Can Atheist Arguments Ever Convince a Devout Theist?

[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.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

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

If God exists, his existence does not depend on faith.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

I should add that gravity doesn't exist [well, not the classic idea]. There is spacetime curvature...that is if spacetime exists. One day we may have have a more sophisticated description of whatever it is.

 

[Tony11235]

If God exists, his existence does not depend on faith.

So far this god of most people seems to depend on faith. hehe.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

So far this god of most people seems to depend on faith. hehe.

Not at all. The people depend on faith. According to most beliefs, God was around before there was anyone to have faith.

Explain existence without using faith.

 

[Tony11235]

Not at all. The people depend on faith. According to most beliefs, God was around before there was anyone to have faith.

Explain existence without using faith.

Now you're sounding very silly. I think I'll stop here. Believe what you want, I would need better reason.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

You mean that you ran out of objections, and you know that existence can't be explained.

That's right. It's a choice based on faith either way.

 

[Tony11235]

You mean that you ran out of objections, and you know that existence can't be explained.

That's right. It's a choice based on faith either way.

Not at all.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Then show me the error in my logic.

 

[Tony11235]

Then show me the error in my logic.

We disagree on "everyday faith" and having faith in deities. Not quite the same. A lot of things for which you say you take on faith, you actually receive feedback.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

What bothers people here is the idea that we are not logically bound as humans to accept only scientific evidence. But, if you think about it, you will certainly conclude that it's not even possible to live this way. We have to make judgements about what we choose to believe every day.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

We disagree on "everyday faith" and having faith in deities.

How exactly do you define the difference? You have no knowledge of how others obtain their faith.

If you are arguing why you believe the way that you do, that's fine for you but not absolute. I don't mean to interfere with your faith.

 

[Tony11235]

There is only a certain degree of rationality that we can maintain as humans, I don't disagree with you there.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

late edit on my last post:

And we all have different experiences in life.

Another late edit: Like I said, I'm not trying to convert anyone because I wouldn't know what to tell you to believe, but I do understand why people choose to have faith in deities. I have also fallen into the logical trap of the requirement of proof for any belief. People who think they live this way are only deluding themselves. We make leaps of faith every day, and most are based on what we want to believe.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Okay, one more thought that I've been meaning to throw in. This all applies both ways. Very religious people will often get angry when challenged about their beliefs. Clearly this is a fear reaction. They know that no matter how much they talk about belief, ultimately they are making a leap of faith the can't be defended. There is no way to resolve the issue through logic. If you choose to require scientific evidence before being willing to consider a claim, that is your choice. But let's not confuse pink elephants with religion. People make choices based on the sum of their life experiences. And unless a person has been religious and experienced the basis for belief in a deity, then IMO they lack a frame of reference critical to understanding religion.

 

[Doc Al]

I like Mark Twain's quip about religious faith: "Faith is believing what you know ain't so."

And Bertrand Russell's: "We may define "faith" as the firm belief in something for which there is no evidence. Where there is evidence, no one speaks of "faith." We do not speak of faith that two and two are four or that the Earth is round. We only speak of faith when we wish to substitute emotion for evidence."