Theism, Agnosticism, & Atheism: Which Is Logically The Weakest?

[joe1776]

Yes, intuition is very good for quick decisions that are only required to be 'good enough' for survival..

Science over the last 20 years or so is confirming that moral judgments are intuitive which means that all of the important decisions we humans make affecting how we treat each other are intuitive.

 

[Polymath257]

Science over the last 20 years or so is confirming that moral judgments are intuitive which means that most of the important decisions we humans make affecting how we treat each other are intuitive.

Agreed. I don't consider moral judgments to be knowledge.

 

[Audie]

Different scholars will nuance the religious/mystical experience a little differently. I prefer to use the description of William James, because it dovetails neatly with my own experiences. Here are his four descriptors:

1. Ineffability - The experience simply can't be put into words. The harder one tries, the worse one fails. "The Tao which can be expressed it not the immortal Tao.
2. Noetic Quality - You come away from the experience feeling as though you have learned some deep and important knowledge (even if you have a hard time putting your finger on it), and that it has tremendous authority.
3. Transiency - It just doesn't last very long.
4. Passivity - Although you can do things that increase the possibility of such an experience, once it starts, it is as if your will has been set aside, that you are being carried away by something greater than yourself. It is no longer you that is doing the doing. You are basically just "along for the ride."


Each scientific researcher spells out specifically what they mean. For example, one researcher may do brain scans while his subjects are praying, or listening to religious psalms.

Feeling as though one received great wisdom,
but it cannot be put in words, no way to tell
anyone about what you learned.

That would cancel out all the prophets etc,
would it not?

(no need to teach me vocab, btw)

I suppose I have had a religious experience
of sorts. Trying to decide what grad
school A,B, or C! Weighing pros and cons,
day and night.

Finally, it came to me. I was not thinking about
it, and like that, seemingly from outside myself
and with great authority and decisiveness:
Go (est thou ) unto A!!

Re study via electrical activity monitoring,
of course those studying brain function
will want to study all sorts of things.

I think you said though, study of religious
experience, while the things you mention
seem to be about religious practices.

Has anyone had wires hooked up when the
had a religious experience such as you describe?

And also-what significance do you attribute
to whatever brain wave patterns are seen during
religious practice / experience?

 

[Polymath257]

Frankly, I'm not at all interested as you've entered this discussion with a huge chip on your shoulder based on know-it-all-ism. I have clearly not avoided real inquiries from others, but yours is simply not within that vein.

There is a tremendous amount that I don't know. I freely admit that. But that is exactly why I require testable ideas when discussing reality.

The chip on my shoulder is against any ideas that aren't testable and fairly well-defined. Nobody has shown how the existence of a deity is any more supported by evidence than the existence of blue fairies or UFOs.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

My intuition tells me that I like you. I formed that opinion within the first day of posting with you, and it has borne out over time. Analytical though totally stinks at determining who you will like and who you won't.

But we are talking about objective claims of reality, claims of the existance of things.
Not about subjective things like whether or not you "like" somebody.

 

[Audie]

It depends on what you are trying to be reliable about. If I'm trying to determine what someone is going to do next, I will be LESS reliable if I use my analytical mind. If I want to determine whether something happening is the result of a person doing it, or just random events, it is more accurate and faster if I use my intuitive empathic mind.

This is called wisdom in other circles, and usually
something for which we turn to the elders.

 

[BilliardsBall]

You have just deified logic. Are you sure you want to do that?

Is math created? How about chaos as in iterative mathematical non-linear equations which generate causal outcomes that are impossible to predict?

Was evil created?

It's not deifying logic to point out its axiomatic to all conversations regarding truth, for example:

"Are you sure you want to do that?" = "Because their are logical consequences if you do."

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

It may be about "good enough to survive," but it is STILL better than analysis in certain areas.

Only in terms of survival. Which is not necessarily the same for wheter or not it's accurate.

For example, someone that "intuitively" flees when he hears a noise in the bushes because what if it is a dangerous predator?

Objectively their chances of surviving a dangerous predator attack is better then the one who stands around to collect more data to see if it really is a predator. When it turns out to be a dangerous predator indeed, the one who stands around to collect more data will be the one turning into said predator's lunch - the "intuitive runner" will live to tell the tale.

The vast majority of the time though, the "intuitive runner" will run away with the wrong conclusion. The majority of the time, the noise will be just the wind, a harmless rodent, a harmless bird, a branch falling, etc.

When we ponder the questions of what does and doesn't exist (like gods), the objective is to find accurate answers. Not just trying to survive to see the next day.

If you want accurate answers, then "intuitition" (or "common sense" for that matter) will simply not be sufficient. More often then not, your intuition or common sense will simply lead to false conclusions when it concerns the unknown and the out-of-every-day human experience.

This is why intuition and common sense would lead us to concluding the very opposite of what Einstein showed with relativity or what quantum mechanics is all about.

Our brains that deal with macroscopic medium sized, medium weight objects that travel at sub-sound speed, simply isn't capable of "intuitively" comprehending the world of the extremely small, the extremely heavy or ten folds of sound speed - let alone the speed of light.

Considering how gods are always defined, it would be extremely arrogant to say that our "intuitive brain" would be a good fit to draw accurate conclusions concerning that subject. If anything, the realms that a god reside in, would be even more bizar that what lies beyond the event horizon of a black hole.

Sorry, but I don't think you get away from the need for intuition that easily.

Nobody is denying the important role of intuition.
What we are pointing out, is that inuition simply isn't a proper tool when the objective is getting to accurate answers. Inuition gets you to useful answers, where "useful" points to "increasing survival chances".

And as I showed earlier, a method where you are wrong more often then not, will actually increase your survival chances whereas the method where you'll get accurate answers, will only result in lower survival chances.

Don't confuse the two.

 

[joe1776]

Agreed. I don't consider moral judgments to be knowledge.

I don't either but your statement was:

Yes, intuition is very good for quick decisions that are only required to be 'good enough' for survival..

... which seems to limit and minimize the value of intuition in decision-making.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Thus the "smug arrogance" that I mentioned all too many atheists have that implies that any form of theism is strictly imaginary and delusional. You have well established my point, so at least thanks for that.

What is arrogant about pointing out that the amount of objective evidence in support of gods is equivalent to the amount of objective evidence in support of blue fairies?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Frankly, I'm not at all interested as you've entered this discussion with a huge chip on your shoulder based on know-it-all-ism. I have clearly not avoided real inquiries from others, but yours is simply not within that vein.

If you had objective evidence, you'ld just share it.

 

[Audie]

Only in terms of survival. Which is not necessarily the same for wheter or not it's accurate.

For example, someone that "intuitively" flees when he hears a noise in the bushes because what if it is a dangerous predator?

Objectively their chances of surviving a dangerous predator attack is better then the one who stands around to collect more data to see if it really is a predator. When it turns out to be a dangerous predator indeed, the one who stands around to collect more data will be the one turning into said predator's lunch - the "intuitive runner" will live to tell the tale.

The vast majority of the time though, the "intuitive runner" will run away with the wrong conclusion. The majority of the time, the noise will be just the wind, a harmless rodent, a harmless bird, a branch falling, etc.

When we ponder the questions of what does and doesn't exist (like gods), the objective is to find accurate answers. Not just trying to survive to see the next day.

If you want accurate answers, then "intuitition" (or "common sense" for that matter) will simply not be sufficient. More often then not, your intuition or common sense will simply lead to false conclusions when it concerns the unknown and the out-of-every-day human experience.

This is why intuition and common sense would lead us to concluding the very opposite of what Einstein showed with relativity or what quantum mechanics is all about.

Our brains that deal with macroscopic medium sized, medium weight objects that travel at sub-sound speed, simply isn't capable of "intuitively" comprehending the world of the extremely small, the extremely heavy or ten folds of sound speed - let alone the speed of light.

Considering how gods are always defined, it would be extremely arrogant to say that our "intuitive brain" would be a good fit to draw accurate conclusions concerning that subject. If anything, the realms that a god reside in, would be even more bizar that what lies beyond the event horizon of a black hole.



Nobody is denying the important role of intuition.
What we are pointing out, is that inuition simply isn't a proper tool when the objective is getting to accurate answers. Inuition gets you to useful answers, where "useful" points to "increasing survival chances".

And as I showed earlier, a method where you are wrong more often then not, will actually increase your survival chances whereas the method where you'll get accurate answers, will only result in lower survival chances.

Don't confuse the two.

One of the great advances in thinking that science
has provided for us is to show how often we need
to look for what is counterintutive.

The 'heavy things fall faster" thing would be an
early example.

It looks intuitive, common sense, but it is not!

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I don't either but your statement was:



... which seems to limit and minimize the value of intuition in decision-making.

I don't wish to speak for @Polymath257 , but it seems to me he was referring to "intuition" in context of decided on matters of objective reality. Matters of wisdom. So when making that statement, he wasn't talking about moral decision making. He was referring to a specific kind of decision making.

 

[Audie]

If you had objective evidence, you'ld just share it.

Yep. The creationists can never come up with
objective evidence against evolution, the
theists can never provide any for any of their gods.

So they say that it takes more faith to be a
evo than a thro! Clever!

 

[joe1776]

For example, someone that "intuitively" flees when he hears a noise in the bushes because what if it is a dangerous predator?.

Do you understand that the judgments of all moral questions are probably intuitive?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Do you understand that the judgments of all moral questions are probably intuitive?

Do you understand that we are not talking about moral questions, but about objective reality instead?

 

[joe1776]

What is arrogant about pointing out that the amount of objective evidence in support of gods is equivalent to the amount of objective evidence in support of blue fairies?

It's wrong because you are expressing your opinion on the evidence in such a way that your comment amounts to ridicule of an opponent's position and not an argument. Ridicule of other views is typical of an arrogant attitude.

 

[joe1776]

Do you understand that we are not talking about moral questions, but about objective reality instead?

My comment had to do with the topic of intuition and its value. What was yours to me in post 393 about?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

It's wrong

It is? Then you should have no problem pointing out objective evidence in support of gods.

I'll go ahead and assume that you agree that there is no such evidence in support of blue fairies.
So even only one piece of objective evidence in support of gods, would already show the statement wrong.

Please show the statement wrong.

because you are expressing your opinion on the evidence

It's not an opinion.
It is a fact that no objective evidence for blue fairies has ever been presented to me.
It's also a fact that no objective evidence for god(s) has ever been presented to me.

You can change that fact by presenting such evidence to me.
Can you?

in such a way that your comment amounts to ridicule of an opponent's position and not an argument.

Perhaps that is just how you interpret it? I'm not ridiculing any position. Neither is @Polymath257
The example of blue fairies is chosen only because it is extremely likely that you'll agree that such fairies do not have any supportive objective evidence.

Note that it is not the god that you believe in that is being compared to such fairies.
It is the lack of supportive evidence for that god that is being compared to the lack of supportive evidence for such fairies.

In my experience, when theists get upset at such analogies, it is because they take it as being a comparision between the god they believe in and fairies (or santa, or bigfoot, or unicorns, or alike).

But it isn't. We are comparing the evidence (or lack thereof) in support of these things. Not the things themselves.

Ridicule of other views is typical of an arrogant attitude.

If you insist.
I disagree.

Meanwhile, the very valid point regarding the lack of objective evidence for both, stands.
And it will continue to stand until you can actually come up with objective evidence for your god.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

My comment had to do with the topic of intuition and its value.

Ours was also, but in the specific scope of finding accurate answers to questions about objective reality.
Whereas yours was about moral evaluation.

These are not the same thing.