Why do many Americans believe in God?
- Thread starter Saint
- Start date
I'm sorry, I don't understand what you mean by ''actively disbelieve''.
I took it to mean you don't make a fuss of not believing.
jan.
exchemist
Valued Senior Member
God is a concept in many disciplines. But not in science. I am simply pointing out that someone with a wholly physicalist world view (i.e. applying the scientific way of thinking to everything) is, contrary to your assertion, not required to have a definition of the concept of God, since they make no use of it. It is a very simple and obvious point.
The onus is on those who advocate a hypothesis to define what that hypothesis is - obviously! You cannot shift the burden of defining the concept to those who are unconvinced the hypothesis is necessary. Those who believe in fairies at the bottom of the garden have to show the evidence for their belief if they want to convince others. People who believe the Duke of Edinburgh assassinated Princess Diana have to provide evidence if they expect to convince others. You cannot demand these others provide definitions of concepts they are do not think are necessary.
As for your law example, sure, law exists in most countries, and this will be so even if it is not perceived by some hermit living in the desert, say. But it is not reasonable to you to turn up on the hermit's doorstep, tell him there is a thing called "law", even though he was unaware of it, and then demand he provide you with a definition of it. That's preposterous.
Yazata
Valued Senior Member
The first requirement in sensibly talking about observing something new isn't that one already have a name for it and a definition associated with that name.
What's necessary is that there be some means of fixing reference to the new thing, of establishing what it is that we are talking about. With novel objects that's often done ostensibly, by pointing at whatever it is- "What's that?" With 'God', even initially establishing reference would seem to be difficult if not impossible.
Even before we try to invent explanations, we need to produce descriptions. Describing something presupposes that we have some means of acquiring information about it. That typically means that we have some causal connection with it. We observe the radiation it reflects (light typically), we poke it with a stick, we measure it, we analyze and dissect it. Information gathering becomes problematic when the new object supposedly isn't even a part of the physical universe in which causal interactions take place.
That's assuming that there was an observation and that the word 'God' is a referring expression that actually possesses an existing referrant. If the word 'God' has no reference, then all the word would seem to have is a meaning or use in the culture or cultures in which the word is used. If a dictionary definition exists, it will merely describe the more common of those usages.
Ironically, by focusing on conceptual definitions instead of directing attention to an existing God that atheists have somehow inexplicably missed ("I'm talking about that, damn it!"), Jan seems to be conceding something very close to the atheists' belief that the word 'God' lacks a reference, and hence that 'God' doesn't exist.
We are still waiting for some convincing reason to think that the word 'God' is something more than a human concept and actually refers to something.
Last edited:
Because I already answered it. In the context of the OP : " Each of those churches has its own definition of belief, its own description of God and its own set of rules for the practice of their faith." This is true, and I do have problem with your categorically denying it. I later added the general description of faith as unreasoned belief in a supernatural entity, and again as believing the stories in the Bible.
Again, this has been answered several times. I take the word of other people regarding their own personal beliefs - and I take even that word with a teaspoon of salt. Regarding my spiritual life, I have said nothing, and will say nothing beyond the fact that I do not believe the stories that religions profess. My inner life is frankly none of your business.
Read.
Dave said, ''I think a lot of people are pretty comfortable with the adage extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. He gave no boundary of science, or a strict physicalist view of the world. This is what I was responding to.
Obviously one would have to show physical evidence in a science situation. But I'm not concerned with science in this regard.
Obviously. If they want to convince others. What's your point?
The questions in the opening post (especially the first one) mean they are necessary.
You wouldn't have to turn up. Chances are he'll realise for himself.
jan.
exchemist
Valued Senior Member
If you don't understand my point by now, I will let it go. (I think you do understand it, but want to start an argument about something else. But never mind.)
exchemist
Valued Senior Member
Ordinary reality provides requirements that it has to meet, and if it is a member of a class whose characteristics don't meet them its existence is an extraordinary claim.jan said:
It has to not contradict itself, logically, for example. It has to be consistent with the observed and confirmable physical reality of its believer. It has to agree with the claims made for it by its believer, and if these claims involve physical reality that reality must agree with those claims. And so forth.
No simultaneously omnipotent, omniscient, and benevolent Deity exists, for example. To claim one is extraordinary.
Who determines what is ordinary reality?
And how do they justify that it is true?
jan.
Then what is there to talk about? You don't care about evidence.
Yazata
Valued Senior Member
Have you, in any of your posts to this thread, even tried to respond to Saint's questions in the OP?
(I did in post #19)
Stop attacking everyone else's ideas for a moment and tell us what your own ideas are.
Here's a few questions to you that I'm almost sure you will try to dodge:
Are you an adherent of, or have you been influenced by, ISKCON?
Do you believe that all human beings naturally possess something like Krishna Consciousness, even if some (the damnable atheists) seem blind to it and refuse to acknowledge it?
Do you believe that the true essence in all religions and all scriptures flow from this innate spiritual knowledge?
How would you define 'scripture'? How does one distinguish between religious writings that are and aren't scripture? Where do you think the ideas in true scripture come from?
Do you believe in the literal existence of God as something more than a human idea?
Last edited:
I like ISKON.
Why do you ask?
I think Krishna Conscious is developed, and can be developed by all conditioned souls.
Even the damnable atheists.
Why do you ask?
No.
Why do you ask?
I believe God is the Supreme Cause of all causes.
Why do you ask?
jan.
DaveC426913
Valued Senior Member
No, we do not.
We create knowledge as we learn how things work. So far, a large portion of rational people have not seen evidence that would warrant an entity.
Yes, and exchemist hit it on the head. If you (or others) posit a supernatural being to explain things in the universe, the onus is on you to make the case. Otherwise, the null hypothesis remains the default.
If I posited Russell's Teapot floating out near Mars, it would not be a valid argument for me to assume that it's there, and then demand that you must
a] define it, and
b] prove it is not there.
That's not how discourse works.
You just said it:
"But I'm not concerned with science in this regard."
Do you believe the notion of "Supreme Cause of all causes" is more than a human idea?
What do you have, other than the Cosmological Argument and all it's criticisms, to support that there even need be a "Supreme Cause of all causes", and that it is indeed personal?