- Joined
- 10 Jan 08
- Moves
- 18828
21 Jan 14
Originally posted by LemonJelloExactly.
Wow! You are so confused!
The strong atheist I mentioned doesn't say "Even though I don't think there's enough evidence either way, I'm going to side with 'not God' as opposed to 'God,' until there's more to sway my teeter totter the other direction." He says God does not exist. (Or that he knows God does not exist. ) And yet, if he is responsible, ...[text shortened]... ommends. This would be the same sort of irresponsibility that attends the theist who answers 1.
21 Jan 14
Originally posted by LemonJelloI'm way more confused than even you think I am confused, because I wasn't talking about atheist when I used the term "tweener."
Wow! You are so confused!
The strong atheist I mentioned doesn't say "Even though I don't think there's enough evidence either way, I'm going to side with 'not God' as opposed to 'God,' until there's more to sway my teeter totter the other direction." He says God does not exist. (Or that he knows God does not exist. ) And yet, if he is responsible, ...[text shortened]... ommends. This would be the same sort of irresponsibility that attends the theist who answers 1.
I was talking about agnostics.
Good job taking it to the end zone, though.
Too bad you were out of bounds the entire carry.
Originally posted by FreakyKBHAre you going to respond to the actual substance of my posts or not? Quit playing dumb here. You were basically making the claim that atheists, to be consistent, need to answer 7. That's totally absurd, so you should admit you were confused and retract.
I'm way more confused than even you think I am confused, because I wasn't talking about atheist when I used the term "tweener."
I was talking about agnostics.
Good job taking it to the end zone, though.
Too bad you were out of bounds the entire carry.
- Joined
- 29 Dec 08
- Moves
- 6788
21 Jan 14
Originally posted by LemonJelloMe: Is the theist's certainty about deity's existence the result of their analysis of the world, or is their analysis of the world a result of their certainty?Is the existence of deity, or any specific deity, an inquiry into the world that can be expressed in terms of epistemic possibility and evidence?
Yes, of course. As long as theological cognitivism extends to whatever conception of deity at issue.
[quote]Is the theist's certainty about deity's existence the result of their analysis of ...[text shortened]... the assumption that the general theist is psychologically certain in his or her theistic belief.
LJ: Not sure what you mean. At any rate, there's no reason to operate under the assumption that the general theist is psychologically certain in his or her theistic belief.
For example CS Lewis says that the problem of pain (which nominally threatens God's tri-omni character) must be approached with faith in place. IOW it is to be approached to straighten out our flawed understanding, not to challenge the logic of God's existence.
22 Jan 14
Originally posted by Grampy Bobby (OP)
On a Scale of 1 to 7
"Bill Maher (William "Bill" Maher, Jr.) born January 20, 1956 is an American stand-up comedian, television host, social and political commentator, and author. Before his current role as the host of HBO's Real Time with Bill Maher, Maher hosted a similar late-night talk show called Politically Incorrect on Comedy Central and later on ABC. Maher is known for his political satire and sociopolitical commentary. His commentaries target a wide swath of topics: religion, politics, bureaucracies of many kinds, political correctness, the mass media, greed among people and persons in positions of high political and social power, among many others. He supports the legalization of marijuana and gay marriage and serves on the board of PETA. He is also a critic of religion and is an advisory board member of The Reason Project. Maher is number 38 on Comedy Central's 100 greatest stand-ups of all time.
November 1, 2009 on Imus: "Neither me nor my girl believe in God or marriage, so there's not gonna be a big church wedding... I always say I don't know. Even Richard Dawkins a man whose name has become synonymous with atheism says he puts a scale of 1 to 7, 1 being absolute certain there is a god and 7 being absolutely certain there isn't, and he says even he's a 6.9. Because no one knows for sure what's out there. He says yes there could be a god and there could be a spaghetti monster out there, but it doesn't look like it."
Imus then asks if Hitchens is a 7. Bill Maher responds "he may be, I think we're just talking semantics at some point, we are all atheists (referring to Dawkins, Hitchens, and himself), which means we don't believe in a deity, we don't believe in a magic spaceman, and we think people that do, have a neurological disorder and they need help."
http://www.celebatheists.com/wiki/Bill_Maher
"a scale of 1 to 7, 1 being absolute certain there is a god and 7 being absolutely certain there isn't..."
* Richard Dawkins: 6.9
* You: ?
(Bump)
Originally posted by Grampy BobbyEveryone participating in this thread should answer the OP
Originally posted by Grampy Bobby (OP)
[b]On a Scale of 1 to 7
"Bill Maher (William "Bill" Maher, Jr.) born January 20, 1956 is an American stand-up comedian, television host, social and political commentator, and author. Before his current role as the host of HBO's Real Time with Bill Maher, Maher hosted a similar late-night talk show ca ...[text shortened]... d and 7 being absolutely certain there isn't..."
* Richard Dawkins: 6.9
* You: ?
(Bump)[/b]
in the Russell's Teapot thread. It may help some understand
certain concepts.
Originally posted by JS357Ok, thanks, I think I see better now what you are asking. I still don't think this in itself would commit CS Lewis (or whoever holds such an attitude) to psychological certainty in his theistic belief. But, at any rate, it is true that a strong degree of psychological suredness can color one's view of the world and redirect one's approaches toward related inquiries.
Me: Is the theist's certainty about deity's existence the result of their analysis of the world, or is their analysis of the world a result of their certainty?
LJ: Not sure what you mean. At any rate, there's no reason to operate under the assumption that the general theist is psychologically certain in his or her theistic belief.
For example CS Lewis ...[text shortened]... ached to straighten out our flawed understanding, not to challenge the logic of God's existence.
However, for a theist who is certain about God's existence, it cannot be that their analysis of the world is a result of this certainty. For, their theistic worldview is a part of their analysis of the world (they are intertwined and not fully distinct entities, especially since their theistic worldview includes a complex of dispositions that are evaluative, cognitive, affective, etc), and it cannot be that the theist's certainty explains itself. This type of account leaves no reasonable explication for how the certainty came about in the first place. I would venture it is more like this: inculcation, often from early age and within a more general program of education and study, brings about the certainty and related complex of dispositions that comprises this theistic outlook; after which this theistic outlook may become "self-sustaining" in that even aspects that are objectively evidentially neutral or countervailing with respect to God's existence get successfully integrated into this outlook under subjective interpretation and redescription. Of course, the same sort of thing could hold for a strong atheist whose psychological suredness in God's nonexistence outpaces what the evidence actually recommends. So, this is not something specific only to theists (or to theological discourse in general).
I'm not familiar with the particular CS Lewis quote you are referencing. However, supposing that yours is a faithful rendering of his position, it should be clear that CS Lewis is woefully mistaken on that point. Arguments such as the problem of evil should be approached through investigation into their actual merits -- not under question-begging presuppositions. The evidential problem of evil, for example, is an argument that purports to show that no such tri-omni God exists (or that its existence is improbable). So, CS Lewis in his faith-guided approach would be doing nothing more than begging the question, which is not the way responsible inquiry works. This would be a good example of self-sustaining theism in action. Again, though, a couple points: (1) I'm quite sure not all theists are this irresponsible and (2) I'm sure you could also find atheists who are woefully misguided in their approaches to the question.
- Joined
- 29 Dec 08
- Moves
- 6788
22 Jan 14
Originally posted by wolfgang59There are subtle differences, but for me the main difference throws light on the difference between psychological certainty and scientific certainty. There is widespread psychological certainty that a deity exists, but there is no justified scientific certainty that a deity exists -- and due to the commitment of science to seeking only naturalistic explanations, there never will be.
Everyone participating in this thread should answer the OP
in the Russell's Teapot thread. It may help some understand
certain concepts.
There is widespread psychological certainty that Russell's teapot does not exist, but there is currently no justified scientific certainty that it does not exist -- but because the teapot if it exists would be a natural object, there could be such certainty someday.
Originally posted by wolfgang59I doubt it.
Everyone participating in this thread should answer the OP
in the Russell's Teapot thread. It may help some understand
certain concepts.
All that's happening over there is a bunch of atheists making fun of theists.
What concepts do you expect us to learn about that?
I don't consider my faith to be a laughing matter. That you do, tells me just about all I need to know.
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
22 Jan 14
Originally posted by JS357Two points.
There are subtle differences, but for me the main difference throws light on the difference between psychological certainty and scientific certainty. There is widespread psychological certainty that a deity exists, but there is no justified scientific certainty that a deity exists -- and due to the commitment of science to seeking only naturalist ...[text shortened]... ecause the teapot if it exists would be a natural object, there could be such certainty someday.
Science seeks naturalistic explanations because nothing OTHER than the
natural has ever been shown to exist.
The moment there is evidence for something other than the natural then
science and scientists will consider it as part of their proposed explanations.
This is part of a common trope that you cannot either prove or disprove a
gods existence... To which I say "Which god/s?" you can't a priori rule that
it's impossible to prove if a god exists because you do not know a priori what
the nature of that god is.
And while there is not absolute certainty, [and never can be] there are certainly
scientific justifications for Russell's Teapot not existing. We can evaluate the
probability of a teapot forming naturally either in orbit around the sun or somewhere
else and migrating to that location. And we can find that the probability of such a
thing existing is so infinitesimally small that we can be certain beyond all reasonable
doubt that it doesn't exist. And we can be so without actually going and checking
to see if it is there.
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
22 Jan 14
Originally posted by SuzianneActually that is not what is going on over there.
I doubt it.
All that's happening over there is a bunch of atheists making fun of theists.
What concepts do you expect us to learn about that?
I don't consider my faith to be a laughing matter. That you do, tells me just about all I need to know.
And we don't think that faith is a laughing matter either...
Well I don't at any rate.
If you want to know what the point is, then come join in and find out.
And perhaps you could have fun too, without mocking your faith.
Originally posted by LemonJelloYou were basically making the claim that atheists, to be consistent, need to answer 7.
Are you going to respond to the actual substance of my posts or not? Quit playing dumb here. You were basically making the claim that atheists, to be consistent, need to answer 7. That's totally absurd, so you should admit you were confused and retract.
In speaking of strictly atheists, this is exactly correct.
There is no middle ground for a person who believes God doesn't exist.
I don't believe the Easter Bunny exists.
I reject the idea completely.
I don't reserve some small portion, don't suspend my belief on the off chance that he/it might exist; I am a 7 when it comes to the Easter Bunny.
Literally no chance at all in mind that he exists.
An atheist views God in the same manner: they reject His existence.
They don't reserve judgment, or section off a small portion of their psyche in the off chance He is, after all, real.
Unless, of course, you want to concede they are merely temporary atheists.
23 Jan 14
Originally posted by FreakyKBHAccording to an earlier post by you, we should use Wikipedia to define agnostic, and Wikipedia says: "A person calling oneself 'agnostic' is literally stating that he or she has no opinion on the existence of God, as there is no definitive evidence for or against." Clearly then, you cannot call someone who answers 6.9 an agnostic, because they have an opinion on the existence of god(s). So if not atheist, what word should we use to define someone who answers 6.9?
[b]You were basically making the claim that atheists, to be consistent, need to answer 7.
In speaking of strictly atheists, this is exactly correct.
There is no middle ground for a person who believes God doesn't exist.
I don't believe the Easter Bunny exists.
I reject the idea completely.
I don't reserve some small portion, don't suspend my bel ...[text shortened]... , after all, real.
Unless, of course, you want to concede they are merely temporary atheists.[/b]
- Joined
- 29 Dec 08
- Moves
- 6788
Originally posted by googlefudgeScience seeks naturalistic explanations and keeps its nose out of the supernatural because of what happened to Galileo. That nothing other than the natural has ever been shown to exist is only due to the politically limited methodology of science, lest it not compete with religion, which has all kinds of ways to show that all sorts of things other than the natural exist, mainly by indoctrination of the vulnerable.
Two points.
Science seeks naturalistic explanations because nothing OTHER than the
natural has ever been shown to exist.
The moment there is evidence for something other than the natural then
science and scientists will consider it as part of their proposed explanations.
This is part of a common trope that you cannot either prove or disprove a ...[text shortened]... it doesn't exist. And we can be so without actually going and checking
to see if it is there.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_affair
I know I'm obtuse at times, but that's the situation.
Originally posted by FreakyKBHLet's go through this slowly...it's hard to believe someone of your intellect could not understand this. One who answers 6.9 is indeed an atheist. In fact, he or she would be a strong atheist by any reasonable measure. He or she believes that God does not exist on the basis of what he or she takes to be strong evidence; evidence strong enough to render, in his or her opinion, the epistemic probability that God exists on the order of (7-6.9)/(7-1) = ~0.017. Only a fool would hold that this person does not qualify as an atheist with respect to whatever conception(s) of 'God' at issue here. That this person stops short of claiming 7 is perfectly understandable: even though they think the evidence against God's existence is overwhelming, they think it fails to be sufficient to guarantee that God does not exist. This should not be mysterious or hard to understand: for virtually any of our inquiries, the evidence is never such that it provides for epistemic certainty. You may claim you are a 7 with respect to the Easter Bunny, for example. That just shows that you are somewhat irresponsible in your assigning credence levels to some inquiries, since it is patently not the case that the evidence at your disposal renders the nonexistence of the Easter Bunny epistemically certain. Do not presume to project this misunderstanding and ignorance of your own onto the atheists of the world: most of them will be smart enough to understand that claiming 7 on such inquiries is an overstatement of what the evidence actually recommends, even if they think the evidence is overwhelming. Not sure why this is sooooooooooo hard for you to understand....
[b]You were basically making the claim that atheists, to be consistent, need to answer 7.
In speaking of strictly atheists, this is exactly correct.
There is no middle ground for a person who believes God doesn't exist.
I don't believe the Easter Bunny exists.
I reject the idea completely.
I don't reserve some small portion, don't suspend my bel ...[text shortened]... , after all, real.
Unless, of course, you want to concede they are merely temporary atheists.[/b]