Let's Present Some Evidence ...

[PureX]

I was about to apologize for that because you had quoted me, but then I didn't quite recall saying anything of the sort and sure enough it was Commoner lol. Though I am quite flattered to be confused with a handsome chap such as Commoner.

OOps, Sorry about that.

 

[Vile Atheist]

OOps, Sorry about that.

Hahaha. No problem.

 

[Vile Atheist]

Questions like where does fire come from, what is it made of, and who owns this knowledge are of a deeper and more profound nature, and could not ultimately be answered in their place and time.

This is what I was leaning towards, more than the uses of fire.

I think we're wrong to assume that our ancestors thought God was the answer to their ignorance. It wasn't, and it still isn't.

Many people still do it now. "Where did the universe come from?" "God did it."

Later, when we find we can sufficiently explain what a fire is (an ongoing chemical reaction) and we no longer need to fear it, we can remove it from the realm of divine mystery, and trust in our own understanding. But I see no reason that this should diminish the idea of God, or the positive experience of God that we had relative to our fear and ignorance. And that we are still having.

It seems like a giant intellectual lazy patch to me. That we cannot currently obtain an explanation for a given phenomenon and just attribute it to God so that we're more comfortable in our ignorance. I would rather wait until a scientific explanation arrives, if it does. But that's simply my preference.

All that happened is that God did for us what we couldn't do for ourselves, until we became able to do it ourselves.

But how do you know God is the cause of it? I understand the concept of "working ideas". I don't agree with it, but I'm pretty sure I understand it. But simply because an idea works does not mean it is the actual cause. I can give you tons of hypothetical working ideas that are also false.

 

[PureX]

But how do you know God is the cause of it? I understand the concept of "working ideas". I don't agree with it, but I'm pretty sure I understand it. But simply because an idea works does not mean it is the actual cause. I can give you tons of hypothetical working ideas that are also false.

We don't know. That's the initial problem. We fear what we don't know because we can't control it. But if God is in control of it, and we can trust in God, then we no longer have to fear our own lack of control of it. It's in this way that the idea of God can relieve us of our fear. And we trust in this process not because we know that "God is in control", but because the process works.

I understand your objection in saying that even though this idea of God does work for us in helping to relieve our fears, that we have no proof that God is actually in control of anything, or that God is benevolent even if God is in control. But we don't know that God isn't in control, either. And what we do know is that the process works for us. So for most of us, this is what matters: not that we know we're right, but that we've found a solution to the problem of fear that works. Most of us are more interested in relief of fear than in righteousness. And not only that, this idea of God can work for us in a number of other ways besides just relieving us of fear of the unknown.

 

[Vile Atheist]

We don't know. That's the initial problem. We fear what we don't know because we can't control it. But if God is in control of it, and we can trust in God, then we no longer have to fear our own lack of control of it. It's in this way that the idea of God can relieve us of our fear. And we trust in this process not because we know that "God is in control", but because the process works.

I understand your objection in saying that even though this idea of God does work for us in helping to relieve our fears, that we have no proof that God is actually in control of anything, or that God is benevolent even if God is in control. But we don't know that God isn't in control, either. And what we do know is that the process works for us. So for most of us, this is what matters: not that we know we're right, but that we've found a solution to the problem of fear that works. Most of us are more interested in relief of fear than in righteousness. And not only that, this idea of God can work for us in a number of other ways besides just relieving us of fear of the unknown.

Sorry, it just seems like a security blanket to me. I understand how the idea can be useful to some people, but I just simply can't buy into it. I have no need for God.

 

[Diederick]

We don't know. That's the initial problem. We fear what we don't know because we can't control it. But if God is in control of it, and we can trust in God, then we no longer have to fear our own lack of control of it. It's in this way that the idea of God can relieve us of our fear. And we trust in this process not because we know that "God is in control", but because the process works.

I understand your objection in saying that even though this idea of God does work for us in helping to relieve our fears, that we have no proof that God is actually in control of anything, or that God is benevolent even if God is in control. But we don't know that God isn't in control, either. And what we do know is that the process works for us. So for most of us, this is what matters: not that we know we're right, but that we've found a solution to the problem of fear that works. Most of us are more interested in relief of fear than in righteousness. And not only that, this idea of God can work for us in a number of other ways besides just relieving us of fear of the unknown.

Heck, it's a placebo, and if it works for you I'm fine with it. Of course it's a bit more complicated than that, as you yourself state ("...can work for us in a number of other ways..."), but it does boil down to something for which there is absolutely no evidence and just the idea that it would be nice if it were real. And it might be... This might seem like a short turn, but that's is really it.

What does bother me about this (faith), besides the people who bother me with its side-effects, is that; in order for this to work; one has to evade sparks of intelligence trying to get to the bottom of things. Because I think that's how people lose their faith. It's great if it works, but it does require a certain amount of ignorance, conscious ignorance, wilfully not going into certain details of faith. Which is what I have problems with, even with secular 'placebo's', like humanism; I can't cope with not knowing things I believe in.

At least, that's my perspective.

 

[Beaudreaux]

The point of my story is that there is an 'end of the line' to logic and reason. An when we come to that end of the line, and we have no "God", we are stuck. But if we at that moment, reach out to that idea of "God" (forget whether it's "real" or not), that idea of "God" can give us a way to move forward that we did not have and will never get from logic and reason, alone. That idea of "God" can give us hope in the face of complete hopelessness. And it can give us a path to walk that we otherwise would not have. And it's exactly in this way that millions of human beings have been saved from horrible addictions and mental obsessions. Blindly and irrationally trusting in a "God" can and has done for millions of people what no other idea or methodology could do for them. This is what it means to say that "God works for people". And this is why the idea of God is so real for so many.

Their healing is the evidence. And for them, it's overwhelming evidence. If you can't accept their healing as evidence, then perhaps it's because you have not been so in need of it as they have. Or perhaps you have never felt that completely trapped by your own weakness.

So, God is like a placebo? Nothing is really improving our situation or giving solid grounds for hope, but if we pop a couple of God sugar pills we'll get relief from the belief that comes with it?

 

[PureX]

Heck, it's a placebo, and if it works for you I'm fine with it. Of course it's a bit more complicated than that, as you yourself state ("...can work for us in a number of other ways..."), but it does boil down to something for which there is absolutely no evidence and just the idea that it would be nice if it were real. And it might be... This might seem like a short turn, but that's is really it.

First off, the fact that it works is evidence in support of it's viability. And secondly, it's not a placebo because it does work for anyone who chooses to use it.

What does bother me about this (faith), besides the people who bother me with its side-effects, is that; in order for this to work; one has to evade sparks of intelligence trying to get to the bottom of things. Because I think that's how people lose their faith. It's great if it works, but it does require a certain amount of ignorance, conscious ignorance, wilfully not going into certain details of faith. Which is what I have problems with, even with secular 'placebo's', like humanism; I can't cope with not knowing things I believe in.

The concept of God has other positive uses as well. There is no reason that someone using God in the manner described above should feel that if some small aspect of the unknown should become revealed to them by science, that they should suddenly then lose all trust in God. For one thing, many of the questions that we use God to help us deal with CAN'T be answered by science, and will likely never be answered for us by any method in our lifetime. And for another reason: there are many other uses to which we can and do put this God-idea, successfully. So there is no real threat to theism coming from the intellectual progress of mankind.

There have been some religious institutions that chose to view intellectual progress as a threat to their political control over people, but most religions have welcomed intellectual advancement and even encouraged it without a problem. You shouldn't allow one or two misguided instances to color the entire history of religion.

 

[Vile Atheist]

Eh, I think this is about as far as we're going to progress lol. Just a gut feeling.

 

[PureX]

So, God is like a placebo? Nothing is really improving our situation or giving solid grounds for hope, but if we pop a couple of God sugar pills we'll get relief from the belief that comes with it?

If we were to ask every human on Earth right now if believing in God works for them, a huge majority of them would answer "yes". If the idea of God were a "placebo", it wouldn't work. A placebo is a deliberately ineffectual treatment. If the idea of God were the equivalent of a placebo, it would be ineffectual. Clearly, however, the idea of God does work for people, because so many of us choose to hold and use it. So from now on, please refrain from using the term "placebo" in relation to theism. The analogy is false, misleading, and insulting.

 

[PureX]

Sorry, it just seems like a security blanket to me. I understand how the idea can be useful to some people, but I just simply can't buy into it. I have no need for God.

You may have a need of it sometime in the future. Or you may see someone you love in such need, and in either case, it would be good to know that this option exists, and perhaps to know a little bit about how it works. I think it also helps us to be better human beings when we take the time to learn about things that other people find important, even though they may not be so important to us. That's a sign of maturity, I think.

Also, I have enjoyed the conversation simply because you are intelligent and polite and you write well. You present me with smart questions and observations that force me to think, and this process improves us both with practice. I participate in these kinds of discussions on the internet because I truly believe they will help my mind stay sharp as I get older, and because I enjoy the company of other intelligent people. The mind is like a muscle: it needs to be used if we want to keep it in good shape.

Thank you for the conversation, and if you can think of anything to discuss further, I'm happy to engage.

 

[Vile Atheist]

You may have a need of it sometime in the future. Or you may see someone you love in such need, and in either case, it would be good to know that this option exists, and perhaps to know a little bit about how it works. I think it also helps us to be better human beings when we take the time to learn about things that other people find important, even though they may not be so important to us. That's a sign of maturity, I think.

Also, I have enjoyed the conversation simply because you are intelligent and polite and you write well. You present me with smart questions and observations that force me to think, and this process improves us both with practice. I participate in these kinds of discussions on the internet because I truly believe they will help my mind stay sharp as I get older, and because I enjoy the company of other intelligent people. The mind is like a muscle: it needs to be used if we want to keep it in good shape.

Thank you for the conversation, and if you can think of anything to discuss further, I'm happy to engage.

Likewise. Good to get the views of a theist who actually believes in something other than the Abrahamic God.

 

[Diederick]

First off, the fact that it works is evidence in support of it's viability. And secondly, it's not a placebo because it does work for anyone who chooses to use it.
The concept of God has other positive uses as well. There is no reason that someone using God in the manner described above should feel that if some small aspect of the unknown should become revealed to them by science, that they should suddenly then lose all trust in God. For one thing, many of the questions that we use God to help us deal with CAN'T be answered by science, and will likely never be answered for us by any method in our lifetime. And for another reason: there are many other uses to which we can and do put this God-idea, successfully. So there is no real threat to theism coming from the intellectual progress of mankind.

There have been some religious institutions that chose to view intellectual progress as a threat to their political control over people, but most religions have welcomed intellectual advancement and even encouraged it without a problem. You shouldn't allow one or two misguided instances to color the entire history of religion.

I'm not attacking you, I just stated my opinion which I thought was not at all that offensive.

That something works as a placebo doesn't mean it can't work for everyone. Unless it is revealed that it is a placebo. (And then still some people might ignore that and keep on using it.) Right now there is absolutely no evidence for (or against) a Deity, just likelihoods. I may have gone too fast for my story to make sense, I agree that a single scientific discovery won't make someone lose (or get freed from) their faith in a Deity. That would be absurd. What I meant but didn't quite say that explicitly, is that one can't take certain positions, can't simply rise above the 'two options' of faith and science and make an objective comparison. If they would there would either be many less people of faith or people who agree that their Deity is most unlikely to exist, but like the idea of it. Probably both.

Now this must seem terribly presumptuous of me, but I get that. Science, to me at least, has gained great respect. Mainly because it is not afraid to admit mistakes, and actually pursues them. Religion, on the other hand (some exceptions, of course) is predominantly conservative. A trait which simply obstructs progress - a bad thing. The great difference between the two (disregarding which thesis* is more likely to be true) is ignorance. Well, not really ignorance, not-knowing sounds better. Science doesn't know everything and has no means of comforting or giving purpose to people, like a Deity has. We have to ask ourselves, which is better: admitting that you don't know, or insisting that you're right but have no proof of it (and so might be wrong)?

*basically: On one hand there is God, with all the attributes people give It, among which (usually) the creation of this world. On the other hand, there is science, which doesn't have all the answers but does provide interesting scenarios based on actual evidence.

 

[PureX]

I'm not attacking you, I just stated my opinion which I thought was not at all that offensive.

I was not feeling 'attacked', but I appreciate the clarification.

That something works as a placebo doesn't mean it can't work for everyone. Unless it is revealed that it is a placebo.

A placebo is a deliberately ineffectual treatment. Theism is not a placebo. I would appreciate that you drop this analogy.

Right now there is absolutely no evidence for (or against) a Deity, just likelihoods.

There is no proof, but there is evidence. The mere fact that so many human beings have chosen to believe in the existence of a god stands as evidence in favor of the viability of that idea. It does not, however, stand as proof.

Also, I think it would be wise to exclude the term "absolute" from such discussions, as we humans don't have the capacity to determine things absolutely.

I may have gone too fast for my story to make sense, I agree that a single scientific discovery won't make someone lose (or get freed from) their faith in a Deity. That would be absurd. What I meant but didn't quite say that explicitly, is that one can't take certain positions, can't simply rise above the 'two options' of faith and science and make an objective comparison. If they would there would either be many less people of faith or people who agree that their Deity is most unlikely to exist, but like the idea of it. Probably both.

But I don't think these options stand in antipathy with each other for most theists. Most theists view the physical universe as an expression of the divine, so that to study science, is to study the "ways of God".

Now this must seem terribly presumptuous of me, but I get that. Science, to me at least, has gained great respect. Mainly because it is not afraid to admit mistakes, and actually pursues them. Religion, on the other hand (some exceptions, of course) is predominantly conservative. A trait which simply obstructs progress - a bad thing. The great difference between the two (disregarding which thesis* is more likely to be true) is ignorance. Well, not really ignorance, not-knowing sounds better. Science doesn't know everything and has no means of comforting or giving purpose to people, like a Deity has. We have to ask ourselves, which is better: admitting that you don't know, or insisting that you're right but have no proof of it (and so might be wrong)?

What you are describing, here, is a prejudice. You are creating a "character" for science, and a "character" for religion, and then you are attributing bad traits to one character and good traits to the other. But science is just a method we use to investigate how things work. It's not a philosophy. It's not a religion. It's not an intellectual paradigm. And it's not a personality type. It's a simple method of investigation.

Likewise, religions are not people, either. Nor are they character types. They are just groups of people organized around a specific theological idea.

 

[Copernicus]

First off, the fact that it works is evidence in support of it's viability. And secondly, it's not a placebo because it does work for anyone who chooses to use it.

Purex, did you not know that placebos work? That has been scientifically verified. Belief alone can stimulate the immune system. What makes something a placebo is that belief in its curative powers is false and deceptive.

 

[PureX]

Purex, did you not know that placebos work? That has been scientifically verified. Belief alone can stimulate the immune system. What makes something a placebo is that belief in its curative powers is false and deceptive.

The analogy is insulting to theists because the placebo is known to be inert, and it's effect to be psychosomatic. God is not known to be inert nor is the effect of the god ideal proven to be psychosomatic. I realize that atheists might believe that God is an inert idea, but theists do not, and so they naturally take the analogy as an insult to their belief in God.

 

[Copernicus]

The analogy is insulting to theists because the placebo is known to be inert, and it's effect to be psychosomatic. God is not known to be inert nor is the effect of the god ideal proven to be psychosomatic. I realize that atheists might believe that God is an inert idea, but theists do not, and so they naturally take the analogy as an insult to their belief in God.

Perhaps you missed the point, so I'll try to explain it better. A placebo is something that appears to work but really doesn't do what it appears to do. A big part of your argument is that God exists because "God works". I'm just pointing out that the appearance of something working is not sufficient evidence that it really does work. You need something more. In the case of medical science, that "something more" might be a double-blind study. In the case of God, what is it?

 

[Willamena]

A big part of your argument is that God exists because "God works". I'm just pointing out that the appearance of something working is not sufficient evidence that it really does work. You need something more.

Like the appearance of actuality?

 

[PureX]

Perhaps you missed the point, so I'll try to explain it better. A placebo is something that appears to work but really doesn't do what it appears to do. A big part of your argument is that God exists because "God works". I'm just pointing out that the appearance of something working is not sufficient evidence that it really does work. You need something more. In the case of medical science, that "something more" might be a double-blind study. In the case of God, what is it?

The appearance of something working is strong evidence that it is working. It's not proof, but it is pretty good evidence.

YOU, however, would need something more to prove that what appears to be going on is not actually what's going on. The theist is simply satisfied with the result.

 

[Commoner]

The appearance of something working is strong evidence that it is working. It's not proof, but it is pretty good evidence.

That might be true for trivial matters, where establishing the true nature of it is not really of any consequence. Surely this is not the case here. If it is, why have you started this thread?

YOU, however, would need something more to prove that what appears to be going on is not actually what's going on. The theist is simply satisfied with the result.

I really don't understand this argument, it's almost as if you were saying that it doesn't matter if it's true or not as long as it gives you the desired effect. Well...ok, but then why argue that god exists?

I didn't think we were here establishing "if it works", I thought we were here trying to go a bit beyond that.