Why the low bar for evidence of gods?

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Considering the importance that gods play in people's lives, why is the bar so low when we're talking about evidence for them?

I can't count the number of times that I've seen a theist respond to an atheist with some version of "yeah? Well, you don't know that God doesn't exist!" ... as if not being able to completely reject the possibility that gods might exist somewhere in some form justifies them devoting their lives to their God.

And the typical arguments for gods don't do much better. Think of the classical arguments for God: cosmological arguments, teleological arguments, ontological arguments, etc.: even if you set aside their logical problems, if they actually did what they set out to do, all they'd be really saying, effectively, is something like "if you take this set of factors into account, then you should conclude that there's a god out there somewhere."

But theistic-based religion is more than just the intellectual acceptance of the idea that a god exists; it's often full-blown devotion of a person's life to the existence of a god or gods and ideas that flow from it (e.g. living your life the way your god(s) want you to live it, or giving up significant time and money for worship of the god(s) and support of his/her/its/their church/clergy/etc.).

For many theists, their devotion to their god is akin to the devotion of a marriage. I don't know about other people, but if someone asks me to show that my wife exists, I can show them all sorts of evidence: pictures, stories of things she did, eyewitnesses who have also seen her, etc... I could even produce her herself and you could hear her say personally that yes, she really is my wife.

What I wouldn't do if I was asked to prove that my wife exists is make arguments like "well, sometimes when I wake up, the cats have already been fed, so it stands to reason someone lives in my house with me." And even that argument for the existence of my wife meets a higher bar than what theists typically shoot for when they try to prove their gods.

So what gives? Based on the level of discourse that I see around gods, even if I granted every one of the theists' arguments for the existence of their god(s), I'd only be at "okay - I can intellectually assent to the idea that God is possible"... or maybe with a really good argument get to "God is probable." I certainly wouldn't be anywhere near "I accept with my heart and soul that God exists, and that this is how he wants me to live my life, and I should give up a year of my life to go on a mission trip to convince other people that he exists."

Why the disparity? If the existence of gods is really an open question - and the level of discourse that I see suggests it is - then how is devotion to a theistic religion ever justified?

 

[bobhikes]

My thoughts in general the average populous has a low bar for facts. Its only scientists and only recently( a few thousand years) set the bar a little higher.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

My thoughts in general the average populous has a low bar for facts. Its only scientists and only recently( a few thousand years) set the bar a little higher.

I think it's contextual.

IMO, the same people who think that "you can't prove God doesn't exist!" is a justification for their faith would still probably dismiss the idea that their friend has a girlfriend they've never met ("she lives in another country! We met at summer camp. We Skype... but no, you can't be there while I'm Skyping with her. She's really shy around people she doesn't know." "Yeah, right, you have a girlfriend. Sure you do").

 

[Mock Turtle]

Considering the importance that gods play in people's lives, why is the bar so low when we're talking about evidence for them?

I can't count the number of times that I've seen a theist respond to an atheist with some version of "yeah? Well, you don't know that God doesn't exist!" ... as if not being able to completely reject the possibility that gods might exist somewhere in some form justifies them devoting their lives to their God.

And the typical arguments for gods don't do much better. Think of the classical arguments for God: cosmological arguments, teleological arguments, ontological arguments, etc.: even if you set aside their logical problems, if they actually did what they set out to do, all they'd be really saying, effectively, is something like "if you take this set of factors into account, then you should conclude that there's a god out there somewhere."

But theistic-based religion is more than just the intellectual acceptance of the idea that a god exists; it's often full-blown devotion of a person's life to the existence of a god or gods and ideas that flow from it (e.g. living your life the way your god(s) want you to live it, or giving up significant time and money for worship of the god(s) and support of his/her/its/their church/clergy/etc.).

For many theists, their devotion to their god is akin to the devotion of a marriage. I don't know about other people, but if someone asks me to show that my wife exists, I can show them all sorts of evidence: pictures, stories of things she did, eyewitnesses who have also seen her, etc... I could even produce her herself and you could hear her say personally that yes, she really is my wife.

What I wouldn't do if I was asked to prove that my wife exists is make arguments like "well, sometimes when I wake up, the cats have already been fed, so it stands to reason someone lives in my house with me." And even that argument for the existence of my wife meets a higher bar than what theists typically shoot for when they try to prove their gods.

So what gives? Based on the level of discourse that I see around gods, even if I granted every one of the theists' arguments for the existence of their god(s), I'd only be at "okay - I can intellectually assent to the idea that God is possible"... or maybe with a really good argument get to "God is probable." I certainly wouldn't be anywhere near "I accept with my heart and soul that God exists, and that this is how he wants me to live my life, and I should give up a year of my life to go on a mission trip to convince other people that he exists."

Why the disparity? If the existence of gods is really an open question - and the level of discourse that I see suggests it is - then how is devotion to a theistic religion ever justified?

As I see it, it is a gamble, where one gambles one's whole life on believing, and the decision is essentially a binary one - does God exist or not? Once past that hurdle (in accepting that indeed there is a God), it usually necessarily follows to look for ways to deal with this decision, and hence the aptitude for believing in a particular religious belief. Of course it might be done differently, and especially where one is religiously indoctrinated as a child, such that other factors play a role, but essentially it boils down to thinking that a decision is necessary - when it might not be at all necessary - which is why I tend towards agnosticism. But, we all vary as to how we can handle doubt, some better than others I believe, such that it is hardly unusual to find so many firstly, believing in God, and secondly, in having a religion, but of course, it doesn't necessarily follow that the second follows the first.

And it appears to me that many just look at the world we have and just can't accept that it exists without some divine origin. Some of us perhaps can though.

 

[bobhikes]

I think it's contextual.

IMO, the same people who think that "you can't prove God doesn't exist!" is a justification for their faith would still probably dismiss the idea that their friend has a girlfriend they've never met ("she lives in another country! We met at summer camp. We Skype... but no, you can't be there while I'm Skyping with her. She's really shy around people she doesn't know." "Yeah, right, you have a girlfriend. Sure you do").

The difference being a personal relationship, one that you can't have with God. Its more like Bigfoot and aliens, the enquirer magazine or star magazine they are interested in the story and lack of facts make it more interesting. The facts just make the story boring. Another example Fake or Bias News that people eat up.

 

[Sunstone]

Why the low bar?

How do I put this politely, Jeff? In the first place, most of us on RF tend to have easy-going standards anyway. We're a relaxed crowd, for the most part. The nontheists prefer to criticize the low hanging fruit, and the theists prefer to give them low hanging fruit. So it's kind of a conspiracy, you see. Or at least, a cooperative endeavor. At least that's how I see it.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Considering the importance that gods play in people's lives, why is the bar so low when we're talking about evidence for them?

It pretty much has to be, doesn't it, given the available evidence for gods?

 

[PureX]

Considering the importance that gods play in people's lives, why is the bar so low when we're talking about evidence for them?

There is no bar. 'God' is a concept that we either accept or reject based on faith, and on the results of our acting on that faith, not on any "evidence". There isn't any evidence. There is only possibility.

 

[Looncall]

Why the low bar?

How do I put this politely, Jeff? In the first place, most of us on RF tend to have easy-going standards anyway. We're a relaxed crowd, for the most part. The nontheists prefer to criticize the low hanging fruit, and the theists prefer to give them low hanging fruit. So it's kind of a conspiracy, you see. Or at least, a cooperative endeavor. At least that's how I see it.

A nice post.

Do theists have any high-hanging fruit, though?

 

[Sunstone]

Do theists have any high-hanging fruit, though?

A few, in my opinion. But mostly they are so esoteric that adequately explaining them would -- quite justifiably -- render three-quarters of the audience asleep, and the remaining quarter walking out before the intermission.

In other words, I suspect the reason you don't see many of those on RF might in part have to do with the fact no one is going to read page after page of explanation. And that's pretty much the choice: Read "volumes" about X and respond intelligently, or read the bumper-sticker version of X and respond ignorantly.

 

[David T]

Considering the importance that gods play in people's lives, why is the bar so low when we're talking about evidence for them?

I can't count the number of times that I've seen a theist respond to an atheist with some version of "yeah? Well, you don't know that God doesn't exist!" ... as if not being able to completely reject the possibility that gods might exist somewhere in some form justifies them devoting their lives to their God.

And the typical arguments for gods don't do much better. Think of the classical arguments for God: cosmological arguments, teleological arguments, ontological arguments, etc.: even if you set aside their logical problems, if they actually did what they set out to do, all they'd be really saying, effectively, is something like "if you take this set of factors into account, then you should conclude that there's a god out there somewhere."

But theistic-based religion is more than just the intellectual acceptance of the idea that a god exists; it's often full-blown devotion of a person's life to the existence of a god or gods and ideas that flow from it (e.g. living your life the way your god(s) want you to live it, or giving up significant time and money for worship of the god(s) and support of his/her/its/their church/clergy/etc.).

For many theists, their devotion to their god is akin to the devotion of a marriage. I don't know about other people, but if someone asks me to show that my wife exists, I can show them all sorts of evidence: pictures, stories of things she did, eyewitnesses who have also seen her, etc... I could even produce her herself and you could hear her say personally that yes, she really is my wife.

What I wouldn't do if I was asked to prove that my wife exists is make arguments like "well, sometimes when I wake up, the cats have already been fed, so it stands to reason someone lives in my house with me." And even that argument for the existence of my wife meets a higher bar than what theists typically shoot for when they try to prove their gods.

So what gives? Based on the level of discourse that I see around gods, even if I granted every one of the theists' arguments for the existence of their god(s), I'd only be at "okay - I can intellectually assent to the idea that God is possible"... or maybe with a really good argument get to "God is probable." I certainly wouldn't be anywhere near "I accept with my heart and soul that God exists, and that this is how he wants me to live my life, and I should give up a year of my life to go on a mission trip to convince other people that he exists."

Why the disparity? If the existence of gods is really an open question - and the level of discourse that I see suggests it is - then how is devotion to a theistic religion ever justified?

What proof are you proposing that religion understands the topic? I see none what so ever. A topic can be both true and completely not understood.

 

[socharlie]

Considering the importance that gods play in people's lives, why is the bar so low when we're talking about evidence for them?

I can't count the number of times that I've seen a theist respond to an atheist with some version of "yeah? Well, you don't know that God doesn't exist!" ... as if not being able to completely reject the possibility that gods might exist somewhere in some form justifies them devoting their lives to their God.

And the typical arguments for gods don't do much better. Think of the classical arguments for God: cosmological arguments, teleological arguments, ontological arguments, etc.: even if you set aside their logical problems, if they actually did what they set out to do, all they'd be really saying, effectively, is something like "if you take this set of factors into account, then you should conclude that there's a god out there somewhere."

But theistic-based religion is more than just the intellectual acceptance of the idea that a god exists; it's often full-blown devotion of a person's life to the existence of a god or gods and ideas that flow from it (e.g. living your life the way your god(s) want you to live it, or giving up significant time and money for worship of the god(s) and support of his/her/its/their church/clergy/etc.).

For many theists, their devotion to their god is akin to the devotion of a marriage. I don't know about other people, but if someone asks me to show that my wife exists, I can show them all sorts of evidence: pictures, stories of things she did, eyewitnesses who have also seen her, etc... I could even produce her herself and you could hear her say personally that yes, she really is my wife.

What I wouldn't do if I was asked to prove that my wife exists is make arguments like "well, sometimes when I wake up, the cats have already been fed, so it stands to reason someone lives in my house with me." And even that argument for the existence of my wife meets a higher bar than what theists typically shoot for when they try to prove their gods.

So what gives? Based on the level of discourse that I see around gods, even if I granted every one of the theists' arguments for the existence of their god(s), I'd only be at "okay - I can intellectually assent to the idea that God is possible"... or maybe with a really good argument get to "God is probable." I certainly wouldn't be anywhere near "I accept with my heart and soul that God exists, and that this is how he wants me to live my life, and I should give up a year of my life to go on a mission trip to convince other people that he exists."

Why the disparity? If the existence of gods is really an open question - and the level of discourse that I see suggests it is - then how is devotion to a theistic religion ever justified?

The bar set individually and has to stay that way. Combining individual bars into common man made religions defeats the goal set by God.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Considering the importance that gods play in people's lives, why is the bar so low when we're talking about evidence for them?

I can't count the number of times that I've seen a theist respond to an atheist with some version of "yeah? Well, you don't know that God doesn't exist!" ... as if not being able to completely reject the possibility that gods might exist somewhere in some form justifies them devoting their lives to their God.

And the typical arguments for gods don't do much better. Think of the classical arguments for God: cosmological arguments, teleological arguments, ontological arguments, etc.: even if you set aside their logical problems, if they actually did what they set out to do, all they'd be really saying, effectively, is something like "if you take this set of factors into account, then you should conclude that there's a god out there somewhere."

But theistic-based religion is more than just the intellectual acceptance of the idea that a god exists; it's often full-blown devotion of a person's life to the existence of a god or gods and ideas that flow from it (e.g. living your life the way your god(s) want you to live it, or giving up significant time and money for worship of the god(s) and support of his/her/its/their church/clergy/etc.).

For many theists, their devotion to their god is akin to the devotion of a marriage. I don't know about other people, but if someone asks me to show that my wife exists, I can show them all sorts of evidence: pictures, stories of things she did, eyewitnesses who have also seen her, etc... I could even produce her herself and you could hear her say personally that yes, she really is my wife.

What I wouldn't do if I was asked to prove that my wife exists is make arguments like "well, sometimes when I wake up, the cats have already been fed, so it stands to reason someone lives in my house with me." And even that argument for the existence of my wife meets a higher bar than what theists typically shoot for when they try to prove their gods.

So what gives? Based on the level of discourse that I see around gods, even if I granted every one of the theists' arguments for the existence of their god(s), I'd only be at "okay - I can intellectually assent to the idea that God is possible"... or maybe with a really good argument get to "God is probable." I certainly wouldn't be anywhere near "I accept with my heart and soul that God exists, and that this is how he wants me to live my life, and I should give up a year of my life to go on a mission trip to convince other people that he exists."

Why the disparity? If the existence of gods is really an open question - and the level of discourse that I see suggests it is - then how is devotion to a theistic religion ever justified?

The old analogy- rocks on the deserted island beach spelling 'help', you deduce an intelligent agent despite there being no direct evidence, because the mere possibility clears the bar far better than the random action of the waves.

i.e. you would have to actively rule out ID here to a practically impossible degree before chance actually becomes the more probable explanation, and we simply don't have any basis to do that for God

 

[Sunstone]

The old analogy- rocks on the deserted island beach spelling 'help', you deduce an intelligent agent despite there being no direct evidence, because the mere possibility clears the bar far better than the random action of the waves.

You are creating a straw man by leaving out (on purpose?) the effects of selection on the evolution and origin of species.

...you would have to actively rule out ID here to a practically impossible degree before chance actually becomes the more probable explanation, and we simply don't have any basis to do that for God

Again, it's not chance alone that's involved in evolution. It's chance plus selection.

I'm curious, Guy. Do you always make such intellectually sloppy arguments? If so, that's practically trolling because you are quite obviously too smart to do so by accident. Then again, I seldom read your posts because I'm almost always disappointed in their intellectual standards. Serious question: Are your posts always so sloppy? Or just the few I read?

 

[sayak83]

Considering the importance that gods play in people's lives, why is the bar so low when we're talking about evidence for them?

I can't count the number of times that I've seen a theist respond to an atheist with some version of "yeah? Well, you don't know that God doesn't exist!" ... as if not being able to completely reject the possibility that gods might exist somewhere in some form justifies them devoting their lives to their God.

And the typical arguments for gods don't do much better. Think of the classical arguments for God: cosmological arguments, teleological arguments, ontological arguments, etc.: even if you set aside their logical problems, if they actually did what they set out to do, all they'd be really saying, effectively, is something like "if you take this set of factors into account, then you should conclude that there's a god out there somewhere."

But theistic-based religion is more than just the intellectual acceptance of the idea that a god exists; it's often full-blown devotion of a person's life to the existence of a god or gods and ideas that flow from it (e.g. living your life the way your god(s) want you to live it, or giving up significant time and money for worship of the god(s) and support of his/her/its/their church/clergy/etc.).

For many theists, their devotion to their god is akin to the devotion of a marriage. I don't know about other people, but if someone asks me to show that my wife exists, I can show them all sorts of evidence: pictures, stories of things she did, eyewitnesses who have also seen her, etc... I could even produce her herself and you could hear her say personally that yes, she really is my wife.

What I wouldn't do if I was asked to prove that my wife exists is make arguments like "well, sometimes when I wake up, the cats have already been fed, so it stands to reason someone lives in my house with me." And even that argument for the existence of my wife meets a higher bar than what theists typically shoot for when they try to prove their gods.

So what gives? Based on the level of discourse that I see around gods, even if I granted every one of the theists' arguments for the existence of their god(s), I'd only be at "okay - I can intellectually assent to the idea that God is possible"... or maybe with a really good argument get to "God is probable." I certainly wouldn't be anywhere near "I accept with my heart and soul that God exists, and that this is how he wants me to live my life, and I should give up a year of my life to go on a mission trip to convince other people that he exists."

Why the disparity? If the existence of gods is really an open question - and the level of discourse that I see suggests it is - then how is devotion to a theistic religion ever justified?

Spiritual and mystical experiences are common and ubiquitous, and, unlike dreams, insightful and sometimes life changing. They fundamentally alter how one perceives and relates to the world, adding a depth that was hitherto hidden from awareness. Thus the content and inferences of these experiences are strongly believed and people with similar experiences come together to share and express them in a religious or spiritual setting.
That is the justification.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

The difference being a personal relationship, one that you can't have with God. Its more like Bigfoot and aliens, the enquirer magazine or star magazine they are interested in the story and lack of facts make it more interesting. The facts just make the story boring. Another example Fake or Bias News that people eat up.

I don't the Bigfoot analogy works.

Bigfoot is still somewhere between "debunked" and "open question," so anyone who claims, for instance, that Bigfoot wants people to leave bowls of Froot Loops for him in the woods would be dismissed as making stuff up. Since it's uncertain that Bigfoot even exists, claims about Bigfoot's actions or attributes are necessarily baseless.

And to the extent that Bigfoot is a serious possIbility, it’s only because he’s virtually irrelevant to the day-to-day life of every human being. A lack of evidence for Bigfoot is compatible with a creature that keeps to itself off in the woods just as it is with Bigfoot not existing, so the lack of evidence doesn’t give us a reason to choose between these option.

Gods don’t have that “out,” though: any god that humanity has never encountered is not the god of any religion (and may not even qualify as a god at all, depending on how we define “god”). The way that gods are used by humanity, an irrelevant god or a god that has no evidence is just as much of a problem as a god that doesn’t exist.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

A few, in my opinion. But mostly they are so esoteric that adequately explaining them would -- quite justifiably -- render three-quarters of the audience asleep, and the remaining quarter walking out before the intermission.

In other words, I suspect the reason you don't see many of those on RF might in part have to do with the fact no one is going to read page after page of explanation. And that's pretty much the choice: Read "volumes" about X and respond intelligently, or read the bumper-sticker version of X and respond ignorantly.

I wasn’t just talking about RF. If things like Aquinas’s Five Ways are the “bumper sticker” version of theology, exactly what did you have in mind as the “volumes” you refer to?

 

[Paradox22]

Why the disparity? If the existence of gods is really an open question - and the level of discourse that I see suggests it is - then how is devotion to a theistic religion ever justified?

I cannot prove to your satisfaction that the Detroit Red Wings were the best hockey team EVER. I can understand why you, not being a Wings fan, would think the amount of time and money I have spent as a fan has been wasted. But what does any of that really mean? Are you saying it is pointless for me to buy a jersey because I cannot give you sufficient evidence to convince YOU that the Red Wings were the best hockey team ever? You are not a fan. Fine. But don't judge me for what I choose to believe or spend my resources(time,money) on.

Thanks

(if that sounded hostile or defensive, I didn't mean it that way)

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I cannot prove to your satisfaction that there Detroit Red Wings were the best hockey team EVER. I can understand why you, not being a Wings fan, would think the amount of time and money I have spent as a fan has been wasted. But what does any of that really mean? Are you saying it is pointless for me to buy a jersey because I cannot give you sufficient evidence to convince YOU that the Red Wings were the best hockey team ever? You are not a fan. Fine. But don't judge me for what I choose to believe or spend my resources(time,money) on.

Thanks

You’re talking about an aesthetic judgement; this isn’t what I’m talking about.

You may not be able to convince me that the Red Wings are the best NHL team ever, but you could very easily convince me that the Red Wings exist.

Imagine I tried to convince you that the Letterkenny Shamrocks (a fictional hockey team from a fiction town) was the best NHL team ever. Would you see my position as valid?

 

[Sunstone]

I wasn’t just talking about RF. ...what did you have in mind as the “volumes” you refer to?

First, I think you have somewhat failed to grasp what I was trying to get at in my post, but I won't dwell on that.

Second, if you are genuinely interested in something a bit more sophisticated than the typical posts on RF -- or perhaps most places on the net -- then I would seriously suggest you read Walter Kaufmann's enjoyable Critique of Religion and Philosophy -- If you have not already. Most of it covers stuff you already know, but some of it might surprise you. If I recall, Kaufmann was an agnostic atheist, so you should be comfortable with most of his views.

Now, Kaufmann isn't exactly who I had in mind when I told Looncall about there being more sophisticated arguments for theism than typically found on RF, but he's someone I admire and who I think there is some chance that you'll somewhat enjoy.