Is it Reasonable to Compare Gods with Bigfoot, Fairies, Unicorns, and Leprechauns?

[Nimos]

Why can't we do our own analysis? This would also go beyond religion. Should we not address false health cure claims, or do we let charlatans peddle their potions and let the buyer beware? Going back to religion, in our last exchange we both acknowledged that what one believes affects their societal choices, and hence has an impact on others in society. What folks believe can affect others. If religious claims are seriously presented, why can we not seriously evaluate them and draw some conclusions?

Simply explained (not an expert). When creating medicine you have to go through a lot of testing before you can get it approved and released for sale.

It follows a procedure.

In regards to religion, I guess that it comes down to several things (depending on country). People have religious freedom, if this were to be controlled by the government, it would start becoming a tyranny. So even if one could prove religious beliefs wrong, people would still have this freedom.

The issue is not really what people believe, but that it impacts how we run over societies, laws etc. Imagine in the US if suddenly Islamic laws became mandatory. People would freak out because there are a lot of Christians, yet this is basically what atheists have to live with constantly and in some countries, they are imprisoned or killed due to it.

Furthermore, you still have to present a method of how to disprove God(s), which is just as difficult as proving them. The issue is that the default position is not that of neutrality, but rather in favor of unjustified religious claims.

Let me try and illustrate my position in another way and see if you agree with me. Let’s imagine a scenario similar to the game show “Let’s Make A Deal” in which there are three large curtains labeled from 1 to 3 that hide from view either some sort of prize or nothing at all. I am asked to say what is behind the three curtains and after I have made my claims, the curtains will be drawn back to reveal what really lay behind each curtain. I have no information whatsoever to make an informed claim about what lies behind any of the curtains. Let’s narrow the set of possibilities by saying the prizes are those that were common on the game show. If I guess there is a vacation to Hawaii behind curtain 1 but it is a bedroom set, but there is a vacation trip behind curtain 2 but it is to the Caribbean, what truth value can we assign my claim regarding curtain 1? What if I say there is a car behind curtain 3 and I specify make, model, year, color, and specify optional features as well. When the curtain is pulled back and the real prize is shown to be exactly as I described, down to the optional features, what truth value ca we assign my claiml? My position is that in both cases, the claims can only be considered fiction, for they were not based on any data whatsoever. Even the correct guess on the type of car was a fictional conception because I had no experience of the actual car with it’s unique VIN number and all other information that identify it specifically as an existent thing in reality. I did not guess *that* car. Once the car has been experienced, then any reference I make to it would not be a fiction, it would be referencing an actual *known* thing in reality.

In this way, the “supernatural” and any claimed entities that cannot be demonstrated, hidden behind an imagined curtain impenetrable to science, can confidently be considered fiction.

Im not sure I follow you. The example is a bit messy

If we transform it into claims:

1. You claim that there is a vacation to Hawaii behind curtain 1, but there is a bedroom set.
2. You claim there is something behind curtain 2 which is wrong as it is a vacation to the Caribbean.
3. You claim there is a car behind the curtain 3 and that is correct.

Each of these claims has to be addressed separately. Just because your first two claims were wrong doesn't mean that your third claim is.

The car was true, despite your claim being based on a pure guess.

The same goes for religious claims.

Just because we could prove that Jesus didn't walk on water, doesn't mean that he is not the son of God or that the whole bible is wrong. Maybe those writing the story thought it was more exciting or as the stories got told over and over they got twisted. There could be lots of reasons why something could be wrong.

This is why it would be nearly impossible for anyone to disprove something and why you never should do it. Those making the claims have to prove that it is true.

In this way, the “supernatural” and any claimed entities that cannot be demonstrated, hidden behind an imagined curtain impenetrable to science, can confidently be considered fiction.

Yes, it is considered unverified. It is simply a claim.

No different than you claiming that you can see the future or that you got abducted by aliens. These are claims without any merit to them before being demonstrated to be true. But simply because you can't demonstrate it, doesn't mean it isn't true.

If you got abducted by aliens, these have some highly advanced technology. How would you prove it, you don't know where they came from, or why they abducted you. Yet it happened (Assuming it was true).

You telling me that story, I get skeptical because... come on? where is the evidence? So I just shake my head at you and call you crazy. Then 50 years later the aliens show up.

The correct way for me to handle it is to simply say that without evidence I see no reason to believe you. Doesn't mean that you are wrong, simply that I have no reason to trust the story.

 

[Bear Wild]

It doesn't mean that they do exist either. Which is the point. You can talk about "reductionism", but the question is do you have a method for differentiation the things that you wrongly think are real, from the things that you correctly think are real? Do you even care in any practical way?

So, you are saying we have the ability to know everything about nature at this time? Is everything in our wonderous world only real if it can be measured? If 10 people report the same experience with a land wight in Iceland as a shared experience are all 10 experiences not real? Can we actually measure consciousness at this time in science. Can we actually measure love at this time in science.

 

[Bear Wild]

This would be where I disagree. Given our current understanding of reality today, we cannot seriously entertain the notion that such entities are even possible. We combine this with our factual understanding of both human psychology and the documented history of these kinds of beliefs, and we can disprove it to the very same degree to which we can disprove anything.

Does our current understanding of reality understand our universe enough to say there could not be gods or goddesses? Our form of reality in the industrialized western world is not shared in other cultures. Does that mean other cultures reality is false?

 

[MikeF]

It is not, what science would you apply to before the big bang? We have nothing but theories here. We have no clue what is going on in a black hole, as our known physical laws don't work here.

What is beauty? Why is grass green and not blue? Why is there something rather than nothing? the fine-tuning issue? Morality? Free will do we have it or don't we? The origin of the Universe?

There are lots of things science can't answer now and might never be able to.

Science is not about what question is being asked, it is about whether the question is being addressed in a manner that mitigates the inherent fallibilites of those attempting to answer the question. If a question can’t be answered within the principles and standards of science, then it cannot be answered. The particular methodologies and tools one brings to bear on a question are determined by the question itself. We do not use the Hubble Space Telescope to study microbiology, nor an electron microscope to study distant galaxies. Neither of these would be used to observe and document animal behavior, including our own. If there are limitations to our ability to observe and document phenomena and events then we are stymied until those limitations can be resolved. We would not characterize this limitation as saying science no longer applies.

To your other questions, beauty is a subjective assessment influence by a wide variety of factors, including how we are socialized. Grass is green because chlorophyll molecules reflect electromagnetic radiation in the wavelength range we label green. There is no fine-tuning issue, reality is what it is. Morality is also largely subjective, influence by instinct and socialization. Free Will is a religious concept, but in regards to our ability to make choices, they are neither completely free from influence nor strictly deterministic. I would say science indicates our will is restricted or perhaps encumbered with many factors from instinct to socialization playing a role in shaping our behavior, for that is really all that we are talking about in terms of will, human behavior. I think the origin of the Universe and why there is something rather than nothing are related questions and unfortunately are beyond our capacity to answer. They fall clearly in the category of the unknown.

But there is a more specific word for those types of atheists:

Negative atheism, also called weak atheism and soft atheism, is any type of atheism where a person does not believe in the existence of any deities but does not necessarily explicitly assert that there are none. Positive atheism, also called strong atheism and hard atheism, is the form of atheism that additionally asserts that no deities exist.

I think you missed my point. I am not fussed about what flavor of non-believer someone may characterize me as, I am saying I specifically chose not to self-identify using a term with references to fictional entities in it. This means one that contains the Greek root ‘theo’. My thesis is that by using personal pronouns like “God” or “Allah”, especially when arguing against such concepts only serves to reinforce the confirmation bias of the believer that there is actually something there worth talking about. It only serves to keep the conversation within the false religious paradigm that our world is one in which the possibility of such entities is axiomatically true. I prefer not to concede to that assumption and see it as useful to avoid using bias confirming language as a way of creating some cognitive dissonance and reduce the potential to play into the believers bias.

 

[MikeF]

Does our current understanding of reality understand our universe enough to say there could not be gods or goddesses? Our form of reality in the industrialized western world is not shared in other cultures. Does that mean other cultures reality is false?

There are no *other* realities. Reality would be that which objectively exists regardless of what anyone thinks, culturally or otherwise. Is our 21st century understanding of objective reality greater than that of all previous centuries? Yes.

Our attitude towards, and the way we relate to objective reality, reflects our subjective personality which is affected and influenced by many factors.

Gods and goddesses are well documented fictional constructs and really, those terms are simply category labels for the set of those similar fictional entities. Whether such fictional entities also fall under the general category of myth depends on whether the fictional entity is recognized as fictional or is somehow believed to be an objectively real thing independent of thought.

 

[MikeF]

Im not sure I follow you. The example is a bit messy

Ha, well I tried. Thanks for indulging me.

If we transform it into claims:

1. You claim that there is a vacation to Hawaii behind curtain 1, but there is a bedroom set.
2. You claim there is something behind curtain 2 which is wrong as it is a vacation to the Caribbean.
3. You claim there is a car behind the curtain 3 and that is correct.

Each of these claims has to be addressed separately. Just because your first two claims were wrong doesn't mean that your third claim is.

The car was true, despite your claim being based on a pure guess.

I was trying to convey the notion that the guess for curtain 3, the car, was no more true than any of the other guesses. Any and all blind guesses formed in the absence of any information are fiction, even if they may eventually be shown to have hit on some portion of the truth. There could just as easily been another model car or even a television set and stereo system behind the third curtain. The truth value of all three claims was equal because all three were made absent any information.

Anyway, seems your not buying into my thesis, so we can leave it there. Thanks for playing along.

 

[PureX]

Science is not about what question is being asked, it is about whether the question is being addressed in a manner that mitigates the inherent fallibilites of those attempting to answer the question. If a question can’t be answered within the principles and standards of science, then it cannot be answered.

All hail the mighty deity of science! The determiner of all truth and reality!

 

[ppp]

So, you are saying we have the ability to know everything about nature at this time?

No.

Is everything in our wonderous world only real if it can be measured?

No.

If 10 people report the same experience with a land wight in Iceland as a shared experience are all 10 experiences not real?

Not enough information.

Can we actually measure consciousness at this time in science.

Yes.

Can we actually measure love at this time in science.

Yes,

One question for you.

If 10 people report a similar experience, are those 10 people necessarily correct about the cause of that experience?

 

[MikeF]

All hail the mighty deity of science! The determiner of all truth and reality!

Yes, yes, the hubris of scientism.

 

[ppp]

Others might classify me as an atheist, however I think the term is one born out of a Western religious paradigm and its use feeds the confirmation bias of believers in religious myth. Specifically arguing against "God" confirms in the theist that there is something there to talk about.

It might. But open use of 'atheist' also provides a sense of community and normalcy. And, perhaps more importantly, a lack of a sense of isolation, and a reduction in vulnerability to the predations of religious communities.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

All hail the mighty deity of science! The determiner of all truth and reality!

That was in response to, "If a question can’t be answered within the principles and standards of science, then it cannot be answered." I notice that you didn't even try to falsify it. Of course, your standard for what constitutes an answer might be less than his and mine. I presume he means demonstrably correct answers and not guesses, gut feelings, and intuitions that people choose to believe and call answers despite that fact that such ideas can't be used to predict outcomes and make good decisions based on those ideas.

Yes, empiricism is the only path to knowledge, knowledge being the collection of demonstrably correct ideas. If that were incorrect, you could falsify it with a single counterexample, but you can't and won't.

You are comparing apples and oranges, which is a logical fallacy.
Condemning a person to death is not the same as a person deciding whether or not to believe in God.
One is a matter of life and death and the other isn't. It is only a choice one makes.

You just compared those two - one is such-and-such and the other is not. Did you commit the fallacy yourself in your judgment?

To me they are evidence that the Messenger was speaking for God, although everyone won't see it that way.

And what would you think if I told you that this cup of coffee in my hands is evidence that Elvis is still alive or that George Washington was actually a camel? Would you be interested in why I thought that my evidence pointed to those conclusions? Would you ask how the one leads to the other, or just accept my answer that it does?

Here are some perfectly valid circular arguments:
If the Bible is true then God exists.
If Baha’u’llah was a Messenger of God then God exists.

Why do you consider those circular arguments? They're logically valid conditional statements. It's also the case that if the Bible is true, then the Bible exists. None of these are circular arguments.

It is a belief. It is not a fact since it is not known or proved to be true.

To me, a belief is any idea one considers likely true, which includes demonstrably correct claims (facts). I call these justified beliefs. It seems that by belief, you mean everything else, which for me are unjustified beliefs, which includes possibly correct beliefs not yet demonstrated as such (we will find life elsewhere rather than we are likely to find exo-life), false beliefs (the earth is 6000 years old), and unfalsifiable beliefs (gods exist).

Is everything in our wonderous world only real if it can be measured?

Nothing should be considered real that does not manifest empirically, that is, to the senses.

If 10 people report the same experience with a land wight in Iceland as a shared experience are all 10 experiences not real?

We can't say, but we can say that there is insufficient reason to believe them.

Can we actually measure consciousness at this time in science.

Measure isn't the correct word if by that you mean quantify it. Discern is a better choice. I experience consciousness directly every waking moment.

Can we actually measure love at this time in science.

Same answer. I experience it directly as an attitude, and indirectly in the actions of others. Maybe you should change the word science to experience or empiricism. All of what we know is learned empirically. My skeptical position on the gods you refer to doesn't come from science. Very little of the relevant knowledge in my worldview does. It comes from experience, from tweaking (trial-and-error) best guesses until they are useful and produce desired results.

Are these last two argument for accepting the reality of indiscernible gods that also can't be measured? If so, it fails. Consciousness and love are experienced directly in ourselves and their effects observed in others. We know immediately that they both exist. Not so with nature spirits.

 

[ppp]

Measure isn't the correct word if by that you mean quantify it. Discern is a better choice. I experience consciousness directly every waking moment.

I am going to fuss here and say that being able to distinguish the state from the lack of that state is a measurement. It is just not a granular measurement.

 

[ppp]

Yes, yes, the hubris of scientism.

Science

xkcd.com

 

[MikeF]

It might. But open use of 'atheist' also provides a sense of community and normalcy. And, perhaps more importantly, a lack of a sense of isolation, and a reduction in vulnerability to the predations of religious communities.

Then perhaps we can revamp and update the label. Time to hire a brand consultant?

 

[ppp]

Then perhaps we can revamp and update the label. Time to hire a brand consultant?

I guess I don't see the problem with the label, or with applying it to myself. The term doesn't need fixing. The sigma against the state of being an atheist is what needs fixing. And that lies issue in other people.

 

[Nimos]

To your other questions, beauty is a subjective assessment influence by a wide variety of factors, including how we are socialized.

Yes, but you can't measure beauty.

Is song A more beautiful than song B? Why do we even perceive songs as beautiful, we are not going to mate with them. Eventually, we end up in the brain somewhere, because we are emotional creatures, yet I doubt we will find a single answer here that applies to all humans.

To your other questions, beauty is a subjective assessment influence by a wide variety of factors, including how we are socialized. Grass is green because chlorophyll molecules reflect electromagnetic radiation in the wavelength range we label green. There is no fine-tuning issue, reality is what it is. Morality is also largely subjective, influence by instinct and socialization. Free Will is a religious concept, but in regards to our ability to make choices, they are neither completely free from influence nor strictly deterministic. I would say science indicates our will is restricted or perhaps encumbered with many factors from instinct to socialization playing a role in shaping our behavior, for that is really all that we are talking about in terms of will, human behavior. I think the origin of the Universe and why there is something rather than nothing are related questions and unfortunately are beyond our capacity to answer. They fall clearly in the category of the unknown.

The point is that there are lots of questions that science can't answer. And don't get me wrong, I don't think unjustified guesses are the solution. God did it!! What can you use that for?

Some things simply remain in the unknown and might stay there forever.

I think you missed my point. I am not fussed about what flavor of non-believer someone may characterize me as, I am saying I specifically chose not to self-identify using a term with references to fictional entities in it. This means one that contains the Greek root ‘theo’. My thesis is that by using personal pronouns like “God” or “Allah”, especially when arguing against such concepts only serves to reinforce the confirmation bias of the believer that there is actually something there worth talking about. It only serves to keep the conversation within the false religious paradigm that our world is one in which the possibility of such entities is axiomatically true. I prefer not to concede to that assumption and see it as useful to avoid using bias confirming language as a way of creating some cognitive dissonance and reduce the potential to play into the believers bias.

I agree that the term atheist is a bit weird, but it is useful when having to quickly explain one's position

 

[MikeF]

I guess I don't see the problem with the label, or with applying it to myself. The term doesn't need fixing. The sigma against the state of being an atheist is what needs fixing. And that lies issue in other people.

You are not alone. Most who use it are quite happy with it. I'm just not one of them.

 

[YoursTrue]

Yes, but you can't measure beauty.

Is song A more beautiful than song B? Why do we even perceive songs as beautiful, we are not going to mate with them. Eventually, we end up in the brain somewhere, because we are emotional creatures, yet I doubt we will find a single answer here that applies to all humans.

I
The point is that there are lots of questions that science can't answer. And don't get me wrong, I don't think unjustified guesses are the solution. God did it!! What can you use that for?

Some things simply remain in the unknown and might stay there forever.


I agree that the term atheist is a bit weird, but it is useful when having to quickly explain one's position

I kinda like that analogy about songs. (Since I am a musician, and the older I get the more I actually understand music better...and that I can listen to some pieces of music more than others even though the composers may be very famous.)

 

[MikeF]

Yes, but you can't measure beauty.

Is song A more beautiful than song B? Why do we even perceive songs as beautiful, we are not going to mate with them. Eventually, we end up in the brain somewhere, because we are emotional creatures, yet I doubt we will find a single answer here that applies to all humans.

Exactly. There is no universal standard for these subjective feelings. That is the answer to the question. We are not all wired in exactly the same way, we do not all grow up with the exact same experiences, within the exact same culture, etc. There is no such thing as more beautiful except to the eye of the specific beholder.

The point is that there are lots of questions that science can't answer. And don't get me wrong, I don't think unjustified guesses are the solution. God did it!! What can you use that for?

Some things simply remain in the unknown and might stay there forever.

Of course. No argument from me here.

I agree that the term atheist is a bit weird, but it is useful when having to quickly explain one's position

You and many others. It's simply not the approach I wish to take.

 

[Bear Wild]

There are no *other* realities. Reality would be that which objectively exists regardless of what anyone thinks, culturally or otherwise. Is our 21st century understanding of objective reality greater than that of all previous centuries? Yes.

Our attitude towards, and the way we relate to objective reality, reflects our subjective personality which is affected and influenced by many factors.

Gods and goddesses are well documented fictional constructs and really, those terms are simply category labels for the set of those similar fictional entities. Whether such fictional entities also fall under the general category of myth depends on whether the fictional entity is recognized as fictional or is somehow believed to be an objectively real thing independent of thought.

It is reassuring that we know enough to know there is nothing more. out there than what is defined by our rational brain. The problem is it does not feel that way experientially. When I went through what may be described as a "mystical" experience in coming in alignment with the goddess, my perception and relationship with the world was profoundly changed in what seemed like an instant. The degree in which my perception and interaction of our world seemed greater than what I could understand or explain in normal neurological network patterns. I felt a presence of something far greater than myself. The problem is I cannot explain it in words. They all fail to explain what I experienced from what I have learned from years of medical training and neuroscience. Reality for me had shifted from before this experience. I would like to stay open for views on this so maybe you can explain in our current knowledge and science what happens when we go through a mystical experience and a shift in consciousness.