Do You Believe In God, Why? Don't You Believe In God, Why?

[Altfish]

So you believe what you read is the best explanation or you know it?

Or is just your opinion?

These are written by experts in the field they are peer reviewed before publication. As I keep saying, they are the best current explanation.
It is not MY opinion, it is the opinion of the best scientists in their field; I (if I can understand what they are saying) will take it on board because I trust them.
It is a bit like when I had my knees replaced, I went the the surgeon whose qualifications and cv I'd seen, he told me what needed doing, I trusted him and accepted his advice. It is not about belief.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

These are written by experts in the field they are peer reviewed before publication. As I keep saying, they are the best current explanation.
It is not MY opinion, it is the opinion of the best scientists in their field; I (if I can understand what they are saying) will take it on board because I trust them.
It is a bit like when I had my knees replaced, I went the the surgeon whose qualifications and cv I'd seen, he told me what needed doing, I trusted him and accepted his advice. It is not about belief.

So you trust them, but is not about a belief. That is so, because trust is not this:
firm belief in the reliability, truth, or ability of someone or something. (Google).

Yeah, it stops here. You are a believer, you just apparently don't want to admit or you are not aware that you are a believer.

 

[Altfish]

So you trust them, but is not about a belief. That is so, because trust is not this:
firm belief in the reliability, truth, or ability of someone or something. (Google).

Yeah, it stops here. You are a believer, you just apparently don't want to admit or you are not aware that you are a believer.

If you prefer the word believer, so be it. I don't. Belief is accepting as true without proof.
The people I trust have given the proof.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

If you prefer the word believer, so be it. I don't. Belief is accepting as true without proof.
The people I trust have given the proof.

To explain that; i.e proof.

Start here and that is not enough.
Philosophy of science - Wikipedia

I.e. explain what kind of methodology you accept and what is your take on metaphysics, ontology, logic and epistemology.
There are at least 4 different version of what proof is in science and how that connects to reality, existence and so on.
Falsification, verification, coherence and pragmatism.
Then there is the more uncommon ones as science is just culture or a certain version of rationality.

 

[Altfish]

To explain that; i.e proof.

Start here and that is not enough.
Philosophy of science - Wikipedia

I.e. explain what kind of methodology you accept and what is your take on metaphysics, ontology, logic and epistemology.
There are at least 4 different version of what proof is in science and how that connects to reality, existence and so on.
Falsification, verification, coherence and pragmatism.
Then there is the more uncommon ones as science is just culture or a certain version of rationality.

It is NOT fact

It is the best current explanation - why can't you accept that

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

It is NOT fact

It is the best current explanation - why can't you accept that

I want to know how you know it is the best current explanation? Or should I trust you?

If you claim as you do, it is the best current explanation, you have made a positive claim, so you must provide the proof, that it is the best current explanation. Or should I trust you? Well, I won't. I want the proof, that it is the best current explanation.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

Here is the question! What do you think?

I go about my day as if there were no gods.
My personal view is that the existence of gods is inconsequential. I don't believe in taking it on faith that something is good and bad, but to use our own critical thinking and judgement to decide whether or not any given behavior is creating a net help or net harm based on available data.
If there are any god and they just want blind obedience without any critical thinking, then they're not something I would worship anyway. If there are gods and they do approve of doing your best to leave the world better than you found it than I'll find out later. Whatever the case may be, a god existing or not existing doesn't effect how I'm going to live my life now.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I go about my day as if there were no gods.
My personal view is that the existence of gods is inconsequential. I don't believe in taking it on faith that something is good and bad, but to use our own critical thinking and judgement to decide whether or not any given behavior is creating a net help or net harm based on available data.
If there are any god and they just want blind obedience without any critical thinking, then they're not something I would worship anyway. If there are gods and they do approve of doing your best to leave the world better than you found it than I'll find out later. Whatever the case may be, a god existing or not existing doesn't effect how I'm going to live my life now.

How do you do that?

 

[ADigitalArtist]

How do you do that?

It's described within the sentence.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

It's described within the sentence.

No, I know of no data in regards to good and bad. I know of feelings, but not data.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

No, I know of no data in regards to good and bad. I know of feelings, but not data.

I don't base good or bad on feelings. As I said, I weigh net harms vs net helps.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I don't base good or bad on feelings. As I said, I weigh net harms vs net helps.

Harms and helps are what? To me they are in effect variation of bad and good. But you claim them, so you explain them.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

Harms and helps are what? To me they are in effect variation of bad and good. But you claim them, so you explain them.

Goal orientated outcomes within an individual or societal framework.
For example, your tag says you're Shadow Wolf's Aspie Sibling. Shadow Wolf is a transwoman, something condemned by most Abrahamic religions purely because it doesn't meet an unexplained 'good' or 'bad'. Just so-and-so doesn't like it. (Be that so-and-so a god or not, is irrelevant to me.) To me, the only thing that matters is whether or not the existence and acceptance of transgender men and women cause a net social damage. There is no evidence that it does. So I have no good reason to believe it causes net harm, and therefore condemn the behavior.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Goal orientated outcomes within an individual or societal framework.
For example, your tag says you're Shadow Wolf's Aspie Sibling. Shadow Wolf is a transwoman, something condemned by most Abrahamic religions purely because it doesn't meet an unexplained 'good' or 'bad'. Just so-and-so doesn't like it. (Be that so-and-so a god or not, is irrelevant to me.) To me, the only thing that matters is whether or not the existence and acceptance of transgender men and women cause a net social damage. There is no evidence that it does. So I have no good reason to believe it causes net harm, and therefore condemn the behavior.

See, you are of an unique blood type and tissue type. So we kill you and use your body parts as donor parts to people who need them. Net social help!

 

[ADigitalArtist]

See, you are of an unique blood type and tissue type. So we kill you and use your body parts as donor parts to people who need them. Net social help!

This is a reduction of utilitarian thinking. Being in a society where you can lose your personal rights and body autonomy the moment 'the needs of the many' rears its head is a net loss. It generates mistrust of others, antisocial behavior and denial of body autonomy causes psychological as well as sociological dilemmas which are not nothing.

'Tyranny of the majority' is not something supported by utilitarianism.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

This is a reduction of utilitarian thinking. Being in a society where you can lose your personal rights and body autonomy the moment 'the needs of the many' rears its head is a net loss. It generates mistrust of others, antisocial behavior and denial of body autonomy causes psychological as well as sociological dilemmas which are not nothing.

'Tyranny of the majority' is not something supported by utilitarianism.

So back to how this has nothing to do with good and bad. Please explain help and harm.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

So back to how this has nothing to do with good and bad. Please explain help and harm.

I have, twice.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I have, twice.

No, you haven't. You use the words, but don't back them up with explanations. You take them for granted. In effect unless you show otherwise, you take your subjective cognition and emotions for granted. Utilitarianism is a subjective cognitive system for evaluating good and bad.
It is philosophy and belongs to ethics. But you haven't grounded the meta-ethics of good and bad.

Religion is subjective and so is utilitarianism, unless you have solved the meta-ethics.

 

[blü 2]

Certainly. Religion operates in a different realm to science.
Who said this, the "non overlapping magisteriums" ? Gould?

Yes, Gould.

But to the extent that religions claim that God / gods / supernatural beings have objective existence, are not imaginary, then contrary to Gould, their claims are subject to the same rules as any other claim about reality.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Yes, Gould.

But to the extent that religions claim that God / gods / supernatural beings have objective existence, are not imaginary, then contrary to Gould, their claims are subject to the same rules as any other claim about reality.

Yes, science is objective and religion is subjective. Now what is the world?