Does a belief in a god show lack of education?

[Heyo]

1) Knowledge recieved from an external source is evidence of an external source

KWED said : “Until it has been demonstrated that the god supposedly responsible for any claimed "revelation" actually exists, it cannot simply be assumed to be "authentic".

I understand the logic here and partly agree in that people come up with all sorts of explanations for revelation to deny revelation.
I don’t agree with the logic that revelation itself is not evidence for revelation itself just as I would not agree that the receipt of a letter in the mail is not evidence that someone exists that sent the letter.

Last year in April we had a discussion about how the Covid numbers would be in the near future. An RF member (with an education in science and able to do statistical analyses) predicted the number of deaths from Covid in 2020 in the US wouldn't exceed 20,000.
Dr. Fauci said first he expected 100,000 to 200,000 deaths (which he days later corrected to 240,000 as an upper limit).
I said that Dr. Fauci was an optimist with the first upper bound of 200,000 and that his second number was more to the truth.
My argument countering the low number derived at with statistical analyses was that US citizens are too stupid to handle a pandemic (and I don't even live in the US nor have I ever visited).

As it turned out at the end of the year, we were all wrong, including Dr. Fauci and I. US citizens are even dumber than we could imagine. But I at least hit the correct order of magnitude.

(This is not an anecdote, you can read all that up in the old threads.)

Would you say I have received knowledge from an external source?
If I had (or would now) claim(ed) that my numbers were revelation, would that be evidence for revelation?
Would it be evidence for revelation if I denied that it was revealed to me and that all the facts were clear to see (and I even pointed them out).
Would it be evidence against revelation if my interlocutor in that discussion said his numbers were revealed to him?

Would you (or anyone else) be interested in a (vaguely) scientific test of revelations?

 

[Clear]

Hi @Heyo

Heyo asked : "Would you say I have received knowledge from an external source?"
I have not made any guess whether you figured this out on your own or had an external source of information for your guess.

Heyo asked : "If I had (or would now) claim(ed) that my numbers were revelation, would that be evidence for revelation?
If you received your numbers by authentic revelation then the experience itself is evidence of authentic revelation.
The problem is that authentic revelation itself is personal and I do not think the experience of revelation itself can be shared in any objective manner.
It is evidence to you, and you can describe it to others, but it may not necessarily be evidence to any other person.

Heyo asked : "Would it be evidence for revelation if I denied that it was revealed to me and that all the facts were clear to see (and I even pointed them out).
If it was not authentic revelation then it is not evidence for or against authentic revelation.

Heyo asked : "Would it be evidence against revelation if my interlocutor in that discussion said his numbers were revealed to him?
If it was authentic revelation then it is evidence for authentic revelation regardless of what is said or thought by your interlocutor.
If it was not authentic revelation, then it is not evidence for or against authentic revelation.

Heyo asked : "Would you (or anyone else) be interested in a (vaguely) scientific test of revelations?
Not particularly. I don't think I have ever seen a way to prove or disprove authentic revelation by scientific means.
I am not sure authentic revelation is meant to be proveable by such means.

For example, if a scientist was to exercise authentic faith that God exists and asked God honestly for an answer to a specific question, if the scientist then received an authentic revelation, there is always a way for the scientist (or others) to doubt the experience was revelation.
He may always tell himself that it was an experience born out of desire, or delusion, or in some other way inauthentic.

IF some degree of faith and commitment is generally (not necessarily always) necessary before authentic revelation is received, then how does an anthiest scientist ever bring himself to faith and commitment in the first place so as to ask for revelation?


I am not trying to prove authentic revelation exists or it's nature or any other point.
My point in describing authentic revelation was to point out that there are objective elements of revelation that may (or may not) accompany authentic revelation.
Such objective evidence can show to the person that he actually had the experience he thought he had.


Clear
τωφυνετζω

 

[syo]

I've seen it said to people here on numerous occasions that they are not highly educated if they believe in a god.

Which god?

 

[Heyo]

Hi @Heyo

Heyo asked : "Would you say I have received knowledge from an external source?"
I have not made any guess whether you figured this out on your own or had an external source of information for your guess.

Heyo asked : "If I had (or would now) claim(ed) that my numbers were revelation, would that be evidence for revelation?
If you received your numbers by authentic revelation then the experience itself is evidence of authentic revelation.
The problem is that authentic revelation itself is personal and I do not think the experience of revelation itself can be shared in any objective manner.
It is evidence to you, and you can describe it to others, but it may not necessarily be evidence to any other person.

Heyo asked : "Would it be evidence for revelation if I denied that it was revealed to me and that all the facts were clear to see (and I even pointed them out).
If it was not authentic revelation then it is not evidence for or against authentic revelation.

Heyo asked : "Would it be evidence against revelation if my interlocutor in that discussion said his numbers were revealed to him?
If it was authentic revelation then it is evidence for authentic revelation regardless of what is said or thought by your interlocutor.
If it was not authentic revelation, then it is not evidence for or against authentic revelation.

Heyo asked : "Would you (or anyone else) be interested in a (vaguely) scientific test of revelations?
Not particularly. I don't think I have ever seen a way to prove or disprove authentic revelation by scientific means.
I am not sure authentic revelation is meant to be proveable by such means.

For example, if a scientist was to exercise authentic faith that God exists and asked God honestly for an answer to a specific question, if the scientist then received an authentic revelation, there is always a way for the scientist (or others) to doubt the experience was revelation.
He may always tell himself that it was an experience born out of desire, or delusion, or in some other way inauthentic.

IF some degree of faith and commitment is generally (not necessarily always) necessary before authentic revelation is received, then how does an anthiest scientist ever bring himself to faith and commitment in the first place so as to ask for revelation?


I am not trying to prove authentic revelation exists or it's nature or any other point.
My point in describing authentic revelation was to point out that there are objective elements of revelation that may (or may not) accompany authentic revelation.
Such objective evidence can show to the person that he actually had the experience he thought he had.


Clear
τωφυνετζω

Thanks for the clarification. I've fooled myself again by not listening to my own advice. This is another example of secular language use versus sacral language use. We say the same word but mean different things.

 

[KWED]

Of course this is incorrect.,
An external source need not be verified to be evidence.
If I, as an external source of knowledge tell my child that a specific jar has cookies in it then the fact that he received that knowledge from me and now has knowledge there are cookies in the jar is evidence someone told him that.
It does not need to be verified to you that I told him. I did.
I think you are conflating a thing that happened with trying to prove a thing happened.
I am not trying to prove it.

In your analogy, your existence can easily be verified.
A better analogy would be your child telling you that god told them it was ok to eat all the cookies. Are you going to accept his claim as verified because it came from "an external source"?

I agree.
But, now you are not speaking of revelation but instead you are speaking of proving revelation to another person rather than the simple reality of it happening.

So you believe that if a person claims an event happened, then it must have happened, even if there is no evidence of it happening.
Or are you just calling every imagined or fabricated claim "revelation", which seems to make the whole issue meaningless.

For example: You say you like the Velocity moto 900LC.
If this is true then it doesn't matter that it is verified, you know it is true.
However, IF you are going to try to PROVE it to me, this is different.
You cannot even prove to me you like the Velocity moto 900LC that you say you lilke.
While I cannot tell if you are delusional or lying, it doesn’t matter until you try to prove it.

But I am not involving an "external source". I am merely expressing a personal opinion.
However, If I claimed that I had invented it, that should be treated with scepticism until verified.

If you think something must be proven and verified to be true, tell us why something must be proven or verified in order to be true.

I have never made that claim.
However, extraordinary claims should not be simply accepted at face value, especially if there is no evidence to support them.

I did not say that.
You seem to be making the assumption that I am trying to prove to you that individuals have revelation from God. I am not.
I am simply explaining that individuals who have revelation often have objective evidence that revelation occurred.

You claimed that you had letters, etc, that verified your claim about revelation from god, but you won't present that evidence for examination. Therefore it is reasonable to assume that no such evidence exists.

 

[KWED]

I agree that atheists often make that assertion, but I've never heard any really plausible justification for it.

No they don't. Although they might mention the well-established negative correlation between education and religiosity (ie. the higher the level of education a person has, the less likely they are to be religious).

I think that there is some loose inverse correlation in the Western world between belief in God and amount of university education. But that might be mostly a matter of indoctrination,

Please tell me this is supposed be satire.

or of wanting to fit into a supposedly superior subculture in which atheism is conventional wisdom. It certainly wouldn't apply to theology students. And I don't think that most university graduates are very philosophically sophisticated or able to justify their atheism very well.

Atheism requires no justification as it is not a philosophy or ideology. It is simply the rejection of an extraordinary claim that has no supporting evidence.
Do you need to justify your lack of belief in the invisible dragon in my garage?

Doesn't the plausibility of that one depend in some large part on whether or not one already accepts the initial premise that God exists?

Not really. We know that people suffer from delusions and hallucinations for a number of reasons. Therefor any condition that fits the symptoms must have that diagnosis as a possibility.
Even people who believe in god make that assumption - or are you saying that a Christian or Muslim would accept a Hindu's claim to have actually seen and spoken to Shiva as a genuine experience rather than delusion or hallucination?

 

[KWED]

I am not trying to prove authentic revelation exists or it's nature or any other point.
My point in describing authentic revelation was to point out that there are objective elements of revelation that may (or may not) accompany authentic revelation.

There is no "objective evidence" in memories of personal experience. That seems to be the critical error you are making.

Such objective evidence can show to the person that he actually had the experience he thought he had.

Well, duh!
If I had an hallucination, then I really had that hallucination.
However, my memory of that hallucination does not make the contents of that hallucination real. My carpet didn't really turn into a gently swirling pond full of bright blue algae, even though I remember thinking that it did.

Or to put it anther way, just because a person thinks god spoke to them, doesn't mean that god really did speak to them. And it certainly isn't evidence that god spoke to them.

 

[KWED]

Thanks for the clarification. I've fooled myself again by not listening to my own advice. This is another example of secular language use versus sacral language use. We say the same word but mean different things.

It still catches me out how some people seem to genuinely think that belief itself is "evidence" for that belief, or that personal experience or anecdote is actual evidence for the event being recounted.

 

[Yazata]

It still catches me out how some people seem to genuinely think that... personal experience or anecdote is actual evidence for the event being recounted.

What other kind of evidence is there? What alternative would you suggest?

It's how we conduct our daily lives:

I wonder whether my scissors are in my drawer. So I open my drawer and look. Yep, there are my scissors. My experience of seeing my scissors seems like excellent evidence for the scissors actually being there.

It's also the basis of scientfic empiricism:

As wikipedia puts it: "In philosophy, empiricism is a theory that states that knowledge comes only or primarily from sensory experience... Empiricism in the philosophy of science emphasizes evidence, especially as discovered in experiments. It is a fundamental part of the scientific method that all hypotheses and theories must be tested against observations of the natural world rather than resting solely on a priori reasoning, intuition, or revelation."

Empiricism - Wikipedia

Much of the weight in the last sentence seems to be hanging from the word 'observations'. What is an observation if not a personal experience? In science a lot of emphasis is placed (rightly in my opinion) on confirmation and corroboration by others, largely as a method of increasing objectivity. But an unfriendly critic could point out that it is just as vulnerable to the 'ad populum' jibe as religious experience.

Mathematics is arguably based on intuitions of logical necessity. Again, something like objectivity derives from the fact that many/all mathematicians experience the same intuition.

 

[Sheldon]

What other kind of evidence is there? What alternative would you suggest?

Something that is falsifiable, testable, and remotely objective just for starters. If I claimed I can fly, but only when it can't be detected in any empirical way, can anyone really believe that is remotely evidence I can fly?

Anecdotal evidence alone is pretty weak evidence, and obviously the nature of the evidence must reflect the nature of the claim.

"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."

 

[Sheldon]

I wonder whether my scissors are in my drawer. So I open my drawer and look. Yep, there are my scissors. My experience of seeing my scissors seems like excellent evidence for the scissors actually being there.

A poor analogy, this is more like you telling me there are invisible scissors somewhere, and that you've seen them. Your scissor analogy was falsifiable, your god claim is not.

 

[Revoltingest]

Much of the weight in the last sentence seems to be hanging from the word 'observations'. What is an observation if not a personal experience? In science a lot of emphasis is placed (rightly in my opinion) on confirmation and corroboration by others, largely as a method of increasing objectivity. But an unfriendly critic could point out that it is just as vulnerable to the 'ad populum' jibe as religious experience.

Even this friendly critic can see people taking sort of
a faith based approach to science, ie, believing that
it's "true" or having too much certainty when a more
open approach is wiser.
Fortunately, science is a process that tends to self
correct, which makes it useful.

 

[Revoltingest]

A poor analogy, this is more like you telling me there are invisible scissors somewhere, and that you've seen them. Your analogy was falsifiable.

To be falsifiable is high praise in the scientific method.
Heaven forbid that our friend would ever endure Pauli style criticism.
Das is nicht nur nicht richtig.
Es ist nicht einmal falsch!

 

[Sheldon]

Das is nicht nur nicht richtig.
Das ist nicht einmal falsch!

Perfectly put, if we can demsonrate an idea is wrong, then we have learned something, and thus the idea has some value.

 

[Heyo]

What other kind of evidence is there? What alternative would you suggest?

Evidence, in science and to most secular people, can be shown to others. There is no such thing as "personal evidence", as @Clear calls it, in science.
I know that believers have their own dictionary but even then I often run into the problem of different languages.

 

[KWED]

What other kind of evidence is there? What alternative would you suggest?

It's how we conduct our daily lives:

I wonder whether my scissors are in my drawer. So I open my drawer and look. Yep, there are my scissors. My experience of seeing my scissors seems like excellent evidence for the scissors actually being there.

It's also the basis of scientfic empiricism:

As wikipedia puts it: "In philosophy, empiricism is a theory that states that knowledge comes only or primarily from sensory experience... Empiricism in the philosophy of science emphasizes evidence, especially as discovered in experiments. It is a fundamental part of the scientific method that all hypotheses and theories must be tested against observations of the natural world rather than resting solely on a priori reasoning, intuition, or revelation."

Empiricism - Wikipedia

Much of the weight in the last sentence seems to be hanging from the word 'observations'. What is an observation if not a personal experience? In science a lot of emphasis is placed (rightly in my opinion) on confirmation and corroboration by others, largely as a method of increasing objectivity. But an unfriendly critic could point out that it is just as vulnerable to the 'ad populum' jibe as religious experience.

Mathematics is arguably based on intuitions of logical necessity. Again, something like objectivity derives from the fact that many/all mathematicians experience the same intuition.

You misunderstand.
If you want others to accept that x happened, you will need more than "I saw it happen". Especially if the claim is something extraordinary or unlikely.
Also, you simply seeing an object is no guarantee that it is actually there. As we all know, hallucinations and delusions happen, and they seem absolutely real to the person experiencing them. In scientific terms, other people will have to independently open the drawer and also see the same scissors in the same place. They will also open other drawers to verify that scissors don't appear in every drawer. That becomes "evidence" rather than "anecdote" or "personal experience".

 

[Clear]

Hi @Heyo
Heyo said : “I've fooled myself again by not listening to my own advice.”
Ok.
I do agree that "metaphysical" conversations are difficult and complicated in ways simple physical conversations may not be. Good luck Heyo.



Clear said : “Knowledge recieved from an external source is evidence of an external source”
KWED responded : “Only if that external source has been verified. “
Clear explained : "Of course this is incorrect.,
An external source need not be verified to be evidence.
If I, as an external source of knowledge tell my child that a specific jar has cookies in it then the fact that he received that knowledge from me and now has knowledge there are cookies in the jar is evidence someone told him that.
It does not need to be verified to you that I told him. I did.
I think you are conflating a thing that happened with trying to prove a thing happened.
I am not trying to prove it.
KWED replied : In your analogy, your existence can easily be verified.

You are again conflating a thing that happened with trying to prove a thing happened. If it happened, it happened. It needs no verification by anyone.




KWED said : “Until then it is merely a claim that it came from an external rather than an internal source.”
Of course this is incorrect.
It is not merely a claim that I told him about the cookie jar. It actually happened.

I think you are conflating actual reality with trying to prove that reality to another person..
In reality, if a tree falls in a forest, it does not need to be verified by anyone.
It is simply a reality independent upon anyone else knowing it happened or believing it happened.
KWED : So you believe that if a person claims an event happened, then it must have happened, even if there is no evidence of it happening.

Of course not, you are confused. If an even happened, then it happened whether one claims it happened or does not claim it happened.
The event needs no verification that it happened.


KWED asked : “Or are you just calling every imagined or fabricated claim "revelation", which seems to make the whole issue meaningless.”
You are confused and becoming illogical.
Of course imagined or fabricated claims are not necessarily true.
I am not talking about imagined or fabricated claims.
I am claiming that authentic events are authentic events independent of being verified by anyone as per my "tree falling in a forest example".
No one ever need know about a tree falling, yet if it fell, it fell and it's falling is evidence that it fell.

Authentic knowledge and insight from an external source is still authentic knowledge and insight from an external source whether noticed or proven to anyone.



KWED said : “Even if someone claims to have had a revelation, there is no way of knowing if they are merely delusional or lying."
Clear said : "I agree.
But, now you are not speaking of revelation but instead you are speaking of proving revelation to another person rather than the simple reality of it happening.

For example: You say you like the Velocity moto 900LC.
If this is true then it doesn't matter that it is verified, you know it is true.

However, IF you are going to try to PROVE it to me, this is different.
You cannot even prove to me you like the Velocity moto 900LC that you say you lilke.
While I cannot tell if you are delusional or lying, it doesn’t matter until you try to prove it.

If you think something must be proven and verified to be true, tell us why something must be proven or verified in order to be true.
KWED replied : “I am merely expressing a personal opinion.”

Ok, prove to me that this is your honest personal opinion and that you are not simply imagining this is your opinion but your are actually deluded into this thought or whether you are simply fabricating the appearance that this is your opinion.




KWED said : "Simply saying "but I have evidence that you do not have access to" is a meaningless argument."
Clear said : I did not say that.
You seem to be making the assumption that I am trying to prove to you that individuals have revelation from God. I am not.
I am simply explaining that individuals who have revelation often have objective evidence that revelation occurred.
KWED replied : You claimed that you had letters, etc, that verified your claim about revelation from god, but you won't present that evidence for examination. Therefore it is reasonable to assume that no such evidence exists.”

Whether or not I show you letters is irrelevant to the event actually having happened.
If an event happened, then it is not dependent upon anyone else seeing evidence of it or whether anyone else believes in it and it is independent of another persons assumptions.

You keep deflecting from my claims regarding authentic events themselves as evidence of the event to the concept of proving the event happened to another person.
If an event happened, it is simply irrelevant whether another person believes it happened or not.


Clear
τωσιεισιω

 

[Sheldon]

You are again conflating a thing that happened with trying to prove a thing happened. If it happened, it happened. It needs no verification by anyone.

Sorry maybe I'm misunderstanding but you keep referring to evidence, then keep asserting bare claims don't need to be "proved"? This makes no sense to me sorry, a bare claim is pretty meaningless without corroborating evidence.

I've emboldened that last claim as it seems nothing more than a redundant tautology? How are you claiming we know something happened if it cannot be verified?

 

[Bird123]

I've seen it said to people here on numerous occasions that they are not highly educated if they believe in a god.

I've seen it said to some that claim that a god has spoken to them that they are possibility suffering of mental illness.

Do you think these hold truth's?

Is a person who believes in God less intelligent than a person who believes God does not exist? I would say they are the same since they both rely on beliefs.

If God exists, then God can be found. On the other hand, Is anyone really looking for God? I find so many people spreading their beliefs, yet no one saying they are searching for God. Those I run into claim to already know all the answers. What are they really seeking??? It's not God!!

For those who really seek, God can be found. On the other hand, it's going to take a degree of understanding and knowledge or that conversation with God would just be confusing.

I have found no religion that really understands God. On the other hand, religions and even atheists carry pieces of the puzzle, I surely would not depend on any of them coming up with all those answers they claim to know.

God gave everyone a different view to guaranty mankind a larger view than any one person could have. With that in mind, each person knows something others don't. Perhaps, the only less intelligent person is the one who rates themselves so much better or intelligent than others. They are blind to the opportunity to learn that stands before them.

We are all God's children, Special in our own ways. We all have our talents that will lead those around us forward. Do not allow anyone to convince you otherwise for intelligence is not what you are receiving from them.

That's what I see. It's very clear!!

 

[Clear]

Clear said to KWED: “You are again conflating a thing that happened with trying to prove a thing happened. If it happened, it happened. It needs no verification by anyone.”

Sheldon said : “Sorry maybe I'm misunderstanding but you keep referring to evidence, then keep asserting bare claims don't need to be "proved"?”

Hi @Sheldon

Yes you are both misunderstanding and mischaracterizing.

I maintain that a real event is real independent of proof and that the fact that an event occurred itself IS proof it occurred.
Hence my example that if a tree falls in the forest then it fell whether or not someone can prove it feel. The fallen tree is proof that the tree fell.

I am referring to the characteristics of real events and I am not referring to the characteristics of “bare claims”.

I do not maintain that a “bare claim” either needs or doesn’t need to be proved.


Given the definition of a tautology as “a formula or assertion that is true in every possible interpretation” then you are correct, I am stating a tautology.
I assume that, since it is correct and difficult to argue against, this is why KWED and you want to re-characterize and re-write and change what my claim is.


Sheldon said : “How are you claiming we know something happened if it cannot be verified?”

You are confused.
I never claimed you could know something happened to another person or that you could verify an event as true any more than KWED can prove he actually is expressing his personal opinion that he likes the Velocity moto 900L.
We may agree that a sentence appeared under his name that implied KWED liked the Velocity Moto 900LC motorcycle.
If somehow we could prove KWED wrote the opinion, we still cannot tell the truth of the claim.
Perhaps he is delusional or lying or trying to impress others or he is fabricating the appearance of an opinion for other reasons.


Yes, I offered a tautology.
The tautology is that real events often carry with them objective evidence that they happened.
This is not to say that can be proven to another person or even that someone cares to try to prove them or that they need any verification or proving to have happened.
Hence the fallen tree example and the example of authentic revelation.


Clear
τωσισιτωω