Can Atheist Arguments Ever Convince a Devout Theist?

[LightbulbSun]

Religion has defined a good part of human history and we have thousands of years of testimonials of divine intervention in human affairs.

Appeal to popularity much?

 

[LightbulbSun]

Ivan makes a good point:


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.

First of all, the lack of evidence gives me the confidence to say so. Of course absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, but until something comes up it would be a great leap of faith to say that some deity exists.

And I could just as easily say that denying the existence of the flying spaghetti monster is a logical fallacy. How do you know he doesn't exist?

 

[LightbulbSun]

That confuses the message with the organizations. There is one defintion in religion that God IS truth. One can argue that some religious people literally worship truth.

Right. Just because someone says something is truth doesn't make it true. They're going to need evidence in order to further validate it. And for people to deny that we need evidence to validate our conclusions are simply dismissing our experience in nature. Supernatural? If there was such a concept where there was some force above and beyond the universe then humans can't conceive it to begin with. I find it best not to throw out unnecessary gaps like that. Because a supernatural concept would likely need to be derived from something 2xsupernatural.

I think part of the problem is that only the radical people and religions get the press. There is nothing interesting about someone who quietly prays at night and who by faith tries to be a good person - love your neighbor and your enemy, help the poor, don't steal, don't lie, etc. Pretty boring stuff.

And these ways of living are only exclusive to people who pray? Again, I think having faith as some prerequisite for living by a banal moral system to begin with is superfluous.

 

[Hurkyl]

Appeal to popularity much?

Anecdotal evidence is neither deductive nor scientific proof, but it is evidence nonetheless. Funny, I'm sure I've said that twice already...

First of all, the lack of evidence gives me the confidence to say so. Of course absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, but until something comes up it would be a great leap of faith to say that some deity exists.

You seem confused: possibly suffering from a false dilemma. "Affirming the existence of a deity" and "denying the existence of a deity" do not exhaust the possibilities here.

Assuming there was no evidence either way, it would be reasonable not to believe a deity exists... but it would be a great leap of faith to believe no deity exists.

If there was such a concept where there was some force above and beyond the universe then humans can't conceive it to begin with.

Your lack of imagination does not imply that everyone else lacks imagination.

 

[Tony11235]

Anecdotal evidence is neither deductive nor scientific proof, but it is evidence nonetheless. Funny, I'm sure I've said that twice already...

Why are you making it seem like anecdotal evidence has a place in determining whether something is true or not?

 

[LightbulbSun]

Anecdotal evidence is neither deductive nor scientific proof, but it is evidence nonetheless. Funny, I'm sure I've said that twice already...

An isolated event does not construct a new truth.

You seem confused: possibly suffering from a false dilemma. "Affirming the existence of a deity" and "denying the existence of a deity" do not exhaust the possibilities here.

Where is the false dilemma in that?

Assuming there was no evidence either way, it would be reasonable not to believe a deity exists... but it would be a great leap of faith to believe no deity exists.

I just explained that the lack of evidence gives me the confidence to say a deity doesn't exist.

First of all, the lack of evidence gives me the confidence to say so. Of course absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, but until something comes up it would be a great leap of faith to say that some deity exists.


Then you agree with me, but then you say something contradictory. Are you on something?

Your lack of imagination does not imply that everyone else lacks imagination.

This has nothing to do with imagination. It has everything to do with giving an accurate depiction of this concept which humans simply cannot do. We are not above and beyond our confinements in nature.

 

[Moridin]

Actually, when it comes to evidence, the absence of evidence can be considered evidence of absence. There are no evidence for astrology and the 'field' have failed to produce anything of relevance for the past hundreds of years that would suggest astrology is true; the same could be argued for other types of supernaturalism.

Trying to stick to the topic, I don't think it's even worth convincing a theist about your agnostic or atheist-like philosophy, not that a philosophy is even needed.

Indeed. The faithful (in any type of supernaturalism; particularly in ghosts etc.) will hardly change their mind that much; isn't that what faith means (accepting something as true in the absence of evidence or even in the face of evidence against their faith)?

 

[DaveC426913]

Actually, when it comes to evidence, the absence of evidence can be considered evidence of absence. There are no evidence for astrology and the 'field' have failed to produce anything of relevance for the past hundreds of years that would suggest astrology is true; the same could be argued for other types on naturalism.

I think something to consider here is whether a hypothesis can be falsified. I think it's fairly easy for Astrology to make predictions that can then be falsified, showing that the 'field' is ... (let's be generous) in dire need of modification.

I'm not sure the same thing can be said for the existence of a deity, since it does not predict anything that we can test. (Sure, there are lots of things we might detect - miracles, lightning bolts upon non-believers, etc., but I do not believe most deities do command performances for human experiments.)

 

[Moridin]

I think something to consider here is whether a hypothesis can be falsified. I think it's fairly easy for Astrology to make predictions that can then be falsified, showing that the 'field' is ... (let's be generous) in dire need of modification.

I'm not sure the same thing can be said for the existence of a deity, since it does not predict anything that we can test. (Sure, there are lots of things we might detect - miracles, lightning bolts upon non-believers, etc., but I do not believe most deities do command performances for human experiments.)

Indeed, a general deity cannot. However, some versions certainly make testable predictions, at least if one takes the literal approach.

Technically, since astrology is claimed as a supernatural concept, science with its tool of methodological naturalism should not be able to test it, per definition. But it can. I think that just because one claims that an entity or phenomena is supernatural does not necessarily mean that it is, in fact, supernatural or outside of the realm of scientific inquiry. Any supernatural concept that yields testable predictions cannot, by definition, be supernatural.

Of course, ad hoc hypothesis will be introduced by the general supernaturalism (such as claims that the "energy" was not "right" for the astrological prediction etc.) making most attempts at falsification useless.

 

[EnumaElish]

Why is this thread under Soc. Sci.?

Is Atheism/Theism an inherent, natural, or perhaps proposed subject of social science?

If it is any of these, where are the social science references? And I don't mean philosophy, or religion.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Why is this thread under Soc. Sci.?

Is Atheism/Theism an inherent, natural, or perhaps proposed subject of social science?

If it is any of these, where are the social science references? And I don't mean philosophy, or religion.

I moved it here based on the idea that we are discussing why people make the choices that they do.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Why are you making it seem like anecdotal evidence has a place in determining whether something is true or not?

It can be used to make personal choices. Are you a person or an experiment? Is science a religion or a tool? If you wish to base all belief on only scientific evidence, then that is your choice, but science can never really prove anything, so if all belief requires scientific proof, then you will never believe anything. And since science cannot falsify the existence of a deity, there is no possible resolution here.


As a friend once pointed out: If the heavens opened up and God spoke to him directly, he would simply assume that he is hallucinating. Be it God or a hallucination, to choose either for belief requires a leap of faith.

 

[Tony11235]

It can be used to make personal choices. Are you a person or an experiment? Is science a religion or a tool? If you wish to base all belief on only scientific evidence, then that is your choice, but science can never really prove anything, so if all belief requires scientific proof, then you will never believe anything.

As a friend once pointed out: If the heavens opened up and God spoke to him directly, he would simply assume that he is hallucinating. Be it God or a hallucination, to choose either for belief requires a leap of faith.

Personal choices aren't exactly logical choices. And I wasn't under the impression that we were talking about all beliefs, including everyday social beliefs, such as "Are they lying to me? Does she love me?" , which if you try to apply strict scientific reasoning with, you can never decide. Though for cases like what is stated above, I think you can take into account evidence.

 

[Tony11235]

As a friend once pointed out: If the heavens opened up and God spoke to him directly, he would simply assume that he is hallucinating. Be it God or a hallucination, to choose either for belief requires a leap of faith.

Your friend can believe whatever he wants to in that case, but it doesn't make a difference to the rest of us. Personal experience (anecdotal evidence) doesn't count. So someone says that God spoke to them. Well there are people that have seen pink elephants. The two are no different.

 

[Moridin]

It can be used to make personal choices. Are you a person or an experiment? Is science a religion or a tool? If you wish to base all belief on only scientific evidence, then that is your choice, but science can never really prove anything, so if all belief requires scientific proof, then you will never believe anything. And since science cannot falsify the existence of a deity, there is no possible resolution here.

Science can certainly apply Modus tollens. All that is needed is that science supports the various conclusions about the world, as it should be common knowledge that all truth in science is tentative, becoming more and more correct as time passes. Again, just because a deity is claimed to be supernatural does not make it, per definition, outside the scope of scientific inquiry.

Then it is of course a question between scientific realism and instrumentalism, but I feel that you are still trying to invoke equivocation?

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Personal experience (anecdotal evidence) doesn't count.

That is a leap of faith. When your dad or someone close to you tells you something, do you disbelieve until he provides proof?

So someone says that God spoke to them. Well there are people that have seen pink elephants. The two are no different.

How many religions do you see that are based on pink elephants?

 

[Tony11235]

That is a leap of faith. When your dad or someone close to you tells you something, do you disbelieve until he provides proof?



How many religions do you see that are based on pink elephants?

That's not the point. The two are personal experiences.

 

[Tony11235]

That is a leap of faith. When your dad or someone close to you tells you something, do you disbelieve until he provides proof?

If I didn't know the person, or know him well, I wouldn't. But a family member, you have been receiving evidence your entire life from this person, enough for you to reason that what he or she is saying is probably true.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Science can certainly apply Modus tollens. All that is needed is that science supports the various conclusions about the world, as it should be common knowledge that all truth in science is tentative, becoming more and more correct as time passes. Again, just because a deity is claimed to be supernatural does not make it, per definition, outside the scope of scientific inquiry.

Actually, you and I agree on this point. AFAIC, the word "supernatural" has no meaning. If there is a God, then it would be natural. But at this time we have no way to address or test the claims of a deity.

Then it is of course a question between scientific realism and instrumentalism, but I feel that you are still trying to invoke equivocation?

I am saying that you can choose science as a religion, or not. Do you only believe what your mother tells you when she offers scientific proof [for example], or do you make leaps of faith every day?

 

[Ivan Seeking]

If I didn't know the person, or know him well, I wouldn't. But a family member, you have been receiving evidence your entire life from this person, enough for you to reason that what he or she is saying is probably true.

So then you don't require scientific proof for everything. What you believe or don't believe is a choice.

 

[Tony11235]

So then you don't require scientific proof for everything. What you believe or don't believe is a choice.

Did you miss the "receiving evidence from this person your entire life" part? It's not entirely belief without evidence.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Did you miss the "receiving evidence from this person your entire life" part? It's not entirely belief without evidence.

You may have evidence for past claims, but that does not amount to evidence for all claims.

This is like saying that since scientist X has been right before, we should accept all future claims without proof.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

One point that I suspect is lost on many here is that people do have reasons for their beliefs. People don't believe just because someone said so. They couple the history of religion with their own experiences and feelings. People go to church and pray because they feel that when they do, they can sense the presence of God. For them, this is evidence.

In fact... this is really what evangelicals are trying to tell everyone: Try it, you'll like it.

 

[Tony11235]

You may have evidence for past claims, but that does not amount to evidence for all claims.

This is like saying that since scientist X has been right before, we should accept all future claims without proof.

That's not a correct correlation to my example. All I'm saying is that believing what your dad tells you is not all entirely based on faith.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

That's not a correct correlation to my example. All I'm saying is that believing what your dad tells you is not all entirely based on faith.

Sure it is. In fact you believe him today because you have learned to have faith.

 

[Tony11235]

Sure it is. In fact you believe him today because you have learned to have faith.

BUT I wouldn't believe the person had I not received previous evidence from him my entire life. So it's NOT entirely faith based. And besides, even it you decided to call it faith, it's a different type of faith than believing in some god or supernatural being, from which it is almost impossible to measure or receive evidence.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

BUT I wouldn't believe the person had I not received previous evidence from him my entire life.

That's right; you have learned to have faith. Being right in the past is not a logical test of the accuracy of future statements. This is a judgement that YOU make.

And besides, even it you decided to call it faith, it's a different type of faith than believing in some god or supernatural being.

How would you know? Have you had any religious experiences? If your dad became very religious, would you convert?

 

[Tony11235]

That's right; you have learned to have faith. Being right in the past is not a logical test of the accuracy of future statements. This is a judgement that YOU make.

Say when you are young, your parents feed you everyday. It is called inductive reasoning to believing that they might feed you the next day. According to you, it is faith to believe in gravity.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Say when you are young, your parents feed you everyday. It is called inductive reasoning to believing that they might feed you the next day. According to you, it is faith to believe in gravity.

We do take gravity on faith. Theories can only be falsified; they cannot be proven true.

I find humans to be less reliable than gravity.

Everyone has a father. Should I believe your father just because you do?

 

[Tony11235]

We do take gravity on faith.

Gravity doesn't stop working if you stop having faith in it.