Are God Concepts Incoherent?

[Left Coast]

You are not using physical terms. You are using mental terms. Now express your quote in physical terms.

Mikkel

Me telling you what I'm thinking is an expression in physical terms, isn't it? I'm not attempting a mind meld here.

 

[Curious George]

I find nothing incoherent in the notion that I experience qualia, such as the feeling of loving, but my claim to experience the feeling of loving cannot be falsified. At least, not in so far as anyone but myself is concerned.

And herein we see that sometimes it is far more reasonable to believe unfalsifiable notions rather than trying to test them. Were you to tell me that you love your son, it is far more reasonable for me to simply believe you than to hunt you down and hook electrodes up to your brain to acquire the data necessary to establish what I believe is the truth of the matter.

I think that it is easier to fall into a trap of accusing other of unreasonable or incoherent thought than it is to accept that human beliefs are rooted in a completely of both reason and feeling. Much of this reasoning is inductive and would therefore not stand strict tests for "coherence."

 

[Left Coast]

It doesn't need to establish this.

If a theist wants to argue that their god is somehow exempt from empirical investigation, this still doesn't automatically mean that their belief in the god is justified. Maybe the theist can do it and maybe they can't, but until they actually justify their beliefs by some sort of sound method, their beliefs are unjustified.

The question that matters is whether justification has happened, not whether justification is possible.

"You have not conclusively ruled out that my beliefs could potentially be justified by something other than empirical evidence" does not equal "I have justified my beliefs without empirical evidence."

I agree with this. This is why I generally consider myself an agnostic atheist. Folks like blu and ecco, who I'd call "hard" or "strong" or "gnostic" atheists, are positively asserting that there is nothing beyond the physical/natural. Which I don't think they've established, even if we have no positive evidence for the non-physical or supernatural. It's really a dispute between the "strong" and "weak" atheist positions.

 

[Curious George]

I agree with this. This is why I generally consider myself an agnostic atheist. Folks like blu and ecco, who I'd call "hard" or "strong" or "gnostic" atheists, are positively asserting that there is nothing beyond the physical/natural. Which I don't think they've established, even if we have no positive evidence for the non-physical or supernatural. It's really a dispute between the "strong" and "weak" atheist positions.

I generally take issue with the notion of agnostic atheist. You certainly have beliefs. Do you believe that it is equally possible for there to be a god amongst that which is not empirically verifiable or do you simply believe that it is possible that there could be a god in that which is not empirically verifiable.

I think people who believe there is no god but can entertain the possibility, no matter how remote, are often drawn to the label of agnosticism in one way or another.

 

[Left Coast]

I generally take issue with the notion of agnostic atheist. You certainly have beliefs.

Certainly, yes. I just wouldn't say those beliefs (as they pertain to gods) rise to the level of knowledge.

Do you believe that it is equally possible for there to be a god amongst that which is not empirically verifiable or do you simply believe that it is possible that there could be a god in that which is not empirically verifiable.

Interesting question, I'm not sure. More the latter, I think? The notion of God I find most plausible or convincing is the idea that he/she/it is the ground of being, though the arguments for that idea are not without their challenges, and I'm not all the way to buying it at this point.

I think people who believe there is no god but can entertain the possibility, no matter how remote, are often drawn to the label of agnosticism in one way or another.

Yes, I think so too.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I agree with this. This is why I generally consider myself an agnostic atheist.

I don't see how that follows. Why would that make you an agnostic?

Personally, I have no particular reason to have a special standard for gods. I don't go around saying that I'm "agnostic" about, say, my beliefs on the number of grocery stores I have in my town; I don't see why I should do the same about gods. If someone isn't going to challenge me on this (the number is four, BTW) and argue that I can't exclude the possibility of invisible grocery stores in some unseen realm, or that their personal definition of "grocery store" includes anywhere that provides even metaphorical sustenance so I should also be including the library, then I'm not going to take them any more seriously when they make these sorts of rebuttals about gods.

Folks like blu and ecco, who I'd call "hard" or "strong" or "gnostic" atheists, are positively asserting that there is nothing beyond the physical/natural. Which I don't think they've established, even if we have no positive evidence for the non-physical or supernatural. It's really a dispute between the "strong" and "weak" atheist positions.

Personally, I reject the whole idea of a "natural/supernatural" dichotomy. There's just stuff that exists. In my experience, the term "supernatural" just means "stuff I'm not justified in believing in but want to believe in anyway." Maybe some of the "supernatural" exists and maybe some of it doesn't; if it exists, once its existence is well-supported, it will be re-labelled as "natural." This is the way this tends to work.

 

[Left Coast]

I don't see how that follows. Why would that make you an agnostic?

Personally, I have no particular reason to have a special standard for gods. I don't go around saying that I'm "agnostic" about, say, my beliefs on the number of grocery stores I have in my town; I don't see why I should do the same about gods. If someone isn't going to challenge me on this (the number is four, BTW) and argue that I can't exclude the possibility of invisible grocery stores in some unseen realm, or that their personal definition of "grocery store" includes anywhere that provides even metaphorical sustenance so I should also be including the library, then I'm not going to take them any more seriously when they make these sorts of rebuttals about gods.

I agree, because of the definition of what a grocery store is. An invisible, undetectable grocery store ceases to really meaningfully be a grocery store, right?

I'm agnostic re: God in the sense that I don't know whether he/she/it exists.

Personally, I reject the whole idea of a "natural/supernatural" dichotomy. There's just stuff that exists. In my experience, the term "supernatural" just means "stuff I'm not justified in believing in but want to believe in anyway." Maybe some of the "supernatural" exists and maybe some of it doesn't; if it exists, once its existence is well-supported, it will be re-labelled as "natural." This is the way this tends to work.

That's true, it's more semantic than anything I suppose. I think nPeace even made that point to me a while back, as a theist. The supernatural is indistinguishable from stuff we'd call natural if we knew more about it.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Certainly, yes. I just wouldn't say those beliefs (as they pertain to gods) rise to the level of knowledge.

Would you say that your beliefs about anything rise to the level of knowledge?

It's fine to acknowledge that all human knowledge is tentative, but calling yourself an agnostic only when it comes to god-claims implies that you recognize a higher degree of uncertainty with knowledge about gods than you do with knowledge in general. How do you justify this?

 

[Curious George]

Certainly, yes. I just wouldn't say those beliefs (as they pertain to gods) rise to the level of knowledge.

Knowledge is a subset of belief. Do we really distinguish between beliefs that are not true and justified and beliefs that are true and justified on regular basis?

We will act as we will regarding our beliefs whether or not the belief is true. This is because the truth of a belief is entirely Independent of us.

This only leaves the facet of justification on which to create any meaningful differentiation between belief and knowledge. Yet when all is said and done, you believe something is true/not true/equally possible to be true or not true.

If you believe the latter most, then i can understand why you would attach to the agnostic label. I have just found that fewer than most who do ascribe the label of agnosticism to themselves tend toward this belief.

 

[Left Coast]

Would you say that your beliefs about anything rise to the level of knowledge?

Sure. I'd say I know my own name, for example. I'd say I know I'm sitting in a chair typing on a computer. I'd say all kinds of mundane, non-controversial things about my life that I'd think we would agree are facts, I "know."

It's fine to acknowledge that all human knowledge is tentative, but calling yourself an agnostic only when it comes to go-claims implies that you recognize a higher degree of uncertainty with knowledge about gods than you do with knowledge in general. How do you justify this?

I wouldn't say that. I think I'd call myself agnostic about other things as well. How many stars there are in the universe, for example. Or here's another example: I would say I believe that increasing the minimum wage in my country would be good for the economy. I don't think my degree of confidence in that claim rises to knowledge in the way I'd say I know more concrete, basic things. Does that help explain the difference?

 

[Left Coast]

Knowledge is a subset of belief. Do we really distinguish between beliefs that are not true and justified and beliefs that are true and justified on regular basis?

We will act as we will regarding our beliefs whether or not the belief is true. This is because the truth of a belief is entirely Independent of us.

I agree with that. if you're confident something is true, you'll act accordingly, whether you're right or not.

This only leaves the facet of justification on which to create any meaningful differentiation between belief and knowledge. Yet when all is said and done, you believe something is true/not true/equally possible to be true or not true.

I wouldn't say things are quite that simple. From a scientific perspective, conclusions about the accuracy of things are probabilistic, e.g. it's very likely that x causes y, etc. Conclusions are not binary or trinary, there's a whole range of possibilities, from incredibly unlikely to incredibly likely and everything in between.

If you believe the latter most, then i can understand why you would attach to the agnostic label. I have just found that fewer than most who do ascribe the label of agnosticism to themselves tend toward this belief.

With regard to non-physical or "supernatural" claims, we have no ability to assess them empirically, as I think we agree. So since I have no way of knowing how to evaluate the accuracy of a claim one way or another, I conclude that I simply don't know, ie I'm agnostic about it. The only thing that would tip the scales at that point would be a priori arguments that don't rely on empirical data.

 

[izzy88]

Personally, I have no particular reason to have a special standard for gods. I don't go around saying that I'm "agnostic" about, say, my beliefs on the number of grocery stores I have in my town; I don't see why I should do the same about gods.

The definition of "agnostic" is "a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (such as God) is unknown and probably unknowable."

Even if you don't know how many grocery stores there are, you believe (at least I hope) that it is something that can be known. That's why you don't call yourself agnostic in regards to the number of grocery stores.

If you believe that the possible existence of a deity is unknown and probably unknowable, you are an agnostic.

If you believe that the possible existence of a deity is knowable and that we have sufficient evidence to conclude that no deities exist, you are an atheist.

Personally, I reject the whole idea of a "natural/supernatural" dichotomy. There's just stuff that exists. In my experience, the term "supernatural" just means "stuff I'm not justified in believing in but want to believe in anyway."

Here again, you aren't using terms as they are actually defined. You can make up your own definitions for words all you want, as you've done with several words now, but don't expect to have productive or meaningful conversations with anyone about these things because you'll be using the same words to refer to different concepts - effectively speaking different languages without knowing it.

The definition of "supernatural" is "of or relating to an order of existence beyond the visible observable universe."

The logical implication of what you say here...

Maybe some of the "supernatural" exists and maybe some of it doesn't; if it exists, once its existence is well-supported, it will be re-labelled as "natural." This is the way this tends to work.

...is that nothing exists beyond what we can empirically observe. If you want to be a strict materialist, that's fine, but that doesn't then allow you to change the definitions of words.

 

[Curious George]

I agree with that. if you're confident something is true, you'll act accordingly, whether you're right or not.



I wouldn't say things are quite that simple. From a scientific perspective, conclusions about the accuracy of things are probabilistic, e.g. it's very likely that x causes y, etc. Conclusions are not binary or trinary, there's a whole range of possibilities, from incredibly unlikely to incredibly likely and everything in between.

I understand that we can break down our belief by confidence level. This still does not change the fact that we believe some claim is more likely than not or equally likely as not.

With regard to non-physical or "supernatural" claims, we have no ability to assess them empirically, as I think we agree. So since I have no way of knowing how to evaluate the accuracy of a claim one way or another, I conclude that I simply don't know, ie I'm agnostic about it. The only thing that would tip the scales at that point would be a priori arguments that don't rely on empirical data.

And i would bring the discussion back to belief. Does your lack of knowing how to evaluate the accuracy of claims mean that you believe the supernatural claim is equally likely to be true as it is to not be true?

 

[Left Coast]

I understand that we can break down our belief by confidence level. This still does not change the fact that we believe some claim is more likely than not or equally likely as not.

That's true. I haven't thought through the percentages, but I suppose we could get very nitpicky and define a specific percentage of confidence level, below which we're "agnostic" and above which we're "gnostic."

And i would bring the discussion back to belief. Does your lack of knowing how to evaluate the accuracy of claims mean that you believe the supernatural claim is equally likely to be true as it is to not be true?

What I mean is that I don't even know how to begin assigning a likelihood to the claim.

I'm trying to think of reasons I'd find one supernatural claim more likely than another. Internal coherence/lack of contradictions would be one. I'll have to ponder if there are others.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I agree, because of the definition of what a grocery store is. An invisible, undetectable grocery store ceases to really meaningfully be a grocery store, right?

I have no more reason to discount the idea of a non-physical grocery store than I do the idea the of a non-physical god.

And even if we consider physical causes, the number of grocery stores in a town is subject to uncertainty. For instance, I know of at least one case where a grocery store suddenly ceased to exist in a natural gas explosion. If something like that happened here, I probably wouldn't find out for at least a few minutes.

I'm agnostic re: God in the sense that I don't know whether he/she/it exists.

So you're a weak agnostic, then?

That's true, it's more semantic than anything I suppose. I think nPeace even made that point to me a while back, as a theist. The supernatural is indistinguishable from stuff we'd call natural if we knew more about it.

If you take the dichotomy as a serious proposition, it gets very bizarre... kinda like the issues your OP talked about with gods.

If we took someone seriously when they call something "supernatural," then we'd take this to mean "this thing is impossible to incorporate into a physical paradigm."

When we recognize that:

1) the term "supernatural" is usually applied to things we know little to nothing about,
2) history has shown that a physical paradigm can incorporate absolutely anything if we have a good understanding of it,

... we can see that it's an absolutely ridiculous claim to make about anything to call it "supernatural."

 

[Left Coast]

I have no more reason to discount the idea of a non-physical grocery store than I do the idea the of a non-physical god.

And even if we consider physical causes, the number of grocery stores in a town is subject to uncertainty. For instance, I know of at least one case where a grocery store suddenly ceased to exist in a natural gas explosion. If something like that happened here, I probably wouldn't find out for at least a few minutes.

If the definition of a god is something non-physical, then I think the evaluation of that claim would be different from the start than claims made about something which has a physical definition. If something is physical by definition, like a grocery store, than alleging there's a non-physical one seems to violate the very definition of the thing, like a square circle. We don't have that conundrum with a non-physical deity.

So you're a weak agnostic, then?

At some point it just becomes a game of labels and I don't really care.

If you take the dichotomy as a serious proposition, it gets very bizarre... kinda like the issues your OP talked about with gods.

If we took someone seriously when they call something "supernatural," then we'd take this to mean "this thing is impossible to incorporate into a physical paradigm."

When we recognize that:

1) the term "supernatural" is usually applied to things we know little to nothing about,
2) history has shown that a physical paradigm can incorporate absolutely anything if we have a good understanding of it,

... we can see that it's an absolutely ridiculous claim to make about anything to call it "supernatural."

I'm not sure #2 is completely true, but in general I take your point.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

The definition of "agnostic" is "a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (such as God) is unknown and probably unknowable."

Even if you don't know how many grocery stores there are, you believe (at least I hope) that it is something that can be known.

Not with certainty, no.

I definitely haven't solved the problem of epistemological solipsism; have you?

And that aside, I'm a human being with imperfect senses, imperfect memory, and incomplete access to information. Haven't you ever had the experience of being surprised to learn that something you thought you knew was actually false?

If you believe that the possible existence of a deity is unknown and probably unknowable, you are an agnostic.

If you believe that the possible existence of a deity is knowable and that we have sufficient evidence to conclude that no deities exist, you are an atheist.

Atheist and agnostic aren't mutually exclusive categories.

Here again, you aren't using terms as they are actually defined.

That's right. I'm inferring a definition from how they're used in practice. I'm saying that the term "supernatural" is generally used dishonestly.

The definition of "supernatural" is "of or relating to an order of existence beyond the visible observable universe."

I hope you recognize that this isn't how the term is actually used, since there's a whole lot of stuff from gravity to electromagnetic waves to quarks that aren't visible but are generally not considered to be "supernatural."

Look at the things that are considered supernatural and the things that aren't. The dividing line is evidence.

The logical implication of what you say here...

...is that nothing exists beyond what we can empirically observe.

No, it really isn't. Try reading it again.

 

[Tambourine]

You are not using physical terms. You are using mental terms. Now express your quote in physical terms.

Mikkel

But isn't the state (and contents) of your mind dependent on physical states in your brain, Mikkel?

 

[Tambourine]

I generally take issue with the notion of agnostic atheist. You certainly have beliefs. Do you believe that it is equally possible for there to be a god amongst that which is not empirically verifiable or do you simply believe that it is possible that there could be a god in that which is not empirically verifiable.

I think people who believe there is no god but can entertain the possibility, no matter how remote, are often drawn to the label of agnosticism in one way or another.

"Agnosticism" isn't really about a lack of beliefs, though, it's about a lack of certainty in knowledge. And if one lacks knowledge concerning the supposed the existence of the divine, I would argue that it is perfectly reasonable to conclude, however temporarily, that the divine does not exist.

Unless you want to argue that atheism is a lack of belief in the divine, which would be a fair argument to make (not all atheists are Secular Humanists, after all).

 

[PureX]

I'm not sure what the difference is. The relations I'm experiencing when I say things are equal are physical ones, aren't they? If I have two apples in one basket, and two apples in another basket, I can coherently say I have an equal number of apples in each basket. So it's a description of experienced relation, but a clearly physical one. What am I missing?

Numbers don't exist. All you have are apples (in the materialist's concept of reality). And yet somehow, you are relating the apples to each other as individuals, and as groupings, and experiencing, as 'real', the "equality" of one grouping with another. How can this be when all that can exist are the physical apples?

Numbers have no physicality. Therefor they cannot exist in a materialist's reality, because in a materialist's definition of reality, existence is defined by it's physical presence.

When we say two things are equal in a particular way, we're not saying they're identical in every respect.

Equal means equal. It doesn't mean not equal or somewhat equal. Equality is an ideal state (imagined, but unattainable) that logically cannot physically exist. And yet it clearly does exist as an ideal, and we use it that way, successfully, all the time. So, apparently. the proposition that existence is defined by and limited to physicality is wrong.

If I say a recipe calls for equal parts flour and sugar, no one would understand me to be saying that flour and sugar are identical to each other.

You would be seeking a state or condition of "equilibrium", in that instance, not of "equality". A state of equilibrium is physically possible. A state of equality is not.

I'm not seeing how that description is anything but physical.

What is the physicality of equality when it cannot, logically, physically exist?