How often do theists believe they have evidence for God's existence?

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I suspect that Shyanekh concluded, as did I, that it is fair game to call "God" anything one wishes to, as long as it fulfills a motivational role.

We can call whatever we want "smurf" or "Meryl Streep" if we wanted. It's not like the language police are going to smash down our door and haul us away. However, using mutually agreed-upon definitions is useful for effective communication.

It is not necessary to be "logical" about that, because it is a strictly personal choice. It does not need to make sense for anyone else.

Earlier, Shyanekh argued that atheists who actually care about evidence ought to be pantheists. That suggests to me that it's supposed to make sense for everyone.

 

[Erebus]

I'm open to taking a different approach, but I've never seen a good reason to use the word "God" the way you're describing. It strikes me kind of like someone deciding to say that they support wildlife conservation because they have season tickets for the Detroit Tigers.

As you acknowledged, most people don't use the word "God" the way you do, so why do you use it that way? It seems inevitable that it would cause confusion. Is there some compelling reason I'm not seeing?

I suspect that Shyanekh concluded, as did I, that it is fair game to call "God" anything one wishes to, as long as it fulfills a motivational role.

It is not necessary to be "logical" about that, because it is a strictly personal choice. It does not need to make sense for anyone else.

LuisDantas is pretty much right I think. It's probably also worth pointing out that I lean towards a pragmatic perspective over an empirical one. If something is useful (as I feel Theism is) then it makes sense to make the most of it from my perspective. Finally, I don't like to limit the expression of Theism in order to conform to the prevailing "flavour."

 

[Thief]

What jest? I don't think I was using any.



Ignorance is a technical word, and it applies. I am still in ignorance of what you meant. Would you like to clarify?

The least of things.....the way you think and feel.
If you don't have the proper focus....greater things cannot be yours.

Kinda like listening to a barber talk about surgery.....
kinda like nay saying physics, when you have no numbers in your head.
Kinda like saying ... no, when you really didn't consider...yes.

Kinda like criticizing belief ...when you ain't got any.

Kinda like not believing and saying it's ok.....when you never really listened.

That piece about a grain of seed is one of the most common references in faith.
and you don't know that reference?
and you would proceed to nay saying?

hmmmmmm........

 

[LuisDantas]

Earlier, Shyanekh argued that atheists who actually care about evidence ought to be pantheists. That suggests to me that it's supposed to make sense for everyone.

I thought so as well, until post #86. Then I concluded that he is not aiming for that.

 

[Desert Snake]

Earlier, Shyanekh argued that atheists who actually care about evidence ought to be pantheists. That suggests to me that it's supposed to make sense for everyone.

This is how I argue the point,

PAN-THEISM


A-THEISM

'Pantheism is theistic. This idea that they are the same thing has arisen in other threads.

 

[LuisDantas]

We can call whatever we want "smurf" or "Meryl Streep" if we wanted. It's not like the language police are going to smash down our door and haul us away. However, using mutually agreed-upon definitions is useful for effective communication.

True enough, my friend.

However, for "god" specifically that ship has sailed long ago. There is nothing even resembling a mutual agreement on what the word means - and perhaps unavoidably, there is no way to test or contain the concept in order to make it less arbitrary, either.

So it seems to me that the most practical choice we can make is to acknowledge that it is delimited by motivational role alone - and even then I think I can see some exceptions.

 

[LuisDantas]

The least of things.....the way you think and feel.
If you don't have the proper focus....greater things cannot be yours.

Kinda like listening to a barber talk about surgery.....
kinda like nay saying physics, when you have no numbers in your head.
Kinda like saying ... no, when you really didn't consider...yes.

Kinda like criticizing belief ...when you ain't got any.

Kinda like not believing and saying it's ok.....when you never really listened.

That piece about a grain of seed is one of the most common references in faith.
and you don't know that reference?
and you would proceed to nay saying?

hmmmmmm........

The grain of mustard? Is that it?

Truth be told, I never had much use to it and I think Christians would do well in renouncing it entirely. As you have just shown, it is not very clear and far too prone to misuse.

And, uh, I fear you are not making much sense. I half doubt your post was meant to me; it is that unclear.

 

[Thief]

The grain of mustard? Is that it?

Truth be told, I never had much use to it and I think Christians would do well in renouncing it entirely. As you have just shown, it is not very clear and far too prone to misuse.

And, uh, I fear you are not making much sense. I half doubt your post was meant to me; it is that unclear.

But I see you're catching on!.....won't be long now.....
Your denial will end.

 

[Erebus]

Earlier, Shyanekh argued that atheists who actually care about evidence ought to be pantheists. That suggests to me that it's supposed to make sense for everyone.

Atheists have the same evidence for a Pantheistic god that Pantheists do, but the simple presence of the physical world isn't enough to convince them of its divinity. I hold that the reason that this is the case comes down to personal values and one's predisposition towards Theism or Atheism.

Therefore evidence is of lesser importance to both groups than their own values. Evidence isn't ALL that matters, which is what I argued (or at least, attempted to put across) in my original post. You've said as much yourself, you don't see the purpose in a god who isn't intelligent, doesn't possess will and doesn't intervene. If you did see purpose in such a God then the chances are you'd lean towards something akin to Pantheism.

 

[LuisDantas]

But I see you're catching on!.....won't be long now.....
Your denial will end.

Why do you waste our time like that?

 

[LuisDantas]

Atheists have the same evidence for a Pantheistic god that Pantheists do, but the simple presence of the physical world isn't enough to convince them of its divinity. I hold that the reason that this is the case comes down to personal values and one's predisposition towards Theism or Atheism.

Therefore evidence is of lesser importance to both groups than their own values. You've said as much yourself, you don't see the purpose in a god who isn't intelligent, doesn't possess will and doesn't intervene. If you did see purpose in such a God then the chances are you'd lean towards something akin to Pantheism.

I think your disagreement comes from different expectations of meaning for the word "evidence". Penguin is imbuing the term with a quality of being inherently convincing, objective and/or logical, while you are not. He expects evidence to make a difference, while you are instead realizing that whatever evidence there is, it is constant for both pantheists and atheists and therefore failed to make a difference in practice.

It all comes down to whether people should be expected to be logical as opposed to arbitrary when it comes to their beliefs about deities. To which I answer: no, not really.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

LuisDantas is pretty much right I think. It's probably also worth pointing out that I lean towards a pragmatic perspective over an empirical one. If something is useful (as I feel Theism is) then it makes sense to make the most of it from my perspective. Finally, I don't like to limit the expression of Theism in order to conform to the prevailing "flavour."

Still, you know that your view is "non-conforming". When you tell me that I ought to be a pantheist, I'm going to take that as you telling me that I should believe that the universe is a conscious, intelligent being with a will of its own, deliberately shaping our reality in subtle ways. If you actually want me to just acknowledge that there are sacred things all around us without necessarily believing that the universe is literally conscious, then why not just come out and say it? Why all the beating around the bush? Why use terminology that you know will be misunderstood?

It's one thing to have a particular viewpoint yourself; it's another to describe that viewpoint to others in a way that you know will be misconstrued.

 

[Thief]

Why do you waste our time like that?

And you believe you are assisting?
Did you mention earlier that nonbelievers keep believers in line?

and you really think you do?

 

[LuisDantas]

Still, you know that your view is "non-conforming". When you tell me that I ought to be a pantheist,

If he did, then I misunderstood him.

It felt more like he meant that since there are atheists, the evidence of existence itself is clearly not enough in and of itself to convince everyone, even if it is enough for pantheists.

The evidence (existence itself) is legitimate, but not at all decisive. It may at least hypothetically be unimportant as well, even completely irrelevant.

I'm going to take that as you telling me that I should believe that the universe is a conscious, intelligent being with a will of its own, deliberately shaping our reality in subtle ways. If you actually want me to just acknowledge that there are sacred things all around us without necessarily believing that the universe is literally conscious, then why not just come out and say it? Why all the beating around the bush? Why use terminology that you know will be misunderstood?

To the best of my understanding, he simply gave up on expecting misunderstandings not to happen. Much less does he expect either atheism, pantheism or theism to "die out" for logical reasons, I think.

It's one thing to have a particular viewpoint yourself; it's another to describe that viewpoint to others in a way that you know will be misconstrued.

That may be an unrealistic expectation to hold when it comes to discussing matters of belief in deities. They are not entities of objective reality that may be delimited anywhere near that level of precision.

It may well be that deities do not exist at all except as subjective constructs that will simply not yield to rational analysis.

 

[LuisDantas]

And you believe you are assisting?

I'm not particularly hopeful, but yes I do.

Did you mention earlier that nonbelievers keep believers in line?

I presented the scenario, indeed. It is a serious possibility for any Christian or Muslim to consider, too.

and you really think you do?

Of course I do.

 

[Thief]

oh my God!

 

[Desert Snake]

It's flying spaghetti monster time.

 

[Desert Snake]

I worship Cthulhu.

 

[Erebus]

If he did, then I misunderstood him.

It felt more like he meant that since there are atheists, the evidence of existence itself is clearly not enough in and of itself to convince everyone, even if it is enough for pantheists.

The evidence (existence itself) is legitimate, but not at all decisive. It may at least hypothetically be unimportant as well, even completely irrelevant.

Thank you, you've put this across more clearly than I managed.

To the best of my understanding, he simply gave up on expecting misunderstandings not to happen. Much less does he expect either atheism, pantheism or theism to "die out" for logical reasons, I think.

It's something I should be more careful about, but it does get tiring to rehash my views every debate. Particularly when I'm frequently considered to not be a "proper" Theist and subsequently ignored (I'm not saying you did that by the way 9-10ths, but it happens enough to start to grate).

That may be an unrealistic expectation to hold when it comes to discussing matters of belief in deities. They are not entities of objective reality that may be delimited anywhere near that level of precision.

It may well be that deities do not exist at all except as subjective constructs that will simply not yield to rational analysis.

The part I italicized is of particular interest to me, since if that were the case (it's possible, perhaps even highly likely) then I would still consider both Theism and Atheism to be valid responses to it.

 

[LuisDantas]

I guess I believe that to be precisely the case. It has certainly not been evidenced against to my satisfaction - and I don't expect it to ever be, for reasons that should be clear.