Why do atheists ask for evidence for God?

[Jeremyhfht]

Atheists ask for evidence for the existence of God yet at the sametime admit that gathering evidence is impossible....so wtf?

Quite simple. Many atheists (myself included) are fairly open minded skeptics. We welcome the challenge of evidence provided that might throw a wrench in our machine. Just because we hold the belief that there are no gods, doesn't mean we ignorantly march foreward (unlike most theists).

While this is highly insulting to theists, it's the truth. I've only met one or two theists that I could call intelligent. Yet I've met many atheists that could be called intelligent (as they refuse to be ignorant).

 

[lightgigantic]

Sarkus

“
Originally Posted by lightgigantic
this doesn't make sense - how can one expect to determine the non-material by material means? (If one could, it wouldn't be non-material)
”
The point is that it is not necessarily "by material means". Until the non-material can be conclusively shown to exist - it remains unknown whether the scientific method can cope with the non-material.

the problem with empiricism is that to conclusively show something to exist, it must be repeatable to a controlled environment - matter is of course inferior to our consciousness, so we can measure it, but how would one see what one is seeing with?

“
this is akin to saying that it is possible that the only evidence available is through the measurement of our senses
”
Please feel free to provide more ways of measuring our senses - and bear in mind that there are far more than just the 5 basic senses you were taught at school (Heat, Pain, Body, Balance etc).

thats the problem - the senses are activated by consciousness, and consciousness is therefore not approachable by the senses (much like one cannot jump over one's knees, even if one can jump 10 feet)

“
what about inference
suppose you are seated on a train and not moving from your seat (even though the train is moving) - out the window everyone is moving very quickly backwards (at least so it directly appears)
”
What about it? There is material evidence here - and nothing immaterial is needed to reach the conclusion.

inference is slightly different from empiricism since it involves rationalism - rationalism belongs moreso to the school of philosophy and empiricism belongs more so to the school of science

The "inference" you speak of is merely the recollection and application of previous experience / evidence, all completely material.

logic determines faksity/truth in circumstances that are not directly verifiable (after all, in the train it certainly does appear that everyone is running backwards very quickly)

“
what about authority
suppose one is not at all familiar with medical terms or conditions yet the doctor says you have cancer - unless one is a qualified doctor, there is certainly no evidence for this (unless of course one is an expert or authority in the field)
”
Ah yes - your "authority" argument.
Authority is meaningless unless accompanied by practical performance.
And it is this practical, observable evidence of performance that enables society as a whole to build up the subconcious probability assessment that someone practicing as a doctor, with all the "qualifications", is able to do what they say.

thats ok - but the patient just walks through the door - its not like he has participated or even verified " this practical, observable evidence of performance" so he is accepting a truth outside of empiricism (at least his own empirical capacity)

It is NOT as simple as saying: "You are an authority - this is sufficient evidence." The authority is built up from observable evidence throughout society. We observe people with qualifications in most fields being able to do what their qualification says they can.

correct - hence we do not evidence by our own capacity of knowledge or perception what an authority does, but we make value judgements according to our perception of their quality ... all of which is an evidence that is beyond material validation

We then use this observed evidence to subconcsiously reach a probability assessment that anyone else in "authority" / with "qualification" can do what they say.

Your term, and use, of "authority" merely hides the plethora of evidence that accompanies the authority/qualification.

the point is that the patient does not have access to that evidence, yet he accepts the doctor's statements as truthful - that truth of the doctor is certainly not verified by the patient

“
actually we can use Occam's razor to disregard the notion that material reductionism is sufficient to define everything, since there is no material evidence for this
”
Please feel free to try. Should be interesting.
And bear in mind that lack of evidence is NOT evidence for lack - but you seem to forget this time and time again.

quite simply, if we cannot define everything by means of material reduction, including very essential things that we require to function (like for instance there is no reductionist evidence for the self as anything more than a bunch of chemicals - yet we commonly accept that a person is responsible for their actions - material reductionism teaches us that there is no self that can be held as legally responsible - which is of course is an absolute foolishness in practical living), then it can be safely disregarded

 

[heliocentric]

arh, the whole authority argument is such uber-bunk.
You cant authoritise subjective experience because we cant measure it.
Its like me saying - 'im an authority on lucid dreaming.'
Its meaningless, because theres no way to gauge the quality of my experiences as a lucid dreamer. I may in fact not even be having lucid dreams atall, and you have no real way of knowing.

This isnt to say that there's no such thing as lucid dreaming - in the same manner there may well be a higher level of consciousness whereby you can apparently commune with god(s).
But how do you tell someone whos had a 'really good' natter with God, from someone who simply stumbled into god's domain by accident and got booted out almost instantly?
Of course you can guage the quality of the ideals and lessons of mystics - some of Jesus's teachings contain inspiring idealism and lessons to live by.
But then again so does the work of people like Plato and Bruno - who wernt spirtual in the slightest.
Therefore it's clear that spirtualism is something entirely seperate from insight and intellect, it rests on experiences beyond our grasp and ultimately outside of authority.

 

[Sarkus]

the problem with empiricism is that to conclusively show something to exist, it must be repeatable to a controlled environment - matter is of course inferior to our consciousness, so we can measure it, but how would one see what one is seeing with?

Until you stop blurting out such religious "facts" you will continue to be blinded.

thats the problem - the senses are activated by consciousness, and consciousness is therefore not approachable by the senses (much like one cannot jump over one's knees, even if one can jump 10 feet)

This does not answer the question. Please do so.

inference is slightly different from empiricism since it involves rationalism - rationalism belongs moreso to the school of philosophy and empiricism belongs more so to the school of science

Inference is still based on observed physical evidence. Without any such evidence there is NO inference. Inference is merely the application of prior experience / evidence to different situations.
What is so non-material about this?

logic determines faksity/truth in circumstances that are not directly verifiable (after all, in the train it certainly does appear that everyone is running backwards very quickly)

Logic only determines possibility of truth. Just because something is entirely logical does NOT make it truth.

thats ok - but the patient just walks through the door - its not like he has participated or even verified " this practical, observable evidence of performance"

YES HE HAS!!!! Why do you not realise this!

Every time they talk to someone who has had different experiences, every time they interact with someone, every time they watch the television, they are participating in the verification process. You can not escape the verification if you are part of society.
You might not appreciate that you are verifying it - but you are.
You slowly build up a wealth of experience / evidence that leads you to the assessment of probability that if you ask the opinion of an expert that they know more about something than you do.
You then take this experience, this evidence, this subconscious understanding and apply it to other areas of "qualification" - such as visiting a doctor and accepting what he says.

But the qualification itself is NOT evidence.
The authority itself is NOT evidence.

The evidence is every experience that you have that leads you to start accepting the word of qualified people.

And lo and behold - even the qualified people get it wrong sometimes!

so he is accepting a truth outside of empiricism (at least his own empirical capacity)

No he is not - see above.

correct - hence we do not evidence by our own capacity of knowledge or perception what an authority does, but we make value judgements according to our perception of their quality ... all of which is an evidence that is beyond material validation

Just because something is "beyond material validation" does NOT make it non-material!
Sheesh! I thought you would have realised that?

the point is that the patient does not have access to that evidence, yet he accepts the doctor's statements as truthful - that truth of the doctor is certainly not verified by the patient

Firstly, the patient DOES have access to the evidence - and he has used it to go to the doctor in the first instance.
Secondly - the patient can go to another doctor - get a 2nd, 3rd, 4th opinion etc. Each will help to verify the assessments made by the others, and thus either reinforce or counter the probability assessment made to date.

And what is the issue with accepting the doctor's statement as truthful? Does this make the doctor's statement EVIDENCE? No. Does it make the doctor correct or wrong, just because he said it? No.

quite simply, if we cannot define everything by means of material reduction, including very essential things that we require to function (like for instance there is no reductionist evidence for the self as anything more than a bunch of chemicals - yet we commonly accept that a person is responsible for their actions - material reductionism teaches us that there is no self that can be held as legally responsible - which is of course is an absolute foolishness in practical living), then it can be safely disregarded

Lol! God of the gaps!

Right - so your evidence is purely "well, if you're right, it would be foolishness in practical living".

And rather than try and actually explore the underlying truths - you jump on the "non-material" as a "god of the gaps".

Fair enough - that's you.
However, your argument bears absolutely no relationship to Occam's Razor, which was what was asked of you.

You argue out of fear and incredulity - both irrational traits.

 

[RoyLennigan]

Sarkus, do you agree that it's at least possible that the following statement is true:

Science is a method of investigation pertaining to material phenomena but not applicable to immaterial phenomena.

I would not say so. Science is the study of reaction. If a thing exists, it is either a reaction, or the effect of a reaction (which in turn becomes a reaction). Reactions can either be material (made of matter and tangible to the direct senses). Or immaterial (made of a relation between material things and observed through analyzation).

The immaterial both exists and doesn't exist. It exists in that there is some connection between the material things that we call a natural force (such as electromagnetism, gravity, weak & strong forces, plus any unknown ones). But it doesn't exist in that they are observed indirectly and so we don't know exactly what it is or why it is, but we know that it is and roughly how it affects things.

 

[lightgigantic]

Sarkus

“
Originally Posted by lightgigantic
the problem with empiricism is that to conclusively show something to exist, it must be repeatable to a controlled environment - matter is of course inferior to our consciousness, so we can measure it, but how would one see what one is seeing with?
”
Until you stop blurting out such religious "facts" you will continue to be blinded.

If matter was not inferior to our consciousness, why is it that matter can be observed in controlled environments?

as far as I am aware, its an accepted scientific fact - in fact its integral for the very function of empirical truths

“
thats the problem - the senses are activated by consciousness, and consciousness is therefore not approachable by the senses (much like one cannot jump over one's knees, even if one can jump 10 feet)
”
This does not answer the question. Please do so.

it does however answer why matter is inferior to our consciousness and the inherent limitations of empiricism (since empiricisms foundations are the senses, and the senses can only detect matter)

“
inference is slightly different from empiricism since it involves rationalism - rationalism belongs moreso to the school of philosophy and empiricism belongs more so to the school of science
”
Inference is still based on observed physical evidence.

Of course, but the conclusion of those observations are not physically exhibited

Without any such evidence there is NO inference. Inference is merely the application of prior experience / evidence to different situations.
What is so non-material about this?

further than our own experience, inference goes into realm via extrapolation and not merely just what we have previously experienced

“
logic determines faksity/truth in circumstances that are not directly verifiable (after all, in the train it certainly does appear that everyone is running backwards very quickly)
”
Logic only determines possibility of truth. Just because something is entirely logical does NOT make it truth.

indeed
truthful things are not necessarily logical
(eg - Today is Saturday, it is night time therefore I am thirsty - all these three things are true)
Logical things are not necessarily truthful
(eg - All birds can fly, all pigs are birds therefore all pigs can fly)

empiricism has limitations because it is dependent on the senses
inferences has limitations because it is dependent on the mind

“
thats ok - but the patient just walks through the door - its not like he has participated or even verified " this practical, observable evidence of performance"
”
YES HE HAS!!!! Why do you not realise this!

he stared down the microscope and carried out his own blood test? - I doubt it

Every time they talk to someone who has had different experiences, every time they interact with someone, every time they watch the television, they are participating in the verification process.

they are simply accepting somebody else's claim of credibility - unless of course they are watching, hearing and reading programs and literature from persons related to the teaching of professional medical practice

You can not escape the verification if you are part of society.

the verification of persons (like say the verification of doctors) begins with persons established as authorities in the field (ie the medical practices association) and gets trickled down from there to time magazine and Oprah

You might not appreciate that you are verifying it - but you are.

If i say that my doctor is not qualified, who would care?

You slowly build up a wealth of experience / evidence that leads you to the assessment of probability that if you ask the opinion of an expert that they know more about something than you do.

but don't you see - building up faith in the credibility of an authority is not the same as developing the direct perception of the authority - for instance even the most faithful of doctor's patients is incapable of validating the empirical claims of the doctor (put the patient gets the benefit of such empiricism by the medium of authority)

But the qualification itself is NOT evidence.
The authority itself is NOT evidence.

The evidence is every experience that you have that leads you to start accepting the word of qualified people.

actually that is not the evidence - it is the cause - the evidence of an established truth lies in the wreath of authority, or those persons qualified in the field - for eg if a person has a series of experiences that give him the false understanding that a doctor is not capable of setting bones (even though the doctor is actually qualified) that does not make the doctor unqualified

And lo and behold - even the qualified people get it wrong sometimes!

such is the folly of having authorities with limited senses (empiricism) and minds (inference)

“
correct - hence we do not evidence by our own capacity of knowledge or perception what an authority does, but we make value judgements according to our perception of their quality ... all of which is an evidence that is beyond material validation
”
Just because something is "beyond material validation" does NOT make it non-material!

it does however make it non-empirical

“
the point is that the patient does not have access to that evidence, yet he accepts the doctor's statements as truthful - that truth of the doctor is certainly not verified by the patient
”
Firstly, the patient DOES have access to the evidence - and he has used it to go to the doctor in the first instance.

as previously explained - that is not evidence, that is the cause

Secondly - the patient can go to another doctor - get a 2nd, 3rd, 4th opinion etc. Each will help to verify the assessments made by the others, and thus either reinforce or counter the probability assessment made to date.

so one can reject/accept one statement of authority on the basis of another authority - even after seeing a zillion doctors a patient still has no idea how to perform brain surgery

And what is the issue with accepting the doctor's statement as truthful? Does this make the doctor's statement EVIDENCE? No. Does it make the doctor correct or wrong, just because he said it? No.

never the less by accepting a doctor's statement as truthful one can get cured of disease despite the patient having no empirical access to the disease or the treatment

“
quite simply, if we cannot define everything by means of material reduction, including very essential things that we require to function (like for instance there is no reductionist evidence for the self as anything more than a bunch of chemicals - yet we commonly accept that a person is responsible for their actions - material reductionism teaches us that there is no self that can be held as legally responsible - which is of course is an absolute foolishness in practical living), then it can be safely disregarded
”
Lol! God of the gaps!

I didn't mention anything about god - I did mention how assuming that every thing is matter, including our very nature of self, certainly gives rise to an absurd society

Right - so your evidence is purely "well, if you're right, it would be foolishness in practical living".

certainly sounds like a good reason don't you think?

And rather than try and actually explore the underlying truths - you jump on the "non-material" as a "god of the gaps".

what underlying truths are there - if we are essentially a bunch of chemicals there is no question of legal responsibility, since it is actually the bunch of proteins that caused the problem and not me

Fair enough - that's you.
However, your argument bears absolutely no relationship to Occam's Razor, which was what was asked of you.

it certainly does - its all about getting rid of useless things

You argue out of fear and incredulity - both irrational traits.

actually it is an argument of logic - To rephrase the issue (which BTW you tried to answer by bringing in the topic of god, which certainly isn't required here, followed by a character attack) - if the self is essentially a bunch of chemicals, where is the question of legal responsibility?

 

[lightgigantic]

arh, the whole authority argument is such uber-bunk.
You cant authoritise subjective experience because we cant measure it.

you can however qualify it

Its like me saying - 'im an authority on lucid dreaming.'

Its meaningless, because theres no way to gauge the quality of my experiences as a lucid dreamer.

there are ways to qualify medicine, science and religion however - it begins with theory, proceeds in to practice and ends in realization/conclusion

I may in fact not even be having lucid dreams atall, and you have no real way of knowing.

unlike religion, lucid dreaming never results in direct perception

This isnt to say that there's no such thing as lucid dreaming - in the same manner there may well be a higher level of consciousness whereby you can apparently commune with god(s).
But how do you tell someone whos had a 'really good' natter with God, from someone who simply stumbled into god's domain by accident and got booted out almost instantly?

scripture is a good starting point

Of course you can guage the quality of the ideals and lessons of mystics - some of Jesus's teachings contain inspiring idealism and lessons to live by.
But then again so does the work of people like Plato and Bruno - who wernt spirtual in the slightest.

hence there is an aspect of religion that is not accessible by moral philosophy

Therefore it's clear that spirtualism is something entirely seperate from insight and intellect, it rests on experiences beyond our grasp and ultimately outside of authority.

for a person who does not proceed to practical application, many things on the platform of theory make what is presented in the name of conclusion or realization unfathomable

 

[heliocentric]

there are ways to qualify medicine, science and religion however - it begins with theory, proceeds in to practice and ends in realization/conclusion

But here's the thing - all youre actually qualifying is how religious people tend to behave - i.e. we know that religious people will almost always engage in prayer/worship/communion of some kind.
All that tells us though, is if someone is being 'religious' it doesnt tell us anything about the validity or quality of their experiences.

unlike religion, lucid dreaming never results in direct perception

Well this is the thing, again its all wrapped up in subjectivity - in as much as you can never get inside the interiority of someone who claims to have divine communion with god(s).
You can certainly say - 'this claim of divine communion tallys up with the claims of such and such a prophet/mystic, therefore i percieve there to be authority in their experience'
But the problem is youre only measuring the accuracy of religious subjectivity according to other forms of religious subjectivity.
Objectivity never enters the loop, youre essentially just taking the word of someone on the basis of the word of someone else. Its like chinese whispers.

hence there is an aspect of religion that is not accessible by moral philosophy

Well there have been a few mystics/philosophers scattered throughout history, but generally no - philosophers dont claim authority in subjective experience.

for a person who does not proceed to practical application, many things on the platform of theory make what is presented in the name of conclusion or realization unfathomable

Yes exactly - it is unfathomable i.e. cannot be authoritised.

Its like me saying im an authority in communing with aliens and backing up my claim by pointing out the similar nature of my experiences with other people who claim to commune with aliens.
See the problem?

 

[Sarkus]

If matter was not inferior to our consciousness, why is it that matter can be observed in controlled environments?

It is the term "inferior" that I have an issue with. Inferior on what measure? It brings into your description an assumption that is at the heart of what is being argued - and thus can not be accepted until that assumption has been shown to be either correct or not.

further than our own experience, inference goes into realm via extrapolation and not merely just what we have previously experienced

And... what?
All this is still based on purely physical evidence.
I fail to see the point you are making.

they are simply accepting somebody else's claim of credibility - unless of course they are watching, hearing and reading programs and literature from persons related to the teaching of professional medical practice

The "accepting" is based on their lifetime's experience of physical evidence whereby someone claiming to be qualified actually has carried out what they were qualified in. PHYSICAL EVIDENCE.
One of your problem seems to lie in only looking at the immediate evidence - e.g. the authority - without looking at what has created the assessment in an individual that the "authority" is credible.

but don't you see - building up faith in the credibility of an authority is not the same as developing the direct perception of the authority - for instance even the most faithful of doctor's patients is incapable of validating the empirical claims of the doctor (put the patient gets the benefit of such empiricism by the medium of authority)

The patient does NOT get direct perception of authority!
They merely get an additional piece of evidence to either build up or remove the probability assessment that the qualified person knows what they're doing.
Authority is NOT something that can be directly perceived.
The actions of someone claiming authority can be - but the authority itself can not - as it is nothing but a term upon which we can make an assessment based on real direct perception / evidence.

actually that is not the evidence - it is the cause - the evidence of an established truth lies in the wreath of authority, or those persons qualified in the field - for eg if a person has a series of experiences that give him the false understanding that a doctor is not capable of setting bones (even though the doctor is actually qualified) that does not make the doctor unqualified

One would have to examine the evidence to be able to make that assessment. If the person has had bad experiences with just one doctor then it is possible that the doctor really isn't qualified to set bones.
There is also the possibility that the interpretation of the experiences has led to irrational conclusions.
It doesn't change the fact that qualification / authority is NOT evidence.

even after seeing a zillion doctors a patient still has no idea how to perform brain surgery

This changes nothing. It is the performance of brain surgery that is the evidence. The qualification merely gives one an assessment of how likely they are to carry it out correctly.
Of course they go to someone qualified rather than not - because every experience / evidence has most likely led to the assessment that those with the qualification are more capable than those without.
But it is the performance - the physical evidence - that counts - not the authority / qualification.

never the less by accepting a doctor's statement as truthful one can get cured of disease despite the patient having no empirical access to the disease or the treatment

Of course - and the physical evidence of the curing of the disease adds weight to the probability assessment that qualified people are the go-to people over someone who isn't.

I didn't mention anything about god

"God of the gaps" is a term that doesn't necessarily imply a belief in God - but in anything that is a catchall for the unknown.

I did mention how assuming that every thing is matter, including our very nature of self, certainly gives rise to an absurd society

Which is irrelevant. And one can only judge absurdity from the subjective position of our current society. Had society, from the beginning, had a different view then such a society would not be absurd.

certainly sounds like a good reason don't you think?

Nope. It's irrational.

what underlying truths are there - if we are essentially a bunch of chemicals there is no question of legal responsibility, since it is actually the bunch of proteins that caused the problem and not me

You don't get it.
Just because of an acceptance of what we are made from does not alter the way we live. What you currently term as the "non-material consciousness" will do exactly the same whether science works out exactly how it works or not. Society will thus operate in exactly the same way.
We will all retain a sense of self, a sense of "me", an ego - and thus remain responsible for our own actions. This WILL NOT CHANGE irrespective of whether science works things out or not.

it certainly does - its all about getting rid of useless things

Then I suggest you re-examine your claim in this light. Non-materiality is an unneeded complexity over the purely material.

actually it is an argument of logic

No - it is an argument from fear / incredulity.

To rephrase the issue (which BTW you tried to answer by bringing in the topic of god, which certainly isn't required here, followed by a character attack)

As explained - the "God of the gaps" is a phrase for any idea that acts as a catch-all for the currently unknown - such as some ideas of God, non-materiality etc. It is not thus a direct reference to God.
And there was no character attack - merely an acceptance that you and I obviously do not think alike.

if the self is essentially a bunch of chemicals, where is the question of legal responsibility?

This is not an argument from logic - but from fear / incredulity.
Logic has no concern over whether there is legal responsibility or not.

 

[VitalOne]

Quite simple. Many atheists (myself included) are fairly open minded skeptics. We welcome the challenge of evidence provided that might throw a wrench in our machine. Just because we hold the belief that there are no gods, doesn't mean we ignorantly march foreward (unlike most theists).

While this is highly insulting to theists, it's the truth. I've only met one or two theists that I could call intelligent. Yet I've met many atheists that could be called intelligent (as they refuse to be ignorant).

But atheists say you can't provide evidence of God, any type of evidence provided will be denied and not considered real evidence...therefore why even ask for evidence if you're going to deny any type of evidence? Can you think of a way to gather evidence of God???

 

[Medicine*Woman]

But atheists say you can't provide evidence of God, any type of evidence provided will be denied and not considered real evidence...therefore why even ask for evidence if you're going to deny any type of evidence? Can you think of a way to gather evidence of God???

*************
M*W: Hello, VO. I just wanted to stick my 2 cents in while you wait for Jeremy's reply.

Atheists are not the only ones who say it is impossible to provide evidence for god's existence. As far as I can tell, that belief is the belief of multitudes, since no one has been able to provide any evidence for proof. Even most christians agree with this. Of course, they believe in its existence according to their faith which provides no evidence or no proof.

I can't speak for all atheists, but I can assure you that if proof of god were to be found, atheists would certainly look into it and would not automatically deny the evidence or the proof.

There are no 'tests' known to man or to science that would assess the evidence for god, so it would be an inconclusive experiment.

It's like asking a nomad if he believes in such a thing as a car. He couldn't fathom it in his wildest imagination nor would he know how to test its probability.

 

[Bowser]

Would "healing" be a source of proof? I have never seen it but hear tell that it happens. :shrug:

 

[Medicine*Woman]

Would "healing" be a source of proof? I have never seen it but hear tell that it happens. :shrug:

*************
M*W: Well, no. The person who is healed may give credit to god for healing him, but there's no proof. The body heals itself, sometimes with the help of medical science.

 

[Woody]

Atheists ask for evidence for the existence of God yet at the sametime admit that gathering evidence is impossible....so wtf?

Everyone asks for evidence of God. Christians pray for it. Nothing wrong with asking.

 

[Jeremyhfht]

But atheists say you can't provide evidence of God, any type of evidence provided will be denied and not considered real evidence

Depends on the atheist. I for one would gladly punch in the face any atheist that up-nose ignores possible evidence. I would, on the other hand, join them if someone kept spewing verses from the bible. We have reasons for doing so. Try asking.

I, on the other hand, prefer to deal with it directly. I don't ignore it, I rebut it. If it's incorrect.

I'm an atheist, and I say So far given the evidence I've seen, you can't prove God exists. This doesn't mean you'd never find something that could be actual evidence.

...therefore why even ask for evidence if you're going to deny any type of evidence? Can you think of a way to gather evidence of God???

If you wish to gather evidence for god, start with history. And start with atheist viewpoints, that way you'll get their side of the story, AND your own. This way, you can make educated choices.

 

[Bowser]

*************
M*W: Well, no. The person who is healed may give credit to god for healing him, but there's no proof. The body heals itself, sometimes with the help of medical science.

Don't blur the line. If faith could heal the blind and the lame, then we would have a miracle. I am not talking of medical science--though it, too, has credit. I am simply pointing to those cases where there are examples faith-based healing.

 

[CRasch]

In a religious context, 'faith' and 'truth' are almost synonyms. And faith is automatically good. If an idea is considered truth in your religion, and you don't have faith in it, that's a reflection on your failure as a faith-holder rather than the idea's failure to be true. If you don't have enough faith on a given subject, you should work harder at it.
In the sciences, that kind of faith is not a virtue; it's a personal failing.
In the world of science the burden of proof is always on the person arguing for the existence of whatever is being proposed. If that evidence is not forthcoming, then people proceed on the assumption that the thing in question does not exist (the Laplacian principle). It is in parallel to the legal situation. We know that in the legal context in America, the presumption is that of innocence until proven guilty. This results in a much different kind of investigation and legal proceedings than if the presumption were guilty until proven innocent.
So both kinds of evidence (miracles and testimonies) used to support belief in a god are inadequate for what science requires as evidentiary support.
In science, the burden of proof lies with the proponent for the existence of some thing. The default assumption is non-existence.
So the question boils down to whether believers in a god have provided prima facie evidence in support of their thesis, sufficient to shift the burden to those who do not believe in god to show why this evidence is not convincing. Personal testimony by itself is usually not sufficient in courts, unless it is corroborated by physical evidence or direct personal observation by other credible sources who have observed the same phenomenon.
Which most observed instances of God have been in the form of a mental or physical stress that resulted in a delusion state. Even multi-testimonies of the same event of god can be attributed to mass-hysteria and peer suggestiveness. Most people who believe in the supernatural also have been precondition to believe such dogma since their childhood.

Summing up.
The divide between atheists and religious believers ultimately comes down to whether an individual feels that all beliefs should meet the same standards that we accept for good science or whether we have one set of standards for science or law, and another for religious beliefs. There is nothing that compels anyone to choose either way.

 

[lightgigantic]

Sarkus
“

Originally Posted by lightgigantic
If matter was not inferior to our consciousness, why is it that matter can be observed in controlled environments?
”
It is the term "inferior" that I have an issue with. Inferior on what measure? It brings into your description an assumption that is at the heart of what is being argued - and thus can not be accepted until that assumption has been shown to be either correct or not.

its quite simple
If you can see dirt but you cannot see your mind, doesn't that make dirt inferior (or a lower substance in terms of perceptability) than mind?

“
further than our own experience, inference goes into realm via extrapolation and not merely just what we have previously experienced
”
And... what?
All this is still based on purely physical evidence.
I fail to see the point you are making.

extrapolation means you see something and apply that seeing to a situation that you have not seen to form an understanding or truth, hence the basis, while initially based on something seen, ultimately is based on something we have not seen

“
they are simply accepting somebody else's claim of credibility - unless of course they are watching, hearing and reading programs and literature from persons related to the teaching of professional medical practice
”
The "accepting" is based on their lifetime's experience of physical evidence whereby someone claiming to be qualified actually has carried out what they were qualified in. PHYSICAL EVIDENCE.

physical evidence for the doctor, yes - physical evidence for the patient, no

One of your problem seems to lie in only looking at the immediate evidence - e.g. the authority - without looking at what has created the assessment in an individual that the "authority" is credible.

I am talking about how a patient can determine and receive the benefit of medical truths via the medium of the doctor (authority)- it s certainly different from the means that the doctor uses to determine and receive the benefit of medical truths (empiricism) - hence the distinction

“
but don't you see - building up faith in the credibility of an authority is not the same as developing the direct perception of the authority - for instance even the most faithful of doctor's patients is incapable of validating the empirical claims of the doctor (put the patient gets the benefit of such empiricism by the medium of authority)
”
The patient does NOT get direct perception of authority!

he certainly gets to see the doctor - in fact thats all he sees

They merely get an additional piece of evidence to either build up or remove the probability assessment that the qualified person knows what they're doing.

none of that information however enables them to come to the point of direct perception like the doctor, yet nevertheless they get the benefit of having that direct perception (they get cured of their malady)

Authority is NOT something that can be directly perceived.

exactly - hence it stands distinct from empiricism

The actions of someone claiming authority can be - but the authority itself can not - as it is nothing but a term upon which we can make an assessment based on real direct perception / evidence.

never the less by accepting the correct authority in the correct circumstances one gets a benefit that is not different from direct perception (ie cured of sickness)

“
actually that is not the evidence - it is the cause - the evidence of an established truth lies in the wreath of authority, or those persons qualified in the field - for eg if a person has a series of experiences that give him the false understanding that a doctor is not capable of setting bones (even though the doctor is actually qualified) that does not make the doctor unqualified
”
One would have to examine the evidence to be able to make that assessment.

I took th e liberty of giving an example with the things in bold

If the person has had bad experiences with just one doctor then it is possible that the doctor really isn't qualified to set bones.

that is true - but I mentioned specifically that the claims of the patient were false

There is also the possibility that the interpretation of the experiences has led to irrational conclusions.

this is what I confirmed by saying that the patient's claims were false

It doesn't change the fact that qualification / authority is NOT evidence.

I am not trying to argue that hearing from authority is empiricism - i am arguing that if one hears by authority one receives the identical benefit of knowledge gleaned by empiricism at the end of the day

“
even after seeing a zillion doctors a patient still has no idea how to perform brain surgery
”
This changes nothing. It is the performance of brain surgery that is the evidence. The qualification merely gives one an assessment of how likely they are to carry it out correctly.

Of course they go to someone qualified rather than not - because every experience / evidence has most likely led to the assessment that those with the qualification are more capable than those without.
But it is the performance - the physical evidence - that counts - not the authority / qualification.

but the special quality of hearing from authority is that it enables an unqualified person to receive the benefit of knowledge available in empirical fields to those who are not qualified in such empirical applications - in other words by hearing from authority, a person totally unfamiliar with standards of medical practice can become cured of their disease

“
never the less by accepting a doctor's statement as truthful one can get cured of disease despite the patient having no empirical access to the disease or the treatment
”
Of course - and the physical evidence of the curing of the disease adds weight to the probability assessment that qualified people are the go-to people over someone who isn't.

that evidence is never arrived at however unless the patient understands the 'truth' of medicine by hearing from authority - hence hearing from authority stands as a distinct method of acquiring the results of knowledge than empiricism

“
I didn't mention anything about god
”
"God of the gaps" is a term that doesn't necessarily imply a belief in God - but in anything that is a catchall for the unknown.

you misunderstand - the fallacy of accepting the self as ultimately a bunch of chemicals makes the notion of legal responsibility non- existent .... discussing this issue regards no discussion of god (the idea was even originally coined by Roger Penrose, who has no stance on the notion of god)

“
I did mention how assuming that every thing is matter, including our very nature of self, certainly gives rise to an absurd society
”
Which is irrelevant. And one can only judge absurdity from the subjective position of our current society.

well choose any society you can think of - would you live in a society where notions of reward and punishment (which are pertinent to the sense of legal responsibility) were disregarded since it was accepted that the self is ultimately a bunch of chemicals?

Had society, from the beginning, had a different view then such a society would not be absurd.

Its hard to imagine how such a society would even get going since there would be no distinction between a murderer, thief or rapist and a philosopher,shoe mender or king


“
certainly sounds like a good reason don't you think?
”
Nope. It's irrational.[/QUOTE]

actually it is an argument by Penrose, who is an established logician with a masters in PHD (and not affiliated with any sort of creationist outlook either I might add)

Here is a quote from Roger Penrose

The issue of "responsibility" raises deep philosophical questions concerning the ultimate causes of our behaviour ... is the matter of "responsibility" merely one of convenience of terminology, or is there actually something else - a "self" lying beyond all such influences - which exerts a control over our actions? The legal issue of "responsibility" seems to imply that there is indeed, within each of us, some kind of independent "self" with its own responsibilities - and, by implications, rights - whose actions are not attributable to inheritance, environment, or chance. If it is other than a mere convenience of language that we speak as though there were such an independant "self", then there must be an ingredient missing from our present day physical understandings. The discovery of such an ingredient would surely profoundly alter our scientific outlook"

I guess now you will say it is a fallacy of authority

“
what underlying truths are there - if we are essentially a bunch of chemicals there is no question of legal responsibility, since it is actually the bunch of proteins that caused the problem and not me
”
You don't get it.
Just because of an acceptance of what we are made from does not alter the way we live.

it certainly does, as indicated by penrose

What you currently term as the "non-material consciousness" will do exactly the same whether science works out exactly how it works or not.

I don't think so, because the self is understood to be ultimately atomic (in the sense of singular) as opposed to a bunch of chemicals not much different from any other bunch of chemicals one could encounter in another body

Society will thus operate in exactly the same way.
We will all retain a sense of self, a sense of "me", an ego - and thus remain responsible for our own actions. This WILL NOT CHANGE irrespective of whether science works things out or not.

I agree - therefore if the findings of so called science indicate something absurd to be taken as a truth (that ultimately the self is a bunch of chemicals) it can be safely disregarded

“
it certainly does - its all about getting rid of useless things
”
Then I suggest you re-examine your claim in this light. Non-materiality is an unneeded complexity over the purely material.

you don't get it
how is that possible when a view that only involves matter is totally absurd

“
actually it is an argument of logic
”
No - it is an argument from fear / incredulity.

Its an argument from penrose actually - if you don't want to come across as fearful or incredulous you should try a different method rather trying to ad hom it into a corner

“
To rephrase the issue (which BTW you tried to answer by bringing in the topic of god, which certainly isn't required here, followed by a character attack)
”
As explained - the "God of the gaps" is a phrase for any idea that acts as a catch-all for the currently unknown - such as some ideas of God, non-materiality etc. It is not thus a direct reference to God.

the example doesn't even require a discussion of god - it requires a discussion on why the atomic reductionists insist on naming something they can't perceive - in a gappy fashion too I might add

“
if the self is essentially a bunch of chemicals, where is the question of legal responsibility?
”
This is not an argument from logic - but from fear / incredulity.
Logic has no concern over whether there is legal responsibility or not.

if by accepting by logic that there is no sense of legal responsibility, life becomes instantly absurd

 

[lightgigantic]

heliocentric
“

Originally Posted by lightgigantic

there are ways to qualify medicine, science and religion however - it begins with theory, proceeds in to practice and ends in realization/conclusion
”
But here's the thing - all youre actually qualifying is how religious people tend to behave - i.e. we know that religious people will almost always engage in prayer/worship/communion of some kind.

isn't that how one qualifies any sort of knowledge (at least generally) - like for instance you qualify a doctor who has behaved in a certain way at medical school around text books, cadavers and the like (of course you could go into specifics, like for instance how well they studied etc, just like you could further clarify the quality of a religious persons prayer etc)

All that tells us though, is if someone is being 'religious' it doesnt tell us anything about the validity or quality of their experiences.

if you investigate it further, whether you are talking about doctors or theists, the qualifications are revealed

“
unlike religion, lucid dreaming never results in direct perception
”
Well this is the thing, again its all wrapped up in subjectivity - in as much as you can never get inside the interiority of someone who claims to have divine communion with god(s).

it can be seen as a discrepancy if they are grossly sinful and unable to control their lower urges (pursuit of name/fame/adoration/distinction via lust/anger/greed/envy etc)

You can certainly say - 'this claim of divine communion tallys up with the claims of such and such a prophet/mystic, therefore i percieve there to be authority in their experience'

and if such and such mystic is sinless and self controlled, you have the genuine article

But the problem is youre only measuring the accuracy of religious subjectivity according to other forms of religious subjectivity.

why do you consider god subjective, particularly if it is the claim that god (or at the very least, the nature of god) can be perceived

Objectivity never enters the loop, youre essentially just taking the word of someone on the basis of the word of someone else. Its like chinese whispers.

if god is not capable of being perceived objectively, he is impotent, thus the whole discussion on god (omnipotent) etc becomes ineffectual

“
hence there is an aspect of religion that is not accessible by moral philosophy
”
Well there have been a few mystics/philosophers scattered throughout history, but generally no - philosophers dont claim authority in subjective experience.

actually I was referring to the direct perception of god - there are even scriptural quotes that philosophical inquiry, while necessary in the pursuit of realization of god, is not sufficient (what is required is the mercy of a great devotee)

“
for a person who does not proceed to practical application, many things on the platform of theory make what is presented in the name of conclusion or realization unfathomable
”
Yes exactly - it is unfathomable i.e. cannot be authoritised.

hence its not uncommon for authorities to be authorized by other authorities - like for instance, unless you became an expert in physics (ie you became an authority) it would be very difficult for you to either refute or confirm claims made in physics

Its like me saying im an authority in communing with aliens and backing up my claim by pointing out the similar nature of my experiences with other people who claim to commune with aliens.
See the problem?

if however there was a claim with the alien watchers that "this is how you too can also come to the point of direct perception of aliens" we would have a similarity - bonafide knowledge comes not only with claims of truth but also claims of processes that enable one to perceive that truth (as in the case of bonafide religion and bonafide science)

 

[Jeremyhfht]

Long winded there, LightGigantic?