are invalid

But you did say that this one is invalid:

I see God as just another example of this. ... I deny the existence of God.

 

[Lucretius]

But you did say that this one is invalid:

I suppose my wording should have been a bit clearer. I am just inductively reasoning (myself) that God is another invalid experience, just like hypnogogic imagery. However, my point was not that everyone should follow my lead, and reject the existence of God for that one reason.

My point was that experience alone is not enough to even give credence to the idea that God exists, and that other lines of evidence would be necessary. I reject the existence of God for a lot more reasons than this one.

 

[Crosson]

Religion is a form of life, an ungrounded behavior that stems from a primitive reaction. The rules for what counts as a mistake in religious language-games are different from the rules for what counts as a mistake in the science language-game.

 

[Moridin]

In my experience, this watering down of the word "atheism" is fairly recent. Five years ago, I think I had never seen anyone use the word other than to refer to the rejection of deities.

And even if, today, it is correct to label a skeptic as an atheist, it is still fact that many atheists actually do reject God.

Indeed, the strong religious forces during the last two millenniums has made their very best effort to polarize the situation, even when no such exist. Still, it is all about basic Greek prefixes. Atheism relates to theism as asymmetry relates to symmetry or acommutativity relates to commutativity. The same has happened to the concept of agnosticism. Due to the influence of religion it is generally though of as a denial of knowledge, even though it is simple the lack of knowledge about deities.

Also, rejecting something does not mean embracing its antithesis. Rejecting the claims of the existence of unicorns does not make you a unicorn denier. It is one of the false dichotomies that religion has tried to pull since the dawn of the entire concept. If we should be extra precise of the definition, it is technically a rejection of theism (belief in god) not deities.

Also, you might be confusing weak atheism on the one hand with strong atheism / antitheism on the other.

Actually, yes it does. It's neither deductive proof nor scientific evidence, but it is evidence nonetheless.

No, since it is a logical fallacy (argumentum ad populum).

This is not a scientific explanation; it is a hypothesis. It's only a scientific explanation if, y'know, it has scientific proof to back it up.

It actually has scientific evidence, believe it or not.

Faces and patterns are very important to humans and all other animals from an evolutionary perspective. It is the way we recognize our group and what is strange. When it comes to errors in pattern recognizing, we can either detect a pattern that isn't really there, or fail to detect a real pattern. To recognize a false pattern will make you loose some energy (at most) with the chance to discover something you can benefit from, whereas the act of not recognizing a pattern that exists can be potentially fatal. This is why, for instance, you are more likely to mistake a shadow for a burglar, than the other way around. Evolution has selected from "superstition". The same mechanism is responsible for the man in the moon, the faces on mars, the religious iconography (virgin Mary on a cheese sandwich, the nun-bun etc.), wearing a lucky shirt during the playoffs, rituals when playing slot machines and so on.

Controlled experiments have also been done to test this. Two groups of people where allowed to play a computer game (one of which rewarded the player in a pattern, the other at random). Both groups claimed that they where given points by a pattern.

http://www.nickyee.com/daedalus/archives/001554.php?page=1

Skinners pigeons is also a classic example of this:

http://psychclassics.yorku.ca/Skinner/Pigeon/

In the ancient world, there was so much that was unexplained and 'purpose' was usually assigned to nature. King Xerxes I of Peria, for instance, sentenced the water to 300 lashes for destroying his pontoon bridge (the ocean was though of as a malevolent force back then).

The evolution of religion / superstition unites a wide range of observations.

 

[Hurkyl]

I suppose my wording should have been a bit clearer. I am just inductively reasoning (myself) that God is another invalid experience, just like hypnogogic imagery. However, my point was not that everyone should follow my lead, and reject the existence of God for that one reason.

My point was that experience alone is not enough to even give credence to the idea that God exists, and that other lines of evidence would be necessary. I reject the existence of God for a lot more reasons than this one.

The form of argument is invalid¹ -- the possibility of mass delusion is not a sufficient reason to deny any anything. The argument is only reasonable when you already have a very strong a priori belief that the masses did not see what they claim to have seen.


1: unless, of course, you're in the habit of assuming everything is a figment of the imagination.

 

[Hurkyl]

Indeed, the strong religious forces during the last two millenniums has made their very best effort to polarize the situation, even when no such exist. Still, it is all about basic Greek prefixes.

Greek prefixes aren't the ultimate authority on the meaning of words.

Also, rejecting something does not mean embracing its antithesis. Rejecting the claims of the existence of unicorns does not make you a unicorn denier.

But rejecting something does mean embracing its negation. Rejecting the existence of unicorns makes you a unicorn denier.

No, since it is a logical fallacy (argumentum ad populum).

Anecdotal evidence is neither deductive proof nor scientific evidence. But it is evidence nonetheless. (Hrm, didn't I already say that? )

It actually has scientific evidence, believe it or not.

I'm quite familiar with experiments that suggest people seek patterns where there are none. But that's a very long way from being able to assert that this is the cause of belief in mystical creatures.

 

[Moridin]

But rejecting something does mean embracing its negation. Rejecting the existence of unicorns makes you a unicorn denier.

Rejecting the claims of the existence of unicorns does not make you a unicorn denier (only in a world of (false) dichotomies). There are plenty of positions that reject claims of unicorns, but do not assert the nonexistence of unicorns, such as agnosticism, unicornal noncognitivism, ignosticism, skepticism etc.

Anecdotal evidence is neither deductive proof nor scientific evidence. But it is evidence nonetheless. (Hrm, didn't I already say that? )

How can it be evidence if it is a logical fallacy (unless you are a postmodernist)?

 

[Hurkyl]

Rejecting the claims of the existence of unicorns does not make you a unicorn denier

Yes, but rejecting the existence of unicorns does. Lots of people really do reject the existence of God -- we have at least one in this very thread. (Lucretius)

How can it be evidence if it is a logical fallacy (unless you are a postmodernist)?

Since I presume that you are not insisting upon strict rationalism, I cannot make sense of this question.

 

[Lucretius]

The form of argument is invalid¹ -- the possibility of mass delusion is not a sufficient reason to deny any anything. The argument is only reasonable when you already have a very strong a priori belief that the masses did not see what they claim to have seen.


1: unless, of course, you're in the habit of assuming everything is a figment of the imagination.

If you want to get into strict logical statements, population-based arguments are invalid as well. As I stated earlier, reasoning from natural experience to supernatural existence is invalid because there is no logical correlation between natural and supernatural. These are two entirely different "realms" of being (if supernatural can be called a state of being). Your premise does not support your conclusion.

Besides, it appears as if you are altering my statement. I again, am not saying because the populus can be deluded, that anything I don't agree with is a product of mass delusion. I am saying that experience alone is not enough evidence to conclude that a God exists because, similarly, experience alone can verify the existence of alien encounters and other absurd things. I am only saying that it must be verified by other means, experience alone cannot validate the existence of God.

 

[Hurkyl]

I am only saying that it must be verified by other means, experience alone cannot validate the existence of God.

You have said more than just that.

I deny the existence of God.

I am just inductively reasoning (myself) that God is another invalid experience

 

[Lucretius]

You have said more than just that.

Hurkyl,

I as a person deny that God exists — the two statements you quoted me on are true. However, they are not part of my argument that I am making here. The argument I am making here is simple, and I've stated it time and time again: experience alone is not enough of a justification to demonstrate the existence of God.

I do believe things that I have not chosen to lay out entirely here in argument form. There are many arguments that I base my nonbelief on. This is just one of them. I didn't tell you all of them — but still told you my personal conclusion — that I don't believe in a God.

The entire point of my post, and subsequent posts, have been to show the flaw in Ivan's reasoning: that because lots of people claim to experience God, that he is somehow more reasonable to believe in than before. I sought to show the lack of a link between the supernatural and the natural, and I believe that lack is present by definition. Thus my point was demonstrated. That is all.

 

[Thrice]

What's this? Save us from teh religious thread, zz!

 

[Pythagorean]

depends on how you define God. There are some definition that are not theist, but deist.

Personally, I'm an atheist when it comes to theist gods and an agnostic when it comes to deist gods. The general principal is that theists give their god form and desires and (inevitably) human characteristics; they also have scriptures, prophecies, divinity, etc. A deist doesn't particularly see a god as an entity with a thinking process or a pension for people's moral behavior. Einstein seemed to see god as order and determinism.

I tend to think that if there is such a deist god, it would be the the universe itself, or some fundamental aspect of it. With the lack of 'theory of everything' it's doubtful.

None of this, however, should affect my ability to do science. When I actually do science, it's a more technical process. The discussion of deism seems to have little to do with it, especially the more hands-on type of science I do.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

But rejecting something does mean embracing its negation. Rejecting the existence of unicorns makes you a unicorn denier.

Yes, many people seem to argue that there is a choice in addition to A and not-A.

Anecdotal evidence is neither deductive proof nor scientific evidence. But it is evidence nonetheless. (Hrm, didn't I already say that? )

So it really becomes a choice as to how we weight the evidence.

There is another option not discussed here. There are many people [including many scientists] who believe that they have direct personal experience with... well, God in the classic Judeo-Christian sense, or however they may think of God, at any rate, they have had some sort of intense spiritual experience. So these people are operating from a different frame of reference. In this sense, not everyone who believes in some concept of God is operating on faith alone. However, what they actually experienced is obviously subject to interpretation - another leap of faith.

 

[Hurkyl]

What's this? Save us from teh religious thread, zz!

Actually, very little of this thread is religion specific. I know I, for example, am giving essentially the same arguments I would be giving if the topic was alien abductions, rogue waves, or the Mpemba effect. (For the latter two, I mean if this discussion was happing before they got scientific proof)

There are other philosophical issues that religion tends to spawn, but they haven't come up yet.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

There is another concept that I think applies to this discussion. When we talk about faith, what we really mean in most cases is choosing to accept certain things as true even though we may not actually "believe" them to be true. That is to say that there is no such thing as faith without doubt. We learned recently that even Mother Theresa acted as if she "believed" in God, when in fact she spent most of her life plagued with doubts about the presence of God in her life and feelings of guilt because of this. But, in spite of this, she continued to do her life's work. That is fantastic example of faith in the classic Christian tradition. To continue the work today, or not, was a choice that she probably had to make thousands of times.

 

[Moridin]

In this sense, not everyone who believes in some concept of God is operating on faith alone. However, what they actually experienced is obviously subject to interpretation - another leap of faith.

Searching for God in the Brain

I am quite fascinated by the relationship (and/or conflict) between science and religion, both presently and historically. I think it requires at least some degree of compartmentalizing (as with any supernaturalistic concept) at least on a methodological plane?

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Searching for God in the Brain

I am quite fascinated by the relationship (and/or conflict) between science and religion, both presently and historically. I think it requires at least some degree of compartmentalizing (as with any supernaturalistic concept) at least on a methodological plane?

The thing is that there can never be certainty either way. So to approach the question for scientific purposes requires accepted methodologies, but as for personal beliefs, ultimately it is a choice. Consider this: If we could say that there is near absolute certainty that all spiritual experiences result from certain types of brain activity, then we must conclude that there is some non-zero chance that our actions in life have some sort of divine signficance. What is the risk to benefit ratio of living as if God exists? Pascal's Wager.

So there is logic in choosing options rejected for conderation by science...esp depending on what possibilities one is willing to accept - a leap of faith no matter what the choice. It does not take an act of faith to recognize the logic.

Very interesting though... and I was not aware of this:

Although a 2005 attempt by Swedish scientists to replicate Persinger’s God helmet findings failed...

 

[Moridin]

When it comes to methodologies, I meant that some compartmentalizing would be necessary because it would be hard to (1) apply faith instead of evidence to science and (2) evidence instead of faith in religion (or any other type of supernaturalism)? Surely, a sort of NOMA-thinking would be necessary?

So there is logic in choosing options rejected for conderation by science...esp depending on what possibilities one is willing to accept - a leap of faith no matter what the choice. It does not take an act of faith to recognize the logic.

I still do not understand how skepticism requires a leap of faith (accepting things without evidence)?

What is the risk to benefit ratio of living as if God exists?

Which one of them?

Pascal was a good scientist, but not such a good philosopher of religion. Pascal's Wager is quite flawed, but, naturally, the validity or invalidity of Pascal's Wager says nothing about the existence or lack thereof of the supernatural or deities. Objection #2 shows that the situation is more complex than simply P and ~P as you seems to have expressed?

 

[Tony11235]

So according to Hurkyl, not believing and lack of belief are the same?

Pascal's Wager? Why assume that such a god would require you to believe in it? Why wouldn't a such a god value being skeptical or value one's need for evidence to even start to believe that something exists?

 

[Hurkyl]

So according to Hurkyl, not believing and lack of belief are the same?

Well, according to Englush; "to believe in" and "to have a belief in" are synonyms, aren't they? ...

 

[Tony11235]

Well, according to Englush; "to believe in" and "to have a belief in" are synonyms, aren't they? ...

So say I have never heard of this thing that you believe in. Do I not believe in it or do I simply lack (belief or disbelief) in it?

 

[Hurkyl]

So say I have never heard of this thing that you believe in. Do I not believe in it or do I simply lack (belief or disbelief) in it?

What does my belief have to do with anything?

Anyways, if you don't know about X (even under a different guise), then obviously you cannot have a belief in X. Just as obviously, you cannot reject X if you don't know what it is.

 

[Moridin]

What does my belief have to do with anything?

Anyways, if you don't know about X (even under a different guise), then obviously you cannot have a belief in X. Just as obviously, you cannot reject X if you don't know what it is.

But you can certainly say that you do not have an active belief in X.

 

[Tony11235]

What does my belief have to do with anything?

Anyways, if you don't know about X (even under a different guise), then obviously you cannot have a belief in X. Just as obviously, you cannot reject X if you don't know what it is.

I only meant to use it as an example. All I'm saying is that there is a neutral area, where you don't deny or belief in, but rather lean in either direction as a result of evidence, or lack there of. It can change though.

 

[Lucretius]

Seems like we're straying a bit into ontological statements.

I believe that there is an area inbetween 100% denial and 100% belief (and this is not necessarily 50/50. When I deny the existence of, say Pegasus, it's because I have an idea of what someone has in mind when they say it, and I know that something with those properties is not realized in reality based on my current observations. However, as my observations are subject to change as my life progresses, I cannot say, with 100% certainty, that Pegasus does not exist. Just that it is highly likely that such a being does not exist because I have never observed it or anything like it.

Similarly, God (or any being for that matter) cannot be denied absolutely. The only things that can be denied absolutely are things like triangles with four sides, or square circles — things that by definition make no sense and therefore cannot be known. However, as I have never observed anything like God, nor do I really think it is possible, I can say that God probably does not exist from inductive reasoning.

 

[Moridin]

But wait, doesn't it require faith to be skeptical about Pegasus as your path to salvation?

 

[Astronuc]

Why do people think they have to give up a belief in God to believe in science and vice versa?

Garth gave a good example showing the theism and science are not mutually exclusive.

My father, a minister, encouraged me in my interest and pursuits in science. He accepts evolution are being a rather natural way of things, and cannot see any contradiction. Besides, Charles Darwin, a strong proponent of evolution, was a theist.

This is interesting:

At his father's direction, Charles Darwin started university at 16 in Edinburgh, Scotland as a medical student. He showed little academic interest in medicine and was revolted by the brutality of surgery. He dropped out after two years of study in 1827. His father then sent him to Cambridge University to study theology. It was there that his life's direction took a radical change. He became very interested in the scientific ideas of the geologist Adam Sedgwick and especially the naturalist John Henslow with whom he spent considerable time collecting specimens from the countryside around the university. At this time in his life, Darwin apparently rejected the concept of biological evolution, just as his mentors Sedgwick and Henslow did. However, Darwin had been exposed to the ideas of Lamarck about evolution earlier while he was a student in Edinburgh. . . .

http://anthro.palomar.edu/evolve/evolve_2.htm

 

[Lucretius]

Science and the notion of God are not mutually exclusive. However, if the only point of your God is to explain natural phenomena, he becomes more and more unnecessary with more and more discoveries.