Atheists, what needs to happen so that...

Post Reply New Topic

http://www.scientificamerican.com/artic ... escription

What would make me believe?

Well, I think it would take the chat at the pearly gates with ol' St. Peter, just before I laid into him about the bull crap that his owner is letting go on (mostly in his name, at that)

What would it take me to respect the god?
Nothing could! If he exists, he's either too malicious to respect, or to impotent to worship.

To whoever made the issue about the "Sense of self" not having sufficient scientific explanation. The best one I know of is easily understood by reading Susan Blackmore in the Meme Machine. Essentially it's a memetically evolved memeplex which convinces us to associate other ideas (memes) with "who we are" (ie, the self) because when an idea feels like it is part of our "self" we are more apt to spread that meme/idea. And ideas, like DNA, exist because they multiply and reproduce with sufficient fidelity, fecundity and longevity. The sense of self is to the meme what the pleasure of sexual copulation is to the gene. Simply a constructed reward given by memes/genes to make the person more likely to reproduce the idea/body. It is not with purpose it does it, it was a random event that it began, and it persisted because it increased the reproduction rates. As both were so successful, they both increased in magnitude as evolution continued on both fronts... The memetic evolution driving the genetic evolution to fit it's needs/interests.

Invalidating this argument would be a start, but I don't think it'll happen.

It is a four way argument that god is neither Good nor Ominipotent. The argument is air tight.

ruveyn

There is a fourth thing that probably would apply to many atheists though

4) Torture
By the ways of the old inquisition or similar, you either believe in God or else.

You are speaking about science from a position of ignorance. Scientists are *well* aware that every discovery leads to more questions; it is considered one sign of a good paper to suggest further areas of curiosity to explore. That's part of the point; science runs on curiosity, not knowledge. Certainly not grandiosity. The fact that scientists are perfectly comfortable saying that they know more about their specialties than lay people does not mean that they're unaware of their limits; in reality, they know far better than the average person not only that there are things that they don't know, but that the area of unknowns is vast.

However, if a god is immaterial and has no testable effect on the real world, what's the point? Immaterial fairies with no tangible effects might live in my garden, but I'm not going to waste my time worrying about them.

1)I have a BSc in biology, with a focus on evolutionary biology. Don't even go there; I'm well aware of the reams of studies and of the evidence backing the studies. Furthermore, my education has given me a pretty good idea of how to read a scientific paper with a general focus on biology or medicine and determine whether or not it was well conducted (hint: when the people listed as co-authors vehemently deny that they had anything to do with a study, and in fact knew nothing about it before its publication (as occurred with one of the most frequently-cited pro-prayer studies), it's a pretty good sign that the study's author has been less than honest).

2)The Tunguska bolloid did not leave a crater sized proportionate to the explosion because it exploded in mid-air. However, a fragment probably did leave a crater: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lake_Cheko. More importantly, the fact that there are unknowns about the Tunguska event is NOT a good reason to throw up one's hands and say, 'oh well, it's just a mystery we'll have to accept! Pack up your bags and stop looking for answers!' Also, the bible is only acceptable as evidence to people who already believe that the bible is evidence (ie, not me).

What I am talking about is a simultaneous display that occurs at the same time and in the same way across multiple cultures. In other words, I do not accept that any god worth worshiping would be a racist. You might find my standards for evidence of a god too high, but extreme claims require extreme evidence and gods are the biggest claims ever made. You asked me what evidence I would accept; this type of event is what popped into my head as something that would make me seriously question my atheism.

3)I've seen all of the so-called proofs, and they're all bad. The ontological argument, for example, could easily be used to 'prove' the existence of the Invisible Pink Unicorn (peace be upon the most sublimely invisible pinkness of her!) or any other exemplar of any other quality. The only astonishing thing about the ontological argument is that anyone ever fell for it. The 'creation' only argues for its own existence, not that of anything else.

If you don't think that logic has any place in argumentation, then why are we even discussing this?

Hell yeah

Anyway, answering the op's question, I would have to have empirical evidence, to actually see him/her/it for myself. So far that hasn't happened, and the odds of it happening are veeeerrrry slim.

W00T! High five MONKEY! REIGN OF TERROR!! !!

Sometimes, I tend to lean towards that.


well, I think that he means that the appeal to logic is baised and that people use that to justify anything, especially when it comes to ideologies, as there are different and opossite ideologies and ideas, and each may appeal to logic or the same logic to defend their own perspective.

So I don't take likely the atheist appeal on logic because theologians and christian philosophers can appeal to logic as well to justify their theology, and as AngelRho exemplified, I can try to debate with a christian scholar and he might as well shunned me down intellectually, and the question lies, does that proves his theology correct?

And that is what I have observed in relation with the Evolution vs Creationism, such as the "evolutionist" failed to explain things, so he lost, therefore, he wasn't able to support Evolution, therefore the alternative, ID, must be the correct one.

So, I believe that may have been AngelRho's point on the matter, however, I see the problem of how he can justify his position given that, as that would be a problem relating to everything and he dismissed empiricism before.

Last edited by greenblue on 12 Jul 2010, 7:49 pm, edited 1 time in total.

I can understand the skepticism towards knowledge actually, it just.... it doesn't provide a very solid stance for even a conversation on the matter. I mean, if everything reduces down to an outright fideism, then we cannot even think of a meaningful dialog or the growth of knowledge, but I accept both as possibilities.

Solipsism and Nihilism FTW

I'm guessing heaven would be a bit too snobby and elite.

Then one of them is doing it wrong. The rules of formal logic do not allow for P && !P.

I think what's happening here is that AngelRho is trying to dismiss logic by pretending that it is unreliable. Same thing he's doing on biology: dismissing it by (falsely) claiming that there are different and equally legitimate interpretations of the evidence.

Well, right, it is ultimately to justify fideism. If nobody can give a better answer, then what's wrong with accepting any answer? The issue is that for the most part, we accept that some positions are better than others.

As far as the "simultaneous" event goes: The Bible reports this already happened as the flood in Genesis. What is INTERESTING about the flood account is how a catastrophic event through which the world was destroyed is not unique to Judaism or Christianity. There exists a Chinese cataclysmic myth, accounts of various Earth "ages" in Native American mythology that includes destruction by water (flood), and the Epic of Gilgamesh is another Near Eastern mythical account that developed separately from the Bible. The main difference between Gilgamesh and Genesis is that the Gilgamesh flood is incidental to the story while the Biblical account is a central theme. The story of Atlantis, while most likely of a later origin, is still revealing in its portrayal of an entire continent destroyed by sinking it in the sea. This isn't surprising at all if one considers that some oral mythology regarding how a great number of wicked people by water or related calamity might have survived into the earliest writings regarding Atlantis (some hypothesize that the destruction of Atlantis might coincide with the parting of the Reed Sea at the beginning of Exodus--considering how ocean wave activity would have been affected by the loss of an entire continent, this does seem plausible). This is assuming, of course, that Atlantis actually existed, but there is SOME support in the Bible for the existence of Atlantis and a race of wicked people associated with it. Even the pre-flood account of the Nephilim suggest that some fantastic people and creatures could have existed anywhere in the world. Taking that into account, even Greek and Roman myth do not seem quite so silly.

That there were very few survivors of the flood would pose a slight problem. This means that the flood story would have been repeated among a small number of families that quickly spread across the world. It explains the presence of the flood account along with the different variations of it. Tracing humanity back to 6 or so common ancestors goes a long way to showing how and where the story would have originated.

As far as the pro-prayer study goes: I think of it (I'm a musician) like all those silly "Mozart-effect" studies that were in vogue 10 years ago, which in my opinion amounts to little more a few desperate music educators just trying to hold on to their jobs. I'm a former public school teacher as well--I had the good fortune of working in a public school which had escaped much of the politics of the public school system, and left after seeing the writing on the wall when a principal decided to MAKE education a political game. If you've really read a lot of good studies, you'll recognize that findings are just that: Findings. Data. Cold, unfeeling evidence. The problem with "evidence" is that any kind of data can be interpreted a variety of ways and can be presented a variety of ways to support whatever the presenter wants to support. The "Mozart Effect" is an example of such studies, and you'd have to be blind to miss the obviously commercial motivations of it, not to mention the insecurity of mediocre music teachers. I'm out of the teaching profession in part because I can't stomach such hideous misuse of information. My point is that the pro-prayer studies were probably taken in a similar spirit, encouraging prayer as beneficial for ALL people when the REAL point is using prayer as a talking point for proselytizing. I'm just speculating here because I'm unfamiliar with the particulars of the study, but it could ALSO be possible that someone conducting a study into prayer might have done so without realizing that the results of such a study might be used as pro-religious talking points. If the scientists conducting the study are particularly anti-religious, it would make perfect sense to deny having ANYTHING to do with such a study.

This is known to have happened elsewhere. Karl Popper, for instance, at one point said that the theory of evolution was unfalsifiable. Only after it became known to him that religious opponents to evolution were using his statements in support of their own views did he suddenly appear to change his mind, saying that he agreed that scientific evidence support the claims of Darwinists. Based on evidence, Popper might have been right to change his mind. But the timing of his rescinding might also be interpreted by some in such a way as to call his credibility into question.

As far as the logical proofs go, to be honest, I'm not a big fan. The question was simply whether there were any good logical arguments in favor of any kind of Supreme Being, the answer being simply that they DO exist. What the arguments DON'T do is name a specific deity, which is where my views part ways with those particular philosophers and theologians. So if you want to call it a purple flying spaghetti monster or a pink unicorn, that is entirely a matter for you to decide. If, on the other hand, you already understand Yahweh to be THE Supreme Being, Creator of the Universe, et al, then such things as the sinful nature of mankind, need for atonement, promise salvation, and hope in the world to come make perfect logical sense. Think about it: Can you really come up with an explanation for the existence of morality (as one example, albeit a very important one) that really makes sense in the absence of God?

Further, I don't mean to dismiss the value of argumentation. If God made man in His image, and God is a logical being, it makes sense that man would be a logical creature. Not only that, but anyone can observe a logical order to the universe. The only flaw in human logic stems from the effect of sinful nature on the human mind, making human-based wisdom an imperfect wisdom. Knowledge and wisdom gained from God in any kind of reliable way, whether through prayer, scriptural reading, meditation, discourse with others experienced in gaining spiritual knowledge and wisdom, and other similar means, should lead to a greater understanding of the world beyond whatever "empiricisms" there may be. It amuses me and yet somewhat discourages me hearing so much about what happens between parties of political debate and how little is actually accomplished. I think that which God does NOT directly reveal to us is certainly reached through our own powers of observation and logic--what is revealed under a microscope, for instance. Debate is helpful in the sense it helps us learn more about the issues we discuss and understand more about each other. I think some amount of logical thinking is necessary for survival, even. But I DON'T think that God is understandable from the perspective of "pure" human reasoning. This is also true about science. Some assumptions MUST be made--for example, relying on our own sense of logic to make decisions in interpreting data. To make decisions about empirical data, one must rely on something that by nature is not empirical.

If you don't believe me, go to your nearest chemical supply store and ask for a pint of logic.

And yes, I'm well aware of two computer software products that are called "Logic" and "Reason," as I am a user of both!