Faith in no God

[rrobs]

Funny how you have to back to
the days of alchemy to find your
examples.

If Newton lived today he would not
be an alchemist.

Our fundys of today are comparably
out of date, but lack his genius-
or his excuse for not knowing any better.

You really don't think there are modern day scientists who believe in God? Dig a little deeper.

 

[rrobs]

In my case faith can't come into it until after I've solved the problem of my ignorance ─ I don't know what a real god is, and so far no one will tell me.

Read the scriptures with an open mind and you will find your real God. I don't what more to tell you.

 

[rrobs]

Seriously? To understand what a word means in the scriptures, you always use only the first definition at dictionary.com?

You are absolutely right that the scriptures define themselves. I could have shown the meaning of faith from the scriptures alone. I just thought it would be more credible to non-believers to use the dictionary.

 

[rrobs]

@rrobs

If faith means the “acceptance” of belief, eg “religious belief”, then a person who “don’t accept” that belief, then that person “has no faith”.

It is that simple.

Your examples of having faith that the chair will hold you up when you are sitting down, or the other one about having faith that cars won’t run you down when you cross the road at the pedestrian light - these are both irrelevant and pointless examples about faith.

This is a religious forum with topic relating to religion, and therefore relating to a god or two, it is not about chair or crossing the road...not unless you have a habit of crossing yourself before sitting or walking.

You missed my point. God is much more faithful than a chair. When He says something you can count on it coming to pass.

 

[Nimos]

We need to go down the "rabbit hole" of a Boltzmann Brain and all the other variants and look at different versions of solipsism.
In epistemological terms nobody have ever solved the problem of that objective reality other then as independent of the mind.
There is always science and religion and then philosophy.
You don't know what is independent of the mind, nor do I. I just say it aloud.

Ok, correct me if i misunderstand you, but basically what you are saying is that you can only trust your own mind, since you can't really be sure that anything besides or outside it exists?

Just to get some clarification, do you think your own body exists or is that uncertain as well?

 

[Valjean]

Nah. Why wouldn't we have evolved to look out for number one? Survival of the fittest and all that?

Because for a slow, weak ape like us we'd never have survived.

 

[Valjean]

Actually, I'm afraid I'm not the one who doesn't understand natural law. There's the laws of nature, such as gravity, and there's natural law or first principles that dictate what human actions ought to be like. But regardless, as I said previously, people will believe, or not believe, whatever already fits into their world view. This includes atheists and it includes me. So going around in circles is a bit futile.

Good points, but I take issue with your assertion that atheists try to fit their philosophy to their world view, like theists. As an intellectual position, atheism tends to follow the evidence, regardless of whether it's inconvenient or disturbing. It's mathematically logical.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Ok, correct me if i misunderstand you, but basically what you are saying is that you can only trust your own mind, since you can't really be sure that anything besides or outside it exists?

No, that is to simple.

Just to get some clarification, do you think your own body exists or is that uncertain as well?

I don't use certain or uncertain. I use that it makes sense or doesn't.

So here we go.
Am I everything? No! Am I nothing? No! I have experiences and some are mine and some come to me. Those that come to me, are from objective reality. But I only have them as experiences, that come to me. They are not mine as mine, because they come to me.
So I do coherence as truth in a sense. I check how I can make sense of all my experiences, both internal and external as those that come to me. And in everyday words, the world, the universe and all those words make sense to me. But that is the point. It is epistemological solipsism.
I can only talk about the world as I make sense of it and I do accept objective reality, but I can only test that one as me.

In another sense I do pragmatism. My beliefs seem to work and that is all I have.
So I believe that the objective reality is in general outside my mind as it appears to me, but that is the point. I can't give evidence, reason, logic, truth, proof and what not for that the objective reality is in general outside my mind other than as it appears to me. That is Immanuel Kant and "das Ding an sich".

I came to where I am now as a general skeptic, because I kept wondering how we can all in part have different beliefs of what objective reality really is in itself. We can all do that because they are all beliefs.

Cognitive relativism consists of two claims:

(1) The truth-value of any statement is always relative to some particular standpoint;

(2) No standpoint is metaphysically privileged over all others.

Cognitive Relativism | Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy

(2) is the fun one, because that one applies to us all regardless of belief or non-belief.

Regards Mikkel

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

...

No, those are NOT natural laws in the sense I was describing above. Moral laws are aspects of us being a social species and are NOT some fundamental aspect of the universe.
...

So what are moral laws? Do they exist, if they can't be detected by science? It seems they exists, yet are not scientific?

 

[ratiocinator]

Why wouldn't we have evolved to look out for number one? Survival of the fittest and all that?

Classic misunderstanding. The "fittest" doesn't mean biggest, strongest, meanest, or anything like that, it's the best fit for the environment with regard to survival, and it applies to genes, so, for example, helping other individuals in your tribe may well result in more copies of the gene(s) that cause the behaviour to survive because they could well be present in other individuals too.

 

[Polymath257]

So what are moral laws? Do they exist, if they can't be detected by science? It seems they exists, yet are not scientific?

No, strictly speaking they don't exist. They are conventions we set up to govern our behavior. So, at the most, they exists as ideas and aideas can be detected by science, either through their influence on behavior, or more directly via brain scans.

 

[Valjean]

Did you come to the conclusion about folklore, speculation, and foolishness based on your own honest, open minded study of the scriptures, or by what you've heard from others?

I could ask the same question. Did you come to your worldview based on careful study of the Popol Vu, or the Vedas?
Before basing a worldview on a particular work, it's important to understand its history and origins. Few scriptures can be empiracally validated.

For example, did you even bother to look at the context of the scripture you so soundly denounced? Have you bothered to actually study the culture of the ancient Middle East, or are you just assuming they were an ignorant, helpless, child like people? Do you know for sure what they did or did not know about science? It would seem like engaging in such a discussion as we are having would necessitate having a knowledge of the matter under discussion.

Actually I have. I think I have a fairly good grasp of the culture and context from which the bible originated, and the history of ecumenical councils which chose the content of the anthology.
The ancients from which this folklore originated were childlike in many respects. They weren't generally scholars, philosophers or intellectuals, nor were those who wrote down the folklore -- and the religious compilers frequently had an agenda.
The books of the Bible aren't based on reproducible research, testing and critical analysis. This scientific methodology was rarely employed back then. Moreover, subsequent copyists made their own edits, alterations, additions and deletions, as biblical scholars, linguists and other analysts have pointed out.

It's a fact that the vast majority, albeit not all, who make such an attempt at an unbiased study of the scriptures come away with a belief in God. At least that's my experience.

I'm skeptical. Religious scholars may sometimes consider themselves "believers," but their beliefs differ considerably from popular Christian doctrine.

 

[Valjean]

If the non-believer is simply claiming he has not sufficient evidence to believe God, that is an honest and logical mindset. However, it falls apart when the same individual states unequivocally that there is in fact no God. It becomes even worse when casting aspersions on those who do believe in God. Just because one person has no evidence doesn't negate someone else having evidence.

Agreed, and I contend that atheist intellectuals do base their lack of belief on lack of evidence.
Those stating there is no god are making a positive claim, so assume a burden of proof. This, though, is a minority.

 

[Nimos]

In another sense I do pragmatism. My beliefs seem to work and that is all I have.

So I assume you are never wrong about anything ever then, correct? Otherwise your statement that your beliefs seems to work wouldn't make sense, from a logical point of view.
If you at any point in your life realise that you were holding a wrong belief, then it basically mean that you would be unable to trust your own mind. Because how many other wrong beliefs are you currently holding which you are not aware of. And since you can't trust anyone else, you have no method of testing, whether or not your own beliefs are right or wrong. Do you see the dilemma with that?

I came to where I am now as a general skeptic, because I kept wondering how we can all in part have different beliefs of what objective reality really is in itself. We can all do that because they are all beliefs.

Yes, we hold a lot of different beliefs, but we are also fed different information, throughout our life. One might be raised in a home of JWs, and get vastly different information than one raised in an atheist home. You might grow up in a different culture, listen to different news channels, seek different informations.

But the vast majority of people share a lot of beliefs as well. Most people regardless of being religious or non religious, believe that the feeling of love exists. That being tortured or threaten on your life is not good. But these are also kind of simple beliefs, that are easily understood and accepted upon.

Whereas, how do you create the perfect society that secure that all people are happy and no one have a reason to exploit each other, is not. We have different ideas of how such thing is achieved because its complicated, and we might not all have the same experiences or information to draw upon.

And don't get me wrong, that ultimately I can't demonstrate to you, that everything doesn't just exists in your head. But as a way of living and thinking about life, I would find it both extremely frustrating, but also immensely unsatisfying that one can't never really know whether they are sane or insane. Not implying that you are insane, as I don't think you are. But from a logical point of view as pointed out in the first section, one would have no way to tell the difference, if at any point in their life, one have ever held a wrong belief.

 

[Valjean]

It is not at all unreasonable that someone looking at the material universe with all it's wonders should come to the conclusion that there is a God.

This would hinge on your definition of "reasonable." You seem to be using it more in the sense of 'understandable', rather than deductively logical. From this viewpoint I'd agree.

True, it in itself is no proof of God, but at least it could be a somewhat appropriate conclusion. On the other hand there is absolutely nothing out there that would lead one to the conclusion that the universe was created last Thursday. The same goes with unicorns and faeries. All bad analogies.

The point, I think, is that there is nothing out there to counter the assertion that the universe was created last Thursday.

 

[Valjean]

The atheism is way too young metaphysics to be accepted instead of many more respected theism.

???????

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

No, strictly speaking they don't exist. They are conventions we set up to govern our behavior. So, at the most, they exists as ideas and aideas can be detected by science, either through their influence on behavior, or more directly via brain scans.

Fun times.
"No, strictly speaking they don't exist." is something that strictly speaking doesn't exist, because it is a convention we set up to govern our behavior. So, it is an idea you believe in. I don't believe like you, because I do this differently.
Get used to it. Your behavior is not mine not matter how much you invoke a "we". That is also an convention and your "we" is not universal for humans.
You really should learn to check your own cultural conventions and don't treat them as universal for all humans.

You are not God and nor am I. You don't set universal conventions for all humans, not matter how much you invoke an universal "we". It is not there and it doesn't exist as that. It is an idea in your mind and nothing else. No different than gods.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

So I assume you are never wrong about anything ever then, correct? Otherwise your statement that your beliefs seems to work wouldn't make sense, from a logical point of view.
If you at any point in your life realise that you were holding a wrong belief, then it basically mean that you would be unable to trust your own mind. Because how many other wrong beliefs are you currently holding which you are not aware of. And since you can't trust anyone else, you have no method of testing, whether or not your own beliefs are right or wrong. Do you see the dilemma with that?

I am wrong all the time. I am an Aspie.
I change my mind regularly, because how I think and what I experience change. So I am used to not trusting my own mind, because a lot of people tell me that. Yet I figured out how to do deal with that. I have the wrong behavior according to a lot of humans, yet I am still here, so there is something wrong with what they claim.

I know, I can't be right all the time, because I evolve and change. I remember my past and notice how I have changed. I have studied learning and know that to learn something new, which contradicts something old, you have to accept that you have wrong beliefs.

Yes, we hold a lot of different beliefs, but we are also fed different information, throughout our life. One might be raised in a home of JWs, and get vastly different information than one raised in an atheist home. You might grow up in a different culture, listen to different news channels, seek different informations.

But the vast majority of people share a lot of beliefs as well. Most people regardless of being religious or non religious, believe that the feeling of love exists. That being tortured or threaten on your life is not good. But these are also kind of simple beliefs, that are easily understood and accepted upon.

Whereas, how do you create the perfect society that secure that all people are happy and no one have a reason to exploit each other, is not. We have different ideas of how such thing is achieved because its complicated, and we might not all have the same experiences or information to draw upon.

And don't get me wrong, that ultimately I can't demonstrate to you, that everything doesn't just exists in your head. But as a way of living and thinking about life, I would find it both extremely frustrating, but also immensely unsatisfying that one can't never really know whether they are sane or insane. Not implying that you are insane, as I don't think you are. But from a logical point of view as pointed out in the first section, one would have no way to tell the difference, if at any point in their life, one have ever held a wrong belief.

I never said the bold part. It is a straw man.
I said that I have experiences which are not mine and come to me. That is from outside my mind. I just don't know if I am a Boltzmann Brain or not. That is the part of objective reality in itself as independent of the mind.

Consider this:

The cosmological principle is usually stated formally as 'Viewed on a sufficiently large scale, the properties of the universe are the same for all observers.' This amounts to the strongly philosophical statement that the part of the universe which we can see is a fair sample, and that the same physical laws apply throughout. In essence, this in a sense says that the universe is knowable and is playing fair with scientists.
William C. Keel (2007). The Road to Galaxy Formation (2nd ed.). Springer-Praxis.

It is a different scale, but the same problem. I consider that universe is knowable and playing fair. I just don't know.

 

[Nimos]

I never said the bold part. It is a straw man.
I said that I have experiences which are not mine and come to me. That is from outside my mind. I just don't know if I am a Boltzmann Brain or not. That is the part of objective reality in itself as independent of the mind.

Fair enough about you never saying it, that was how I understood what you meant with:

"Since I am a cognitive relativist I don't believe in proof at the core of what reality really is. I believe and that seems to work."

I understood that to believe, that I or anyone else wouldn't be able to proof anything to you, and therefore your beliefs are equally valid. Can you explain what you meant with that statement then?

But even if you are a Boltzmann brain, would it ultimately matter and how would you even know?

Lets say that you are one or at least think you are, at a bare minimum you exist, just as a thought experiment.

So through this brain you experience reality, but as you already said, you make mistakes in what you believe, which must mean that its the Boltzmann brain that is wrong and give you false beliefs? So if you can't trust that, then you can't trust anything it says, let alone that you are a Boltzmann brain to begin with as that might obviously be wrong as well. It seems to end up in some sort of strange circular argument.

Which makes nothing matter in the end anyway, as again, you wouldn't be able to distinguish what is real and what is not real?

I just don't see how that is suppose to work?

Maybe I just don't really understand what you mean.

 

[rrobs]

This would hinge on your definition of "reasonable." You seem to be using it more in the sense of 'understandable', rather than deductively logical. From this viewpoint I'd agree.
The point, I think, is that there is nothing out there to counter the assertion that the universe was created last Thursday.

Except that I was around on Wednesday.